she has an extensive background in that area already. secondly, have been bumped into michael cohen a month or two down-a month or two ago. mr. lord and had been at some

previously, so i have a little background in it. and the community involvement is massive and their meeting schedule here is extremely aggressive and there aren't many communities that have been able to get the grant funding and the interest and enthusiasm in the project over this period of time. and i really complement them. it shows that they are very much together even though there are obviously differences of opinion and that standard and they are working through that. and really good to see that happen. >> thank you, commissioners. if we have completed that item, we can move forward to general public comment.

at this time, members of the public may address you -- >> i rise to a point of order. you never asked for public comment on item number seven. >> yes, i did. >> on item seven? >> item seven? >> you asked for general public comment on item eight, but you did not on item seven. okay. we can do that. >> i am ray hart, head of san francisco open government and i have a couple of comments on item seven. the speaker was going rather rapidly but i think when she was talking about sending out data to the public, i believe she was referring to the supervisor's motion to insure all city agencies and commissions do their best to make accessible on the internet and websites

documents that relate to their business and activities. i think this is particularly important for a number of reasons. it allows people who otherwise might not be able to attend a meeting to get information about what the meeting has with the substance of the meeting was and also get some idea as to the handling of business by the commission and the points they might want to address. it also allows members of the public who might wish to come and address particular agenda items to peruse the agendas and minutes and so forth to determine whether or not there is actually something which will allow them to come and do and since most of the meetings are held during the middle of the day for most people, it's difficult to make arrangements to come on to make the meeting. and also, she mentioned the fact that the historical preservation

commission is looking into putting renovations to the president's dais and the a.d.a. requirements for a ramp and during that conversation i would like to point out to you that one of the members of the public got up and provided documents to the commission stating that the current ramp and the current changes made to the dais, so forth, were never done legally. there were never any permits obtained and her comment was i hope that since this is being done right that they will at least take the opportunity to insure that the illegal changes made prior are corrected. president miguel: thank you. is there any further comment on

item seven? if not, that item is finished. >> i would note this category has a 15-minute time limit and members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes each. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. there was a lot of activity a while back on a universal notice process and a lot of good work that seems to have dropped. and i would like to encourage it to continue. what brought it to mind and split off from the john f. kennedy towers that is apparently owned by the housing authority that they are planning to sell. and apparently this lot is being a proposal from rn1 to ncd.

there is no proposal to do anything other than to rezone it. i'm concerned that we are having rezoning a lot absent a project because of perceived commercial opportunity or advantage. and i am concerned because the public is being asked to submit comment on something where there is no content to base the comment on. it's essentially following a nice, legal position where requesting public comment, but not clear to what end, to what purpo purpose, and is there going to be a follow on e.i.r. after the rezoning if indeed something is going to be large? and so i wanted to raise that as a concern and as an issue as a community member. i have no idea how to respond gently to this. and that's a little bit frustrating because it makes me

wonder what's happening. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is ray and i am the commissioner of the open government. this is a copy of the united states constitution, one of those constitutions that you took an oath to defend and protect when you joined this board including that and the state constitution. i rise in this issue because of the same issue and the reason i did so in the historic preservation commission. and that is because i feel that people are being denied their right to speak in an equitable fashion. i will point out a contradiction in the own agenda and know your rights under sunshine. and in public comment section g it says you cannot comment on items that are on the agenda, you can only do so in general with one exception.

when the agenda item has been reviewed and members were allowed to testify and the commission has closed the public hearing and the opportunity must be commissioned. and that makes no sense. if you say you can't talk about it and in the same body has been closed and with the matter of the public agenda, which is it? i think that will discourage people from discouraging this resolution and the same goes to closing public comment in general and to deny the members of the public. in doing so and violating and

disrespecting the rights of the individuals to speak. most of you may consider it's easy for you to make your schedule up in attending but for members of the public who may be concerned about item before you, it is often difficult to make arrangements for their job, family, and other commitments to come. and if you restrict them and say we'll have four different times to discuss an item, but only going to allow you to talk at one of them, what you are going to do and have in the past is restrict members from the public from exercising the first amendment rights. those first amendment rights including freedom of speech and the right to petition government and i do not think you have it in your authority as members of the commission to restrict people who want to make comments during public comments and any item that comes before there.

and one of the things i did is protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies. and the only way to protect the rights of others are respected. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen from the triangle. and i actually am glad paul wormer brought up universal notification and that is not why i was here, but i want to reinforce that because i spent time on the initiative and realized it was 50% there and there are resourcing constraints but it would be an excellent set of reforms and i would encourage that to move forward. and i did come here to address this orphan block and the last block about the market between noee and decastro and just to acknowledge that we've got some

good movement on this and that seems and working the coalition and fixed to that zoning issue. and we are going to have a committee meet iing and understanding that this is technical kind of stuff. and we'll be having that meeting. want toing a knowledge it's happening. looking forward to that. president miguel: and if you could let the commission know the october 25 time and place. the neighborhood groups are

working hard on that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i will speak about the neighborhood and as a volunteer and twice as a board member -- >> i'm sorry. can you speak directly into the microphone? we're not picking you up. >> i am associated with the neighbor starking for 20 years and neighborhood volunteer and twice as a board member. and proposed development is surrounded on three sides by the open space. and i urge them to call the project back for review. and the recommendation and the recommendations last fall. and the huge political pressure

will be applied to the open space and harder to enforce and continue. even if the disputed two-car parking limit remains, there will be more pressure and that the three buildings in the existing area, the pressure will increase by three times. we are very encouraged there and the directing of the garage and in doing to with the elimination of the open space and marks forever. i urge you to re-evaluate this submittal. thank you very much. >> thank you, president miguel, directtors. it seems there is a time for a review of category d and how

potential historic resources are checked in the o.t.c., over-the-counter permit process. three pieces of the application and architectural plans and a set of drawings are typical. the scope of work must match between the form 8 and the architectural description of the scope of work, but most importantly the structural drawings in the architecture drawings should match in terms of the scope of work. planners don't stamp the structural sheets of an over-the-counter permit application or any structural sheets on any applications for that matter. one must study the structural details to understand whether or not they're consistent with what's shown in the architectural plan because an application that state it is not making exterior changes could incorporate structural details that require them. just like when we were in third grade and someone wouldn't fess up to whispering in the back of the class, we all have to stay after school because a few

people can't behave. unfortunately t resources need that protection, so hopefully we can see that happen. on 1601 clay street, the first st. john's united church, the friends of st. john's went this week to cokero, an assisted living center on bush street. it's a fabulous originally jewish synagogue remade into an assisted living center which conveniently had a vacant lot next door. the vacant lot was built as housing for the seniors. in addition, some of the housing was accomplished within the synagogue building itself. when one goes into that two-story space that a recent project sponsor said couldn't be made seismically retrofitted and see how beautiful it is and how wonderful it would be to spend one's final days in such a

beautiful space, the light, the structure, the ornament, it just says not only is the preservation alternative for 1601 market street for st. john's feasible, it is also desirable. finally, the shipwright's cottage, the san francisco fire department responded -- [bell ringing] >> responded by joe fox to a fire call there on monday night. they put the fire out quickly, thankfully, and no one was hurt and everyone survived it and nothing was damaged except an ax through the door to make sure fire was out. the demolition company next door is on end by joe and mike cassidy and make we could ask mike and joe to keep an eye on the cottage until they become the owner on january 1, 2011. [bell ringing] thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, marilyn lee.

i am dismaid at president miguel's closing of the period for public comment on both the 2004 and 2009 housing elements deir. many neighborhood organizations had asked for continuation to the end of september to allow for full comment on the deir. and note that as president miguel is invested with the power, is not invested with the power to make unilaterally such important decisions according to both the board rules and robert's rules of order. his role is as facilitator and the commission is the body and the individuals that act on such an important decision. thank you. president miguel: is there further general public comment? if not, general public comment

is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: while we don't comment on public comment, i would ask staff to please talk to mr. hart about how our calendar really works and that items are never really closed. there is a category for comment on items that have been closed that staff can go over that a little bit more with the speaker. not today, but privately. >> thank you. commissioners, you can move forward on the calendar and beginning the regular calendar with nine, 2010.0790u, e-distribution report. >> good afternoon, commissioners annmarie rodgers and this is an amendment to the code and a hearing that you requested to weigh in on additional planning and land use applications if proposed ordinance would provide

for documents of 10 pages or longer and all city departments and city officials should primarily do them by e-document and i'll go over that in a little bit in more detail. this ordinance was sponsored by the supervisor and i would like to introduce his aid to talk about the origin of the ordinance. >> thank annmarie and president miguel and commissioners, on behalf of the commissioner, that was 30 seconds going through my office today on my way here today on planning commission documentation that we dutifully read every page. what the impetus to this particular piece of legislation was is we don't need all the paper. we are happy to receive them electronically and is preferable to receive documentation electronically as it is far easier to search in case we need to review a specific division of the planning document and e.i.r.

and a c.u. or whatever it that might come to us. what gave rise to it is the last straw was when we got the, i think, three boxes worth of documentation on the market octavia area plan. and at that point there's just more paper than you can absorb. so a couple of years later is a quick amendment to the administrative code that very simply says if you can have a document distributed widely or outside of your own purview that is over 10 pages long, save it electronically on a disk or email as the controller does with all the current reports and receive an e-copy and it is posted on the website with the link in the email to the website should we want to open the document. i know there was some concern about commissioners and members of the board of supervisors that prefer to have all their documentation in hard copy for purposes of the meeting. that is all fine and wonderful

and there is a specific language in the amendment to the administrative code that allows members of boards, commissions, and anyone that's subject to the brown act or sunshine ordinance to receive those hard copies just as a matter of course upon request. and if you had a standing request that you just receive hard copies for all documents coming before the planning commission, so be it. no problem at all. what we really try to avoid is the excessive amount of papers that is produced and distributed with no real purpose and without any kind of request. they just rise to a certain amount of distribution or distributees and is not necessary to do it in paper and we prefer to have that in an electronic media format or a link to the website where the data resides to look through the report, appeal, e.i.r. and the

itch complementation is ak -- and the implementation is accurate and with that, we will entertain questions if you have any. otherwise, i would ask for copies to be distributed to you and a copy for the record -- just kidding. thank you for your time today. always a pleasure to come and see you. and turn it back to annmarie or a question for me if you have one. >> short presentation. the department is recommending approval of this ordinance. the report before you discusses the implications and the impacts to the bodies such as yourself and the general public and the important thing is there is nothing in the ordinance that prohibits us from printing copies on request. and the intent of the ordinance is to prevent us from printing in advance frivolous copies that may or may not be need and documents that last year the

planning department used two million and doesn't include paper purchase for the production of e.i.r. which may be close to the same number. so people from the public or this commission, if you so choose to continue to receive printed copies could do so upon request, but it would in general encourage us and provide more incentive to transition into e-copies. that's my report. >> thank you. president miguel: commissioner olague. vice president olague: i am one of the ones that raised concerns because we are required to read these documents. and what i found in the past is when there's any thing that is distributed electronically, what happens frequently because i don't always have time to sit in front of a computer and i read on the bus and we have a lot of -- i have to carry the documents around and read when i can read them and i don't use a laptop. i should, i suppose.

i'll get one eventually. but -- i do use a computer at home. but it's very inconvenient and what i have found in the past is it just places the burden on us to print copies so in it long run it's not saving paper when it comes to the requirements that we have to read these documents. that is why i want the ability to request printed copies because we're required to read through this material and it's not always convenient for me to sit in front of a computer to do so. and with the e.i.r.'s, they're impossible to read in one sitting actually. i go back and forth and put tags and highlight and this sort of thing. and also, there is still a digital divide and i just hope that this doesn't also apply to members of the public or the members of the public do have the ability to request certain

materials and i don't know what the laws are around that now, but not everyone in the public that might want to see some of the materials has -- so at some point i want to have even if it is a memo from staff to be reminded of what's made available to the public in terms of printed copies and -- okay. it's in here? i must have overlooked that one. and that sort of thing. just want to make sure people have access to those things. and another thing is sometimes we need to look at drawings here that are -- that is not something that is very easily done on computer screen. and sometimes there's a request for three dimensional things and that sort of thing. i think there's rps why at least me -- i don't know if other members of the commission, but i speak for myself and why i think sometimes it applies differently at least to this commission. >> i think this commission in the past has made it clear the preference is to continue at this point receiving printed

copies and the department is able to do so and the report before you describes our practice for giving copies to the public. and for environmental documents we do print a bunch up in advance in anticipation that people will want them. this will require us to only print copies upon request. that would be a change in our practices. vice president olague: okay. thank you. i think it's a good idea. i'm not sure that other departments that receive some of these are actually required to read the entire document. something we're required to do. prauf president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i do think it's a good idea although we found out in the report that 2/3 of the paper is from paper products or recycled paper, so we're pretty effective about doing that part of it. a lot of it is a renewable resource. but we still do want to save the cost of the paper and the labor and all the other things.

but there are some of us who do prefer to read something on a page rather than on a computer, and also gives you the ability to read it standing up whereas commissioner olague has pointed out sometimes on transit unless you have a laptop and jiggling around too much and if you do want the printed copy, to print it yourself is expensive and time consuming and i doubt most computers that most people have are not capable of printing all the color and large format documentation. so i would prefer to continue getting mine in hard copy and as far as the public is concerned, i agree if there is a request, they should get it in hard copy and probably not be charged for that. i don't know whether that would be something the supervisors would have to talk about and whether they had to charge duplications costs very somewhat minor amounts but certainly nothing significant. so i would still like that to happen and i would assume we just automatically would get the

paperwork until we are told we don't want it. >> i think if this body indicates today and seems like by majority that you would continue to like to get printed copies, we could do so. you have told us in the past your preference is printed copies and our expectation is unless we hear differently, your current expectation is printed copies. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> it allows individual commissioners to say they want it or don't want it. it doesn't have to be a policy -- >> that is correct. >> it doesn't have to be a policy of the commission. >> search is a nice thing, but once you found something and want to go back and look at other things, electronics don't work. if you are flipping back and forth in plans between elevations and the floor plan and try to do that on the computer unless you have two screens, which we have in the office, but i don't at home, it's really difficult to do. so for some things i think paper still continues to be a better

medium. that said, there are two little known provisions in the legislation that you might not -- that you probably missed. one is that you can send your printing costs to supervisor's office -- >> great. fantastic. that's in there. and secondly, they're going to be putting in in the budget for the coming fiscal year i have had or equivalent for all of us. vice president olague: that is great. >> a very unique reading of the legislation to be sure. vice president olague: can we request that be part of our motion? view view it would be fine. sounds good. i do want to allay your fears about paper disappearing completely. the legislation specifically says that where department demonstrates here verbatim and the department demonstrates the use of paper copies is required by law or standard business practice or to the use of paper es