preservation and we're to take this money and say bleeding we're going to take it and use it for another city purpose. but i was just thinking another reconsideration of how those rights are used in 2013 and recycle it back. locking more into recircling back into the program. >> so the program has two criteria. so when it was amended to be eligible for t dr they put in the requirements that the revenue had to be used on that specific believe that the t dr

was used from. in 2010 there was an amendment to acquire a plan and that was just amended in april. so, now plans are required when your - you can certify t dr but wu you have to should how you're going to rehabilitate your building >> you can use the value of the t dr. >> yes as part of the amendments the most recent amendments the department felt there should be some invested interest in the building of where the t drs coming from. we base that provisions in the

code whereas, soon as the t dr is sold from 9 property they have to enter into an agreement of how over the, you know, first year and 5th year how they're going to maintain that building. not that all the proceeds of the sale go back into the building but a portion for the maintenance >> commissioner. >> this may have been there i may have missed it. since the program was amended to allow the adjacent property has any property used or sold t dr >> the mint. >> that's right. all those t dr has been sold >> we'll move this off to

public comment thank you very much. i have one speaker card. mr. edward >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm edward. i'm one of the people referred not report. the friday morning i'd like to say the incredible amount of work those folks have put into this report. if you think about the faculties been almost thirty years and no one as kept track of where the t dr has come and gone the sheet is about 8 feet long. so my position is i'm in favor

of the city selling the t dr particle on the larger assemblies they're very difficulty to put together. it would be nearly impossible to put together 1 hundred square feet right so definitely anything over 75 thousand is square feet. the real key is how do they come to market and the pricing. really it's the pricing so our recommendation would be to go out with a fixed price that would generate as much in the way of funds for the city as you mentioned. part of it was for the developer to assemble the t dr but the big

person is to raise money for the veterans believe through the t dr program. when i talked to the capital planning committee yesterday, i recommended that price might want as $35 per square feet. currently it's 25 and that's impartial because the city is going to come out with the t dr at 25 square feet. and if you look at what the additional cost is if for example, the market is 10 there's per square feet today, if you increase that to $25 per square feet it would add to the development of $1.67 per square foot. but in the private sector it's very expensive.

it mentioned the marys field and that's in excess of many dollars. the height scale - >> if i might. if my fellow commissioners the gentleman is an expert in this and if we don't mind extending his time >> and 10 tractions and that's 8 transactions. part of the issue in cigarette price is if the city sets it at $25 per square foot the private sector is going to sell it at 20

because there's a lot less risk for timing and such. so if the market is $25 per square foot the private sector is going to sell it $5 under current market. we could justify a price of 35 it raises another $25,000 for the veterans believe >> thank you any commissioners have any questions for the gentleman. any public comment on this item? >> yes. >> i am so excited about this document. i've been president this for more years than i can imagine.

the funding committee tried to fund this in 2008 it was worth also. it was sited in this document but i think it's wonderful. it answers almost all the questions one could have. i can't imagine how much time it took. bus even though the department and the gentlemen have worked very hard on this over the last 5 years there's a lot more that went into producing this report then we've been able to wrap our brains around. that doesn't mean i don't have a couple of of questions. one of the points that's missing in the report is that i believe that public t drs can only be used on buildings that are not

rehabbed. so i think we have to talk that through. i continue to be considered about the port as the gentleman pointed out we don't know whose 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 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 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 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 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 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