them into office and if affordable housing what is affordable housing and what take precedent over the for sale and we had that over clemente the board over turned our decision the enforceable approach i mentioned we have received way too which feedback this is the kind of behavior we don't want and i think this commission needs to take a larger rule in the leadership and making bigger decisions especially around governments and how to set policies and what are the rules we need to change i was surprised the rules we're supposed to be adding more and more we need to address the issues it's critical given everything happening in the city i don't want to be at the end of my term and have people could be

and say where was the planning commission so i want to go on record we need to take a larger role he support the governorcy and other things thank you. >> thank you commissioner fong. >> well, i didn't want to start a discussion i appreciate the thought but five or six most is a reasonable objection it is easy to compare it to other organizations it's compatible comparable and it is a little bit more free flowing and changing with the winds as the city grows and slinks some of the dangers of the setting the policy as the city changes you need to have reactive measures

to counter active events that occur that can be done and boat ridden to new policies and procedures i share it this organization plays a role i think we don't a great game we're on top but it can be improved i will be interested in carrying on that conversation. >> at the. >> commissioner johnson. >> i would also again in the efforts not make this decision today but in the future continue the conversation with the vein of how to increase our calculation with other departments i agree with you setting the vision not that we can't change the procedure you

gave the example you're not going to get all 7 to agree the devil is in the details b there are a lot of activities in terms of policy if we have no connection to those other offices where in the mayor's office or other departments or agencies that our vision doesn't really go past our hearings so i'd like to have a discussion also around we had a little bit today is we talked about the enter departmental decision by to get into our collaboration and how to mix with the vision of other departments and agencies. >> thank you so commissioner fong and i will definitely follow-up with director ram and others i think there's a start next week with the citywide work

plan mr. kelly as alluded to and another opportunity i believe is through the informational be hearings we have commissioner johnson you pointed out today's hearing i think this is the scheduling consecutive scheduling to talk about the issues that have been raised. >> very good commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further we'll move on to o to items 10 consideration of amendments and adaptation commissioner moore a recommending we continue this matter i believe based on noticing but i wanted to point out this matter was advertised on the dis18th agenda when was issued on december 11th so it's been close to a month that members of the public have received the notice and it was

on the agenda and since this agenda was issued last friday, i basically received one inquire regarding the matter. >> i think we should at least have a discussion and decide whether or not to continue the item i want to be clear, sir on the december 18th calendar was the attachment a red lined actual rules and rules changes or only the the agenda for today. >> the hyper link to the proposed changes were linked to today's agenda the notice of this hearing was on the december 18th agenda, however, the one inquire i received that person received a draft on december 19th. >> okay. thank you commissioner moore. >> putting aside what secretary

owen explained the essence of the comments sorry that's not my microphone. >> she's speaking into the microphone. >> i'm speaking into the microphone i'll try to turn it around whatever works better for you collective substance of what commissioners commented on the previous item makes me building a broader discussion about the mix rules would be appropriate that are many issues and details even line items written added to how we're doing it and i believe that the substantive changes should be inched by the commission itself by the secretary owen this should not think initiated as thought

pieces but those who are executing what we have 80 do while i like discussion month many of the things i red lined are supportive particularly a strong emphasis the director has more authority in the commission decisions than the commission president that might be a typo but a transfer the interpretation which i disagree with and not getting into the details i believe there's enough since and commissioner richards and commissioner johnson sorry i'm between christen and commissioner johnson comments including commissioner president wu's comments and commissioner fong's comments there's enough

substance to have a piece step back and come up with an agenda that didn't need to be amended every year in the first 8 years i've been sitting on the commission under the governance of commission avery we never amended anything there were lossesly structured and we can visit them i don't want to say their so flexible to be reissued every year there's additional intelligence about the verbiage for the cast my time but not a good use of our time. >> commissioners the modifications i was suggesting to be included as part of our rules and regulations are actually non-substantive parolee

matters that doesn't change the hearing submittals but do to department modifications to process the case reports we thought it would be wise to include them so it is clear to the public in a hearing submittal guidelines document for the public it doesn't change the eight day cut off in the current rules and regulations for public submittals to be included in your packets and the only other non-substantive was basically the orders that people are called there was condominium conversion in the rules and regulations it states that proponents of the project will be called first and proponents would be called second on cases the chair also have the discretion of administrative code that that's how we've operated so we were omitting

that order of public commenters to be called those are the two issues i want modified if you want to have a broader discussion about rules and regulations there's nothing concerns that with continuing this matter and holding you several hearings on the matter we recently updated those rules and regulations and had extensive conversations in the december of 2013 i thought if we recently had that course of action there's no reason to have a larger conversation about this rules but if i like you know that's your pleasure to discuss and talk about it as much as. >> like. >> i slightly disagree with you i use the strike out in the submittals and 6 lines down it was striking out the part of the

public record and there's not digestion why in the playoff below you're leaving it in defy renting between i don't know why in one paragraph no and in the next paragraph necessary it goes under item b two particularly the latter part of item 2a we're taken submittals specific and trying to refer to them the language is consistent and clear in one place i think there she and he deference to submittal guidelines because someone erroneously looking at look at 20th century that h that will be in the process i'm saying

specifically to that one. >> commissioner moore those are two different documents the one in the discretionary review is the only guidelines document in the the new guidelines they're two separate documents. >> i'm responding to this being given to me as commission rules that is part of the commission rules they'll be used by the commission as ruled i rules so i can ask your question and ask the city attorney to respond what's in front of me are changes that require additional deliberations by this commission i believe that we should stay away from fragmenting things and think comprehensively in all documents those are the same and at this point, i suggest we pause we started discussing

whether or not to delay that so let's take public comment is there any public comment on this item? >> sue hester as the only person that's right been attending those meetings and iranians the issues of the rules i think i have a strong understanding what's going on and i pay attention to the agendas there is never been advanced calendar never where this item was on i get them every week i don't know what the secretary was talking about i think everyone knew what in was doing i was at the meeting on the 18th and asking for things and setting up several things i think need to be done i don't

think you get a notice i noticed at the bottom of the cancelation people assume there's a cancelation for a christmas so if you say meeting cancelation for december 25th accounting how many people are opening it i haven't read one person who knew about this meeting i didn't tell i'm asking for changes myself particularly about the two week reports that's been dismatdz but there's no staff report i've never seen this kind of a change on procedure that effects the people that haven't no staff report none whatsoever no explanation those are not the staff reports - those are not the planning

department staff rules theirs or there's the planning commission rules their your it rules you're the public you stand in the shoes of the public your acting as me when you're up there not john ram or others when our voting your acting as the public i sent in my many and and we to the city attorney how is this illegal deliberations i believe you quota to extend the rules to a public hearing i suggest in two weeks i want to be here when that's discuses in three weeks please i need to be here because i really care about those rules and you're changing them to the detriment of the public at the

>> next speaker. >> i'm bob i also ask you consider continuing this your told there was a notice for the 18 december calendar try to be realistic week before december 11th was a horrendous rain date if someone didn't have business on the 18 of the before this commission why would they bother reading someone people there's christmas no meeting and i've got inform business before the 18 and i'm rained out functionally if it meant the technical requirements i'm suggesting the public didn't getty adequate substantive

notice i'm speaking on a veteran on the sunshine owners let's what harm does it do to continue this especially there's differences among the standing evident that may take more time for you to read and the public to read i suggest a continuance is appropriate to begin as commissioner richards said to start i'll say to establish some trust thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon rose hill son happy new year everyone i believe that some staff reports and recommendations come after the deadline for submitting the public comment so those new rules and regulations

change the way we get public comment it gets dicey with the change of the number of days now four days before the availability those reports were supposed to comment we don't have the reports and the amendments don't offer the opportunity for the members of the public to make comments that maybe critical to the okay. u outcome of a report contained in this report the rules and regulations also don't account for the lack of the report sometimes and there's no flenlt as nothing absolutely no exemptions made to the rules i'm supposing i shouldn't i'm assuming when reports are not available something gets continued but it didn't also and that's not right for the public either thank you.

>> next speaker >> good afternoon, commissioners eric brooks i'm the statue of liberty chair for the san francisco green party and the gastroobligates organization in our city i'll concur with the previous speakers during the holidays technically given notice i did exactly with ms. house/senate said i got a notice around christmastime and didn't on it this should be continued some of the reasons i'll concur with previous speakers that we've got a rule change now that is changing the numbers on when the public has to comment and it is not clear that that

scombriefz iowa we've fought for if 2013 and i just want to remind people in 2013 community advocates that tend to oppose large developer projects and developers that tend to support them have been battling for 12 years over the rules we were going to use for especially for sequa items and things like that we finally came to an agreement after 12 years of fighting over it and community advocates had to equip the front loading appeals much sooner but we got a compromise and the board of supervisors adapted it unanimously so we need to take a close look at it so the changes proposed for the rules at least jive with the rules that the board of supervisors approved if

not make it easier for the public to comment on staff documents after they come out i also say i've never found a suggestion of striving it project opponents being last in the cue for speaking it's usually the case the proponents are the ones out guned and need to make final comments even he if at the discretion of the chair i want to see that remain in the rules so the chair is getting direction usually we want to let opponents go second to get the last word their usual outspent and out gunned please postpone that this and make sure it jives with the rules that are passed at the end of 2013 and

give more scrutiny on what's passed thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon dr. espanola jackson i agree with the statements that's been made prior to me standing here and what i'd like to see when this occurs for the continuance those of us i must say i've been coming to city planning for over 50 years the young man that stated this body was the only body where i live in bayview hunters point to trust now we don't trust you no actions is on the benefit and on the on behalf of bayview hunters point those of us who live there i want to make sure you continue this and need to be heard we need to be heard i've brought so much information to the commission to read you don't read by those of us who read you

represent us the people of san francisco and not the developers thank you so very much >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the chair for the san francisco neighborhood housing committee first of all, i'd like to thank commissioner moore for your comments and sue hester for bringing the points out up and i think that meantime there's a change in the rules there should be decision discussion on why the rules are working now do they need to be changed and why do they need to be changed and there should be accurate public input in this case there was none so hopefully

going forward first of all i'll continue this and have a hearing on this matter i'm concerned about some of the impossible adverse effect about the changes the reports will be due or public comment has to be due before the reports are out that's a very serious concern and i hope you'll address that as other people have mentioned before the commission unlike hopefully, when people say oh, those similar commissioners similar to the board of supervisors commissioners, i hope the commissioner act as a public commissioner that you have our regard in mind and so on that point of view please continue this and have a discussion on why the rule

changes are needed thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon commissioners i'm shirley moore the vice president the bayview hill association i agree with sue hester they've basically changed the hollows u rules and the public you speak for us and the public and sometimes there is information that comes before your body that the public is not had outreach on and the public does not know about so when you speak for us without collaborating with other commissions and other bodies that speak on the same issue the community input is not considered because there is a lack of outreach to the community for to have their voices heard we're here on public comment today for exactly the same the reason that your

discussing because our voices has not been heard i thank you, very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you wanting and commissioners i'm kathy i'd like to suggest that you consider in imposing a condition it the deadlines apply there's been no changes to the plans or projects within one most of the plan and if theres last minute changes postpone for one month or the commission can accommodate the matter because quite often when there's opposition to a project the project sponsors hold the changes to the last minute and if the proponents have to present their statements to the commission before they found out

about those modifications or shortly before a lot of supplemental materials are submitted at the last minute to the commission for the modifications so this increases the burden on the commission as well about the amount of paperwork to be considered so consider something to require that the rules only apply if there's not changes within a month if the project sponsor is detailing and submitting the modifications a one month continuance is not too bad especially, since some of the projects are complicated and also the staff reports should come before the deadlines at least a week you need to know the position the staff is teen it seems like the rules were for the changes in the cop the departments cop outside cop services there are substance 3

so be considered so i hope you'll consider a couple of those things. >> next speaker >> morning i'm johnburg dbes i'll not repeat things but i'll emphasis one point that's the department has made some interesting recommendations regarding the notification that was provided to the public now, when we ask it that be a poling time i ask you come to the submission of materials that the public is being asked for, thank you. >> thank you is there any public

comment okay seeing none, public comment is closed i would suggest that we talk about substantive issues with the rules that we postpone a vote until at least the 22nd with a memo attached would be hopefully of helpful i heard a request from commissioners to expand the issues we'll talk about the areas that are not appropriate commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'm a u a memorable to a continuance it makes sense to have us let us have the united it to study carefully any proposals for changes and you know discuss why or release why those are being made and the effect i'm fine with the rules as modified they're working well

in terms of general policy we have to be fair we have to allow enough noticing and allow people the ability to see what the actual project is before them but we also don't want to further delay the process unnecessarily because we'll find out $500,000 in building cost billing a condominium so part of that is process i mean the city has a high process it doesn't mean we don't want accurate notification or to drive things more expensive so we have to be careful our rules are fair but their you know done in a reasonable way so if