office, you're going to do it downtown in the core and your transbay where makes a lot of sense. my regret is that this building can't be more respectful and imagine that, you know, as we go through the process, it will happen that way. but it's not, you know, it's not our issue that the planning director originally led you down a path for a building that wasn't really appropriate. >> i would pledge our support to working extensively with staff. we've done that at 555 mission where the building went through significant redesign after being approved by the commission at the very top. we did it in infinity where we brought in a new design architect. we will work with staff. commissioner sugaya: i think a code-compliant building isn't going to make it anyway. my perspective, you know, there's just too much square footage and you're trying to squeeze it into this, you know, little space.

and i think part of what we've not talked about very much is what mrs. hoefter pointed out and in the plan, i mean, second street happens to be called out directly. it happens to be based on shadows. but, you know, the fact that it's really only one of two streets that got called out does say something. i mean, we can't totally ignore it. and granted the shadows may not be as much as, you know, whatever -- some people think it's too much, other people seem to think that it's a very small percentage. but -- and we don't have a real measure of what that exception should be based on. so it's kind of subjective at this point. but for me the fact it did get called out does still hold some weight and that should have been taken more into consideration, i think. without reducing the square footage, you know, spending another six weeks on the design, in my opinion isn't going to result in anything

spectacular. and that's the rub here. vice president olague: it sounds like -- it is a lot better than where it started but i guess the irony to me is i'm sitting here listening to someone saying, initially we came at a project that was 500 feet which is above and beyond what the code or what is allowed in that space. and then i guess there was some conversation and the height was brought down. then there was the comment that we brought a project in that wasn't even compatible -- that wasn't even conforming to the downtown plan and we were told by the director that in the downtown you have to have a project that conforms to the downtown plan. well, i mean, yeah, so, it's hard to, you know, for me to sympathize with what i'm

hearing. >> and dean's not here to defend himself. for months dean was supportive of the original design. vice president olague: it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter. i'm just saying, at some point, i guess, the direction i'd like to see the department go in the future is one that would encourage a project sponsor to come in with a project that conforms not so much -- well, to the code, obviously, at the minimum, and then also to whatever underlying plans are in that area. so if it's a downtown plan, then one that conforms to the downtown plan or whatever. that's it. commissioner antonini: i was called to question but i see commissioner moore has some comments. if you want to go ahead first. commissioner moore: is the bulkyness of the building is an issue, i was asking myself all along, why is the size of the

ground floor as large as it needs to be? there are a number of buildings in the vicinity and you might be talking about a market trend or expectation. i found this huge lobby is totally boring. they mostly do not accept people who wear less than a suit. i have found myself in that situation, just casually being in a sweater or blue genes and actually kind of -- jeans and actually kind of being looked at with a frown on the guy's face. in the majority of these buildings you can only get in with a building identification card, obviously as a normal person you don't have, and that is correct, down the street from you, that's exactly what happens. and these large lobbies are mostly empty. the design intent, i like the idea but i'm prepared to balance this benefit against the size of the building overall and i'm posing as a question, not a as a criticism, but i do think there is a tradeoff -- tradeoff on where the square footage is. the square footage in these

lobbies is mostly not for the majority of people who don't belong in this building because people who are in these buildings are territorial, there is a need for security which understand, and i have found myself on the opposite, kind of not really being welcomed, because i was looking a certain way. i was not really obviously going to work in those buildings but i was casually strolling by and it didn't fit the image. so i'd like to just pose that as an idea, not a criticism, but i'd like to get a balance into this discussion. commissioner borden: i did actually want to say that i know the intent is to put retail on the ground floor and i would like to see that if we could get a commitment from the project sponsor that the retail would be responsive to the neighborhood as opposed to being a monday through friday sort of retail use, but a retail use that would be open to people on the weekend, a big complaint that we get from a lot of people who live in the

downtown core is that most places are shut down other than the ferry building, and i guess i'd like to get, maybe we can put that in the conditions. because you want -- i remember when i met with the project sponsor, they said they were going to do indoor-outdoor space, but if they could do it so the retail is available for seven days a week, then that i think would help a lot in the usefulness that have ground floor being designed the way that it is. commissioner antonini: and this is exactly -- this never came up. but the project sponsor has mentioned that this public open space, which is quite large and will be open to the public, is the indoor-outdoor concept. we had a good discussion about that. and it's very, very useful because you could open it up on days that are pleasant, you can close the glass and close and you still enter it but it's not completely open to the outside environment. and a lot of that is done with

maybe -- did you have a comment on that? would you like to see that about the ground support treatment? commissioner moore: no. commissioner antonini: it's quite impressive. this is much larger than 101 second. that's a very welcoming space. anybody can go in there at any time. what this has is the ability to open the door, windows up on nice days so it's even more inviting. i think this is exactly what we've been looking for and that's a big part of the ground floor, if i'm not mistaken. so, maybe we can call the questions in order beginning with office allocation. >> on the motion for approval of item 12-a. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye.

commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. commissioners, on the motion for approval of 12-b, including the adoption of ceqa finding, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes 5-2, with commissioners moore and olague voting against. on item 12-c, commissioner. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no.

commissioner sugaya: no. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passes, 4-3. on item 12-c. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: no. president miguel: aye. that motion passed 5-2. thank you, commissioners. >> if i might interrupt, it was brought to my attention by city attorney that regarding the ceqa findings, there was discussion at the beginning of us taking it collectively and adding the ceqa findings. i was advised that the vote on item a should have included the adoption of the ceqa findings.

>> the first action you take needs to include the ceqa findings. you cannot take any approval actions without the ceqa findings being adopted as part of that first motion. and your first motion was on item a and you did not include the ceqa findings in that. i would ask the commission if it would rescind its vote on item a and revote including the ceqa find sogs that it's clear that that was taken. you did adopt -- president miguel: we don't have to do all of them. >> you don't have to do all of them over again. if you would please rescind your vote on item a and indicate that you did take adopt the ceqa findings and by reference those are adopted with regard to all of the action you're taking. president miguel: move to rescind item a. >> on the motion to rescind. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no.

commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passed 6-1. president miguel: so now we'll move to approve item a with the ceqa findings included. >> you actually did include it on item b which is now your first approval. i think it's fine to indicate now that they're incorporated by reference in all of your motions and there's an attachment -- >> president miguel: the actual approval is occurring after d because we're now -- we did b, we included those, we did -- right. >> so now you need to do 12-a again and your ceqa findings are in b. president miguel: ok. >> on the motion to move -- commissioner moore: could you restate that? i'm totally confused. >> the commissioner included the ceqa findings in 12-b which was the second item that you approved.

the ceqa findings have to be the first item that you approve. so you rescinded 12-a because it has to come after the ceqa findings. now with the revote it will be after. commissioner moore: i should have said yes because obviously -- i am sorry. ok. >> now 12-a is last. your ceqa finding has already been taken. on the approval for 12-a. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> again, that's approved, 6-1. thank you.

commissioners, you are now at general public comment. president miguel: we are now at general public comment on items not on the agenda. is there anyone for nonagendaized public comment? if not, public comment is closed. we will take a 15-minute break. before we go into executive session. >> thank you. >> public comment that i'd like to make. may i? i'd like to make a public comment that's not on the agenda. >> we have closed public comment and we're in recess at the moment. there is no public comment. >> because the developers are in the front they get to jump

>> ok. the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, before you actually go into closed session , would you have to ask for public comment. so let me call item 13 into the record. this is planning director performance evaluation. and the commission is meeting -- will meet in closed session pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 63. 5154. to consider director rahm's performance. president miguel: is there any public comment on this item?

there being none, public comment is closed. >> ok, commissioners. i am going to lock you in the room. the closed session needs to record. so the recorder will continue to play. president miguel: correct. >> it is on. >> we have to turn off the tv to the outside world. president miguel: we are back in session. the correct wording of the motion, which i presume is the motion not to disclose what

happened in closed session. >> i believe you just make a motion cannot disclose the subject matter. now that we are back in open session, you should also give a report on any action taken. if none taken, you merely state that. >> i will move not to disclose. >> second. >> and no actions were taken. >> ok, commissioners. on the motion to not disclosed. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. with that, the hearing is closed. thank you very much.

hey, mark. hey, mark. hey. where've you been? i lost my cat. aw. that's not right. yeah. so i made this cat magnet to try and get him back.

cool. does it work? kinda. [meow] nice. yeah. but that's not my cat. i gotta keep working on it. see ya see ya. see ya. announcer: anything's possible, keep thinking. get started on your own inventions or just play some games at... who is on the fence as a grand jury member to do so. as former supervisor and as mayor, it is equally valuable for people to participate as grand jury members -- to feel connected to the community in a meaningful way. this is a place where you can feel the kind of connection as a member of the grand jury, who is

out there working in the interest of all san francisco's and holding in check members of our elected departments that need that kind of direction and advice from real people, not people with an ax to grind. not people with particular self- interest, but people that want to make our city a better place. thank you for your inspiration. i am encouraged by the fact you have taken enough time to pay attention to this. i am hopeful that you participate in this process, which i assure you will have great meaning in your life. >> i am grateful for having had the experience of being on a civil grand jury, for the difference it has made for the city and in my own life, just being able to share the experiences i have had, to feel good about myself and what i have done for the citizens of this city. >> i found the grand jury rewarding because of the seriousness of the work and the prestige it gave me, the

prestige of thing many of our elected officials, department heads, and many government employees work very -- were very kind in extending to us. it was very exciting. >> what i found most gratifying was, first of all, being part of a group of 19 incredibly different san franciscans, with a different backgrounds, different amounts of education, all kinds of professions -- stay at home spouses -- it was a great mix. there were people i never would have met unless i had been part of that. the second thing that was incredibly interesting all year long were the investigations we were conducting with different agencies and departments of the city government. pulling together all of our different viewpoints in each of

our presentations, and all our information and data -- we put that into a report. it was incredibly gratifying stuff. i guess the third gratifying thing was that in our particular year, 2000-2003, we had a number of reports that really made a difference. >> the court is now accepting applications for the civil grand jury. this watchdog body is comprised of 19 citizens selected by my colleagues on the court. the grand jury is charged with conducting independent, confidential investigations of city departments, to insure these agencies are operating effectively and ethically. at the conclusion of its term, the grand jury publishes its reports and submits them to the presiding judge in to the departments that have been examined. departments have to respond to

the findings of the grand jury and present their response at public hearings conducted by the board of supervisors. these hearings great public awareness and media attention for the challenges faced by city departments and provide a forum for civil dialogue to propose solutions to issues confronting our government. reports about disaster preparedness, the department of building management, and the fire department have an influential effect on change in the improvement of city services. >> a new reports and valuable, not only as a mayor but as a member of the board of supervisors. poor me, it is always helpful to get a third set of eyes with someone else's perspective -- an objective perspective. grand jury reports provide that employee. i am someone that likes being challenged in terms of looking more critically at what we are doing in the city.

i think grand jury reports provide the critical eye. i think the grand jury report that was most important from my perspective represented the first day i was in office as mayor. that was the report done years ago about the readiness of our disaster plans in san francisco. one of the recommendations that was made was to update our emergency operations plans. there were a number of specific -- specific recommendations we have completed. the consequences -- we were in better shape from a planning perspective because of the grand jury and the work that was done in that report. >> the grand jury axe as a city watchdog to work that city agencies cannot be focusing on. over the years, and asking the tough questions that otherwise

are not being asked. the civil grand jurors have the ability to ask questions of anything that they want within the city government. they get to ask the tough probing questions that we need our citizens to be asking. >> to me, the best thing was the impact that was made on the knowledge of the city. >> one of the things that is mandated is to visit your jails. that was absolutely fascinated.

all of the jurors went out into the community and we observed a lot of precincts. it was a terrific observation. you get to meet most major officials including the mayor, members of the board of supervisors and their offices and department heads as well as having interviews with a variety of public and private sectors and many other agencies i don't know about.