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 up the 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

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 dec a ch

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 public can peel a decision of 60 days. 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

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 discretion of the c r o. it would be without - this is the main reason we believe the new process for appeal should not be loud. first there is an exiting avenue for appeal as you've heard. if the public believes it's based on a sequa permit that would be appealable. it is for improperly issued

permits. this is a substantial new process with balance and need. we've reviewed the last 10 years and found that modified issues were not present. the appeals received a discretionary review hearing. those projects were known to neighbors and were of concern. since the primarily i primary goal is to provide certainty of the appeals. this appeal could undermine this goal. adding process is something it that happens all the time. in this case, the department believes that this would be too high a need await benefit.

in conclusion the department values the oversight apparently, this would allow individuals to provide a written petition and this will provide us with the opportunity to consider their viewpoints. there is substantially a need. projects that change after any manner will require a new hearing. so that concludes our recommendations of the e r o is here if you have any questions otherwise move into public

comment >> i have a question for ms. rogers. so i can fully understand that. so when a project is submitted for an exemption the drawings tend to be pretty dpraefk with the preliminary set of drawings i might submit >> i would like to deter to the folks responsible for that portion. >> okay. >> so i'm just trying to understand the procedural process. if you're submitting let's say for example, your republican vavt a house and for your exemption you might have

preliminary set of drawings. if it's a project that requires the same section it's essentially the same set of drawings that would be needed. we need as much information as possible. so if it's a historic repeal evaluation if it's large we may need additional information but if it's small we wouldn't need detailed drawings. often it's quite early fairly conceptual >> yes, it needs to be done ann at an early stage. >> so if they decide to change

like in the materials. >> presuming there are no historic issues involved with the building materials would come into play that isn't something that both be part of the project description for exemptions so therefore it wouldn't trigger the need. but if it didn't trigger the need would it be appealable and that's the question at hand is how and whether that decision should be appealable >> it's really in the original exemption vs. what's in the real final project. >> right. if we have to do an exemption

certificate so if we need to do a certificate there's about a one paragraph project description saying if they have a house of this size and the believe will be this height and have this many parking it could affect the environment but if you're talking about a landmark we're going to describe for example, the character of the window opening is so we can say in the exemption 3 this project as it's described we know for sure isn't going to have american people effect on the environment. so if you're talking about a more sensitive description the project might be more detailed

and it might trigger a new exemption >> thank you. >> don't go because i have a followup question to that. so if the way this comes out there is not an appeal in the situation. do you anticipate that the result of that system would be that the initial description it is submitted would be more detailed? >> rather than less detailed. >> we've madeor project descriptions more vigorous. we've put our categorical map on line already and we've added a space for project description. so we're i think beig ve

mindul of project discrepancys >> it seems that if someone who wants a project would want to make it as specific as possible so the appeal would be foreclosed once there's a determination that he or she who supported the project wouldn't want to leave the project open to a substantial modification because it's stucco rather than tiles. >> i don't believe we would add description to the project that is not pertinent to the project at hand. i canned splat that

>> i did have i hope - i really have a question for you for supervisor wiener's office. have you seen or has the supervisors seen the recommendations at the our staff made? >> he has yes. >> he has and what is his opinion. >> he concurs. >> i understand that supervisor kim also concurred; is that correct? >> no that's not correct. the staff recommendations a written recommendation and we're going to have a hearing before the environmental review officer in which the public will be able to speak. one clarification i have is that wouldn't be considered an appeal

related to our sequa procedures. that's just an up to the present time for the public to discuss the decision of the e r o regarding accident project hadn't had substantial modification. so should mr. there be a reverse all that would be the ability to reconsider the determination >> i think ms. jones. i'm really trying to get a handle on the modification. it's relevant to me there are many projects there's an original project it is bulk out to the biggest size and then it's worked with the department and the neighbors may not agree

and the sequa determination has been issued and the neighbors are step up still upset and now i'm making my project smaller i've eliminated parking spaces so the review is a change but, of course, you're now having less environmental impact. so it seems that what may be kim's take on this this still could be appealed and now - >> in the ordinance as it passed first reading yesterday a substantial modification is defined as an expansion or