>> i'm - i'm calling because this is a very, very important issue that i want to thank you for the reasonable accomodation. but this will be one that leaves the residents of san francisco and i want to - i think that this is 20 important an issue to rush. i'm democratic in the sense i believe we should have a choice. it's not about supervisors kim's proposal or the other supervisor. it's about side by side and going through the entire process so the board of supervisors have two options there are nearly 1

million people in our city and to have one option on this issue is truly unacceptable. and that's my son sense in regards to the whole thing. there's a particular plan i'm interested in but those should be considered side by side so this could have a democratic process and this is truly a issue the board will leave the residents. i think we should slow down and because many of the people who participated are compassionate about the issues i don't see that with news of regret i think you should care how much this means to all of us in san

francisco. thank you very much. >> hi i'm with the san francisco preservation and e kwafk park neighborhoods. >> thank you very much for working through this there's a tremendous amount ofdale's that's fuzzy in my head arrest president chiu thank you very much for bringing is migrants it's bridging the gap. but there's an interesting comment you made supervisor wiener today and that's the importance was working out thedale's. i think there are a lot ofdale's we care about and that's the conversation of first approval that we feel is - fair to the greater number of supervisors

kim's legislation. i want to ask as you work out those details whether the affordable housing, pedestrian safety etc., that you look at the legislation together and not move it forward today. again thank you very much and this is the - i really appreciate everyone else's time on this. thank you very much >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and several comments - well, first of all, i want to thank you supervisor wiener for bringing this up. this is going to come up until we find an answer to get some clarity. i'm not thanking you for your legislation only bringing it up

and supervisor kim thank you for bringing up the ultimately which many of us who love san francisco support. and supervisor chewy want to thank you for trying to come up with an amendment that brings those two different legislations closer to get but i want to - the reason why the community the great majority of residents no san francisco would favor supervisors kim's legislation is again, final approval. the first, you approval if we don't understand something you've lost our opportunity and this is something that developers just love and can't

wait until this goes in effect. they're happy about this. now i want to close by saying the development of san francisco has been very robust in the last several years you can't deny that. this is under old rules so i don't see why this can't be continued to the 20th to give us more time to look at legislation. we're in a boom so there is no reason not to continue this until the 20th. >> thank you. next speaker. i have two additional cards. go ahead >> good afternoon. i'm with the sierra club.

and indeed supervisor wiener thank you for bringing up to issue. that being said the serra club is still in support of the supervisors kim's legislation. i'm very concerned about the first approval trigger that's too soon in the process. you may have seen the chronicle but at the same time there's the article by carolyn lockheed about the national protection act about how senator boxer is trying to streamline that. i'm going to read a part of that it gets to the heart of the first approval by holly at the university of the berkeley said

those go too far. there's a big difference of trying to spruce a act that it might as well, not happen. this is what the first approval is doing here in san francisco it's constraining the process so people miss their opportunity to appeal. i'll remind you in terms of the park and recreation in and the fact that some of you have issues with notifications of rec and a park projects well, the soccer field is being heard on thursday because some very active park preservation people got active thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm

president of the condominiums hoa. i'm here to speak about support of the supervisor kim's legislation. public participation is a key component of the review process and alternative perspectives not often given by professionals. we support supervisor kim's legislation and in particular the following provisions ♪ the public notification for a historic building and parks and testimony at the planning commission when project approval is before it. we feel strongly that the deadline for filing an appeal should be after the first approval rather than after the

whole approval apparently and projects should not go forward while a sequa appeal is pending. and we should not require a previous hearing and also modified projects that have under gone significant change should also be under that appeal we'll adopt supervisors kim's legislation >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. >> thank you very much for all of our hard work all 3 of you and especially president chu's which you. i thank you, very much for trying to gap between the two versions but i have an issue with first approval.

there's no real definition of it and it's vague and it should be dismissed because of that. the vagueness comes in on the first approval and building applications scope is not defined in the legislation and when someone's going to come in and do some modification i won't know if the modification is in the scope that's why we need the final approval. and with the community council of housing coming in to do 1 hundred percent affordable housing units and given a 60 day face track evaluation i approve of that but there are still other things being worked on might be the bicycle coalition

and public safety we should have supervisor kim's legislation should go up for a vote. i like the fact that supervisor kim's project - thank you very much >> next speaker. >> i want to thank you you all for your diligence and hard work. the many mainstream that were proposed today, we haven't really look at. there are other amendments being possibly introduced i think it's very important to for public process to lease continue this item until everybody has a reasonable or a way to look at those issues until may 20th.

the final approval the project is very important to us. the critical path of the project is very context as you know. but milestones have - a first approval is to temporary and vaguely that a project changes that most people especially the average citizen and disadvantaged communities have a - i've harped on having a better review in this city. but there are many components of a project that really need to be looked over all. where overview happens i'm not sure but other cities have

better project overseeing may not be a commission department it maybe under some mayor's office agency but there needs to be a body that helps the average project sprorn that moves projects by allows fair notification and fair - >> thank you. next speaker. and let me call one more card as well >> thank you supervisors i appreciate your thought on this matter. the scheduling around the sequa is important and i believe the key issue we must have in the legislation. this gives the community and supervisors to work with developers in their area to a make sure the project turns out

as well as it. we must have both of those legislation to go to the board of supervisors on the may 20th. remember that rec and park have broken the rules of sequa and we could a want to give them our pass. they've abused our trusted long enough. i ask for a one hundred percent sponsored - we need to make sure that planning get any resources it needs to do the robust novs that's in kim's legislation. i think a lot of good work has been done here.

kim's legislation deserves and co- sponsors deserves to have hers move forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors erick representing our green parks and at coordinator of the sequa improvement team. >> it is good that supervisor wiener chair wiener you brought this that forward. it was something that green from our side of the fenls i put this on the table. i want to thank supervisor chiu for you and your office to take a lot of things that we had strong concerns about and brim the gap. but with that said as many of the other speakers have said we

have quite a bit work to do on this. we decided this morning we're in support for the affordable housing it make sense and there's talk we should include pedestrian safety and that make sense but we want to make sure we're crafting the wording around that well. we need to take time to look at that. we need to make sure we're getting strong language on the modification that triggers an appeal means. and supervisor chiu your office has done well but we don't like that language we want to have something to put forward in kim's legislation. i want to will you make sure that i chime in on the final approval. in the real world when a project

kormdz it's what we negotiated in a couple of months and the thing that keeps the developers negotiating is the sequa appeal. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. and i can't get no environment satisfaction. i can't get land use traction though i tried and we tried and we tried and we tried i can't get no satisfaction. when i'm riding in my city car and i city man comes on the radio talking about this legislation that the environment is going to be a sensation i

can't get no satisfaction. when your riding around the world to israel and you're doing this and signing that and you're trying to a meet some govern and we're on a winning trachea by the way, welcome back this week i can't get no satisfaction. hey hey hey. that's what i say to the city by the by the way. hey hey hey. and down the road i looked in their runs the supervisors and they've got the land use that 38 they carry and it's going good to touch the green green grass of home. and a thank you, mr. paulson i was hoping to here the word sequa in the song so i'm

disappointed maybe you, think about that for next time >> good afternoon peter cowen with the housing organization. as we've seen the various amendments and mainstream to the amendments are increasingly merging. and we'll continue to see more changes. at the april 22nd hearing we're looking to see this all meshing up together. we see the pieces of both together but we want to see those brought before the committee as a whole pr the affordable housing is still coming forward. we talked about that to the

planning department we realize increases some language being worked out with the city attorney. we want to see the things rehuddle together and be ready to take a final position hopefully at the next meeting and hopeful that includes our amendment. my colleague will talk about the particular amendment how it facilities for us. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm from the council of housing organizations. i want to thank our friends in the audience who have expressed their support for the housing affordable projects. we met to discuss the sequa process meant for our developers. and what came out of that the

eir appeal process has not been a did he eternity. but if we consider how we reform sequa. historical there have been where a staff paper was signed to a project within two weeks but the developers told us it was fine and great we had someone to call on the america's kidnap or whatever but we had someone to call. we had a resource problem i know that supervisors in the past especially in trying to deal with the backlog worked hard to have additional resources given

to the planning department. we didn't want to prescribe a - we have a lot of steps and it would be critical to us to know whether it's going to be a eir and to have a time sensitive deadline we think that 60 days is important. and in all comments we provided some revisions to allow for additional developers >> thank you. >> i want to support jan kim's legislation but i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this up. thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> sue.

i have a couple of big questions. big issues. don't forget the golden gate parks and others parks that are liken as large and something that doesn't include the parks separate it's not going to work. it's a dysfunctional system the code language requires an appeal within right after the eir certified. 10 years ago before this joint legislation went in the event we used to have meaning physical meetings they have been wiped out. right now everything with an eir

on a 10, 12 hour here we go with no advanced hearing and it's dysfunctional beyond belief. it doesn't used to be that way in the 70s, 80s and 90s. and we need to - it's a simple - i've drafted the meeting for supervisors a million times. appeals taken for 20 days not after the certification of the eir but they approve of the project that's huge. and everything else we're talking about is really important but i long for real discussions about big projects. we don't have them anymore. and the other thing is please put in the amendment of this 90 days instead of thirty days that's a dysfunctional position.

>> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues this is an initial matter again, the amendments that i read at the beginning the technical information to the title that the city attorney office described in the amendments as old as president chiu has suggested and outlined by the city clerk offices and those are the amendments before us to item one. >> i don't know if i missed it but could i get a copy of the first amendment. >> i'm sorry, i have them right

here. >> thank you. >> there you go. so i would - i'll give supervisor kim an opportunity to review what i've read earlier and i suggest we accept those amendments and then proceeded to discuss the substance of the two items. take our time supervisor kim seriously. >> could we take a little bit about the data dumping. this would require it scheduled a few days before the hearing >> that's correct. >> i believe those are requested from the i can't remember if it's from the planning department? >> this is a provision that was included in supervisors kim's

legislation. it provides it information that the board of supervisors would be considering on, on sequa appeal be submitted at least 8 days ahead of the hearing. it would give the planning department an opportunity to respond to that information submit 8 days ahead so there are not points remaining on the record that haven't been respond to. >> our legislation also gives the planning department a deadline to the supervisors as well unless a member of the board fosters the decisions. >> i believe that your legislation allows the board to make the decision as to whether information is submitted more

than 8 or less than 8 days ahead can be admitted in the record. >> by the planning department? if i'm correct it doesn't make a distinction and the aspect of it from providing the opportunity for the planning department to respond to the points that were made in the information submitted a week before the hearing was suggested by the our department. >> right so. i understand where this is coming from i think we had intended it for both the planning department and members of the public although we allow it to be submitted but this makes it the requirement to the members of the public

>> yes our certain is essentially this is protective of the board of supervisors in acting if there are points - new points that are placed that information that we haven't been able to clarify, explain and respond to as the planning department. >> and supervisor wiener does this allow the board to include the information by the member of the appellant. >> i'm sorry could you repeat that question. >> what is in our legislation - because we were concerned about data dumping as well - the written documentation in time we had requested all information 8 days and all information by the

public 3 days but any single member of the board could allow it into the deadline. >> how is this different? i believe that this amendment doesn't set a number of you days for the planning departments responses. i think it was a very timely issue in that we were responding to about 5 hundred pages of information that was submitted 8 days before the scheduled hearing tomorrow on 706 mission street. it is as i mentioned we feel extremely important in future legislation there were not points responded to an the record. so as the planning did not like to make sure that we are certainty to have adequate po