we certain lack that power sequa is a state law. and sometimes as much as san francisco wishes we could change sequa we couldn't nor is anyone advocating we were trying to change sequa. this is putting in place rules for the first time on those appeals. roadway we're operating from a 16 page memo from the county clerk's office. that is what we're doing here today. so c pmc would have gotten to this (writing on board.) or with supervisor kim's process

it would have been the same process. it's important not to bring in items that are not impacted by this legislation like sequa itself or c pmc. the main goal of my legislation is to my the process more clear and more transparent. i think the more cooks in the kitchen the better and i always welcome feedback and alternatives whether i agree or disagree. i think supervisor kim's process and my process makes it less clear and i won't repeat what the planning staff report

outlines a number of the issues and it recommends against supervisor kim's legislation. just a few points to make about it. supervisor kim's legislation will allow multiple sequa appeals to the board of supervisors on the same project even though through has been no meaningful change. and this will allow more appeals amid construction. in addition the legislation continues our current practice of allowing appeals to occur in the middle of a project. we say this in a appeal on supervisor campos appeal

resulted. we saw recently that the delores park was appealed to the planning commission after the commission approves that project and someone wants to appeal it it can wait until plans are pulled and at which the construction will have to grind to a halt and it will cost additional money. i think this is not the right process that will continue under supervisor kim's legislation. it will eliminate over the counter permits by requiring that the planning department go there an analysis of smaller

plans and when permits from what departments might be neat and then a compilation will be another delay. this abandons the delegation to other departments. this year hundreds of categorical reductions that are done every year. we have a reduction for any sewer repair or water repair that is in repair for one mile. it has small bikes and pedestrian upgrades and a curb

closings and painting determinations on the street. the planning department would have to do that that is a significant shift not only at work but it would make the projects more expensive and indeed that's why we got a letter today. the puc will allow people to raise new arguments without ever having those arguments before us so we couldn't respond that were it would allow people to hold back and not comment on a eir

after not commenting. i think this allows people to be productive in the sequa process at the beginning. so those are my thoughts and comments on supervisor kim's legislation and with that i'll turn it over >> can i respond to - >> sure. >> i've heard this a couple of times our election allows two appeals that's not true you are loud one appeal. now if that's legislation is changed then, yes then you can have more than one appeal. that's important to also lay

out. in the planning commission would have to approve all the determinations and that's not true the puc still issued the planning permits. now if they have issues they can turn it back to the puc but they don't have to approve every declaration. for the negative declaration our - the thirty day appeal window begins at the beginning the appeal process. and the last piece on the mta we had asked planning for the universe that the puc gives but

we simply were not able to get that information prior to drafting this so without having an understanding of a database it's hard for us to determine how best to make the recommendations. we had just drafted it so the determinations we are finally made. we looked this up and since january 1st mta has granted 6 and puc has granted 16 that's roughly 88 exemptions her year but we have to base our legislation on the data we have. >> president which you.

thank you to the public and who have been working on this topic not just the last 6 months but for many years. i want to say i still believe that sequa is everyone's four letter word. i have been cursing this. as you provide feedback be specific about what it is your relating to not reacting how you feel about a certain politician in your district but i think we're going and hopefully, we'll be making some important modifications to our process but

your land use politics will always be controversial. i want to thank the members of the community who have been raising issues and objections to the issues that supervisor wiener has put forth. i've had many meetings with persons in the community who have not been in agreement with supervisor wiener. i want to talk about categories of issues that can help narrow issues. what i have brought today is 9 amendments to supervisor wiener's legislation. i have copies if you want, you can get a copy but i think they

address the line share. what i have heard thus far are issues about supervisor wiener's legislation. first there is some how supervisor wiener's would delegate certain amounts of people could be involved but i want to clarify that the board can abusive the project only after the sequa have been recommendation for the purpose of relating an appeal before the full board. the set set of minutes deal with supervisor campos said which is

by and large the eir process has been working just fine and certainly in the context of the cpc a number of sub amendments that really minimize the requirement that the written materials be submitted with the agency to not to file the - that an eir can be filed after certification to allow appeals to be filed but not scheduled for an appeals approve and also after. the amendments i'm oeflg is the hearing be set no more than 45 days. the third process has to be the

legal standard refers to substance evidence. i think state law is clear we need a standard which is in 3 parts section 3116 and section subsection d 5. the amendments addresses the importance of making sure that we have full notice of over-the-counter permits. i've added a new section 5 that says this ordinance will not become operate i have or until the the department has updated at any time website to provide an up to date information about

the sequa organization and it holds a public hearing. the fifth set of amendments has to be with documentation as part of the appeals. i think we should keep it status go so that the appellant

>> good morning everyone, welcome to the san francisco budget and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday may 15th, 2012, i'm mark ferrill also joined by kim and london breed. and mr. clerk do you have any announcements >> silence all cell phones and devices. please include all of the documents to be part of the file should be submitted to