plankings commission regular meeting for thursday january 31, 2013. please be aware that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or out bursts of any kind, silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you would like to speak on an general deed item, please

fill out a speaker's card and speak directly into the microphone and please state your name for the record. commissioner president fong. commissioner antonini. >> commissioner wu? commissioner burden, commissioner hillis, moore and sugaya? >> commissioners first on your calendar are items proposed for continuance. i only have one item number 8 under your director's report, the planning commission policy on impinging product implementation is proposed for continuance to february 28, 2013. >> i have no speaker cards. >> did you want to make a comment to that at all? >> yeah, just that we would like a little more time to work on this to talk to some commissioners about this and need a few more weeks to refine that work. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on

the item, single item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioner moore? >> would we be scheduling a discussion item on it so it would have an introduction about the underlying policy or policy changes that we have a little bit more time to think about and including hearing other city departments like the control, anybody weigh in what kind of ramifications it has financially, all questions that are part of a broader discussion. >> we could do that if the president concurs, sure. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i received a couple of e-mails about this subject, i don't know if there's some outreach that should be down, especially in soma where a lot of these buildings are. >> okay, thank you. is there a motion to continue? commissioner antimony. >> move to continue, what would be a reasonable date? >> it's been proposed for february 28.

>> february 28, that's fine, continued to february 28th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue item 8, planning commission policy on timing of project implementation to february 28, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hilllysing? >> aye. >> xhution ner wu. >> aye. >> and commissioner fong? >> it passes 7-0, and places you under your consent calendar, it constitutes a consent calendar to be routine by the planning commission, there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, pub -- public questions, if so, tshl be removed, case number 2011.30c, at 367 bayshore boulevard,

request [inaudible] at 909 tennessee street, request to request a zoning map amendment. i have no speak cards, commissioner? >> is there any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve items 1 and 2, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and places you under commissioners' questions and matters, adoption of commission minutes, i have no speaker cards. >> any fub lick comment on the draft of the minutes? seeing none, motion to approve. >> move to approve.

>> second. >> commissioner moore is, next item. >> on that motion to adopt minutes for january 17, 2013, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> and commission president fong? >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> item 4, commission comments/questions. >> commissioner moore? >> i wanted to comment on the ribbon common on the veterans, it was a remarkable event not because of who was in attendance but because of the incredible number of people who supported and helped make this project possible, it was a lovely adapted reuse, it was a historical element, a strong second tax advantage with

historic preservation credits which i think were never used before in a manner that they were brought forward here and commissioner sugaya is the expert on that. it was a great really joyous moment to see this project come together as quickly as it did, so as many people think that can't do in san francisco, nothing can be delivered, this is proof of an extremely complicated project if you get the list of who indeed helped bring it about from the federal government, veteran's administration and on and on, i think we can all be proud of this project. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i know there is legislation that's being introduced by supervisor farrow regarding condo conversions and as you know, there are many people who are already in tenants and commons situations often grouped with people they may not be really linked to and

they are co-owners until such time an ownership situation is used, these will become individualized, i think has a lot of promise, but me *f my question is is this going to come before us for some kind of discussion in the future? >> commissioner, i believe that legislation was already introduced and it has already been one hearing on it, i don't know the schedule at this point, the hearing was continued and i don't have the dates, ann marie is out today, she had a death in the family so i can check with the other legislative staff with that but i don't know the date of continuance, we can check with the supervisor's office on the schedule and we can figure out if there's time. >> it would be nice to have time to have a discussion to entertain public comment and the input from the other commissioners on this issue which i think is an important one. thank you. >> commissioner borden? >> hi, i happen to go by two interesting events, one of

which was sf hon dough at the corner of innis had a reopening event, it was a family that had that facility for more than 40 years, so they modernized it and hon dough is making a great investment of them being an anchor and them staying in the neighborhood, it was nice to see a community benefits district and a civic center, different merchants from around the city to work with this business that had a lot of support throughout the immediate community and the family, they were part of such a community and one of the local restaurants had provided the food and the wine for the event, it's nice that a family owned business that's been around for a long time is investing back to the community, as many of all you know, they need 34 million dollars to complete their project, they were at 33 million dollars and are in the

process of trying to raise their final million dollars to make their project happen. they really need to make that happen sooner than later, construction costs are going up, just to remind everybody that the project, it's a community center with a combination of 40 units with emancipated foster use and other youth that were in the system, so it's a great project and i hope they are successful because they still have legal battles that they are dealing with in the courts as well. >> thank you. commissioner sugaya? >> thank you, following up on commissioner moore's comment on veteran's commons, for those of you that don't know, the address is 150 o -- odus which is where the back of the planning department is located. it did use a combination of

federal tax credits, both low-income tax credits and historic preservation tax credits which commissioner moore mentioned, historic preservation tax credits are worth as tax credits, not as a deduction as a straight credit, 25% of the rehabilitation costs of the project, so it's a substantial amount coming back to -- well, i can't say developer because they're non-profit organizations but in the case where they're non-profits, it can be syndicated, i think in this case, it's maybe bank of america, i can't remember, so wells provided some other financing, so it was a really good project, the historic preservation commission did review the project and gave it its blessing and the mayor's office housing of course was involved so all around, i think it was an excellent project and good example for not only

historic preservation but for affordable housing in the city. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner sugaya had the ability to communicate the portion of the historic preservation tax credit to the speaker of the house who didn't know anything about it. i was 304 back in -- 3 or 4 back in line to remind her of how important this is to combine the two. >> commissioner wu? >> thank you, so it's great to see this project getting so much attention. i think it's really an opportunity to think about surplus land for the city, you know, i believe the advocacy around the land is where the conversation first started. i also wanted to mention that i had the pleasure of introducing

director [inaudible] last week, and it's really i think a missed opportunity that we don't really talk about long-term vision as much as we could or director ran laid out sort of 6 directions that he thinks we need to go in the next three to five years and i think i would love to see it here at commission or somewhere more public, hosted by the public department or within the department, but really i think a public forum for us to talk about long-term vision for -- short and long-term vision for this department rather than being focused every week on our agenda. >> i'll have to agree with that. i don't know what the form is when we bring it into play, but i would love to see the notes if you had a packaged docket that went along with that, maybe the commissioners might have interest and that might spread the idea of bringing it before us and a larger body.

>> commissioner sugaya. >> there was a piece in the paper about other commissions and boards holding annual retreats i think at the beginning of the year. i know there's a noticing issue, but i think sometimes the public realizes that they don't have to show up all the time. anyway, it might be an idea to take into consideration and i think it was -- i forget the commission who -- they do meet here, but they held their retreats, i think it was the southwest community center, and just back on veteran's commons, [inaudible] is sponsoring organization and they were assisted in the development by chinatown cbc. >> i wanted to add one thing and maybe apologize if it's in your director's report, but yesterday was the kick-off meeting for the citizen's advisory group for the permit tracking system and some people in the audience were there yesterday as well, offered very sound comments in my opinion,

it's moving along quite well. yesterday was the first of a couple of different meetings and there will be some testing and training that goes on in the spring and into the fall, i think it's a worthy project and in the short and long term, the department and public will benefit from it. >> commissioners, i failed to advise the public that under your regular calendar, there was a request to have items 12a and b and c for 254th street moved to the last item under the regular calendar which really only bumps it one itemendings just for the benefit of the public, commissioners, next up under commission matters is item 5, review and approval of combined commission secretary position announcement and recruitment process. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, thank you, the sub-committee for the

commission secretary selection met yesterday, a combination of historic preservation and planning commission representatives, in attendance were commissioners borden and moore and i'll ask for their comments when i'm done giving you an overview of what happened because this is a potential action item for the commission. i had a report from dhr which was led by shawn sher born and it consisted of three different thing, he gave us a timetable as to the selection, he gave us the job announcement which is to be issued tomorrow on the 1st of september which will be a matter of public record when it's issued and then he described the battery management test that candidates will be -- some of the candidates will be asked to complete and there's also going to be a supplemental questionnaire and these were

questioned with input from subject matter expert who happens to be our previous secretary linda avery which i think is a good person to have input on these matters. and in terms of the timetable, the job announcement is going to be posted for a period of 45 days from the 1st of september to march 15th, between march 18th and this is a projected calendar, and march 29, the dhr with the help of the subject matter expert will make what could be called the first cut will basically eliminate candidates they feel are not qualified and will continue on with candidates that they feel are qualified or may be qualified in the future, those are kind of the categories, and then after that time, these candidates will be asked to

participate in the management battery test and the supplement cal questionnaire trying to make it more management instead of having a huge number of people taking -- every single applicant taking these tests and after that time when those are completed, sometime between the 15th of april and april 23, i will meet with dhr as well as vice chair dianne masuta, and we will discuss some of their findings and they probably will suggest a pairing down to a workable number of candidates, and that would be all that i would ask the commission to approve at this point. it is projected after that time that there will be a sub-committee meeting on wednesday april 24th and the full sub commission will then probably decide upon the

finalists and you would have input as to how that process works, so what i'm asking today is approval of the dhr process i've described through the management battery test and the supplemental test and the initial cut being made by dhr, and then i might suggest you also calendar an action item sometime around april 18th to just sort of -- we could give you another overview of where we are and then we could see or get input from the full commission as to how many candidates would you be comfortable with us as finalists, how many would you like to see, to interview, and these types of things and many of these interviews would have to be at least with the sub-committee held in closed session, but anyway, that's an overview and i would be happy to ask commissioners moore and borden to add their comments

and make public comment i guess and also other commissioner comments? >> thank you, commissioner antonini, commissioner moore? >> since i can only give feedback, i think procedurally, we could not make any decision yesterday regarding the timetable and the specific items that are subjecting on this timetable, number one is we were not a full quorum sub-committee which is by the nature of people missing, not able to make decisions or recommendations, also today, we do not have any calendared item on this agenda by which we can make i think any decisions based on the impaired structure of yesterday's meeting. having said that, i think there is a number of other issues which have to be taken first, partially this commission or the president of this commission has to determine the

continuance of how we go about the process. i think the sub-committee as it was fully represented by this planning commission supports the process with the incredible help of hr and the input by the expert identified as linda a*ifr ri in terms of where we are, i think the job description is complete and the organizations that will be contacted are the ones we've worked with for a long time, it's a long list of professional and other organizations that will be carrying the announcement, however the steps to the particulars afterwards of who will be narrowing down the resumes, who will be assisting has not been discussed and there was not any indication that even historic preservation as represented by vice chair

masuta was familiar with this particular suggestion, so i think we can only take it from there. >> commissioner borden? >> just quickly for the benefit to have commission, it is on your calendar today as an action item, and it's being placed on the historic preservation commission, their calendar that's being released today for february 6 as an action item, just for your information. >> commissioner borden? >> for the members, to benefit the members of the public, the position's going to post tomorrow the 1st of february, for the commission's secretary position, we have gone through the process with finalizing that description, it will be posted on the dhr website and throughout various publications that any member of the public can e-mail staff to find out about, you will probably see it in publications you will receive, the publication will happen until march 15th and candidates who make the at

least minimum requirements will be asked to take the manager's test through the department of dhr and that in combination with their application will ultimately will be what our sub-committee evaluates, the position is posting on the 1st of february, we'll be posting until march 15th, it's accessible on the web, via human resources. >> commissioner antonini. >> do you want to take public comment first and then i can carry on after that, if there is any on this item? >> are you finished? >> i was going to say that in regards to what commissioner moore has said, if the commission feels more comfortable putting the action item on next week's calendar for the 7th, i mean, i'm only asking for an approval of what we're doing and what i described in general terms with the timetable, but not any action on any final selection

process, and that's basically what i think we should have, some sort of consent along those lines but it doesn't have to be today. we can calendar it for next week if that's possible, it's up to the pleasure of the commission. >> okay. so, if -- unless i'm missing something sig kanlt, we sort of asked the sub-committee to go out, do performance work, and come back with a sub submit -- committee, i'm a little uncertain why we need to take an approval or take action on something that is not 100% solidified yet, it seems like it's going in that direction and maybe by the next meeting, we would have some concrete direction. >> might i suggest that we wait until that time in april, i think at this point, you know, there's a process by which applications will go through and be reviewed. our group doesn't look that it will be coming together until

april 24th. i think at that time or closer to that time, we could reconvene and make a recommendation to this commission. i think what at some point we want to get a recommendation around is just the final steps of the process, how many candidates that this body would ultimately see, at which point we would pass it on to the commission, i think that's the only issue we need to finally get support from this commission on, but i think we need to meet again before we can give a final recommendation on the approach that we plan to take because we also need to have a meeting where we have a full active sub commission, you know, sub-committee to make that recommendation to forward to you all. >> agreed. >> commissioner antonini. >> that's why i was talking about the 18th as a possible date, it would predate our meeting of the 24th, however, as envisioned, we might be making some decisions