i was away for a month and a half and have come back, and i'm back on track to come to your meetings. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. additional public comment? >> since i'm here on another matter, i'm going to take advantage of the opportunity to talk with you about something that has concerned me a lot. >> can you state your name for the record? >> pardon me, linda chapman. i mentioned before how much i appreciate your deliberations, and that includes even the times when i do not get the vote the way that i would want. i see that a lot of attention is being paid >> i'm very concerned when i see things happen which in fact last time -- you know, it wasn't your responsibility, but it has to be stopped. and that is the dealing that is happening in some cases between

the developer's representative and people who say they represent the neighborhood and maybe even think they do. i refer to 1645 pacific recently, which i know concerns some of you. i refer to live nations as another example. where instead of really paying attention to what does the planning code say, what does the zone code say? what are the rules of a variance, there is a lot of dealings that happen between naive people who live in the neighborhood, the very experienced development attorneys like steve vettle, doing a good job, and the people in the neighborhood who opposed this and maybe thought they were depending on people who were going to oppose it being shafted. i believe that is probably not going to happen here with regard to a.a.u., the item i am

here for because staff is on the correct side. for some reason, staffer goes with variances that are in accordance with the planning code or disregard what is the zoning. if you actually looked at the planning code. that happened with live nations. we are going to live with that. it is going to be up there with polk street that we heard about recently. why? because we didn't pay attention to what the rules say and what the procedures are. it is not all right if some people who say they represent the neighborhood, and may honestly think that they do, but who have no authority to negotiate, go in and negotiate with the zoning administrator, with the board of supervisors, when we have a city charter, and we have commissioner who have a role, which i think you want to play. >> thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed.

>> ok, commissioners. we will then move on to your regular calendar -- >> no. [inaudible] >> ok, if we can go back to item number five, review of the past week's events of the board of supervisors. >> good morning, commissioners. excuse me for my tardyness today. i obviously made a mistake with the calendar. >> that's all right. we just started earlier. >> to review this week, the land use committee heard three significance piece of legislation. the first is an ordinance for entertainment in the van nuys area. commissioners you heard this item last week, and at that time you recommended approval of these controls for other entertainment in the area. at the time of the hearing last week, staff recommended a

modification to the change of the governing controls for uses in this area. while you agreed with the supervisors' intent on other entertainment, you asked for more time to consider what would be the appropriate governing control for the r.c. district. we have a second ordinance that will be before you later in the afternoon calendar that amends these two sections in question. this will allow you to consider and perhaps make an advisement on that merit later today. at the land use hearing this week, on supervisor supervisor alioto-pier: or the nance, she modified it that other under c-12 be provided in this area. supervisorality also -- supervisor a lot a lot moved it forward to the full board to

give you time to hear what you thought would be the appropriate governing controls for the r.c. district. another item before the committee was the sequa appeal reform. this would amend the code to specify procedures for appeals for negative decorations and exemptions. it was considered by this commission on june 24th of this year. at that time you recommended 11 modifications. the historic preservation commission considered the ledge slakes in june and july, at which point they concurred and added four additional recommendations. this week was the fourth hearing of the item in the land use committee, and they continued the item. the ordinance has been amended to address the majority of your concerns and the concerns of the historic preservation commission. since you have heard it, it has been amended such that is post would not be required to have

prior participation to maintain appeal rights. here are others. for appeal declines, the deadline for appeal would be 20 days after certification. appeal deadline for next would be 20 days after adoption by the planning commission. deadlines for appeals of exemptions would be either 20 days after each noticed opportunity, or if no notice were provided, it would be within 20 days of the final discretionary permit. now this last item has been the -- has produced some questions. setting the appeal deadline for 20 days after the final discussion area permit is raising some concerns as it would allow a valid appeal with the addition of even a minor permit at the end, like the addition of an electrical permit. so there is going to be continued discussion on this point. it would also raise the level of uncertainty for project sponsors, including the city.

the appeal procedures. currently, the has that the city may not approve or issue permits during the appeal period except to mitigate a hazard. the board must here and act within 30 days of the hearing. and a preseason schedule for materials to be submitted to the board will be specified under the new ordinance. there is also in the current ordinance no requirement to have appealed at the planning commission prior to appeal to the board of supervisors. and the board may affirm or reverse the decision with six votes. a tie would be seen as non-approval. >> it must be in writing and posted on the website and mailed to interested parties. notice of exemptions would be

required to be online and mailed. e.i.r.'s would have to be mailed 14 days before the hearing. notices by city would not require the notice. the historic preservation commission is formally included in the review. it is to provide comments at least eight days prior to the planning commission hearing. and the chief environmental review officer is required to consult with the historic preservation commission on projects that implicate historic resources. that is the curent status of the ordinance. it has been continued and will be heard on this coming monday again. also before the land use committee was an amendment to the d.p.w. code aamending the cellular teans in the public right of way. it was heard and recommended

approval. the committee recommended approval of the ordinance as you heard it. i would like to go over some of the new legislation that was introduced at the full board on tuesday. there is only one ordinance. this would amend section 409. it was introduced by mayor newsom. it is technical cleanup for the technical stimulus and new fee legislation. there were some clarifications that other depends wanted specifically on how cost adjustments would be calculated. we consider this a minor change, and we have presented a case report and will be before you next week. that concludes my report. >> a couple of questions. if i heard correctly, it sounds like supervisor took our

recommendations and severed some items, and also is going for a 312 notice instead of a c.u. for other entertainment? >> that is correct. >> the second thing in regards to sequa. i don't know if it is a matter of consideration, but it was mentioned. the board of supervisors is able to overturn a vote of sequa by a 6-5 vote as you mentioned. i don't know if that is a city or state administrative code, because most of the other overturns for c.u.'s or 309's require eight votes. i am not sure if that is under consideration or if that is in the state code. >> it is specified in the administrative code, and that is the way it currently lies now. it takes a super majority for them to overrule you on a

conditional matter. it is a simple majority. >> if i could clarify, the state law specifies that appeals go to the legislative body. but the city could, if it chose, to clarify the number of votes. right now it only requires a simple majority. >> well, it seems rather odd to me that while most of the other votes require a super majority, this particular type of vote only requires a simple majority. that is something i would like to see explored and what the rationale for that is, especially since we deal with a lot of environmental issues at great length and have extensive hearings on them. of course the hearings are important, and they are heard at great length by this commission before we make a decision. >> thank you.

is there any public comment on the report? if not, public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioners we can move forward to your regular calendar. item number 7 is case number 210-8063 t, to the planning code section 420-.1 through 420.5. >> commorning, commissioners. my name is kate magee. after a press cation made by staff and public testimony, this case was continued on november 18th to today. it was mainly due to the large amount of last-minute amendments and at the request of the developers in the project area. since then a new case report and revised order naps has been submitted to you in advance of this earg, and it incorporates the amendments made three weeks ago with one exception.

please note that staff inadvertently omitted a change discussed. this change clarifies that the burden of new residents on existing parks and recreation facilities would be lessened for the acquisition of new park land. i have made this change in the next study and produce the relevant page change for you today. additionally both planning staff and the supervisor's offices have met with the developers in the area. it was requested that the ordinance directly acknowledge the various planning processes in the area and clarify that in-kind improvements can be used to cover 100% of the required fee with commission approval. these requests represent nonexpansive amendments that the supervisor will introduce at committee. since you have already heard staff presentation for this case, i will be brief and focus on the nuances of this legislation.

generallyly the intent of the proposed amendments is to be in line with the other programs and to have the supporting documentation. the fee amount and the area of subject of the fee does not change. on that note, the revised ordinance brings the policy

movement on the part of the supervisor. a number of our concerns were corrected. it turned out that we were right, that it wasn't a wash. and changing from gross to occupiable made a big difference. we are back to gross now, but the credit is back to occupiable, so it is sort of apples and oranges. i notice at the end of the ordinance there are three other

that effect this matter. you are being asked to approve an ordinance that asks the city attorney to mix, match and meld and make it alled work. i have no idea what it is all going to look like when that happens, and i don't think you do either. so i would suggest that if we are going to change something that affects us, that we do it right and delay this. thank you. >> thank you. >> francisco decosta, fran martin, jim roden? >> commissioners, if you have been to candlestick point, if you have been around san bruno, you notice there is a rail. and following the tradition of this nation, on one side is candlestick point. the other side is visitation valley.

i love in the area. and forever people will tell you that candlestick point and executive park never ever come within the jurisdiction of visitation valley. so, we have a supervisor that is being termed out, thank goodness. and even as she is being termed out, in a dubious way she is trying different employs. a former employee that worked in the planning department is now her aid. it has been told to you by a man of character, that at the 11th hour, changes are being made. this issue came before the land use, and i spoke about it. this issue came yesterday, and somebody had the awe disity --

audacity to say you know what, executive park is in the jurisdiction of visitation valley. no. now if you as taught planning commissioners, if the director of the planning department, if our new zoning administrator wants this to happen against the wishes of the people that live in the bayview hunter's point, let us have a discourse. let us have accountability. let us have transparency. have this meeting before the community at large with proper outrage, and let's see what happens. now, coming to the developers, i happy to know the developer at executive park. in fact, i have an office there . this developer wants to do good , but the planning department

and you commissioners must ask yourselves is it a fact that his development was put on the back burner so that a rogue developer would be brought forward. now today -- and i have partners that work in canada and in china. today they are reaching out to us so that we can work with them to take over candlestick point, to take over treasure island, to take over hunter's point, and so on and so forth. this is a joke. and i told my partners i am not going to have anything to do with the devil. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> my name is fran martin, and i am with the visitation valley deny and planning alliance which developed the ordinance with supervisor maxwell. i am speaking today on behalf of the planning alliance and our board of directors, which is representative of our diverse community. historically our community has been neglectled by the powers that be and is consequently severed from a lack of infrastructure. we have been struggling to bring better jobs, educational opportunity, open space and opportunities for our community. it became that the infrastructure could not support the influx of population. and now with the infrastructure fee, we are building a new library that will serve all the

neighbors. we have built the most beautiful and visionary street escape improvements on lee land avenue. things are turning around, but much more needs to be done in anticipation of the unprecedented development and increase in population. i urge you to support the amendments to the structure fee. one thing i would like to point out, in terms of executive park only, this is the current e.i.r. through the yerby and universal pair gone projects. we support new development there. if you look at this carefully, you will see the negative impacts are going to be on virginia tech, particularly on traffic, the tunnel, intersections and the neighborhood. this is about impact,