(clapping) thank you very much. everyone one more round of applause. >> december 5, 2013, i would

like to remind the public that the commission does not allow outbursts, and when speaking to the commission, please speak directly into the microphone. take roll: fong. >> here. >> wu. >> here. >> borden. >> here. >> hillis is expected to be late. moore. >> here. >> sugaya. >> here. >> commissioners on your calendar is item proposed for continuance, case 1, 2012-1427 e, the sharp park safety infrastructure improvement project is to be continued for december 12, 2013.

>> any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? >> good afternoon, i am lisa signor, i am here representing the san francisco golf alliance, i am the secretary of that association and part of women club, we are here to support the continuance and look forward to be heard on the merits when it's heard. >> thank you, any additional public comment. closed. >> wu. >> move to continue. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> nothing. >> if nothing more on the notion continue. >> i actually have one question. it says this is proposed for continuance on december 12. but i don't see it on our calendar for next week.

will it be on there? the one drastical -- calendar for december 12. >> it wasn't added to the drastic drastical -- to be continued to draft for december. >> yes. >> on the matter of continuance. commission commissioner. s. that passed unanimously 6-0. and places you on your consent calendar, all matters here constituted by consent calendar are to be on a single role called by the commission, there will be no separate motion on

this item unless the request to remove and to be heard at future hearing. item 2, 2013.0994 c, for special use. item 3, 2013.0789 c, for special use, and item 4 for special use, i have no public speakers cards. >> any public comment on consent calendar. >> closed. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion commissioners to approve all items under consent. [calling roll] so moved commissioners that

motion passes unanimously 6-0. commission matters, item 5, consideration of draft minutes for november 14 and november 21, 201 2013. >> any public comment on draft minutes. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the draft minutes for november 14 and 21. [calling roll] so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-0. and places you on item 6. >> commissionera anan ancommiss.

>> i took a break of watching football and i watched 60 minutes, and i thought there were items important for san franciscans, an item about the completion of the dome in capitol of washington, d.c., and incredibly it was completed in the civil war, that made it more amazing. and you probably heard many times the dome here in san francisco in this building is higher from ground to the top of the dome, than that dome is in washington. but the point i was making is the buildings that are well-designed. and particularly classic architecture, but doesn't have to have, are complementary to the environment and we are questioning certain buildings being detrimental to the natural

setting. but i think the ferry building and the palace of fine arts and the city hall, and legend of honor, are many of our classic buildings are a complement to the environment. if we had no building at all or habitants in san francisco, it wouldn't be an interesting place. what makes san francisco interesting is the built environment we have. and particularly i am interested where i think we have a presentation on the presidio projects, and i am very favorable to the lucas one looking at the design and fitting in to what himy comment were. and second i want to talk that was in that "60 minutes" is amazon and the drones that they were planning deliver their

packages but what we should take out is that their growth has been astronomical. and in the statistics from black friday to cyber monday, there was a huge increase of buying online and flat at the brick and mortar stores. i think the lesson we need, while we are concerned about formula retail and its competition with our non-formula retail independent stores of the same type or not the same type. i think their biggest threat probably comes from online buying. not that there is anything wrong with it. many of the companies here in the city support that type of thing. but if we are trying to employ people and keep brick and mortar businesses, and particularly small ones. the important thing is to draw people out of their houses into the neighborhoods to shop.

if everyone sits in front of computer to do their shopping. not only will the formula retail suffer but also the small businesses. and it's my belief that well-designed and restricted architecturally, formula business will draw people in a neighborhood. where they come to get a starbucks coffee and realize there are small stores around there. as this discussion goes on what has been the impact of online shopping that has to be discussed of the whole discussion on the area formula retail. and my third comment has nothing to do with "60 minutes." but i received the memo regarding senate bill 743, and i think it's the elimination of los from what i understand and the other metrics.

but it still deals with congestion and i believe we still will address the congestion both in terms of traffic, auto traffic and in terms of all other traffic on an area when we evaluate an environmental piece. and i think we have look at that and the impact of parking garages and whether they help or don't help. i think one of the reasons we have congestion, sometimes people are looking around for a place to park, rather than having easy access to a garage. those are my thoughts. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have one question. on the minutes, it's not a question about the minutes. but it's the way that things are identified. on 111 california, which was on monday -- not monday but on november 14th. i recused myself and in the

minutes i am identified along with commissioner borden as being absent. technically i guess i am absent. >> in that particular case, commissioner sugaya. i remember because you were requested to recuse yourself from the previous item. and on the minutes it shows you actually recused. but we never recused you from the second item. but because you were absent that's how we chose to identify. because technically speaking you were not officially recused from both items and why it appears that way. >> all right. >> good answer. >> no, i remember that and i had to think what to do. >> that's fine. on the second item i have, the governor of california has an annual historic preservation award program. and i think the director's memo indicated that the twin peaks

tavern land-mark recognition was recognized by the governor. that was not the only thing in san francisco that the governor recognized. he recognized the alice carrey for her achievements here in the state. and nationally. and the second thing that the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation was recognized for their work in the project that is the central ymca building. and thirdly, well, the twin peaks tavern i mentioned. and lastly the -- this is a little bit of a side. the city of richmond redevelopment agency and ordent development inc. were recognized for their building in richmond.

and ordent building is one of the builders for the ford assembly building. if you haven't been there, i encourage you to go out there, it's a fabulous project. we are looking for good things to come from ordent at pier 70. >> commissioner moore. >> just triggered by the mention of pier 70. for those who have not received the announcement. this coming weekend there as well as at fort mason there is a christmas fair. they think would be very interesting, because san francisco made and all the local artists and artisans will be exhibiting and it's important to support that and let the public know. >> commissioner sugaya. >> beginning in the month there is a presentation at the fort mason center, co-sponsored by a

number of groups. itali italian embassy and consulatcon there is an exhibit in italy taking place. >> anything else happening at fort mason you want to report? >> i will do my one-man show. >> commissioner borden. >> i want to recognize that last saturday was small business saturday. and i did see (inaudible) out, small business commission and the chamber out in the neighborhood s promoting it and raising awareness. there was a comment about the neighborhood corridors and supporting them. >> commissioners if nothing further, we can proceed. item 7, planning commission rules and regulations,

consideration of proposed amendments, this was placed on your calendar for consideration purposes only. there was never an attempt to adopt any amendment today. however it's an initiatation for you to consider modifications and amendments proposed to you in the document you received. but dutiful noted that the city attorney office did remind me that it calls for a 10-day notice. we have received some concerns about the proposed amendments. if you would like, i can go through them with you. if you care to. >> i prefer to, yeah. >> okay. commissioners, on the first page articles 2 and 3 of your rules and regulations, are the modifications proposed are

purely semantics, changing and updating the names of the positions that they relate to. and then i thought chairman was a little antiquated. and the substance of the portions of modification proposed begins under article 4 where meetings are concerned. in section 1 there is a slight change in the hearing schedule. where the commissioner secretary will present to the commission on or before the first regular meeting of the year. it seemed awkward to me that you were considering your schedule in the year you were hearing it. it seemed more logical to hear the meeting schedule of 2014, for example in the last hearing in 2013.

that's the purpose of that modification. in section 3 of the same article, we are proposing to strike the term, written notice, in time and place in the regular meeting. this is by no means to eliminate a written notice. it's simply to acknowledge and comply with the sunshine act where notice is also required on the website. so it's simply to include any notice 72 hours before a hearing. written notices will certainly still continue to be issued. and just for your information what we used to send out close to 1,000 written notices of the agenda on a weekly basis have been reduced to 15. if you take away the few commissioners and myself that receive the written notice. the members of the notice that choose to receive the public notice, that number has been

reduced to 11. >> since there are a number of items and you are waving your hand. if you don't mind, let's have a dialogue about each. >> on the last one, while i agree with your interpretation, would it make sense to have an explanatory overriding paragraph at the beginning where we change the rules. for example, by taking the word, written out, explains because it makes sense in the world. however for those people that have not heard you say it, and there is a gap, and we are not getting notice anymore. and just like when we use the abbreviation and then with the full statement, and this would help allow people to acknowledge why we are changing it. thank you. >> commissioner moore, you are suggesting that we define what notices we are talking about the

rules and regulations? >> or just explain it at the first time why you are omitting and not getting notice. >> we can do that. yes. i want to be sure that you meant to be included as part of the rules and regulations than case report. >> yeah, that's probably the best way, case report, explanatory comment. whatever way you think is the best way to communicate it. >> all right. commissioner antonini. >> yes, i have a solution on that, to put written and electronic notice of each meeting. both have to be done, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i would put the two words and expand on the written. now we are saying not just written but electronic. or what type of word you want to describe e-mail-type of

noticing. >> certainly. >> that's a thought. >> if i could, the policy is that written notice is on request, isn't the way it works? >> the agendas are sent out by request. that's right. we send them out. there is an e-mail distribution list as well. but posting, the rules require in the sunshine ordinance that the agendas be posted 72 hours in advance. doesn't specify where, but we post them outside of your door and at the planning information calendar and the reception area of the planning department. so we post them in several locations and then of course on the website. >> that's what constitutes written notice? >> the posting, yes. >> physical hard copy. >> that's right. >> commissioner wu.

>> perhaps at the end we define definition of words like notice and maybe spell it out. because people have concerns that it specifies both written and electronic and what the process is. maybe as a footnote in the bottom of our rules and appear on the document. so that people are clear what notice we are referring to and how it is actually provided. i think the concern we had is how it be provided to people. and to express what we are referring to and how it's provided somewhere in this would be helpful. >> certainly. >> commissioner sugaya. >> are we going in order? >> yes. >> through the document? >> yes. >> can we back up to section 1. i would like the commission to think about changing the meeting time to 1 o'clock. and not take a lunch break. which usually ends up being

around 2 or 3 or whatever. and to force us to come already with something in our stomachs, so to speak. i haven't been used to eating at 11 o'clock, so we all take a lunch break. but i think that it does a disservice to the public to have to sit around 30-40 minutes while we are eating lunch. when they expect a meeting to go on. that's not to say that we can't take 10-minute breaks here and there or whatever. but i would like the commission to think about that. >> commissioner antonini. >> on that subject, i am going to speak with an opposite opinion. i think it's been a big improvement to start earlier. we have been getting out of here, maybe because agendas are shorter. but even on a long agenda, we are rarely here until midnight. and picking up that extra hour

and it was an hour-and-a-half from the earlier time, 1:30. and the lunch break is -- is discretionary. sometimes when we have a short agenda, we don't take the break and work through. and we often -- we never take a dinner break. so we sort of judge our lunch break as to whether we will have a long agenda that we will not have another time when the whole commission is there. i kind of like earlier, i usually function better early in the day and i would rather start as early as we can. and i understand what commissioner sugaya is saying, you have to eat earlier in the day but it works for me. >> commissioner moore. >> yes, i understand what commissioner is saying and i come here and eat a snack when everyone takes a lunch break. i don't like the use of public

time and waiting for us, when we say 15 minutes and it's 30. i think it's disrespectful, i agree. but since starting at noon, we have ended earlier. i don't know why it is, and what is it about that hour difference. we used to be here a lot more 7-8 o'clock at night and much later. and we seem to be done before 7 or after 7 typically and i am not sure what the differentiation is. but we are less exhaustive and tired. i would be for a way, if we do a break, standardize it and if our agenda looks really like. that we specify how we do time certain with special items. and say anticipated commission break at 3 p.m.

whatever time we think it is. it's typically 2:30 because the cafe downstairs shuts down at 3. maybe that would be a better way to handle that. and we publicize that to the public. on agendas where we anticipate our meeting to be long, we will take a lunch break at approximately 2:30 p.m.. and that way people can better plan their time. so we don't waste their time and keep our time earlier. >> commissioner moore. >> this is a tough discussion, obviously there is the public and there is us. and we are under tight conditions to spend a lot of attention to a lot of different things. i prefer the early start, i think it's a good part of the day. i understand that sometimes the lunch break comes at a difficult time. but i personally are not interested in pushing back into the later part of the day.

>> commissioner sugaya. >> i don't think there is a difference from 12 o'clock to 1 o'clock when we are taking 40 minutes in the back to eat lunch. that to me is a disservice to the public. if i was a member of the public and came at 12 o'clock, and i am last on the agenda and we take 40 minutes of our own time to eat lunch. i would not be satisfied sitting out there for an extra 40 minutes expecting something to happen. commissioner borden has another approach that seems reasonable to me. because it gaves fair warning to the public that at a certain point we may be taking a break. >> commissioner wu. >> i think that's fair and to give that warning. >> even though we did start at

1, this is a longhaul, and it sometimes goes longer, and whether at 12 or 1, we take two breaks. i would say from this seat, with the consultation of commissioner wu, cognizant of who is the room and time our breaks so there is a break in the flow and a good part of the audience is left. i think we are aware of that and trying to appease the public as best as possible. commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner borden, if it's 30 or 20 minutes and get it done in that amount of time. and it's up to us to get down and get our food and get back and eat it. and not use as time for other activities. and i think that the other advantage has been in terms of

meals, the most important thing is you get out of here and you are able to have a dinner at a reasonable time. not at 11:30 or midnight. that's more of a concern for me. having to be able to eat at a more reasonable time in the evening. because the next morning you have to get up and go to work. and sometimes the meetings do get late. the earlier than later is better for me but i like commissioner borden's idea. >> okay, if nothing further on that section. we have discussed the noticing, that it does include both written and electronic. the next change really, it's not substantive, however it's really for the benefit of the public and the commission is under section 6, under voting. i am suggesting to add the language, identifying planning code section 302-c, for planning

code amendments. and general plan amendments in planning section 340-d. because this section talks about failed motions and what is the result of a failed motion. when in these two particular cases that doesn't apply. so it's really identifying that there is a different procedure that is set out in the planning code that this section of rules regarding failed motions does not apply. that's all. again several semantic changes. order of business. it's just how we are talking about or identifying sections of your agenda. more semantics. and then the next substantive changes are under your appendixes. the very first one is submittal and hearing procedure.

or submittal requirements. and it's really to identify what i have heard frustration from the planning commission or to address the frustration i have heard from the planning commission. that members of the public are not aware that when they send a correspondence, generally via e-mail. to all the commissioners or to one commissioner and addressed to all commissioners, that i should be cc'd for it to be a part of the public record. i know that the commissioners identify that and are diligent in forwarding me that cc. but to get in the rules for the benefit of the public to how make it a part of the public record. after reviewing this section, i had another suggestion in changing the first sentence to be addressed advanced.