And their concerns and i encourage the public to be more substantive in their comments and ceqa is the third rail and people dont 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 dont have to and we heard from members of public they want the conversation here at planning. They feel its 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 chus legislation and look it apart and had a number of hearings. We didnt just continue it out. We had a bu
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 im 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 c
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. Its 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
Time, but absent that date its 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. Im 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 admin
Really evaluate whether addressing a administrative correction but i dont 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. Its 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 dont mean anything. Planning, Planning Commission, planning department. Im 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 req