we have not seen supervisor kim's legislation. i don't think it's been properly quote-unquote introduced, i guess, in the way that it would be sent from the clerk of the board to our commission. so, we cannot weigh on that decision. also, as you all might know, there is a decision clock that starts when legislation comes to the board of supervisors. we have a window in which we can weigh in on it. the supervisor doesn't have to listen to what we have to say. we are not elected official, we are a discretionary body. so, at the end, our opinion while valuable is not necessarily, you know, the final word on that. in terms of c-e-q-a, i think that what is often misunderstood is that the california environmental quality act is an information tool. i mean, the sole purpose of c-e-q-a is to provide the public with information about projects being proposed. it doesn't take an affirmative or negative position on projects and it's not supposed to be seen in that regard. you are supposed to use it to evaluate the projects or become controver

we have kept staff informed including the legislation. as background the state legislature as the ultimate trustees of public trust land and resources entrusted the land along the water front in 1968 to manage on behalf of all the people of california. the port 32 you the burden act has the responsibility and authorities to this land. there are 84 other grantees. including san diego, long beach which include over 300 statutes. the commission over stands but not any authority over project proposals unless provided for in legislation. for the boars of the proposal that are being discussed today involving pier 30-32, the commission does have some approval authority over the sale of lot 330. there is some mechanisms which brad talked about with the san francisco water proposal. a request from the port considering formally a proposal or legislation authorizing a specific proposal. commission did not direct the city or port to seek legislation in this instance. however, given that the legislature as the ultimate trustee of these lands over the

this legislation would have avoided the confusion. thank you for your time and please move this ordinance forward. >> thank you. >>> good evening, commissioners, tim colin on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. you've heard us many times over the years express how strongly we feel in our deep frustrations with the crying need for change and reform of c-e-q-a. it is repeatedly used against proposals that embody our best principles of sensible land use and appropriate urban infill. this is not a theoretical harm. the abuses that used in c-e-q-a's name raise risk and uncertainty which makes good projects take longer and cost more to build. these costs have to be passed somewhere. the price of spurious appeals is to make san francisco's housing in the words of ed glaeser, scarce and expensive. supervisor wiener's c-e-q-a proposal is not the first pass at this. over the last 10 years, supervisors fiona ma and machaela alioto-pier tried unsuccessfully to make similar changes. we want to remind you supervisor wiener at this

this legislation had a total at the top called the community alternative c-e-q-a legislation. i'm not sure what community it's referring to, but it's certainly not the broad san francisco community that wants our park and open space to be improved, that wants people to be able to fix up their homes, and that doesn't want a dramatic increase in city bureaucracy delays and costs. commissioners, my legislation before you today is a balanced plan that will finally bring clarity and transparency to our c-e-q-a appeal process. this results from enormous almost six months worth of work with planning department staff, with members of the community, and with opponents of the legislation. i have done exactly what you asked me to do, engage in outreach and dialogue, and to be flexible. i made many amendments, and this legislation deserves your support. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. are you able to stay for a little bit? >> i will stay. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, sara jones from the environmental planning section of the plannin

what the legislation provides is that if there is -- if the board is already taking legislative action that's necessary for the project to happen, the c-e-q-a would automatically, even if it's not appealed, attach to that legislation and it would be heard in committee. the board can always hear any matter, any piece of legislation as a committee of the whole if the board wants to do that. but this would occur presumptively in committee. if there were no underlying legislation, then the hearing would happen at the full board as it currently does. >> okay. and then as far as the planning commission would be concerned, if there is an appeal of one of our environmental actionses and we find out that the full board -- the board is going to hear it anyway, it would not come back to us to consider the appeal t. would go directly to the board for the appeal process. >> well, it depends ~ for an e-i-r where you certify it, that can always be appealed to us. and i guess unless we overturn it, you would not see it again. and for a negative declaration, right now you can file directly at the board

want to give you the gist of the legislation. it a simple piece of legislation. several months ago we received a call. he described the unique nature of his property and neighborhood commercial use, a victorian, a designate potential historic resources. the ground level space is not visible from the street with multiple levels of stairs. i have pictures of that if you would like to take a look. the hidden nature of the property is problematic for most businesses. they did occupy the space for some time and recently vacated. the property was listed on craigslist with no takers. it's zoned for business use. they are given a lack of visibility from the street. the second floor of the property consist of four offices for mental health providers. the floors would have to be compatible with the upstairs use. it seems the ground floor would be provided for mental health providers. the only way to remedy the situation one we felt worth addressing was to a legislation. legislation in this case is needed due to the fact that new medical services uses are prohibited on all

this legislation, as i say, works. more than anything else, what we have now is confusion, object obfuscation and uncertainty. and we can't let it continue. thank you. ~ >>> good afternoon, commissioners -- good evening, i guess, commissioners. eric brooks again representing san francisco green party, the local grassroots organization in our city. and i've been coordinating the community c-e-q-a improvement team that you received an e-mail from earlier or yesterday. first i want to clarify, we are not against improving our access to c-e-q-a locally and improving the process. we understand that there needs to be a clearer trigger for appeals instead of the open-ended process right now. we understand that we need to clarify this stuff so it's better for both sides of this debate. because we are not well served by planning staff and the board of supervisors clerk and the city attorney having to make things up as they go along. it is true. and by the way, just to clarify, where the kim version came from, supervisor kim was

i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. what does this legislation do? it bans a specific assault weapons by name, 157. it protects the rights of gun owners to possess weapons for legitimate hunting and sporting and defense uses. it excludes many more weapons by make and model, over 2000 of them. it grandfathers all present weapons. if they are transferred, it subjects the transferee to a background test. it does not require registration. that applies military characteristics test to judge future weapons to prevent gun manufacturers from invading the ban by simply changing the name of the weapon. or its physical characteristics. we tried to learn from the last bill, and refine this bill to avoid the problems of gun manufacturer simply getting around the bill. the features that we use were originally developed for military weapons, for one reason. to make the weapon more effective and efficient. killing people in combat situations. as chief flynn of the milwaukee police department testified last week, and i quote, assault weapons are built to inflict viol

or under the legislation can they go ahead? i think they can go ahead and go through the building process, but the building department can't issue the permit until the environmental is cleared. >> that would be correct, that would be correct. >> that would be basically the same for a cu, for a conditional use where we take an action to approve a conditional use. that would be the triggering action -- >> that is correct. >> and then that would be the -- 30 days starts and it would be appealed to the board of supervisors. >> and they could appeal the cu at the same time to the board of supervisors. >> right. >> they could both be appealed together and they could be held current together at the board. a 309 would also be an example of -- a 309 permit would have an appeal process after it's approved by this body. that would most likely be the triggering approval. >> okay. >> i mean it's clear from this we don't have -- it's not clear when the appeals period starts and runs and it's not -- i don't think in many cases, a significant

c-e-q-a in one way or another. ~ legislation this legislation merely sets our procedures for how we allow appeal. and i want to note that there are organizations that are very active opposing the proposed changes in sacramento to c-e-q-a itself. those organizations are not opposing this legislation. in fact, we just heard today that the state building and constructions trade councilmember which has been one of the leaders fighting the changes to c-e-q-a in sacramento has officially stated that they have no issue with what we are doing here in sacramento. ~ council today i'm sure you'll hear some of the same arguments we heard last time. there will be criticisms of the process around this legislation. and as i noted, we have gone through exhaustive public process. before your last hearing we had already had a number of meetings and made amendments and we did so after. there will again be claims that this is some sort of developer scheme or plot which is entirely untrue. c-e-q-a appeals, as you know, and as i know, impacts things from bike lanes to affordable housing projects and park

would that be trailing legislation? no. great. thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is george -- i'm a native san san francisco, it's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be a san franciscans. we have seen what has happened when people are not prepared for a disaster. i applaud that you are creating a clear policy that will help us make the mistakes that have been happening in the past. >> other do i do not have any more cards. please lineup if you have any questions. >> my name is jeremy paul. i'm here as both -- renter. it has a large position of a resident control and mostly rent control mostly unstable or unsafe housing. these properties are also economically unstable. i want to speak very strongly in support of this ordinance in the pass through as it's constructed. it's important to main tain this housing. i foresee an --ellis act bonanza for people that cannot maintain these buildings if they can not pass it through as it is. frankly the increase in value to the property owner, i think is negligently cons

legislation would help them out. if we wait until something happens, they will loss what they have invested. it's a good thing for the small businesses. on the whole i think it's great legislation and i look forward to it passing. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is john pakz ton, i was on the advisory committee and i'm act ive with spur. i strongly encourage this legislation. my concern is the longevity of the housing stock in san francisco. very few you people realize we have the oldest housing stock in the side of the mississippi and the majority of these buildings were built before world war ii and includes material that is susceptible to decay and deterioration. the cap support that in the magnitude earthquake that about 58,000 residents would lose their home that is about 28,000 housing units. it's not how many housing units we build every year. it's how many we keep. it's taken the last 15 years to build those 28 units. everybody started off being at each other's throats looking out for e

at the time i indicated that we should be including deejays in the legislation. it was too late in the process. as i indicated i would be doing that in ensuing legislation and i am doing that today. there are many situations where deejays in art galleries or in a restaurant during the day or early evening might be there and it makes sense to encourage that and not to require those venues to go through the same significant permitting process that we require of night clubs. another provision in the legislation will allow more live music in outdoor plazas and courtyards. right now we actually don't have an ongoing permit for venues, whether it's a plaza in a neighborhood or a neighborhood group once every week or once a month, have live music in the plaza. or a venue like the eagle tavern which has an outdoor plaza and that sometimes has live music or el rio. right now you have to technically get a new permit for one day at a time every time that you want to do that. this will create a broader permit so you get one permit over the course of a year. the legislation w

i see that as the effect of this legislation. criminalsieve if the you allude to, and as a former attorney general you know this area as well as anybody, if the criminal element is going to be using weapons like this, why would you deny for defensive purposes law abiding citizens to be able to use an equivalent fire power to defend themselves? it is not much satisfaction to say criminals are going to have access to the whole range of weapons they will have access to, because they do not care about the walls that are passed, and we will give the american citizen of peashooter to defend themselves with. i think it is an adequate, in your criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens inappropriately in my view. >> mr. chairman? toi might pose a question the senator from california, in your response to the senator you mentioned there are 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that this bill were passed, congress would have deemed prohibited. it seems to me that all of us should begin as the conditional document with th

this is trailing legislation following our reform of the public finance legislation that we passed at the board last year. we did have to make a couple of date changes. now with the election code, in order to conform with the new public finance structure and mechanism. ~ i do have to make one small amendment today, and that is on page 16 of the ordinance, we are just triking lines 12 and 13, saying that the operative date of this ordinance is january 1st, 2013. we are just triking that. the ordinance will become law 30 days after the mayor signs it since the legislation. so that was just a quick fix up. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend. is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues, without objection that passes. on the underlying ordinance can we take that same house same call? without objection, the ordinance is passed on the first read as amended. item 30. >> item 30 is motion appointing robert bowden, term ending july 17, 2013, to the reentry council. >> roll call vote. >> on item 30, supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. super

. ~ >> you mean like on legislation? >> right. that would be in the case of legislation also. >> okay. but on a cu, for example, then, getting back to that just to be clear, if we approved the cu and it were appealed, and that appeal goes to the board of supervisors, then if there were an accompanying c-e-q-a document, whatever it was, would that, then -- the appellant would have to file a separate appeal on that, it wouldn't automatically go like with the legislation? >> that's correct. >> okay. those are the only questions i had. i think in terms of supervisor kim's legislation, again, i haven't seen it. nobody's told me about it until today actually. and, so, i don't know what -- i don't want to speculate what would happen at the board, supervisor wiener, supervisor kim, others can decide how they want to handle that. but if it ends up somehow coming separately, you know, we consider it i think along with any other piece of legislation coming down from the board. >> commissioner wu. >> i actually wanted to ask supervisor wiener

the originator of this legislation? >> the supervising staff. excuse me, i apologize. >> commissioner moore? aye, commissioner wu? aye. this motion passes unanimously. next item is no. 10. an ordinance that would amend >> as you see the corner in general has a lot of liquor licenses. that's why our office worked with the lower polk association and worked with the knob hill residents to work how to deal with the quality of life issues created by the liquor proliferation of polk street. we crafted this lower polk street rud, using other models, our legislation would prohibit new bars and liquor stores in the rud region. would also prohibit, continue to prohibit tobacco shops. new restaurants coming in, seeking 47 permits would be allowed. but not to be open past midnight. and entertainment would be permitted through continual use. i want to stress that we create flexibility to transfer their liquor licenses. that we thought would be an important component of protecting the businesses in the corner. this is in some other ruds and sud's but not all

there are mitigations at your hands that need to be put into your legislation. first of all, you have a state required housing element that requires means, resources, that affects keeps the diversity of the city intact which are there and which the city is in default since it has no reinforceable housing elements. that provides means and resources that are supposed to refer several years ago to the board of supervisors. the means are there if you will put them into function. secondly, under federal supreme court cases, depriving an owner of equity, making that unviable for means of public import if you refer as officers of the court you may recall long island and the robert moses attempt to run free ways, you cannot be private owners in affective viable quit of compensation. the means are at hand. you have for example in deferrable capital programs bond of $150 million a year. a forensic analysis audit of the mayor's office approved in this case. >> thank you. next speaker please. thank you. next speaker. >> you don't have to go in the same order that i call you

i urge you on behalf of spur to support this legislation and move it forward. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, and let me call two additional cards i have. josephine [speaker not understood] and alex [speaker not understood]. next speaker. >>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is tom [speaker not understood], department of building inspection. [speaker not understood] we are totally supporting it's ready to take over and then to get [speaker not understood] and also to plan check this legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker [speaker not understood]. >>> i would say let's try to keep the 100% pass through because many of the small property owners will have to mortgage that retrofit fee and the mortgage of that is probably 2 to 3 times over the lifetime -- i mean, the interest accrued to mortgage the pass through -- i mean, the retrofit cost will be probably 2 to 3 times the cost itself. so, we are paying a lot of interest to help the retrofit to be finished. and that is just, you know, 100,000 or $200,000 on a $1

sf dog fully supports this legislation.een involved in it for years and been working with animal care control and i just wanted to thank supervisor wiener for his role in pushing this through and actually getting this legislation after eight years of it kind of sitting on -- nobody doing anything about it. and i also wanted to acknowledge animal care and control in particular deputy director cat brown for the work that she's been doing. i've been involved in the negotiations on how to implement this and have been really useful and everything has been done in a great way. this is how a city should work. i just wanted to again thank supervisor wiener and acc. >> thank you, ms. stevens. mr. crizwell? >>> i don't know if my comments are going to be relevant or not, but i know that it's past. so, i'm here from new district 8 and that's pearl street, elgin park, valencia, guerrero, laguna and market. i'm here to speak about amending the ordinance to include that dogs be vaccinated and up to date on their shots. and that the dogs

>> if it was this legislation would not apply and they would not be able to change the copy. the point of us putting in the change that doesn't apply to article 10 or 11, those signs may not be code complying, cannot be replaced. >> i think that's the problem we are in with 888 brannan. if we add language in where the sign is architecturely significant and/or the copy. >> this is something that should be done in separate legislation and it hasn't been considered as part of this process. i know mr. vettel submitted a letter. there are other remedies to this as well. now that zoning has changed it has a lower sign height limit and that maybe we can now allow a sign that is taller at that location. i'm not sure of a procedure where we can allow brannan to replace the sign. >> one other thing that vettel had mentioned that there is no sign. we need to seek proof that you have a sign permit. to address that concern you can say buildings that have been determined historic resources and prior to the sign ordinance, they can liftoff the top of his head, the date thachltd as that hand

there was an oversight in the drafting of that legislation. it failed to pick up a special use district within south of market area, the children youth and family zone. so, this legislation currently would just make explicit that adjustment from the children youth and family zone from five units to 10 units to be consistent with the policy throughout the city. it also makes a slight adjustment. there is additional trigger or threshold within the children youth and family zone for inclusion in the inclusionary program of a 40 foot height limit. in order not to provide incentives for developers to sort of squish or reduce the height of a ground floor and to be consistent with the city's policy around height bonuses throughout the city, we have recommended increasing that height limit from 40 feet to 45 feet. so, those two -- those corrective measures for the children youth and family zone and the 20% reduction for the on-site requirement are the two components that are additional since the introduction of the legislation. ~ following planning co

the question is asking how our existing merchants feel about the legislation? i think that folks do agree over all that we need to do something around the liquor licenses on polk street and i think that we have met with them just as recent as a week ago and heard back about the concerns about these conditions and i am sure that people appreciate the transferbility and have the issue of the hours and some of the entertainment. so, folks have said, some of the things they understand, and some of the things they prefer to see change and so there is a little bit of a difference of opinion depending on sort of the merchants verses the residents and what is the right solution, so again we are trying to balance the quality of life issues, with the keeping the quarter very vibrant issues. >> so, i just... >> just the comment on something that you said, if the value of the liquor licenses in this district inflate, along with the values in other restricted districts like the mission, over all, liquor licenses in the city will inflate and bring them back up. so, i think t

this legislation. i think it's very important. i renovated half a dozen small buildings in san francisco over the last 30 years and that's something that i have always done. i would like to tell you a little bit of the realities having done major retrofit on a building. i was aware that in march of 2010. the board of supervisors unanimously passed legislation to get owners to voluntary retrofit and strengthen soft story buildings which was what i i had and they would wave buildings fees and expedited permits. in may of 2011 i went with my engineer to submit plans to retrofit a building and i had the plan checker from hell who had no idea of what we were trying to do, got no fee reductions, after a year of going back and forth it finally passed and went to the bureau of street use and mapping which looked at google earth and came up with a bunch of things that had nothing to do with working with this building. that took another couple months. by the time i finally got the permit in october. it's downpours and as we show we have a s