tv [untitled] January 3, 2014 8:00pm-8:31pm PST
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 department
issues those plans. >> okay. >> i'm sorry go ahead. >> so the plans are for the submittal guidelines i'm trying to understand your process what's our really to making amendments. >> i guess the way it would work we certainly tack your recommendations and change the guidelines and you adapt them by reference. >> okay. >> they're adopted by reference in appreciation a and any reference to the submittal guidelines would be referenced by your rules and regulation. >> okay. i also want to sort of touch open this point of the one week vs. the two weeks. i think, you know, planning
commission very much runs on a weekly schedule it's a lot of material for the commissioners and public but i want to say the process is available as we discussed today to e-mail the planning commission secretary and have the comments described for the commissioners. i'll be honest for me if i get a document for 2 weeks i won't read it because it's hard to keep two weeks agenda on your mind at the same time >> commissioner moore. >> i interrupted commission secretary and i'll direct the question back to you. as i said this doesn't apply to drs but it requires per reference to the conditional use
in section c-111 and the notifications that might result in a dr that doesn't mean we're adding additional work to staff but requires that the applicant provide you either for the abbreviated dr which still comes to us as well as the full dr to provide the referendum so there's nothing that makes the staff work for difficult it makes a easier. so none of it singles out dr because the director has clearly said the problems but it refers more generally back to the conditional use and the notifications so it's really a middle reminder within the
document to reference those two 3 conditions in order to have indeed that consistent documentation and material for the commission. the real intent really is many of us are lay people and we're finding ourselves liquor the 2 to 3 weekers that's uncomfortable and we can ask for more information. i really don't feel good when i have to call it out it's not a victory to send somebody back and say your stuff doesn't add up we can be more clear >> i want to thank you commissioner moore for stepping forward and extending a tremorly amount of time. some of us don't have your
background so thank you for better clarify this. in the end it will help the commissioners and staff and a commissioner antonini >> yeah i appreciate what commissioner moore is saying and if i understand correctly i'm happy with the rules and regulations as drafted. by reference they live staff will modify the instructions to reflect what's in our rolls but to have our rules voluminous they speak to the issues we're concerned about i agree one hundred percent with commissioner moore when cases come before us and the drawings are not accurate and we have to waste everybody's time sending it back to be redone didn't make sense but i think that's the job of staff once we've pit those
rules forward and made it clear for our submissions package the planner has to make sure before it's clarptd for us and that they review the what's been submitted by the project sponsor or the dr requester in the case of dr that it is unsatisfactory what we're asking for. i'm fine with this assuming we'll get the instructions created by reference. we don't have to spell that out. i'll move to approve those changes >> commissioner antonini before you do the city attorney has a few minor changes. so appendix a section a for submittals the third paragraph the city attorney is
recommending that the correspondence must include a copy to the commission secretary striking cc and the fourth paragraph the briefs to be included in the packet forward to the mragsz and striking would like to be a part of. in the fifth paragraph the guidelines shall be recyclely - strictly enforced. and under section 3 subsection by the opposing opposition not to exceed 3 minutes the city attorney wants the block is to reduce the number of overall
speakers who are part of opposition striking the similar concerns. under section g for about sequa appeals. the addition of sequa appeals of negative declaration is recommended by the district attorney's office and i'm agreeing with all of those suggested changes. so my motion would be to approve reflecting the changes as suggested by the city attorney and read into the record by the commission secretary >> second. >> can i ask a question. >> commissioner moore. >> the city attorney on the last point give us one or two sentences so i fully understand. >> the portion of sequa regarding the desolations. >> i'm kate from the district attorney's office. commissioner moore the only sequa appeal that comes to the
planning commission is that of a negative declaration so it was really for clarification purposes that it optional will be triggered when there's a negative declaration appeal. eirs come automatically for certification and exemptions are part of the project approval that don't have a specific appeal process to the planning commission >> thank you for relatedly us. >> commissioners there are a motion and second as intrord on that motion. commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner wu. and president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero.
now that you've done that you can tape our 2014 consent calendar. the hearings scheduled for the 2014 proposed meeting dates. commissioners i've provide you with a draft hearing schedule for 2014. january 2nd has been cancelled as a result of this hearing schedule but it will appear here. january 30th is a fifth thursday of the month and you generally cancel those hearings. on thursday may 29 is a fifth thursday. july 3rd is cancelled for the jout. july 31st is a fifth thursday and you generally tack a hi, ate