multiple approvals must be filed within nooipt -- 90 days of the full approval that would result to physical changes to process but i think this is something as the sending speaker mentioned. we have something that we can work with and we do not have to rush it, we do not need to rush it because unbeknownst to some of you, this is one of their legacies that the board is going to leave with the residents of san francisco. it's very important that we get this right on the first time around because we have to live with whatever decisions that the board is going to approve of. i would like us to take a

deep breath and take a look at what this is. thank you for accommodating me. >> thank you. >> howard wong. i also want to thank you for all your input and all your in deptsd evaluation of the details of this complex issue. the very fact that we are trying to understand it, demonstrates how difficult it is for the average citizen to have a grasp of the nuances of ceqa legislation. but there is actually a better approach which is to look at the reasonableness of this legislation. and that reasonableness can look at how we look at projects. when i have been on a number of

committees and organizations, city agencies and have my career in city government is that when we look at a project, it's described clearly by some means and that means is usually defined drawings, a scope, a description in itself doesn't describe a project as you have seen many many projects before you. projects that come before civic organizations a year in advance proposed will have at minimum plans, elevations, anything to convince people that it's a good project. but there is a minimum standard which you have to make it understandable . in reality, bigger problems i see in projects the solicitation in our city is the in box

syndrome. being set in in box that different agencies for long periods of time. we need to take the look at the total of the project for the betterment of everyone in the city. i think it can be done. thank you. >> good afternoon. land use committee. i would like to again thank supervisor kim for being our hero. in my mind you are like wonder woman fighting off bad legislation. supervisor chiu, i want to thank you for coming up with these amendments that bring everything closer together and hopefully

supervisor wiener would come to a compromise and result in one legislation which mostly satisfies the residents of san francisco and not necessarily the developer. the residents of san francisco are very concerned about this and they are concerned voters and i hope that we can come up with something that protects the residents and what protects the residents foremost is the deny first approval trigger. we think it's very harm ful and we need something in in addition to that. we need something that would allow residents to have time to think over what's going on. that's not available in supervisor wiener's legislation. going on, criteria

for appeal for modification. that's really important. we can't just depend on one person's opinion. we need a set criteria. and another thing, in regards to supervisor wiener, he said there are three organizations working.cfn has three organizations. environmental justice. >> thank you. good afternoon, neighborhood council. thank you. a little more work will give this the certainty and better impact. thank you for working with the over 40 organizations. currently final approval is the law and by

putting in an appeal period of 90 days after the final approval will give certainty and incentive for developers and neighbors for them to make sure that projects fit the neighborhood. all of planning objections about more work should be considered and balanced against the publics need to know and public's need to work city. please make the best possible legislation by giving it another week. i really appreciate supervisor chiu's open discussion taking on the community coalition on the thoughts and i am improvements that you have made. the hearing on wash ington last week was educational. we need

to look at. finally the permit list should be developed by the developer. affordable housing is one of the city's high priers -- priorities and goals and giving a chance for a hearing within 60 days is very modest to me. thank you supervisors. >> next speaker? good afternoon supervisors, thank you again for these session we've had. i'm rose hill son and i would like to address a couple things about going back to scope and what we want throughout this whole process

-- may i have the overhead. i passed out the -- and the situation arose as to some sort of sewer line. the project description says e erect 12 story of type 1a construction. i know we are talking about more words but we see applications that are one liners. we need to see that the scope doesn't get so broad that everything fits in one line description. the other thing is we need to make sure in this

whole process that there are various stages at dbi. these are planning stations and in san francisco fire department decide they have to move half the building to the other side, are they going to be able to appeal. are planning departments going to make mistakes. i'm not saying they make mistakes. these are some of the questions that arise if we are not careful in defining everything for clarity. thank you very much. >> next speaker? >> supervisors, good afternoon. i'm mark herring ton with the development community. i would like to discuss points with

regards to supervisor chiu. whether an exemption eir or negative declaration. with regard to this exemption guideline 15061 that it requires a public agency approves or determines to carry out the project before the decision becomes appealable. there is no such language in the guidelines with respect to either negative declarations or eir's. that's why it makes sense to have an approval of the project prior to an appeal of an elected body exemption. the opposite is probably the case when there is a determination regarding an eir

or negative declaration. the second point going to these are just specific legal points goes to the issue of why it makes sense to have a fair argument qualifying substantial evident standard. that's what our current ordinance requires. when you look at the ceqa guidelines there is some confusion. some of the provision say fair arguments, others don't. but there is nothing in consistent for this city as a matter of policy as it's been doing all along to continue to modify. >> [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 e 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 disinctive for pe at the l 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 will be 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.