look forward to turning the more than 35 potential history districts in san francisco into actual historic districts. i hope the residents who are living in this district can ultimately feel the benefits of this and as they see it around them they can previous the look at the feel and the cultural aspects of their society. >> i'm opposed to this. >> thank you. >> thank you. i feel to justify approving the need for a history district specifically

this district. however, putting it in the context the california environmental qualities act with regard creeping speculations of this district. there is a requirement that there be mitigation in terms of the city's resources and institutions that ca ameliorate those effects in terms of affordability and continuity. this needs a process. resources instigate an institutions require as mitigation by state law. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> as an additional matter we

have technical amendments by the planning departmt. have an oral amendment drafted today basically stating notwithstanding for the mills act to allow eligible properties within this district to submit mills act application to the city until october 1, 2013. this year only so next year it will revert back to the state deadline. we have the planning department amendment and the amendment i just indicated. can we take those amendments without objection? >> that will be the order. any okay. i stwa ke a commts first

to thank everyone particularly those who live in the district and those who are in favor and opposed and in addition to thank the numerous residents of this district who participated in the community process leading up to this proposed district over the last several years. this has been a truly san francisco process and i say that in the most positive way in terms of people with everyone's perspective being passionate about this community

and whatever they are with regard to passion because we all love this neighborhood and this neighborhood is truly an amazing one and not just because of the integrity of the historical architecture but because of where it's situated on the end line and the park and the wiggle and there are so many amazing things about this project. this is also one of those issues where from the perspective of the district supervisor in a way it's a lose lose because you are going to have constituents who are mad at you no matter what you do. that's fine, that's why they pay us the big bucks to do this job, my colleagues laugh. you know, that is frankly why i asked that this survey be done. i understand that there are

critiques of the survey. i understand there is a lot of discussion going on within the district since then, but i ask for this survey to be done so we can have an official survey go out from the planning department and get a sense for where people are. i think what we do know is that there are people within a district who support this and people who don't. the reason why we spent so long and worked so hard to make this district very narrow, much more narrow than any other historic district in the city, precisely because we wanted to address the concerns of those who thought this is going to be one more layer of city bureaucracy i'm going to have to deal with and one more way for things to be delayed and more expensive and more difficult even for projects that are not controversial. i heard that the planning department heard that, we had discussions about it and community meetings and i he mee

had people there with some concerns that the district went too far and i was there and miss brown was there and people in the audience were there and people made very good points about this should not be a full hpc certificate of appropriateness and we came up with a very narrowly tailored and well thought out district. i would not have supported this district if i knew this is going to make your lives more difficult as opposed to helping to create this area. i understand there are people who are inopposed and i was also

different disagreements about this issue. for me, i gave a lot of thought to this not just in the last few weeks, but in the last few years. that's why we have the process that we did. i would not be supporting this if i thought it was going to be adding torment to the property owners of this district. i also wanted to make a comment, my friend dan made a comment and this wasn't a popular place to live and they made it so beautiful. in terms of participation by the city and we had an e-mail exchange about this this other day. this area has received significant city investment. the park has been transformed from top to

bottom. every aspect has been renovated. we just added in a new youth play area for older children. the harvey rec's center it's one of the best rec's centers in the city in terms ofrec's offering and incredible programs offered there. we just added a new track and upgrades. waller street is about to be repaved with the exception of steiner street and my apologize to residents in that street. the city has been there sometimes kicking and screaming, but the city has been there to make sure we invested in this neighborhood. colleagues, i believe this is a

good and thoughtful district. i support it and i ask that we put this to the board with full recommendation. >> just to make a motion to move this forward for consideration, i think this proposed district is purely in your district and i defer you, the district supervisor on this issue. >> i'm happy to support also want to thank all the members who took part in a very real and robust communication on this part and this is an issue that supervisor wiener has been very focused on this project. i move for that. >> a motion is that we take this full recommendation to the board. colleagues can we take that motion? >> that will be in order. i would like to take items out. madam call items 3 and 4.

121019 agenda[administrative code - california environmental quality act procedures, appeals, and public notice requirements]1210193.sponsor: wienerordinance amending administrative code, chapter 31, to reflect revisions in the california environmental quality act and to update and clarify certain procedures provided for in chapter 31, including without limitation: codifying procedures for appeals of exemptions and negative declarations; revising noticing procedures for environmental impact reports and negative declarations for plan area projects exceeding 20 acres; expanding noticing requirements for certain exempt projects; clarifying existing noticing requirements for exempt projects; and making environmental findings.3 >> it has not yet been heard by the historic preservation. they are under processes under the environmental quality act. regarding item no. 3, i introduced it last fall so that

we can implement clear and predictable procedures for appeals to the board of supervisors relating to categorical and designations. they are currently so opaque that the very basic question of when is the deadline to file an appeal to the board of supervisors can't be with confidence answered. someone calls the planning department or the board of supervisors will receive you need to talk to a lawyer answer because it's an opaque process resulting in every time we receive an appeal for a categorical exemption we have to get a formal opinion by the city attorneys office who can tell us whether this is an

appeal or not. it does not serve proponents and oh opponents. as i stated as to why it was untimely i could not repeat it to anyone else because it was convoluted. that is in my mind a definition of bad government and does not empower regular people to be involved in their communities. this legislation which is supported by nearly 30 transit affordable housing neighborhood park and labor organizations has undergone significant process and three hearings and two hears at the planning commission and this is a 4th

hearing. the planning commission has voted to support my legislation and in addition i have had numerous meetings including several large round table meetings and smaller meetings with oh opponents of the legislation and supporters of the legislation and folks somewhere on this spectrum. this has been thoroughly vetted and i have amendments which have made this better. supervisor chiu has proposed amendments that i have accepted that's where we are today. with that said, president chiu. >> thank you, i want to thank you for the work that you have been doing and to get at a goal to create a certainly for our

akkad ex-e -- appeals and i appreciate the number of meetings that you have made to try to address some of the concerns. after the last meeting i continued to hear from community voices that represent other organizations about concerns with the version of the legislation that supervisor wiener has put forth. i had asked the community coalition to provide a draft of possible amendments so we can understand really what the differences are and i have just circulated to my colleagues to the city attorney, to the planning staff, the version that has been put for by the community coalition. i just want to make it clear, these changes are ones that i understand many of which come from supervisor

kim's investigation. -- version. i'm not sure if you have looked at it. some of these changes sound reasonable but i wanted to have a public conversation about them because we have not had a chance to hear atrney, e sponsor of city legislation supervisor wiener or supervisor kim. we have not had a public discussion about these issues and also want to make clear the amendment that i have circulated. i'm not planning to introduce them today. i do want to have a chance to at least air these issues and hear from the various sides. at the end of the day i want to make it clear i plan to support supervisor wiener's additional legislation but one that has a real

determination to the policy. i'm happy to go through the issues but wanted to see if you have initial comments or should we launch some of these issuepr these. >> i'm not introducing these amendments. they have been provided to me for things to consider. i wanted to hear conversation so i can hear from all the various parties on what the impact is because i'm hearing very different perspectives when i talk about these issues and out of the spirit of trpt >> i know these are some of the

ordinances that we have introduced. i'm reading them now how we would appeal a modified project. it would be great to go over the list and i do have some comments over all in general. is that okay? >> yes. >> i would just say that this is one of those -- it's -- i didn't mention this at the beginning. this should have happened ten years ago. 3 supervisors attempted to accept set up the procedure. and i have been very open to set amendments that improve legislation and don't undermine

the spirit of this legislation to have a better process and at the land use committee that's have accepted a number of amendments by president chiu. if there are reasonable amendments that further the spirit of this legislation, i'm happy to accept them. if they are amendments which initially glancing as these that i think would actually really undermine making the process more predictable and transparent then i will not support those. i'm looking forward to this discussion. >> thank you. let me go through these issues and they are really in no order of importance, but i think these are just categories of concerns that have been raise that have been in part addressed by supervisor wiener's legislation but there is a suggestion by supervisor kim's version that

ought to be changed. first is the question around notification. if we are going to somehow create some more certainty around various appeals that it's important to have some level of notification. supervisor wiener in part reflecting the planning department's plan to provide more technology to notification essentially has something that is more e-mail based that it be pushed out via e-mail. supervisor kim has a more paper version approach. the way i read it is that supervisor sentence e-mail notification unless paper notification is requested. i wanted to ask in particular for the planning department could you provide a different clarityey on the

different categories and what you think is the most efficient way to do this to provide the due notices that the community wants to see and deserves? by the way, i will just say these are through pages 3 and 4 as well as other places in the draft. >> good afternoon, supervisors, sarah jones environmental review officer. the way i understand this legislation is difference between the opt in e-mail notification versus the opt in mail notification addresses those notices that are done. we do a lot of noticing now. for example we

already under chapter 31 have several categories of exemption that require mail notification. it's notification required for the city's purposes. under supervisor wiener's legislation that would be e-mail unless somebody asks for mailed notification of that versus under supervisor kim's legislation that will remain as mailed notice although someone can ask they receive it electronically instead. so at the mail versus the mailed notification would apply to current notification as well as any new notification under chapter 31. would you like me to address the other aspects of notification that are embodied in these various proposals?

>> under both supervisor wiener and supervisor kim's legislation as well as in these new amendments that came up there is discussion of map based posting of categorical exemption. we do now post one big pdf file that has all the categorical issues during the week. that is a system that really one of the up sides of this entire process is it made us focus on that system and we all understand that that is not a system that is working for the public or frankly for the planning department right now. so we are actively working towards change that go system over so that we have a map based posting of categorical exemption. it would be much more timely, much more easy to find an individual exemption. i

think this is going to go a huge amount of distance towards raising interested parties awareness of the issues instead of exemptions. there is that piece of it. as supervisor wiener's legislation is written and amended that would need to be in place before the legislation can become effective. the third category of notification that is discussed under supervisor kim's legislation as well as under these amendments is a subscription based e-mail list people can question mail, flagging or notification or linking to different types of environmental documents or different categories of environmental documents. that is a system we've been talking through that proposal a lot over at the planning

department. i think our general conclusion is no. one while we do not at this point in time have an e-mail system that supports that, we are working towards an e-mail system that will allow for more electric subscription based e-mail notification of all of our activities, not just environmental determinations. in terms of giving people options for categorizing, we essentially need to be able to tie it to categories that already exist. so something that is already geo coded in our system like the planning department neighborhood maps, that is something that would be relatively easy for us to categories. when a parcel is already linked to that map area of the department list. so if it's items that are already geo

coded, that's something we anticipate the system to be able to handle. over time there is a growing demand for this type of technology as supervisor kim has noted, we at the city are not necessarily able to, we don't have the kind of systems that people who are like a store that's trying to get people to buy things has in place, but there is a very large interest in growing this capability. i think over time we will be able to do more, but what we can do now is what i have expressed. >> okay. so given all of that, the language that was proposed in this community draft do you have a perspective on that about whether it captures what you are talking about? >> the language that is proposed i think there is more,

with regard to the e-mail, i think more specificity about it would bring it to a level that we can work with in terms of defining what is meant by historic district, what is meant by neighborhood. so if there were more specificitien it. however i would suggest that specificity of that type of ordinance which we are pretty much going to have to live with for the rest of our lives is, something that needs to be carefully balanced. >> okay. >> if i might. i might go a little farther on that comment because i'm concerned about some of the language that would require fairly intense specific notice for very very modest projects. if you look at the language the way i read it on page 13, it would involve any

alteration to buildings 13 years old or spans the occupied square footage. the concern we have about this notification is that because we have fairly robust notification in place for larger projects, what we are talking about is incredibly small projects in some cases window replacement, porch railings. i think the concern that you are hearing is the shear numbers of those projects and the public resources that would go into having to make that happen. that's where some of the concerns of the department are besides the lack specificity and the technological challenge is if this is a primary resource. >> part of what this legislation does is it does require the planning department to put out a lot more information about over the

counter permits, but that suggestion that everyone should be able to receive a paper notification of that, feels onerous to me but i want to hear from other supervisors and their perspectives. >> we are introduce an amendment for legislation tomorrow. what we are proposing is that we would make an amendment that online subscription would allow people to describe to a couple of different categories. so one is a specific property, two a specific neighborhood, three a designated historic district. i'm not sure why that would be difficult to tease out. parks and nasdaq and eir's. we already list these exemption

but we list it in a way that is unsearchable. i don't think we would be reducing the work. literally you would be inputting it into a different system that is searchable. >> this reason it's so cumbersome today is that those documents are scanned. the issue is the automation that we are talking about and that's the difficulty we have under our current system. if they are in historic district we can include that. but when it gets to high level, that's when it becomes a real challenge for us because the projects are not categorize that had way when

entered into the system. >> the way i look at it is buildings over 50 years. >> that would be my push back. the second thing i wanted to note is that when the planners did was they do a planning study on subscription base notices. i'm curious to what that would be regarding this process. good afternoon,