it seems like and your office said no. there's no environmental impact of this changed but that potentially opens the door to file for an appeal. ; is that correct? >> just back to the beginning of our story. the thirty day period for exemption does not begin until the approval action. so even if the exemption is issued 6 months from before a dr period that window doesn't start until after the dr hearing. but the second part of your question it doesn't provide an opportunity to reopen issues on a project after it's been through it's initially building process, you know, for a project

that is substantially the same project. it feels like there's a possible door opened for another bite of appeal process >> i have a question for supervisors kim's office. the e r o just stated there's an avenue for the board of appeals supervisor kim feels there needs to be another avenue so the public can voice their concern. what's our opinion of that? >> i think it's important this is related to environmental concerned and environmental dergsz that a project is exempt from a sequa determination. i think the avenue for that is a

hearing from the environmental review officer. >> this is - it is to - this is a question about whether or not the determination of the environmental reviewer officer is that there has not been a substantial change to a project which therefore not require another determination. so the decision is with the e r o so this process is related to the decision being made by the environmental officer. >> so i want to follow up on that. so the environmental department has gone through this review and

someone questions the whole path and the e r o is going to sit in judgment and i mean, that's where i'm confused. it doesn't make sense to me how are they going to change their judgment >> it will be brought in the public venue. >> i have a question for ms. rogers. this is more a of a global. yesterday was the first passing of the trailing. they're not supporting this legislation >> what happens next and would our opinion be used.

today you'll have our hearing and tomorrow the planning commission will hear the same item and make a recommendation. >> staff and the department will recommend both decisions and we'll lobby for our decisions at the committee meeting where they'll take public comment and it will go back to if you board. >> but we do have sequa legislation that has passed. >> it passed first reading and it needs another vote this coming tuesday and if it's approved open that read back without amendment that will be the final read on this ordinance. understood >> understood thank you. >> with that i'll take up public comment i have 3 cards

(calling names). >> okay good morning commissioners erick brooks i'm with the sequa team. first, i want to clarifying on misconception. understand that supervisor wiener was aware of the original kim version and really the only difference is we're going before the e recollection r o instead of the planning commission. we got a lot of push back putting this forward to the full board. we decided to compromise just to expand on that. he want the person who made the

original decision to be responsible for the decision especially, if they make a bad decision we want that on the environmental officer and if they make a bad decision thooerg to have a hearing. if you look at the first paragraph of the new language such an appeal is notful under the environmental quality act. this administration appeal where we're asking for an appeal does not delay the project it's not a sequa appeal. this is us going to staff with the ability to say hey, we think you made a mistake. you might remember at the beginning of this process we as

a coalition said it was extremely problematic to us to have to appeal the original determination payroll it's kind of wild west and because we're able to appeal after the first approval on the project it happens all the time that projects change the fact we can appeal the total environmental determination catches those moments like with the null murphy house. it protects us but we sauce saw the big thing the opponents wanted to keep was first approval. so supervisor kim's office came

up with that we accept the first approval but this piece of legislation before you from supervisor kim is absolutely key. it's the reason we sponsored the rest of the legislation and it was approved yesterday >> thank you. thank you commissioner and thank you for your contributions to the city with our volunteer work. i really appreciate it. we're talking about cigarette up a parallel hearing that doesn't stop the project from continuing. a result of the hearing might make a change but the hearing itself self-stop the process from going forward. and it gave us a chance to lay out new information or lay out

the plans. it gives the public a chance to do something they don't have the right to appeal. we're asking for one small hearing process very parallel to the dr hearings etc. and with regard to the planning staff saying that this is not been a historical issue well, it isn't because the appeal process one way or another, wasn't appealable. in the past appeals were possible. so a final point is occasionally

especially around historic buildings may want to have to go to court. and to go to court they need to have a public record a hearing. so i have to give them the tools they need to follow up in the rare cases that might be something to go to court. we really need your support on this we're concerned about keeping the character of our city and a dealing with the rare cases where the beginning conception there might have been a modification yes. we've tried to narrow down the discretion to make it clear to everybody knows more clearly but we need this hearing thank you.

>> thank you (calling names). >> good morning commissioners. i'm the chair of the ocean land use and housing committee. i'm here today to ska ask you a personal thing. there have been 3 attempts to change sequa by 3 supervisors and all 3 of them never changed the final approval trigger. this one did change it changed if from final approval to first approval that's a big deal first year we insisted on keeping the first approval. and after negotiations we found that was not possible so we had to compromise our first strongest need and we do

compromise that because we saw in order to this process to continue we gave. so, now at this point what we need it a method to appeal the e r os decision. the e r o is very confident but open some occasion there may be a gray area. for example, if there's a change in the building envelope well, i'm sure the building envelope can be tweaked. and they as that's not significant. but if they say that's a change but it's not substantial that's not a big deal. in this case if there's a hearing we could bring up points

of use that perhaps the environmental officer didn't see or consider. that is really important to us we gave up final approval is this is something we really need. so i hope that you understand that the community, you know, this is a city we live in. this is the city that your families live in and we need protection. i think this is somewhat a compromise so thank you. thank you >> thank you susan. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm here we go representing the sierra club. originally we were i fighting to have the clock start attorney-client on the approval. and now there's legislation only

if there's a way to appeal a modification. we've been working with supervisor kim and chu for weeks now. this is not about the current e r o it's about future e r os 10 to 15 years dune the line who may try to sneak a proposal in. the recreation and parks are going to install - this was originally in january 2007 those plans to install soccer fields were categorically exempt from review. this was clearly a political decisions because neighborhood you fought back and there's

synthetic soccer fields and the other neighborhoods fought back n and the rec and park backed down and they did an environmental review and the eir a big litigated. but they were no help in the soccer field struggle. again, the sierra club wanted to have the clock tick we agreed to go to support the current legislation only if we got the ability to appeal new environmental determinations of modifications. and so, please we are asking that you support the legislation

that supervisor kim and supervisor chu have been working on for many months now on modification and a thank you. >> thank you (calling names). >> howard representing san francisco tomorrow. i'm an architect and i've managed and over seen many projects for the city of san francisco and i've been involved in projects from the neighborhood prospective also. this legislation yesterday passed by the board has been worked open for many, many months and been a collaborative effort by supervisors weaning, chu and kim. the last remaining piece of the puzzle is what happens when a project changes.

it doesn't apply to many projects and in many projects you've seen errors are made. there are often incorrect project descriptions and in a few cases their false made. and projects with change and during that process one sees that perhaps and on a few occasions that an approval earlier was not properly made. the environmental review officer over the years doesn't make occasional mistakes like any plan checker or others. but in the past they were more opportunities to bring that up before public bodies. in this instance we need a

little bit extra incentive to assure that the e r o makes the proper judgments i don't think it's proper to have e r o review their own decisions they'll say i did a good job before i don't node to change but if their aware of an open forum where there's no extra time to prepare for then that incorrect decision there would be less of an incentive to make a bad decision. the processes i've been involved in personally as a professional architect i don't find it extremely difficult to make constant changes and revise my

that much but for the public who don't follow the process they need a little bit more help. they need someone to apply the pressure. we could probably eliminate many, many broils the board if there were a good process if people didn't have to pay the dollars for a board of appeals process to win. i think it's better to have a collaborative process earlier so we avoid problems down the line. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim collins on behalf of the san

francisco coalition. i'd like to say i'mlism - i thought getting projects entitled that meet all the requirements that the city has. what are the projects being appealed. we see the sequa is use for the library and our farther is for affordable housing projects and that's been located in a neighborhood that could afford attorneys. it's a rare project. and what we're concerned about is appears to us it's opening up yet more avenues to appeal and appeal and appeal.

i think what i would say to convey there's no costs to this. no one is hurt by this but they absolutely do delay projects. and when your hiring attorneys and pr firm and there's a special thing when the builders higher attorneys to get this appeal. it's about preventing change to our build environment. that's one of the reasons it was founded 13 years ago. we're not comfort with the discretion being taken away from the e r o. they're by far the best quality and the decisions the e r o has

a full department it's a public institution with transparency. this is clearly moving pretty quickly i don't know all the details but it's not possible for us to support something when we see yes we're going to try to put all the appeals back in place. we would like to see at a minimum that the proposed legislation be adopted >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon rose. i'd like to say a few words about the projects that are going through this process are not going to be stopped so whether or not this is a hearing

before the commission on tv for the public the timing isn't going to get, you know, to the point they're to the point of being stopped. when the last approval was changed as erick brooks said we need to have that opportunity to opine on those constantly changing projects. there are a few little developers out through who like to change their projects and is we don't need this process because it's an appeal process. it's not a appeal process it's to have a clear view of chapz with the appeal process. the public perception is gagging

going to make it look like the e r o decision a final we don't know what's going on you have to go to the website and have to be constantly troll the website to find the process. well someone says you can go to the board of appeals and i think for advantaged community and constantly knowledge at city hall are vnd that 10 days are really short. 10 days it two short. we have comprised . i recommend that i to the board of supervisors to please have the e r o hearing included as a

consensus thing and it's passed around to zero and i'm tired after 8 months. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon catherine howard. the board of appeals idea talking about coming up with things at the last minute. the board of appeals is for street trees or coastal permit. there's no permit need to cut down trees in a park. i can do that without a permit. we took the beach project and the board of appeals said they wouldn't deal with sequa it's on the tape. the brvlz cost money for each

appeal i think there's an economic injustice hero. the board of appeals don't have a background in environmental or historic issues. the chance of them being to value issues it's so far from happening just as on sequa issues they'll defer to the e r os opinion pr and in terms of costs you have a hearing there and here it's the same costs it's on tv and that's not a good option. the public needs a public hearing from the e r o payroll it's an inclusive public process. if a tree falls in a effort and no one's around does it make a sound and the analogy is what

happens if - i can't tell you the number of times people learned l about issues i had insomnia and i watched sftv and that's where i learned about. i assume that's why you guys are on tv now. it's about time people need to see and hear i and hear the message. because it is vital the public should be able to understand the various components. this can be done easily in a media wide way >> any other public pardon me need to speak on this item? >> i'm actually read what was

submitted in our packet on the subject last weekend. i had a couple of thoughts on that but it's difficult in this age of computers so have last minute changes forward and expect you to do something right now. like supervisor wiener's aid i haven't read it but my first comment is maybe we should have it first an appeal to the environmental review officer and if that doesn't work go to the planning commission. the - and that's actually been true to the environmental process for a lot of my years involvement. i appreciate there has to be

somehow to bring this about in the open. i think what the supervisors are proposing it might work. the public arena of the public review officer having to show up is important. i think it would obtain possible in the environmental review officer warren's was in the future going forward as knowledgeable and competent and impartial & as they need to be and if it is clerical the environmental officer can say oh, i wasn't told that and that would be the end of that. an appeal is important. and a agree with everything that's been said about the board

of appeals but want to emphasis one thing you have to get 3 out of 4 votes but it's time xhoum for everybody in the department as well >> thank you and a bill i was not going to say anything but i'm actually here for japan town. i'm even sure it's appropriate for me to be saying anything. a couple of of issues that are okay to say that doesn't concern directly the proposals before you but some things that have been said with the board of appeals i agree with the past comment first year i