outline and then move from there. lastly we believe that the section title relation to land use planning on page 7 is a key section. it's too short as currently written. item such as the residential design guidelines, garage guidelines, window guidelines are all documents of preservation components that are used daily in the planning process that are not mentioned in the draft given the larger role of that preservation plays in general planning processes in the city. we believe this section in particular should be given more attention. we do have many other comments that i think we can follow up in writing and i will speak with staff in terms of when the time best time for that is. thank you. >> thank you. seeing we have no other public. we'll close public comment. and informational, any other comments from commissioners? no. we'll close this item.

>> commissioners that will take us back to item 7. your rules and regulations consideration of proposed amendment. commissioners today i just want to clarify it's not intended for you to adopt any revisions to your rules and regulations, but as an opening segment to consider proposed modifications and for you to have a dialogue on them. your rules and regulations haven't been updated since august of 2011. i thought it would be good to improve specifically your appendix a section by adding a submittals and hearing section that would clarify my understanding has been the commission's desire to really put the public on notice that submitting things on the day of the hearing makes it very difficult for you to consider

it for an item on that particular date. what doesn't appear on your draft or proposed rules and regulations are specific hearings specifically request for hearing and request for review and comment. my recommendation would be for a 5-minute presentation and the public provided a 3-minute public comment hearing. >> thank you. commissioners? commissioner john? >> i think the commissioners by the secretary is extremely timely and thoughtful. i went over appendix a and thought about it and what i did was i redrafted it in a way that i felt that i could pass out. i

think i do have enough so i can give you one too. if i don't, then somebody could look on. what i tried to do was take the essence of what was suggested, we work it. there was one part that seemed to really have to do with the planning commission. so i just drew lines through that. for example, a in submittals, i thought it was more clear to say correspondence submitted must be given to the secretary no later than a day before the hearing. >> so that's the kind of thing that i tried to do. and so,

since we are not going to be making any decisions on this today, you might take a look at this and certainly these could probably be approved or maybe people would prefer to go back to the earlier version. >> thank you. >> i have a few potential ones here. when we go to article 4, talking about arc, 4th line. the purpose of the architectural review cheat -- committee is to provide early review and advice on design. i think, "advice" might be tough because we are really providing direction. "review" right. but we are also giving

direction and not advice and not to the applicant but to the staff. so there is that one. and then also we also comment occasionally, i believe. if i can hear from arc members on this one. on the history. i would like if we have interpretive display would be good to talk about at that time. right? so some kind of language to that effect talking about it. add that. as a direction, right. then continuing on that section, "building materials and construction techniques" prior to presenting would be added to the whole historic preservation commission. it just gives definition of what the arc does.

on the next page section 6, attendance at a meeting. this gets into if any member misses three consecutive uncommunicated it would seem to me that number would get lower. if someone is missing two, what's going on and how many commissioners can miss in a calendar year without saying to the mayor we have somebody who is not able to make it. >> what's an uncommunicated? >> just not showing up. >> so clearly commissioners you are all very conscious of notifying me and commission president and vice-president when you are absent. that wouldn't be considered uncommunicated absence. the mayor also requires me to provide him with an attendance record and the hearings that

you have attended and hearings that you have been absent and came in late and early on. all of those are provided. >> just something to think about when you want to finalize this. and on the very last page, page 7. under appendix a and getting into item i, this gets into time limits and adjusting time limits. let's say we have a controversial item and in the rules we don't, i would like to define it that we can take it down as needed to 2 minutes or to whatever. because it really isn't defined in here. >> are we doing 2 minutes? >> we have done three. we are doing it on occasion. i think northeast library. we took it down to 2 minutes, even a

minute. we really cut it down. i would like to define that a little bit better. significant request for public comment or even to extend time would be the other, right? if we want to extend a sponsors time. >> i think it would be helpful to mention some of that because sometimes the project might be so complicated that 10 minutes is not enough. >> right, i think we want to talk about extensions as well. >> the way this is drafted is very general. it afterwards the chair to limit any kind of time limit in terms of expanding or reducing. >> i would like to clarify for the public's good. right? >> you have the authority to do that. >> right. so the public understand we may take their public time down. >> you can say may reduce or

extend. >> yeah. >> i can say reduce or extend for some period. >> then my last one we spoke about before which will most likely be relevant again this january because there is three commissioners that are up and we may or may not get reappointed and the officers election until all the seats are filled. i propose two changes, on the current line, the commissioner held after the first day. i think we agreed on march previously before everyone got sat. the first meeting of march rather than after the first day of march which is called the

first meeting. >> unless of course the appointments are made early. >> that's right. >> yeah, but it's going to be a meeting or two. so march is a safe one and we don't have to extend it or anything. >> then with the term of the officers be from march to march? >> yeah. right? >> i would be fine with the way it is. it is just elect. you can still extend whoever is the president until you have the seated appointments. >> the only issue becomes when, because the term expiration dates are the end of the year. so december 31st technically is the end of someone's term. they can be seated longer, but if for whatever reason they are not seated longer you have a situation where there is a

vacated seat or which there is no president. you can handle in multiple ways. you can elect a chair for each meeting until. >> i believe the notion is that everybody on the commission or will be on the commission has the ability to vote for the officers. >> that is what is attempted. >> right so we don't go through like last time as brought up every time and we have the carry over. >> we can add language where it's says they are all members are present. >> what if one, what if there is one that doesn't get approved and somebody else has to get renominated and go through the process. that can go on an on. >> i know when i was on the commission, charles was already president and the three of us didn't get to

decide. it's not unusual. >> that is an instance where midterm for whatever reason there is a vacancy and there is an appointment midterm. you walk into an existing situation. again, these are your rules and regulations. >> yeah, so let's punt this one so we see it again. think about it because there is no reason we have to change it at all. >> right. >> we can say first meeting of march or sooner if vacancies are filled. >> yeah, something to that effect. >> commissioners, any other comments, questions? >> i had a comment and maybe the arc could comment on my comment. for understand section one for the arc, if we can maybe add a section that projects come back. i know that comes to the arc once but rarely does it

come back again and again. i specifically remember apple and that was a pretty complicated project and it would have been better if i think the project came back to the arc rather than amen -- apple coming back to us. maybe leaving that option open that it can come back several times or as needed or as determined by the arc. >> the suggestion would be the arc prior to releasing the project could request that it come back before them again ? >> yeah. >> i think that's a great idea. >> under article 3 duties office duties of the

secretary. it doesn't happen often but i would like to make sure the secretary helps with the process when the commissioner is asking for data, background data that the substantive that there is some kind of procedure where the secretary kind of checks in with whoever the planning staff is to get, so we know we can get the material on time rather than going directly to a planning staff person to make sure there is some follow through on the part of the secretary. i think that is reasonable to be required under the secretary's position. and then under article 5, meeting section 3, when it's a special meeting, at least 24 hours, i think you need more time than at least 24 hours there. i'm not sure how much, but i think something. and i agree with the submittals under section 12. i kind of get eshgd when

people submit it. some people don't know about our hearing until an hour before and they have some relevant information they need to share with us. >> quickly commissioner matsuda, the new submittal requirement would not prevent anyone from submitting information. >> maybe we can use more encouraging words. encourages early submittal so we can have more time to review. something like that. then i think that commissioner hasz touched on this under submittals for the hearing procedures. instead of like kind of limiting the time to 10 minutes or 1 minute. just make it more project specific and make it more to

give more delegation to the president to determine specifically with speakers. sometimes there are a number of speakers who come out and even though they maybe in support of or opposed to certain things baunsd they -- because they come out we need to give them an opportunity to be heard. lastly on disclosures. does that need to follow it too. do we need to have a separate section to talk about disclosures? >> i thought i had seen it here but i don't see it. >> it talks about changes of disclosures for each item. >> we just went to a sort of code within our own commission. >> okay. do we need to codify that code? okay. i would

recommend that as well. >> that we add a disclosure section to the rules. >> i don't see that would be a problem. i know you already have a procedure for that. i don't see it as a problem because we have a general requirement for that anyway. so i don't know that there is a harm in reiterating it. >> do you have an example that we can pull from? is there any way we can get an example? >> we can look into that and see if we can find something. >> that would be great. thank you. >> okay, commissioners, the city attorneys office did provide this commission the disclosure options a couple years ago with a memo that the city attorneys office could forward back to you. i believe there were three different options at that time.

>> commissioner john's. >> that was one point. the other point is that we have those dlours -- disclosures not at the beginning of the session, but we have them at the beginning of the item which seems to me to always make much more sense. >> so you are suggesting that maybe when i call the item that i would also ask the commission if there are any disclosures to be made on the item? >> right. >> seems fine, disclosures and recusals. >> it doesn't make a difference? >> it seems fine to do it at once. >> right. commission matters.

i'm back and forth on that one. so. >> yeah. if we could revisit the memo that the city attorney. >> we'll get a hold of that. >> i remember talking about that. >> commissioner johnck? >> there is a couple comments on what's been offered so far. on the committees, i do agree that a little more information item on what the arc can say or do and provide direction or advice is redundant and to include public interpretive display direction on public at interpretive. i think that's good. i guess the other thing on your point about the submittals, can we actually,

is it legal for us to actually say that you must submit a communication to us 72 hours in advance is encouraged. i don't think we can actual require it. >> victoria wong, city attorney. you can certainly set out the rules here for 72 hours advanced submittal in order to be circulation and to ensure full commission consideration. it's a different matter i think whether it necessarily becomes part of the public record. something that someone would submit at the last second to go into record. you can continue it if you haven't had time to consider it. it's not required for you to review something that was just brought in. >> it could open a can of

worms. >> commissioners john's idea on that because he's brought it up several times through several meetings. maybe it's that please be noted commissioners are not required to read submittals within a 24 hours basis. so people look, if i get it and if i have a chaps -- chance to read it, i will read it. like gives us a chance to say look, we'll read it. i definitely don't read it. >> that's been a problem. another thing that has bothered me frequently is that these people have projects and sometimes their consultants spend an -- enormous time and

efforts that's wasted because we don't have time to read it. i wanted the project sponsors or the project opponents who put all this effort into making some presentation to have at least, well it can't be a guarantee but at least a real good shot that the commissioners will have an opportunity to consider their work. there are both things going on and it's such a shame that people pay for this work being done and it's useless. >> commissioners, i understand, i don't have a copy of your proposed revisions of these rules, but our offices are certainly happy to work with the commission to come up with language to address the concerns. >> okay. commissioners, any other comments or questions at this time because this will come back in front of us. right. >> i like your suggestion of making a statement that in

order to ensure full consideration, otherwise commissioners may not be able to have the time appropriate to respond. >> or not required. >> i think we have to be careful because sometimes people do find out about something right before. not because they are lazy, but because they didn't know about it and it's an issue they want to hear. >> to the point exactly. >> that may happen. i think it probably almost never happens. as i see these reports prepared by attorneys and architects. certainly a week in advance. >> all right. opposed public comment. >> public comment where it might be a neighbor something like that. >> that's different. we always pay attention to them anyway. >> it's the 10 page analysis. >> right. it took 2 weeks to write it.

>> okay. i think we are done with this item. if i can reopen commission matters before we adjourn. the second meeting in may we are going to approach the local interpretations of the secretary standards. this is going to be a long process. this will be meeting one for us on this and we have a facilitator that mr. fry has brought in which is great. so what we'll do is either off site so it's more of a round table discussion than this setting because it's more collaborative that it does not encourage the collaboration we are going to need on this. this will be, mr. fry if you want to speak further on this. mr. michael. >> yes, tim fry, department staff. we are working with

vince mikel as commissioner hasz about the facilitator to work on the standards and the origins and how they have been used and applied over jurisdictions over time and to set the stage not only with this commission but the staff and the public on what sort of goals we should set and direction we should go in developing a guidelines document which we hope to have more robust discussions on towards the end of this year. so again, as commissioner hasz mentioned mr. ion an is looking for a site where we can have this special meeting and we certainly want to broadcast it as much as possible to encourage the public to participate as well. >> what's the date for that? >> it will be may 21st as your regularly scheduled hearing that is being proposed to not

cancel but to move off site for a more conducive discussion. >> will that meeting be recorded? or televised? >> that is an item that does not appear on your agenda. but i did have a conversation with sf gov. tv. san francisco television to make sure that it is recorded that it is on-site for people who could not attend. >> if there is nothing further i would like to make an announcement under commission matters, my direct back up and you will be seeing her when she officially starts. she'll

be shadowing me. >> great. if nothing else, we'll close this meeting. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >>