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 on an old citrus grove. and here i circumstance um navigate both the auditorium with an a diesed laser etched anadized panel. it brings back the notion of the landscape that was once there. the glass curtain wall has mylar orange archival circles on it. at certain times of the day, kind of a low tech transformation of kind of a lyrical day of oranges kind of falling. this is the vitrius bench i did for millennium towers on mission street. and it's a cast resin bench in the shape of an elipse that's lit with led and embedded with cast acornses to respond to the

glass wall in the back there, which is a glass with the image of an oak grove. these are some past projects that have been completed. and i talk about 474 natoma. i plan to work on the eight-story elevator shaft. the name of the piece is called global garden. it's comprised of ombre panels. we bring you a sample right there so you can actually see what the material is. it's a very innovative new material that is comprised of a set of pixels that are raised which catch the light which forms that image. my artwork will be an amalgam of different plants from around the world which forms -- which forms a garden that cascades down that elevator shaft. each panel -- there's 36 panels total. each panel is approximately

four feet by 3-1/2 feet. the perforation of the pixel is 5/8, comprises 94 2 total square feet. and it leaves both a representational piece as well as an abstracted piece because the panel, as you can see from these oblique angles, give you that definition of the leaf. all 36 panels will represent different plants, plants like ginger, cilantro, morning glory vines, that represents philippines, india, china, the americas, africa, asia and southeast asia. they cascade down from the full height of the elevator tower. so, it's kind of bringing this marker of a garden to the building. questions? >> any questions, commissioners? commissioner antonini.

>> yeah, thank you. i appreciate your work, very interesting. just looking at the exterior views of the building, and this doesn't have anything to do with your piece, but there's two different renderings of the colors. one is more of a muted and subtle a pierce and the other is kind of a very bright appearing -- i mean, i'm not sure which one they're going to go with, but that probably doesn't [inaudible] your piece. >> you'd have to come to the microphone. and identify yourself for the record, please. >> hi, i'm with the architects working with the 474 natoma building. i believe that was a rendering scene with the building to highlight the artwork on that one piece that was a straight elevation the colors the building would have. >> okay. i kind of like the muted one better. you know, it's a little more,

not quite so shocking. i mean, there's a couple buildings you see from the freeway. some people like them. the color are a little bit too bright and they just don't really -- i don't like that. that's a matter of personal taste. i think the more muted colors are a little bit better, but other people may have other ideas on that. okay, thank you for explaining what we're seeing. i think your work is fine. it's just the color scheme of the building and how bright those colors are going to be are on an alley that is fairly obscure. not many people are going to see it. but as far as people seeing it from distances away because it's a fairly narrow alley. your work, of course, they'll see anybody who walks by. >> it meant -- actually, we specifically chose material that would have that kind of

reflection and luminescence. because it is an alley, it gives attention to that site in apositive way. >> it's a question of how intense the colors are. they're going to stand out even in their more muted colors, but that's just a matter of taste. >> commissioner wu. >> i want to thank you for your work. i appreciate the sort of nod to the diversity of people that will move into this housing. again, i want to thank you. i want to ask staff a side question which is what is the targeted ami for the future residents of the building? >> i don't have that information off the top of my head since it's a few years ago. i can get that information to you. >> if you can send it to the commission. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> for anybody who has seen drew's school in action with the garden, i think this is a great idea and i think it really speaks about the idea of

vertical gardens. the only question i would ask the artist as well, the architect, as to whether or not the way this particular piece is attached to the elevator is final, and that is an open-ended question because the architecture seems very dominant without really giving the piece stops an idea of being more prominent than the elevator itself. i found the framing of what the elevator shows not quite fully appreciative of the art, but i might not understand it because i don't see the detailing on this. i just want to raise it as a question, not a criticism. i think the piece is very strong and i would love it to really read as a garden. >> your question has to do with the way that the pieces are attached. it is a permanent installation

and basically on an architectural level it forms a rain screen. so, it's the same attachment as a rain screen. i don't have all the architectural details. they've all been drawn. >> thanks for answering that. i'm very supportive of it, but i might follow-up with a particular question to [speaker not understood]. she can communicate what i'm asking. thank you. >> okay. okay, finishing up the last item for public comment on the informational item just

presented. >> okay. >> seeing none, this is not general public comment yet. this is a comment on the last item presented. >> okay. thank you. mr. president, and just for members of the public, generally we don't allow standing in this room during the hearing process. it seems that we're getting a little crowded. we are trying to get from overflow. and once overflow has been identified, there will be no standing in this room. thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address this commission on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, keeping in mind two things. that you may not address an agenda item during this category and you may not exceed the 15-minute time limit. i have two speaker cards.

>> one speaker card, dino [speaker not understood]. and hiroshi fukado. good afternoon, commissioners. linda avery, thank you so much. you run a clean house. i learned a lot watching you and also you're very knowledgeable about all the things we talk about, all the cases going on. thank you for the two extra minutes. this is going to be a little bit of a long one. i've been looking at and two weeks ago i talked about an american public display of art that we have in our city and i was laugh tog myself not because there is anything funny about crack houses, but because i saw folsom and natoma and transfused basil and ginger on the walls. i brought a project proposal

for 450 o'farrell street and this is two buildings that are owned by the [speaker not understood]. and right here we have 450, that's their church building and 474 is a building they own next to it. it's indicative of american history over the last 120 years when this religious group came to power and earned enough money to not only purchase and build this building by 1923, there's been a span of 30 years, but then secretly purchased the building next to t. i've been trying to put some pressure on this organization to do something as well as the city to do something with the building next to it and the building next to it is our public display of art. i've been here before and i've showed you guys a blank canvas. this is a picture of the building of four years ago. at 474 natoma street we just built a 55 unit with art on the wall. this house is a nobody except for some people outside.

in 2008 there's a letter from the director of planning to the organization which owns this building that says this location has the potential to dramatically improve the urban quality of the immediate area. the department would likely be supportive of a thoughtful proposal at this site. that to this first map, a proposal to knock down both of those buildings and build a 140-unit low-income house which was not approved because it is a historic church in the area. and we have not heard from them since 2007 or 2008, maybe 2009. so, you haven't heard from them for over three years. and the case was closed in 2009 because we hadn't heard from them. so, if you guys can imagine, if you guys left a building for four years, it would turnout to look like this. and, so, we would like to invite all of you guys to come read with us at 474 o'farrell

street. they have fused the plywood with the plaster board, the purple is coming off, and it's not a pretty sight. and i'm going to leave you guys with a little note that i have in my office which says instead of looking for something in the dark, turn on the light. i'm not sure who richard hanaim is. he has been working on this project four years or more than that, but i'd like to see some answers from this church group and the organization and i think we need richard and the organization here to tell us what is going on with this building. thank you guys so much. have a good day. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is hiroshi fakuda [speaker not understood] land use and housing co