recommending the recommendation regarding the proposed art and design educational district. supervisors there was a meeting held and the commission heard public testimony and it was well received by members of the public and the neighbors in the immediate area. the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion of the proposed amendment and with minor corrections to reflect in the ordinance reflect the block on page three as was noted and also on page two on a line 12 there is a reference to block 3912. should be 3913. so that's what they move to make those two corrections. they voted unanimously and well received. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> one more presentation i

would like to offer an opportunity for david megel from the cca and talk about the college's planned expansion. >> thank you supervisors. david megel director of planning for california college of the arts. we are a school that was founded -- in the aftermath of the earthquake and fire of 1906 and 1907 were nonprofit. just over 1900 students which makes us 700 smaller than lowl high school. 45% are from california. 35% from the rest of the u.s. and 20% international students. we have been in the neighborhood since 1985 and have carefully assembled contiguous parcels to make a urban campus and as supervisor cohen noted in 2011 we bought a large adjoining

parcel, two and a half acres. as you know the eastern neighborhoods rezoning introduced the pdr1d zoning in our area because of the design district which we feel we're consistent with but we need the use meanted to allow us to move forward. there were letters in the packet to the planning commission supporting this. we did about a three month outreach working with supervisor cohen's staff to talk to all the major stakeholder groups in the neighborhood, and had unanimous support. so we have no immediate plans. we will be plaque to you in the future after we raise a lot of money i imagine. we barely finished paying off the land so we did hold -- last week we held our fashion show in the street and i

promised the chair of the program it would be on the lot next year so we hope you will come to that. thank you and if you have any questions i am happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. okay. we will now open it up and public comment. i have two cards. dick miller and korean woods. you can come up and if anyone else wants to talk on this item you can line up and fill out a card. mr. miller. >> i have some paperwork. i am dick miller, neighborhood association vice president. we support this change. we remember very much when ccac first came to potrero hill. they were outreaching. they invited us to all of the activities and share their facilities at the old original have done a beautiful design

job on the greyhound station and a school and nicest architecture in the show place sc -- square and they wanted to be our neighbor and they have been and shared the plans with the planning department and they should have told you that, so we support the very much. we love ccac. if you haven't been to their fashion show go. it's great. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. miller. ms. woods. >> good afternoon. my name is corine woods. i'm a neighbor of ccac. they're two blocks from me and i am chair of the

mission bay ccac which unanimously endorses the support for the sud. we have worked with ccac for many years. they were active when we were going through the eastern neighborhood rezoning. they let us use their facilities for meetings. they were very involved in a lot of the issues that we're talking about including channel street and hooper street changes. in fact the 100 hoover street project which is across the street from them is going to be coordinating with them for a green street project so they're great neighbors much we are looking forward to the expansion and i hope you will support it. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item four? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor cohen you provided several technical amendments. >> actually just one.

>> just the one. okay. >> one so i would like to motion that we amend the ordinance and strike the assessor block number 3912 to reflect and replace with it with block 3913. >> president chiewt can we have that motion. >> i am happy to. >> okay. we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> and president chiu can we have a motion to forward with positive recommendation. >> happy to move this with positive recommendation. >> great thank you. >> without objection. thank you. let's see madam clerk can you please call items five, six and seven together. >> yes. item numbers five, six, and seven on ordinances amending the administrative code revisions to the affordable care act procedures, appeal processes and notice requirements for environmental impact reports and

notice of declaration. >> thank you very much. i am the author of item five and supervisor kim is author of six and seven and all by the commissions and the historic preservation commission and speaking to item five which is the legislation i offered, both the historic preservation commission and planning commission recommended it. it is supported by nearly 30 transit neighborhood affordable housing and park groups. it will create a predictable and transparent procedure for handling ceqa appeals to the board of supervisors. this is now the tenth public hearing on my legislation including five at the land use committee, three at the historic preservation commission and two at the planning commission, and supervisor kim you are the

author of items six and seven. would you like to make any opening remarks? >> i do want to introduce a couple of amendments today to our legislation, so we have one proposed amendment which i will hand out, and this is just putting into the local ordinance what is already in state law which is that by law the city is allowed 30 days to review of for completeness of permits and other entitlements for use and as provided for in ceqa sections as listed in a case of a project that involves an application for a permit or entitlement for use they will determine within 30 days when it's complete whether a environmental report or mitigated one is required for the project. the determination shall be final and concluive on

all persons including responsible agencies and this is a continuation of some of the conversations we had about helping out the timeline on the front end kind of stemming from the conversation of some of our affordable housing groups providing some form of expedited review for them in the process. and the process of doing that we learned under state law that we do have 30 days to -- once an application is complete to make a decision on the environmental report, so we are just putting that into the local ordinance. the second amendment -- the second series of amendments i believe the clerk's office will come and present to you us and i am happy sept amendments into our legislation. >> >> the legislation went to the historic preservation commission last wednesday and it did come out unanimously with the recommendations of the planning department, but also asking the

planning department to further study two issues. one is kind of the distinctions between firstand final approval and the second was ally reconsidering bringing back landmarking as one of the approvals that is allowed while an appeal is pending, so that was something that we actually took out in our substitute legislation. the hpc asked us to reconsider that issue and they did also mention if there were a discrete of controls -- i'm sorry, approvals that planning felt kind of had a policy need to continue on while the appeal is pending that they would consider that as well. >> thank you supervisor kim and also for clarification the clerk's proposed amendments are to both pieces of legislation and are they to both supervisor kim's legislation or just one of

the two? mr. cal dera. >> good afternoon supervisors. it's international nuts and bolts we would like on both part was legislation. because you included the reservation of sending to the planning department and making the determination within three working days and add a provision by any other department making determinations just to clarify the planning departments but not just for their determinations or other departments that are makingditions and ties up with page nine of the legislation and any departments are provide them with the ordinance -- >> thank you and i am supportive of the clerk's recommended amendments. my question now is supervisor kim has two pieces of legislation, items six and seven, and the questions are these amendments for both of

supervisor kims or just one? >> just for six. >> just for six. okay. it's for items five and my legislation then and supervisor kim's six. >> we have nothing for seven, no. >> i forgot to speak about item seven. i apologize just for the sake of the public. item number seven we did split the file on this piece because this came out of conversations how the public can contest or have a discussion about modifications of projects when they get exemption determinations so we did introduced separate piece of legislation regarding whether how those appeals would be taken and we had written into the legislation that the appeals would go to the planning commission. if members of the public would like to appeal the modification of the ero. again we are very open in the conversations around that. we split the file because the item is required to go back to the

planning commission, so that's why we made that separation, but again i think we really want to figure out how we deal with modifications and for a way for the public to understand when a modification occurs or not so if it's outlined in a way that everyone understands that is one way to deal with it. we haven't come up with that language so far and we have a way for members of the public to appeal that. >> so there are potentially multiple appeals of modifications but go to the planning commission instead of the board of supervisors? >> it would go to the planning commission and this is when a department actually refers something to planning. it's not that members of the public get to decide but if it's referred to the planning department this is done by other departments when they feel that is the case and the ero makes a

determination whether the previous exemption covers this modification or whether he or she needs to issue a new exemption determination. if he or she does not members of the public would have a right to appeal, just that decision, not the ceqa, but whether the modification occurred if that makes sense. >> so if there were -- for clarification if there were five such modifications that the ero determined within the original one each of the modifications are appealable to the planning commission? >> that would be the case but i'm not sure awe often departments do that and of course that is a discussion our departments can have them with each other when they think that a modification is substantive enough for the ero to look at it and i assume they don't frivolous send them if they don't have to. >> okay thank you. i have a very different perspective on

that. i think whether you're appealing to the planning commission or the board of supervisors this would still potentially allow multiple or numerous, depending on the project, appeals in the middle of construction, but i understand your perspective and i think it's an on going dialogue that we have on that particular subject, so the planning department staff is here, and we did receive memos from the department relating to the planning commission and the historic preservation commission recommendations on supervisor kim's legislation. can you explain that? >> that's correct. i have additional copies for the public if you anyone would like to see. there are two memos. the first -- actually one was -- the first is a memo from our department to this body in response to the

planning commission when they reviewed supervisor kim's ordinance they ask we look into four additional items and notification and feasibility thereof. they want to know if it's difficult or possible to do these determinations. they wanted more information about this idea of allows or not ax allowing project approval while pending and discussion on affordable housing. this memo i think covers all those topics and i think this committee might find on pages two-three and the timeline for additional notifications with both of the proposals before you today, and then the second item is the historic preservation commission's resolution after reviewing supervisor kim's ordinance last week. like she

said they recommended approval of certain portions and disapproval of other portions and this goes through the specifics and includes the executive summary which the commission supported and you will find a point by point approval or disapproval and they supported these recommendations and asked for three additional topics to be explored. one, they asked for the planning staff to provide analysis that further clarifies the differences between the two proposals as they have currently and up-to-date in the future as amended, and number two, they asked that the legislation should allow this landmark decision to move forward while appeal is pending and finally they thought it needed further clarification about the hpc's role during appeals, so that's the recommendation and it's before this body. we are happy

to answer questions. >> thank you very much. i want to -- with regard to allowing landmark to proceed while ceqa appeal is pending and even though i have disagreements aspects of the legislation as do the planning commission and the hpc i am appreciative of that removing of the landmark and i think we should be consistent. my legislation had other approvals could continue during the appeal to the board of supervisors and as long as no physical changes to the property. on supervisor's motion it was removed and i supported that for the sake of moving forward even though i think the better policy is to allow the non physical processes to move forward. if we're going to remove that provision we should be consistent and not

have a random acception for one thing and i appreciated when supervisor kim provided that constituency in the legislation. so if there are no further comments we have public comment and two sets of amendments on the table, amendments from the clerk for items five and six and an amendment from supervisor kim for item six only. and so do we have public comment cards? i have one public comment card from bernie jordan. you can come up and if there is someone else that would like to make public comment we have blue cards in the front. come on up. >> thank you again and i san francisco tomorrow. bernie [inaudible]. i wish to make three comments. the first it is necessary for the city to conform to state law regarding

ceqa regarding the priority of -- of tu ledge of impactablity. it's not in your legislation. it's required by state law. cumulative impact. everything that happens in terms of an associated project. it's not in any of your legislation but it is in the state's legislation. secondly, the study of appeal deadlines at this point of 30 days is arbitrary, and it is certainly litigatable by measured impact by running count by the very planning authorities. that is not happening. third, we have a race in effect to the gallows making things more appealable to basically [inaudible] hearing

body. that needs to be opening and fe guarding the s appeals process, and by the way since we're measuring popular appeal, i represent a list of associations and popular support far more numerous than supervisor wiener's. thank you. >> mr. brooks. >> good afternoon supervisors. eric brooks representing san francisco green party, local grass-roots organization our city and as the coordinator of the community ceqa improvement team. clearly there are a lot of issues being debated what are sort of three versions of the legislation. we of course still weigh heavily in version of supervisor kim's legislation and also supervisor chiu's direction that he's heading with amendments, but with that said even though there are a lot of

different issues kicking around that are important especially with noticing and how it's going to happen really we're starting to get a good compromise on the table with the exception of one key issue and it's the one we keep things bringing it up and trigger on the last approval. what supervisor kim is now interestingly putting forward and a final approval which is different -- by the way i would flip the description of that and call it -- this is just an idea, the first approval for a whole project that is going to trigger physical changes or dbi permits, something to that effect. but anyway it looks like we're heading to a place where the coalition, the community is still being asked to compromise and take an appeal trigger much earlier in the process than we think are healthy and for that

we need some guarantees and the biggest guarantee is we need a guaranteed if there are substantial modifications and we will make sure and get good language laid out so we don't have the that they're not reporting to planning but when there are substantial modifications we have to be able to appeal that if it's something real and you have to give us that and we've had a good cooperative process here. let's keep it that way. thanks. >> is there any public comment on items five, six, and or seven? mr. welch. >> my name is calvin welch san francisco clearing house. i am speaking on the proposed amendment by supervisor kim. i am in support of the amendment and taken with the language in her proposed ordinance we now

have a proposal to prioritize affordable housing application and pre-application process under ceqa that will take a maximum of six months. given all of the reviews that are under way that is acceptable to cases that -- nonprofits have face in this town of taking two years before a final evaluation is made. i have to conclude by saying i am somewhat disappointed by the may 20 memo of sara jones and director rahm in regards to the affordable housing housing prioritization. it seems odd to me that in the context of affordable housing that the director and acting environmental review officer would raise the objection that

"every project is different making it impractical to dictate specific timelines for decision making." how stark in contrast to their position on virtually every other aspect of this amendment which is aimed at creating predictablity and specific timelines for all projects under ceqa. it seems odd to me that they would want quibble with this one on those grounds around affordable housing but that is the position they take, and i guess it's not of great importance that it's disappointing to me but i would conclude by supporting the proposed amendment. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] so as an additional matter we

have these amendments. perhaps we should just take them unless president chiu would like to speak first? >> sure. are you talking about the -- >> the technical amendments that were proposed. >> yes on supervisor kim's happy to support that. on the clerk's i am happy to support that and city attorney i don't know if you had a chance to look at them but one thing i was going to say -- we are still looking at other amendments and happy to include this in another round of amendments on this but wanted to check with the city attorney. are you comfortable with it? >> based on review they seem fine. they're minor clarifications for the amendments. >> we might as well take them. if the city attorney has tweaks i am sure there will be opportunities, so we have amendments by supervisor kim to her item number six and then we have amendments from the clerk

for items five and six. is there a motion to adopt those amendments? >> so moved. >> okay. can we take that without objection? that will be the order. okay. president chiu. >> thank you. i want to thank both of our colleagues, planning and staff and city attorney and all of the stakeholders doing all of this work in the recent weeks and months. i was a bit optimistic that today was going to be the day to bring this together. this is complicated stuff and i have been engaged in a lot of meetings with various stakeholders and the planning department and others to see if we can continue to narrow the amendments to this legislation, and i don't think we're there yet, but it's my hope within a week or two we will have amendments that i think reflect what the various stakeholders can agree on and we can simply decide up or down on the remaining issues that we have left so my suggestion is

colleagues we put off the items to the call of the chair with my suggestion at one or two weeks but leav at the call of the chair and i want to thank the patience of the chair and the legislative on this measure and the public as we wrestle with these difficult issues. >> thank you. and i am fine with doing that. what i would like to just note is that this is -- since this is the fifth hearing on ceqa on this legislation and the next hearing is number six if there are amendments that are substantive then there is a seventh hearing. between ceqa and the legislation the calendar of this committee has gotten seriously backlogged and we have been delaying and delaying a number of items and now june is really backed up, so it is my intent for going

forward for ceqa potentially to call special land use committee meetings probably limited to ceqa. the land use committee does not meet next week because of the memorial holiday and the next meeting is two weeks from today. i believe that is june 3 if i am not mistaken so i suggest that we continue this to the call of the chair. it would be my intention either to call a special meeting next week or the following week. we will work with the city attorney just to see what the amendments -- if any are ready, and one other option is that we could start -- if the timing works out start the june 3 land use meeting at 10:00 a.m. instead of 130, so right now the next land use committee meeting is monday june 3. if we call a special meeting or if we call -- start

the june 3 meeting earlier at 10:00 a.m. we would provide the required notices. if anyone is interested you can call my staff to find out where we are on that. does that make sense colleagues? okay. so do we have a motion then to continue items five, six and seven to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> okay. and take that without objection? that would be the order. okay. item number eight. >> item number eight is an ordinance amending the subdwigdz code to adopt condominium conversion impact fee applicable to certain buildings to convert during a six year period and suspend the condominium conversion lottery until 2024 and restrict future lotteries to more than four units and