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 as to the number of candidates and selecting among those that were brought before us at that meeting if i understand what dhr has put before us, so that being said, it probably isn't a bad date to think about thursday the 18th, not excluding another meeting in the future to just sort of give us the discretion to make decisions -- decisions we may need to have to make.

>> i'm also happy to know the description is going out tomorrow, i think the question for me lies in, you know, are there criteria that the sub-committee has decided upon that help wid -- wit l it down to a shorter list, you subjecting between april 18 and the 24, you could wid l it down. i think that's what deserves a little more discussion, i'm happy to having that discussion closer to april when applications have come in and when linda avery made the first cut. >> can i respond? >> well, it wasn't exactly what i wanted to imply by the meeting that we're having with dhr, we're just basically going to be made privy of the decisions that were made by dhr

in terms of their first cut, we're not making further cuts that day, that's why i was careful to make sure we didn't ask for any approval of anything after that point because that's when it would become more selective, we wanted the commission to have input on that and as far as the actual job description and the criteria, that will be available to the public as of tomorrow and it will be reviewable, we can make sure the whole commission should have a copy of that to review and it gives a lot of specificity as to the criteria and how they are weighed and these types of things. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, if we could give feedback to the sub-committee i guess at this point, as i understand it, the job description is going to get responded to human resources will go through and with linda avery, wilting -- wid l it

down and then those who get the first cut will take the entrance exam, whatever you want to call it, the battery of questions and based on that, h.r. is going to make a selection. is that right? >> i think what they'll do is put people in categories, tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, so they're not necessarily selecting, they're going to make a list available to all of us. >> and then the meeting that commissioner antonini is mentioning is one between the president and vice-president of the sub-committee to meet with h.r. to go over that particular categorization of the candidates, is that right? >> that is correct. >> so far. >> just to see what they've done. >> then i would suggest then at some point, the sub-committee get involved in actually creating the finalist list and can come before the two

commissions. >> right, and i don't want to talk out of turn. >> i see you nodding your head. to me, that's really the job of the sub-committee to figure out, not this group here in its entirety, that's why we've elected the three of you to go out. >> right, i think what -- there's two issue that is are at stake, i think we were trying to get finalized, we haven't determined the sub-committee has not reached whether we would forward five or two candidates, and that is what we just want to confirm at the end with this commission, but i think the issue that we also have is that yesterday wasn't a complete meeting because we didn't have a quorum, so we need to meet again to wid l down that process before we can come back to you for recommendation, we need to have a meeting to finalize it and then ask for action to confirm the direction. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner borden, thank

you for repeating that because i think it's not at all trying to undermine or show weakness in the process, it was just yesterday coincidental that we did it as a group, we're reporting to you, i think what stands strongly is the job description is as thorough and up to par as h.r., it has shed on any possible light that i think we're welcomed, it is a lot of creative work into it and just an absolutely mammoth support from h.r. and i think that's what needs to be acknowledged and we are ready to post, that is a great achievement and with your blessing as a commission as a whole. >> commissioner antonini. >> in terms of the final pairing, the pairing down tentative recommendation was for the full sub-committee to meet on april, wednesday the 24th of april to do that and present to the whole commission

what we felt was a workable number of candidates and then we decide at that point as to how the decision would be made, how they would be presented to the full commission before our final decision was made. that's sort of the timetable, it is subject to final approval as was pointed out by commissioners borden and moore and i would guess that probably is what's going to happen. i don't see any reason why it shouldn't follow that sequence. >> thank you for always staying one step ahead. opening it up for public comment, is there any on this item? okay, seeing none. next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under your director's report, item 6, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i wanted to also mention the citizen's advisory committee as a permit tracking system, i appreciate president fong's involvement, and we are

-- i'm thrilled to say we're on target, on schedule on that project for a fall roll o*ut so i'm happy about that. i also wanted to give the commission a brief update on the academy of art and the notices of violation, you probably saw the article in the paper today. they did meet the requested items to meet their january 24th deadline on those conditions of the violations from last week and today they are -- we're 99% of the way there, they have agreed to the scopes of the environmental review, the last two pieces of the scope of the environmental review which is the deadline for today and we're working out some final details on that but we are -- i'm optimistic that will happen by the end of the day or first thing in the morning, so far, they are meeting their required deadlines as the conditions of those notices of violence. there is no board of supervisor's report today i don't believe and no board of appeals today, they did not

meet this week. >> item 7 review of past week's events at the board of supervisors -- >> commissioner antonini had a question. >> i was wondering why the board didn't meet this week? >> i don't have any reports from the board of supervisors but the board of appeals didn't meet, it was cancelled yesterday. >> the supervisors did meet? >> ann marie informed me before she left there was no items. >> i didn't mean to imply they didn't meet. >> okay, thank you. >> item 7, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission, as you already heard, there are no reports to any of those items. item 8 has been continued to february 28th which will place you under general public comment. 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. however, for items where public comment is closed, this is your opportunity to address the commission, with respect to all other agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. this would be your opportunity to address the commission. each member of public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have several public speaker cards. >> okay. >> (calling speaker names). >> good afternoon, happy new

year. i'm here today asking that i filed an application for discretionary review. last year, there was an item before you and the address was 3450 third street for rezoning, the community was not aware, there was no community meetings or hearings on this. the only time that we heard of it was when it came back to the land use committee. when we objected to the area, they passed it on anyway as they have always done with those of us who live and breathe in bayview hunter's point. i would like to say there was an eir done, it was done by the health department and i disagree with what they presented to the staff here because of the fact when the eir was done, it was not done

on the sight of 5433rd street, it was done a block away. i had three deaths in my family within the last two weeks from cancer, a young lady, 30 years of age died from asthma, as you know in my community, it's the worst in the city, in the united states of my people dying, the community have changed and i don't know what happened. i used to be able to receive -- when you have in your meetings, agendas, i'm still alive, in fact, i would like to say this, i wish that you bring this back to the floor dealing with the discretionary review, you're going to have other people talking about what's happening. my daughter sent you all an invitation next week, next saturday, february 9th, i will be 80 years of age and we will

be celebrating, but i ask if any of you have sent a reply, she said no, she has not gotten a reply to whether or not any of you were coming. so, i just want to say for the last 50 years, i've been coming to this body, been good and bad, but i would like to say that i hope you hear what the other people have to say because we only have three minutes to speak, that you really listen carefully to what's happening in my community and because when you rezone -- when that zone was rezoned, you only thought it was 3450 but it was 27 other blocks and within those blocks, we learned that cpmc wants to build a hospital there but you don't get all of the information, you get what's presented to you, and we know environmental racism has been going on for a long time in

bayview hunter's point. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> for the benefit of the public and the commission, 3453rd street is on your advanced calendar on the dr for february 28th. >> greetings to you and in hue brew, shalom means piece, may name is sala and i have lived in san francisco for 28 years and i've been a part of bayview for 10 and i have never seen anything like this in my entire life. when i first moved there, i didn't understand the smell, the foul smell that was in that environment and i did research and found out by going to the sewage plant that there's a broken seal that causes the foul smell that's right there on 3rd and evans right next to 3450. i couldn't believe how could an