find ourselves bewildered by the large range of submittals. and as i said nine places in your kit of tools. many of them are a great beginning for us to use as reference, particularly as a planned submittal. as we go to the specifics of the various submittals. and i basically took all of the forms by which the word submittal appears from conditional use to variance and on and on. it's a minor tweak to reference the plan submittal guideline as being the one obligated and consistent requirement. which would refer to in our document. i have taken the pdf and marked up all the wording which refers to drawing submittals, and inserted where the same word but

where they are different and where they might need one comment as common reference to the planned submittal guidelines. i suggest that i ask the president that this be distributed to all commissioners to individually read through what it is, and why it comes to us. it's confusing but how we could altogether make it simple to have the results we are looking for. and save a lot of headache for those that come and we say, we can't hear your case. the one thing that i asked to add, and perhaps what commissioner antonini tried to touch on, was the advent of digital pdf modeling tools that. almost schoolchildren can use now. there should be some kind of request for all projects. both new, construction and

expansion, to use some form of modeling and some could be applied by google map and other ways to do that. and the secretary touched on that in some form. and the second is what building sections we are looking for. and the third one is perhaps semantics and old words being used. people had to submit photographs that came in print. we have substituted photography, pretty much in technology by using digital photographs. and you may want to change the wording to using digital pictures. there is a fear of faking things and photo-shop. but you can today in traditional scan and not know. i think we may want to reference

in photography to allow digital technology to be used. those are three improvements i am asking for in the streamlining and submittal requirements one way to describe them. i will send that to perhaps you to distribute. you will immediately look also at it. and i ask the commission to use that as my suggestion for changing our submission of drawings. >> that's a good suggestion, commissioner moore, it will help the department because we only have to change one document of all various applications submitted. >> i will send it to you and if the commission agrees you can do. >> certainly. >> thank you for taking that. >> i appreciate that commissioner moore. one thing i would like to consult with staff more is

different types of projects may require somewhat different submittals. change of use, where there is no building. i want to be sure that we are not creating one size fits all. >> i have only addressed the issue of drawing, emphasis on drawing submittals. all of your other subtleties remain, and you get a copy and i see them referred in highlight. and the yellow pop in your eye, and the red is marked for comments for clarification and modification and more consistent use for recommendations. it should be easy to see where it goes in areas where you don't want us to apply the language. >> that's all i had. >> any additional comments or questions? commissioner wu. >> so i wanted to get an update

on process. today we are having an initial discussion. do we have a date planned to consider these changes? do we want to look at first what commissioner moore provided and then take a vote? >> that's up to you commissioners, how you want to proceed. we need to notice it 10 days in advance and the next day could be december 19, or we could wait until january. how you choose to proceed. >> i think we should put it on the calendar to proceed. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i agree, i would like to see it calendared. and maybe not ready to go, but get commissioner moore's

comments to us and get it back to you on inclusion what we decided today. we may have a document able to be voted on by the 19th. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i don't know if i missed it or what in here. when commissioner comments were made that were addressed to some staff activities that might take place, like status reports or memos or something like that. we used to receive a list of those requests. and the status of each one. whether they were done, i guess if they were done, they upon tak -- they were taken off. is that a procedural thing or part of our rules or what? >> if i could respond to that commissioner. it got a little squirrely in the

sense that a commissioner would make a request. but i am not sure that the entire commission would agree with that same request. if you want to revisit an action item list, is what you are referring to. think as far as myself and i think even staff is concerned there would be appreciation if there was a consensus. for instance, if a single commissioner made a request directing staff to do something. we found ourselves struggling to which one we respond. >> i like to remind us and we are still doing it. either habitually or because we know that we are looking for support when a commissioner makes a comment. i would like to hear on x, y, z, i am make it up, and if you ask the commission to support.

there is one or two that will say, yes, i support this. two weeks ago i asked on support for a drawing and president wu and vice president --the other way around. sorry. i got support and i think we are all doing it because we are habitually know that we need support in order to make it have stake. and i know myself don't know if ever asking staff directly personally for anything, because that's not the way we are doing anyway. >> i am referring to here at the commission, comments generally speaking. >> if i may, and i think that the practice has been, and i can't remember if it's in the rules. that there is more than one commissioner that supports a request. commissioner sugaya is raising a different issue, the action request. >> no, it was something that mrs. avery created in tracking

requests of comments mainly. >> the one that was agreement. >> yes, ones that there were general agreement. >> i think that doesn't necessarily have to be in the rules and regulations. but we can recreate that action list and if i hear of something, i can make a note of it and see if we should add to the action list. >> that would be great. >> commissioner moore. >> just to recap at least four or five things that i remember we asked for. we have asked if at all possible to get an update on the procedural presentation. perhaps here in this room. and second thing we asked for update on the academy of art. there are a bunch of things that each of us remembers in their own minds. and each of those have been nods by others. and it only takes one or two additional nods to become an item on the list. >> one of them is before you today the condos subdivisions.

>> we have taken note of those items suggested for informational hearings. i want to open up to public comment. but want to thank jonas for the work on this. and each of the commissioners for their thought on this. obviously it's affecting us now as this commission sits. but as we move on and other commissions sit in these seats, hopefully with the changes that we made to the rules and regulations will benefit the city overall. opening up to public comment. >> excuse me in advance, i can't speak well. sue hester, we were promised, the public was promised a hearing on the complicated cases as a specific item.

when there was a last commission discussion. it was on august 4, the last hearing was september -- pardon me, st. patrick's day, both in 2011. the president was christina, and the vice president was ron magill. the secretary was avery, we never had a hearing at all. you have never bothered yourself to sit in the shoes of the public. one of the things that bothers me a lot is that your process breaks down for those of us that are on the other side. the developers you are taking care of. the staff you are taking care of. and you are taking care of yourself. but the rules that release documents that are meaningful and timely to people are nothing

to the planning commission. right now no one can submit anything on any case that doesn't have a report two weeks in advance. and the notices and the cases are put on the calendar. friday afternoon routinely. so functionally we have maybe six days and we don't have the opportunity to submit anything in writing that is all complicated. because you are not going to receive it. and we need what we were promised. and except for commissioner wu, everyone of you here was in the room where the hearing was promise sa promised, when you adopted the last change of rules. i don't think that jonas was here. but you punted for the last time and you didn't get into the complicated cases the last time.

and you have shrunken what is complicated. you have shrunken every time we come around. right now we don't get the notices for allocation and planned, and we don't get the notices for anything in an area plan. and you are supposed to be the public. and you are not. i am really frustrated. i got the notice on this without the rules. at noon the day before thanksgiving. and even here that is here, is because i sent a notice out. thank you. >> linda chapman.

i am speaking as a member of the land use committee. to the extent that it's surprising to me that we haven't considered this and discussing it because we didn't know about it. and if it hadn't been for sue, i don't know anyone would know about it. i did look at the item on the agenda, and the way that it was posted on the agenda on the website. it was not possible to print. that's nobody's fault. but the computers at usf is top of the line, i did write and the secretary did send me one that i was late after i discovered that. this has changes that are significant, i am glad you are not going to take testimony and vote on this today. things about having things before a certain date, well in advance of the hearing, to even get into the record it seems to say of that hearing. well, if there was a later hearing on that subject, that would be great.

but that may be the only hearing. and i understand the advantage to the commissioners to have time to read it. but it should be able to go into the hearing record for appeals and so forth. don't understand that. the idea of asking for 15 hard copies or pdf copy at all. probably you have no idea how many people don't have computers. i echo sue in this way, do you know what it's like on the outside. easy for the professionals. but we struggle to get information out to people. even at 1170, not a poor building, some people don't have e-mail. and don't have a computer and many neighborhood leaders. there are many things of concern. and i in reading this and saw something to the effect when organized opposition that we

had, there is to be a chance for rebuttal at the end. that would have been helpful if that occurred. nothing that was said by the methodist -- i believe that i read that in there, perhaps i am wrong. not in the appendix but the other part. since practically nothing said by the methodist -- the lawyer that says that he represents methodist and charges them. it does no good for natasha, the person that knows that he's lying about everything, and sitting in the back of the room and shaking her head. and for us not to be able to address ceqa. anyway, i think a lot of things here. two week in advance of the hearing. well it would be good for us to have volumous and exceptional cases. to see it. in our case we saw it late saturday. too late to get in touch [bell]

>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is paul warner. i did want to talk about the availability of information for the public. i try to pay attention to what is going on. and i sign up for the e-mail that i can for the program set up. and i am assuming when that program is fully implemented. that notice and copies of the proposed changes would be e-mailedito itouitou itouitous us. there is a fundamental challenge, some of us in the neighborhood think about what is going on and try to submit comments to the point. a lot of people, especially in

neighborhood associations come to you, and it's confusing. when we get the first opportunity to see a report and detailed plans a week before the hearing. it's very difficult for us to deal with it. these are things that have been in process for a while. it would be extremely helpful if as part of the commission rules/procedures either some preliminary proposal or preliminary version was posted in accessible manner two weeks before. understanding the case report still needs to be finished up. but if that was out ahead of time, it would be a better opportunity for us to read and digest what proposals are. and perhaps send more informed comments in for the commission hearing. and get those into the package.

right now chasing that down becomes very, very difficult. some cases it's very easy. other cases it's very, very difficult. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is hiroachy, and i am the chair (inaudible) san francisco neighborhoods land use and housing committee. cfn one of our missions is good government. and good government means a public that is informed, that is able to participate, and that means that we need notification of major changes. and we need to know what changes are occurring, why they are occurring. why -- is it good for the staff? is it good for the developers?

is it good for residents? people of san francisco? these things are very basic. any changes, any major changes i think the public -- we are not professional architects or not in the business. we are just lay people. perhaps like your family. you know, we are volunteers. and sometimes it seems like well, we are a neighborhood group. and your department, you have hundreds of people. it seems like we are fighting one fire after another and sometimes we don't know what we are doing. i think that's why your department, which is a public department needs to inform us why you are doing these things. so i appreciate that this is going on. and hopefully you can tell us,

the lay people, why these changes are occur and why it's good for us. >> commissioner borden. >> i want to clarify -- >> sorry, i think there is another commenter, sorry. >> hello, commissioners, my name is tess walborn. and i would like to associate myself with the previous remarks and sue hester's letter in more detail. part of this about the public notice relates back to the discussions that we had about how can the public get information about projects. besides having to go to the website of planning commission and happen to look up an address and find something. and we got to do better on that. and giving notice on friday afternoon before your thursday meeting doesn't take into account that many of us have to

confer with other people. in our organizations or other experts. so please give us more time. and please look at making these a little more friendly, your rules a little more friendly to the public. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> i want to say two things, we spend a lot of time to clarify the rules so it's clear, that's what we spent time today really trying to do. and in addition this hearing is not an action hearing. it's a hearing for members of the public to weigh in. and there are will be future opportunities. but i think that people have a misconception of how far in advance we the commissioners. we have an advanced calendar with a case number and a specific date potentially on it. but we get our packets for the

following week thursday night or friday. so we have just as much notice, unless there is a full eir, we have as much notice on these cases. and you probably know before we do, because of the postings on the building and the community meetings that happen. a lot of time the public contacts that we ourselves are not familiar with. and that's a challenge that people are frustrated that we have not seen anything on the project to have an engaging conversation with members of the public. i recognize you want more notice, and i don't have an answer to that question. i as a commissioner would like more notice, we are dealing with the information that we get thursday afternoon or friday morning for the following week as well. i don't want you to feel like you are being disadvantaged in a way that we are privileged.

staff knows what is going on and the case report knows what is going, but we often do not. i want that to be clear to the public that we are not holding on to cases and not sharing. staff reports are finished hours before we get the packet. >> commissioner, thank you for mentioning that. commissioner moore. >> i would like to add that to, because sitting and often frustrated when people accuse us of being on the other side. the fact that we are sitting up here higher doesn't mean picking up your comment that we receive in the material hours later. and way we work. we do not know more than anyone else. we are not in cahoots and scheming, we work and engaged in a manner and do the best we can.

i have a hard time being put in a situation where it sounds as if we are out for something else. we are not. and i need to say that because i felt that somebody was taking a stand by which we were working for somebody else and not in the interest of the public. i do have to speak for myself, i sit here spending a lot of time on behalf of the public and in the common interest. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with the previous two commissioners. we receive our documents at the very earliest the day of our thursday hearing. and oftentimes if the documents are not ready and we have a short hearing, we get them the next afternoon. but after a numbers of year -- number of years on the commission, you become more conditioned. and i find that the time between friday and next thursday is

generally most adequate to read the case. and in the exception of receiving environmental documents whether we call them i intricated or complicated but a week is enough time to digest and decide if you are in favor of it or not. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i wasn't going to say anything but i understand the arguments and the comments made with respect to commissioners getting both the packet and notification at that point. along about the same time that it's issued to the public. so i think that the arguments to say that we have no advance notice, so to speak, of the case is true. but i do think that in terms of getting the notice, if i were a

public person and really felt that i needed to do something about it. so to speak, then i can understand their argument that a week or really six days may not be enough time to organize and talk to people and especially since part of it is a weekend. i do have sympathies there. i am not proposing that we change it. but i understand that the other comment is mr. (inaudible) was suggesting perhaps advance notice. i think that's a real can of worms because we are not sure and staff is not sure and staff is negotiating until the last minute. if we put something out in advance of the actual packet coming out. there could be misinformation.

there could be project changes or other things that take place in that week or 10 days that would invalidate -- not invalidate, would set up a situation where if there is opposition they go, oh, he changed the project in the meantime and now a different thing and we were organizing around something else. i am not sure that would happen but it's a possibility and things do change. i had something else but i forgot what it was. >> commissioner wu. >> i wanted to ask the director, do i remember correctly there is an additional application available publicly? >> there is a series of things available to the public, and the 20-day notification before the hearing. to clarify the first time that the public is aware of a project

is not six days of the meeting. it's three weeks or way in advance when there is a pre-application meeting in the neighborhood. it's true that the case report is not done until the week before. but that's done for everyone, you and the public. there are very few projects i would suggest that the first time anyone is aware of them is the week before the meeting. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would agree with that plan, in cases where people comment that this is the first i see of this case and didn't meet the developers, and commission will continue with that item so that the developer can meet with the neighborhood. but the issue of complicated or volumous or what we call it, when did that come into the rule? is that a long-standing item or new? i get the fact that that's

fairly new, and some say they are complicated and sometimes i agree and sometimes i don't. could there be more meat in the rules about what is complicated or not. size. you know, scope. i wasn't on the commission either when we had this discussion. no, i was here when talked about the term volumous, but not what is a complicated case. i get that it's subjective but there could be thresholds. but it's interesting to get from the public if they have suggestions. i know that mrs. hester brought it up, and good for her to spell out what she believes what is a complicated case but agree it's subjective. >>om