review but the commission wanted me to gnaw to the planning commission how much they appreciate work in a collaborative way especially 2, 3, 4 regards to the design review and supportive of this commission referring the item back to them for review when the full commission convened one of the first items on calendar was president from commissioner hyland to be part of the san francisco update the port was in attention and supportive of that appoint i'll keep you posted and commissioner hyland any developments on those working groups commission moved ton 0 it's only entitlement at questions hearing for e 55 stevenson the sky bridge connecting the market on a category one building under the building code on stevenson the architecture review committee reviewed the design and was she very supportive of the design the commission vociferated unanimously in support of the project along with staffs recommendation and conditions of approval the item be before this commission at our august 6th hearing commission then initiated the looker-on the forest hill neighborhood the

has one and the arts commission does, etc. or whether the existing ad hoc method was appropriate the current rules and regulations under article 3 states that the president should precede at all meetings of the commission and shall appoint all committees and chairs and all the duties necessary to the office committee members agreed that is sufficient of our experience clearly day as to total openness to the committee and for those who want to take on the extra work we decided not to forward that item to all of you this may be a moment to thank the entire subcommittee and i will ask that both the commissioner richards and commissioner johnson weigh in on what i summarized. >> commissioner johnson. >> all right. thank you very much thank you commissioner moore and commissioner richards for taking extra time we've spent a lot of time in the planning commission and commissioner moore thank you for chairing i appreciate that one i'll make a couple of quick comments we met 5 times so we discussed all of the issues added length at eac

transmits to the mail and the planning commission packet gets posted to the website wow. the surprise part the staff case packet separate from the commission packet is not included in the public view the public is blind to it then you have mail all the documents in paper form this is planning they're not going to stuff one thousand envelopes next day you have sunday unfortunately, a holiday forces snail mail and oh, unfortunately labor day and phenomenal not likely snail mail gets their stuff the public's request for two weeks is not shown here the green box is probably when the snail mail should be delivered that's why i handed you the calendar the planning commission calendar and for the historic preservation commission it is sort of a graphic guide okay. so planning has all the case reports and planning rush to adapt this schedule for snail mail is slow a detail and the public again sailed is blind we need to support the coalition timeframe and the actual mailing and repro mail should w be before snail mail i have a lens hundred and 50 word written document i ask to be

if the commission wanted to redo you want that that is up to the commission. >> we're asking for your advise not have to be done but if it does. >> the executive director is did he say absent tonight. >> i'm asking your advice for a city attorney do we need to do that. >> you can out of caution recast the vote. >> why not make a motion. >> i move we also allow commissioner renne to have to shorten the ballot measure proposal and to respond to any arguments or rebuttal with the city deputy city attorney. >> is there a second. >> second. >> public discussion hearing none i'll call the vote >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none it carries unanimously all right. turning now to agenda item 3 and the decision and possible action on the recruitment profile for the executive director position again there has been an amended recruitment profile i think you've all received and corrected some of the errors that have been appointed by a number of people and i will call for discussion on that revised draft. >> commissioner keane. >> yes. mr. chair i don't have it in front of the o

any further discussion among the commission? i am going to ask if anyone wants to volunteer as commissioner renne did with the legislation we just discussed but would like to take on as a task to assisted in responding to and prep response to the recommendations? >> you're putting us all on the spot. >> hearing none at the moment i'll see whether or not i can find a volunteer maybe i'll have to take it on. >> achiever i have a question maybe for the city attorney one finding i had a question about number 4 the changing of the burden of proof for the complainant is that something we can implement? >> so my understanding the burden of proof set up it mirrors sort of a lot how did the statutory claims come up and i have preserve and interpret that as subjecting to the prelims of the preliminary interview stage that is something the commission can take up that is one of the project on the going forward calendar that's a reoccurring issue who is what should preliminary be so it showcase something we can take into account. >> thank you

the ones that came from the planning commission, you can do. they have been before the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kim mastero, a resident of san francisco. i was raised mostly military family, hats were not proper to wear inside, but today i wear this hat in front of you in respect and honor and that i am also a boards member of the tenant association in the tenderloin. and they gave me this hat as a present for all supporting me and for what i come here to do in support of them. so i'm here today very, very strongly requesting that you pass this new ordinance, that stops this gap. i do not agree with the new amendment today for the 90% ami. i agree with commissioner kim that further conversation needs to be done on that. i have been a victim of domestic violence, which caused me to become homeless. i would still be homeless or dead while waiting for the promise of help, while many others still in the shelters. still i'm here to 'm here torequest as a to make us a c

. >> good evening aaron with the planning department staff this week at the land use commission they heard two items one was the establishment of the fillmore commercial district and the other of the visa determining economical district it creates both district and removes the lot areas and the intensity will be limit by the open space they voted unanimously to recommend approval and the modification to both nc t to apply the lot restrictions and the one additional planning commission modifications for the fillmore street to rezone two properties nc one, two rto the recommend go administrations we are recommended at the hearing one speaker who seemed to be adverse to my change. >> in the fillmore because of the areas troubled history with the redevelopment history the questions were based on lot area and supervisor wiener express his support and the racked density controls the committee voted unanimously to with a positive recommendation this week's board of supervisors was scald for the commissioner richards >> i supported the rezone and there's a car wash there one acre it's b

the project was reviewed by the architectural review commission on june 17, 2015. the arc provided comments and recommendations on the proposed project including the compatibility of the proposed project with standards and the significant building at 1355 market street. in response to the arc recommendation, the glass shielding has been revised to be comprised of single panels for the full bridge of the sky bridge and even panel will be comprised of single glass units without frames. the arc also committed that maintenance of the lighting on the sky bridge as well as maintenance on the glass panels be at more attention and address at the design stages and may include challenges given the sky bridge design does not allow for the access to the exterior. the project sponsor has admitted that the plans are in the early design stages at this time and as such staff recommends approval of requiring review of approval and maintenance and lighting plan by preservation staff prior to the approval of the site permitted. the project sponsor has incorporated the arc's recommenda

that the planning commission hasn't had the opportunity to review. here the planning commission has had the opportunity to review the proposal, although they didn't have the draft language in front of them. you could, as a policy matter, send these amendments back to planning for additional review, but you are not legally required to. supervisor wiener's proposed amendments were not specifically discussed at the planning commission. but those amendments would have the effect of making less restrictive rules on the property owners in terms of the affordability-levels. so the idea is that the planning commission consider changing the ordinance from no inclusionary requirements, to full inclusionary requirement, and got into some of the weeds about the levels of affordability, as one of your amendments discussed, supervisor avalos. and supervisor wiener's proposal is somewhere in between, no inclusionary and inclusionary matching all other housing. so consistent with our usual advice about what a "material modification" is. supervisor wiener's proposed

>> just the 23rd. >> commissioner hillis is not back he's gone. >> they don't want more time. >> commission for the record. >> i'm sorry commissioners the motions you're asking us to come back in a month to put another effort into a different solution set. >> or longer so we won't have a full commission for a month. >> i think went up appreciate the commissions flexibility and attempt to make that work we're at a place we have put our best foot forward and - >> you want to withdraw. >> we wanted to look for a conclusion today. >> i withdraw my second. >> okay. so we've withdrawn the second for a continuance there was a motion to intent to disparagraph. >> they're basically saying they can't say do it and really? >> you're so close come on this is like car max. >> i mean if i if i may i think retail and the in and out and pedestrians but i think there is such an important factor to have to service and the commission you've gotten over some of the biggest hurdle i think what they're trying to is the commercial even art wall and not intooerg is a exam room is a compromise solution it seems a s

each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> rose hill son please. good afternoon, commissioners i want to thank you all for the july 2nd hearing on the rules and regulations hearing submittal guidelines and to have a future meeting on in that portion i want to read into the record hundred and 46 words please snefrt this into the minutes a submittal guidelines timeline for mailing the documents to the publicity i public the flailed 14 day didn't give advanced noticed for the executive summary mr. sanchez rush to adapt this knowing the snail mail is ferry building detailed up to 4 days creates a detail to the pickup public with environmental case reports not due until the packets are due this causes the public to be blind of timeline sensitive information planning and commission who serves the public should do you want cf n 16 days prior to twelve may 28 letter to allow the fair process and i even have copies for everyone thank you very much. >> additional general public comment commissioners. >> larry

having a revitalization of mid market and on and on and the historic preservation commission we have gridlock raised the bar of buildings in that area i'll ask the da to perhaps give us a little bit of give you a little bit of background the conversation i had with kate stacey and perhaps ask the director or the zoning administrator to talk about the environmental review this is a bar that project has to be reviewed. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns so i think you framed it this way you're asking two separate questions what the standard for performing environmental review on a project when you have approved that are much later than the eir was done that's one question and the authority the commission has in reviewing this project given the approval happened almost 14 years ago i'm happy to speak to both questions i don't know the specifics of this questions or is environmental impact report but it is required later a determination by sarah jones as the environmental review officer as changes in circumstances or changes to the project or potentially mitigation measures alternative

for the august's 13 date and i thank the commission jet and the planning department for orchestrating this continuance as well thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners linda reuben, junius & rose i'm here on here on behalf of the project sponsor we're requesting the continuance due to comments received from the discretionary review requester regarding mroeltness of the packet posted online we prefer an august 6th due to the availability but spoken with the folks and adding to the august date and look forward to presenting at the next available hearing thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on the item of continuance? >> commissioner richards and public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> i don't have an advanced calendar in front of any i think that is a great idea to continue the dr i've talked with the project sponsor called mia couple of times yesterday and talked with ms. tucker there is a spirit of cooperation to resolve this on both sides i move to continue to august 13th. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i mentioned did possib

common cause an organization i once represent but i did want to revisit some previous history the commission had a conflict which they is what we are talking about and actually fined the individual $15,000 that person asked for a waiver of the fine based on the fact then not able to pay it and they demonstrated to the commission satisfaction that was the case and the fine was largely waived in not entirely waived i got wind this employee was an employee of the state i went off looking for any s e i evidence for this individual and encourage you for fun looking a state employee where you don't know if they've filed american people s e r ii 2r5kd down a document we found evidence i brought that to the commission that individual was, in fact negotiating the purchase of two homes they were pleading poverty to the commission there was no remedy for the commission except that fact so for the people that are here tonight i wanted to recount this story how valuable an s e i is and how accessibility of that information is also excelling important in a timely way so i thought i'd give you that story t

make the legislature aware the commission exists. i think it's pretty clear evidence that you're not doing anything of value for the taxpayers when the legislators don't even know you exist. >> good lord. >> we also obtained four years' worth of expense reports. >> what am i even looking at? >> since 2010 the commission had $150,000 in expenses but we don't entirely know where the money was going because some records were redacted, blacked out, like this $70,000 bill to amex. >> you have got an amex bill of $70,000, does that strike you as a lot of money? >> yes indeed, that's a shocking amount of expense report, especially for a commission that isn't meeting. who is paying $2500 for rental cars? >> enterprise made a lot of money from this commission. >> they did and i have no idea what those cars were used for. >> on top of the hundreds of thousands spent on staff salaries. >> i think it's a bogus sham commission. i'm embarrassed about it. >> those are strong words. >> i feel strongly about it. i do. i feel very strongly about govern

well as project approval is scheduled to be heard by the planning commission on july 23. in mid-june last month, we received a request from the developer of the project to approve the small portion of the project that lies within the rincon point south beach project area. that area, the small triangle property is identified in the material that was submitted to the commission as part thofe pact as well as in that page that i just showed which comes from the packet on a slightly larger scale. you see the project itself is outlined in the orange area and that the portion under the redevelopment plan is the small triangle area in the south eastern corner of that building. when we received-when ocii received the request we approve this tiny portion of the projict we looked to see what was being proposed for that area and what the zoning was. it turns out the part of the project that lies within the rincon point south beach redevelopment project area is very tiny portion of the underground garage, a small portion of the building from floors 1-7, it is a corner of the building a

. >> madam chair and members of the commission, my name is jim morales. the action before you relates to a project that has been proposed at 75 howard. it is approximately 20 story over a garage, 220 foot residential buildings. there is ground floor retail, 100 parking spaces and 120 bike parking spaces. it is in a zoning district under the planning code that is designated as downtone office special development. the project comes before you in a very narrow way and that is there is a small portion of the parcel that this project will be built on that is within the rincon point south beach redevelopment project area. the project sponsor first applied for planning department approvals in 2012 and 2013. they had a slightly larger project at that time. subquently they applied for a revised project in 2014 that further reduced the size and earlier this year they submitted yet aortproposal that brings the project into the limit i just described as the project description. the planning department back in 2012 determined that environmental impact report was requir

not to have go reporting on contracts to the commission from city officials and the opinion was that that freed up other staff time so you didn't need to take the time to do it none agreed the reason our going through this by line by library another commissions inadequately changed the law with the mrmths look at the chamber of commerce they said the chamber used to be considered a lobbyist and but the board of supervisors changed the law there are larry that was the law passed by this commission in 2010 and it gutted any reporting from the chamber of commerce you have not fixed it you're trying to fix what was done wrong in the past and if you fail to do so it will be a problem for this commission i would like to point out in terms of of the issue of nonprofit your confusing 501-c 3 and 4 3s can spend a southern percentage and have to report to the irs are you saying to the sfifkts that has to be recorded to the irs but we don't have to report to the people of san francisco that's nuts. >> i'm bob planet hold i want to advocate for pga 24 pretty much in the form it is again, we're g

in my view, the commission should try to minimize variability. if it must be placed in the ban, it should go in the uplane spectrum not the down lane. in order to reach a compromise, we need to make more information public. right now stake holders and commissioners alike are being asked to take on faith that unless we adopt every aspect of the proposals, the incentive laux end in apocket liptic failure. i prefer the other trust, but verify. next, the fcc's designated entity or de program, which has been plagued with abuse. it's supposed to help small businesses large corporations routinely try to game the system. that's why i was disappointed when the fcc recently voted to make it easier for big companies to profit from the program. we were promised fcc action to close loopholes exploited by slick lawyers, instead the commission reopened loopholes that it closed on a bipartisan basis years ago. loopholes through what a competent attorney could drive a truck. specifically the fcc paved the away for de's to obtain a discount on the spectrum and turn

to talk about just in all the years this commission has existed we finally have a role for the urban planning guy a real role and considering our background and our education i think you have to be on this committee bryant no matter what and whoever is in my place when i'm dead. >> for those commissioners that are not in the subcommittee are they able to make public comment is this a project concern and come in and make comments and suggestions how does that work. >> once the committee is formed every commissioner not a voting member of the committee is welcome to attend outline r autumn the hearings and not speak as a member of the public but actually as a commissioners and on top of i think that once the committee meets reports back to the full commission here's the recommendations you made i'm not sure if there is a ratification of what they recommend i don't think so but there isolutely a way to report back once the first committee comes together we talked about come up with some standards recommendations to give some language around you know kind of putting mo