>> [captionist switch]. >>

>> so please take your time on this matter, thank you. >> good afternoon. , one of the earlier speakers said that the planning department does not make any mistakes, well we all make mistakes, there are a lot of errors, and there are communication flaws and short comings and surrounding us, so this is why, the sequa process has been so helpful to everybody, but because the

planning department given their lack of resources, lack of money, lack of consistentcy, lack of standards, lack of time lines, lack of deadlines, that you have discovered today, they need the help of the public. there was a hearing last week that was stunning for me to listen to, it was so stunning that i had to forgo, you know, dinner to watch this recorded session, that showed that even though the planning department had information, and did not share it with the board of supervisors before the approval of washington, why? well, given the benefit of the doubt, they were just lacking coordination. and so this was a perfect example also, of why approvals should be shifted as far forward as possible. now, on the question of when is a change significant, when is there a change to scope? >> i agree with some of the suggestions that you cited today, but, that stuff can be

defined, we can know that. this takes so much of the ownness off of the planning department to basically fly by the seat of the pants and not to know when something is coming up. i would press them for statistics for information, and i think that those things can be defined and i think that is where a compromise exists with this legislation. >> they don't have enough resources for the number of projects. so think about that, thank you very much. thank you. >> chair weiner, and member, kim and president chiu, aaron peskin let me salute the three of you because of a matter of principal and policy, you all are publicly saying the exact same things. the concept here is to time bar and limit appeals of cap xs, and mag decks heretofore for

the last ten years and that has not happened and as the share man has said, i failed at that and two of my successor colleagues failed at that, and i think that you are on the precipis of solving that. we, i think, as a community, whether you come from the development side and whether you come as an interested member of the public or whether you come as a potential project opponent. we all agree that if you want to time limit appeals, you have to have robust notice, and good checks and balances. i think that we compromise piece of legislation, that is before you attempt to do that. is it perfect? no. should it be refined? absolutely. should the three members of this committee, the other members of the board, the public and interested parties either the rba or the sierra club have input in that, in the days ahead? absolutely. can it be solved?

i am hopeful that if the department wants to put the money where its mouth is and not do what it has done in the past which is be worried about the public notice, this can and will be solved and the fourth time will be a charm and all three of you and the board of supervisors will succeed where the three previous supervisors over the course of the last decade have failed. i hope that you will accomplish that, i think that it can be done. >> thank you, would i not call it failure, i would call it laying the groundwork, supervisors. >> next speaker. >> my name is larry edmonds and i stay and (inaudible) i am gay, so impart of your district mr. scott and mr. chiu, a chinese man (inaudible) my

mother in 1961. so, you know, i am sure that we are going to be talking about planning the commission, i mean, some... (inaudible) but i am hearing a lot about affordable housing and i am here to cheer all the affordable housing in san francisco. i really hope as a concerned citizen in this city that you all are doing the right thing to bring more affordable housing and all districts in the city. i have been told that they want to create a 13th district for the people who live up higher in the area, but i think that is possible. but, i am really hoping that that all of this means good housing for all of san franciscoan and go jet warriors. see? ? so we will need you to help get this affordable housing a reality of san francisco. and that is what i bring you today and look forward to

seeing you on my birthday on tuesday. and this right here just to show you that san francisco has been a model to the nation in many things, since one other things right here showing you how, san francisco is... just a model nation from education. from dc, so let's keep the housing and seqa and everybody working together so we will be a model of housing for all generations, we will lead the way. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on items 3, or, four? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> so colleagues, before we consider, a continuance of items 3 and 4 we did propose from the city attorney relating to late, submitted evidence submitted within, i believe

that it is however many days before the hearing. or at the hearing itself. and under the, about how the board can approve acceptance of that late evidence. as a disincentive for people to come in at the last minute with huge amounts of evidence, that could have been submitted earlier and what i have proposed was to require the majority vote of the board, we discussed that and we have deferred it to this week. i now have a revised version that reads as follows. the clerk will distribute any written documents submitted by these deadlines to the board, through the board's normal distribution procedures and such written materials will be part of the record and the written materials submitted later than noon, eight days prior to the schedule hearing are applying the department responses to the appeal will not be considered part of the record unless five members agree at the hearing or before,

subject to the board rules of procedure to include such written materials in the record. i just wanted to pose this and this l at lot, or page 33 line, 22, to 23 of the legislation, i sponsored i believe that it is the may 7th version, which is the version before us today. and so i wanted to put this out there and we did discuss this last week and curious to know what folks think. >> president chiu? >> thank you, mr. chair. first of all i appreciate the amendment because i do think that the current language of your legislation right now which simply says that if there are documents submitted after the deadline, they will not be included as part of the materials as a bit draconian and so i appreciate the fact that there is an attempt to allow information that comes in late to be included as part of the record. and i'm okay with supporting that we include it, with the

caviot that i would like to get the community feedback on this and think about whether the specific eight-day threshold and the number of five board members if those are the appropriate numbers, i think that it is close, but i do know that often times, as the preparations are made before the appeals, that it might make some sense to have a deadline shorter than eight days, do i want to understand from planning how many days, my understanding is the reason that we want to have the deadlines is to get the planning department an opportunity to provide us with written responses back and i just want to get a sense of is eight days the shortest time to give them that you need? could you do it in seven, six, five, days? >> well, it probably would be an 8-day period and i think that the reasoning behind 8 days is then that is something that can then be distributed by the clerk as part of your

information for the hearing a week later that that fits into that time frame. for our purposes, as we are going to be able to prepare response in writing which is definitely preferable for the purposes of the record, we really can't do a written response for anything that is less than three days ahead of a hearing. just as we try our best, to do a written responses no matter when it is submitted but i think that three days really is the shortest practical time. >> okay, so given that, again, i am prepared to support an amendment to put this in, with the idea that we will think about this for next week about whether the eight day threshold and the five day board member requirement is adequate. >> there is nothing magic about any of this and just a matter of studying with the rules are and i will look at a continued dialogue and whether we will

tweak any of it. >> i am happy to accept them for the record for the sake of it is discussion, i just want to clarify that usually, maybe i should clarify all of amendments just to show that we are putting into the substitute legislation, mostly based on the response to the planning departments's feedback to the legislation, we did, we are putting back an amendment to or putting in an amendment to allow other agencies to issue exceptions this was sfmta, and so long as they post on-line in the same way that planning does. and so in that on-line subscription system. second we did, we will be removing the requirement for the planning commission to prove exemptions prior to making other approvals but gives the authority to recommend that the ex-exception be reevaluate and third that we are requiring that the subscription e-mail

notification system and that we change the grounds or the areas that we mandate should be allowed through the process and i listed that earlier and it is by specific project and specific neighborhood. designated historic district, parks, exempts and this is just in response to planning that they could do currently kind of arrogate. and we stop all project approvals during an appeal. five was to give... so this was actually similar to what scott is introducing, supervisor weiner is introducing today which is the data (inaudible) amendment and so in our legislation as well. we require any written materials submitted afternoon eight days prior to the schedule hearing to not to be considered unless one board member agrees to it. and we also are going to be doing an amendment that gives planning department time to respond to these written appeal materials and gives them up to

three days prior to the appeal, to respond back to the board. instead of the eight days that is currently in the current language right now. and so eight days for the appellants and three days for planning i think that that is reasonable for the board of supervisors to be able to read the entire record before go into the hearing to make a final determination and the last amendment that will be introducing tomorrow, is that instead of requiring all of the approvals to be put in with the exempt we will require them with the final approval. or what the legislation will allow the appeal for the final approval. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> colleagues, are there any additional comments, so can we take the amendment that i proposed without objection? >> that will be the order. >> and is there a motion to continue items three and four

one week to may 20th? >> i would like to make a couple of comments about that. >> and the answer is yes i would like to make that motion. aside since it was mentioned a number of times during public comment and i don't know if our colleagues if you had a chance to see the hearing that we had at jl around 8 washington, i have to admit this is a hearing that made me rethink a little bit about how seqa approval enters act and let me just briefly say what happened and by the way this was a hearing that i would have had on land use but because they are too busy, we moved it to our government you audit committee. and after the fact, the pc sought the approvals to shorten an easement that decreases the distance between the washington project and the 14 buildings and the parking levels below it

and the distance between that project and a major sewer pipe which is nearby to decrease that distance from 32 feet to 3 and a half feet and into that, what we covered from a report that was sunshine was that the pc had an internal that showed that there were significant possibilities during the construction phase and if there was an earthquake and a real risk that that pipe which delivers 20 million gallons a day of sewage from our pc system, or from basically the north east neighborhoods from a quarter of the population not just supervisor kim's district and supervisor ferrill's district and delivers that level of sewage, that the possibility of a risk to that pipe was greatly enhanced. and so from my perspective, the fact that we as a body approved the eir. the fact that the planning department then issued an addendum to that air seven

months later they were not provided with that report. and these are all in my mind not just around that particular project and maybe the issues that we are talking about today. and that being said i want to appreciate everyone's time and the incredible amount of work that i think that all of us in this room to a person are spending trying to understand this amazingly difficult understand set of issues around seqa, i do want to say that i know that supervisor kim and the coalition of activists have been asking us to consider both pieces of legislation side by side and ask us to wait until we could technically consider both of these versions for weeks what i have been trying to do, to do that to consider cha this is side by side and trying to incorporate and amend to supervisor weiner's legislation and the best aspects and supervisor kim's legislation, and which you were kim's legislation has been on the counter for three years already. we can act on supervisor kim's version because it will be at

hpc this wednesday and so what i am going to suggest is that i very much hope and believe that we will call to question, i want to call to question about a matter that has been in front of this committee, i think five times, and probably well, four times but then next week it will have been with the committee five times. and you know,vy already indicated that i do plan to vote on the version of supervisor weiner's version but i do plan to convene the meeting and hopefully very soon and the planning staff and some of the folks that i have been interacting with around the community version and to see if we could gain the headway on this and because supervisor weiner and kim cannot discuss this privately, we have to have the long conversations in front of the public i think that it appropriate given our sunshine rules so that you can truly understand and see how complicated legislation gets then. and that to be said, i am happy to support continuing this one more time, to next week.

and maybe the fifth meeting will be a charm. >> supervisor kim? >> so, in many ways we are getting to the point that i wanted to that the legislation is actionable but i just want to make sure that we are really going to get all of the language and negotiations done in time not to say that i am tired of seqa i am not. but i don't want to hear this, and this committee, so if we pick a date i hope that we are picking a date by which we can come up with all of the agreements on language and everything that we need. otherwise i would rather do a longer continuance so that we can get it out of committee the next time this comes to us. >> part of the reason why i have opted for a shorter continuance is that i think that the deadlines are supposed to be a function to really get people into the room and that has not turned that in practiced to work to completely with all of this but again, given that i think that we will have two versions to act on if

we decide to next week that we can drive this to form and get it out of this committee, in part because we actually have a lot of other items that we need to consider at land use. and i know that city staff and the city attorney, our clerk, the public, probably want to address other issues. so i hope that we can make a push to get stuff done by next week. >> and we are getting more and more grumpiness from the department and colleagues as we deep bumping people into june and i think that it does make sense, if we can, to move this item out of committee, next monday. >> so, any additional discussion? s so is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> to continue items 3, and 4. for one week, until next monday. as amended can we take that without objection. >> that will be the order. >> the first unanimous motion for a continuance. >> okay. madam clerk, could you call

item number two? >> ordinance amending the police code to clarify permit requirement and procedures as well as expand sus expensings citation and enforcement provisions. >> i will allow the room to clear out. >> colleagues before us today, item two are amendments that i authored and in corporation with the entertainment commission, and amendments to the entertainment regulation section of the police code and to the noise ordinance, contained in the administrative codes. this legislation will allow for more diverse, light music in the city and increasing enforcement powers and the flexibility of the entertainment commission and to

obtain new permits not being addressed in the code and address a problem in union square. and promoting a thriving and responsible night life is not only important to the city's cultural vibrantcy but also brings jobs and tourists and tax revenues to the city. and in 2012, in march. , the city economists released an economic impact study on quantifying the impact of night life in san francisco. it showed as you will recall, the night life generates $4.2 billion in economic activity in our city and furnishes or city with tax revenue and employs 48,000 people. and this legislation, today, balances the goal of expanding our night life for the cultural and economic benefit and with balancing that with the need to insure that night life venues

act responsively, and in compliance with the law. >> so the legislation that we will do, several things and first, it expands, the limited live performance locals which is a form of permit that we approved a couple of years ago to include outdoor spaces like patios and court yards. and that holds the limited live performance permits. the noise standard for those venues will be the same as for indoor limited live performance permits. and it also expands the definition of limited live performance to include djs as long as they adhere to noise requirements which will allow them to perform under the limited live performance permits. and on the legislation, creates a 90-day entertainment permit. the place of entertainment permit for situations where the businesses are changing hands so that the businesses can continue to operate while in

transition in between owners and currently because the places of entertainment permits are personal to the venue operator as opposed to a conditional use and travel to the property when someone sells a club to another person even if there is no change in the operation, the person has to go through the lengthy process of getting a new place of entertainment permit and have to shut down the venue during that period. >> and this will allow the director to issue a temporary place of entertainment and we replicated this from abc rules, because abc will grant a temporary bridge permit so that venues don't have to shut down when they are sold. the legislation improves and enhances enforcement powers, without reducing sfpd's enforcement power and our goal here is to make sure that entertainment commission has strong enforcement powers so that you don't have to call sfpd for every little thing and

you can save sfpd from the more serious situations. this currently the executive director of the entertainment commission, can suspend someone or a venue that violates a rule for up to seven days and this will expand that power to suspension up to two days and it will cover two weekends which is a more effective flexibility for the director. and the legislation will give the director and the power and the commission the power to require a sound test as a condition of the permit. and the commission will be allowed to site violaters who don't have mer mitts and right now if you set up a nightclub and you don't bother to get a permit. the entertainment commission has not power to go after you only the police can. that will allow the commission and the police to go after someone who operates without a permit. it will allow the city to

pursue civil violations through the city attorney's office against businesses that are in violation of their place of entertainment or place of business after hours. >> and the department of public health for noise violate ors in the streets and public places, currently the police can cite them but the police cannot over stretch and it will allow the department of public health to enforce but the noise ordinance. the legislation remanufactures a session on a perspective moratorium of extended hours permit so that the entertainment commission can continue to bring late night businesses into compliance, currently it kicks in if the commission grants extended hour permits that lead to a 15 percent increase every year. with roughly 90 hours extended permits in effect, that is an increase of 14 permits over the next year will start

moratorium it has never been activated since it was passed into law. but, if this limit is reached, then the entertainment commission will not be able to continue its work of bringing late night restaurants such as pizza place and fast food restaurants into compliance to insure that they have extended hours permits and want to be sure that the commission can bring people into compliance. >> there is some additional minor changes in the legislation, that i will not describe that are contained in the legislation itself. and i worked out closely with the entertainment commission to put together this legislation, we worked with the police department before introduction and made several changes and as requested by the police department, and we also worked with the entertainment community to strike the balance for this legislative effort. the legislation has unanimous support of both of entertainment commission and the small business commiting

and colleagues i request your support. if there are know introduction comments, president khao*u. >> thank you, i want to thank the chair of the entertainment commission and the members of the community who have worked on this, and as folks know at this moment i have authored five pieces of legislation since i came into office, tackling these very difficult issues of how you balance, wanting to have a healthy and vibrant night life with wanting to have a safe night life and a number of my pieces of legislation granted authority in additional responsibilities to the entertainment commission so that we could insure that this happens. i want to really thank supervisor weiner in part to make sure that we are promoting the right type of night life and stream lining where we need to and thank you for dealing with a union square issue that is truly vexing and i was going to offer separate giation,

but i had understood from some of my community members that this piece of legislation was moving forward and i was happy for supervisor weiner to use this as a vehicle to address that. i have a couple of questions, let me just jump to what my major concern is with this legislation, and when the legislation was introduced there was a number of aspects that i had heard were going to touch on the legislation that i had moved forward and i understand that by and large with one major exception, this legislation does not impact that. that being said, in 2009, the legislation and the moratorium and so the sections that are proposed by supervisor weiner on 25, 2 *6 and 27 was the legislation that we had specifically included, and which passed by a vote of this board, signed by the mayor to address the fact that there has been over the years intensefiation of the number of

extended hour permits and we wanted to monitor the number of permits and if we needed to address the areas where there is a concentration of extended hour permits. i don't think that they reported on the number of permits to put in place that we were able to jump in with the mark and i think that we got feedback but i have not seen the numbers in the last couple of years. and the question that i want to raise, i am willing to, you know, i am certainly willing to support the rest of the legislation for this particular portion it was very important to me for the certain parts of my district, particularly north beach, broad way and polk street and for that matter, union square and we are seeing a density of these permits and if we are going to remove the signage, i want to be sure that we are not going to see