er. >> 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 some minor problem can be used to there a a project even further i think things are gotten better when i was first on the commission we

had a lot of projects that were continued over and over again on technical grounds or other things we seem to be hearing more the projects on a timely basis but it's clear some of those are complicated and that's wise to as much of the data be there the changes are made to projects on the day of the hearings by the commissioner as a result of public comment or as a result of other things modifications are made and the project is often much different from what came before the commission in the moreno of the hearing that's sort of the process if you want to be part of the process i'll courage everyone to be you have to be mobile enough to understand the process and during that period to changes that will be

occurring on the fly that's part of my feeling on it i think within suggestion on a tennis i know we've boric acid other january 29th but this issue it going to take awhile we're going to have to study it and there's will be lots of public comment and decision whether or not to make changes and hopefully on the day we decide to have it done we want to finish it not continue to other time if that date is on we he modestly might want to get it down u done without you pushing other items out two or three hours during the day. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you i guess i'll be supportive of the continuance if we want to do that i have a couple of comments for the next hearing on the item i will start off by saying i

totally agree with the commission represents the city and public so everyone that moves and works here as well and to that point i think what i read from the original time when i read the rules the rule change will allow us to do that better when we get commission in the middle at 11 o'clock in the morning before our noon meeting we have a issues we can't read if i get it at 11:30 in the morning and our hearing is in minutes later i canned read s it so to that effect go some of the - there are other rules i know that sue hester as brought up not related to that but in terms of timeline versus million dollars i think one thing to be

clarified is we have our commission rules and accepted practice we have in our commission rules it says that the deadline to schedule a hearing or send out notice is 72 hours but it is in one week so perhaps what we can make that clear it will help you read the rules and it says you need 72 hours for the public hearing but it has to be within twenty-four hour so for most 90 percent of the issues that's not the case we can make that clear without a whole discussion lawyer around the timeline so to that end i have two questions and comments we can address next time on page 2 where you actually have our red line about submittals for the hearing you said to insure

the hearing i'm not i'm going to read it the corresponds submitted to the planning commission must be received by the secretary if we're strongly concerning it must should not be the word can we clarify it is strongly encouraged if you don't get it in i think we need to clarify what happens so looking at you jonathan you did the red line. >> it certainly make sense the person of the statement so i i receive it by the close of business the day prior i can forward it on and the with expectation you, you receive