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 the requiring a

higher level of scrutiny of park improvements in requiring a notice of determination in imply park i don't support the thought of it being proposed. there has been one of the concerns i've had about supervisors kim's legislation. it's making it more difficult time consuming and expensive is make changes in our parks every smaller changes. i'm glad that this legislation has been removed from supervisors kim's legislation. but requiring a notice of determination florida the slide

and other things breakdown i don't want to have to go to a big department to get this done and fixed. to - time sensitive changes in our parks is not the right way to go so i won't support that recommendation or that possible future amendment. i have one question while looking at the list your offering today. one is a disagreement about whether the departments can take any action in any legislation we had - have a provision that once

an appeal is filed other government bodies can continue to take action so long as those actions do not permit a physical changes to the property. so because the way sequa is instructed any one person can walk in and appeal it or whether it's supported by one appeal person or lots of appeals we also carefully consider that appeal and it takes typically months to move through the process and to have an inflexible rule that no other government body can take an action f even if this habilitation has nothing to do

with the appeal is not okay. i'm looking at - so president chiu i'm curious to know the thinking behind that. i understand, you know, there are a bunch of different views on this subject area but i do stand by the proposal i made >> i think there have been a number of independence where city boards have taken action that continue to take more momentum from a project when the project has been appealed because there are problematic issues that should be settled first. >> so what i thought made since was to again, when the appeal is

scheduled it tolls the clock k clock for other boards and commissions. once we know that has been appealed we hopeful that timeframe will resolve those issues soon enough but this language was attempting to strike between the varies possibilities of whether we could start to hear items at other boards and city commissions >> i understand the thinking about it. i guess my prospective is i think there's a way to provide full ability to appeal full public participation and allow everyone to have their day to the sequa objections to the

project. the idea that time any time anyone files an appeal everything stops and even if there is no reversible appeal to the property i think it is unnecessarily an appeal that could - the appeal should be fully considered but i don't see a reason to disallow other appeals that don't have a physical impact that's my prospective. >> i want to understand this. our legislation doesn't require a notification for the open park legislation >> that idea was floating around. >> right and a we're merely

saying that the notification is an important piece for open space and parks and we've heard a great deal of conversation. i think largely like i said before most of our members are good actors and this is a good way to appeal a decision. so hopefully, this will set up a better process. in terms of approvals holding approvals while we have pending appeal. i guess i'd like to hear - and i'd like to hear about instances when a project would have bend from that. we have currently a sequa appeal and i don't see how the

committees have the ability to make approvals. largely i think this project is very context and the rec and parks commissions will look to the comments as the board of supervisors tomorrow and the eir certification before we want to make their decision this would help when it is appropriate to make the process of when on a appeal is pending >> thank you any additional comments colleagues? in this case we'll open up for public comments. i'll call your names please line up on the side of the room. any reason you can't line up please let us know and we'll

accommodate you. you don't have to go in the order i call your names. (calling names). go ahead >> i'm former chair. i fully support the sequa proposals. i think the time has come for all of us to understand the notification process. i would support category exemptions for parks.

i haven't seen this yet but like i pointed out supervisor wiener we don't want to start a process of having to go through an appeal to repair a park. our parks are deteriorating and we're in the process of redoing our park. we don't need more hold ups. this is something we need further discussion on. it sounds like a good collaboration going on with the supervisors and i'm hopeful we'll get this done. i want to know what's going on around me sometimes, it's a fine print in the nip and very few people understand the notifications we get.

i think there should be such participation as possible and i commend you on tackling this >> thank you very much. one second. thank you for your patience >> good afternoon. i'm katie and i actually live in district 6 and a supervisor kim is my supervisor. i'm here to support her. i like the calibration going on but i'm very supportive of supervisor kim. we as the residents are the last ones to find out what's going on. i like the fact that supervisor

kim is going to give a role to the preservation commission. we the residents the people who live here need to know what's going on and as jeffrey said it needs to be a very simple notification. thank you very much >> thank you thank you. next speaker. >> we've here to support supervisors kim's legislation. basic the codification of the appeals process is limits the abusive california laws. businesses use sequa to pry concession out of employers and

transitional use of promotions they don't president in their neighborhoods but supervisors bill adds a calculator process. it fosters on environment where good decisions are made. we support the legislation that will rein in abuse and it will help our quality of life >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker >> i'm on the committee for sequa improvement team. i want to thank you all and david chiu for the amendments you've made to try to bring people together here but but there are some things are stronger than things here to be considered.

it must be up to the approval process. i'm very clear about that need and in addition if we're going to compromise between those two we have already compromised our view away from the opportunity of developers for any months. this legislation asks for all approvals to be noticed. this must be clearly defined what opportunity to appeal the application must be determined by the e r o of the planning department. and other agency must not be allowed to have the - planning

should be responsible. 5 kim's notifying requirement are rovent and people must be informed. i'd like to add i support the housing amendment that's proposed to give 60 days notice of notification. this needs more time and bicycling and pedestrian safety needs to be considered so i ask that this not be considered until may 20th. i support the preassumes a fact not in evidence for that >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon tim collin on behalf of the coalition organization. one of the issue is when does the period begin for an appeal. we feel that because of an abusive process it should begin

very close to the approval our opposition would like it to be later in the process. i think to note the big consequences of the different between the two views. our friends in the opposition say the right to appeal should not be denied on the other hand, we'd to point out the practical parting. i'd like to hear how the appeal of those projects is how have to san francisco. i'll include the library and the bicycling folks. and the bridges project for low income people how is appling

those projects helpful to san francisco. there's something fundamentally wrong when affordable housing builders and the san francisco projects have to shell out big dollars to get approvals buildings permits. how does that help san francisco. we think that if we can't get to an early approval as a basisor appeal we're going to end up with more delegislators parks where someone can jump in at the last minute and stop it >> we have a public commiter on the phone who asked for a

accommodate on the phone. >> 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 t

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