so this mechanism for appeal has to do with a project down the line after the sequa he appeal you period is achieved so after the initial appeal is over. so after the project has gone through the process for principle of law then at a later date is the appeal reopened. so the way that the ordinance is drafted now it says very clearly if the project changes in ways that are by the planning code like increases no scale or other things the policy recollects it would be a modified project that requires a new environmental determination which opposite side up a new appeal period. the question is if the project has changed a little bit the window moves a little bit here or there it comes back and the e r o don't the public then have the right to 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.

it gets approved and posted there is a thirty or 60 day sequa appeal from the time >> the sequa appeal period is thirty days from project or under the ordinance that is passed the first reading the sequa appeal period is extends to thirty days after the approval action. and that is to allow the project to go forward. the way the ordinance is structured when the equipment's is structured it is issued sentiments months before it's approved. so the exemption is posted and an appeal of the indemnification maybe filed tattoo during the exemption it's final list so it maybe filed starting with the exemption is posted and ending thirty days after the approval of the project >> i guess i'm not following you. so the projects posting of on exemption is that - >> that doesn't start the thirty day clock. the approval starts the clock >> the building permit is the start. the equipment's and the approval are issued open the same day. at any time done edify the counter. it's by - >> i want to clarify that. if you submit the project for the environmental determination it maybe 3 months later before yo

so this mechanism for appeal has to do with a project down the line after the sequa he appeal you period is achieved so after the initial appeal is over. so after the project has gone through the process for principle of law then at a later date is the appeal reopened. so the way that the ordinance is drafted now it says very clearly if the project changes in ways that are by the planning code like increases no scale or other things the policy recollects it would be a modified project that requires a new environmental determination which opposite side up a new appeal period. the question is if the project has changed a little bit the window moves a little bit here or there it comes back and the e uld - 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 recommendat

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.

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 pu

appeal are different. our planning commissions review under the california quality act sequa announced the adequacy and completeness of the examinations. this is a legislation hearing and to over turn needs 6 votes of this board. our consideration of the appeal of the use authorization involves an analysis whether the planning commissions determination was appropriate. the second hearing is quasi and we're required to afford the project sponsor due process to over turn the authorization of the continual condition 8 votes of the board are required. while into need the consideration and the members of the public who wish to speak and the consideration of the patents my suggestion is we condolences hearings. the public planning department and sponsor each receive a fair opportunity to address the appeals. first, the pales will have up to fourteen minutes to peel and next the members of the public meaning i request the board to regret the project may speak up to 2 minutes. we ask the speakers address the progress. we'll have 15 minutes to address the analysis and for first year it's authorization of the plan unit devel

appeals are for the wisely facility. both the commissions come be used authorization and the departments sequa determination were appealed. the commission had approved it on july 6th. and to make sure that the fire safety measures were pledged and u staff to continue to work on the design modifications. at the board meeting the appellants continued to raise questions and expressed that the department of building inspection would be upheld. the fire you code are non-discretionary and the d b i will not issue any permits. during the meeting flooding and safety came up. and supervisor yee asked for the height to be raised on the ground floor. the project sponsor agreed to make the changes. this project is located in supervisor farrell's district he assured them that the project wouldn't result in any public threat. and then i'm not going to give you the full run down but there were a number of items that passed. one it is the mission acholic beverage. the sequa procedures ordinance which would handle the project modifications passed on final reading. and the formula for market street passes. 76 mission passed and the bicycl

lastly, the remaining sequa ordinance that creates the overall appeal it is responded by commissioner wiener's for kim's major proposal that was passed on first and final reading. this was taementsdz by 3 pass boards and it was approved and a can i ask supervisors kim's controls on market street did they not come to planning commission because of the planning code >> integral codes are a not due to come here so it's the intent to try to get it through as opposed to but the intermediate controls are to address the issues. >> commissioner moore. >> could sometime next week someone give us a content update to know what the controls entail. i'm not interested in voting. we can learn from those kinds of things >> yeah. there's a description in our packet for later than on the agenda calendar so we can discuss it when we talk about formula. >> what was the boarders of the market street. >> from 6th to van ness. >> okay. thank you. thank you >> commissioners i have no report from the board of appeals. if there's nothing further we can move ton on to the public and you can talk about the agen

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 argument made by staff is this is a substantial new process without any need. and i think they maybe correct in that. but there's another aspect to it which is that if, in fact, these - there isn't a need for this particular process the only harm that can come of it will be at the hands of nasty people who wish to obstruct other perfectly proper and desirable projects. i don't think there will be many of them. the climate in san francisco seems to have changed over the recent years and the people are not somewhat less than inclined to support obstruction of projects. when the obstruction is not based on something that is really to do with the project itself and is motivated by ill will or a poli

i believe i am prepared to move that the appeal be denied that the 309 determination be upheld and i believe that through that, we would also have to adopt sequa finding? >> that is correct. >> and that would also be good to state a basis there was no error of interpretation or abuse of discretion and i do have draft findings for the board. and if you would like i can read them into the record and if they are acceptable we can include them as the board's findings. >> are they similar to what was in the project sponsor's brief? >> i don't believe they are. i think that they are unique to what this case... >> why don't you read it. >> i will try to read quickly. >> so having heard all of the public testimony and reviewed the record in this matter, the board of appeals denies appeal 13-070 protesting the issuance of planning commission 18894, approving a planning code 309 determination of compliance and granting of acceptance for the mission street mexican museum towers project for the following reasons, based on the record which includes but is not limited to the environmental impact report for the project and the planning department findings, i