appeal. i understand that because the example i just gave is ms. jones would say that's not a substantial modification but that would be an opportunity for someone to appeal that particular decision. so that's all i was trying to establish. there's this new avenue because it's something the planning code regulates. >> oh, i have a - sorry commissioner. >> my question pertains to the timing how much schedule after a written decision by the environmental officer compared to the light it's set finding out out for the hearing in other words, i'm comparing with supervisor kim said to the remedies i'm leaning to the department remedies as the more suitable one but i'm interested in the timing. i'm not sure clear how much time it would take the review officer to make the decision on the written appeal >> we haven't defined a perimeter for the amount of time. i think two weeks would be probably - the procedures that we would put into place that that response to a written appeal will be provided withi

this appeal where we're asking for an appeal does not delay the project it's not a sequa appeal. this is us going to staff with the ability to say hey, we think you made a mistake. you might remember at the beginning of this process we as a coalition said it was extremely problematic to us to have to appeal the original determination payroll it's kind of wild west and because we're able to appeal after the first approval on the project it happens all the time that projects change the fact we can appeal the total environmental determination catches those moments like with the null murphy house. it protects us but we sauce saw the big thing the opponents wanted to keep was first approval. so supervisor kim's office came up with that we accept the first approval but this piece of legislation before you from supervisor kim is absolutely key. it's the reason we sponsored the rest of the legislation and it was approved yesterday >> thank you. thank you commissioner and thank you for your contributions to the city with our volunteer work. i really appreciate it. we're talking about ciga

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

appealable. so the ordinance is designed to pick up - it essentially contamination something that is a matter of board discretion that works okay. when the cad index it appealable through the final action >> d but if the cad ethics is required it's appealable. i want to make sure this is clear. >> that is not a decision whether or not a new cad index it needed but in the project meets the substantial modification. if it meets that standard it needs a new cad index. it's not an environmental sequa determination >> (multiple voices) >> you determine the project hadn't changed enough a that's what's going to be evaluated. yes. i - given that the substantial modification is specifically designed you know, i think it's up to mann anyone to guess what the specific issues or changes that would be brought up open appeal >> why would - what would be the harmony of having the appeal made as opposed to doing this - this is a over time without proper environmental review is navigate an issue of concern and m

the filing of appeals 295 determinations and planning code 295 does not contain any appeal language in it that will allow an appeal to the board and it is not a permit it is not a license, it does not allow construction, and so, having a determination and section 295, does not allow one to go out and construct a building of this height, of course a building application needs to be sought and received in order to have that happen, there will be a subsequent building permit application on this and also a 309 application that will be up for appeal shortly after this item. with that i am available for any reasons, questions. >> i believe that the appellant referred to the determination as the equivalent as an entitlement. >> that is not the case, it will not allow someone to construct the project, to a license or a permit that dates back to the city attorney opinion from 1984, which shortly after the adoption of prop k, which we have the section 295 of the planning code. thank you. >> mr. sanchez if it is not a license or a permit what is it? >> it is a determination, review and a requi

appeals. that groupings group has its own procedures and ways

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 bala

i think if we don't respect these limits on appeals, respect the period, the 15 day period, the appeal period becomes meaningless, you know, we're either going to require the appeals within that time or we're not, especially on a case like this where the speaker, mr. ringel, he did not try to present any excuse that he was out of the country, he was in the hospital, some reason why he couldn't have checked the website for the next 19 days, so i also want to state that mr. ringel has been very intimately involved in this process before may 29th, he had in fact an extensive opportunity to present all of his objections at the planning commission hearing which was recently held. they rejected all of his arguments by a 5-1 vote. in addition to that, he's appealed the same patter to the board of supervisors and that appeal is pending, so it's not as if he never had a chance to raise any issues, has been shut out of the process, he had every opportunity and indeed he took advantage of that opportunity with the one exception -- >> your time is up. >> by ignoring the advice to check the website

appeals. and if you still have that jurisdiction under the police code, then you have to accord the same rights to those appellants as to other appellants, if you don't have that jurisdiction, of course o*efrg changes but you can't have a position of convenience where you decide for one purpose, you have the jurisdiction and for another purpose, you don't have that jurisdiction. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, good evening, president hwang and fellow commissioners, i haven't been here in a long time, my name is barry toronto, and i appreciate that this ie stem is first off for discussion and it's a much needed discussion to have because the fact is that there has been a little bit of friction between the taxi staff and this body regarding how you meet out discipline on somebody who has blatantly violated the rules and regulations and laws of this city and three of you are relatively new to this process, i have a number of questions that should be asked before you decide,

due process appeal so we have to do it without recommendation. >> on cu appeals and other appeal there is is not a prohibition on the board -- on the committee moving with or without recommendation. >> okay thank you for that correction. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify so i have an understanding where we're at and president chiu you said 25 feet difference but i thought i heard they're at 480. >> right now it's at 480 but according to mr. jeffreys there was a willingness in the conversations in the last days to consider 450. i would put it out that was the conversation. >> perhaps the project sponsor can clarify. >> thank you supervisors and i apologize that mr. jeffreys isn't able to be here but i am authorized to speak on his behalf and spoke with him this afternoon. currently myelin i -- millennium is at 480 and we're not prepared to have that conversation today. >> i appreciate that and the conversations i had with mr. jeffreys i thought he was prepared or open to 450 feet and i am letting colleagues know the state and how truly close. >> and with participating as

and so if they knew about the permit and chose not to appeal it and had no basis for an appeal why are they asking for jurisdiction today? the real reason is leverage in a different case, my boss, reached out to miss fox, the tenant's at the pointer before the permit was issued and she blew him off.. and my boss refused to buy out a tenant in a different building at 642 rush avenue who she represented she responded by threatening to appeal this permit. again two different tenant and different buildings, and this is documented in our exhibits a, f. >> e-mail trails and so miss fox is either trying to trade our clients off like baseball cards or trying to bring a political issue to the board of appeals, either way of which is inappropriate. he is going to speak about the need for this work. >> i am the peer reviewer and the engineers were not available and ron hamburger one of the leading engineers in the nation and there are substances and foundation issues and we have a retaining recall and this permit needs to move forward and i am concerned about the safety of the building. >> and i

were valid appeals. and the next is for the property on 16th street with regards to jack spade wanting to relocate and they found they were not notified and the letters were not - i have been sending the letters so we mailed this to 36 groups and there were no appeals and it was reopened to a 35 day appeal. and whether or not there are appeals for building permits that the board has calendar appearing next week. so at this hearing i'll advise the board they could make an demonstration that the permits were improperly given and they didn't take jurisdiction and they will hear the matter next week on the building plagues for the jack spades store. and another was for kres listen drive. the planning commission approved it and at the hearing the board of appeals denied the permit overturning the planning commissions decisions. there was recent information that was brought to our attention. yesterday we received a letter from the county surveyor saying they're reviewing it and they received it in july. the su

robert brian and we are calling item 5, appeal number 1 3-066. gregory peters, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval1360 dolores street. protesting the issuance on may 16, 2013, to emily & aaron quinn, permit to alter a building (new one-story addition at front of building with new terrace at 2nd floor; renovation of 1st floor bathroom; renovation of

and they have challenged every appealable action and every non-appealable ones and each time using the appeals as a vehicle to challenge the height of the project no matter what the substance of the permit at issue and now they used thed 309, appeal process to again, challenge the 295 actions tonight that you determined were not the proper subject of the jurisdiction, every city body that has had the justicersing dition over the height and shadow has approved it, in addition, the project was substantially arise to address the concerns raised by the community, as originally proposed the projects would have been 605 feet tall and cast over 950 square foot hours on union square and as a result of the process, the project was reduced, to 480 feet, and cutting the shadow on the union square by 75 percent from the original proposal. and the city has properly determined that the project would not have a significant shadow impact within the meaning of both proposition k and sequa and in fact the shadows on union square would never fall after 9:15 a.m. and would fall on a few weeks a year at th

decisions but the appeal lacks merit. as you know the construction of the new projects downtown and provides for the review of the design. and confirmation of open space requirements and for authorization of certain exceptions to the planning code. the planning commission granted the determination and exceptions for this project. in order to reverse that planning commission action, the section 309 requires that this board find either that the planning commission misinterpreted the planning code or that the planning commission abused its discretion pursuant to section 309 not to proposition k. this appeal does not allow a single interpretation of the planning code or a single abuse of discretion pursuant to section 309 and meritless and first as you know the appeal makes the attacks on the planning commission's actions to increase the shadow budget on union square which you previously determined tonight are not within your jurisdiction and second, the appeal challenges, the planning commission determination that the impact

attorney robert brian and we are calling item 5, appeal number 1 3-066. gregory peters, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval1360 dolores street. protesting the issuance on may 16, 2013, to emily & aaron quinn, permit to alter a building (new one-story addition at front of building with new terrace at 2nd floor; renovation of 1st floor bathroom; renovation of exterior landscaping, stairs and entry; no changes to north and west elevations). application no. 2012/02/23/4735. for hearing today >> good morning my name is (inaudible) and i represent peters who live in the property adjacent and i want

appeals. that groupings group has its own procedures and ways to deal with things in some instances it's satisfactory and other instances not. i was impressed with the fact that if there's this appeal that supervisors kim and chu favor this project will not be debated and that's an important part of my consideration but fundamentally it is i don't think that a great deal of harm will come from allowing this proposed appeal >> thank you commissioner. >> my primary of coming in this hearing is not whether there should be an appeal but the recommend are, you know, a hearing or not i thought what i read ahead of time defended the process for a written determination but i want to congratulate the public on doing a really good job on convincing me and to come up with an agreement so the speak how this appeal should be handed. i can support a hearing because that's where we are at at this point. my understanding is assuming that's the way the vote would go the staff would have to come up with a new r

the process is today versus what the process will be next week, and we anticipate at next week's appeal that we're going the hear a lot about formula retail, and tonight is probably not the night for those types of comments, but you can say whatever you want. >> okay, one other thing, commissioners, if you were to decide to grant jurisdiction and hear all the matters together, we would not be able to hear them next week because under the code, we have to wait longer than that. >> sure, i mean, would we be -- you've already noticed the hearing. >> you can hear the two appeals that are currently on calendar regarding the building pert but you could not hear an appeal of the letter of determination. >> so, there's another process thing. so, a hearing on the merits of the letter of determination which was issued -- in the e vept we grant the jurisdiction request, that hearing would not be heard until after a hearing on the merits of the actual permits. am i being unclear? >> no. >> am i confusing everyone? >> i think we just need to hear -- >> we can hear them all together, you would have t