opposition to the proposal by organized on position for a period not to exceed 10 minutes instead of 15 with a minimum of three speakers. president olague: and we have received a lot of comments from the public about that to keep it at 15, which i would support actually. commissioner miguel: i would also. president olague: is that something? commissioner borden: i forgot the note from peter cohen and specifically what we had said at one point is a project sponsor gets 15 minutes and organized option and fair to offer them that. secretary avery: we will change that back to 15. do you want to keep the language with the minimum? >> absolutely. and that will go back to 15 minutes instead of 10. and that will be the same as --

that's it. for the rest of that category under standard cases, for d, you eliminated the language and will be given a period not to exceed five minutes if that organization or group is represented by one speaker. you have eliminated that language. president olague: yes. comfortable with that. secretary avery: you wered e you have eliminated -- under e. you have eliminated the same language with 15 minutes. and then you eliminated all of f. and g.. and rechanged the numbers according to the rest of it. president olague: yes. and in the other cases, 2d has the environmental and historic resources be attached to all submittals. so under c, we are going back to 15 minutes instead of 10. we're keeping the language with

the minimum of three -- >> go to 10 for the presentation and keep it at 10. president olague: most people don't even take 15 minute, i'll be honest with you. >> i am talking about the project sponsor. >> unfortunately, they always seem to run over time when you give them 15 minutes. i don't think we can cut it shorter. secretary avery: you guys tell me what you want. the project sponsor time or -- president olague: i change it to 15. i go with 15. commissioner borden: i think 15. honestly, granted, sometimes the project presentation is a little bit too much, but at the end of the day, if it is -- if the general public is watching gets more clarity about the project and obviously we have read it and have a different perspective, but people watching on tv, sometimes it is helpful if the architect goes through and that is usually what gets cut off. >> and they are leaving it 15 for both sides. >> as much as we appreciate that -- commissioner sugaya?

commissioner sugaya: this is a free for all, right? >> on complicated cases, 1b -- >> let me go back. on page two. >> on two of the appendix. and it says through the commission secretary at and then we have linda's email address. and if linda ever leaves, then we have to change that, right? and go to a hearing to change it? >> that is a good question. because rules and regulations can only be changed in a public hearing. however, if it -- commissioner borden: isn't there a generic, and a commissioner secretary at whatever email? >> why do you have to put the email address? >> it doesn't exist currently as you are suggesting it.

but i can't imagine that we can't create that. >> i think we should create an email that anybody can check so it doesn't -- it has to be checked and the whole thing doesn't have to be checked. commissioner moore: and for your reference, it is generic commission secretary at planning.org and they have to find the address. president olague: and remain the way it is and some language subject to change or something like that. commissioner miguel: and to create an email that's the commission secretary. president olague: i don't have any opposition. >> it's strong feelings here. commissioner miguel: if we have to go to a public hearing, to change the email. >> and deputy city attorney. there is no reason you have to include the email and i would recommend not including the email and look up on the webpage who the commissioner secretary is and assigned staff.

>> thank you. >> and a question to the point of order in a different way. so the question is, though, if somebody submits something to you and you are not here, does someone check your email? >> no. >> the emails are personal. >> right. so i guess what we do have to figure out in general is that -- and i don't know -- there's been instances where people claim they have submitted something to you but you weren't here and jonas was here and so i just think not for the purpose of the rules but as a purpose on the website to create a secondary or a dummy email that wouldn't be personal and submittals could be sent to that could be checked by anyone so we don't have that issue. >> it makes sense to do that to have an address that is more generic. and we have an internal one at the department, i believe.

but i don't know if they can -- president olague: i would like to discuss that more. i am not feeling completely comfortable with that. secretary avery: my only objection is that i get hundreds of emails every day. if i am going to be responsible for taking my personal and that the general public knows how to read and plus this new one, when will i have time to do the other work? commissioner borden: there is a way that, for example, at my work i have multiple email addresses, and it all comes to the same place. and there's a way that you can do it that it would come to you and also stay in that mail bobbi box and for someone reason, you are not there, someone can check the mailbox after 5:00 p.m. on wednesday, and for that purpose and have that information and it would normally still come to your mailbox. secretary avery: commissioners, rather than make a change -- commissioner borden: i am not saying put it in here. secretary avery: and we need to discuss that.

president olague: and it has to do with the responsibility of the secretary and if we have all the random emails to some info box, who is ultimately going to be responsible for checking that and responding and that is whey am concerned if there is no clear line of responsibility for receiving that, it can get lost. >> my point is to have it go to her, not to create this email would be general, but talking about submittals specifically that just to avoid the issue writ comes directly to your inbox but another inbox that could be checked. to create another place to have this go. >> i don't want to put this in year. president olague: i don't want to make the change in the rules. >> i am not suggesting that it be in the rules but something to consider because of the issue brought up. secretary avery: i understand

your point and there are literally thousands of emails that came in while i was gone and as i am going through, it's just to me and no one got it and you didn't get things forwarded to you and i didn't get a chance to respond to them because i want here, they came just to me. so that is what we should talk about and work out. >> for the purpose of the rules, we can get back on that subject -- president olague: thank you. i apologize for the free for all nature of the conversation. usually we push buttons and very orderly, but i think it's appropriate for this only. secretary avery: and we are agreed to eliminate my email address in 1b. going back to the rules, we had

gotten to 2d. to #c and we have gone back to 15 minutes on 3c and left the project sponsor and 3b at 15 minutes. this is the same as standard cases and eliminated the language and the same for 3e and eliminated 3f and g and numbered the rest of the items and those are the only changes i am aware of and you will change the adoption date. it is not july 20. that is all i am aware of.

>> i don't have changes but i would like to have it recognize that we have language in here in three places at least that says revisions submitted at hearings are discouraged. president olague: good for that. and that is in every one of the cases and then the other one is the staff on policy or major project informational presentation at the commission is supposed to get precipitated power points one week in advance. >> we'll bring it with us every week. >> if we don't get it, we will still hear the case? >> and it says december cession and if we want -- it says

discretion and so we could say that but make it not so arbitrary. >> there is one interesting thing that happened today at 11:25 a rather potentially important set of comments came in regarding 55 laguna and the person presented here and so when that comes in, the presentation itself does not give enough to understand. and to send it the week before, i would have time to read it and think about it. >> and the public needs to be encouraged to submit public commentary early on. and which you either agree with or not. that is not the point. and somebody wants to make a contribution, but out of respect of time we need to have it in order to be thoughtful about it.

commissioner borden: i know the rules are on the website, yes? so maybe we can to have the middle issue stuff on the website. and if they want to thoughtfully consider the comments and to give them enough time. president olague: or staff should discuss with project sponsor also. and it should be part of the routine of what they do. and the project sponsor should be up front given the list of the rules. they are? well, then there's -- >> and to submit things late is one problem or in a day or two in advance. and commissioner moore is raising is often for memberses of the public who come in very, very late, not project sponsor concerns. president olague: i know what you are saying. secretary avery: and let me just

recap this. not only do members of the public, but our staff does this. and we get things today. so they have had changes and everybody on both sides of the coin are in violation of your rules. so what do we do? president olague: just encourage and i think that -- commissioner miguel: i think we encourage because we also encourage people to talk about d.r.'s and talking about other things and to negotiate and as we know, sometimes that comes down to right outside the door. so absolutes are a problem and we're encouraging it in another sense. >> we know the language within the rules and up to you to enforce it. and i know because of the whole

nature of negotiation, it is hard to enforce something when you are encouraging negotiation and that might happen just prior to us calling the item. it is really up to you do you keep it and change it and do you want, and how do we better address making sure all sides adhere? >> that is a loaded question. and encourage that it happens but i am not sure we can ever enforce it. i don't think it will happen. i couldn't support something that would be so rigid because these things of cur. >> i think it is enough that it is in your rules and i am not sure what else you can do beyond that.

>> i would like to open it up for public comment. >> sue hester, and i submitted revision and none of them are reflected in the discussion. the issue is the current procedure is the staff ignores complicated case and don't follow it and you get staff report two weeks in advance extremely rarely and a staff report allows people that are having problems to read it and respond it to and when they get available on a thursday and become available to the public on friday afternoon and how do you think anyone is going to submit anything that you can absorb in that period? and i would ask that you shift a lot of things into complicated cases and that the staff be told that if you don't have the staff report, it is off calendar if it's due two weeks in advance.

that would be a therapeutic way of getting enforcement. large projects in the eastern neighborhood should all be defined as complicated cases. all the projects with multiple exceptions should be defined as large cases. so the original exceptions were supposed to be minor in the olden, olden days of the downtown plan and now we have projects that are like 500 units with 10 exceptions. and then they come and they are an understands case. and no one enforces the rule for two weeks in advance and there is also a planning code rule for 309 and 309.1 and that says 10 days in advance. that is not hon in order. rincon hill cases have the 10-day and i come here and be a crank saying this and i proposed ap amendment and it didn't get

reflected and i got this last week and i am saying you're never going to change the practice that makes informed public comment possible. because people cannot get the final divisions from the developer on friday afternoon and have a hearing on thursday and get you the material in advance. it doesn't function. i ask that you redefine complicated cases to be just about the project that has an e.i.r. and a negative declaration or a tiered project which is all of the eastern neighborhoods that you get that come through as categorical exemption even though they may be 100 units. like 1501 which was then taken off calendar and 2121 which was continued. and none of these cases come to you for the staff report more than seven days in advance.

and that is dysfunctional. and if you really respect public input, you have to have reports in sufficient time to allow the public to give you informed comment so that we're not all scattering around trying to read stuff at 4:00 on a friday afternoon and finally up on the website. so i ask you to redefine complicated cases and enforce the rule and staff be told if you can't get your stuff done, it's off the calendar. thank you. president olague: thank you. i see no additional members of the public in the audience, so therefore, public comment is closed. any other additional commissi commissioner comments? >> like to have everything stay

with the rules. >> if i may, ms. hester keeps bringing up the issue and staff has because the rules don't define what a complicated case is, it is basically been our determination to figure out something that is big enough to have two weeks in advance. and we do that early with the i.r. documents and other large documents of that sort, but i guess i would leave it to you to tell us if you are getting your documentation far enough in advance. commissioner moore: not always, i would say. i think it's a mix and match. it is partially because of of a push on the calendar and accelerate things without following the same identical rule each time. i am not opposed to taking some closer definition of what a large case is. but i am not quite sure it is as

extensive as ms. hester is describing. i am prepared to leave that open and add it with an asterisk of what is the meaning of complicated case and spend a little bit more time thinking about instead of just reacting. i would -- commissioner miguel: it is not defined in the rules. which is all right with me. president olague: we have a conversation about that here. commissioner moore: we might want to discuss that a little bit further. secretary avery: commissioners, i have a feeling that i am probably the only one who is here with the discussion of the creation of complicated cases standards, etc., and the commission had a discussion on what constituted the complicated case. they did not ever put that in their rules and basically it was on the size of the document that came through and the size of the project that was being proposed. and again, it was never ep caps

lated in the -- it was never encapsulated in the rules and regulations and you don't have a definition. and if no one was here, it would be hearsay if i came up with the paper from the hearings and it is hearsay from me on what they believe their definition of complicated cases were. so i think it would be timely for you to have that discussion. president olague: great. perfect. we'll calendar it. >> but we're going to go ahead and adopt these. commissioner miguel: i would move we adopt with the changes we have discussed, which i think secretary has duly noted. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners, would you like me to restate this? or are we -- go over them all? president olague: no. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to adopt the rules and regulations as they have been discussed and changed today.

[roll call taken] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion has been approved unanimously. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address you on items to the public that fall within the jurisdiction of the commission. each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind they may not address you on any item that appears on this calendar. i have no speaker cards. olague is there any general public comment? seeing none, general -- secretary avery: before you close the public comment, i know i am a commission secretary to you and i just want to thank all of you for your kind cards and expressions during the past month. president olague: we missed you and are glad to see you back. with that being said, our meeting is adjourned.

thank you.

>> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet. these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be

completely dark. there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really. we are blinding ourselves in a way. >> you can look at the images, they are beautiful. when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about

environmental issues that was very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be something that opens a dialogue to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and