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 is not required to submit all where i

live materials at the time the appeal is filed. the next is in addition to the type of notice that would be required by the online system there is new language for each project and to provide that information to the public in information on a website or a sequa decision. the effect would be not only to have planning effective planning to post information about every exemption that's not publically noticed. there's imply language that the type of project modification could occur if it needs additional review. a 7th he set of realize would

allow the revised ordinance that i will be asking to be loud. but open up the thirty days appeals window after the approval. an 8th set of rules would be after sequa determinations. so what happens open a first approval if you have modifications. we have new language that the rough officer shall review the eir determines that the project description is no longer clear and it will issue a new sequa determination and the writing will be attached to the case

file. and individuals who would prefer to review hard copies that hard copies would be still loud if the public wants them. so all of those amendments are embodied in the document that i'm going to provide to the madam clerk, if we run out of copies we'll have more copies in my office. last thing for consideration i have been told by our city attorney those are - we can move those out of committee today. my session is we not move those amendments out of committee today but i would ask that those amendments sit in committee for

two weeks for the public to review them and we come back for full consideration two weeks from today and that would give us all the time we need for additional feedback. i'll turn it back to the chair >> thank you very much. first of all, let me say i agree we should leaf those in committee. i'm supportive of that. president chiu thank you for taking the time to put together those he amendments. and in going through them i'll go through them over the next two weeks. but looking at them they all strike me as quite reasonable. i have a different prospective

on whether a sequa issue needs to be heard more than once but that's a decision for the board of supervisors and i respect our view on. in terms of the other changes from a glance they look reasonable and frankly consistent with what we're trying to do. and strengthening and being very clear about what we're doing is helpful. i particularly like the amendment about the online noticing and making the effectiveness of the legislation finalizing the noting improvements that staff has

toild told you will be happening in the next few months. the clarification on first approval that's the more clarification on what constitutes first approval the better. so i guess what i'm saying is what i've seen so far those are positive amendments and president chiu i really appreciate you're taking the time and digging in helping with the legislation. supervisor kim >> thank you. no, i also appreciate those amendments too we're moving in the right direction. i have two questions i was unable to differ from the amendment. how does it keep the automatic appeal language of the eir

that's in supervisor wiener's legislation so now i know i have the full border requiring to have the evidence before the appeal is this something about the automatic appeal? >> is no it's out. >> so we don't actually directly put that language back in. let's ask our city attorney. i want i want to thank you. >> i believe the question is do the amendments that supervisor chu delete entirely the notice of the board acting as a decision maker?

>> i understand the question is around 3116 does it bring back the spirit of it or undelete that provision. >> it deletes that provision so it reverts back to the way the ordinance is written now. and i think supervisor chu indicated it tries pretty substantially to keep it the way it is. there's a number of smaller changes that are in both ordinances. both your ordinance and supervisor wiener's ordinance. it has altering bit to be the procedural matters before but you need to file on appeal the way it's done now >> so we take out the automatic

appeal. this is the question of about how project modifications are determined and this is a question to president chiu. so when an eir is required to verify and there's no up to the present time to appeal the decision how do the projects get identified to the public and what's the specific information that's required in publicizing the scope of the project has changed? that you this is laid out in the sort of the 8th amendment. the projects shall be referred back to planning if changed. and if the project description is no longer changed then the e

r os is required to put it in writing >> i said not that many of those changes are laid out in section 121.9. now what is side in 3108 some language l about modification there was existing language having to deal with project modifications and now the language is laid out in more detail for exemptions. >> i'll read that more carefully. i think there is a certain when a project is modified when is it

modify? or i'm sure the public will weigh in. we need to set up a previously kind of outlined set of criteria so everyone will be on the same page so we know what we're talking about. so later on this doesn't deserve another consideration and the public feels like the scope of this project has really changed but they have no process then for inserting their opinion on the process. that's why we had that piece in our legislation. i think that deserves a longer than or longer conversation >> thank you, mr. chairman.

first of all, thank you to everyone who's been working on this. of course, the author supervisor wiener and supervisor kim and to president chiu and his staff. i do have a question about one of them. and i'm wondering mr. president, if you can provided a little bit more information or explanation behind the idea of the concept in terms of letting substance approvals go forward. it's on page 31 of your amended document. and i think it's starts on line

13 of page 31. and 3 a. i think it talks about it allows the board to hold hearings without having a decision >> as i know our typical practice oftentimes when their multiple things we try to get it to the whole board. this consolidates it to the whole border >> in terms of the efficiency and clarify and for the process i mean, you could have a situation if this is true where you end up having, you know, a

number of additional hearings on a number of issues and it turns out that the sequa finding are such you may end up with a project that went through all that but didn't comply with sequa. that could potentially lead to a lot of resources a lot of time being extended on projects that didn't - >> we have had a practice when we have a number of approvals also a number of sequa approvals getting out of committee with a recommendation to make sure it's sitting at the board and then we do the sequa appeal before we

make any decisions. >> i think that supervisor campos is referring to subsection b which is what i've - >> i thought you were referring to my changes. >> so and this is one area where there's some overlap between my proposal and supervisor kim's proposal. right now our process is if someone files a sequa proposal everything outside the board freeze. you can't seek any determination for anything until the board resolves the sequa appeal. the legislation would provided when a sequa appeal is is filed there could be no approvals that would lead to a physical changes

to the properties. you couldn't pull a that dpoogs change. you could still provided with changes so long as they're not a physical change. this does allow for landmarking to provide while a sequa change is preponderance of the evidence so there's only some overlap. there should be a some things that should be allowed to precede. the project sponsor who ultimately bears the costs of those procedures that the project sponsor can get some physical approvals done instead of just freezing everything in

the. if the sequa determinations is over turned by the board then the approvals could be validate but that be the the determination of the project sponsor could decide >> i guess my point is i understand that's a decision of the project sponsor can make but what does that mean for the city agencies where they have to spend money and you have the board of supervisors rooefrg the sequa rules. >> you know where if sequa is over turned we could have a different result but i know your

co- sponsoring some legislation. >> and then the other point that i would make is one of the other things that happens for the community to provide feedback it shapes the legislation about projects is that by allowing the sequa determination to be resolved, you know, it provides an opportunity for the members of the public to engage in the decision and that might modify the sequa determination. >> i think that the sequa determination is incredible powerful so never mind of encouraging dialog a sequa

appeal from the largest promotions to the smaurt is considered and i think one of the city agency that has gone through the non-sequa appeals and has issued approvals perhaps i mean - i can imagine that agency saying how can you rule against the sequa agency seeing we've spent a lot of time. you want an objective analysis >> any additional comments? supervisor kim if i can raise one issue. in our discussion before about our election you may have a

different prospective. my understanding in reading our election is, in fact, under our legislation the current procedure would remain in place that one, the rec and park commission approvals it there are would be a thirty day window to appeal but in under your legislation the opponent could wait until a building permit was pulled and if there were 3 priltsz pulled would wait under it is employed. it seems like that is something that the facts being what they are we can at least have the same facts at hand >> thank you.

>> does the planning did not have any presentation to may make before we get to public comment? >> we haven't prepared a formal presentation but we have not prepared anything. >> maybe i can ask planning staff on that issue we've been talking about the delores park what would trigger the thirty days for the appeal? >> yes, in our reading of the legislation an appeal could be filed once the negative declaration is adopted which in practice happens at the time

that the project is approved but then an appeal could be filed within thirty days of any discretionary approval. >> so if t a building permit between parks renovation it could go into construction and there's a permit that is pulled in the middle it could be enclosing to sequa? and if you have that kind of appeal filed my understanding is construction would have to halt until the sequa is appealed >> yes, this is my understanding. >> because if there's a sequa document is challenged additional changes will have to

be made. >> i was going to ask the city attorney. >> that's a strange writing. the ordinance the supervisor kim's ordinance provides in section 31.1 that a negative declaration be filed anytime it's issued by the planning department and no longer than the 30 days avenue it's adopted after the city approves the promise >> let's say if the park project in the case of a categorical exception? >> it's anything up so long as there is still a discretionary

approval action. so it would be the final discretionary principle of law >> so if you have a park renovation so the two categorical exemption the deadline to appeal would be the final discretionary act? >> so long as it's thirty days. >> that could be within the thirty days? >> it still has to be a discretionary. >> so in san francisco it's still thirty days. >> generally they would still be discretion for the city to act on with sequa. whether you could still implement changes to the project

>> so what if another building permit is pulled could that trigger a sequa appeal? >> yes, but if it was a negative declaration the two ordinances your ordinance and supervisor kim's ordinance i think have pretty sure the same wondering and i want to say there's a couple of things in the planning commissions decision that were i thought inaccurate. i'm not sure how that happens but the community was very clear because negative declarations get much more in the public eye there's a process through the planning commission there wasn't a need to go through the

process. i think much the decision is going to be through the implementation. there isn't the robust notification that the public would like to see and but this is not the area from what i've heard where we want to see a longer appeals process. the one difference between the ordinances we allow an appeal to take place earlier than the first approval. but the first approval would be thirty days after the deadline to file the appeal >> i ask you in terms of allowing earlier appeals i know that that sometimes, people file appeals and sometimes they're told you're too early. but i think the other big

difference for categorical exceptions there would be times when an appeal could be filed in the middle of the promise >> for example, for park improvements people don't find out actually there's changes going on in until they're in the middle of the project. but i think it's appropriate to have dialog once the public has proper notification. the push that the current place is that projects get hoodwinked over them but that's why we're having this dialog today

>> i agree i think that most members of the public have no desire but to oppose a project only to oppose it so we agree rules are necessary. colleagues if there's no additional comments we have cards here. if you have not filled out a public card please do so. i'll read a batch of names and you can line up on my side to the right. (calling names)