to watch the clock. if we want to get out at a certain time, i am not sure how we edit our comments, but maybe we need to look for ways to edit our comments. i do not know how to say that, how to do that. because there is that challenge that we sometimes have because we want to give that completely and give full discussion to these items and they are very important to the city, right? and to people who are here. commissioner antonini: you can choose to do what ever you want, commissioners. i will say about half the time in your meetings is spent with commissioner comments. it is responsible to you -- it is important for you all to speak. limiting public comment does not solve the timing issue. that is the point.

commissioner olague: it is a challenge. maybe starting at noon. think about it. think about a new starting time. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: early is fine for me. if we wanted to 10:30 alternate weeks. that works for me. i set aside thursday as the day to stick to the planning commission. it probably would be better to not have it go into the early hours. that is good. however, there have been instances in past, there have been times where there has been an almost concerted effort to see if we can where the commissioners out and not get them to be able to make a decision on that and a continuous might go to a project. that would always probably have been, no matter what case we have. commissioner olague: that is

true. commissioner antonini: there are members of public that would -- members of the public that would stay as long as it takes. commissioner moore: when we talked about what we do, how we are serving -- since we are never allowed to meet other than in this room with each other, i believe we are definitely letting each other and know more what we are coming from. also, the public sees what we are really doing. sitting here takes a hell of a lot more time than just sitting here. as you all know. i spoke very lengthily on one subject, but it was my professional obligation to do so. that was the moment i had to do

that. so i probably talked about 30 minutes. commissioner olague: we are glad you did, too. commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i am in the unusual position of being the only one who was actually retired, so my time commitments are not to our regular job. i can see where the standard 10:30 start time would be onerous if you were trying to work. perhaps noon would work. basically, a half day. also, when we start that late at night, it is very difficult to get something done on friday morning. commissioner olague: definitely true. commissioner miguel: as far as commissioner comments are concerned, i think commissioner moore hit exactly the right note on that. i realize there are times when

we go on, but we can talk to each other too much. technically, you are talking to two other commissioners, but that becomes impossible to control and effective and it does not work out. this is our discussion time more than anything else. we at -- we understand each other's takes, not just on a particular project, but the philosophy of what we're doing in general. it is very important that we learn to understand each other. i know where you are. and your undoubtedly right in your time summation. it is a peculiar situation, not standard. commissioner olague: we cannot curtail the public or the commission. [laughter] the other thing, too, is i do not think this is a commission

that should be limited to retirees. i think it is something that working people should be able to participate in. if we can compromise on a new time -- starting time, that might be something to consider. i do not know if it will work for staff though. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: every week though? they did not like my 10:30 idea. they did not like the 10:30 idea. they want a consistent start time. i think that is it. commissioner antonini: 10 i asked -- are there any laws testicle issues that you know of? -- are there any logistical issues that you know what? >> actually, none. commissioner borden: we have a project and there is agreement among everybody that something needs to be fixed about it, but nobody is on the call button.

no one is weighing in. and then everyone weighs in and it goes on forever. i understand it takes time. if we could be quicker to make motions when there is consensus. maybe we do not all have to speak. i am not saying we cannot. i am just saying -- you know, try not to speak. if everybody loves the project, there is no reason everybody needs to say that. the other thing is, like i said, on dr cases, the quicker making recommendations. everybody knows the project is broken. no one was to step forward and say, ok, let's fix it. i think we could do that a little bit faster. like last week, the two feet, 3 feet, what ever. the people watching that word, "what on earth is going on?"

the time it took us to regain two or 3 feet was just off the charts. i understand that everybody processes their thoughts differently. i am not criticizing anybody for it. to the extent that we can be mindful of their consensus, to not feel the need to pile on, and when there is something complicated, if they would be more willing to come forward more quickly, so we avoid that lab where everybody is like "what should we do?" >> it seems there is consensus among the commission touse change the start time -- commissioner antonini: is there consensus? commissioner miguel: -- that was

going to be my comment. i would rather be a consistent start time. >> so we are actually changing article 4, section one in your rules and regulations. it also means the department needs to change your notice for the case is to 12:00 noon, instead of 1:30. that means you would not be able to start that for about a month because of the 20-day notices. so, i would say the first time you could do this would be in april. commissioner antonini: that is fine. >> [unintelligible] >> we can have the commission matters, directors report, stuff like that. that could be at 12:00 noon and not take projects until 1:30. because of the notice. commissioner miguel: we should

advise all supervisors' offices as well. commissioner olague: 12:00 noon -- planning matters sometimes affect people who work also, so i think noon is a good compromise, because we want to make sure people who have matters before us can request time of of work and do what they need to do to be here. commissioner antonini: i think fairly consistently we have housekeeping type matters anyway. we do get comments on those at the minutes, and our comments and the directors comments -- director's comments usually takes up to an hour or more we would not be getting to these items until at least 1:00, probably. commissioner borden: i would

just say this. i would say, if we could just request -- not that we guarantee it -- because we worry about people being able to make it here. i do not know if we would want to consider people say, i work, but i would prefer -- commissioner olague: know, the way we roughly have the talent -- no, the way we roughly halve the calendar, we have policy items early. then we have conditional uses. then we have dr's. commissioner antonini: we also tried to cluster single staff time. commissioner olague: right. we are trying to do that, too. so if anne-marie gives us the board report, then usually policy matters related to the board legislation, she stays for that time. conditional uses the next.

and dr's we do with neighborhoods. and that involves working people. people get off work and they can get here by a certain time. there is some kind of logic. commissioner borden: just for the more specific projects. commissioner olague: yes, we tried -- we can all apply that to each other. i can tell you that much. >> my daughter is in a graduation. my son is getting his braces off. what ever. commissioner olague: and the logic behind putting something like treasure island as the last item on the calendar because they go on so long -- if we were to calendar a dr after that, it

would be impossible. commissioner borden: -- >> just for clarity, and your calendar will start at next week at the noon hour. items for public discussion will be at 1:30. i will put that category there at the 1:30 time because they have been at that time. commissioner olague: that is perfect. we should open it up for public comment. sorry about that. >> bang, bang, bang. no discussion about when a case is continued. i give you lloyd street. sometimes a project is supposed to be there only on the changes to the project. a developer can manipulate the

thing and blow it through here in three hours. commissioner borden made good comments about the history of the commission. i want to point out two things. everyone has talked about 3 minutes. you do not give three minutes. euphoric people out every time you cut their speaking -- you freak people out every time you cut your speaking to two minutes. i have been subject to 1-minute rules. it freaks people out. you do not give people three minutes. oftentimes you have cut the time and in the past month. on the packets -- the packets and the deadlines have to be amended to give you time and the public time. the biggest contention is packets on major projects, and i give you the lands industry, which came out on friday

afternoon. every notice of the hearing shall say the staff member -- the staff packet willin the reae available on friday. there needs to be discipline and the staff has to have them. the notice has to say -- the packet will be availabile and it must be followed. complicated cases, you need a couple of weeks. they're much too generous for plans at the last minute.

organizational -- i wrote the organized rebuttal because of all the high rises. when you have big projects and get stuff a tthe last minute. you tell the public, your input is not possible. any project the subject of an eir, it is a two-week process. you have changed the rules. i will submit this in writing. i can't do this in three minutes. >> is there additional public

comment? >> good afternoon. steve atkinson. i was here for the continuance item. i would like to speak in favor of keeping the rebuttal. it is frustrating to try to do a presentation. the testimony -- and nothing people misunderstand the project. there is a lot of discussion going on today. i would urge you to keep this provision in. we would like for you to approach the mike and have a couple of seconds. i really want to get this to the commission. the start time is critical.

in terms of the process, i think it would be useful, this would be posted on the web site. if you want to understand what is going on, i think that this would be a very useful thing. regarding these deadlines, we did these on wednesday. i do not know what happened and i would like to have this material available. in regards to these two weeks, i

do not think that it is this complicated, it would be nice to have some kind of definition. thank you very much. >> i came in because on the agenda, this does not say information. when the action was taken, with the rules and regulations there was nothing in the public file. i want to make certain that it would come back with something and we would see this before in the newspaper. and we will review what you are going to put into print. and then we will be able to

respond to them. with the diversity of the materials, there is the gatekeeper. there is the established standard. this would not be scheduled until all these materials. they will have full time to be able to respond. we have which of the projects will have controversy or concerns about them. this way, the agenda could be

developed. for the cpmc. the schedule could be managed according to what the department has told you. the department should meet the planners. they should be able to deal with the community. there are very heavy schedules here for commission hearings. there is the major land use, some of these are adopted. this is by the housing elements since 1990. these changes are listing the

public controversy, the issues. you have to recognize this. d.r., the actions are for the ministry or discretionary. the charter-created body, -- >> and as their extra comment? >> i just want to make it clear, the department uses a lot of time on the projects that we have going before you. we have three projects on one hearing, this is virtually impossible for us to know what is coming up. this will go into the late

evening -- and these projects are withdrawn. we have the president, who has this on the calendar, with a lot of discussion over which projects will take more time. which product -- which projects should, at 6:00 or 11:00. given the information that they have, when it comes to thursday afternoon. >> this hearing on over two hours. over time, you just cannot predict this.

it took us two hours from here. >> the procedure will come back to us, in some form. >> following this discussion, i understand your direction. i would say not before the 14th of april. i would be very clear. on the rules and regulations, this is in the newspaper. i will be very clear about this. the rules on the second page, you have changed the time of the

meeting to 12:00. there is no other part of the rules and regulations have changed. we have this with the appendix, under item number two, we have environmental documents attached off of the middle, and we have a section for these cases. we have changed this to 10 minutes. we have a limited this after the first sentence.

this is my understanding of what has changed. this is not being continued. i have put together the draft of their changes. we have put this into action. if we can move forward on the calendar to the commissioners questions and matters. >> two minutes. >> there you go. i will make this very brief. i had a meeting this week with

the budget sponsors, and very briefly. this is in view of the events in japan, i think that we have to make certain that we modify this use policy to make it possible for the owners of these properties to be able to renovate them. this is a wise look at the historical nature, we will take this and demolished everything. we will think about this when to move forward. >> regarding dolores street, i

have had discussions with the veterans administration medical center, and the 42nd, which is in the direct purview of the city, and this commission affects with the surrounding this, and they actually don't know what they are doing. they say that they want to double this out there, this is one or the other. we have the structural engineers in the city were very involved in the affects of this magnitude, for our own codes,

and i am interested in how the devastating experience of the tsunami will play itself out for us. we are not immune, with the shallow -- i would like to have some expert opinion on this. >> with the issue of the size of performance, we will see the seismic code, of these performed. this is against the water damage.

>> there are people within this, or more active. probably enough to bridge this. we will have the effect of what happened. >> i think that they have a transit for the policy in the city. this is getting worse.