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 think at any time highly problematic so have a mechanism whereby you appeal you have to use the building permit to that address the environmental officer. in that case you can delay the process every longer because you can wait until the actual permit t is issued. so if that's the last approval then i have a mechanism to rely

on in that respect by appealing the building permit itself but to use the permit as an excuse to royal the decision by the environmental officer is problematic. and with respect to the integrity of the planning staff and city departments and everything. i'd like to remind everyone that the city lost the case on the bicycling plan and the judge ruled it had to be back for an vial report and the city lost the housing element eir so it's not also the case the city makes the correct distressing. tim collins said i don't know if

you read the newspaper in his other life he's a geologist and on another argument this was too costly and too time consuming and would eat up the resources of the planning staff. that argument was made previously and i think that this commission should not take into account if it's something 3 needs to be done the mayor's office will make it happen >> thank you any other member of the public wish to speak. seeing none, we'll close and bring it back to commission. i'll leadoff. at first blush i was hesitating

on adding the process, however, thinking about it and the length of time to get to the board of appeals and the amen of time between a project starting and finishing the board of appeals - i mean, i think they would not be experts in the field to make sdergsz i think it might go sideways. bringing it back to the eshthsz r o strengthens the case and would cause folks hesitation on going to the board of appeals if the e r o confirms their decision. i believe this would be a benefit to the process rather than a potential problem so those are envy thoughts and i'm in support of the amendments made by supervisor kim and chu

>> i'm not in support of it. i comment hearing from the supporters of the legislation. i heard it's not about the current e r o it's from 10 to 15 years when someone might want to sneak a project through or it's bans a few mistakes that others make. there was a lot of ifs and buts we're all human i don't deny that. i'm sorry, i have the same concerns about opening up another possible appeal process because there are, you know, there's a great history of

people being vindictive and a neighborhood being on top of neighborhood and the fight are plated out in the public forum through the planning commission. in terms of the historical buildings we do protect those amazing well. the certificate of appropriate process is wonderful and the slightly modification requires it to be looked at again. if the project changes the smallest thing it does have to be reviewed again. we're not in any danger of hurting our historic buildings by not having a process that, you know, opens up this door

that the e r o has to a review. the other thing is i don't know what the consequences are if there's an appeal process and like i would the e r o is only human and obviously new information can come to light but it's been reviewed by the e r o and the planning staff and you're asking them to go back and look at that information. i assume that someone who is political phone number for an appeal would know that. this is a big solution to a very, very small problem and creates a big process for a very small problem. so that's where i stand on it. >> first, i'd like to thank the

members of the public for sharing their comments and the amendments. i know that i read all the e-mails we received. i support supervisor kim and a chus amendment. i think that there needs to be a mechanism to review this project and we're not talking about too many projects and i don't believe that proposal will in any way postpone that interest people we received messages from and my observation at large is people in the community can tell us what's going on and if they feel something is wrong this

should have the process. and, yes i believe there are vin you disk people but i believe that communities stick together and want to promote the good for the community. i strongly urge my fellow commissioners to consider that >> actually, i couldn't have said it better. one thing we have to remember is we've gotten so far in this process and for 10 years we couldn't do that. and so have another set of eye' d is not a big issue. so far as the staff remthsdz i think it would either be not sporting the legislation everywhere providing for the public hearing because i don't see the reconsideration in a written format or in an

administrative process really changing anything. so i would support the commissioners in supporting supervisor kim and supervisor chus legislation >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. i also say a comment about the historic properties are protected actually most historic properties are not landmarks their proptsd that have historic but have no designation at all. i think about 2 hundred and 50 landmarks and there are many, many properties that have no designation and the sequa process is one of the few methods of review you have those properties. and i think that it only takes a

2350i projects where you have a personal experience where something depose array where we here about the ortega branch library they received the sequa determination but the sequa determination deemed there were no changes to the project. and this kind of appeal process would have helped it was an unfortunate process and the ortega library was that demolished and the other library was small and it was extensively altered. so i'm no support >> thank you. i've