>> okay. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday, october 18, 2012. before i take roll i'd like to remind all of us to turn off or silence our cell phones. this is a pretty crowded room. and as such i need to have everybody find a seat or need to find overflow. we should not have stand intion this room during the hearing. also because it's crowded, i know everybody knows everybody and you want to get to into conversations with your friends, et cetera, but that is not allowed. if you feel the need to engage in secondary discussions, we ask that you take those discussions outside as they become extremely disruptive to the process. thank you. roll call.

commissioner kathrin moore? >> here. >> commissioner sugaya? >> here: here. >> commissioner antonini? >> here. >> thank you, we have a full commission today. commissioners, at the time of the printing of this calendar there were no items proposed for continuance and i'm happy to say that there are still no items being proposed for continuance. the first category on calendar is the consent calendar. item 1 and 2 makeup the consent calendar. those items are considered to be routine. could you take your equipment outside or turn it off? thank you. there will be -- these items will be acted on by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so request. in that event, the matter or matters will be removed from

consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. i have been informed by a member of the public that item 1 will be pulled from consent. but just for the record, i'll read them both. item 1 is case no. 2012.109 7c for 201 folsom street (a.k.a. 314 main street) as conditional use authorization to modify the performance period condition of motion no. 166 07 230er case no. 2000.107 3c to extend the period one year from the date of expiration of the previous extension of a mixed use project consisting of two residential towers of height of 350 and 400 feet above an 80-foot podium up to 725 dwelling units, 750 off-street parking spaceses and 38,000 square feet of commercial space. item 2 is case no. 2012.05 43 t an intent to initiate

department planning code amendment [speaker not understood] in the planning code. you will consider a resolution of intent to initiate amendments to the planning code. the amendments are inteded to 1, correct clerical errors in text, 2, revise existing graphics to be consistent with the existing text. 3, amend various zoning control tables. 4, planning code read ability and 5, adopt findings including findings under the california environmental quality act. planning code section 302, findings and finding of consistency with the general plan and planning code section 101.1. commissioners, as i've mentioned, item 1 has been pulled from consent. and if it's okay with the president, we'll move that item to the first item on the regular calendar. so, before you, commissioners, following public comment on item 2 which will automatically remove it from the consent calendar, the item is before you for your consideration. >> is there any public comment on item number 2 of the consent

calendar? seeing none, commissioner sugaya. >> i'll move to initiate, but i have a question. should we keep this material? >> for item -- >> 2. >> yes. >> okay. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion on the floor is for approval of initiation of item 2. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commoditier? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that's a unanimous vote for initiate. commissioners, we are now at commission matter. item number 3 is consideration of adoptions and draft minutes for your regular meeting of september 6, september 13, september 20th, also a special meeting of september 20th, a

regular meeting of september 27th and a regular meeting of october 4th. for the draft minutes of october 4th, i would request that a -- or a correction, actually, that we spell [speaker not understood] name correct. one l in each case. >> is there any public comment on the draft minutes? seeing none, commissioner borden. >> i also had some edits. i'll give those to you in written form and move to approve the minutes as edited, amended. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion to approve the draft minutes with corrections and edits [speaker not understood] commission secretary by commoditier. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commoditier? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis?

>> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that passed unanimously. are there any other commission matters? >> commissioner borden. >> today is california west coast shake out which is a create awareness around earthquake preparedness. it happened at 10:18 a.m. and 9 million californians participated. the whole idea was to stop, drop and cover. basically in the case of a disaster you need to get under a sturdy piece of furniture or doorway. preferably under a piece of furniture if things are falling. i also wanted the public to know that the red cross launched an earthquake act available on both iphone and android. you can download the plan, send it to your family members, store your information, find where shelters are in your community. you can get notifications when there are earthquakes in various places.

you have the apps to click a button to say i'm okay. so, if there is an earthquake you're feeling members can find out about it. i wanted to make sure the public was aware this resource exist and had was thinking about preparedness since we live in the earthquake zone. >> could you please name the app so people know? >> it's called the earthquake app and look under red cross earthquake app. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a few things. number one, just acknowledging that the american dental association is meeting in san francisco beginning today through sunday and it's a large convention and we're happy to have it and we're one of a rotation of three or four cities that is able to host that throughout the country. secondly, the secretary search subcommittee met last week and will meet again this coming wednesday on the 24th to move forward, and we will, you know, discuss that when we can.

the body as a whole, it's actually going to be calendar in the future if i'm not mistaken en. >> it's actually following this item. >> it is on the calendar, great. and thirdly, i always wonder why we've been so fortunate in san francisco to be the origin of so many innovative projects, inventions, concepts and businesses. everywhere you go, you see things that were invented here. you see businesses that began here worldwide, not in the region, but specifically in the 49 square miles of san francisco. and, of course, you know, obviously at the beginning of port, the advantage of having the bay was the first factor. but i also think that one other advantage we have is our weather. and although everyone loves today's weather out there, i think if you have to do things in this heat and have to go long distances, it sort of may discourage your creativity.

so, we're kind of blessed with, you know, a milder climate that make you feel like doing things and that may be another reason. and we also have generally, at least in the downtown area, fairly flat area from which to communicate with one another. and there's a book called "the importance of cities" and the author was noted as saying large dense cities influence productivity. and, you know, utilization of creative -- the utilization of the creative sectors in particular. and he also says that the denseness results in knowledge spillovers which, you know, is one reason why one business attracts another close to it. and everybody talks about iphones and electronic communicationses, but a lot of the spillover is still word of mouth, especially the more sensitive parts of it that, you know, can't be traced. if it's just a conversation,

so, that's another reason maybe why businesses bunch together in areas where they're close to each other physically. so, interesting reading, and i found that to be quite interesting. >> commissioner moore. >> i have asked the director, actually, to give this securities and exchange commission and the public an update on an e-mail i received yesterday regarding the festial which is supposed to take place this we on urban prototyping. i could not even actually capture the abbreviation up, but i don't want to speak, but have him speak texplaiit t us. >any other commissioner comments? >> thank you. commissioners, if we can move on to item number 5, we are still under commission matters. we should have an update --

commissioner antonini has giv you an update. so, the commission can actually engage in discussion of the commission secretary search process. just as commissioner antonini has stated and commissione moore and commoditier can chime in, we are still at somewhat of an impasse on the classification issue. since that meeting last wednesday, commissioner, who is the vice-chair of the subcommittees has spoken with dhr who would like to try to resolve this. so, he has asked for a meeting with the officers of the joint subcommittee and myself. we are trying to set that up for next wednesday, which would -- as we do that, we will actually cancel the subcommittee meeting and have the meeting with dhr.

also, alicia john-baptiste has found out some process information. she has found out that to appeal the decision of dhr, we have to have an official finding from dhr. we have not had that yet. we've had the letter from ted and his staff, but we haven't had anything from the director, and that's the only thing that can be appealed, not the findings, not that has come from staff so far. so, hopefully the meeting, if we are lucky enough to set this up, the meeting next week will result in something that's final from dhr. we can either accept it or appeal it and we, of course, will keep you informed on that process. >> okay, thank you. commoditier. >> yes, you know, what i wanted to point from you out from ms. john-baptiste's letter, it basically states the appeals

process is estimate today take 2 to 3 months and then we'll have to -- after that's done then we can post the position. but, you know, i think one of the discussions we wanted to have with the commission, we felt like it was very important, the joint commission thought that it was important to pursue the classification that we thought was appropriate for the commission secretary position given the amount of work load and bearing two commissionsment. we've been told there is no way to hire someone on an interim basis and the staff has talked about an interim fix. so, maybe we should have the director talk a little about what those are. but the reality is that it's going to be -- if their process is going to take 2 to 3 months, we're going to post the position probably for six weeks and we are probably looking at six months before we would hire a permanent commission secretary. >> i do have a question on that. why would we post the position fsix weeks, why so long? > we an do it for a month. i thought hax weeks even for a month, it would take

us still probaby at least two months to go through that process. so, i men, at best we could maybe do this four months, but i don't see us being faster than probably -- i mean, that could be the fastest. but we're still probably looking at four to six months out just being realistic nless thingsgo reay quickly something we're not anticipating. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think that oe of the reaso, ithout getting into details which we cannot discuss secifally, ut this whoe classifiction issue, we're just really interested in hearing from the public also on yur feelings. and i tink you alacknowledge the immense iof the job that secretary avery does and the job is getting iggerll the time. this is kind f wht think has to e the uniqueness of it is something that we're striving t in dealing with dhr, to emphasize hat it's not

like any other position that's analogous to it that exists in the city because it is so unique. we certainly would welcome comments and questions from the public to both the subcommittee, to the commission as a whole, to dhr, whoever you feel it's appropriate to comment on what you've seen because many of you are here week in and week out and you see what the secretary does and how difficult it is. appreciate that. >> commissioner moore. >> this subcommittee was put together in june and we have met every two weeks since to indeed do the due diligence and create a process which is indeed commensurate with the importance of what we are to do, which is basically in the public's interest, find a replacement for an extraordinary commission secretary, ms. linda avery. the letter which came in this morning at 10:52 a.m. raises a

number of very important questions, which i have to admit are unexpected. i do not understand their full implications because this is not what we nmally do. and xactly how it overlays over new time frame is not clear to me. nor did i know the procedural glitch that, indeed, it would have to be appealed based on some letter we were to receive. i think we are ali equally unfamiliar with those particular moves, but i think it will take another hopefully quicdiscussion for us to simply understand what that means. and i hope that there will be tools by which we can indeed properly craft an interim position should this drag itself out for an additional six months. i'm not a