place out in the main street and it's the site of a lot of parades and another thing they did acquit well, there me made some good improvements over the years and eliminated some buildings that were built in the 50s not have the best quality and replaced them with buildings that are in context with the more historic building be that masonry arrowwood framed. for those who are afraid of false history i think you should tack a ride out there and i can tell which the in your are but it gives it a nice appearances and it's something people like and certainly looks brnt having some modern buildings into the main street. i wanted to recognize my fathoms

transition and recognize his birthday he passed away 9 years ago but set a good example to me in service to his community >> commissioner sugaya. >> unless i missed it there was an article in the nuptial about the waterfront if we could get a status report it was in the paper it was something about assessment for water transportation all popping up. >> a the thing that peter albert was doing. >> did we hear that. >> yeah. if there's any you kind of update. >> okay. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks yesterday the mayor

issued a mayoral drive about the direction of affordable housing. i think at some point the staff will tell us how that will be implemented within the planning department >> commissioner moore. >> another bright light we all get an e-mail and this is i'm not sure i'm pronouncing this credible but opening up trains bay housing and we have especially building under the example of what we want to do. you should click through the pictures and i was happy to get that news this morning

>> commissioners if there's nothing further we can powerful on to item 11 planning commission rules and regulations. commissioners you first heard this 20 two weeks ago on december 5th with proposed amendments distributed to you at that time. you reviewed those and provided our comments back to me. i've tried to incorporate those into the proposed amendments that were forwarded to you last week. i want to make note those rules and regulations as they are before you and your consideration for adaptation today are challenged. there's a specific citing of earlier 5 of your current rules and regulations. i'd like to read the champs that the language of

the amendments were not provided to the public 10 days in advance. article 5 of your current rules and regulations states those rules and regulations maybe amended following a public hearing providing that the amendment has been calendared for at least 10 days. those proposed amendments were noticed in the december 5th calendar two weeks in advance ever this hearing. it's in my opinion those are appropriately before you and you have the right to adapt them if you wish to. the city attorney is here i've discussed it with her and she's available for questions. i want to get it out of the way >> thank you.

any other presentation or from staff about this >> i want to get that out of the way. if you choose this is not properly before you or continue the matter we, do that >> let's up that up for comment first opening it up for public comment first. >> is this on. >> (inaudible). >> what item were you referring to. >> for item 6. >> 2013 (inaudible). >> unfortunately, i didn't receive the card until after that matter was considered you would call public - >> (inaudible). >> the commission president requested if there was any

public comment on the record. >> so i ask at every item if there's public comment and we did on those as well as the continuance calendar. >> you still have the opportunity to submit our comment. >> we're discussing rules and regulations the next one is where you can express our opinion. >> calling for comment on rules and regulations. >> susan inheriting take care the person who submitted the letter. it's snultd to the public that no one goes back and watches the hearings where the planning commission said repeating there would be a special hearing a hearing starting in 2008, and 2011 at the last adoption on

appendix e peculiar adaptation. to my knowledge it's never occurred. it is then said at public and you can ask anyone who goes on the sfgovtv and watches the meetings that those hearings were on the agenda those representations were made. if commissioners don't have the time staff should. there has been no substantive hearing on the way you do deal with one week and two week hearings and how you tell public is able or not able to get documents provided to the commission. that is a enthusiast of what i've been trying to deal with since 2008. you by your rules and your practices have shrunk the amount of hearings and the availability

of the public to be informed of the hearings because the staff and are developers report are available to the public in time they can comment on. this means exception in downtown and expectations in the other area plans. expectation to the planning code are. you have a routine approval 6 days after the records are available to the public. i also question whether you are properly getting the public information when you have a 7 day rule that you effectively use as a 7 day rule to the commission. the items are not public until they're posted by the commission secretaries office. in particular those rules were

not available. your minutes of the month to month two weeks ago their rather snument. you look at those minutes and you look at the discussion on the rules two weeks ago. there is not one mention of any comment by any commissioner there is a brief list of people who exempted. comments come in a writing from the public and commission should be part of the staff report. it should have been staff report for to today. how are you describing information on amendments to the rules and questions that are raised when you don't provide them on the agenda. they're not on the agenda. the only thing is last friday at the 1 o'clock i received the amendments. its not enough to talk to

individual commissioners that you're getting into danger water and you don't have your comments many the record two weeks ago. thank you >> linda chapman. i would have appreciate the chance to read what's before you. it was evenly vertebral from the computer using the sftv computer they were unable to print it out. i wrote to the secretary and he, he sent me strange format instructions sometimes you can

print it in word but okay same thing this time. and you know, i did write the commission secretary who sent me a copy that was nice i was able to read it no one can read this one. substantive comments i made a few last time you don't understand how difficult it is for people out there for not having great communications anyway to communicate this. if commissioner moore had though the mention we could send things to the secretary god that was great but most people don't know this if they don't send it to the commission secretary it won't go into the record.

but, of course, as you know if they don't get them 8 days in advance they won't get it published so, now we're hearing in the commission secretary is not on hear like kevin annoy or one of the planners it won't go into the record. this is about notification 2 weeks and sue hester thaut thought larkin was a difficult hearing and should have been notices. we got noticed on saturday we result was no lawyer here and with over riding comment the developer said oh, there's a lot

of these information. it would have helped us if we had seen that report and known what it was about. i would have other comments if i had seen this i made a few last time, you know. i hope to see this and it can be discussed if; however, committee and maybe after we've seen it we can comment further >> we're still talking about the rules and regulations. i'll be sure to call you up >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm paul. i've two separate comments. one is having heard our response for more time to notice on certain projects like 311 are noticed. i do want to state i support sue

hester's positions on the larger number of supplemental issues that perhaps don't get appropriate notice of one week. unlike the commissioners who are to read the public is destroying to submit comments that factor into our decision and by restricting us to 3 minutes that i think does potentially a service because we don't have time to submit a more comprehensive set of thoughts. on the second topic i recall on the last hearing commissioner moore suggested she would submit comments to the commissioners this was a matter of public record. i want to thank the secretary for sending those to me but it

would have been helpful if documents that are that significant from particular on the submittal documents that support the hearings if those were parrot of the records the public could see and understand. of them. i think commissioner moore: suggestions are significant and merit some attention. i noted there's a request for 3-d reverend it's entirely unclear is that a requirement on the project sponsor or the dr folks if its on both why is the requester has accurate information to do accurate collaborations and modeling to provide inaccurate information. i'm not an expert but i have a

sense of fear of data that's being use i think it's interesting before this is approved >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? on rules and regulations? soak seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya oh, no, no, no. >> it's not about rules per say but about the use of the word 10 days is it you were interpreter or interpreted to mean calendar or working days in article 5. >> i interpret those to be calendar days. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to say i would have hoped that the rules as their september to us today and if

they indeed annoyance the different commissioners comments for the sake of this discussion would have been identified. it's unclear what the basis is for the rules. i've not received any comments from my fellow commissioners that recycle 0 r talk about the procedural issues with the underlying submissions. i've not gotten a single comment or if their rejected by whom. since i've start to talking about the lack of clarity not specific targeted issues for anyone or the department or anyone in the department almost

seven years ago i didn't know the drawings were submitted. i've said it over and over again when are we going to get more cliefrt because drawings submittals that are unclear and circle and often result in having to send cases basing back because we do understand them made me think we need to intensity some clear applications to submit those in a consistent way. as the 7 year sitting here do we have for the first time from the secretary see that that we indeed have a say open appendix a. this was not given to us before so thank you for doing that. i ask the department and the director knows how can we be

more clear. we're here to be basically working with you to deliver something that you spend a lot of time deliberating with with a large staff hours and hours but we get information that we can't properly support you it then gets sent back. i went through simply i or like a good student through the 9 places in the departments reducing instructions to the applicant and most succinctly under the plans guidelines and what i did because we have the add function in our word document i made red boxes to consistentlyly insert that the plans submittal guidelines should be the common reference for all 59 places.

you have liquor one governing document probably the first thing people go to and i want to put in some consistency. one is to use digital photocopy. so that was i think the department accepted that and the next one had something to be with 3-d documents and it didn't submit an undue hardship to anyone and simulates the 3-d imagine because the tools are inexpensive. they're available to anyone for

people who have good looking. there's some other minor subtle things but to my question i don't see the recommendations picked up in the discussion and i want to hear each commissioners comments to my comments relative to the matter. i suffer like i do twho who the fact finding isn't there. commissioner antonini >> if i'm reading this incorrigible on item d under the appendix i guess. of our rules. and it says standard cases and on number 2 of standard cases it talks about the submittals when commissioner moore was asking for and c talks about digital

affirmatives of the conditions 3-d digital reverend. that's what our rules are part of >> those are actually added directly as a result of our dismissing commissioner moore. >> however, when i pull up the link those suggestions are not show that their appearing here but not tracked through the documents for which i apply. so since you were not give a copy of what i submitted i copied for you in color what i sent you and left it with - just a copy of the planned submittals so you can look through those while we talk.

this is actually a simple thing and doesn't really undermine or change anything about what the department is doing it's a matter of referencing and getting a little bit more of the depth in tracking the consistency >> if i may the document that was forwarded to you all that's on our website and was created open february 2012 doesn't include a section for section this was one of our southerners and includes a reference to rendering and 3-d rendering and references discretionary review cases in them. so i'm not clear as to what else you want added.

>> on the first page right under site permit in that paragraph the language will add all other planning applications that maybe reviewed by the planning commission. >> and if i turn the pages it goes into specifics about that. that particular package and subsequent pages have not been exchanged >> understood. >> i think i was asked the question for commissioner moore but i did have some other comments. it looks although we have the basis of what commissioner moore wants but i not be up for addresses to clarify it further. the other question i had in terms of noticing.

the looks quite clear so far as the noticing. my understanding is the commission receives a packet at the time at the time the commission receives the packet that same information is put on the website for the planning department correct >> you receive for example, if there's a hearing next week approximately 3:00 p.m. the hard packet is placed down stairs at the fourth floor. and the electronic version once the calendar is finalized on friday is released that's posted to the web and direct links from that agenda are available for the public >> you're saying virtually the

same time we get the hardcopy packets it's available down stairs for the public even in advance of the electronic production of the data? >> generally speaking yes, but within several hours or no later the next day open friday when the agenda is finalized. >> and there's many times we loaf our commission hearing early we don't get our material. i have no problem jesus christ that between the meeting and we're calling those major cases there are a it week period of time but technically i don't see it's that difficult to read and make a decision on those

materials. and it's very clear also the other thing it says if standard cases under for this as it deals with 309 continual uses and 3210 west and thirty 9 exceptions but it's true one week in advance the packet is due to the commission and two weeks at the discretion of the planning commission officers. i would think in if the public feels strongly about an item they certainly should contact the commission officers and decrees their interest in having the noticing being longer. many of the hot tops are tracked months ahead of time so there's

no surprise but if they feel it's important they be given the two weeks notice the public can ca ask and if unify members of the publics i'm sure the officers and director will do what they can to add to the period of time. those are just standard cases. and it clearly points to the fact that a major project or major forgotten policies or presentations are two weeks in advance of the hearing. seems like this is a reasonable amount of mogz. you can only digest information and we have enough materials for the next week where there's eirs it's nice to have the extra week

to work on them but you can't go two which beyond two weeks. i'm happy with that part and the changes. i will wait to hear from other commissioners and particularly commissioner moore but i'm happy as i see them >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. to address the jazz concerns i believe the submittals don't apply to the requests. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. so on the issue of the amendments that empowering had submitted i see the ones in the actual rules, you know, have been reflected for for the plan

submittal guidelines i'm supportive of it >> commissioners, if you adapt the rules and regulars p that will become part or part of the process and the planning director can include those. i'd like to address a couple of those suggestions in her that you've - okay in any case if you choose to adapt those changes we can modify the plan for the guidelines documents >> would that be a separate process than the item we're taking today or look at the rules and instructions. >> your adapting them by reference the commission would be adapting the submittal guidelines the department uses by reference and the depart