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 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 opportunity to respond to information. the one thing that sounds different is here i allow the board to vote and it allows the members to allow written documentation into the record >> i certainly a single member of the board allowing it vs. a board to make sure we have the opportunity to provide the responses to the information provided. so from our standpoint it's unlivable that the entire 11 member board would refuse to allow us to submit it so a single member is a safeguarded.

so from information from the planning department we want to be absolutely certain we have an opportunity to respond to information submitted 8 days before the hearing. so from our standpoint something that gives us the maximum shawn's is the most desirable option >> what is that? >> that would allow us to submit information without needing any board action to let it had so. the second most strongest assurance would be it only takes one member of the board to allow it to be admit and the least

outcome would the the board to allow our response to be submitted >> right now the written material submitted lantern noon and 8 days before will not be submit until the board votes. >> that would be our preference and so. >> your changing that to one member of the board. >> if it takes one member of the board to allow later information to be submitted i think it would be essentially be the same situation we have now. it's hard because we're talking about two things the planning departments ability to respond and a other than the planning department >> okay. thank you for that clarification. other than the planning department it would be more

desirable for the board - this is purely from the standpoint of the planning department having the opportunity to respond to the information. the late submital of the information would be problematic >> so within 8 days or less of the hearing. >> yes. >> if the planning department doesn't respond to an issue that's been raised than that can have implications on others information. >> would you like to commit? do you know >> yes. i believe the issue is the document dumping provision. >> yeah, the 8 days and

majority vote of the board. >> is there a particular question? >> yes supervisor kim had raised the question about the information submitted by the appellants within 8 days would it be a majority of the vote vs. any member of the board for the late items be accepted and ms. jones says this raises issues about the planning departments ability to respond during the initial process. >> may i add to that? if i have 8 days when does the board get to vote within that eight day process? my guess would be it would be at

the appeal so they wouldn't know if they should respond to it they will respond to it anyway. >> i think that's correct supervisor kim as a practical matter if planning didn't have time to respond there would obviously be no response in the record. if it was very voluminous for example they could say we haven't had time to respond. >> as it works annoy we make every he effort to respond no matter when it is submitted but there are situation it in two l

response. so we try to respond verbally at the hearing >> so if we play out the scenario and keeping in mind once an appeal is filed until it's heard at the board it's not like it happens next week. so if someone were to the day before the hearing or actually let's say, you know, one p.m. a couple of hours before a hearing submit an shootout voluminous amount even if material i guess the options would be we'd have a speed reading in the planning department who could respond not likely but it would be a sloppy response which undermines sequa.

or not be able to respond or leave us exposed in a lawsuit. so i think this is a situation to allow the late items - supervisor kim? >> there's a provision in the document to protect document dumping. mroon will probably then have to plan to respond to it because they don't know how the board is good morning to vote. i'm not clear on this >> i think based on past practice. planning will attempt to respond

if they can and if it was a short letter or something like that and could respond but there have been distanced when entire ck have been presented on the day it's not possible >> i'm not ready to support this amendment it's not exactly how it's written into our legislation but currently our way of dealing with the legislation is allowing the public to respond. but in lourg certainty cases if it comes in 8 days after the record. i'm open to discussing that but i don't think of having a

majority vote is an answer either. we have also don't want to have planning to give their respond a day or hour before the appeal it's challenging to us as we try to get information on time. >> i think con - i think the planning department has a chance to respond to that at the end. those are the key concepts and is other aspects of it are the policy decisions for the board and a president chiu do you have

a prospective. let me put out a couple of thoughts and reactions. i think when a party provides this information late it generally means a practice we're not considering the information. the party has a responsibility to get us this information earlier. i don't feel we have to have planning to respond 3 or 5 days later so long as we know that we get the information. planning knows we don't have enough time to respond either. i am concerned about a majority vote. i think if majority of the board

might want to keep out documents that are going to the appealed later but if that's not the right thresholds - let me ask another question is this something we need to resolve today? my understanding it's not. we could severe this and defer it and work something out. this is screaming for a resolution. this is not shouldn't be the hot button in the legislation. i think it doesn't necessarily have to be the majority it could be three or four supervisors but i think it would be good to require some kind of reasonable threshold. so why