benefits, and it could be a model at the international level as well. we want to thank you for your interest and support in the project and are here to answer any questions you might have. supervisor maxwell: questions? supervisor mar. supervisor mar: thank you very much for passing the ordinance and for the detailed explanation. seems that the resources are significant. i would like to see the slides. could you forward those at some point so we can look at the more carefully? i am especially interested in the elimination of food desert'' and getting young people more involved with healthier eating and life styles in their communities. it sounds like the next step for the puc is more of an implementation plan for the community benefits ordinance. >> that is exactly where we are. as we have had conversations over the last couple of months with both the commissioners as

well as several of the board of supervisors, what is interesting is as you look at the inventory and look at how the investments have been taking place in the past is that we have been doing it, so it is not like there has not been community benefit activity happening, but it has been somewhat scattershot and not as intentional as both the commission and leadership within the puc would like to see it happen. we are in the place now with the passage of community benefits policy that we are celebrating that this is the direction we want to head, and the question comes into play as to how we operate, how we coordinate the good things we are doing, amplify what should be growing and create new initiatives. it crosses each of the enterprises, which is also extremely exciting. there's so much overlap between wastewater and arts and jobs and what we are doing in infrastructure and water and power, so there is a huge coordination peace that we are just beginning to hit the ground running. supervisor mar: my daughter, her

co-worker the weekend was writing an article over the ptolemy -- the tuolome river. the schools and the curriculum are great, and i hope a lot of schools take advantage of the visits to the treatment plant and learning how the water works and creating a more sustainable water system as well. thank you. supervisor maxwell: thank you. i very much appreciate it, and i think what we can understand is that the puc has to do a lot of this work anyway. it is how they are going about doing it that is really benefiting everybody in the community, so again, i want to thank you all for all of your efforts because it takes a lot of effort to do it this way, but it certainly pays off. again, thank you so much, all of you. really appreciate it. any other comments from anybody on your team? all right. thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment? public comment?

all right. mr. eric brooks. eric, why don't you come on up? >> good afternoon, commissioners. derrick brooks representing san francisco green party in our city -- eric brooks. i was not here for the entire presentation, but in the previous meeting, i had mentioned something that is really crucial that we got nailed down on community benefits. first of all, want to commend ms. ellis and her staff. this is groundbreaking stuff, and it puts san francisco far ahead of any other city in the country. i wanted to make sure there was follow-up on what i commented on last time, which is that when nonprofit groups or even for- profit companies are out in the community advocating for community benefit, it is very important day our firewall from the actual community benefits money that is created, such that

they have to bid for contracts just like everyone else -- it is very important that they are firewalled. that would be the first thing. they should also be barred from kind of serving in a godfather role of advocate for community benefits bonds. and then somehow end up sitting on a panel about how those funds are distributed to other non profits. that is not good either. so we need to make sure that that is being done. and then the contractors that do the projects themselves should also not be able to go directly to those nonprofits and contract them. they should have a bid process through the city or the agency. so because it is holidays, and i have not heard a lot from the folks that are working on this on feedback on that point, so we could ascertain that and make sure that that -- something to make sure that that is moving forward. that would be very important. so thanks.

>> my name is francisco da costa. i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy. i have been following this since 1980. i was here for a number of meetings, and somehow, we were not getting the right information, and we still need to address it in some manner that is holistic. first and foremost, supervisors, you have to understand that hetch hetchy and the water belongs to the first people. so in any deliberation where we use this sacred water, we have to not only respect them, but we have to reach out to them. today, i was on a radio show where they were talking about water resources all over this nation.

where more and more water resources are being taken over by private entities. if we and you supervisors and politicians are not very tactful, how we take care of our water, how we maintain our system and how we charge our customers, we will be in big trouble. one of the reasons why they are spending $4.6 billion is because in past years, our mayors have cut into the general fund and deferred maintenance. today, after about three or four attempts, we still want to know what percentage of the $2.6 billion of the money spent from

our bond measures are spent on our community, and we need that detailed report. i cannot express that in just two minutes. supervisor maxwell: thank you very much. is there any further public comment? public comment is closed. quickly, can anybody speak to what mr. bruce mentioned about -- what mr. burke's mentioned about the non profits coming in? can anybody speak to the fire wall we have in place that protect us? >> again, julie ellis, assistant general manager for general affairs. eric brooks makes a really important comment about having some sort of separation and making sure that -- to me, the question is how are we in ensuring transparency and accountability with how decisions are getting made around community benefit investments? because we are in the process of

developing the program, specifically coming up with what are the decision making processes and how do we ensure that we are being transparent and accountable, we have been getting information from a bunch of different types of stakeholders. the issue has come up, so it is front and center, as we will come with other resources to make sure that we are doing it in a way that is responsible and does not allow for those types of misuses and inappropriate relationships to take place, but at the same time, i would also say that we are looking for opportunities, knowing that for some of our nonprofit partners that are on the ground -- i think about the number of nonprofits, whether it is in bayview/hunters point or in alameda by sunol, or places where we will be developing community centers and we have this service with residents about how we will be developing community centers, that, to me, seems like an appropriate position to be contacting with

potentially a nonprofit that has access in a much more in-depth way than an agency as big as the puc would have. looking for those opportunities to do collaboration via things we needed to gather information from community members, but that we are also extremely clear that it would be inappropriate for us to be having nonprofits or other folks, whether it is contractors or consultants, to be on decision making panels and influencing the puc and financially benefiting from that, and then we will have that front and center. supervisor mar: i was just going to say that from your presentation last week and this week, i also understand that the boat is coming up in early january for the puc, so that is, like, in the first couple of weeks of january -- i understand that the vote is coming up. you have given the review that there is about 80 different projects you are trying to pull together, and i think it is within your first week of trying

to be on the job as well, and i understand the geographical scope, so the scope is pretty broad of what your doing. i just wanted to ask to get more information also about project will and the high school student work and what we are doing with the san francisco unified school district downtown, which is more information about how i can be supported as well, but i really appreciate the presentation as well. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, then, if there are no more questions or comments, thank you, all of you, for coming in. why don't we filed this -- why don't we file this? item one. >> item 1, ordinance amending the administrative code regarding the appeals process under the california environmental quality act to clarify procedures and public notice. supervisor maxwell: all right,

you are on. thank you for coming me. >> thank you for having me here today. colleagues, before we begin, we need to have a couple of amendments that the deputy city attorney has drafted since our last meeting. the amendments have been suggested by the city attorney's office and clarify the ordinance so that it is consistent with state law and filing notices of intention and notices of determination. is that correct? if you would not mind. >> supervisor maxwell, supervisor alioto-pier, city attorney's office. there are three changes. you have the amended ordinance in front of you, and there are extra copies for members of the public that would like to review the changes. it is to ensure consistency with state law when notices of

exception are filed, and i will notify to you -- notify you of the changes line by line. the first is on page seven, line 22, subsection 31.08j, and it starts on line 22. it is to clarify when a notice of exemption may be filed. the exchange is on page 18, line 20. this is in section 31.15. it is just to clarify when a notice of termination for an eir would be filed. it is a whole new subsection. on page 23, line six, there is a deletion of a clause in section 31.16b11. starting on line six. it refers again to when the

notice of the exemption may be filed. supervisor mar: i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> it is on page 43, line six. 31.16b11. it is this clause that starts on line 6, provided that a notice of the exemption or determination shall not be filed for effective until all appeals. have expired and any appeals have finally been resolved. those provisions have been moved into the individual sections on eir's and exemptions to clarify the law with respect to each. there is one more change that the committee actually made last week that i overlooked when i was in putting the changes, and it is on page 25, line 13. we changed the word "within" to "no later than."

that was an amendment made last week, and adds is neglected to include it. supervisor alioto-pier: it is my understanding we need to move those. it is also my understanding that several of these concerns have been raised by the planning department and others regarding specifically what was mentioned. changes to a censure and determination procedures as outlined in section 31.08 and in portions of section 31.16. one path forward here is to sever the changes to the exemption determination procedures and proceed on the remaining changes. i also understand that our director of planning is here and can further elaborate on why he has concerns about the changes and exemption procedure. supervisor chiu: could i just ask for clarification? in the version of the

legislation we have, what exactly would you be severing? supervisor alioto-pier: why don't i let miss daisy cover those? supervisor maxwell: ms. stacey, could you cover the splitting of the file and what we would consider today? - standing as it would cover the negative declaration today and the environmental impact report, but if you could go over that -- my understanding is it would cover the negative declaration today. >> my understanding is that the planning department has asked that all of section 31.08 b seven out of this ordinance. supervisor maxwell: for those who do not have that, what would that be, do you know? >> 31.8 deals with exemption determinations. in includes a number of provisions about exemptions, including new notice requirements, some referrals to the historic preservation commission, and notice

requirements to the public, and it also has to do with notices of exemptions, so all up 31.08 is taken out of this file. we would have existing section 31.08 with respect to exemptions, so we are in chapter 31 right now. 31.08 deals with exemptions generally, not just appeals of exemptions. supervisor maxwell: so what you are saying is the planning department is -- it would be better to let them -- supervisor, would that be ok if we allow the planning department to straighten that out? >> first, to answer the technical question. in a nutshell, our concerns have been about the changes that were

made fairly late in the planning process, as late as last week as i recall. they are centered on the exemptions. the appeal process for exemptions and how that process is carried out. the concerns we have about the language in front of you -- i think frankly, it was an unintended consequence of these changes, that it actually creates more uncertainty in the process and allows for appeals very late in a project's life span, even after construction has started, so that's i think there are some legitimate concerns about the categorical exemption, or i should say the exemption process and the appeals we have today. i'm happy to sit down with folks to talk about that. i just think that given the lateness of the hour, frankly, on these particular round of changes, we would like more time to work on them to understand if there is another way to get at

those concerns. our recommendation for our one thought of how to do that is to take out the language that would change the appeals process for exemptions, which is what this was referred to, and move it forward with the portions of this eminence that deal with eir's, which you had previously discussed, which had been vetted by a larger group, but then sever the part with exemption so we have a larger time to work on it. supervisor maxwell: the negative declaration and the environmental impact report, you feel comfortable, and you feel that has been thoroughly vetted, and the extension part you feel uncomfortable about because there have been some last-minute changes that may be even the commission has not been able to see and go over. >> that is certainly true, and i forgot to mention that point. the planning commission was not able to see those changes because those came after review. that will be another reason for us to take a little more time with that part of the proposal.

supervisor chiu: you are talking about severing out section four, right? which refers to section 31.08, and that is page four, line nine, through page 8, line 8? >> i do not have the very latest in front of me, so i will need someone to confirm that. >> planning department staff. just to be clear, it is not taking the entire section out. it is basically leaving the section as it is, so it is essentially substituting back to the section 31.08, 31.16. do not change this, but to make changes that you proposed throughout the rest of the document. supervisor chiu: with regard to section 31.16, no changes there?

revert back to the current draft? >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: that is actually two sections, not one, right? >> yes. supervisor chiu: i understand you are not taking it out, you are saying leaving 31.08 as it is, which means for purposes of today's discussion, we are moving those couple of pages that refer to section four and doing the same for section 10, taking section 10 out of this legislation? >> only the sections that have section e and the references in a and b. as i understand it, all those would be changed. would be only the references to existence. supervisor chiu: i'm sorry, i probably need you to walk me through that again. i think section e was what i meant last time, right?

starting with page 18, section 10 referring to amendments of section 31.16, where would you be? >> the changes would be in section a where there is a reference in three and four two exemptions. since there is no corresponding language, it changes how exemption appeals would be handled. those two sections would disappear as well. supervisor chiu: page 19, line five through eight. >> right. in section b, there is a reference to section e below, but that would not be there. then, on page 25, the entirety of section e, as i understand it.

supervisor chiu: meaning page 25, line seven, all the way through the end of the legislation? ok. supervisor maxwell: all right, supervisor. you still have time. we are not doing anything yet. supervisor mar: i actually have a couple of questions for planning. supervisor maxwell: who would you like to hear from? supervisor mar: whoever is most familiar with the latest draft of the legislation. on page 19, line 15, under section 31.16, it says appellants may sign a letter of appeal or may have agents

authorized in writing, and my understanding is the language are around authorization in writing does not refer to anything that is in the code. >> we had nothing to do with those changes. the additions of changes, so i do not have an issue. we have an occasion where someone has filed an appeal or has represented themselves as representing a property, and that is why it is written. but we have no issues with this, with what you're suggesting. i think it has the same meeting, same intent. supervisor alioto-pier: if i may, that request came specifically from the clerk's office, just because it can be very confusing for them, and this was their way of -- just so you know where it came from. supervisor mar: and then, on page 22, there is language that

states the new language says the decision or determination made the final and may not be appealed again. that could apply to extensions, right? is it meant to apply new exemptions? >> without the other -- this is stated as a broad situation. language about the exception appeals were taken out of the rest of it, of the ordinance, i do not think it would apply to exemptions. the city attorney can speak to that, but that would be - understanding. supervisor mar: my suggestion would be if there is a way to tighten the language so that it is clear, it might alleviate some of the questions that have been raised. and if there is a way for you to approach something, i would be very willing to consider that. then, on page 24, line 17 to 20,

could you explain the impact of that language? how that got in here? then essentially, what this is staging is the case law for how an appellant body, whether it is the board or a judge, should evaluate - declaration challenges, and the phrase that is used is fair argument. the ordinance, as it exists now, that language is not there, but fair argument is a commonly understood standard for - declaration of appeals, which is a different standard than four -- for eir's. the substantial evidence for eir's is a standard that puts more of a burden on an appellant to demonstrate that they have made a case. the fair argument is more that

there is credible evidence that supports an argument. you do not necessarily have to be right, but you have some argument and some supporting evidence is the standard. my understanding is this is something that some of the community members wanted to have stated in the ordinance because it is a well-established legal standard. supervisor mar: ok, thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right, thank you. supervisors, any further comment? normally what we like to do is open up for public comment said they can comment on the amendments before we pass them -- so they can comment on the amendments before we pass them. are we ready for that? ok, any public comment on this item? all right, we have cards. francisco da costa. >> good afternoon, supervisors, eric brooks representing seven cisco green party and the grass- roots organization in our city.

i think we can see in an exchange that just took place that there are so many convolutions in what we have reached in this legislation that, frankly, the whole thing should be held up and worked on much more, probably back to square one on it. the sections that you are prepared to go forward with i would actually take issue with what was just stated by staffe. this is just an example -- on the issue of this fair argument language. in san francisco, we have adopted a precautionary principle, and that means that if there might be a problem, you do not go ahead with something. there are several places in which you are about to move forward that direct planning and the board and other agencies, when they determine on - declarations, whether a fair argument has been presented that significant prior mental impact may occur -- the significant

environmental impacts may occur. there is language that states that planning and the board, etc., shall approve - declarations if a project cannot have a significant effect on the environment and shell overrule a negative declaration if a project "may have a significant effect on the environment." that might put a greater burden on both the appellants and staff, but it puts a very clear burden on appellants and staff to show that there is no possible way that there is an environmental -- a serious environmental impact from approving a negative declaration. then, another piece of the legislation -- notices to people 300 feet away for the border of a bay area plan should still be notified, and that is stricken in here. what i'm getting at is this stuff is just really confusing. advocates are all over the map

on it. it is like carrying around a bucket with water and trying to put tape on holes and not keeping all the holes. we need to hold this up until they can become a comprehensive peace that is approved by everybody. >> first and foremost, board of supervisors, this committee has been pretty high style to me once. so you will see that what i do is only when my card is read will i approached the podium. i can take some other action, which i will in due course. having said that, this matter came up before the planning department. there was no discussion. there was just some deliberation as to what happened withpp