>> meaning what? >> remembering that we have a long meeting. >> what we are going to do our best to do and i think that we be able to do is have packets ready, the week before thanksgiving, so that you will have them during the rush of the holidays, you will have extra time. >> the monday before? >> hopefully the week before. >> even the week before that? i see. i see what you are saying, that would be great >> right. and i had trouble trying to schedule a december meeting because our normal meeting date would be the 24th, the night of the 24th. so i am going to... i am going to give that one more go around but we may not be able to have a december meeting. >> the final thing is one of the requests for the future meetings at past meetings was that we do a discussion of the

report that the budget analyst harvey rose did comparing us to la. we have decided that before we have that discussion, here at the commission, that we should have interested persons meetings with the public. and get some input from them. so we schedule two of them for december. and then we planned to bring that report before you for the january meeting. >> that is a good idea. >> to answer your question, going back to the scheduling. >> sure. >> so for december, we don't... there is nothing on tentatively schedule for the 14th, december 14th? >> no. >> there is not. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. anything public comment? >> on the executive director's report. >> thank you, dr. kerr again. this chart on the first page of the director's report, that has 6 categories of investigations

and enforcements, mr. st. croix introduced that chart in 2006, but the first month that this chart was introduced that was whistle blower/sunshine ordinance. since then, in the last six years, the word whistle blower has not appeared. now whistle blower retaliation is arguably a more serious problem than any of these because it involves the destruction of someone's professional life and personal life, too. and it is part of your responsibility to over see whistle blower protection. so i would suggest and plead that whistle blower retaliation be one of the categories so that you know how many complaints come in, and you can track whether any of them gets substan ated.

thank you. >> commissioners, ray heart, director of san francisco open government. i do read these reports. i read every one of them, front to back and i go back and make notes on them and everything else because i really do want to come here and make meaningful comment. for example, category number two investigation enforcement programs number of complaints what does that tell us? how long have those complaints been sitting? i know for a fact that the 9 for the sunshine ordinance task force have been sitting there for god knows how long. so basically, i could have to... i don't think that it is unfair to assume that some of these other complaints may just be sitting in someone's desk aging and eventually someone will get around to it and someone will put it up. these really are meanless statistics. and nine people filed a complaint, and how many were referred from sunshine?

how many of you heard, well, we know that. one. gomez, where did that go? nowhere. because the mayor only wants to use you if it suits his political ends. i told you that before. he hung you out to dry, he wanted to get rid of the sheriff. i personally think that he wanted to take control of the sheriff's office. get rid of the sheriff put his own person in and say look at how wonderful it runs under the mayor's office. why have an elected sheriff? the bottom line was, it didn't work. these sunshine complaints, i voted in the very first election in san francisco in 1999 and they happened to be the latest iteration of the sunshine ordinance. andvy gone back and done the research and seen that you have not taken a single complaint

for a hearing except the jewe l gomez and i think that the only reason that you did that was because the civil grand jury pointed it out in their report and you wanted to be able to say no, that is not true, we heard one. you know, it is really auful, and you can be as dismissive as possible, and it is really auful to sit in board and commission meetings and watch citizens denied their right to speak, being told that they are not allowed to speak about certain things. and then, they have to go to the sunshine ordinance task force and fight for those rights under the sunshine ordinance. then to get enforcement, they have to have it referred to you and you simply allow mr. st. croix to dismiss them all. and you wonder why i am a little ticked. i have four things on the 150 word summaries that i mentioned before that have all been

approved by the sunshine ordinance task force, and mr. st. croix spent 134 pages dismissing against you so that you would not have the guts to hear it. >> the discuss on items for future meetings? >> on the executive director's report, the list of the whistle blower complaints, is this something that we used to have that and we have taken it off? >> it goes into the confidential report, don't we? >> we do. >> we get those in the confidential listing. >> i will see what we can add back on again. >> okay. >> public comment on number 8? >> could i ask you to repeat

what you said about the whistle blower complaints? >> will they be in or not? >> mr. st. croix said that he will look into what additional information we could put on there relating to the whistle blower complaints. >> is is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> i did want to make a comment on eight. >> you did? >> okay. >> yes. >> ray heart, director of san francisco open government and you can sit there and attribute every negative and other motives that you want to me. i don't care. very frankly i have told you and every other body that i have appeared to before that my only two reasons to going to public meetings are to make sure that the nems members of the public are allowed to speak and allowed to gain access to public records that they need

to speak intelligently to certain issues. i went to an arts commission meeting where i watched a commissioner respond to a public comment which was polite suggesting that they needed to have sunshine, with comments like mr. whoever you are i don't appreciate be lectured by someone like you. and i am going to do everything in my power to make sure that you are no longer part of this any more. and it gets to the point where people who take a vow to support and defend the constitution start to abuse members of the public. i know that it has gone too far. and i know that you don't like the comments. basically what i found on a lot of these city commissions they want to take credit for everything that goes well and avoid responsibility for anything that isn't going well. they want credit for showing up. but they don't want to be

bothered with a lot of the work. and we had one member of the commission when there was an argument going on tell one of the witnesses, when they were referred to one of the documents that have been submitted to them and they said, well i don't need to read the documents. and it is time and time again and the reason that i do this is for one simple reason. there are a lot of people who getting up in front of a public body especially on public television, are afraid to do it. they are just afraid to come up to a body and say, you know, i don't like what you are doing and that is just another part of the first amendment to petition government to readdress the grievances. when i started coming here, i tried to be polite, but when you are polite with you folks it gets you nowhere, you get someone who said that well, we follow the law if we have to and you say, well here is what the law says and the person sits there and looks down.

read the 150 word summary thing in the minutes, it is pretty clear. and i would like to ask you something if we ended up in court and i subpoenaed all of you, and before a jury, or a lawyer got up and said, what did that 150 word summary should be in the minutes mean to you? and does it make any sense that the city attorney said that you could put it somewhere else? i think that you would have a hard time answering that question, wouldn't you? >> a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> i would like... >> so moved. >> second. >> second >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed, hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.

>> 7 and a half million renovation is part of the clean and safe neighbor's park fund which was on the ballot four years ago and look at how that public investment has transformed our neighborhood. >> the playground is unique in that it serves a number of age groups, unlike many of the

other properties, it serves small children with the children's play grounds and clubhouses that has basketball courts, it has an outdoor soccer field and so there were a lot of people that came to the table that had their wish list and we did our best to make sure that we kind of divided up spaces and made sure that we kept the old features of the playground but we were able to enhance all of those features. >> the playground and the soccer field and the tennis fields and it is such a key part of this neighborhood.

>> we want kids to be here. we want families to be here and we want people to have athletic opportunities. >> we are given a real responsibility to insure that the public's money is used appropriately and that something really special comes of these projects. we generally have about an opportunity every 50 years to redo these spaces. and it is really, really rewarding to see children and families benefit, you know, from the change of culture, at each one of these properties >> and as a result of, what you see behind us, more kids are playing on our soccer fields than ever before. we have more girls playing sports than we have ever had before. [ applause ] fp >> and we are sending a strong message that san francisco families are welcome and we want you to stay.

>> this park is open. >> this park is open. ♪ oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg]

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