happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions specifically to this item?

>> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be undertaking a process, with all of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station. however, maybe not all trains

will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our... i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are conversations about dtx and cal

train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well. >> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding

the mayor's office is julianne is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second. but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible. and we are happy to see the

blended system move forward as something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the environmental work going forward one of the things that observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal train. so for example, the approximately half of the trains according to the old plan would turn around at fourth and king. and in terms of rider ship and capacities and the needs of san francisco the revenue for cal train having as many trains as possible go into san francisco

would be the ideal thing to have happen. and there are also are questions also regarding the alignment and whether the current alignment is actually the most cost effective and the layout of the stations is there any room for improvement in terms of number of riders and the effectiveness of that line in the long term. so i am very glad to hear director metcalf raise these issues and you know we certainly, strongly encourage in either this project segment or subsequent project segments to address the miss match between the current older plan and the needs of the blended system and the long term ridership and revenue goals of cal train and the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of.

>> all right. seeing none. we do have a motion and a second. >> can we take a roll call on this item. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item nine is approved. >> thank you. and we will look off the schedule for a broader discussion on dts and cal train at future board meetings in the next couple of months. item number ten. >> approving the arise participation level of 8.3 percent for years, 2010 to 11 to 12 to 13. and we did get in the informational presentation at our board meeting, i believe in september or october. so, if you could just give an update since then. >> right >> and the director sarah galatty will report on this. >> i thought that i would give a little bit of background

since director was not here in september. i have to leave in two minutes any way. >> well the brief update is that we did put the revised goal of 8.5 percent out for public comment. we also had a small and disadvantaged business roundtable at our offices and got a lot of good suggestions but no comments that would lead us to revise the goal so we are recommending approval of 8.5 percent for the remainder of the fiscal years. >> i am curious about the feedback that we got that was helpful, i think that this is a goal that all of the directors share in terms of increasing minority in small business participation. >> yeah, the roundtable that we have, we have represented from asian american architects and hispanic chamber of commerce, california small business association, etc., etc., several woman's groups as well. most of the feedback had to do with out reach, we are to

really get word out about contract opportunities that these small businesses are looking at. and places like bidsink making sure that our website is easy to navigate and that we are sending out notices which we do. they also had some feedback on matching up the goal setting process that you go through, a process of matching the industrial classification codes and looking at the dbes available in those areas and they have suggestions on which codes to use that would capture the smaller businesses than just the big urses and etc.. >> i appreciate that. what the out reach has done. >> thank you. >> is there any other discussion or questions? >> seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and a second? >> second. >> and roll call. >> thank you, with that director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye.

>> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye and item ten is approved. >> item number eleven. >> approval of the minutes of the october 11th 2012 meeting. >> i know that director harper will abstain from this vote. can we take a roll call on the minutes for october the eleventh, 2012 >> yes, members of the public anything that they wanted to address you? >> director harper? >> do we have a motion to move this forward. >> moved, second. >> my apologies. >> with that, director harper, abstaining lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> that is three, ayes and item eleven is approved. >> item number 12. >> is the areview of on 007, for california code. >> and galati will crpt on this item. >> directors this is required

by the california government code as well as the investment policy be reviewed annually even if we are not proposing any changes. we are not proposing any changes at this time. objectivities of our investment policy remain the same, safety, liquidity and return on investment has a much lower priority. we currently keep most of our cash in a u.s. bank checking akoupt. we obviously do not keep a high cash balance it goes in from the funders and goes out to the contractors. and we do have a trustee account with deucshbank. most of which will be in trescy notes that will come to end of the year. and we will look at investment options at that time. but looking at the economic out look and what we think that interest rates may do in the future as well as cash flow needs we probably will choose investments with short maturities so we can month forward. i am happy to answer any

questions. >> any questions? >> seeing none, thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. >> do you have a motion on item number 12. >> it is informational. >> i am sorry. >> at this time, we are done with our special calendars. so i will take a motion to convene and to closed session, is there a motion to do that. >> so moved. second. >> so we will at this time. convene into closed session. so we do ask the members of the public to please exit the room. >> and no members of the public did indicate that they did want to address you on the item. >> my apologies about that. >> if there are any members of the public that want to address the board of directors on this >> back in session, and council will report on the closed session.

>> this is a report on the action taken in closed session with item 13. >> the tba board of adirectors approved by a vote of 5-0 a purchase and sale agrees to sale 101 first street to the to*efr llc, for $188 million plus escalation, for all cash to close on or before april one, 2013. and approved to related agreement regarding the operations of the transbay tower project. >> thank you. >> are there any other items or announcements? >> that concludes your agenda for today. >> seeing none, meeting ais journed. >> thank you.

tga approved the hearing. sile mobile devices that may sound off. if you would like to speak on an agenda item please fill out a card and speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. at this time i will like to take roll. commissioner president fong. >> here. >> commission vice president with you. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> present. >> commissioner borden. >> here. >> commissioner hillis. >> here. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> and commissioner avery. >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first up is items for continuous and item one at harve street and proposed for

continuous until december 13, 2012. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on these two items? >> do you want to talk about item 11? >> six? >> 11. >> yes. >> under the calendar with consultation with the city attorney's office this item needs to be continued to november 29. >> could you repeat that item, that last item please? >> absolutely. commissioners, under your regular calendar item

11 the amendments to administrative code chapter 31 to clarify certain procedures provided in that specifically ceqa is proposed for continuous after consultation with the city attorney's office. >> is there any public comment on the three items that are proposed for continuance? >> regarding of course lack of public notification in a timely manner. it is wrong with state law with regard of the sunshine act of the legislature or ceqa. there is no way in which the

city or the city counties as administrative district of the state can pass a laws or even consider laws that violate state law. therefore shouldn't even be an item. i will submit a document that our lawyers, dewey fleshman, who has challenged similar circumstances with park merced and given the fact that you have experience with these violations it should not reoccur. >> i would like to remind all members of public the matter before the commission right now is the continuance of the items proposed, not the matter of the item itself, but just the continuance. >> eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization "our city". just a shout out

in the room not familiar with planning department's process. this is the opportunity to speak on item 11 and i speak to the fact they am very glad to see for whatever reason you're continuing this, and the reason being that this legislation in a similar form was introduced in 2006 and struck down through public process, 2010 similarly rejected, and now in 2012, and in each case the outreach that the sponsor of the legislation has done to environmental groups, neighborhood groups, historic preservation, social justice, environmental justice folks, all the folks that have the most to lose by this process were not approached in any way, shape, or form to get their input on this legislation, and

the fact that this legislation was brought forward shortly before a very contentious election season when people were focused on the presidential election and important local elections, and also when we all had to be in the field for those things and the holidays are coming up, and by the way every time this legislation has been introduced that has been the situation. the cynical attempt to ram this through without stakeholders that need to be involved in this process like the groups i represented, and the others that will speak. the fact that we have not been included in any shape, way or form substantially in this and we're barely getting time to read this so we know all the implications for it are crucial, but i can tell you i have dug into this document in the last couple weeks and the fact you're

continuing it is crucial and we need more time. it's a confusing document but what i have seen it's a mine field for those that want to protect your neighborhoods and i want to thank whoever made the decision that put it up for continuance and urge you to continue it. we need more time to get our heads around and advise you as members of the public what we think and feel about this legislation. thank you. >> howard wong. the board of san francisco tomorrow and other organizations didn't receive notification of these proposed ceqa revisions. as in 2006 and in 2010 the public process has not been very good. many of the people have been very concerned and pioneers of ceqa were not even noticed of these changes.

the state legislature as you may have known was in august of this year there was a proposal at the last two weeks of the state legislative session to also frankly ram through ceqa legislation that was not vetted well. the state legislature decided to not take up the measure, but will be looking at ceqa as a much more holistic way in the coming legislative year. i suggest that and we suggest that san francisco take a similar approach that all means by which projects are approved or moved forward need to be looked at. ceqa in itself is not the only approval that projects require -- >> are you speaking to the continuance or the actual topic? >> okay. i will support -- we

support the continuance. >> thank you very much. >> and that's basically the message, but the measure i think is different from what was proposed in 2006 and 2010. it needs to be looked at very carefully. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission. i am justin big low and from the community economic clinic at california hastings college of the law, and here representing citizens for a sustainable treasure island. to keep my comments very brief we prepared analysis of the proposed amendments and i would like to submit those, one for the record and one for each planning commissioner at this time. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is sue vaughn and here with the sierra club here in

san francisco. i am on the executive board and i want to point out that no one -- the sierra club deals with this kind of issue all the time. this is our bailiwick want we hire lawyers to address these issues. no one came to us and asked us about the proposed changes to ceqa, and it was entirely by accident that we found out about this matter a few weeks ago and we have been rushing to deal with it since then. i got a bunch of documents about 11:15 p.m. last night that explain this so we're trying to get our head around it, and it's just not enough public notification so i am going to read the -- what the sierra club's position is. as an initial problem the notice -- >> ma'am. excuse me. i'm sorry. we're only speaking to the continuance of the matter. >> we're supporting the continuance. >> thank you. >> and i am explaining that

right now. "for that matter continued to a later date and properly noticed" and i didn't read the other sentences so thank you for continuing it. >> hi. i am michael rusom. i am a resident of the garden parents in park merced and a member of the action coalition which really needs to review this matter better. we are fighting the demolition of 5,000 people's homes in park merced and the ceqa act is a very important resource. we have to fight the impending pollution that will be used by that project and toxic years of pollution, so i in particular

and others members of the park merced coalition ask that this be continued. i didn't have a chance to read this in-depth at all so i am asking for a continuance as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is rose hilton. i am a member of the san francisco coalition of neighborhoods board and i thank you very much for continuing this item out to november 29. >> good afternoon commissioners. katherine howard golden gate preservation alliance. this is probably the most important legislation come through here in a long time. we support the continuance . we tried reading it. we feel there are problems and complexities and need more time to understand it. thank you very much. >> hi. row land from aquatic

park neighbors. thank you for continuing this. i found out about this last night. that is weird considering ceqa is a really big deal for neighborhood groups like mine and i assume that the planning department and the commission of course want this to be heard fairly, so i also wanted to point out the description of this item is also a little queer because it doesn't use the word "ceqa" in it and i am asking you to address that by adding the subject matter to this the next time it comes up. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on the item proposed for continuance? >> i am from the staff and i wanted to give some information to the public and there are additional items for the

hearing and over there and if a member of the public didn't get a copy they can contact me and i will give them copies. >> thank you. >> seeing no further public comment. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i can i get the reason yet the date was chosen? it's right after thanksgiving. >> that date was proposed by super wiener. >> isn't there a time limit? >> >> it is and it's for the san francisco administrative code and doesn't have as long. we consider planning code amendments and have 90 days. these items don't have that 90 day hold and only at a 30 day hold at the board and the board can schedule hearings. in this case if you continue it to the 29th he would hold off hearings at the board until you consider

this on the 29th. >> so that then -- is he then contemplating scheduling meetings at christmas time. >> i didn't ask when the meeting was. previously it would be after this meeting and i assume it's the same case. >> because in essence wasn't this issued by 16 of october and today is the scheduled date. is that right? >> that's right. >>i would like to extend the time period out to december 6. >> 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