city attorney john givner. >> the committee should continue the items so that planning will have an opportunity to consider the amendments. and the clerk's office suggests continuing it to a date certain for noticing rementquirements. practically speaking, the soonest that the planning commission could hear the items and act on it and send it back to the committee after the board designed the ceqa appeal on september 4 would be september 10. so if you continued it to september 10, you could at that point if the ceqa appeal is resolved, send it to the full board. if the ceqa is not resolved, you could continue it on september 10. >> supervisor kim: so i will continue those items to monday, september 10, if the chair deems that date okay, so we don't have to refer items 8, 9, 10 and 11 back to the planning commission. we can simply continue the planning commission and hear our amendments and make recommendations after the appeal on september 4. is that correct? >> that's correct. after you act and continue the items today, the clerk's office will refer all the documents back to planning. planning

. >> supervisor tang: john givner. >> this will trigger a continuance in land use. so the committee should continue it and send it out next week. >> supervisor stefani: i would like to amendment motion and continue this for one week to land use committee. >> supervisor tang: okay. without objection. this item is continued for one week. >> clerk: were there amendments to accept provider to that? >> supervisor tang: i'm sorry. we have to accept the amendments. we'll rescind the vote. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i move to accept the amendments that were read and then continue this to the next land use committee hearing. >> supervisor tang: amendments first. we can do that without objection. and underlying item as amended continue one week. without objection. all right. thank you. madam clerk, item 5, please. >> clerk: ordinance amending the planning code to correctorors in enacted legislation, updated out dated legislation and reorganization of articles 7 and 2 and approve appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: thank you. we have david brosky, pl

been a number of deputy city attorneys who have worked on this, margarita gutierrez, paul zareski, john givner and the city staff who participated in its crafting, jackie fong, linda gurl and her staff as well as the m.t.a. that provided invaluable input. with that, collegues, i'm happy to answer any questions and hear from the public. >> supervisor safai: did you read into the record the amendment roughly and broadly? >> supervisor peskin: because it's a charter amendment and i have copies from the public, it's somewhat different from the first draft. >> supervisor safai: do you want to give us a broad overview of the changes and then we'll take public comment? >> supervisor peskin: yes. it's not amendments, per se. it's a second draft. it's 16.130, privacy first policy. subsection a states that the principles stated in subsection e constitute the privacy policy. it says that subsection b said that all parts of city government are authorized to implement the principles of the charter amendment. subsection c says that the board of supervisors has the ability to adopt ordinances pursuant to the

. >> deputy city attorney, john givner. the board could amend. not today, because with all the moving pieces, trying to minimize amendments on the floor. but that's an amendment that the board could consider either on tuesday or in a future land use meeting. >> supervisor safai: we could make it at the full board. okay. my second one is, and i said a little about this. i would like to hear the rationale behind the removing the requirement for the street tree. i know that we have a department that's funded a little bit better in terms of street tree maintenance and overall new street tree expansion. and so i'm a little confused as to how that's being used as a rational to slow down a.d.u.s. when you submit your plans, you would do that in parallel with urban forestry. so i would not be in support of removing that. i would be happy if you had them come out and say that it's not available because of the underground wiring and so on. but just so we're clear for the record, doing it in lieu is more expensive than planting a tree. so i would say for fo