knowledgeable of all propositions, but i do recall generically that there is a proposition f under which exists the possibility to fill position in the interim by the person who vacated the position. and there is a time frame and specific particular terms, but i would seek guidance for being able to perhaps invoke that particular possibility under prop f. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'm not on the committee, buit would seem that if now we're talking about extending the process out even further, it would seem -- i think we discussed before ms. avery's willingness to perhaps -- i'm sure nobody's gotten this far yet -- perhaps come back at some point after, you know, she takes care of her

family business, and we should keep that in mind i think if that possibility exists. >> let me interject some thoughts. first of all, thank you to the committee members, commoditier, moore, and antonini for serving on this. it's difficult and we started the discussion about a year ago knowing that it was going to be a tight time frame if we didn't hit any glitches and here we are with a little bit of a hurdle. i want to stress, and again, i wrote that in my letter to the subcommittee to try to expedite this process as best as possible so it doesn'tant become a detriment to the staff who are filling in for linda. i appreciate linda's -- all her years, and also appreciate and respect her desire to retire. so, i think it would be great if we needed her and she was available, but i don't think we should as a commission depend on that and we should try to

expedite this process as soon as possible. commoditier. >> i just thought maybe ms. avery could speak to -- because i know she had offered to be a resource, but i think it was clear she wouldn't be doing commission secretary duties and find out what is her willingness to do that in the future if necessary. and then also have director ram fill us in on the current strategy because i think the public would want to know what the backfill strategy is in the short term, at least. >> commissioner moore. >> as the chair of the subcommittee, commissioner antonini has made it clear over and over and over again how cast the role of the commission secretary. and perhaps he should speak to that so that the public understands and everybody of this commission continues to

support us, that this quest is properly executed, including the liabilities that we strongly feel which could arise if this is properly done, could put us in a very difficult situation, would make it very difficult for the city at large. * isn't properly peroral done >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner moore, what did you wish in particular i would talk to? >> just you have always held high the standards that the competence of the secretary needs to be with processes which require a person of mature judgment and mature qualifications to take the position, given that the city, indeed -- so, any miss step of how we are guided, ourselves in this process could potentially get themselves in a difficult situation. i'm repeating what you have -- >> definitely that's just one of many items. and we have had commnts from members of the public at our

subcommission meeting -- subcommittee meeting in regards to that particular element. and we've all seen situations where because of any minor, what would seem to be a minor processing situation, that projects are continued. so, it emphasizes how important the accuracy of process has to be. you know, notification to the public and records requests are huge issues. and these are all things that become more and more complicated as we move forward and we are just basically arguing that we cannot stress highly enough the importance of this job and the classification has to be appropriate for the job as it exists. you know, without getting into any particulars that i can't do in public session, but that's just one of many items that are under discussion. there's like six to eight

categories of -- that are discussed during this thing and they have to do with items of what -- define the job description and define its importance based upon certain criteria. and our general feeling in looking at these criteria is the interpretation was not perhaps accurate based upon what we have seen. i've seen in my ten years, and what the other members of the subcommittee have also seen. and i think members of the public, you are aware of how difficult it is and how much happens here at every one of our sessions, not to mention all the detail that goes on all week long so we can even have a meeting. and those are important issues. is that kind of what you had in mind? >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioners, to try to address commoditier's --

commissioner borden's request, i do have some family issues. that's why i announced my final date. i am not going to be available for the rest of this year. if this process is still going on after that and the burden on staff is such that you need assistance, although i won't make a hard and fast promise, contact me and we'll see where i am at that point. if i'm able to come and assist, i will. if i'm not, i'll let you know. but i think it's real clear that i will not be available for the rest of this year. >> okay, thank you. [speaker not understood]. >> just to address the question of interim staffing, i think you know we've asked jonas ionin to step into linda's shoes. jonas has been linda's primary

back up the last couple of years. he has asked to assign two of his planners to rotate the management of the public information counter in his place because that's his normal job. so, he has asked two of his staff to rotate on a two-month basis the management of the counter. and then what we have done or jonas' back up is likely to take several months in case he's on vacation or needs to be out, we've asked andrea green to step in. andrea of course is my assistant, but she has in the past staffed the commission and been the commission secretary. although i think she will probably need some refresher training in the interim. so, the bottom line is that jonas will be the interim commission secretary and andrea green will be his back up. >> commissioner moore. >> could we ask the director a question? we had all together expressed

concern of the work load it would put any person who has a full-time job and takes on a second and a third full-time job. by second and third, i mean both historic preservation as well as planning commission. so, we are concerned about how a person is able to handle that. even if he has the back up. and we are saying that in support of jonas ionin because if you had asked me i'd say no because it's just too much. >> that's why jonas will step out of his role as managing public information counter and there will be two other folks who manage that counter as his replacement. so, this will be his full-time job. * until a new secretary is chosen. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? this discussion?

okay, next item, please. >> thank you. commissioners we can move forward to director's report under which we have director's announcements and a review of the past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. >> thank you. i just did want to report on this urban prototyping festival that commissioner moore mentioned earlier. it is sponsored by the -- i forget the name of the organization all of a sudden -- the gray area foundation for the arts. it is a nonprofit based here in san francisco. and the festival is essentially a day long event that is focused on the public realm, but specifically about the interaction of urban design, public art and technology. and how those three interdisciplinary field can come together and address issues of the public. in fact, it is essentially -- festival may be an incorrect word. part of the event is

essentially a workshop that were folks from those three disciplines come together and create prototypes for thinking of the public environment in a different way. and they will be posting these. and the idea of these is they can be replicated in across the country. it is taking place saturday -- i forget the hours, excuse me -- i believe it's from noon to 10:00 p.m. and it's taking place around the streets around 5th and mission around the old chronicle properties. literally they'll be closing off those alleys on the southwest corner of 5th and mission where the chronicle buildings are today. there are some speakers between roughly 12:00 and 4:00. i will be speaking late in the program just in general about the city's growth and how we're thinking about the public realm. and then later in the afternoon and evening there will be music and other events going on as well. but it's a very interesting -- the idea, i think the most interesting part of it to me is

that the interdisciplinary actions on how one might address the public realm differently and it is meant to be replicable in cities across the country. we certainly welcome your participation. thank you. that's it. >> thank you. the board of supervisors report? >> [inaudible]. planning and land use activities. this week there is one item at the land use committee. it is an ordinance that would amend the administrative code to ensure the right to return to revitalized public housing. this is sponsored by supervisor olague. the commission heard this item on september 27th and at that time the supervisor was still working with the mayor's office of housing of and the san francisco housing authority on some potential amendments. so, at that time the recommendation was to recommend approval of the return policy, but you do not take a position

because it is in flux. since you're here, the supervisors continue to work with both agencies and the ordinance was amended with their support in earlier october. this week the ordinance was unanimously recommended for approval to the full board. there were several items at the full board this week. the first was an update to the community safety elements of the general plan. the commission recommended approval of this on june 14th and this week the board approved the ordinance on final reading. secondly, there is an ordinance that would change the threshold for the inclusionary affordable housing program. this commission recommended approval on june 16th. this is the companion ordinance to the pending housing trust fund charter amendment that the voters will consider. as was amended by the board the city will be able to monitor the effect of housing production of this potential change and can decide to reinstate the fee for the five to nine-unit buildings at a later date if desired by the city.

with these amendments the ordinance was a profiled on final reading by the board. it is now sponsored by the mayor for president chewfor weaner, cohen and chew. * the board also heard an ordinance that would amend existing laws intend today restrict conversions of apartments to tourists or short term use. president chu described this can be spread the law by having the long term lease for their corporation while the occupants are occupying the building kind of on the short-term basis. it would strengthen enforcement by creating an enforcement mechanism for dbi in addition to existing mechanism for our department. and last week this commission asked if this law would apply to rental housing. it was rented by a corporation as well as the housing that they owned and the answer to that is yes. these short-term rentals of residents units will not be allowed regardless of the ownership structure.

so, this week the board approved the ordinance on its first reading. the board also considered that five foot height bonus for active uses in the castro ncd and 24th street noe neighborhood commercial district be recommended approval on september 27th and this week the board approved it. -- on first reading. there was also a hearing on the housing production and reports ordinance, and this one has the most discussion at the board this week. * this ordinance was before you on june 28th and was approved with some modifications. supervisor olague incorporated most of the modifications recommended by this securities and exchange commission and hopefully with staff and director on additional minor changes. supervisor weaner had voted against the ordinance at committee and this week at the full board he proposed some amendments to the ordinance. supervisor weaner expressed the desire to produce a more complete picture of our housing production. he was especially interested in

not only showing low-income developments, but also middle income developments, senior housing and various sizes of units. he proposed adding these additional categories to the dashboard as well as he proposed a change when the dashboard would be required. supervisor olague's ordinance would require that this dashboard be provided for any report associated with buildings that have five residential units or more. his amendment would only require that the dashboard be added for those projects which are heard by this commission. and it was this amendment that supervisor olague objected to. she expressed concern that the plan areas would enable additional projects to be approved without commission review and that the dashboard should be considered in review of those projects as well. planning department staff clarified that the department does not produce reports for those projects which are not heard by the commission. instead, these projects are plan checked and only approved

if they are code compliant. we stated that requiring publication of the dashboard with these projects would potentially require the department to spend additional time and would create potential additional expense for these code complying projects because we have never produced any report and we might have to just attach the dashboard to this. president chu asked if we could attach the dashboard to any report. that are not currently included in his proposal. he was trying to find something that would satisfy supervisor olague, at which point staff responded that we could attach dashboard to projects heard by the historic preservation commission and certain heard on appeal before the board of supervisors because we do have existing reports for these. supervisors campos and kim discussed alternatives and then supervisor olague requested a continuance on this item. so, it's being continued for one week with an opportunity for our staff to continue to work with all the members of

the board on potential amendments to satisfy folks in creating good public policy. so, that's what we're working on. let's see. lastly, as i've mentioned, it's been hard to get all of the ordinances that have been introduced on tuesday because the clerk is changing the time which they produce that report of new legislation introduced. so, i have what i believe is actually an incomplete picture, but it's the picture that was ready at the time of this hearing. the new introductions that i know about this week, and i'll catch you up next week on anything that's published after this announcement, includes the following. first is the catch up from last week since i missed last week. supervisor weaner introduced a planning code amendment that would address efficiency dwelling units and amend the planning code to put a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units that would be produced under that new smaller size dwelling unit. i believe you remember we

presented an item to you earlier this summer where we shrink the size and this would limit the city can only approve so many of those. services planning code amendment we would bring the potential ordinance before you for your consideration. in addition this week supervisor weaner introduced an ordinance that would amend administrative code chapters 31 to revise the c-e-q-a appeal procedures that we administer locally through the administrative code. the changes that i know about from this particular legislation, that it would change the c-e-q-a appeal period so that would be triggered by the first project approval as opposed to the last project approval which is currently the case. citizens have the right to appeal all c-e-q-a decisions but they would have to do so in a timely manner that would be limited what we see now sometimes months or years after the first decision. so, there's some changes to

deal with that. the legislation would also increase the requirements for public noticing of these c-e-q-a discriminations so the public would know when a determination has been made and would have the opportunity to appeal that. and this particular ordinance is administrative code, so, we only have 30 days to review this particular one and for you to weigh in before the board could potentially take action. our 30-day hold would end on november 16th and i believe the commission would probably like to hear this before that deadline so we'll work to schedule that. * determination that concludes my report. i also got a report from the zoning administrator for the board of appeals. would you like me to do that? okay, i'll continue on to that one. he said there was only one project, 27 05 larkin street that pertained to planning. this was a permit application to add a 21-foot horizontal extension to the rear of the building. this commission heard five

discretionary review requests for this permit on may 3rd. at that hearing the dr requesters expressed concern about privacy, light and air, and compliance with building code requirements. this commission unanimously approved the permit 6-0-1. i guess one person was absent, otherwise everyone who was here voted for it. and the appeal before the board of appeals this week focused on building code issue primarily related to exiting. they complied with the building code and approved the permit. that concludes board of supervisors and board of appeals report. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> so, it's my understanding we will be hearing -- have a hearing regarding the legislation proposed to to administrative code to put a time constraint on c-e-q-a appeals. so, that will be on our calendar i assume. >> yes, before move 16th.

>> okay. and it is calendared, i guess, or in the process of calendaring? >> it's not calendared yet. >> it's one of the biggest issues that's come up over the years. so, we want to really understand what the proposal is and how it works for us. secondly, i just have questions on the companion piece to prop c legislation which you spoke about regarding the increase and inclusionary floor from 5 to 10 units. the board passed it. is there an ability to change their position, is that what the action was? or they continued it? >> no, they pass it had and finally adopted. it includes a provision that would allow them to study the impact of removing inclusionary requirement on buildings with 5 to 9 residential units. and if their study showed that it should be reinstated, the board would have the capacity to reinstate that requirement, but it would take another legislative action of the

board, which you would get the opportunity to review. >> okay. and would there be any time frame on this reconsideration or just open-ended any time they feel like it? because part of what i understood to be either in this or in prop c was the fact that it was an assurance for those involved in projects that there would not be changes in inclusionary in the future, you know, based upon if that were to pass. i think that's how it read. >> that is correct. the charter amendment that is pending would freeze in place the inclusionary controls as they are in place as of january the first of 2013. and what this ordinance did that the board considered is that it would not change the controls for the 5 to 9 unit buildings until after the charter amendment took effect. so, in the middle of january the rules would change and the 5 to 9 unit buildings would no longer have to pay the inclusionary. so, that's how the interaction between the two work.

>> okay. so, what i'm understanding now, the elements that are within the charter amendment cannot change, but this companion legislation could change in the future if the supervisors felt they wanted to change it. >> that's correct. >> it's a little confusing because there's many parts to it and part of it is in the legislation and part is in the ballot measure. so, i think i'm clear on what it is now. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, on the short-term rentals, does that affect individual owners? no. >> everybody is currently under the same requirement, but there should not be these short-term rentals of units which we consider dwelling units and residential housing. since these corporations were leasing units or possibly purchasing units for longer

than the 30-day requirement, but yet their occupants were turning over faster. there was some confusion about whether or not they were subject to that law. and this just clarifies, yes, even though there might be a master lease, more than the 31 days, the occupancy still cannot turn over as such, the functions as a short-term rental. >> so, this isn't a way to look at their a and b situation? >> no, but the supervisor board president chu said they were looking at that and they proposed future legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff with the brief report on yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the hpc confirmed its final recommendation for the twin peaks tavern at 401 castro street as a local landmark to

number 10 of the planning code. as you remember the previous report to you, it is being considered for landmark designation because of its association with lgbt history. the proposed designation will be scheduled for board of supervisors hearing sometime in the near future and we'll keep you abreast of that hearing date as well as we will forward a copy of the final designation report to you once the board of supervisors takes action. the rec park department also presented an overview to the historic preservation commission on the proposed rehabilitation and mural conservation project for quite tower. this project will require a certificate of appropriateness by the hpc at a future date, but the hearing yesterday was just for informational purposes to get the commission up to speed on the overall project. as the hpc or i'm sorry, as the planning department staff and rec park prepare for the c of a

hearing, the hpc did direct staff to address a few concerns that were raised by public testimony at yesterday's hearing. one was in regards to extra security to protect the mural such as a full-time security guard or the installation of railings or other protective measures to protect the murals from visitors to the tower. the hpc also asked for clarification and a priority plan on the extensive list of recommendations that have been prepared by the preservation consultant. our understanding is there is over 100 recommendations on -- within the report to ensure for the long-term protection and enjoyment of kuaia tower to visitors and the neighborhood alike. so the hpc has asked for the rec park to prioritize those recommendations to get a better understanding of how this project and the rehabilitation of the tower will be addressed in the upcoming future.

that concludes my report to you unless you have any questions. >> appears to be none. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. if we can move forward on your calendar, item number 8 is an informational presentation on the proposed public art installation and associated with the 60 affordable housing development by bridge housing at 474 natoma street. >> good afternoon, [speaker not understood] department staff. the item before you is an informational presentation on the public art installation that was required under the 100% affordable project at 74 natoma street. i will provide you with a brief overview of the approved project as

which necessitated a revised variance approval. the project requires as a condition of that approval a public art component valued at an amount equal to 1% of the hard construction costs for the project. the project sponsor has commissioned kathrin watttionener, a local artist to provide on-site public art to satisfy this requirement. the project's conditions of approval also require that the final art concept and location be submitted for review by the planning director in consultation with the planning commission. in today's hearing staff is seeking comments from the planning commission as to the concept and location of this proposed art installation. that concludes my presentation and now i'd like to turn it over to ms. wagoner, the artist for the project. thank you.

>> we'll let her introduce herself first before we go to the overhead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning has asked me to present a few projects, prior projects that have been completed in san francisco and in california to familiarize yourself with some of my work. the first piece you see here is a piece called pomegranate wall, 30 foot carved work embedded with mri images of a pomegranate. this is a museum-based piece. i do work for museums as well as public architecture. the next piece you see, architect is [speaker not understood]. here i'm working with porcelain enamel and steel. the piece is called swimmer's waves. this is for the los angeles police department which was built