calendaring items. and in te-- the past, we were talking about discretionary review hearings. and talking about shortening the amount of public testimony. commissioner sugaya has made some recommendations and we will look at the different ways that we can be amending the hearings. and we were talking about, this is something that came up when commissioner lee ann commissioner alexander were here. they have been setting up some subcommittees', to meet with the staff to talk about residential design, standardizing the packets. and maybe we will deal with some things with finance, to lessen the amount of time that we would

be spending, having to discuss those things. there are a lot of ways to look into this and we could start there. commissioner? >> one of these problems that occurred, even though we get the cards that are submitted, first of all, people do not have to have speaker cards. we have requested this. secondly, this does not always indicate how many people will be speaking. with 100 cards, you are able to limit the time. you do not think this with three or four cards. it becomes difficult for the chair to handle. and -- falling on what the

president mentioned, i have discussed with the department, and this goes to the are, actually, -- d.r. actually. this goes out to the public and i think that this can be rewritten. there are some things that we can do on that front, on how we present this to the public, and this would be helping things in the long run. >> commissioner? commissioner sugaya: this is not intended to limit public comment in any way. people can say what they want to in this limited time that we have given them, but we may want to think of a more pro-active way of working with the request is and the project's sponsors,

and the neighborhood groups with respect to how to more effectively make their presentations. at times when you have 50 people speaking, this is fine, they are exercising their rights. but at times you could take that same number of people and get the point across, much more effectively. i remember one time, a neighborhood group was organized into, i forget how many people. there was a presentation that was being made and the next person followed up on this, and by the end they had given us a complete presentation. i do not know. this would be more of trying to work with the group's that have come in before us, because there are different ways to approach the presentation. and this may make things more

efficient. i am not volunteering to do this. i actually have given some lectures to the other groups about this. commissioner moore: i liked this idea, but this comes from the top down, rather than the bottom up. we have people who have that ability to, for the first time, to participate in a public decision process and have the ability to really voice something. and you can see what this means, and we have already heard this. we will be taking that away and we will be limiting everything. >> we have to be very critical about how we are streamlining all of this. commissioner fall -- fong? >> from what i am hearing, we

are looking at the best practices and the other conditions. taking a look at what has been proposed before, and what has not worked. with the board of supervisors, this may come back to the process of the d.r.'s. rather than not taking the public's time, or the public task force -- this is great. >> are you good with that? >> regarding the d.r., they had tabled at the package of the legislation. and so, we will be talking to supervisor mar. and they will bring this back to us later. >> are you interested in getting

the voices from the volunteers? i am interested in volunteering and helping as much as i can. >> and there is one last thing. if you look at the review guidelines, the second item has a simple routine that is complex with very little description. and possibly, through the task force, we can look at this with examples of what the sample application looks like. and this may be helping with that to eliminate duplication among those people. >> commissioner antonini? we may end up doing this, however this works. and we will bring the city attorney -- and we will talk to

them about how to set this up. i would like to open this up for public comment at this time. this is for the rules and the discussions. >> in respect to the changing hours on thursdays, and i would ask that you tread very carefully about this expansion. it is very important that this process be acceptable because missing this much work is very difficult. in great sympathy for what was being expressed, on the fifth thursday and the amount of preparation materials that were required to review, much of

which i am responsible for. i have great apologies for this. you need to take any opportunity so that you can arrive fresh, to find a new piece of ridinghood -- and writing -- writing. and there is the scheduling and disappointment of missing the hearing. the certainty of the hearing happening on the day that this is planned for is more important than the length of time waiting for that hearing. and this happens before in opposition. it is important that those who make this effort will be able to

appear. i say that you should have a certain time, for the different times in your calendar so that if you have not reached this by 7:00, you can say that you are not expecting to finish the calendar. and this would be a very effective way of avoiding a lot of frustration. thank you very much for considering this. and if there is more public input -- i am certain that there are others with similar opinions that be more rigid that may be more interesting. >> and is there any additional public comment? i understand that at one time, the times were certain.

this was indicated on the calendar and i do not know if this is true or untrue. the secretary would know for certain. >> the planning commission, in the 30 years i have been here, we generally do not do this because the calendars are so long. and we have no idea how many people are going to come for any item. we do have a guide that the case will not be heard before 5:00 or 6:00, and we usually do this on a regular basis. this way, you will know that you did not have to come -- and the case will likely be heard at that time or -- we were careful not to make this time certain. because sometimes we will not get the other cases. >> i know that we have a heavy

calendar, but we may want to look at this. >> this is the new time and we may want to consider all of this. we did not want to do this in the past. i think that this is all very possible. >> i am looking at the same face that has been here since 1:30. and that can be very old. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: so. >> to wrap up, we will be listing these items on the calendar. these specific issues that you have raised today as items to be considered to change the rules. these have to be specifically listed at the actual items will be on the calendar. and this requires the 10-day notice. >> we will put this back on the calendar in a couple of weeks.

and then we will do another. >> just be clear, this is february 17. >> this will be march 3. >> we will put this back on the calendar. >> as the president mentioned, this was coming up for the special hearing, on treasure island. also, please be aware that you will have training for sequa in the morning and this is also something to consider. and with that, we will put this back on the calendar for march 3, for a public hearing on these items that you have brought up today. thank you. >> there is nothing to prevent the chair from having this item, for treasure island or

something. >> part of the thought that -- this is the fit thursday, march 31. we could bring this back just to hear one item. and this could be something else. >> i thank you. we will move forward on the calendar, to item no. 5 and any other conditions that are concerned. >> there is a phenomenon, if you have heard about this in california. these are times in january and february, and the california coastal commission and other agencies have invited the public for the first time to photograph and observe the high tides, to

indicate where the bay area it would be moving to under the rising sea levels. and they are asking people to go to those places where the high tides can be seen, these buildings, and photographed them. and there is a web site, in which these agencies are asking people to submit their photograph. this is basically sharing the experience for the awareness of the high tide, and what they will do to us as a waterfront city. this is nothing that is frightening, this is actually the invitation to observe this when nature is making this happen. i thought that this would be an interesting thing, and so, the next article that you have seen, on january 30, was something that concerns all of

us. and there is a real sign that the foreclosure crisis is showing up in san francisco real estate. and this seems to cut across all the neighborhoods and income levels. i found this a little bit more alarming because we do not go by the homes, but are facing foreclosure. these are not outlined any more. if you go to fresno, or even los angeles and into the suburbs, you can see this on every street. i have not noticed this and this article was a little bit, not so happy. >> commissioner? >> i have a couple of items, and they also have an origin in the press. many of you may have seen an article in the chronicle. the public safety building that will be retaining the existing fire station, there was a lot

of mention about the design. i contacted john and we had a conversation. i thought that this may come before us because the other prize -- the other projects, we have always had authority over these designs. and it turns out that because this is a public building as opposed to a commercial building, we do not. i spoke to an architect in consultation and without commenting on the building itself, i suggested that we may want ask for the hearing on this, because this is an iconic building. this building is the subject of a lot of news reports, and certainly, many of us remember

the beautiful hall of justice that we used to have. and we remember the streets of san francisco, but not the present hall of justice. not that this is going to be a hall of justice. but i believe that the public would be happy if there was some kind of hearing. we may have a line of visibility. i would mention that we should consider this for the future. and we will see what we can do. the other items coming today, this was a good article talking about the family going to this process. and we have all been down this road. and when we are seeing with the expenses that is involved in these, mentioning them in the conversation and the process of some revision, to try to make this more fair and more expedient, whenever possible. what he was not aware of, this

is the $3,600 that is the mandatory fee, for these unit mergers. the one thing that i would ask the staff, is if this is applied when this is considered administratively? this is mandatory but the staff can sometimes make these decisions to allow this, based on this criteria. i was not ever clear about if the party that is doing this merger will have to pay the fee, if this is handled with the administrator or the actual hearing. this may be something that we are supposed to look at . there may be an incentive for the people to accommodate their needs. >> and i will check into this. i do not know that we could handle this, administratively. >> they are all considered it this way and they all have to

pay the fee. but if they satisfy, four of the five criteria of the staff, they have the ability to allow this merger without this coming before the planning commission. it seems that this is a large amount for something that is handled administratively. finally, there were a couple of articles in the deal with parking, another interesting subject in san francisco. this will deal with the neighborhood parking pass, which deals with whether they should be allowed to purchase these if they are going into the neighborhoods, and the other was about residents living in areas with no neighborhood barking, spending most of their act of time going out to move the cars around, putting more money in the meters. i think that this is reflective of the fact that we have a city without enough parking, and we

have a 19th and 20th century city, where there is a shortage of parking, and i do not think that the cars will go away. they may convert into electra cars, and they may be converted to other types of cars, but this is going to be a reality for the foreseeable future. and one thing that we may want to consider, looking at all of this, and perhaps figuring out the different ways to establish the ways that people can park their cars in certain storage facilities, many people are more than happy to, if they have residential parking, to put the car on the street and just leave that there until street cleaning comes, because they do not use this during the week. there is certainly something in this discussion, to look at what is a reality, and to see how we can address this. this was quite interesting. >> i think it may be interesting

to talk about the parking, and have a conversation about this. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: you can always come out to my house because back when they tore this down, many years ago, i was passing by and i was late, coming home from a meeting. and there was some trouble -- rubble, with six pieces of granite from this rubble. the statute of limitations has gone on. [laughter] however, i do have to show, the director --

>> i thought that this was an excellent article. i thought that everyone had seen this. i have attended several meetings in the last week, and i was hoping to rebuild this project, and we had an all-day meeting last saturday. this started at 10:00 and ended at 4:00. i have about 150 people there, and this was very well attended. this was excellent. and this is just an indication to me of a great out -- that is going into this particular project. i had a tour with the partners said residents -- parkmerd-- parkm-- park merced residents.

there was a total overflow. this was double what this should have been able to handle. they were open, just to listen to this. this was very well protected. i was meeting with the project manager, on this design for rebuilding the safeway. this is the third architect with this design and they actually are starting to get some volume with the general public out there. and yesterday, this was last night actually, there was a meeting regarding the eastern neighborhood transportation. this was 30 or 40 people in attendance, with the department's staff.

this was the consultant, on that one. some of these things were accomplished but not all of them. >> commissioner fong? >> this is related to the future agenda items. and there is the publication of your idea, we will be suggesting for the speakers or presenters that may be related in san francisco that may be affecting the work. we have a few minutes, with the timeline of the america's cup and with the necessity is going to be like from the planning commission and our department, so that we are all on the same page, to make certain that this is the best that we can do. in addition to this, i would like to suggest that someone from the san francisco travel association visitors bureau,

with the renovation that is going on, the general move of hotels in this area, i think as a commission we will be faced with some of the grand hotels and what they may be purchased for, and eventually. and i think this is something that we could all benefit from. we have a quick update from the same group with discussions about moscow in the east, and the square footage. and what the demands are going to be for the hotel business in san francisco. and maybe an update about where we are in the competitive sense in san diego. and we have the advantage and

the disadvantage. the third item i would like to suggest is an update as well. this is related to parking and transit, overall. i think that we should understand the goals that we have. >> this sounds great. commissioner? >> following up on some of the articles that are around, there is another on the completion of the palace of fine arts. this has been a longstanding project. this is not quite finished, but these ceremonies took place in the last couple of weeks. >> commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to say -- is this the time to give us a rough idea of what happens as this comes to the

department, such as the one that the commissioner was describing, with the new buildings and the new activities. the only thing that will remain under the redevelopment, when this is finished, this is the reconfiguration to what this is like. everything else that you were mentioning, including the expansion, this would be a new issue and i am wondering about what you are taking from the city and the planning party. >> and as you know, the redevelopment plan expired last year and this is about what the zoning was before the redevelopment area was put in place. we should not be talking too much about that. newhall we can give you more

information about this. da>> we can give you more information about this. we have been working with the redevelopment agency for more on this. >> and as we know today, in sacramento there is a discussion about the exhilarating -- accelerated plans for the redevelopment, and this sounds a little bit different from what i thought that this was going to be like, when he would take these areas in the state of california, and i have attended a breakfast meeting for a comment on california and the development, and i assume that as you were sitting there, and we have the

report on this, something was happening with the hope that you would keep us posted, in terms of how this is affecting us and the work that we do. h>> if we could move forward to the director's report, and the historic preservation commission. >> i was going to tell you that there is a memo for the governor's proposal, and dan prepared this. this calls for us to eliminate these agencies by march 1. not only the redevelopment areas, and treasure island, although this is the redevelopment agency under state law. this would be affecting all of those large, redevelopment areas.