>> is there something in the exterior material of your building why you are rendering this building out as a dark building, it's a light building. as my personal opinion in the background i see a composition of all lighter buildings and i think in east facing facade this building would be less visible to your neighbors, it would actually contribute to a lighter more airy feeling if the colors of the building would be held in the light than in the dark. >> so you mean something maybe more like this color? >> i'm kind of just generically speaking about what you have in the background and perhaps your building even right now is a lighter building. when you make it as dark as you do, it becomes a much heavier and visible building and it

distinguishes itself from others rather than blending. >> right, we've had a couple conversations about that as well. this was originally the color. originally it watts -- was a lot lighter and i would be happy to revert back to that scheme. >> i think you might want to consider what you do with the east facing wall because that is a wall which potentially could give additional light at least a tone of lightness to the people who are across from you. >> it would have to blend more with the sky and the background. >> yeah. it becomes like almost light will reflect off it and doesn't add any feeling of darkness to the people living across the garden from you. >> i think that's an excellent solution and i would be happy to do that. >> also how you break it down to readable volumes. i'm not talking about the other walls

except for the east facing wall. >> okay. thank you. >> perhaps you can work with staff to address that. i would appreciate that. >> thank you for your suggestions. >> commissioner antonini? >> i'm okay with the building light or dark. sometimes the darker building seems smaller because it's not light but it as also commissioner moore point out it stands out because it's different from the others. the one thing i would ask project sponsors is whatever color you end up selecting you do some contrast opt -- on the bay and your garage and around the windows. i'm not sure if those are wood replacement windows. i don't know what's there now, but it gives a little bit of character whether it's dark with the light trim or light with the darker trim. that's probably a good idea. i'm prepared to make a motion

to not take dr and prove and my motion is is in keeping with what i heard from the zone is administrator with the changes made to the balconies. >> second. >> would you add that the owner just spoke briefly with staff on some of the color modifications. >> yeah. that would be great. >> on that motion to not take dr, and prove the project ascribed is by the zoning administrator with the project sponsor work with the staff on the color choices. commissioner antonini? aye, moore aye, wu aye, commissioner fong? aye.

that motion passes unanimously 5-0. i have no speaker card. >> grant as noted previously reducing the balconies. maximum shall be the minimum under the requirement code. >> commissioners that places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment this evening. seeing none, meeting is adjourned. test,

test, test, test, test, test >> good afternoon and welcome to the board of supervisors land use and economical development committee. i'm scott weaning i'm the chair. the supervisor david chiu a member of the committee is joining us and thank you to sf g tv for broadcasting this committee. madam clerk any announcements. >> yes, please make sure that your electronic excises are

silenced. >> yeah. there will be no board of supervisors on april 30th so may 7. we're joined by david chiu. for members of public there are blue public comment cards at the front of the chamber and please fill one out and please note on the item number so we can organization them. there is an overflow room if you need to go there

>> item numbers one and two or amendment the chapter code for the environmental appeal processes and public notices requirement. >> item number it you called both? so items one and two have been called so i want to make a few opening remarks as author of item one. colleagues welcome back to our second meeting on the land use committee on this legislation. more than a decade ago sequa was enacted. now more than a decade ago we've not had legislative negative

declarations under sequa. it's been a choofg and unpredictable process without a clear deadline for filing on appeal. while sometimes large developers can deal with the chaotic situation they have lawyers and small projects and home projects can't. this legislation should have been passes a decade ago. 3 of our predecessors attempted to pass those pursues in statutory form and they were unable to do so. so my legislation is before us and finally to codify pursues.

i introduced this legislation almost 6 months ago. after a number of months to do so in a methodal way. we have had 3 round table meetings various smaller meetings are affordable housing and historic preservation. we've had 3 hearings and two hearings at the planning commission and now two at the land use committee. both the historic commission and the planning commission have recommended approval of my legislation. the hearings we've held i've been reprehensible - but to the

many, many suggests that people have made a strengthen to clarify and to improve the legislation all have had good ideas based on what president chiu said i suspect he'll be offering additional engagements. when it comes to something as important to the sequa process the more cooks in the kitchen the better so president chiu i look forward to hearing your process.

26 organizations and environmental organizations and neighborhood and park groups have supported and endorsed this legislation from catholic charities to walk san francisco to the spur to the labors and the building and construction traditions council so the san francisco bicycle coalition and planning association for the richest mondays. it's time for this legislation to be enacted. we're holding an informational hearing on president choose legislation we're not able to act on that legislation but

supervisor kim has asked for this. i have comments on supervisor kim will have the opportunity to speak about her legislation and a thank you chair wiener. >> good to be here on a planning code which is our sequa appeal process that has a lot of people involved. despite the sequa process. it's been important to our communities and neighborhoods because it's been a way to minimize the projects in the state of california and also a

way to engage in a dialog that keeps us you all accountable. i want to thank supervisor for taking this on its a piece of legislation that so many of our predecessors were not able to come to a consensus on this act. there's - our office decided to put another prospective forward. it's pretty clear we need to pit in a process how we need to appeal negative declarations. we don't have that process yet when the first time sequa was

determined to be hardly we need to now put a process in place. the legislation i've introduced with my colleague puts a different prospective forward. i think we all have the goal of putting together a process the developers need a process of the appeals deadline and it will be introduced to the process and we need to have a better notification process. so if we're going to put firm deadlines we have to let the community know the process is in place. so there's a two followed focus one that establishes that window and two our legislation focuses on the posting and notification

process. currently the website is not efficient. exemptions that are not historic will not be noticed that's 85 approvals have no notification progress. we need to have park improvements available for everyone to see. we have an overhaul of the process and ideally our system will be improved. our historic projects and projects it tend to escalate.

we want to have an appeals window one that doesn't require the members of the general public to have to over monitor the proselyte will i i mean to check the postings everyday etc. so we allow our appeals window to begin with the exemption determination to thirty days after after the final approval. while this is long-range we wanted we predict this will not cause delays. the last piece is we don't in must way edit 31.16 which is largely a part of the eir process that our community

supports currently. this is how we appeal our largerer. after talking to a lot of groups our neighborhood associations there's widespread agreement we want to leave this intact. this is a way for the community to dpaej in big development. i will just is at this point, i want to thank chair wiener to make this an informational item so our legislation will be going to planning this thursday to be scheduled on may 13th. >> thank you, mr. chair and members of the committee for letting me sit in here today and

all the members of the public on this important piece of legislation. as you note mr. chair there's been an effort to amend sequa and i think the reason those have not succeeded in the past their complicated. i think what happens when you're trying to all the time or change something at the complicated as this that many of the proposals as we have seen in the past end up having intended consequences. there's a way we can improve the system we have in pa place to provide for clarity and certain

to the projects. but i also want to be clear in the context of how projects are handled in the san francisco there's an argument to be made here the way in which this issue has been described doesn't reflect the fact that the vast majority of the projects get approve, in fact, thousands of projects are approved by the commission are being approved. so if we're going to move down the path of passing legislation let's pass it right. as i noted there's thousands of projects passed every year.

sequa is a tool that we use in the city and county san francisco because we believe in deciding whether or not to approve a project it's important we look at the importance of the project. i don't think that anyone is arguing we should have sequa go away. but i think that all of us recognize there's a role for sequa. how do we strike the right balance that we have the clarity of progress and at the same time, we don't get rid of the aspects of sequa that we all value. we just finished a project i can

tell you having worked on that project that some of the changes to the sequa process we wouldn't have gotten to a good place. the reason we got to the point is because sequa gave a voice to the community. this is one of the things that sequa has done. that voice has made projects better so as we move forward we need to make sure in the process to provide clarity and certain we, in fact, don't take the power to speak up and to express the views of this community. there are so many communities in sfoo that point to have a say first. i believe this committee can

strike the right balance and, of course, the devil is in the details for i'm not surprised we're talking about, you know, being a few months into this process i'm surprised their are not more meetings taken place. i'm happy that supervisor kim has put forth a different prospective. what that looks like is something i think everyone in this community should have a say. this is too important. >> thank you supervisor campos. i want to make a few comments before i turn it over to

president chiu. just to be real clear supervisor campos made a comment to changing sequa. as i stated really if even if we wanted to change sequa locally we certain lack that power sequa is a state law. and sometimes as much as san francisco wishes we could change sequa we couldn't nor is anyone advocating we were trying to change sequa. this is putting in place rules for the first time on those appeals. roadway we're operating from a 16 page memo from the county

clerk's office. that is what we're doing here today. so c pmc would have gotten to this (writing on board.) or with supervisor kim's process it would have been the same process. it's important not to bring in items that are not impacted by this legislation like sequa itself or c pmc. the main goal of my legislation is to my the process more clear and more transparent. i think the more cooks in the kitchen the better and i always welcome feedback and alternatives whether i agree or

disagree. i think supervisor kim's process and my process makes it less clear and i won't repeat what the planning staff report outlines a number of the issues and it recommends against supervisor kim's legislation. just a few points to make about it. supervisor kim's legislation will allow multiple sequa appeals to the board of supervisors on the same project even though through has been no meaningful change. and this will allow more appeals

amid construction. in addition the legislation continues our current practice of allowing appeals to occur in the middle of a project. we say this in a appeal on supervisor campos appeal resulted. we saw recently that the delores park was appealed to the planning commission after the commission approves that project and someone wants to appeal it it can wait until plans are pulled and at which the construction will have to grind to a halt and it will cost additional money. i think this is not the right

process that will continue under supervisor kim's legislation. it will eliminate over the counter permits by requiring that the planning department go there an analysis of smaller plans and when permits from what departments might be neat and then a compilation will be another delay. this abandons the delegation to other departments. this year hundreds of categorical reductions that are done every year. we have a reduction for any

sewer repair or water repair that is in repair for one mile. it has small bikes and pedestrian upgrades and a curb closings and painting determinations on the street. the planning department would have to do that that is a significant shift not only at work but it would make the projects more expensive and indeed that's why we got a letter today. the puc will allow people to raise