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 it and the next patrol car paragraph is - i leaf my office

early to set up the hearing room if someone forwards an e-mail intended for the hearing date i may not have the opportunity so to have the submittals considered by they need to be submitted by the hearing. >> without getting two schematic we need to make that clear submitted by the close of day and in the klass close of hearing so just is that we'll discuss that whether or not and the next thing i thought it was clear the hearing submittals and the dr or planned submittals guidelines are different we discuss over time to enhance both we're getting standards sets of information so perhaps we can actually attach the

appendix so we can see it i don't agree we need the city attorney to look at those are any comments we'll talk about that later. >> commissioner richards. >> a couple of points first, i think our experience an article two should teach us a lesson on public trust we in the ends there was no negative feedback from anyone in the public they felt represented and heard i lick even that experience to what we need here something that is non-substantive to some is substantive too on the on the other side of the railing it's a big deal we need time to process within a reasonable period of time i do agree with

commissioner antonini this will take more thirty days one of the best practices you have this the way it is and the way it will be on this type of document will be amazing people can see the changes i want to take the time a second for commissioner president wu's discussion on a larger royal of the commission the way we make decisions can be unwe wouldly we talk about the thing we do in the future we have no mechanism we want to take into account the rules i heard in the past where some committee we need to institutionalize that on the fly is it as needed ad hoc i want to put something around that i want to understand what kind of policies we need to get into and

document them i think on the larger cap office allocation to on or about abc d and policies can change given certain circumstances to commissioner fong's point of view i agree with the lady that sometimes we're trying to fix the airplane while flying it we're not making good decisions i have to fault some of the public as well i'm guilt i didn't have this getting the substantive e-mails i can't do any job effectively in kind of data coming in so fast is something that that is worse than intact at least we with a couple of days are here we have minutes we need to push back the

data that we have to cocky want to come back and ask questions we need to put that in as well to commissioner johnson point of view. >> commissioner hillis. >> to talk about the changes in the document the only thing that confused me was eupeculiar a the first two sentences you've talked about there's a period after submittal and i read it as if it wasn't the planning commission courageous the planning and submittal that is good but the next sentence that's confusing it says correspondence submitted to the planning commission must be received by the itself planning commission secretary no longer the the day of the hearing i guess what there's not really you struck out where it said or it's not part of the public

record we know if it's submitted it is part of the recorded strike that sentence or to become to be part of the commissioners package the day of the hearing there's footing got to be a specific after that if it's not submitted i got confused on the sentence other than that that's not fairly substantive and makes sense in article two we hear about the continuance and the process whatever theories people have it's good to give spifshgz there were a couple of people that pointed out the paragraphs it confused me there was specification in the e-mails i can make a decision on the two sentences to you fix it if we're to continue it but there's

nothing about fairness or we're trying to be helpful if i submit f it the day of the meeting it might not get to us we need to clarify that. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> as the commission seemed declined to continue this item i want to ask the public to help us set the baseline for what are the people's abilities to access information and print it at home in other words, to proactively participate in the process of r and modifications of the process we're talking about here there's a baseline of personal equity that deals with us some of us don't have a computer or imprisonment at home those are technology that kofths quite a bit of money and requires room

in homes what's little baseline of the pope public to have that as is having to go to the library in order to stay informed i'd like that to be an informational piece in how we look at our rules response time feedback, etc. and very visit that sometimes but not frequently i don't know that situation has changed i want the public to tell this commission what the reality test is when people in their homes to be quickly able to access and participate in the data and information elevation and i'd like to make a move we continue this date proposed. >> second what's the date property. >> i understand. >> the 29th

commissioner president wu. >> i'll accept it one strong request from the audience from sue hester she's not here its hard to schedule around the public but it's hard. >> if we believe fifth is beginning to get busy there are things this were schedule for the 29th to the agenda i'll recommend you not continue to the fifth and consider february 12th. >> that's fine. >> i'm fine with that. >> i did not hear a second - commissioner richards thank you and if i could make two comments because i do appreciate all of your thoughtfulness associated with the rules it was agendized

today at the request of sue hester on january 8th she made that request to initiate the rule changes that the commission wanted to see and to give the public an opportunity to he'd those changes so i do appreciate the continuance to allow for public input. >> commissioner fong. >> i want to make a couple of observation comments and one i'm supportive in continuance for the new rules i want to make sure to the public we're operating under our existing rules and in good form i think technology is somewhat caught up with us here and people setting things last minute and the exceptions so i think we should address that i'd like to suggest the thought of i

don't know it's appropriate or efficient for us to work in this kind of form i'm to suggest we take the time to continue it and let the public submit in writing their thoughts and let us 7 of us the secretary submit what he or she upstairs is best and bring up a it seems to me form to really sort of begin to hash out the thoughts and give more thought to many and then came back come back with that recommendation with obviously the input of staff as well as the commissioners or other directors i'd like to through that out i don't know if we need to vote on that or bring it back. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks and yeah. just real quick from my point of view it is still american people

existing rules i originally wanted to emphasize the comments before the day of the hearing otherwise it's so hard for us thiflg that and i'd like to be on the commissioner lee i agree with commissioner fong and i want to echo some of smifks e smifks like the hurricane let me see it has nothing to do with the rules but a good one. >> commissioner richards. >> a couple of things we're talking about the communication i said to throw any $0.02 in the title of the e-mail like the address of the project and the case report number whatever identifier i literally have hundreds of e-mails saying i support joe i don't know what that guess about it takes a lot of time and it comes in late we need a standard to go down the

list and get the response i also think commissioner fong's idea of a it seems to me for a rule i'd like to establish it today to not burn it up and have commissioner moore and commissioner johnson on that commissioner lee. >> so procedurally i am and this is part of the decision today, i'm unclear how this happened what i'm hearing is a desire for a commissioner lee subcommittee we give the information to the subcommittee and the subcommittee goes away does the work and commissioner president wu at the chair you'll appoint members of a

subcommittee you'll hear and solicit the interests you'll have the two committees when we actually have to have public hearings in a similar setting in other words, that subcommittee will possibly meet regularly to our hearing to allow the public forum and comments by the subcommittee. >> so you could do that today, if you choose or you could wait until the 29th. >> i'd like to take a little bit of time i intend to there's coincidence on forming a subcommittee i think that likely 2 or 3 members is appropriate a number of commissioners have shown interest it's hard to make decisions on the fly we should give some attention to more

thought. >> commissioner antonini. >> i'd like to emphasis the fact go any input needs to be noticed ahead of time from the hearing there are people today, the electronic devices are another part of the body 33 people want to know why i took thirty minutes to address an e-mail i might be working on a patient i read my e-mail in the case of commissioner richards lots of junk mail that is on there and a lot of actresses put things in there it creates problems with our e-mail i can have a lot of consequences so you have to expect there's delay

in which you submit something i'm more responsive to phone numbers o phone calls but i read my e-mail. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to express my interest in the subcommittee where we transition which was approved last year and now being adapted by the department regarding the specifics of submittals that will be a transition that will be valuable to my subcommittee and commissioner richards. >> thanks to commissioner antonini i set up a sfgovtv.org account it's easy to you might want to set up a sfgovtv.org e-mail for official business. >> commissioners there's a

motion to continue to february 12th it's been made and seconded are we going to stick to the 12. >> commissions on that motion commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner richards pr commissioner moore commissioner richards sxhoung commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero it places you under director's report. >> commissioners the only item we're regarding the susan daily eir that has not been issued for the sf hope project on the eir will be on january 22nd i want to let you and the public know we're having on site hearing which will happen two days before that on site at susan daily and post the specifics of

the addresses on the website before you're hearing that we wanted to make sure we get the public comment on the site as well as the official hearing on the 22nd on january 20th at sunnyvale thank you. >> i'd like courage the commissioners to attend. >> at least is there is 3 less of you attending i'll appreciate that if there are more than 3 because of quorum we'll have to publicly announce the meeting. >> i actually if this when we were asked to attend it would be four or five of us to be quorum. >> if more than 3 it would automatically become kwoufrm commissioners, if there's nothing further item 12 past events at the board of

supervisors board of appeals and the preservation commission no report from the board of supervisors board of appeals and the historic preservation didn't mediated yesterday so the only note is that supervisor breed was elected president. >> commissioners we can move on to general public comment needing 10 minutes i have 10 speaker cards all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. we have over 10 speaker card. >> to the public a number of you may be part of the same

group and looking at it is we do limit 24 portion of general public comment to 15 minutes and continue it to the last item of the agenda so i'll call them as submitted (calling names). >> i'm bob planted hold as a member of the share better san francisco coalition i want to call your attention there's an ongoing complaints on the violations of the short-term rentals it's still he illegal but landowners and others are advertising as short-term rentals off the market ask

beginning what's in their investigation process we know there's a joint hearing on the enforcement it specifically clued talking about this we've noticed from the mapping increase hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of unit being currently advertised so i want to call your attention and tell you as those complaints continue we'll keep come back. >> good afternoon thank you commissioner richards for that analog appreciate it and the public and we appreciated the business prospective you brought to the table and it identifies and sounds excellent in the room and thinking outside the box theory he have a couple of it makes the day or takes the conversation one we railway here is last

regulation of student artists there's a second to that i'm in favor we have radical things smoking legal in bars and we hosted the no gasoline vehicles and we traveled millions of miles around the sun and can i go dominates have come and gone and at one point our own form of retail sounds radical where the line is drawn and how it could be automobile to our present legislation is applicable this is federally sponsored and locally protected and corporate proceedings one hundred and 40 clarlz the proceedings we

regulate its policy that is directed to promote small business a fallacy of political endeavor do it fall short on the smaller note the present-day sometimes failing to recollect one once or one cent of such a beverage keep in mind this harmful product consumed with the income and skin color the higher income i make the also swbd i consume and it began as a drown or brown we the people afforded a loan to the provider and purchased excess sugar and next, we don't use sugar in such a beverage we accomplish this

through corn and ship it back to the states and federal factories can produce up to 75 cans of cola but question the overcomes in our food consumes along with the federally subsidized production production. >> >> next speaker. >> i believe it was the doctor first. >> okay sure. >> thank you very much dr. espanola jackson i have a statement because i know a lot of people are watching i received a phone call yesterday and it was questioning me about my number for medi-cal because they wanted to update

any medi-cal and i prevented that someone stole any purse so i didn't have any information they wanted to know if i knew my social security you know baby i'm 81 years old and i'll be 82 next month so maybe give me give me a couple of numbers so i called off 316 i said i don't recognizing recognize that i contacted medi-cal's this morning and contacted the police department because fraud is going on i guess on senior citizens i want to say to you seniors if you are getting a free gift hang up the phone does not give our social