the majority of the cases, the reply brief has been mostly repetitive. >> i have no problems with a summary. we wind up looking through there to see if it is something new. it can be 50 or 100 pages.

what ever the person reading the reply brief saw in the brief vs. the timing. i favor the brief, and i understand the argument. in most instances, very few pages are provided. >> what do we have to understand what is useful in submitting a response?

>> we have a multieye page document that talks about the appeals process. there is not a lot of guidance on a more substantive areas of what would go in a brief. >> is that something -- that document is on the web. when we talk about what the font size is, that would be useful.

>> so we don't need to do that tonight. >> so we don't need to do that tonight. >> i guess a concern i have is if respondent comes up with additional documents, which happens often if there is no reply brief, the apellant is meant to address that. maybe there is a way that we can, as president peterson requests, grant continuances, and grant more time, maybe even.

the apellant gets more shots at the apple because they get a brief. in fairness, the board of supervisors, you are coming in at the same time, a simultaneous change. having said that, you know, we all read the initial opening brief you really are looking in response to the response. you also sometimes get a response from the pro se litigators. i would say the non-litigators view it as an uneven playing

field. >> the preliminary statement in the feemed back in 2002, the old days was both parties briefed. one thursday prior simultaneous rebuttal. so when the board came up with this schedule, the reasons for the reply was, given the super -majority vote, the board wanted to, for lack of a better word, wanted inform -- wanted some sort of extra chance to present their case. >> that was the higher hurdle. the previous director used to mention a number ever times that the apellant has a -- a number of times that the apellant has a much higher hurdle. >> you need 4-7 votes to get any. >> not in every case. >> at a d.r. hearing, you need a 4-7. that was a discussion. 8 --

>> is that when the change took place, eight years ago? >> yeah. >> the other reason the apellant goes first is the apellant has the burden of proof. the apellant has the burden of proof in a situation where the super majority is required. >> i think it is prejudicial to the apellant for the fact they have to go first for the rebuttal period. they should have the option. i don't have a problem with that. it would be complicated to say you can go first or last, but to me, the fact that they have to go first creates a higher burden on them than the issue we're having due with, you know, rebuttal. i find -- man, i thate to gitch a percentage, because i'm not noletised enough, but 5% of rebuttals have something in there worth reading other than the guy is wrong, he lied? you know, i didn't shoot my

mother-in-law. so do -- to do away with rebuttals is not problem matic in terms of what we gain from it. i think it is too complicated to say when do you do your board of appeals.

>> why don't we just keep going until the end. >> article four, which has to do with the administrative record, noted no proposed revisions there. the other party has a -- has one shot at briefing. changes the deadline from materials, members of the public.

i'm not sure what the reason was for setting it at two-thirds-based, but would allow staff sufficient time to include them in your packets. of course the board is allowed to bring something today board pursuant to sunshine. they will not be forwarded to you, but it creates a process by which someone may request permission to file. there is an opportunity to request additional pages. section 2 offers the board to give guidance to the public and give assistance to the people that may communicate with the board. it says evidence may be made

part of the public record, and to do that a, written submital to the board, and those submitals should be submitted to me, to the executive secretary, and not individual board members. >> i want to applaud that change. that means are no longer 6 c1 that means we are no longer to be contacted by the public. >> that is putting the public on notice those types of contacts should not take place. >> section 6. clarifies the rules. what should and should not be discussed at a site visit and the subsequent reporting requirement once the visitor comes back to the board meeting. section 7 revises the rules on continuances and scheduling requests. tips make them more consistent with what the current practice is, and

and section 8 clarifies the existing rules on re-hearings, and it says the board could request that on its own initiatives. commissioner garcia, would you like to have a latin phrase on that? commissioner garcia: if we did it, it would be plural. commissioner fung: i would raise the re-hearing request. we are the only one.

the commissioner garcia: i would want to keep that in, so that is provided by ordinance. vice president goh: there is a belief that one has to file in order to exhaust the administrative remedies. is that not right? commissioner garcia: no, you do not need to do it, but i think people think they need to do it. the hearing exhausts all administrative remedies itself. commissioner fung: can anybody here remember when we granted a re-hearing. president peterson: there were some cases when the appellate was not present, and the board did not know why, and then

later, they said, "i was called out of town on emergency." the board made a decision and was ready to issue a final decision in the case, so it is technically a re-hearing. commissioner fung: can i not bring it up? i will see what the vote is. >> i think i would need to look into that question before i would be comfortable. i would have to research whether it is required to provide a mechanism. it was 4 when new evidence comes forward, or maybe there was some error, to correct the decisions.

commissioner fung: within 10 days. how is new information going to come within 10 days? and therefore, i agree that there may be a situation where we want to address something, right or wrong, but the fact is, i could not think of it. there was a reopening. it is almost the same thing. vice president goh: i believe that if people knew they had to file rather than lose it, we would see fewer. maybe the problem is somehow getting across to people. secretary hous -- pacheco:

sometimes people do that. >> there are the underlying environment determinations with in those 10 days. vice president goh: ok. president peterson: so we can do some additional research on that, commissioners. commissioner garcia: for the reasons mentioned by secretary pacheco, vincent, i would not want to do that. >> it is not clear about the question of the ministry of

exhaustion. i do not think there has been an opinion, for example, about whether that is required. i can get back to you on that. they are not necessarily wrong, but it is not a determination that the city attorney has been doing. commissioner garcia: i think it was stated affirmatively that it was not needed. >> i am not aware, but i can look into it. secretary pacheco: over the years, the opinions have changed. president peterson: so moving

on, section 9 clarify this jurisdictional requests and sets up the standing for granting such requests, and it does list the time that a successful requester would have for an appeal. i am looking at the rules that were distributed in your packets. commissioner garcia: this is what you are talking about. after you, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: i think that i would like to incorporate some language that goes beyond just the city. you may know, madam city attorney, but i am going to do it. commissioner garcia: we cannot

put something in our rules. commissioner fung: why is that the standard? >> the only authority once the tender 15-day period has expired, which is set by law, that is based on case law, and there is one case that you're all familiar with, and that is the only standard that has been set that the city would be stopped from applying its own time limits when the city is somehow at fault. commissioner garcia: but we have latitude in that. if we feel someone was not properly advised to what their rights are, we have had jurisdiction in the past, based upon the idea that even though it rises to some legal level, it

does. >> the example you just gave is where the city is the actor that did something that the board finds. i thought commissioner fung was referring to a non city actor causing the lateness. commissioner garcia: i am just stating that we have some latitude within this rule. >> as proposed. right. the other provision in that section though i want you to note, which is the times for filing an appeal after a request has been granted would be shortened. currently, the successful requester is given the same amount of time that they would have if the underlying determination was just issued, some 10, 15, 30 days. this would limit it. president peterson: section 10

deals with when i can it minister of the dismissed appeals. this is where the determination has been overturned. there is a revision of the standard for a waiver, which just gives the staff a little bit more latitude and would be very helpful. commissioner garcia: can we go back to three, five prison go to two 1st. commissioner hwang: -- there is

a section. >> 14 is referring to the business and tax regulations code. >> yes, and we reference to that section on the next page. pursuant to business and tax legislation. commissioner garcia: there must be a reason for it, but i do not know why we do addendum items first. rather than have the police sit

here, carla short sit here, you know, various departments people sit here when we go throat issues that have to do with jurisdiction and regulations when these people are on the clock, and it is costing the city money. it does not seem to make sense to not have a rule that if you represent the city, you are going first. there are some that are here for the duration. there are some with multiple cases. commissioner hwang: i think it is costing the city money. commissioner garcia: the police are on overtime. vice president goh: did we not leave it to the discretion? is an article 3, section 5?

-- is it? commissioner fung: to have it when a government official is here for four cases. commissioner garcia: even if there was one case. president peterson: commissioner garcia, there was a case a few months ago when there were pro bono people with mandarin chinese, and they were volunteers, so i think we make all efforts, but there are instances where -- commissioner fung: do you remember the temporary parking permit? that was the last case.

president peterson: i understand what you are doing. sometimes, they are shorter. i agree that lately they may not have been and short. commissioner garcia: where we know it is going to be short, there is not going to be any discussion, but i have often wondered why we have city officials sitting here cooling their heels when we go through an hour on a re-hearing or a jurisdiction case. secretary pacheco: if they have gone through it already, then

there will be others. commissioner garcia: cannot determine this on a nightly basis. fiscally, we are going to heat the fact that we are sitting here, but we're going to try to do something about it. commissioner hwang: i often feel bad about people sitting here with the young children, but if you work for the city, you take this on. commissioner garcia: i am not say to always do that, i am just

saying that we could say that it moves to the front. the idea that we're having this on a consistent, regular basis before we are hearing city officials, that bothers me, and to deal with that, because, the, it seems that is what we have of the evening, it is a addenda items. -- is addenda items. vice president goh: we say -- oh, wait. that is for jurisdiction. i am in the right place? can we say "at the board's discretion, the ordering of the items"? we could say "at the president's discretion." christian garcia: i guess we have some formal or informal way to move them behind, and i might be the only one who feels that way.

vice president goh: i think i am with president peterson, the volunteer interpreter, the family with kids, you know -- commissioner garcia: we have the right to do that. i am not saying we do not do that. i am just talking about why we are hearing jurisdictional items when we have people sitting here. it does not make any sense. i am just saying, as a board, that we reconsider that addenda items always be first. president fung: if you put it at the board's decision, then we have to take it to a vote. i think at the president's discretion. commissioner garcia: so we are not changing in then? >> and then say "at the president's discretion." but i would want some guidance,

i think, on a week to week basis, unless the president wants to consult with me every time about which items should go first. i think it is more efficient for the president's time if there is more guidance. commissioner garcia: i am just saying, for instance, tonight, we had carl short. that addendum item took a very long time. the present at any time can change the agenda in turn it upside down. -- the president at any time.

president peterson: what they can try to do is something. this has to deal with a new rule on draft findings. piss is more guidance on what the board protocol is. this would be the draft that was distributed tonight that was dated 12/15.