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.

>> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet. these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be completely dark. there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really. we are blinding ourselves in a way.

>> you can look at the images, they are beautiful. when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about environmental issues that was very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be something that opens a dialogue

to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and inspired by. personally, there is space to keep that alive, just finding balance. the key is to find some balance.

>> the most important thing abuot this decision was the decision itself, and the words that would matter most are in the 138-page document that are processed in thea ppellate court. they did not just set out to win a lower court decision. they set out to withstand scrutiny at the appellate level,

successfully and unsuccessfully, understanding what the court is up against. judge walker set forth rules that became the foundation to which this will, i believe and hope, be appealed and adjudicated at the supreme court. i'm not a lawyer. i'm not going to profess to make the legal argument that has bee n made.

the most important thing is to get a solid decision out. not a win, but to get a decision where the arguments made are validated, and my understanding was that the points they made that they emphasized were advanced in this decision, and that is a significant thing. so i will leave that to legal scholars, but the next phase of analysis would be the argument, not just the win at walker's court. >> in terms of going ahead with preventive measures, have decisions been made? >> we have always abided the rule of law. when courts said start and stop, we said we started and we st

opped. no one was married today. no one was able to get a certificate or license. there were couples that were quite disappointed. some had come with the impression they would be able to get married this afternoon, and obviously that was another blow. those hopes, nonetheless, are not dashed, and we will see what happens in subsequent decisions as processes of the courts. [unintelligible] >> it's an important point. we had adjudication in california and elsewhere on state grounds. this is the first court on

federal principle, and it is the principle of our founding fathers here. it has been used to expand people's rights, not deny them. to the extent this is a constitutional challenge, this is very much a narrative we have lived with in this country. it is a narrative that is familiar to those in virginia, and the last major constitutional challenge. when we look at the issue of interracial marriage. this is a fast-tracked narrative, so i am hopeful.

i would not have imagined it. we have had good days and bad days, we have seen success advanced around the world, and i don't think anyone could have imagined a more optimistic setting. we have had setbacks in other states that have given us pause and caution. this is who i am, my last breath. this has never been about politics.

you look back in your life and you are staying in principle. you are given a moment in time to do the right thing. i said this to my father about the issue. good people i love disagree. but whether you agree with me or not, you know it. i have a big propblem voting for people i don't trust, because they are telling me what they

think i want to hear, not what i believe. this is what i believe, and my cards are on the table. i saw that as a student of history. in 1967, 70% of americans opposed interracial marriage. there is a fundamental principle here that has been used over and over and over again, for women's rights, racial and ethnic rights. it makes sense. you have a minority of people being oppressed, you need the courts to do that. that's why there are distinguished and separate branches of government.

it's not surprising this has taken the course that it's on. >> the meaningful decision, it was crystal clear that they did not want to just win the decision. they want to win it in the right way. what i believe is they won it in the right way, which is why

this is a more significant victory. but the arguments are compelling that it is positive and successful. justice kennedy, for better or for worse, seems to be the one based on his colorado decision that would be put in the spotlight. he was wright in lawrence v. texas. it will be interesting to see him argue this, because in so many ways he was prescient.

look. personally, this is an extraordinary moment, because real people's lives have once again been affirmed. at the same time, you temper your appreciation because you recognize the work that's been ahead. this is another step in a very long process, but perhaps the most historic and compelling, because this is a federal decision based on the u.s. constitution, and i should remind people, bush wanted to change the constitution for a reason, because he thought there was something wrong. we think there is something right, that there is nothing in

this constitution denying equal protection in due process. >> [inaudible] >> if i lose fighting for

something i believe in, i am proud. i would reather lose an election than capitulate my true beliefs. there are politicians better tat that than me, and many are better politicians. but i believe in this. i am not an idealogue about this. i have family members that disagree with me vehemently about this. i remember when i was a kid, i thought, don't hold hands in public. it's not what i believe in. it's not what my contemporaries believe in. and i will say this, time is on our side.

i have friends and young folks whoa re not caught up in this. they don't get it. there is an expectation that time will play itself out and we'll see how that occurs, but thisá>f is going to help with tt process.