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

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 reall

my name is carmen chu. why don't we get started. with a marking up with the department of small business -- we have been working with the department of small business. this project started when we heard from neighborhood merchants. unfortunately, they had access issues, visibility access issues. we have been working closely with many of our partners year today to educate about these -- many of our partners year today to educate about these issues. also in terms of board guidance. i want to thank all of you for coming. many of you may have assistance. i know many merchants could not be here. please do it share this information with other merchants in the area. we have virginia from the office of small business. we have roger from the bar association. no carla johnson from the office of disability. -- we have carla johnson from the office of disability. i want to especially it acknowledge my colleague to help us get the resources and brought legal expertise to the table. i do not want to take too much of your time. thank you for comin

at this point, i'd like to move this package of amendments thank you all >> thank you supervisor chu. >> so we're coming to the end of a very robust supervisor wiener's key prospective's. the public deliberation on those important procedures have resulted in the two pieces of legislation color together. ultimately i think with the amendments that president chiu has brought together we have one cohesive legislation. someone joked that i should let the labor of our work and - i want to be clear up that the supervisors we agreed with supervisor wiener that a clear process must take place. the one major change to sequa procedure that was introduced in both legislation what to establish a deadline of thirty days for smaller projects by the environmental officer or have no significant impact to the environment. it's comprise of those determination. approximately 5 thousand exemptions annual and 10 to 15 projects a year that goes to the impact report. the cornerstone was to institute a process by in spite of robust institutional process to make it easier for the public to get involved in pro

jason chu is at oakland based turn it in. his company helps instructors catch plagiarism by checking what they write against web based sources. >> it's sort of saying you know, did cheating me exist before technology or did technology perpetuate or increase the students' ability to cheat? it's very hard to say. >> reporter: they studied 38 million papers last year and found 156 million content matches to sources online. >> what we did is we categorized those matches by whether it's -- an academic homework site. whether it's a cheat site. paper mill site. or it's an encyclopedia. for example wikipedia. we bunk eted those matches under those broad categories. >> reporter: chu says there's this notion that collaboration is appropriate by virtue of the fact that it's online. >> i think that where we fall into problems perhaps is where we're not clear. what constitutes appropriate clap ration in an online course. >> reporter: chu says you don't see as many issues in a classroom with collaboration because there are clear expectatio

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 theck 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 repre

carmen chu, you're helping us bring in the money already, thank you. assessor chu. (applause) >> london breed, thank you very much, supervisor, always a pleasure to work with you as well. all of you, friends, spouses, family, people who are just enthralled with this wonderful great city of san francisco like i am. thank you for all being here to witness and honor and thank the people who are stepping up with us to help manage this wonderful great city. thank you, chief hayes white, for being here as well, and other department heads and other commissioners, thank you for joining us as well. we have 25 individuals today who are sacrificing a lot of personal time, sacrificing their own family's time away for night meetings, a lot of reading of paperwork, a lot of public engagement. we also have some 15 different bodies that you'll be appointed to today. and, so, it is my pleasure to welcome you and to suggest to you that i personally appreciate citizens of san francisco stepping forward to help us manage this city. it never is ever about one office. it's not even about

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 been inclined to adopt the staffs remedies here. what really has changed my mind is one of the ar

has been noted i'm commissioner and commissioner chu has raised some concerns at the finance committee. i'm a huge supporter of bart and i hope, of course, b r ts going forward. it's a key parted of the future in improving our transit system i'd like to have a wider transit of buses but b r t should be quicker way to deliver rapid service and to be converted into the future. we've seen this that instead of being what it should be a less expensive and quicker way of delivering service we're seeing unending process and more and more money being put into the market analysis. and this is money to go into the environmental process as opposed to get to the construction and getting it delivered. so we're not being asked to pit money into the creation of b r t we're asking to put more money after a decade of evaluation and analysis before we get to any kind of project deliver process. that's a really significant frustration. we've seen, you know, this is a boarder project delivery. we've been getting many analyze about more delay. it doesn't serve our city well, when they have the leadership a

i want to thank supervisor wiener and inspire kim for this compromise and supervisor chu for working real hard to introduce those amendments. colleagues i'm be supporting this today >> thank you mr. chair i think it's good to see the members singing kumbaya. and i think we have the different sides and prospective's coming together. thank you supervisor wiener to president chiu for his work and leadership on this and to supervisor kim who working with supervisor avalos and supervisor yee and supervisor mary have made a number of changes along with very broad coalition of community members that have struck the right balance between providing the equal it. and enhancing the community to know about the various projects that are for sequa. i especially want to note something i think it a major, major vindicate in this process. one of the major concerns i had at the beginning of this process there would be a reduction in the authority of the board of supervisors when it comes to the ability to hear appeals of final environmental impact reports. i think it's a major victory for this process