i did not have access to this information, i do not know if the names on the list are real. but we recognize this. >> the problem is we have no definition. the city has no system for that. the mailing list is woefully out of date. i do not know how you would define this. i wish that we have this. i wish we had other systems that we could employ. >> commissioner? >> commissioner sugaya: submissions that come to us. this is something that we can communicate to staff. the fact that the staff, they

were certain that the drawings and the renderings are clear, and so you have some idea of what the structure will look like. and they have the submissions made on the back of an envelope. but you do not know what you are approving of here. as far as the ongoing changes, i am very flexible. we will make modifications during the hearing, and if someone -- someone misses something, we can comprehend what has gone on, and we usually get the same materials again with a hard copy. this is an ongoing process.

you may make this too rigid about when the items will be submitted. this will be a logistical nightmare. you can deal with this on the run, as the process is going on and then make your objections accordingly. on the item of the collective hearings, with the speaker over a block of time, realistically you have to make this -- we do not often have blocks of time. >> we never have blocks of time. >> i will not go down this road. many times, this is not clearly opposed. but there are the modifications.

and you allow these blocks of people. if you had proponents that wanted to address this thing, sometimes they do and everyone does not have to speak. this is the idea to get the sentiment out, and not every member of the group has to speak. as far as commissioner miguel, i would not be opposed to that either. if you do have a group, it would be easy enough to get the group together, and allow speakers to address this issue over 12 minutes or however long that this will take. i will see with the other commissioners have to say. >> i think we have weight -- we have laid the neighborhood groups to rest.

there is a more formal issue that will happen. we see this with 2400 block neighbors. this is seattle, and when we interview with a director and a gentleman that we have spoken to, with the neighborhood recognition. and also a certain amount of power. there is more in the process, so to speak. we have officially recognized system, where people go through training as well. and we can put this on the burner. just as a small thing under the submission, it says the

environmental documents, this is attached to these of metals. we could include the historic resources information. if we could just include this language, -- >> this would not just before my clarity. this would be item number two. do you just want at this? >> we will add this anywhere that this mentions the environmental documents. we could just put this with the historic resource. as far as last minutes of metals, -- a last-minute said metals -- last minute

submittals, i agree with commissioner antonini about dealing with this at the last minute. through the city attorney's office, we cannot prevent them from submitting things. i know that the board of appeals have their own rules, where they have the judicial bodies. they have definite rules about when they have to meet certain deadlines. he did not get things at the last minute. as far as someone who testifies this, they can bother -- they can have this in the written form. i could use this mechanism to present things at the last minute. >> deputy city attorney.

i think that any member of the public who testifies at any time on the public hearing, certain commissions or other bodies -- they will have discretion in this area. except under the sequa context, whe nthn the case law is not clr about what is recieved after the public comment. if you have established rules about when you will have the exempt documents, regularly, you may receive something after the close of this time. this would be a defense of all practice. -- defendable practice.

there are other extenuating circumstances. you are certainly correct that the board of appeals has more rigorous rules. i just do not accept this after that time. >> i do not know if i want to go there but this is interesting. this is interesting to me -- this is irritating to me to get things right at the last minute. i do not know. >> as long as i have been here, we have been talking about the consistency of these materials. the quality of the packages that

we received. when sue lee was president, we talked about the subcommittees, we're trying to get a handle on this to discuss how we could have some more consistent quality. i wonder if we could do something like this. we could not compete this, we may standardize this, -- >> we could have a check list. >> this is my issue that the staff will get into. we do have the checklist and we try to enforce this.

what happens is that the dates of the hearings are several weeks in advance. this is about six weeks in advance. the staff does not have the final packet. this comes and later on in the process. the sponsor says that this is not enough and they will pull this off of the agenda. this is a very difficult position for the staff, and you are not going to go to the commission. >> they have to know that the process -- i know that some of this is worked out. they are well aware that this is going to be heard, and i am

wondering what they have. this is in terms of the package that they are sending. we have the last minute negotiations. they have the ability to come to you with us, and i realized i completely agree with this concept. >> maybe there could be a rule. if this is part of a negotiation, a lot of times this is not a last-minute concession. i think that we should say, if

you do not have this by this time, we have a deadline for staff. they can work on this project, before a certain date. if this is not submitted, the project will be moved further out. there are no repercussions for not getting this, and having people pushed the project as it is scheduled. i think that this just has to be, we do not have this with the project. if you show that in the last seven days, you have negotiations going on and there are no modifications, if there are no modifications from the month before, -- >> there are things that people take responsibility for. i did not know if this will solve the problem.

but we may try this. and we had one more thing that and i will go to commissioner -- commissioner moore: a board in the office with an acceptable way of doing this. a way to emulate the standard. the more expensive buildings can buld this minute -- middle of the road stuff. people don't want to answer the question. the board like that would remind you kind of the standard we are working on. >> with the 10 minute block of time, i would almost be in favor of continuing this. the way this has been

communicated to me, there is a lot of miscommunications or not complete communications. i would limit this to the original it to the zero original intention. i would probably go with an example of how it could work. we had two groups with both 10- minute blocks of time. they requested it in advance. there were very few members of their organization -- there were many, and i would argue the majority of the comments were from those in favor of the project. we were able to eliminate some time as a result of that. most people honor that 10-minute block of time. i would request of written

request one week in advance. just to make it simple, informational items. call it a day. keep it simple. yes. commissioner borden: for information lines? commissioner olague: yes. those are all things that someone might request a 10- minute block of time. >> [unintelligible] >> no, we do not have lots of time -- blocks of time. commissioner olague: oh, then i would really limit to 10-minute blocks. keep it simple. that is what i am is saying right now. i am not married to any one way of doing this. just to continue to simplify it. to me, it got a little bit

controversial. one person got on for 20 minutes. the other person got on for 10 minutes. it was essentially not good. commissioner borden: ok, another point of clarity. we keep talking about 10-minute blocks of time. the rules actually say 15 minutes. commissioner olague: ok. commissioner borden: that is essentially what the project sponsor gets. commissioner olague: i would say 10 minutes. >> there is a minimum of three speakers. commissioner borden: yes, i would say a minimum of three speakers. the opposition would get a block of 10 minutes, with a minimum of three speakers.

commissioner moore: on whom does the sponsor depend? commissioner borden: that is up to you. it is your rules. the opposition gets 10 minutes. commissioner moore: minimum of three. commissioner borden: >> yes, that is a minimum of three speakers. commissioner olague: no way. >> [unintelligible] commissioner moore: right. standard and complicated cases. commissioner olague: here we have an example that, to me, the 10-minute block of time really enhanced the conversation. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: no, they really asked for blocks. if you look at that, it would

not include those types of projects. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: right. right. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: i do not know. i am open on that front. it is not like we have those types of items here that often anyway. commissioner borden: so should it be written so it does not call for blocks of time? commissioner olague: right. >> like treasure island. we need to decide whether we need 10-minute blocks of time. commissioner olague: yes. that is fine. they can coordinate that. commissioner borden: anything other than -- dr's and what was

the other one? dr's and informational items. you have to have a minimum of three speakers. commissioner olague: that is a star. we still have obviously time to discuss this. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i agree with commissioner moore on her comments. these people will start to understand, and i see nothing wrong with sending stuff back when it is inadequate. i do not think it will continue for a long time. they will find out the staff in the department is just being tough. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

i started trying to deal with this sometime in the early 1980's because of stuff i was tattling. we have the public library. we have the different supervisors. you have the police district stations. and none of them matched. they still do not match. nothing ever match. there is no definition. there have been attempts ongoing for years for individuals and apartments trying to put such a thing together -- and departments trying to put such a thing together. to me, the san diego system i do not believe has a possibility of working here whatsoever.

i think our culture is very, very different from what i know of san diego culture. it is very regimented. i do not see that happening. if we do blocks of time, we are just going to have to say, ok. we have sixth avenue neighbors informed within three weeks regarding something happening. they have no bylaws. they have no constitution. there is not a 5013c. they do not have dues. it is just whoever shows up. even names we have heard for years possibly have three people who are members. so, if we are going to allow it, to my mind, it is just an open situation. commissioner fong: --

commissioner olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: i think we all want to hear more. we do not want to create a situation that would be abusive. i agree with the tenants and the direction we are going for complex cases. consistent materials -- i do not know if there is a design standard to get a package together. that is beyond my expertise. what has come up are shadow studies and noise-related studies. we had a meeting last week and they were quoting two different organizations. so pick one of the standards or come up with a standard. i would very much like training sessions. my feeling is that the more

informed neighborhood groups can be on their streets, hopefully we will have less contention and the more educated they are, i think we would be better off. and the last item, is so it shore in opening up a can of worms -- i am sure i am opening up a can of worms. i am not afraid of the hours we are putting into it. but maybe in the past, we talked about a subcommittee being formed where it is the four of us and we rotate where there is someone with expertise brought in. i do not want to create more cost and time. i really agree with what commissioner sugaya and commissioner moore did.

i do not have that level of expertise. i am learning quickly here. i throw that out for consideration, probably not to be solved at this time. commissioner olague: commissioner sugaya. and after these three, i will open it up for public comment, just so you know. commissioner sugaya: you talked about having groups represented by three within 10 minutes. we also have a situation in dne which says that an organization can be represented by one speaker. do we need to have -- commissioner olague: we need it. commissioner borden: the block of time on 10 minutes in opposition to be represented by

a minimum of three speakers, but then followed by dne for a period not to exceed three minutes -- can we not just eliminate that language? commissioner miguel: we can just throw it out. commissioner moore: where are we talking about? commissioner borden: d and e. so that would be for that one. and then for c, the same thing for section c3 and d and e. the same things.

that is on page 3. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: ok. we will call you up afterwards, sue. >> i do not understand what you are talking about. there are so many d's and e's on these pages, it is driving me crazy. commissioner olague: we are just referring to d's and e's on complicated cases. we are talking about lots of time. these appendix i have to do with blocks of time, general public comments.

>> standard cases? commissioner olague: if these are just standard, complicated cases -- i see where ms. astor is coming from on this. commissioner borden: my understanding, for the members of the public, is the commission is recommending that under c and e -- d3, c3, b3, subsection 3, we change the time limit to a minimum of three speakers at 10 minutes. and then after the public testimony, an individual may speak for a period and eliminate the rest of that section, and

under -- >> yes. commissioner borden: opponents of the proposal may speak for a time period not to exceed three minutes. and eliminate the rest of that section. and then under category c, page 3, then we go to d and e again. under "and individual may not speak for a period to exceed three minutes by yes we eliminate the rest of that. >> we are eliminating the rest of the organization if they are represented by more than one person? commissioner borden: the city

attorney wants me to point out that under category c, item 3, subsection c, we are changing the presentation of opposition to an organized period -- commissioner olague: 10 minutes. commissioner borden: with a minimum of three speakers? commissioner olague: yes. because 10 minutes has been working. it worked perfectly last week. they were gone after that. it was up three hours. not that -- you know. commissioner borden: commissioner sugaya suggest a under standard and complicated cases, it would say under item two, under c