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 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