test, test, test, test, test test >> good evening and welcome to the san francisco land use committee. >> to my right is my supervisor jan kim and david chiu. i want to thank san francisco tv for the broadcast and a yes, please make sure to silence any electronic devises.

items will be appearing on the may 14th docket >> and for anyone who wishes to speak in public comment we have blue cards and you can fill one out. madam clerk, please call the two items and a be reflecting the amendments to the processes and public notice requirements >> thank you and i'm the author of item number one supervisor kim is the author of number two and it's before us for informational purposes only. so with regard to item number one this item creating for the first time a statutory pursues to the board of

supervisors for the negative declarations will create a defined process with a defined deadline and improved noticing for primarily smaller projects, public projects and projects that do not require a full environmental impact report. i've stated this is the fourth hearing that the board of supervisors has attempted to codify those pursues in the last decade with the prior representatives. this is long overdue legislation a current process is i will defined and vaguely it's not good for people opposing projects and it's difficult and

boarder line impossible for someone to know the deadline to file an appeal. this is long overdue legislation and i'm happy to have neighborhood associations and others who are supporting this legislation. the legislation has done through an extensive process it's had 3 hearings at the historic prestige and the historic preservation committee has recommended the legislation and the planning commission has recommended the legislation. this is our third hearing i think. second or third hearing of the land use and economical committee. in addition we have i've engaged in robust decisions.

we've had a number of small meetings with individual groups and as a result of the public outreach we've made approximately 40 amendments to the legislation. at the last hearing president chiu offered several amendments that the committee adopted. i have several minor technical amendments that the planning department and city attorney recommended. i want to talk about them now. the first is hi, and these amendments have to do with a notice of determination is filed and data dumping. the first one is page 18 section

3811 after the word pursues add the quote and required you payment fees by the sponsor and next on section 31.5 after the word pursues add quote and upon the payment of the required fees by the project sprorn. sponsor. and then 31 section delete the last sentence and add quote the clerk will distribute any written documents submitted by the boards normal pursues and such written materials will be part of the record. submitted later on noon the material will not be added as

part of the record. and i also understand from the city attorney there needs to be a technical correction to the title and ms. warren you want to commit on that. >> yes. the title has a phrase in that that should ever come out and that phrase is providing for the board to make the final sequa decision requiring action regarding sequa appeals. >> thank you so after public comment i'll be asking the count i committee to adopt the amendment and i'll all the one by ms. warren. >> thank you, mr. chewy want to

take a moment and thank our deputy city attorney and as well as all the public stakeholders after the amendments we offered two years ago, i brought more amendments to continue to insure that when the planning depended are making decisions those are properly noticed to the public. so i brought some additional amendments to run through. those are fairly technical but for the record i have an amendment that will be adopted to modify section 34 i that helps to modify the sequa decision and this will be provided on its website and in other manners as well. anotrmendment will provide in section 38.08 d that other

departments should provide planning with copies and planning shall make the information available on its website to deal with issues that other departments are making. and in section 31.08 when planning must prepare another sequa decide requires planning to provide the information when not triggered to make another sequa decision and another sequa decision it to be misdemeanor for any project under the use not previously included in the issue to get at the modified projects. and a fourth amendment would

clarify 38.14 e that the project sponsor has paid any fees for filing and another section that once i once the clerk has scheduled an appeal for planning other departments are not to get involved. this would add passage back to the language that the clerk would scheduled the report and with this revision the clerk must scheduled the hearing nonetheless thirty days after the appeal has expired. and also one the planning assaults the clerk of the board in determining the timelyness of the board and in a timely fashion. and the last amendment would make a technical correction by

deleting the language - actually did you do that all right. already? again those are all amendments to increase notification and public outreach and clarify a couple of amendments. i do have a couple of questions to the planning department. i want to make sure that rick is here yet. if you wouldn't mind coming to the board chamber i want to make sure that this is dealt with. i know there was some decision about affordable housing projects as well as bike and safety projects. i want to have a little bit more clarity and your thoughts on how to handle those.

>> thank you supervisors planning department staff. we - the issue of prioritization was talked about extensively. the specific timeframe on the sequa issue will be within thirty days. that one decision that happens on a project would be codified. what we do now and what we've can you think in the department is prioritize affordable housing projects in our cue so the projects does not wait in the cue. and the staff believes that that was the more appropriate way to deal with that. the staff asks us to look at 4

specific issues that came up in their decisions and in supervisors issues. we specifically are going to look at what it means means to prioritize. we have made housing affordability a top issue. >> i had contemplated some language but i appreciate that feedback. a different question is the interaction between the supervisors and scheduling appeals. there have been some concerns about the planning department in order for the board to act as we are required under the law. i would like to have some

exchange on that. to make sure the requirements will be doable from the boards prospective do you have any comments. and actually why don't we start. i know we've put in some language that requires the planning department to sought the board of supervisors but whether we should ask the planning department to do its work in a certain period of time? >> actually, i just got off the phone and we were going over the suggestive language to make sure we're in the timeframe. specifically maybe taking out the clerk of the board and that the planning department what have 3 days to - and then the

clerk would have 7 days to respond to the appellant to make sure that the public has an idea of when 31 they will get their response >> let's start with planning and our city attorney and probably the author of the original legislation. if this is making sure the transcripts are running at the right time. so sir. >> good afternoon supervisors sarah. i think that days for us to review the submit alleywayal to and provided the board with whether it's a timely schedule for the appeal. under the legislation an appeal could be filed prior to an perusal action so we as the

planning department would have to provide information to the clerk's office. and if it had not occurred we need to provide information later to the board of the clerks action. and that's something we feel we could accomplish within the 3 daytime frame suggested >> okay. so 3 days for planning and 3 days for the board. >> we have no problem with that but i think elaine warren can provided a better response. >> and ms. warren do you have any thoughts. >> i don't see any problem with changing the language that now reads as the clerk will determine the completeness of the packet to say 7 and add a

separate provision that says that planning will make a determination on the timeliness of the issue within 3 business days. >> okay. and the author did you have any questions? >> yep. so in terms we're keeping everything calory the amendments so far are the ones i outlined so as changed in the title outline by ms. warren president chiu describes several amendments and i'm supportive of those amendments. and then the clerk - outlined in the amendment i'm also supportive of. so i think it's good to work those details out so we're not driving the clerk crazy with our

pursues >> and i understand in the planning commission there was some discussion around the website so we can understand this and apparently there was some discussion that your department feels their might be some arrays issues around operating an auto made notification system. could you talk a little bit about that? and we should put in some additional language. i think if that's the case i'm concerned. i want to understand that issue so we can hopefully address that. >> certainty we have a number of improvements that are happening at the planning

department at our tracking and a notification and communication systems. upgrades to the website. we're prepping to put in plays i will a new e-mail system that i understand would could be accommodated to provide some levels of permits that were issued as well as documents that have occurred. in terms of the specifics of a prescription based system there are some types of categories that we could accommodate. those that are troeltdz aspects of projects that are already tracked such as the planning neighborhood their located in. this is something that is auto

made and we could do. other characters that would require individuals to determine for each and every project which of the description categories. that is where we have certain about the prescription based testimony. the concept of subscribing e-mails are we're getting farther and farther behind. some of the specifics we may not be able to - we may require a lot of resources. where in a different place this

year and maybe next ye too. so build into a specific system ultimately in the future might hamper our process >> but as it turned out you're not able to have the changes in this legislation that are contemplating should be properly noticed to the public and e-mail i'd be concerned this ordinance - some how we're not been able to provide the information and the technology is not matched up to the legislation. >> well, the posting of the exemptions on the map based

system is something we have for certain we're going to be able to accomplish. once we have that system running it's going to be a vast improvement of providing people information about providing information on a timeframe. probably what we're aiming for in a day or so when the exemption getting issued it is on this searchable map. that's something we expect to have in place by thou summer. so well in advance of the effective date. there was also the safeguard build in this that's a workable system prior to the ordinance being able to go in the event.

so the level the information provided for in supervisors wiener's legislation we feel we'll be able to accommodate technology. and even aspects of the further e-mail subscription based system are pieces of legislation that will be put in place. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> thank you. i know we mention this every time we're in committee but because we can't talk outside of committee this is the first time we see the colleagues legislation. i'm reading through the legislation that president chiu handed out.

is it the 10 amendments your proposing today? i crossed out two, that i'm not going to be oh, today. i'm looking for feedback on the top priorities >> okay. so looking through those right now - again, i think over the past month we've seen both legislation move towards each other and we will also be introducing a set of substitute amendments next tuesday through our discussions with planning commission which two weeks ago. some of the amendments that were that president chiu is oh, today

are largely once we support and currently in our election. i want to lascivious you're putting into place we're expend approvals on amendment number 7. >> so again to restate for the publ in 31 section b once ann an clerk has put the appeal the other departments can't put in things for approval so city boards will not be putting forward action. >> i think to go over again. many have been participating? this legislation. we talk about full-blown environmental impact proposals we deal with two types of

amendments. the main difference we allow an appeal to go directly to the board whereas the president chu's decision will go back to the board for appeal. second to engage in a scoping meeting for every eir which are roughly 10 a year. we set up the historic preservation a body that would set up the sequa process and we largely button into play by practice. those are the 3 main differences. so the differences we see are largely around exemptions. most of the discussions are

about how we appeal the progress. i think it largely brings it closely to what we suggested. a couple of things are important to me as we move forward as we look at sequa appeals. i think it's incredible important to expedite also bike and safety projects. your office is exploring president chiu. already planning is a sign of planner to a hundred percent of affordable housing and another two weeks - we've often heard about the housing projects the suggested language from the council of housing organizations

is we come to a determination in 60 days. i know you're interested in that but we want to further explore that. we again see this extensive from the community our neighborhoods are opened to parks. we live in very small residential units in san francisco so the open space people are concerned about it the city is planning changes. the last people is the subscription based notification. i know folks in this room are interested in that. we continue to know this is the

temple that exists today but i think we have to get the resources to connect to planning in order to do that. from a lay persons prospective i feel this is something businesses and organizations do on a daily the ability to sort through the types of projects by tagging them and allowing the community groups to say a community based subscription. something we want to do. i think that as i've said before if we're going to put in something on the back door end where we can appeal a project we have to supply a hierarchical level of communication.

when i've questioned the community about appeals the community says they're not understanding of the appeals. so i'm not saying that's the case but if that's the argument i think that type of communication is important to put into place. those are some of my comments. i appreciate the work from both offices and i think elaine who was helping >> and i want to thank supervisor kim and the folks who have raised a lot of issues. i think the issues you've raised around affordable housing and open space are the ones i'm concerned about but we can't community 0 outside of this

committee body. >> i just want to provide some feedback. in terms of the prioritization or, however, we want to talk about that the affordable housing projects or the pedestrian safety. it's a decision about how you we allocate resources. i think it's a rather broad conversation. i think the staff has to do more analysis and certainly a concept i'm open to but i think it's very important we take into account the many, many demands on the planning resources of the various types of projects in our city. in terms of