Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 22, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
8:31 pm
8:32 pm
8:33 pm
8:34 pm
8:35 pm
8:36 pm
8:37 pm
8:38 pm
8:39 pm
8:40 pm
8:41 pm
8:42 pm
8:43 pm
8:44 pm
>> so, you have the draft letter before you. the respondent has to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the findings, and if they disagree to provide an explanation. the respondent has to say whether the recommendation has been implemented or will be implemented with the timeline, or will not be implemented, and if so, with an explanation. >>i will not go over the details of the draft letter. i am happy to answer question.
8:45 pm
>> is there any public comment on this item? i would like to start this one myself, because i must have failed in some part. i have been instructing the grand jury for the last 15 years. we made a couple of mistakes on this one elected officials have 30 or 60 days to submit their response. the body such as the commission has 90 days. we are well within the time limits.
8:46 pm
the jury did not read the penal code. as far as the construct of the response, it does not conform directly to the penal code. prior to 1979, which was the year i was the floor person, using the office soldier, or from a body of no response, to be a response. judge quentin copp got very upset with that and change to the present method of responding. the only thing i would like to call the commission's attention
8:47 pm
to -- the second paragraph. basically, the grand jury report focuses on their parkmerced development agreement. it in no way in first the commission did anything to process their actions. there is no criticism whatsoever of the planning department or the planning commission. i think this is very, very telling. commissioner moore: i have two questions. this was sent to us as a body, as the planning commission.
8:48 pm
should our response be as one? that is the way it is currently being proposed if i understood the comments. he is nodding as if that is implied. my second question is, i personally believe the language does not at all reflect the commissioner speak. it was a legal row bottled definitely written by a lawyer with the phraseology and the expressions used, and i do not believe if we agree or do not agree if fully represents the voice this commission has. i would also like to say that while in principle i do not have significant disagreements, i believe the commission in its findings regarding parkmerced
8:49 pm
was so diverse, i think it will need to reflect that. i think the commission should find a different way of expressing themselves. commissioner antonini: just to clarify one of your questions, if i may. the respondents have requested the department and the commission -- >> those are separate bodies. commissioner antonini: the director will send a response, according to the grand jury penal code, and as far as the department, the commission must vote. the mayor's office will do the rhone. however, they could all be the same. -- the mayor's office will do
8:50 pm
their own. commissioner borden: in general, i have no problem with the response written here. what is very evident is they are talking about an agreement that was not at all negotiated while taking into consideration the decision. i do not feel that all the issues they are pointing out were reported to us in these hearings from the mayor's office. and also, the issues are around the rent-controlled really center around the attorney's office advice as far as what the planning commission acted on. i think the title of the report is far more inflammatory than the content. the title is "government by developer.
8:51 pm
-- "government by developer." it goes on to say all this free work was done here, but the title and its connotation make it sound very different. i guess the title does not really a match the report and that bothered me. i do think there was no attempt in the letter to address this. it was a four-three vote. one thing that was brought up, the entire commission was very concerned about the agreement. i think that representing that spirit by which the deliberation
8:52 pm
happened, and that is how the commission came to the decision on both sides. i think it is very important be represented in our response. i think it is really important for people to understand there was not one side more concerned. i think it is a misrepresentation not to say the entire commission as all of us at this as our top priority. with confidential conversations. i think the spirit of that, i would prefer that to be better represented in this response. that is the only major thing i would say here, because i do agree that the report is about the agreement, which was ated by the city and not by the plaing commission. commissioner antonini: i also thought the title was a bit
8:53 pm
disrespectful, perhaps not accurate. i do appreciate the work that the civil grand jury does. i think this was it really well done. basically the job is to answer the questions that were posed as to their accuracy, which in many cases are not accurate, and it points out very quickly where the accuracies are. and does not necessarily go through a complete recapitulation of the various discussions with the board of supervisors about the project, but to deal with them. the grand jury does a great job. clearly they do not understand that ceqa has to the evaluate alternatives. they make a point of talking about entitlements running with the land, which we know is the case, but so do the obligations. i think that they do not quite get that part of the.
8:54 pm
there is confusion about whether public funds were involved. we point out that any of these things that are afforded to the developers, they have to provide sequentially for those to go forward. i think it is really well done. i think it is very quick. supervisor moore: i think it comes back around to -- commissioner moore: i think it comes back to what i was saying before. i personally believe that that does not speak with my language. i do not speak that way. i think we can do better. >> yes, this is a broader question. what power does the grand jury have? we get our response and they just accept it?
8:55 pm
commissioner antonini: if i may. [laughter] the grand jury has the power of the bully pulpit. they have no means or authorization within the civil code to report this. if the grand jury, which will receive our response is going to be a new lobby installed at the beginning of july, if the new jury is in disagreement with any responses to any of their reports, they cannot vote by supermajority, which is required for all grand jury work, to do an investigation. but it is simply as a bully pulpit in that regard. with specific required responses. commissioner antonini: i
8:56 pm
disagree with commissoner moore. i think this is fine. the combined response by the planning department on behalf of the commission is, of course, very opprobrious. what we always do when appeals and made to the board of supervisors or when action has to take place, there the department talks to the commission. this is sort of the same thing. we are one in the same on this type of thing. while it is a legal requirement we make a response to the grand jury, i think this issue is behind us now. as long as their response is appropriate and accurate, i do not think we need to spend more time on it. i would move to approve the draft. >> i would second that. >>commissioner borden: i would
8:57 pm
like to make a friendly amendment to that then. i do not have an issue with the findings. i would like to change or add the text in the third paragraph down were in talks to the response. the hearing, blah, blah, blah. long-term projections, etc. in that paragraph, i would like to make the statement, you know, all commissioners expressed concern about that the bank of something that white. -- expressed concern about that. something that way. >> para rabb 6. -- paragraph six.
8:58 pm
commissioner borden: just a little bit more of herbage. it is important to. not all of us believed the da was strong enough to support them. i think the spirit needs to be there. that is very important. that is the way they presented the title. >> as maker of the motion, i would agree with that if language can be crafted that all commissioners were concerned that the did development agreement -- that the development agreement would adequately protect the rights of tenants for rent control. >> a second. >> i want to clarify. i think this was meant to be our draft of your response. so the title of that page is
8:59 pm
incorrect, i think. it should read the planning commission's findings. so we would be issuing a separate response. this is our draft, are suggested response from you. just to clarify that. commissoner moore: did you write the document here in front of us? who is the main writer of this document? >> it was a joint effort of the office of economic development and the city attorney's office. commissoner moore: all three agencies need to respond because they receive the letter? >> yes. commissoner moore: why did they spend -- why did they spend time waiting for us? i