measuring what from where. a lot of where the t drs might go is an issue are it may be that the policy point so to determine with the city's public t drs where they might best be used or not uses. i think the next step needs to be discussed but the policy information is there. thank you one and all >> any of the other public want to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have one comment in all of this year the private property t dr folks don't have any other revenue to care for the city we have bonds and other means.

i do appreciate the gentleman's idea of trying to use up the funds to care for those buildings or so the private sector can care for their own buildings. i consider a $30 number plus adding a transfer tax. that make sense to what the general public benefit as well as the buildings is concerned >> i did want to make clear i think that it's always a problem to fund fixing up a public building that is such as 1 across the street. we sat through a number of hearings and ending battles

between the veterans and the trustees and that battle very nearly imperiled the financing for fixing uphe building. i think that the public t dr idea could produce a lot of money that the city needs to fix up those buildings to preserve them but do it in a way which the fixing up of the building was not as much at the peril of the varies factions. i would prefer as a citizen of san francisco to see buildings fixed up financed and this way

rather than with bonds. >> thank you commissioner and i have one comment and i appreciate the report i think it was well done. one of the concerns is to make sure there's not an appearance of the conflict of interest that the entity is determining the zoning why not make the 20 or 25 then you're selling it and, in fact, the port is pretty much one story structures would be unlivable and the height limit is low. you couldn't even build somebody it tall. let's see the historic pier burned down and the structures could be utilized somehow.

and if something happens it could be this strange thing that happened because they're trying to get a benefit from it >> i think 0 on the port issue and i think the comment in the report was this would require legislation because those piers are subject to the public trust so there would have to be faith legislation that would come into play for the properties. but my oh, all view is what they're proposing is good. some of the comments are fine >> seeing no other comments we'll move on. >> thank you very much everybody. >> navy e yeah, and we'll take

a 5 minute. this can run you

$35 to $45 for a bowl, so it is

great you did this for $20. >> this will feed four to six people. >> not if you invite me over for dinner. i am ready to dig in. >> i hope you'll love it. >> mmm. >> what do you think? >> i think i am going to need more. perhaps you can have all you want. >> i am produce the that you have crushed this farmer's market challenge by a landslide. the first, we're going to have to tally of your shopping list and see what you actually spend that the farmer's market. >> and go for it. >> incredible. you have shown us how to make super healthy, refresh chapino from the farmers market on the budget, that for the whole family. that is outstanding. >> thank you peter i am glad

that you like it. i think anybody can do it. >> if you like the recipe for this dish, you can e-mail us at sfgtv@sfgov.org or reach out to us on facebook or twitter and we

horrify it is - it is a substantial change. it subscribes supervisor kim's trailing legislation and this would provided for an appeal hearing from the commission. when the planning department makes a decision that an exempt amendment was made and it and require a new sequa document. the report before you describes a similar proposal from

supervisor chu. however, that it would have gone before the planning commission. our task may have gotten a little bit easier. you've received the documents from supervisor kim's office this codifies the language. now supervisor chu and kim are requesting the same process. the minute provides for a process to appeal the decision that a change is not a modification and therefore enable the process and it doesn't need another sequa document. the hearing body would need to have a public hearing and to reconsidering he or she decision

in the of any new information provided at the hearing. the appeal will be held between 10 days >> excuse me. how many days. >> 10. and it would - the hearing would be on the same day on the planning hearing and it must be report with the posting on the website. it should be on the city's official television. the examinations has to be reconsidered. now i want to introduce april from supervisor kim's office. after she addresses this commission supervisor wiener's office wants to make a few

comments then and talk about the recommendation >> good afternoon, commissioners again april from supervisor kim's office. as i know and as ann march rejust said of interest to this commission is it the legislation passed yesterday gives the commission the right to have the say over approvals. that kim gave the legislation to the authority to review and comment on all voip i vial documents that may have an impact on resources. it requires a hearing that involve potentially historic buildings. so before us today is a

significant piece of the puzzle. as you may know in the previous hearings before the h pc alternative procedures were adapted that the peel decision . this was included because appropriations changed over the velocity of the process. while an approval may have happened in the early stages of the process there maybe another determination neat. the proposal in your packet attempts to deal with this when a project has changed after the environmental officer sees it

doesn't require another evaluation p in our original plan we had this appealed to the commission payroll there was a series of amendments to the legislation that was made by supervisor chu yesterday to supervisor wiener's legislation which we accepted. that one of the important changes to the legislation that relates to this issue was the issue of more clearly defining modification. so again, our original proposal was that those decisions bebe appealed to the planning commission.

after many decisions i want with supervisor chu's office particularly and many of the advocates that are concerned we've agreed to a somewhat modified process that includes a hearing before the environmental review officer. basically anyone who wishes to contest this can do so at the public notice. i think some of the components of this process that are important to our office and to the advocates is it this be attached to a planning commission hearing where the hearing would be broadcast and telling advised they suggest to

have a written mechanism to address the modification question. i think it's important for the environmental officer to hear from the concerned members of the public and to the stent possible this be on tv so the public can be aware of the decision. that's basically the reason why we support of the current modified proposal 36s described to you earlier this morning. and again, just wanted to hear the commissions feedback about this proposal and, of course, to thank the city attorney's office elaine warren and in particular supervisor chu's office and the advocates who are here, here to speak on this item who spent

many hours trying to come to a compromise in terms of making sure there's a process to deal with projects that haven't think modified thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm with supervisor you would not wiener's office. unfortunately, he sdp isn't able to be here. after a year of public process with the hearings of the planning commission and nightmares stakeholders meetings and round table discussions. that legislation was long overdue by more than a decade and will establish the noticing for sequa appeals to the board of supervisors. so on behalf of the supervisors i want to thank this commission

for your thought of deliberations. before you as april mention is trailing legislation authorized by supervisor kim. supervisor wiener received that for the first time yesterday afternoon and hadn't have the opportunity to consider it. i want to point out that this progress be a deliberate process and not just started would one particular viewpoint. supervisor kim's amended legislation on first reading would for the first time establish a process. this appeal will allow the process of a project that is not

in need of a new environmental decision. the decision pass by the board of supervisors is very clear on what is and not a modification. this clarity doesn't exist today. the proper pass of a determination that this project hadn't been modified it should be on an appeal for a decision. and if the building permit not to be issued should not be in and of itself an appealable action. any decision predicted on it should. with that said the commissioner has an open mind and is willing

to consider the proposal of the staff and have supervisor kim. as i mentioned the supervisor just received an amended copy yesterday afternoon so we haven't gone the opportunity to look at it. but if we precede with an appeal that that appeal shouldn't stop the project in mid-construction and if the appeal is regretted there shouldn't be any further appeal action. so the supervisor is looking forward to ref the feedback & from today and a also for tomorrow in the planning commission >> thank you so, now i believe you have a good picture of the

skwoep e scope of the pictures and we believe that with the first reading of the ordinance yesterday the city has a concrete idea of a modification. a substantial modification under that ordinance is to be regulated under the planning code or new information first year so it is it a change then it would require a new sequa document. new information? a new sequa document. and those sequa documents would be renewal appealable. this is a decision that is left to the