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 -- commissioner olague: yes, that is great. commissioner borden: standard and complicated cases. commissioner olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: in the timing of the supplemental material, i think that submitting within five minutes is not helping the clarity of the discussion. not all of us are at the printer at the time of the discussion. i think taking that down,

including four staff, to be the driver of these things is fair and equitable. i would strongly encourage that. we are letting people know that we want the best course of action. the department being the driver, getting stuff in time, and it is important to us. in response to commissioner fong, i am prepared to volunteer my expertise to help the department simplify the process. it is not so much making it more complicated, but simpler to understand. some people are just going to make shortcuts which do not help anybody. i think everybody who wants to have a hearing in this chamber

will submit something. it will be required to follow certain rules. i will not go into detail here, but i do not think i want the department to be at fault if someone happens to be nasty. we have a group with mixed backgrounds relative to how we look at things -- i think that is fair to us in making important decisions. i do not think we need to have the department be the bad guys for us. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: 10 days -- that would give the staff enough time? we have said seven days. commissioner miguel: are you talking about when we get it or

when you get it? commissioner borden: i would just say that the commission would not entertain projects within sub metals absence -- you know. commissioner miguel: what i am hearing is that you will need to be very clear that staff has the authority to remove a project from the agenda if the notice of one week in advance is not sufficient. commissioner borden: yes. and the other thing i was going to say -- the idea of training is interesting. i think it would be -- i am not saying we do not need to come together with the police department or other agencies. to put together like an introduction to the city process of training, especially dealing

with the commission and stuff. i would be willing to help work on that. i think it would be reavery hell because chris come before us and they do not have a clear understanding -- because the groups come before us and they do not have a clear understanding of the planning code. even more established groups. and they probably think there are members in their groups that no. so, when people get here, they will be more sophisticated in how we approach the problem and that would be a lot more helpful. i think it would be more substantive and interesting for conversation. i do not want to overburden staff. i would be willing to work and talk with the other departments to see if there would be a willingness to put something together. i am sure they have issues around their commissions and apartment interaction -- and

department interaction with the public. commissioner olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i would second that. i have worked with public rooms for 20 years. they change their leadership. i think that would be excellent. i just want to stay with reference to the packet -- which i was going to comment on -- the one on sixth avenue has been settled and thus withdrawn. there were three sets of plans on that. ok. we have the original. you had a revised. we had a re-revised. the last two had the same date on them. if he were trying to find out what the last plan was, you could not have done it. so, we are getting stuck from experienced architects who do not know what they are doing. -- we are getting stuff from

experienced architects who do not know what they are doing. commissioner fong: i do not want to be this to death. a new accounting world -- i do not know how to do this in the architectural world -- maybe you can speak to that. to the training thing, again, thank you for the support of that. i do not know how we move forward, but perhaps there might be an organization or two that would be willing to help do some training and get some overall thought on reduction -- on what direction the city wants to go. street improvement and that such. commissioner olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i want to

remind the commission that there are at least 20 groups that organized 28 subgroups, such as the coalition for neighborhoods. perhaps we should first -- and i have done that myself -- i asked the neighborhood groups to work with those they meet with every week, discussed the problems in each neighborhood, strategies, and they have a wealth of information as well as factual knowledge to share. that might be something we want to use instead of engaging in training, which i think is an altogether different subjects. i do not even know what the training would be or what we as commissioners note to train. we have to ask ourselves that. we want something, so we train. i leave that open. i have gotten a lot of good solid work out of the people who

know how to do it. perhaps we can look for answers to those groups. that is probably something which we should encourage. in response to commissioner fong, the diversity of such metals we get has a lot to do with -- of submittals we get has a lot to do with the fact that you do not have to be a licensed architect. you have to be a licensed engineer. you have a lot of interpretation in all large span of expertise. that does not follow the same principles by which more experienced persons would submit a set of drawings. i want to leave this as non- judgmental and wide open, but i think the department can find a middle ground with the different

-- where the different traits and qualifications can unify and still achieve a standard set of drawings. commissioner olague: i want to conform the commission that part of the challenge about some of these groups is coalitions formed behind certain projects or issues by neighborhood groups. yet coalitions that form and it shifts the understanding of little bit. also, i think there could be a better way that the department engages and communicates with people and the residents in the city and neighborhood. whether that be quarterly informational meetings where members of the public could go. i know people like sue hester and others -- i am not volunteering you.

i am just saying you have a wealth of knowledge. sometimes people who come here to not understand the basics of a hearing. and they are very confused. i think there's a breakdown in the process. i think a lot of folks who lived up there may be never had come to a planning commission hearing or understood some of the processes here. i think if there were a place for people in the public could go on a quarterly basis to see what is a c.u. what is a dr? maybe it would not help. but i think it would help improve the department's relationship with people in the neighborhood, to improve some of these things. and then the materials of metal -- i think we could probably work it out with different commissioners, with the

director, just exchanging ideas and that kind of thing. we are the ones that are ultimately pushing these projects back because we are not satisfied with what we are getting here. i think you are right. the onus should be on ice. finally, commissioner fong mentioned dr reform. what i had an issue with was the commission giving up their jurisdiction on these cases. people were talking about hearing officers, things that took that away from us. that is something i did not support. if there were different iterations, like three commissioner sitting on panels, working -- i do not even know how that would work. under the city attorney or sunshine or any of these acts that we have. if there was something that would still engage the

commissioners in the project hearings, i think it would have less concerns with some of the dr reform we were discussing. for me, my concern was the commissioners not been engaged beendr's. i think -- not being engaged with dr's. i think we still need to be engaged. ok. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i think that people do not understand when they should speak. what happens when items close. that is the training that people do need to understand the process when you speak to -- understand the process. when you speak to an eir. the other thing that is probably underutilized as general public comments on the

fact that a lot of groups do not realize it can be an opportunity if they have an issue in their neighborhood that is not on the agenda. i often tell people, come to general public comment. they often do not know where to go, how to get on the list. that is another thing that could be more instructive to used, if we let people know about it. commissioner olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, people know that i am a big fan of the dr's, and i was perfectly willing to let it go to a hearing. i found that the planning commission in another area give up certain powers and it seemed to work out just fine. however, if we go to a more design-oriented process, if the commission has a design review committee that meets before the regular hearing and listens to

presentations, and i think makes recommendations to the full commission -- that might be a process for the full commission can still consider the dr, but have a submission and eliminate the lengthy hearings we've been having on these issues. but don't put me on that committee. commissioner antonini: despite commissioner fong's comment, i will volunteer if it comes to that. i think this discussion has been pretty good. i would like to hear from the public. >> before we open this to the public, i have a couple of questions.

we talked about the amount of time we have given to the speakers in the opposition and all of that. what we have on our minutes that we do not do is the complicated cases f and g. but there will be an order that the speaker is not to exceed five minutes. we do not do that. basically, they are told there is no rebuttal. for them, and if -- there is no rebuttal period for them. do we want to keep that in here? f and g under "standard and complicated cases."

commissioner miguel: the rebuttal period, basically. commissioner olague: my only concern would be sometimes we need to call the project sponsor. commissioner borden: this action gives them the right to have it. commissioner olague: i am in favor of eliminating that. commissioner borden: we are eliminating f and g? >> yes. commissioner moore: i want to bring up an issue that we limit the time. are we continuing, are we talking about staying in that is it? -- staying and that is it? commissioner borden: i am sorry. i did not hear. what did you say?

commissioner moore: i had put an item on the agenda about the time we're available to sit here. we have not talked about that. are we closing today for discussion, or are we keeping it open? commissioner borden: it is up to you guys. commissioner moore: 10 we discussed this at some other point, because it is getting late? commissioner olague: we can talk about it now. maybe we open it up for public comment and we talk about it afterwards? yes, we can talk about it now. commissioner moore: i still believe when we are talking here until midnight, that most of us -- at least myself -- are removed from proper functioning, and i would like to but more realistic parameters about how we worked. restaurants close at 10:00 or 10:30. the last dinner is served at

8:45 or something like that. i leave it to you to comment on this. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: oftentimes, because of our calendars we cannot predict what is going to happen and we have very important projects, up. there are time considerations. there are a lot of economic considerations. it is very important in certain instances, particularly ones that involve government funding, that they move forward in a timely manner. and that meet -- and i am willing to do that. i do not think we can set an absolute time that we can adjourn. those things take time. commissioners are free to leave if they choose to leave at any time. however, it if we lose more than

four commissioners, we lose our quorum, of course. commissioner fong: what i think it is pretty important -- i am feeling pretty feisty and on top of my game at 10:00 at night. i would say we make 10:30 the default start time, rather than burning the midnight oil. earlier, the better for me. commissioner olague: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i have a full-time job. when i come in in the mornings, i lose my whole day for work. on important cases -- is there a

way to have them -- we start at 11:00 a.m. or maybe noon. get through the lunchtime hour. because i recognize the issue is that people cannot always get here in the evening, but we also have the other side that people cannot stay late and even in. they seem to be talking about the small window in which people can make it. by the end of the night, the parents or kids or jobs the next day -- we lose all lots when things get pushed really late. maybe around this project, if we can calendar them right before noon so some people can come at lunchtime, and if it goes on, they can arrive at dinnertime. then we can accommodate people who have the flexibility during lunchtime and other people who could come after work. and that way we provide several opportunities. i do think it is problematic

that most of our items are at 6:00 at night. because of our agenda, we do not get to them until much later. you almost have to calendar these things at the beginning of the meeting. i know the board of supervisors -- there special items are at 3:00 p.m. usually. i am not saying that is the answer. or we move it earlier or we say it is time certain and it is time certain. it does not mean it will end at a reasonable hour, but that is the only other way around on that matter. i personally do not want to be in the position of cutting off time when people stand in the room for hours and say, oh, sorry. it is time that we go. i want to honor their time.

i am looking at a strategy around this case that is earlier in the day or time certain. i do not see how you can do that without compromising the public participation in process. commissioner olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: other commissions have a stop time. you just stop the meeting. isn't there a provision, linda, that says 10:00? i thought there was something that said 10:00. if we anticipate -- >> let me find this for you and i will tell you. on page 2, the seconds page of your calendar -- not the rules and regulations.

the second page of your calendar. second paragraph. it is in bold. in most cases, they will not call an item for consideration after 10:00 p.m.. if an item is scheduled, but not called and introduced prior to 10:00 p.m., the commission can make matters for the next available hearing. >> [unintelligible] >> you have a policy. commissioner olague: whenever start an item after 10:00. commissioner antonini: yes, we do. commissioner olague: that was an exception. >> there was a time when the commission followed that policy. commissioner olague: i did not remember many items being called after 10:00. commissioner miguel: it is not

in our rules and regulations. >> it is not our rule. it is a policy. commissioner antonini: it is true that many items go on for two or three hours. i think commissioner olague is right. it is rare that you call an item after 10:00, but usually it goes on until midnight. it is hard to control. commissioner olague: for me, the problem is you cannot limit what commissioners say or what the public says. because of that, there is no predictability around the amount of time the item is going to take. when something is on the calendar, and sometimes you have people who come here -- it is a dr. maybe it goes on for three hours because we cannot limit the amount of time that we here

because the public has a right to public comment and the commissioners have a right to say what they want to say. i just do not think we can start engaging that sort of thing. unless we have two days out of the month where we start early, but that would probably be hard for the public to follow that. we could try it. like me and commissioner borden, we both work full-time. we would have to arrange our work schedule. so, we would have two days at 10:30 and two days at 1:30, i wonder that would work better? i do not know if that is to schizophrenic in terms of having to be here at two different times or what ever. >> [unintelligible] commissioner olague: people do not seem to want to try that. for me, it is really not a good idea to say, oh, it is 10:00

now. you have been here since 1:30 to hear your item, but it is 10:00, so we are going to leave. i think that is really -- i just think it is not right to do that. last week, for instance, we had a dr. it was maybe a half an hour more of discussion. it was time certain at 6:00. that item went on here longer than in public comment. we must have discussed that item for 45 minutes to an hour. it was time certain, and we continue that. it would have been awkward to say, ok, we are cutting off public testimony for this dr, and we're going to our time certain item at 6:00 p.m. now and you guys will have to come back at 1:00 in the morning, because that is when we will be finishing our conversation on

cpmc. and the cpmc discussion ended at 11:30. i just think that is rooted. commissioner fong? commissioner fong: very interesting comments. when we go to at 10:30 and beyond, everyone is weary. commissioner olague: yes. what do you do with that? commissioner fong: i think that contributes to attention. even if we did not go to 10:30 start, currently we generally have a 1:30 start. there is a 4.5 hour difference between those two, allowing the regular items on the calendar to work its way out in 4.5 hours. if we did go to for what 30, that is a five-hour window