>> commissioner antonini. >> l i would speak against that extension. this is an administrative code matter which is under the province of the board of supervisors, and we do not have to have a hearing, but we're allowed to have a hearing in a period of time before the board takes it up. it's fortunate that the supervisor because of the noticing that's being continued because of notice error and we don't have choice on that and i think the 29 is when we should continue it and certainly gives everyone time to read the material and understand it, and be ready to comment at that

time, but absent that date it's quite possible that we might not have any input from planning before it goes to the board of supervisors for consideration, and i think having a hearing is more important than having none, so i would move that we continue items one, item number six to the dates slated for those. actually number six is to the sixth and item number 11 to the 29th. >> i will second that motion but we will have more discussion. >> okay. commissioner moore. >> i am glad that we are considering continuing, and i would actually ask that we continue beyond the 29th of november partially because the package that was given to us is significantly incomplete. i'm not just commenting on the way

it was listed in the public noticing but i would like to address that in order to fully understand it. stakeholder groups need to be contacted and talked to. the commission itself i think just needs for the clarity compare the writings of 2006, 2010 and 2012 and really evaluate whether addressing a administrative correction but i don't think it is. i received at a minimum up to 10 accordance on the matter. >> >> and by lawyers and all of the comment his the tone and message of consistency and i have to take quite seriously. it's not just about me being a commissioner and out smart everybody and the public needs to inform me about what the law says and what is going to

happen under eir and ceqa law and i believe there are serious shortcuts being made here and addition to finding document full of vague language, innuendo, and conflikz of terms and terms are exchanged and don't mean anything. planning, planning commission, planning department. i'm not sure what it means and i could go on and on and refers to agencies in lower case without specifying who the agencies or public bodies would be that have to weigh in. the sequence of how meetings appeals, et cetera are described for three or four different appeals is totally confusing, and myself basically requests that we stretch it out further than the 29th of november. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i support the continuance to the 29th. i don't mind

continuing it longer but i would like to start hearing from the public, the staff on the issues and request questions and not necessarily ask questions on the phone or email but actually have an airing of what is here and if we start it on the 29th if questions aren't answering -- i don't have a problem continuing until the six after the answers and i would like a hearing today and i know we can't do that but i would like to hear the public and their concerns and i encourage the public to be more substantive in their comments and ceqa is the third rail and people don't want to talk about reforming and there are issues with ceqa and they talked about specific things and i encourage us to have that debate as soon as possible so i would like to hear it on the 29th. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think the issue here is the fact if the supervisor

can move forth without the input and we want input by that time we need to stick with the 29 because we don't have to and we heard from members of public they want the conversation here at planning. they feel it's the appropriate place to have some of the discussions and i agree exactly with that that we need to have the discussion here so that people and figure out if we need more workshops, more follow up. i think there is a lot to be discussed here. i like when we took supervisor chu's legislation and look it apart and had a number of hearings. we didn't just continue it out. we had a bunch of hearings. i don't think the decisions being made about what vote we would or wouldn't take on the 29th but i think it makes sense to hear the legislation before it gets to the board of supervisors and have our input. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just like to request too as part of the next hearing

perhaps having examples of these things and make it a little more real about a project that has been before us or a likely project that will get before us and so we understand and sometimes ceqa gets bogged down with acronyms and the think the chart was helpful but i think we can do more to illuminate and how it would work under the proposed changes. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, several things. i think in terms of additional information following up on commissioner hillis' request avery -- thank you for that but i think the second part of what i was implying in my email was a comparison of the three -- the two previous attempts and this one, which was mentioned by commissioner moore so that would

be the aleato pier and 2006 was the other one and see the provisions and compare the differences between the three. >> i thought that was what the comparison table did and had each ordinance. >> that's not what mine says. my says "what exists now and the various provisions". >> it sounds like you're missing a couple of pages. i will make sure you and the public has access to all three ages and i have a proposal comparing to the 2006 and 10 proposal so i will make sure that is available. >> okay. and i think also there have been -- i received correspondence as commissioner moore and others i am sure have at that point. some of them are specifically mentions certain

kinds of ceqa provisions and where the ordinance appears not to follow state law, so i would like some analysis of that in terms of the various letters that have come in. i think we have one from the sierra club, one from san francisco tomorrow, one from san francisco architectural heritage, one from hastings and i think mary miles and at least one or two others, and i don't know maybe they're going to revise things between now and then anyway, but perhaps it's good to have some response to the various questions, and thirdly i think starting it is fine. i would imagine that the supervisor is not going to move forward until he gets input from the planning commission, so i don't have a fear of extending

it out in the first place. >> commissioner with you. >> i am also supportive of the continuance to the 29th. i am open to the 29th then and continuing it further but agree we should start the conversation. i wanted to echo commissioner hillis' request for examples. i think that would help and something we have already seen and how it would be different under the new legislation or something we anticipate coming in the future. >> commissioner moore. >> i would be happy to talk to ms. rogers about typos, uncertainty about use of word, vagueness in order for that to disappear prior to this group hearing it on the 29th because i do not think this document is clear because of those things i'm observing. >> okay. any additional comments? commissioners there say motion and a second to

continue items as proposed, specifically item one to december 13, item six to december 6, and item 11 to november 29. commissioner tone. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> commissioner avery with commissioner with you. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes. all things under the consent calendar are routine by the commission and will be acted upon one roll call vote by the commission. there is no discussion unless the staff or public requests and in that case will be removed from

the consent calendar and considered at a future hearing. case dolores terrace and request for condominium conversion. case 343 frederick street and request for condominium conversion. 1830 taraval street and request for continued authorization and 2001 pol ecstreet request for conditional use authorization. item six was continued to december 6. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the consent items before us which are items two, three, four, and five.

>> second. >> on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner with you wu. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. before you is questions and matters and item seven commission comments. >> commissioner borden. >> hi. i spoke about this with ms. rogers and with the ceqa legislation and i was thinking in term was legislation we had with the awnings and stuff that supervisor chu has put forth and i thought it would be great in policy things that are changing the policy code or ceqa that affect this commission could we could have informational hearings early on in the process and not action items and

understand the issues because i feel like a lot of times for legislation people get a packet. you don't really understand. sometimes it's not until we have the hearing where it's illuminating what the legislation is saying and various scenarios apply and i think it's useful to have a hearing early on in the process to do that and have a secondary hearing at the end of the window and vote on the legislation and i think we could figure out in between if there needs to be additional workshops or stakeholders groups need to be outreached to. a lot of people feel -- the planning commission should be the ones to vet legislation with the planning code and ceqa -- even though administrative code falls into that area so that seems to make a lot of sense to include. the other thing and a thought i had about the housing dash forward and i will bring it up later when talking about the

efficiency dwelling units but one of the things i thought would be useful when talking about housing or building market rate versus affordable, et cetera it would be interesting to have actual snapshot of cost per square foot in a particular neighborhood. i don't think in the abstract that the project tells you about who can afford to live in that project so having dashboard show what the median home price is in a particular neighborhood or smaller real estate track around that project and then the anticipated cost per square foot for that project then you could better access whether or not the market -- we had the conversation whether the market fulfills any income of middle income housing we would have that. i think the general report doesn't get to the heart of what we're trying to solve so a better way of incorporating, looking at price per square foot in a given neighborhood and

compare to projects economic online to the extent that we can would be useful information. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i would agree 100% with the request from commissioner borden because categorize things as market rate or affordable and we had instances a couple years ago where many of the market rate units were sold for less than have been the inclusionary amount that would have been charged under the ordinance, so it's important to really see real case situations and understand what you're really talking about in terms of the costs. a couple of other items in terms of the commission's secretary subcommittee search i am still waiting for a reply from hr in regards to the classification issue, and i am hopeful i will hear something on that issue within the next few days and i will follow up with

that and see where we are. secondly i would strongly urge everyone who has not seen the movie "lincoln" to go see it. it's excellent. unlike many movies today there is dialogue and it's thought provoking and the period of time it deals with is one of the important, not just for the country but the state and city during this time period and i encourage you to read the book "team of rivals" and the book upon which the movie was based and it gives you more perspective on who the different public officials are who are characterized in the movie many of whom were rivals of lincolns for the republican nomination in 1860 and became part of the his cabinet and the battle for the 13th amendment so the two are interesting but the movie is very good. >> thank you. i am said

"professor" that that historical -- commissioner moore. >> bright news. the embarcadero, the former home of local 3879 international long shor men's association has bought the building to locate the commonwealth club in that facility which is a great idea. i am very excited about it. the commonwealth club -- it used to on rand mc naly and market and second and now they're moving if everything goes well into this location which i think this is absolutely wonderful way of bringing well known institutional use on to the waterfront. >> commissioners, that is director's report item eight director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. i just wanted to -- there had

been some requests to talk about the schedule for the proposed arena project on piers 30 and 32. i wanted to report to you about dates. after discussion with president fong and commissioner wu we agreed to have informational hearing in january when we have some better answers to questions at that point, so we will schedule that on your calendar to have an informational hearing in january, but just to give you some other dates that are currently on the schedule. as you know the board is currently considering the fiscal feasibility analysis for the project. that allows us to continue -- that allows us to start working on the eir. we are anticipating that the draftee eir is published in may. your hearing on it would probably happen in june, and the schedule calls for a completion of the eir and consider the certification by the end of

next year, so we are about a year away from completing the eir work on that project, and we will have the informational hearing scheduled on your calendar for january. secondly i just wanted to let you know i will be out of the office for two weeks starting thanksgiving. i will miss the meeting on november 29 and back for the meeting of december 6 and bill will be in charge of the department in my absence. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> item nine and review of events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> anne marie rogers from the planning staff. this week there was no hearing or full board but the zoning administrator did give me a report from the board of appeals i would like to share with you. there was one hearing last night they wanted you to know about. it regards the appeal for a restroom renovation

and pass in gencanyon park and the paltant stated they didn't have concerns about the restroom but concerned about the removal of the trees and the ceqa was inadequate. the board of appeals noticed it related to the restroom and the only under under their purview and any concerns about ceqa determinations are for the board of supervisors and issue the permit and deny the appeal so that concludes the report for this week. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will place you item 10340 fremont street. informational item. >> good afternoon. cory teague for staff. the planning commission first approved this in january, 2006 for several projects proposed under the

rincon plan and one building height of four hadn't feet and 332 dwelling units and off space parking spaces and no commercial on the ground floor. the planning commission will consider a request for extension later in the calendar but the presentation today is intended to update the commission on the current design for the project and improvements to the exterior of the project. it includes slight increase of units to 338. a decrease in parking spaces to 269 with the majority of those in stackers. a minor alteration at the rear of the podium building and continue to have nor commercial space within the building. the project sponsor will present the changes in detail and available for questions or comments. i will turn it over to them. thanks.

>> good afternoon president fong. good afternoon planning commissioners. i am edward mercy and here representing jackson pacific. my company and art stone who collectively are and continue to be the original project sponsor developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned we are supporting now an informational presentation of the new design for 340 fremont street. our goals and reasons for electing to redesign a fully approved, fully compliant residential tower were three. the first one was an esthetic visual exterior enhancement or upgrade for the absence of doubt this is not the vex exercise to the contrary.

it's attempt to bring a building that we thought was good to very good in terms of architectural design. the second reason since seven years passed since our original design we under took a significant effort in the under the hood areas of the building, primarily redesigning the structural system to be compliant with a more reason structural high rise code and practice and the third is redesigning each 348 residential units. just a small note on architecture. we conducted a national search for our architectural firm. we have a strong hire local bias but we have a strong need and desire to get the highest level of expertise available in esthetic design, in technical expertise

and residential planning and the result of the search was a really good local firm who maybe known to you called handel architects. we have been working with them for a year. we are thrilled with the team work and the work that they have done and really pleased to be presenting the new design to you today by handel architects and with they would like to introduce glenda scal vo and one of the design principals and will walk you through the design and we are available for questions or comments you may have. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. thank you for having us here. we're very excited about -- >> excuse me. can you state your name for the record. >> glen scaff voa and partners in handel architects here in san francisco. we are very excited

of being part of this project as mr. mercy pointed out. the challenge for us was to really get this building back up to a standard of 2010 structurally, esthetically and from a unit standpoint so this is going to be a short presentation on some of the changes that we have made. as you know the project sits on fremont street between folsom and harrison and midblock in the rincon hills district. this gives you indication of the parcel of land here. you can't see the chart but i think you have some handouts there. as mr. mercy pointed out we reduced the parking but we have below grade parking so nothing is visible from the street and the building is broken down into three components and the below grade and the building and the tower itself and at 400 feet.

one of the other significant changes and adjustments that we made of course the client pointed out the structural system. as you can see from the drawings one shows the old system which was small and the new system on the right-hand side which has an enlarged. that is due to the 2010 code so the building has met that requirement. we also made adjustments on the ground floor level to improve the townhouses that face on to parklet as well as the lobby and leasing office to activate the store front. this is a bigger picture of that indicating the three tone components. the blue being the townhouses? a. the light yellow the lobby and back of house for the residents and then the bright yellow being the leasing office

will eventually be more lobby space. the nice thing about this project because the terraces up we have the ability to have three different areas for out door space. we have out door space on the second floor, on the fifth floor as well as the ninth floor so the developer really offered to give the residents three amazing out door spaces, and the one on the ninth floor is spectacular and 85 feet over looking the city so it's a very enjoyable space. on the left-hand side is the original design that was done in 2006, and probably design closer to 2004 and approved in 2006. we have taken that design and we have basically kept the massing the same but improved on the material. we are still using

the materials that were suggested earlier on pre-cast and glass but we moved the combination around a little to make it more contemporary in its feeling. we focused a lot on the base of the building. as you can see on the left-hand side of the original the base design was very institutional in nature, a little heavy. we have heightened it quite a bit and as can you see one of the things that we try to do is break the base down so it had more of a pedestrian feel to it and the scale broke down and creating the windows and feelings at the base of the building, so that is one of the biggest changes overall to the project is how the base really meets the street and improveos the pedestrian sequence along fremont street. here's another view at that base. and the lobby is dead

center and then as you can see it's a very active store front that we have created there, and this is a view if you were pretty much at rincon one looking back towards the city, towards -- there's the financial district. again the combination of pre-cast and glass combined together and similar to the old scheme but more contemporary interpretation so that is essentially the design changes that we have made. if you have any questions i am happy to answer those. thank you. >> this is under the director's report. is there public comment on that? >> agendized item. there can be. >> all right. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners any questions? commissioner anni