>> when speaking before the commission, state your name for

the record. >> at this time we'd like to take roll. >> commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner michael antonini is here, but [speaker not understood]. commissioner borden? >> here. >> [speaker not understood]? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up is items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2012.0847d, 28-30 toledo way, request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to november 15th, 2012. items 2a and b for case numbers 2007.0036d, 422 vicente street and 2007.0037d, 422 vicente street mandatory discretionary reviews pro poed for continuance to december 6, 2012. further on your calendar, commissioners, under the

regular calendar, item 15 on the corrected calendar for case no. 2012.0928ddd for 2000 20th street request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to december 13th. i have actually one speaker card. >> mark de vicente. come on up to the microphone. i think my card is pretty self-explanatory. >> sir, if you could state your name for the record. mark de vicente. i'm the dr requester. i cannot make the proposed continuance date on the 15th. i am available the next three thursdays. i just can't make it next week.

>> this is for toledo way. okay, thank you. is there any additional public comment? on the items proposed for continuance? yes, i'm the project sponsor for 28 toledo. the dr requester and i have come to an agreement on modifications that we have agreed to. and at the meeting we're simply formally, i don't know what the process is, formally accepting those into the record. so, i just warranted to ask if there is anyone else this dr requester can send in his absence because i know his mother and his brother and somebody else had been intimately involved with the project and i'm just hoping to prevent the additional delay we would get pushing the date out to december. >> you're requesting a date

later than november 15th? correct. >> okay. any additional public comment? commissioner antonini. >> yes, thank you on toledo way, i will confirm i have had meetings with both project sponsor and d-r requestors and i think they are close to an understanding. but as far as a date that's acceptable, i think the first date that would be possible would be then the 29th, i think it is, because thanksgiving is the 22nd, i think. and i would just want to see if that's okay with project sponsor and d-r requestor. >> commissioner antonini, if i may, the calendar has the 29th already closed. we have quite a few [speaker not understood] to the planning code to consider on that date, quite a full kayedv and it has been closed for some time. the next available open dates are december 6 and 13. >> based on that's correct i'm probably going to have to propose a continuance to december 6. i hope those items on the 29th

actually end up happening on the 29th, but we never really know because i would like to see if we could -- d-r requestor, project sponsor, okay. so, in that case i'm going to propose continuance of item number 1 to december 6. item 2a and b to also december 6, as noted. and then item 14 -- no, it's 15 now on our calendar, the 2000 20th street to december 13. >> second. >> on that motion to continue as proposed, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> exhume? >> aye. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> that passes 7 to 0. and places you under your

consent calendar. all items within here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission. and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so request. in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 3, case no. 2012.1063q, 738 6th avenue, [speaker not understood]. item 4, 2011.0673c, 501 - 503 and 505 - 511 laguna street c. request for conditional use authorization. item 5, case no. 2012.0725c, 475 eucalyptus drive, request for conditional use authorization. i have no speaker cards, commissioners, for these items. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner

moore? >> i ask that item 475 eucalyptus drive on consent, i have a couple of questions. and i think this commission needs to have instructions on how this particular use is regulated. so, i ask that it be moved. >> commissioner antonini. >> given that, i would move that we approve the other two items on the consent calendar. those being items number 3, i guess it is, and 4. >> second. >> no, it's 2 and 3. >> just to make it clear, one is 738 6th avenue and the other is 501-503 and 505-51 1 laguna. >> i second that. >> on the motion to continue items 3 and 4 -- excuse me to approve items 3 and 4, excuse

me. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> those items are approved 7 to 0. would you like to hear the 575 eucalyptus now or on the regular calendar? >> we'll hear it as the first item under the regular calendar. >> okay. that takes you under commission comments and -- excuse me, questions and matters. consideration of adoption draft minutes of the regular meeting for october 25th, 2012. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to accept the minutes of the -- the draft minutes of october 25th. >> second. >> motion for draft minutes of october 25th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye.

>> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places you on item 7. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. couple items. first of all, in regards to the commission secretary search subcommittee, i'm signatory to a letter on reclassifications been sent to the director of dhr and we hope this process will begin to move forward and there will be further meetings in the future, and we'll go from there. i also wanted to make a couple comments on -- not on the election, but on part of the election process. most notably rank choice voting. >> right. >> i think it's appropriate that i do so because the supervisors in san francisco are extremely important positions. as we know, this is a city and county and it has more impact than probably any other county in state of california because

of that fact. and also because in terms of land use issues, they have the ability to alter our decisions and reverse them. and we are dependent upon them for our confirmation, as i found out earlier this year and i knew all along the other three times. and there are some reasons i think that the system may need to be revisited. the whole idea of rank choice voting on three basis. number one, the basis of cost. number two, the basis of increasing the turnout of voters in a runoff election or in lieu of runoff the rank choice thing. and thirdly, this has more to do with district elections making the decisions reflective of the values of the people in the particular districts. in terms of cost, i think there's no reason why you couldn't utilize the june primary which could be proposed

in the future. there's always a june primary in even years because you have state and federal elections that have a primary and then you could have your final election in november and you'd also have the ability to, instead of having these massive forums with 10 candidates all sort of saying the same things, you could have the final two candidates actually do debates after they've been selected and i think that would be a lot more strucktive to the public. and also i think the cost is actually more because now we have public financing, which a lot of candidates run and probably they wouldn't be part of -- not being the final two, they wouldn't be eligible for public financing any more, and we might actually save money by having a real runoff. in terms of turnout, and i'm very familiar with the situation currently in district 7 because i was involved in the election in 2000, and i know sort of the vote totals. the final vote totals of the final two which will determine the winner there are going to

be lower than was the case in december of the year 2000, even though that was a separate election and even though the number of registered voters was smaller. i need verification from the department of elections, but i think the reason for this is what's called exhausted votes. basically you have to be clairvoyant when you have nine candidates, five of which have major endorsements trying to figure out who you should pick as one of your second or third choices to have one one of them as being the final two is almost impossible, especially in an election way you have a lot of possible winners * . i think on that basis alone, we try to be inclusive of voters. we want online registration. there is some talk about same-day registration, which is occurring some places. i'm not sure i support those concepts, but certainly we should make elections easy for people to understand. if we make them so complicated, we exclude people who can't understand the subtlies of having to vote, figure out the

candidates who are going to be there at the end and be able to vote for them ahead of time and trying to guess who one of the final two candidates is. so, i think that, it's just my comments for the future, it has nothing to do with results, it has to do with process. and i think we've seen a number of instances. and the final point was reflecting the values of a district. i'm not sure, you know, that rank choice always -- you have a better chance when you have two candidates and you can clearly make the choice between the two candidates. so, those are just my thoughts on this particular issue. thank you for listening. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to make a generic comment, and it's not a discussion. i think commissioner antonini is raising an interesting question. however, this body is focused on the matters of planning. that is not to say that political policy, which is [speaker not understood] by the board of supervisors or

subgroups to that, could be an interesting expansion of what we do. we are standing independently in other political beliefs sitting here on this commission, really focused on the matter of physical planning. however, the expansion of that by the city attorney anybody else that would give us that would rounded sharing intelligence as a group. i would be supporting it if it is properly guide today what we can and can't do. >> commissioners, if there's nothing else, it will place you under the director's report. item 8, director's announcements. >> commissioners, i actually have no new announcementses today so i will pass the ba don to ann marie. >> item 9, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals,

and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, elaine rodgers, department staff. there was no land use committee so we'll move right on to the committees of the board of supervisors. they heard the ordinance that would create a [speaker not understood] requirement for the privately owned but publicly accessible open spaces. you recommended approval of modifications back on june 7th. and as you remember, supervisor chu did adopt all of your recommendations as well as some recommendations from the mayor's office of disability. and this week the ordinance passed on final read. the housing trust fund monitoring ordinance, which is one of i believe currently four or five monitoring ordinances that are pending, this is the one that would monitor the housing trust fund. and it did incorporate your recommended modifications as well as one modification from the mayor's office of housing, adding in those monitoring for those earning 120% or more ami

to capture one of their programs in housing trust fund that would reach that group. and with those amendments, that ordinance also passed on final read. supervisor campos has split off part of the large northeast and also known as the david chiu legislation into making a small change in the rto district in the mission. this would allow those limited corner commercial uses to expand and it would only apply in the mission district. we currently, on your recommendation, made those changes in rm-3 districts and rm-4 and it extended to the rto. it passed this week on final reading. the only item up for first reading is an amendment to the administrative code for the port prepayment of the jobs housing linkage fee. this ordinance was not before you, but you instead requested a memo.

the ordinance is sponsored by supervisor kim. and it would allow prepayment of that fee when the port makes lands available at less than market rate to the mayor's office of housing. and this week that item passed first reading. the only introduction was the landmarking of the castro street twin peaks tavern, and it was sponsored by the [speaker not understood] preservation commission. that concludes my report. the zoning administrator did pass along his report to me from the board of appeals. there were two items that he wanted you to know about. the first was an appeal of the zoning administrator letter of determination for 11 01 dolores street and this letter found the subject lot was a legal nonconforming lot for the purpose of the planning code. this determination was upheld. you may be interested, there is currently subdivision appeal of that same property pending before the board of supervisors. the second item before the

board of appeals was appeal of the zoning administrator letter of determination for 4 98 hoffman avenue. this letter found that the subject building illegally contained two dwelling units based upon past building permits and special notice of special restriction. this letter of determination also upheld by the board of appeals. so, that concludes both my reports unless there are questions. >> thank you thev appears to be no questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim frye on behalf of the planning department here to share with you the events from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the hpc provided recommendation on the west soma area plan and on supervisor wiener's proposed c-e-q-a appeals amendments. both of these items will be before the commission i believe next week. and the hpc's recommendation on both items will be part of your

packet. if you have any questions, though, i'm happy to answer. any questions you have at this time. there are two preservation related announcements, though, i'd like to make. one is that last week, the department supervisor wiener and the triangle neighborhood association hosted the 9th and final community meeting regarding the propose to park plan district. at the meeting department staff and the supervisor discussed with the neighborhood the most recent amendment to the mills act program, but were reviewed by this commission and the hpc. the review process for certificates of appropriateness, and we were there to answer any questions related to public input and the hearing schedule. one request by the supervisor that the department has recently sent out to all owners and tenants within the community is an online questionnaire so that owners and tenants within the proposed

district can base their opinion about the district and it will allow the department and all decision-makers to gauge support or lack thereof at all public hearings. so, when this commission provides its recommendation to the board of supervisors, we will present the findings of that questionnaire to you at that time. the second item i'd like to share with you is on saturday, november 10th, the department along with sunset expert and author lawyer i ungretti will be hosting a walking tour of the central sunset district. we've received a large number of rocps. the community is very excited for the tour which will focus primarily on the history of the sunset district how it was transformed from 1925 to 1950. this walking tour is a way for us to kickoff the community events that are going to be happening in the early part of 2013 where we will be sharing the survey results of an architectural survey that was

funded by the state office of historic preservation. -- of this general area. we'll share with you the historic context statement and the results of that survey once they're completed * . but in case you are interested, the location for the tour will gather at the corner of 36th avenue and kirkham street at 2:00 p.m. and again that's on november 10th of this month. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. appears to be no questions. >> commissioners, that will place you on item 10, commerce and industry inventory 2011, informational presentation. there is no action required on this item. >> i can make it work. >> very good. got the powerpoint, too. my name -- good afternoon, commissioners. my name is scott edmondson. i work with the information and analysis group in city-wide policy division of the planning department.

[speaker not understood], information analysis group. and is this up? what i'm going to do today is review the commerce and industry report you have in your packet. >> if you can speak a little bit closer in the mic. there you go, thanks. >> this is the 18th edition. it's been around for awhile. you've seen it often. and that data is through the calendar year 2011. as you know, it covers a range of demographic and economic items from populations from employment to monetary transactions and building activity. there are two sets of goals. a short term goal to more vied land use and economic data and make that available to community groups, businesses and private public agencies. and then there is a long-term goal which is to establish a

consistent time series of data which can actually be used for research and analysis, compile some background information and use that for updating the commerce and industry element of the general plan. this year we have a new format. the first section is an about section which basically describes this new format and provides a little basic information on the data and method that will be useful for the summary sections. and then there is an information graphic highlight, which you can see a clip of under building permit there in the lower right corner. provide key findings and simple graphics. that is going to be available as a stand alone document, five pages or so. the finding section of the seeing aye has been expanded this year [speaker not understood]. it summarizes the main points of the data and the methods. and then what you traditionally have found in the cni in terms

of the table and the text discussion has been put into an appendix which constitutes most of the document. and also describes the methodology in more detail. so, the updating effort we're doing, we hope to provide the data in the cni electronically by summer of 2013. we get a little rain out there. this isn't the first time. we're also exploring, as we do the annual update, other ways to update the cni. basically for the changing economic land use and sustainability issues the city faces. obviously your thoughts are welcome. you can e-mail them to me or call me or even include them if you complete the department's cni user survey which is on survey monkey. to the highlights, for this year you can see that there are a couple key components, have varied over