commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden? commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first up is consideration of items proposed for continuance. i have one item under your regular calendar, item number 7, case no. 2012.1183tz, amendments to the planning code to establish the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district (board file no. 12-0814). it is proposed to be continued to april 4th, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner moore. >> welcome to supervisor [speaker not understood] district and i fully support the continuance. move to continue.

>> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously +6 to -0. commissioners, that will place you on your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute concept calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests. in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 1, case no. 2012.1122d, 246 2nd street, mandatory discretionary review. >> is there any public comment on this item on the consend calendar? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioner antonini? >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. that will place you under commissioners questions and matters. item 2, consideration of adoption draft minutes of regular meeting for december 6 and december 13th, 2012. >> any public comment on minutes? is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt regular hearing minutes for december 6th and 13th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya?

>> aye. >> commissioner wu? and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissionersv. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and places you on item 3, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, we're all very encouraged, i think, by things we've seen in the press regarding the building boom, commercial and residential. but unfortunately we still see many individuals in our streets and parks who are incapacitated and often they need to be cared for on an ongoing basis by our health officials. and there seems to be a revolving door of this care. and in regards to this, i received a call from a firefighter who was a friend of mine and introduced me to captain kneels, and he has produced an outstanding document. it is part of the public record for today. he proposes a plan of dealing

with this situation. and i've asked -- i will be asking for the commission to schedule a hearing to discuss this perhaps to get the captain and others who are involved in the formulation of this document to discuss it. and it proposes a solution, i think, to this problem which would with paramedics and other individuals from the fire department playing a larger role in the triage system. and i think it's outstanding, but it will take a while for members of the public to read it and for commissioners. so, we don't have to make any decision about scheduling today, but i will bring it up in the next week because i think it's an issue that is a very important one and it's been with us for decades and i think there is a solution that's out there. so, i call your attention to the document in the public record, and it is entitled san francisco plan for dealing with chronic homelessness. and i think you'll find it very enlightening. thank you. >> thank you.

any additional comments, questions by commissioners? okay, next item, please. >> commissioners, that places you on item 4, review and approval of combined commission secretary position announcement and recruitment process. commissioner antonini will present this item. >> thank you. on december 27th i am happy to report that i met with members of the department of human resources along with diane masuda from the preservation commission. and we have tentatively reached an agreement with them on classification issues for the selection process for the new secretary. and we have with us today sean sherberg. i asked him to come forward and go over some of the details of this because this is an action item and we would hope that i would get the support from the commission to move forward on what is going to be proposed.

so, sean, if you would be so good as to give us the details. >> commissioners, thank you for having me. sean representing the department of human resources. * we met, as commissioner antonini stated, on the 27th, and we discussed a process moving forward for this recruitment for the joint secretary. we are working with subject matter experts at the moment to make some final changes to the job announcement and to design a recruitment process that will look at best qualifications for the position to establish a pool of candidates that we can move forward to to interview. in so doing, we are looking at putting together a supplemental questionnaire which will look at the best qualifications for candidates as well as having candidates come in and take a management test battery that's administered to all managers coming into the city and county of san francisco.

so that we would have a, we'd have a valid measure with which to present to you candidates for your consideration. we're looking at moving forward with this very quickly after the joint subcommittee on the 23rd, posting the announcement, having folks complete the application supplemental application, having our raters review those, bringing in folks to go through the management test battery. and from there proposing a set of candidates with which the different commissions could bring back for interviews and possibly a performance test which would include a writing sample, per se. and then from there we think that the final candidates would be brought forward to both commissions, their recommendation by the subcommittee. >> thank you very much for your presentation. and i would expect through the chair, we would ask for any public comment on this item.

>> we can, yes. thank you very much. and commissioner antonini, thank you for your work on the subcommittee. if there is any public comment on this item. sue hester. i think i'm the only public that is in the meeting. i don't have a staff report and, so, i'm going to make a comment of substance with no information before me. the process in the job announcement has got to stress the importance of [speaker not understood] not in the planning code, but on the public records act request. public records act and the

brown act. that is the most glaring omission currently in the department because that rule is supposedly the rule of linda avery. but it shrunk in the past couple of years because of various [speaker not understood]. if you are going out again and you are going out again, you have to deal with the role of the secretary in being the person in the department who has to know backwards and forwards public records law, public meetings law, and the interface on e-mails and other documents that are hidden from public view. we have gone -- we have changed a lot in how we've dealt with things while linda was the

secretary. and if you don't advertise that that is one of the qualifications, you will get a lot of people that think it's a planning job. it isn't, it's a role for the public and for the commission, and it is enforcement of the law. thank you very much. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. next item, please. >> this is an action item. i did want to just mention in response to public comment that one of the things that was discussed -- and this was not a closed session, but it was -- the importance of exactly what the speaker brought up. this particular position is a very significant position and one that will require, among other things, the ability to deal with the brown act and public records disclosure.

i would -- >> commissioners, i was going to move for approval going forward with what's been proposed for the selection process, but maybe we should wait until the commissioners comments. * >> commissioner sugaya. >> i don't have a problem moving forward because i'd like to see some paperwork in terms of the description or whatever is hr and the subcommittee is producing. before we issue it publicly. >> commissioner wu. >> i would agree with that sentiment. i also wanted to clarify, i may have missed it just now. after the first bundle of applicants are presented to -- i think that's my question. is the first bundle of applicants presented to the subcommittee or the full commission? and then which entity is deciding on how to whittle down that list? >> we're hoping to do this -- what the plan is and we're still working with subject

matter experts because in hr we really feel like the subject matter experts should be determining what the rating factors are. so, it may be once we complete those -- and this will be part of the job announcement, part of the desired qualifications -- it would be who is the best qualified candidate, who meets the qualifications, and who might need improvement. and we would -- might not be ready for -- the commission would be the categories. we would present those to the subcommittee. and the subcommittee would recommend, do we move forward with this group of candidates? do we move forward with second tier candidates and their recommendation would be the one to carry it forward to the commission. >> thank you. i also feel comfortable moving forward today, but do look forward to seeing the descriptions [inaudible]. >> commissioner moore. >> since the subcommittee has not been briefed in detail on the december 27th meeting, i believe that the subcommittee as a body has to be first reporting what goes forward in

order for it to have, indeed, the function of the subcommittee being fully realized. so, with commissioner borden not being here at the moment, she and myself are representing the planning commission which we are the representatives for the preservation commission. i believe it is just there to let us go beyond the -- when is the meeting, commissioner antonini? >> i believe it's the 23rd. >> beyond the 23rd because it has to, i think procedurally have that support. >> yeah, i'll be the last one to try to drag out this process, but i have to a grow the subcommittee should really have the opportunity to get recommendation. * agree thank you for the update. i think as a result of that subcommittee's meeting, advantageous for all of us to see the criteria, the process, the timeline which sounds fine to me. but i think we would all benefit from seeing it in black and white. commissioner antonini. >> i think we could easily

probably schedule, mr. shear bert help me on this, the subcommittee meeting. we usually meet on wednesdays. i don't know when our next available date might be. it might have to be, in fact, the 23rd. that time we could go through what has been done by diane masuda and myself and dhr. that might make a lot of sense. then the timeline might be off by a day or so, but we probably could move forward fairly quickly on that if that sounds reasonable. >> we have a tentative schedule already for us on the 23rd. [multiple voices] >> i believe we have that one scheduled. to the extent this can be -- information can be disseminated to the subcommittee, there's no reason why we can't get that information to them ahead of time. we'll have to check. * with the city attorney and make sure the items are presented to the subcommittee that were discussed by the small group that met with dhr is -- can be revealed. and if there's a problem with that, we

can certainly get that information to the subcommittee or to the entire committee as well as historic preservation. so, i think that would be wise. maybe we should talk after the meeting about procedural matters and i can check with the city attorney and make sure we get this information out as soon as possible. if that sounds reasonable to you. >> that is the plan. materials will be brought on the 23rd, that we'd have everything for the subcommittee to review at that point. >> and i will check if there are any materials they can review prior to that time so they can be more comfortable with the possible further action on the 23rd. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i think that was the understanding anyway that there would be a subcommittee meeting first. >> before we took action? >> yeah. i thought the motion was that we were approving moving forward again in a sense, so -- >> okay.

>> so, i guess we don't necessarily need an action item today. i thought we did have what was before us. but everybody is comfortable as we're moving forward. we don't need to have the entire commission act on this today. historic preservation will meet on the 16th, i believe, as we have -- they'll have an item on their calendar as we had today. >> thank you very much. next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under your director's report, item 5, director's announcements. >> thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners, and happy new year formally. just to let you know, that last week marked my five-year anniversary in this position. and if you'll indulge me next week i do have a few thoughts i'd like to share with you about that milestone and about the lessons learned in the last five years and i'll do that next week. for today i just wanted to give you a couple of announcements.

some upcoming public meetings this coming week, actually. saturday there is a public scoping meeting on the sunnydale hope sf master plan for the e-i-r. that's happening this saturday the 12th at 10:00 a.m. at the sunnydale community room 16 52 sunnydale avenue. also saturday there is a community meeting on the visitacion valley [speaker not understood] project. that's saturday the 12th at noon at the [speaker not understood] learning center at 401 tunnel avenue. that's a meeting -- there's been a series of meetings with the neighborhood to talk about how to move forward with that plan. so, that one is happening this saturday as well. and then on tuesday, the 15th, there is a public scoping meeting on piers 30, 32 and seawall lot 30, warriors arena, scoping meeting for e-i-r. that's starting 6 public comment 30 p.m. at delancy

street. that concludes my presentation unless there are any questions. [speaker not understood] >> commissioner antonini. >> director, what was the date on that piers 30 and 32 scoping meeting? >> tuesday the 15th at 6:30. >> tuesday, january 15, thank you. >> sure. >> commissioners, it will place you under item 6, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. andrea rodgers planning department staff to give you an update on planning issues. not a lot of planning issues as i'm sure you read in the paper, this was the inaugural meeting of the new board, two newly elected supervisors join the others for this week. also as you probably have read already, supervisor chiu was reelected the board president. this makes the third two-year term as a president which is historic for san francisco. it's the longest anybody has served consecutively in the

position of board president. but there were some introductions for new legislation including planning legislation. the first is one that would delete the provision for excelsior alcohol reuse district sponsored by supervisor avalos in his district. and would allow alcohol reuse district to continue. the second was introduced by board president chiu. it is the central subway tunnel boring machine extraction site special use district. so, not a boring issue to you, but an exciting one. those items will be before you. lastly, there was an extension introduced by supervisor breed that would give this commission additional time to consider the fillmore ncd which you just voted to continue. so, that concludes my board report for this week. there will be a normal land use committee next week, but that agenda has not yet been published. >> commissioner antonini. >> will we get some sort of a report on that item that's the boring item that is being

brought up by president chiu? because i think that's very significant and has a lot to do with planning issues. >> yes, that sud will be before you prior to your action, before any board action. within 90 days of any introduction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and the board of appeals is the last item, there are two items i think might be of interest to the commission today. the first is 20 65 oakdale avenue, building permit application to reduce the size of the warehouse building. this is the old berkeley farms property. there was no notice required under the planning code or the building code because of an alteration permit. neighbors had concern about the removal of the building, a portion of the building there. it appears that the contractor did not operator maintain the property in the best fashion. so, there were concerns that were raised about that. that's the noise and everything from the work on the property. the property is a pdr 1-d notification district.

[speaker not understood]. rh-1 and rh-2 zoning districts. the board upheld the permit and at the hearing project sponsor offered to do voluntary notice even though no notice may be required, up to five years for any permit they apply for [speaker not understood] owners not within 300 feet. that's something they would conduct themselves. second, there is to be a soil analysis on soil that was removed from the site to ensure that it what are wasn'tv hazardous. the second item was a letter of determination for [speaker not understood]. this is a project that the planning commission heard in 2005. it had a condition of approval that said that a decision is null and void if there is a lapse of three years or more in the authorization. they have -- they were in several years of lawsuits and since 2007 they have been working on getting the appropriate permits. they have attended map approval from the department of public works. they have also submitted building permits to the planning department. to the letter of determination found they were in compliance with that condition, that they

had not lapsed on their authorization. it was an appeal from neighbors concerned about the project. there was no appeal at the cu and it was approved by the planning commission in 2005. but there was an appeal of the environmental decision and also a lawsuit on the environmental decision. another hearing last night at the board of appeals unanimously upheld the letter [speaker not understood]. the they can continue processing the building permit application. i'm available for any questions. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i assume those lawsuits have been settled. >> yes, they were dismissed by the california court of appeals. there are actually several lawsuits, one related to the environmental review and there was one related to a street tree removal that had gone to the board of appeals and it was also appealed to the courts and the city prevailed on that as well. >> commissioners, i don't see tim frye here, but the historic preservation commission met last year. they have not met this year. there are a couple items i believe would be of interest to you specifically.

an item on your calendar today, the new mission theater, those modifications were approved by the historic preservation commission and the duboce landmark district, the resolution was adopted by the historic preservation commission which will be on your calendar next thursday. also, it marked the last hearing for commission president or former commission president chase who will no longer be sitting on the preservation commission. and during this interim period, commissioner dan kroger has moved into the role of the president of the historic preservation commission. if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. and shall not exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest

to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have two speaker cards. >> great, thank you. linda chap man and jennifer [inaudible]. linda chapman for nob hill neighbors. i want to address the 1601 larkin fiasco. at any rate, one issue is the selective, what would we say, notices and selective participation of the small group of people -- this is something steve teuber wanted me -- he wanted to address it to you himself when you had the meeting with the city attorney. but we had been told by the commission secretary that this was not on the agenda, you know. we're having a lot of problems getting notice. it isn't that the -- that it's a plot. it isn't that we don't receive

courtesy from the director who actually, if it weren't for the director a couple of times notifying me, there wouldn't be a single opponent or single paid advocate at some things like the court hearings because once you select four people, those people don't necessarily want anybody else to participate. and they even have done things like when the director had a meeting and wanted participation from the neighborhood, told, you know, somebody, well, this is only a private meeting and it's only for people who are right at the site right around the corner, so, therefore, make sure that i and anybody else won't be there except those who are selected. i guess the ones who were selected were thought to be people who would be interested in negotiating. but it turned out they weren't. i didn't hear any negotiation. when the court hearing happened they were eliminated, too. i would like to suggest that since 2007 when the environmental thing happened, [speaker not understood] was involved, troy butler was a paid advocate, rowena was

paying the attorney, [speaker not understood] haven't paid anything. they have as much right to participate as anybody else and no more. the results is you're getting very distorted information such as at the last hearing. and one thing that happened, because the notice was all screwed up about what was happening and what wasn't happening, and then also the scheduling, they said everybody who was here to try it who could have corrected that was gone, except hiroshi [speaker not understood]. there were people from the neighborhood, all of whom had to leave. so, you got a picture that is so far from the truth, you know. i mean, i would think you must resent some time just having people come in to pull the wool over your eyes. there is this happy involvement with the community, there is an agreement with fuff. i've never heard of these people. who are these three people who say they have an agreement? they said they didn't have a contract, but didn't it imply there was some kind of process

going on and some kind of agreement? the community room that was mentioned to you, oh, happy thing, well, i did go to the pre-op meeting and everybody who was there agreed that what was proposed as a community room was useless to everybody and nobody wanted it including the [speaker not understood] people. all right. straightening up the site, you heard all that about, i haven't seen there except once on one side and a little dim light at the time. >> thank you. i'll come back. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment in addition to ms. almon? hi, good afternoon, members of the board. i was here about a year and a half ago regarding the project of 34 to 36 pleasant street for which you granted a conditional use permit and i think a couple of the board members weren't present at those hearings, substitution members because

they're new to the commission. we had over 30 neighbors object to t. the conditional use was granted with some negotiated changes. but one thing thats was always a concern was the height and the five stories of construction. i was told at the time that this project would be subject to the building and planning department rules five story wood frame construction. so, what's happened? they are now in the frame up stages and they have five stories of construction, but they have yet to comply with the -- they have yet to present anything that changes their basement -- excuse me, their existing floor garage to a basement. you're not allowed in san francisco to have five stories of wood frame construction. we did want to appeal the commission decision. but as you know, it is very difficult to appeal a conditional use permit. i was told that i would be able to appeal the building permit if i was unhappy with it. then i did, but when i saw problems, that was denied because you cannot appeal a building permit granted under a conditional use permit. so, what that means is that the

applicant has been allowed to continue to work without further neighborhood input. to that end i hired a private engineer, pat buscovich who i have paid extensively to i'd have to say baby-sit this project through the process. in the process we found a number of inconsistencies with the foundation, with this and that. they've been addressed all except for the five story issue and the issue of them now abutting right up against my house and my downhill neighbor and i have several neighbors supporting me in this. i'm not the only person frustrated, but i am the person we have sent to speak. right now they have a eight-foot fill retaining wall. you're only allowed to fill three feet without a variance. the planning department said it's the building department problem. the building department says it's a planning department problem. so we have ping-pong going on here where no one is taking responsibility. we have five floors of wood frame construction. they do not meet the criterion mathematically to turn it into a basement from a floor. it was always a floor.