commission. i think you properly pointed out that holiday that follow on a saturday within that week are something we should consider, but potentially considering eliminating fifth thursdays off and including a holiday which falls right between the two days would be something i am definitely open to. >> commissioner antonini. >> my sediments are the same particularly with january 31 because we're off on the third and i realize it's not the holiday but i know staff has to prepare and the first would cut into their preparation for having a hearing on january 3 but i think we should add the 31 so we have four in that month.

i don't think if it doesn't fall on the day that we meet we shouldn't take it off with the exception of the first day of chanukkah was on the five of december and i think we would have that off because i think the holiday is celebrated over a period of days but the first day is the most important and that is up to the discretion of the commissioners and i'm not sure where we could add anything back because we have the holiday at the end of december and early january, so we might only have two hearings in december of this year. >> commissioner board. yeah, i think we want to be. >> >> respectful of the holidays that fall within that window. i would say we meet more often than the board of supervisors in terms they have weekly meetings and the last meeting is the 11 and we have a meeting of the

week of the 20. >> no, we don't. >> oh we don't? okay. even as it pertains to the september meeting i don't think the board comes become from the recess the following week and they start their recess before we do so in terms of legislation coming from the board of supervisors or policy issues there is less of a concern when you look at the august-september time frame. i think it's nicer when you have blocks of time together so the september 5 makes a lot of sense. i am also supportive of that date and in terms of january i know last year we discussed having it open that we could meet on the fifth thursday if we felt there was a lot of business going on, and i think that is something we could leave open. i personally have a full time job as it is that the weekly meetings a bit much and

ideally to have a thursday free every once in a while is not such a bad thing for those that don't work for ourselves and work for a company that kind of wants us to show up. >> commissioner moore. >>i would defer to somebody more experienced but i believe that yom kippur and rosh shana are more important than chanukkah and if anybody can comment on that and i think respecting that other than chanukkah is a more important thing to do but i ask for other people's guidance on that. >> commissioner wu. >>i would also be supportive and emerging september 5 and december 5 and taking them off. i sprawt support commissioner borden's point and difficult to have every thursday. i'm not complaining exactly, but looking at the calendar from february to the end of may it's every single

thursday so whether for 2013 or for the future i think it's just important to think about work load and just recognize there is no break. we get the packets at the end of thursday and work through the next thursday in addition to everyone's other job. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, when you accept the position on the planning commission it comes with the territory and we have a very important business that we handle and protects in san francisco get delayed enough from continuances of other issues and if we're not here it's a reason something gets delayed further and our economy to some degree is depended upon us and doesn't move to the board of supervisors until we hear it usually so i am prepared to meet as many thursdays as we have to. i had questions on comments -- i guess commissioner wu. why would we be off on the five?

somebody said september 5? >> commissioner antonini that falls right in the middle of rosha shawna. >> the important days -- the day of that and yom kippur and that's the commission's practice in the past. it's not the whole week and it is the high holiday for the jewish community. >> yom kippur is september 14 which is a saturday. i don't believe that's up for discussion to cancel the hearing but rasiah shawna is from the four to the six. >> but it's the first day i believe is important. >> that's what i have always heard. >> [inaudible] >> so i'm going to make a motion and just see what we -- where we go with it. we have other speakers i know, but i would like to see whether we consider opening the 31st and maybe

leave it up to the discretion of the acting commission secretary but we do have to notice it by a period of time, i think two weeks ahead. >> well january 31 if you decide to include it as your hearing is part of your hearing schedule staff will be aware of that and between now and the 31 there is adequate time. >> i think the question is jonas if they decide want to include it what is the notice period? >> staff needs a minimum of 20 days to get the notice out for that hearing. >>i think i will make my motion to include that at this time and that gives us an additional meeting day in the month of january because we were down to three and to not meet on the five of december which is the first day of chanukkah and the rest of the schedule as presented.

>> i think there are some additional comment. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i would like to have the commission give consideration to perhaps inserting the january thursday, but substituting another thursday somewhere in that long string of meetings that we have in between february and may and that could be the end of march for example or something like that just to give us a break in there. >> we always have the ability of scheduling more meetings and canceling them or postponing -- >> yeah, it's probably easier to cancel meetings than reschedule them. >> right. >> because we just send out a cancellation notice and that's it. >> but if it's on the schedule the staff is going to go ahead

and start scheduling things for it so that's the problem. >> well, if we know well in advance, yes. >> commissioner wu. >> i could supportive of the desire to add in the 31st on january and then maybe take off the last of march. to respond to commissioner antonini i think it's important to take the planning commission appointment serious but also it limits who can be on the planning commission. it means folks with full time jobs, folks that don't have the means. it's more difficult to take the time out of your schedule and i just want to make that point. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i like commissioner sugaya's suggestion and i want to say there is no lack of commitment being stated here about people talking about the number of thursdays we have meetings. i am just saying practically for the schedule -- useful especially with large projects. i think we have

hearings that we end at 3:00 o'clock and some longer and maybe we can do a better job at scheduling and balance the load and not do the four thursdays but i would add back the 31 to have a meeting off in march. >> just happens that march 31 is easter so canceling that fourth thursday in march kind of coincides with that holiday. >> okay. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, and in no way i am implying -- i am self employeed and have the burden and i can't practice on my office on days and i can understand people that have jobs that require them to take days off. i am very sympathetic to that. i just feel oftentimes with the number of cancellations and continuances we have the more days able makes it better but i

am supportive of what commissioner wu is talking about and adding the 31 and subtracting the 28 of march and include the five of december also. >> commissioner sugaya. >> oh sorry. >> there's a motion -- >> commissioner antonini, could you restate about the fifth of december. >> well, i think we heard it's the first day of chanukkah? is that correct? >> i believe that's the actual holiday is that day. >> is that day. >> while it's true that the other ones are the high holidays i think it's the commission's practice not to meet on the day of the actual holiday and in this case december 5 is the actual day of chanukkah, so i would argue it's consistent with the past. the challenge is there are only two meetings in

december. >> what the motion -- >> did youmation a motion commissioner? >> yeah. it wasn't seconded but i'm picking up a new motion based on what commissioner wu had suggested and what people have said. we would add the 31 of the existing calendar. eliminate thursday the 28 and we would -- if it's the feelings of the commission eliminate december 5. can i go either way on that but i agree with the director we respected the actual holidays. >> second. >> all right commissioners on that motion to hold a hearing on january 31, cancel the hearing for march 28, and canceling the thursday december 5 are your draft hearing schedules.

commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> could you clarify. we are not including december 5 as a holiday. >> i heard commissioner antonini to include it and canceled hearing. >> i heard him say he was ultimately referring to the director's comment. >> [inaudible] your practice in the past is not meet on the actual day of the holiday. that's why i was suggesting it's consistent. >> i am asking whether we are given broad consideration to all of the holidays that exist in san francisco population? >> commissioner antonini, did i misstate your motion? >> no, no. i am fine. as far

as commenting on being inclusive on all possible holiday. i think we make an effort to obviously. i am open on the fifth. i support the feelings of the commissioners if they feel we should calendar for this time and then we can decide to eliminate it in the future when we get closer but my motion is add the 31, eliminate march 28. the rest of the calendar being the same and to eliminate thursday december 5, and i believe it was seconded -- >> there was a second and we're sort of in the middle of the call. commissioner antonini voted aye. commissioner borden and hillis voted aye. commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye and would you send this

out to us electronically because i'm little confused but i will be there. >> absolutely. i will update it. that motion passes six to one commissioners. thank you. commissioners you are now under director report, item seven. >> thank you jonas. just two items and i wanted to bring your attention to the hearing at land use and two landmark properties for historic preservation and one at twin peaks and castro and 17th and both were individual buildings and felt eligible for landmark designation and not just necessarily architectural quality but the history that

happened in these spaces. the second thing i wanted to remind you off of let you know is that the legislation that you passed -- or that you proposed for privately own open spaces if you recall and legislation proposed by supervisor chu i believe will be in effect next friday on the 14th and we will envail the guide on our website for all 64 of those spaces and it will include photographs and maps of those spaces and how the public can access those spaces and if you recall that legislation strengthened the requirement for signage for the spaces and make it clear they're available to the public so again that goes into effect friday the 14th and that guide will be available on the planning department's website on that day as well. that concludes my presentation. thank you. unless there are questions. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. just for -- director,

could you give us two sentences to the public about what the spaces are? >> we a affectionately call them privately open spaces and required under the planning code for developers to provide typically in the downtown areas and areas open to the public. sometimes they're on roof tops. sometimes they're on plazas and a requirement of the planning code for some time and over the years some of the spaces i think it's fair to say in the initial years of the code requirement the spaces were not nearly as accessible or obvious to the public, so as the department has become and the commission has become more aware of this we have made the design and location of these spaces more obviously available to the public and the code also requires a sign to be placed on the building as to the location and hours of operation of these spaces as well, so that is the legislation that goes into

effect next week to beef up those requirements and the guide that we will have on the website for the public to know where the spaces are, and there are 64 of them so there is quite a large number. >> yes, i think part of the problem that the director pointed out is quite a few of these are on roof tops or access them by going in the lobby of an office building for example which isn't quite as obvious to people because a lot of them aren't signed but once you get up there i can tell you they're fabulous spaces and downtown especially. >> commissioners item eight review past weeks events at auto board of supervisors and board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> andrea rogers and let's talk about more legislation. there is a lot of action at the board of supervisors this week. the lafnd use heard a ordinance by supervisor campos and allow the personal uses of the second

floor of the valencia street and this commission considered it last week when you recommended approval this week the committee recommended approval to the full board. on tuesday at the full board meeting the tdif ordinance was there and update the fees related to the transportation demand impact fee and sponsored by the mayor and olague and forwarded it with a positive recommendation to the board and recommended a number of mode ifzs. the mayor introduced substitute legislation which included all of the recommendations by the commission and clarified that the mta would be allow to collect the fees if they were uncollected by mistake. after your hearing the board's committee recommended approval of the ordinance and the full board continued for a couple of

times without discussion. this week supervisor wiener and the sfmta board director spoke in favor of the ordinance and supervisor elsbernd suggested keeping the nonprofit sponsors which the original legislation sought to remove. supervisor chu spoke against this amendment and board president chiu and argued in support of it and felt it would be more important for the sustainability program to solve this issue how to deal with the nonprofit uses, and as you know the ssp is proposed pro place them in the coming year, so with that amendment the overall legislation passed unanimously on first reading. also on at the full board was the drilling cap and requirement. this commission

considered the ordinance sponsored by supervisor wiener and allow the planning code to define the housing type and cap the units at 375. the ordinance would require the report so the board could later determine if more such units be permitted. it had the interior comment requirement. this commission recommended approval to the board with number of modifications and refinement of the cap and wanted also a rigorous reporting structure. you had a few other amendments not putting it in the planning code and making the interior common space maximum requirement actually a minimum requirement. supervisor wiener amended the legislation and incorporated two of your recommendations so that the ordinance requires 10 square feet of common interior space per unit and processed requirement has been relocated within the code so with these amendments the board passed it on final reading and also at

the board this week was the companion ordinance that kicked it off and the building code amendment and allow the production of efficiency dwelling units as small as 220 feet and that passed also this week. also on final reading this week was supervisor oleg's ordinance for the housing production and reports. this was before you january 28 and you recommended approval with modifications. after being continued twice at the full board and heard and supervisor olague had incorporated most of the modifications recommended by the commission and worked with staff and the planning director on minor changes. supervisor wiener voted against it in committee and proposed amendments to the ordinance such that this report would be only required when those particular developments of five or more units were going before a public hearing instead for all

developments of five or more units. this amendment passed. however supervisor wiener also proposed an amendment so that the groups that were earning between 120 and 150% of ami would be called middle income and at this term supervisor olague took exception too so at the board hearing she moved to remove that title but left the income title but doesn't have the discryptor so with these amendments it passed unanimously. also the mayor appointment of darrell honda was approved to the board of appeals. the first is a hearing request from supervisors cohen and wiener for additional presentations from the planning department, the mayor's office and mta on the long awaited

elect ifz of cal train and the rail program. mayor lee also introduced an ordinance and amend the inclusionary affordable housing program. for updates and clarifications and this ordinance has been calendared and you will be hearing about this next week in conjunction with the mayor's office of housing follow up on their inclusionary procedures manual. both of those will be before you and that concludes the board report for this week. >> thank you. any questions? okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, tim fry from the department to share you with the events from the historic preservation hearing. the commission requested appropriateness for landmark for the former bank

and seismic, life safety and fire and accessibility upgrades for new use for the. exterior alterations include penthouse structures and elevator over ride and the dropping of three sills on the side elevation for emergency access. the hpc approved the project with conditions of approval outlined by staff and included one additional condition that the property owner exist the existing neon sign or restore the sign located on the building just behind that neon sign. they also unanimously voted to start the designation process for the 87 properties located within the landmark district. the landmark district is bounded

by waler, steiner and scott streets and the northern boundary of deboy park. there was public testimony in favor and opposition of the proposed landmark district but the hpc recognized the department's outreach efforts as well as supervisor wiener's efforts and recent amendments to the mill's act program to incentivize local designation and will meet next here. they have ceqa amendments and the hpc passed a motion to basically supporting the planning commission's motion on the item, so those comments will be forwarded to the board of supervisors when they take up

the matter and will be for thed to supervisor wiener for consideration. the hpc also redelegated the administrative certificate of appropriateness process to planning department staff. this delegation allows for staff level review and approval of certain scopes of work for landmark build the hpc acknowledged and scopes of work delegated to staff and extended it for two additional years. finally the hpc had an informational presentation and discussion about social and cultural heritage documentation. this is particularly focused on the documentation occurring within the west soma plan and the japantown community effort. they discussed development

incentives with the potential designation and documentation of these resources since they don't follow the traditional model of local landmark designation because often associated with intangible events like festivals or parades. the commission addressed the department's current work in japantown and west soma and both communities were there and discussed the issues they're engaged in. the hpc then passed a motion of intent recognizing that the planning department develop a comprehensive approach to incentivizing these cultural resources city wide and we're going to work with the hpc on this proposal. they would like to bring the proposal to the planning commission and for your comments and forward to the board of

supervisors and that concludes my presentation unless you have questions. >> could you help clarify for me and the bank building and beautiful location. i am happy to see movement there. are you saying that the commission asked them to replace the electronic original sign on the building or the one on the adjacent property? >> yes the current neon sign on the property was constructed outside of the period of significance meaning after 1935. it's believed that underneath that sign the stone has the name and i believe the hi bernia savings and loan bank. the commission recognized that sign has been there for quite some time and felt either one or the other should be restored but since we don't know what the condition of the original sign is behind there that the project sponsor should at least explore the opportunity to restore one

or the other. >> all right. just to -- what was interesting to me is that the business was absorbed by another bank i think and that name no longer exists or in business but to require the sign to be be brought back is interesting. >> the commission felt was associated with the irish heritage of the bank and san francisco community. >> okay. thank you. commissioner borden. >> i'm sorry. did you say that the historic preservation commission did anything related to western soma. >> i'm sorry. could you repeat that? >> i thought you mentioned something with western soma and the commission. >> they were discussing the efforts to document cultural heritage and specifically with the filipino community. >> this other issue and articles 10 or 11 and did that come up