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. -- "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 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 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. 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? 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 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 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. 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 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 asked secretary avery weeks ago what we need to do. i asked commissioner sugaya

what we need to do. his response was "i do not think we need to respond." secretary avery, for the entire nine weeks, i never heard back. the only a week ago, actually, only a few days ago did this letter fully draft, not discussed, comes in front of us, and now it has been written by three groups of people who are supposed to ride on the run without having give us the information that we have to respond or we might seek your advice on how to write it. i find that uncomfortable. however much i like to think in unison with this group, i cannot support the way this is being done. >> as with any correspondence, staff drafts our response for you. you consider it, make changes, and vote on it. if the commission prefers to draft their own responses, you can do that.

commissoner moore: i would love to do that. this is a legal bottle of an argument. this is not a conversational the letter. this is clearly written by someone who enters all these arguments in the law. and none of us on our own could ever go there, and if we spent time with you, being advised of why we would need to respond to that white. from not -- respond in that way. from my perspective, i am uncomfortable we are being chaperoned in this direction. that is the type of advice. i feel i am being led to do something.

>> there is no requirement you have to take our vice. -- take our advice. it is simply a first take. commissoner moore: it is simply a first take? ok. i am comfortable with that. i suggest we continue item also prepared to suppor commissioner borden in some fine tuning. i am not trying to overturn the apple cart. >> is the motion? " there's a second. -- >> there is a second. >> yes, i am going to vote against the main motion today. especially since i really do not

agree with one of the responses in your. >> motion to continue? >> i would speak against a motion to continue. >> i read this over. the responses are the same ones i would respond. we are all not cognizant of all the nuances of state law. the general point i would point out here are exactly the ones i would have given, given what the grand jury has said. and i think that is well presented. i do not know why we have to spend more time on this.

commissioner borden: yes. i understand commissoner moore 's concern. for me, since this letter is fairly meaningless -- i mean, not to be mean. it really does not have teeth. i feel like there are other spirits of the conversation we want to recognize, but at the end of the day, i do not know if we want to spend a lot of time developing it, because at the end of the day, that is more paper someone is going to throw by. -- throw by. we should recommend staff have new points in a future letter that we should review in a future meeting. i do not think we are any closer to closure on the points. we would point out what specific issues we want to address in a

new letter. that would make sense. i do not think we will be able to draft a letter collectively as a group. that is my thing. if this letter work importance because it were a response in a court case, then i would feel a lot differently than i do about it. commissioner sugaya: vote on the motion to continue. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue, would there be a specific date? commissioner sugaya: it would have to be quite soon. >> i have to count 90 days. >> august 11?

august 4? commissioner antonini: it would have to be august 4. commissioner borden: can i ask a quick question? it could be friendly amendment include that we need to provide staff with input for the next hearing? commissoner moore: we will pick some points -- commissioner borden: i like that. >> as the maker of the motion -- are you ok with continuance? >> i am fine. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion to continue, item nine, the commission response to the grand injury for parker said august 4 -- parkmerced. [roll call vote] that motion carries 4-1.

this item will be put on the august 4 calendar. chair miguel: i would request that they note the date correction, 90 days, or if it was may 17 when it was issued, and so their comments will be a couple of days late. tell them to say we are inaccurate. and i would also recommend the commissioners for specific recommendations of wording to the department. commissoner moore: yes, either way. this will require some work. it is not stalling. it just requires a little bit more to do. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that will

listen -- place us on item 10. the department sponsored planning code, and then rinse related to the eastern neighborhood. >> good afternoon, commissioners. department staff. i am happy to be in front of you. you are well aware that the eastern neighborhood plan was adopted on december 19. this included and then as to the planning good, administrative code, and the zoning map. mistakes were made. of the past two and a half years, i have been accumulating a list of these mistakes as they have been identified in implementing the plan. finally, this spring, we compile all the corrections and to the legislation you have before you today. there are two amendments contained in the ordinance. the first is strictly technical

changes, including poor grammar, confusing or obtuse text. second, substantive changes necessitated when the adopted a code could be amended to more easily reflect the intent. this ordinance does not contain substantive amendments that reflect a change of policy in each neighborhood plan. we want to keep this legislation streamlines to enable a more expeditious cleanup of the code. we're in the process of putting up the first of each neighborhoods' planning report. we hope that this plan will help us assess whether more substantive policy changes can be written. since this legislation is a bit of a popery, it is difficult to identify the highlights.

that being said, i have a couple of items that i think would be of most interest to the public. because we had to do a mail notice and it is hard to explain on a postcard, i have received requests for clarifying comments. the changes are due to condo conversions during the easter neighborhood plant. we took a snapshot of the maps from 2007 or so. any kind of convergence that took place in that year, with the adoption of the planned. the parcels and these guys on our 0-- -- and the sky zone are parceled dearly.

the second issue is mixed use . we know there has been a lot of buzz lately. there are permitted to have the residential and the detail permitted. since this was something that was recorded by the eastern neighborhood plan, we have added language in section 329 that adds the ability of the planning commission to reflect this on condition that the non- residential use can only be on the ground floor, third it also gets used by other agencies, it can only be on the main street and not alleys, and also other conditions and alleys base of the time of approval. i am happy to clarify any other issues. also with me, my colleague cory

teague. between the two of us we should be able to answer any questions you may have. chair miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: vote to approve. commissioner borden: second. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve -- [roll call vote] so moved. commissioners, that's passes unanimously 4-0. chair miguel: thank you. >> it is big. >> commissioners, this places us on item 11a.

11b, 11c, all for 3020 laguna sereet. >> commissioners, this project is located in an rh-2 zoning district. the project proposes to demolish the existing two-story single family residence and construct a four-story building. i should note the amount of parking will be limited to one parking space. currently it is 0. no additional request for discretionary review has been filed by members of the public.

at this time, and additional drilling unit provides a net gain of three bedrooms and -- an additional swelling unit provides a net gain of three bedrooms. staff recommends we do not take discretionary review and approve the demolition. there are various is being requested for this project. at this time, i will be available to answer any questions. thank you. chair miguel: thank you. project sponsored? -- project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am the architect on the project. i represent my clients who are a young couple with two young children.

the existing building is essentially a 1-bedroom and one- bath with one-car garage building. they would like to make it livable for their family. and the in laws that will probably be staying with them for much of the time. that, and the fact that the building is an older building sitting on soil that is probably not very sound, has made it pretty impossible for us to look at remolding -- remodeling or adding on to this building. it would sink a little into the ground to get a four-story building in. as far as the way we designed it, i hope the perspective on the front cover expenses. it is essentially not visible

from the st.. d rendering you see is based on a photograph from the computer model. that would show the building across the street which makes it pretty impossible to see it is a four-story building. we of worked with a lining the building with the adjacent buildings for the front the sod and how that is all going to work out the bank -- for the front facade and how that is all going to work out. as far as the parking, we have provided an open space in the courtyard. it is just that does not meet the requirements. it is impossible to meet all the requirements. which is why we are asking for the variances for the courtyard's. we think it is actually a very livable house. we have met all the neighbors and everyone is very amiable. we would like your support on this. chair miguel: thank you.

is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live a few houses down from 3020 laguna. currently, they are doing a lot of construction on the street and it is robbing a lot of parking spaces. i have noticed the building plans for these other units, they are getting higher and higher, and it does not really go with the historic feeling of the neighborhood. my initial feeling is to at least delay the demolishing of the construction at 3020 laguna until next year, because currently they are doing a lot of construction on the street, and it is taking spaces in our neighborhood. it is a very busy street. and i know it causes a lot of

traffic congestion, too. my suggestion would be to delay it until spring next year. thank you. chair miguel: 6 thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i live around the corner. i was just reading the announcement that the house would be demolished. i have looked around the neighborhood, and we do not have four-story buildings. also, laguna and greenwich, the house is under construction at this moment and it is already

taking two parking spaces. and the gentleman says it is a young couple with young children. there is an additional old house and it is very close to me. building a four-story house is very costly. the question is, do they really have that much money? that they are going to build if they are a young couple? they do not know how to build the building are around, how to finish it. that is my concern. and