be in about a week plus. but from my perspective, i think we have reached, hopefully the end of the road here at land use, obviously we'd like to hear public comment, but i hoev that we might be able to move both of these items out and i do hope in a week or so we will be at a place where we'll be able to bring all parties together. and i want to thank everyone for your incredible patience, the amazing amount of work that's gone into this and advocacy, and hope that we are truly at the 11th hour and soon will be able to reach the end of the road on ceqa reform. >> thank you, president chiu. i just have a couple of questions. in terms of one of the -- in terms of specifying language around modifications, in terms of stiping the modification can trigger new environmental review, can you just clarify what you mean by that? >> sure thing. and, in fact, i might ask the

planning department if you want to weigh in on this. but the challenge that a lot of folks had was if we were gotion to allow first approval to really be the mark, people wanted to ensure that if there were subsequent changes to the project, the environmental review officer would have some strict definitions of what would constitute a review. ~ going that's what i meant by specifying the language around modifications. what i'd like to ask, ms. jones, if you want to talk about the specific changes we are discussing, i'm happy to read them as well, of at least what we're discussing at this moment, the idea is to have a very tight standard so that -- that our ero and ministerial duties will be comparing the proposed modifications to the standard that's laid out in this legislation. and if it turns out that the modifications go beyond what we expect them to, that that would trigger additional review. and i'll ask ms. jones if you wanted to answer that question yourself.

>> external. thank you, and good afternoon, supervisors. ~ certainly on the issue of modifications i'll start with how it stands now, where if a project is re-referred to the planning department, it is up to the discretion of the er o. to determine if a new exemption is needed. ~ ero on a practical level, if the project still falls within the original exemption class, often it doesn't rise to the level of needing a new exemption, and that exemption remains appealable under the current procedures. as proposed under the legislation, the situations in which a project would be considered modified for ceqa purposes are spelled out and it essentially does have to do with any -- any change to the project which expands the size or intensity of it under the planning code for an aspect

that is regulated under the planning code. so, that is defined and the legislation would require that a new exemption be issued, even if the project still falls within the same exemption class as the original exemption. and then that new exemption would be newly appealable. >> and today, if someone goes in and gets a project approved under an exemption for a one-story building and then in the middle of it goes back and says, you know what, we want to build two stories, my understanding is you would currently -- that would trigger a new ceqa appeal period today? >> today, that would be up to the ero's discretion whether a new exemption would be needed. but the original exemption itself would remain appealable if it had not already been appealed to the board of supervisors. >> because of that material it change to the project? >> because -- because it would be a new discretionary approval

that had occurred. >> right. >> and, so, that would then extend the timeline in which an exemption could be appealed today. >> correct. because i think that -- also we base it on the final approval today. and i think that when it comes to modifications, i think everyone -- my sense is there is consensus that when there is some sort of significant change to the project where it effectively becomes a different project, one become a two-story addition instead of a one story addition, a project a would be approved with no change to the building's envelope and all of a sudden to the change that you are changing the envelope? i think everyone agrees that that kind of modification should trigger a potential appeal if someone wants to appeal it and you shouldn't be able to get one project approved and pull a fast one intentionally or unintentionally. >> exactly. >> by changing the project. so, i have -- and i think we

tried and if there are further amendments to really tighten the standards of what is a modification that requires a new exemption or what is not a modification, i think i would support that. the question is to planning or president chiu, that if someone were to -- if we have these standards in place and then the ero, ms. jones or whoever else were to determine, this is not the kind of modification that triggers a new cad ex and say, i'm not issuing a new cad ex, could that decision be appealed? because that would effectively create an appeal for every single modification. >> so, again, the idea here is that if there is a party that disagrees with the ero's decision, the ero would have a public hearing to basically make the case as to why a

particular change is not a modification. the party would offer opportunity to change the issues, but that would be the end of it. >> okay. >> and part of what we want to do is create a record -- everyone believes that we're not going to have many of these appeals, and so the idea is to say, well, if there are modifications and there are an appeal, let's create a little bit of a record next year and let's see if this is actually the case. and at the end of the year we'll put in a reporting requirement to let the planning department and the public and the board know if this is a real problem or not. and if in a year or two it turns out there's a real problem, we may have to look at this again. but if we all believe that it's not going to be a problem, if it's not a problem, hopefully we have solved it. >> okay. so, i appreciate that, that clarification. so, just a couple of comments on president chiu's amendments at that line. i think with one exception, which i still have some

questions about, i think that these appear -- what i've just heard -- to be reasonable amendments that by and large are very consistent with what i've been trying to do for the last seven months with this legislation. really, the heart of the legislation is to set a deadline for ceqa appeals and then to have that deadline actually have [speaker not understood] where that is actually the deadline so there would be no subsequent opportunity to reopen an appeal, unless there were some material change to the project that as we just discussed, which i think we would all agree which should or could trigger an appeal. right now our system, and this is a system i think would be maintained in supervisor kim's legislation, is to allow for multiple appeals, potentially an appeal for every time you have a modification.

not just one appeal, but appeal and potentially another appeal and another appeal, so, multiple appeals. and also appeals in the middle of construction. because if you allow for, say, an appeal or require a new cad ex to be issued every time there's a modification, then you can have appeals right in the middle of construction. and that is a problem. so, really the heart of my legislation is to set that firm deadline, to set it at the first approval of the entire project and then not to allow for appeals in the middle of construction, multiple appeals. and when i say no appeals in the middle of construction, let's assume there has not been some sort of material change that changes the project. so, it appears that these amendments would be consistent

with that core of the legislation that i proposed. and i think it's good to clarify, and i appreciate that, especially in terms of being really strong in how we define what is a modification because i do understand the concern that projects in some circumstances can change, and that that has been a frustration for some people. sometimes they change and they don't bother to go back and get new permits. and that is an enforcement issue. so, that all seems reasonable to me. president chiu, yes. >> i just wanted to say a couple things. first of all to the public who may be wondering why we hadn't had a chance to talk about this again, for folks who are not familiar with the brown act, supervisor wiener and supervisor kim and i cannot confer on this. so, this is the first time they are seeing this list even though it's been worked on with the planning department and members of the community ferment i do want to mention there are also handouts that summarize the amendments i just made up at the front. ~ so, folks want to get a copy, it is up at the front.

and the third thing i want to mention is on this issue of the public hearing with the environmental review officer, this is a concept that needs to go back under our rules to the planning department for their consideration. so, it's going to trail as far as the legislative process likely trail by a few weeks, us being able to consider the main body of legislation. but it is my hope that we'll be able to wrap up this issue as soon as possible to really address this for everybody. >> thank you. and just a few other things. i was also, in terms of these amendments and what they do not encompass as president chiu just mentioned, which i think is very important. and i have a lot of respect for the work supervisor kim has put in at this legislation and i think the feeling is mutual. but we had -- there are some significant disagreements. i pointed out repeatedly that i do not agree with requiring the

enhanced notice for every building, every -- even minor exterior on buildings 50 years or older 50% of our stock and park projects. i'm glad that is not included in the amendments. the appeals of addenda and automatic allowance for appeals of any modifications, i'm glad that is not in the amendment. again, i think that these are -- this is a positive step. two other things. president chiu, in terms of the amendment for prioritizing ceqa review of affordable housing and bike and pedestrian safety projects, one of the -- and i've said this before and i think my perspective is the same. but i understand the desire for that and i certainly want these kinds of projects to be able to move to the process as quickly as possible. these are projects that are

resource constrained and, so, it's important that they not be delayed. and they are all extremely important. what my question about this is when it comes to the use of the planning department's resources -- and again, i don't know exactly how this amendment is going to be couched. when it comes to how we allocate the planning department's limited resources, there are a lot of very important demands on those resources. affordable housing, bike and pedestrian projects are certainly among those demands. obviously if a small homeowner is trying to do work and is delayed, that's another demand. but in addition, there are other i think -- probably i assume stipulated high priority projects such as park projects, library projects, public transportation projects, clean energy projects, building a child care center. i mean, we could go on and on

with projects that i think we would probably all agree are very important or also resource constrained. and that should also be prioritized. so, again, without knowing what exactly this is going to say, you know, i just have that continuing question. and i don't know if the planning department and mr. ram, you may know more about the details of this proposal than i do, but that's just a question that i continue to have. >> thank you, supervisor. i've always been concerned about codifying this because of the very issue you just raised. at what point do we define what those priority projects are. right now our practice has always been to prioritize all public projects, especially affordable housing for elks. and if you recall we did get some additional resources last year to prioritize environmental reviews for large public projects since we were constantly shifting private projects to the bottom of the list when the large public project came in. but, you know, again, my preference is not to have this codified, but allow us to do it

in such a way either through a director's bulletin or planning commission policy, something that could be relatively easily changed and amended rather than where we have a process to change the code when a new type of priority project comes down the pike which would be my own preference. i understand the reason you want these projects prioritized, but it's very challenging when they're that rigidly embedded and embodied in the code. >> thank you. president chiu, i'm keep an open mind until i see what the actual proposal. is. i've been frustrated sometimes with the pace of approval of affordable housing, bike projects. i would certainly love to see them move faster. ~ so, i'll keep an open mind on that. >> if i could say a few words on that. obviously we've been working with the planning department to have language that i think reflects the current reality that director ram just referred to, the fact that these projects are prioritized. i am sensitive to the fact that we do have other public

projects that probably to supervisor wiener's point, ought to receive prioritization as well. but these are the ones that we certainly heard from the community and frustrate the public over and over again when they're not prioritized. so, i'm not necessarily saying that there aren't other worthy categories of projects that ought to be part of this mix, but at least articulate what is already generally the practice of the commission. we're working on language that we will be circulating to the public shortly that hopefully we can review. >> thank you, i look forward to seeing it. finally, i'll turn it over to supervisor kim. in terms of the fair argument versus substantial evidence, this has been, i will say, just to be honest, a frustration since the beginning of this process. we are -- ceqa is the state law and we are bound by it. we cannot amend it. we cannot change the standards under ceqa. ceqa provides certain standards around substantial evidence, fair argument, and we could

amend our local code until the cows come home to say something different and we're still bound by the standards of ceqa. since the very beginning, intent has been and i know the city attorney's intent has been to inform our administrative code to what ceqa requires and what the ceqa guidelines require in terms of the different $125ctionv ardx of substantial evidence and fair argument. ~ my intent we have made a number of amendments going forward to make it sloper and clearer and clearer. if there are further amendments that's totally fine. i have no problem with that. but there's been a ~ i think frankly some -- this argument that we're somehow trying to deviate from the sand ardx of ceqa doesn't have any basis because, a, that's not what we're trying to do. and b, even if we wanted to do that, which we don't, we would completely lack the power to do that. ~ so, with that said, these amendments look quite positive, president chiu, and i

appreciate you taking the time to work on them. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to address a couple points. i'm also appreciative with where we're going with a lot of these amendments. i think that they do largely bring our legislations closer together. and they also put into place a lot of the key things that i think i heard from community folks in terms of what they would like to see in the final legislation, including the electronic notification and something where we address modification. i just want to talk again about modification because it comes up over and over again. my personal issue with modification is we have not defined what modification is. i think ms. jones articulated again, it is always in her discretion. there is nothing that outlines that a second for the modification, that increasing the envelope is a modification. we all generally assume that's a modification and i think generally it is considered one, but if we don't have anything enumerated, then members of the public are going to distrust

the process. they want to be able to point to something in writing and say, we know this is a modification, we know this isn't a modification. we can argue about what that definition is and [speaker not understood]. eros has full discretion. the second thing i'll say, it is a bit of a misnomer to say every modification can be appealable. because someone would have to actually -- a department would have to actually refer it to the ero to determine whether there is a modification or not. and i don't think dbi sent -- every time they think there might be a slight modification and ask the ero to make a determination if there is or is not. so, it's not like every time there's some kind of modification the public will come out. it is every time a department refers a question to the ero and asks whether that's a modification. that's the opportunity for the members of the public to weigh in. so, i think that -- i just wanted to outline that kind of

distinction. priority projects... the reason i think these priority projects are important because these are the projects that were outlined to me as a reason for why we needed to set deadlines for exemptions and negative declarations. over and over i heard when we introduced the original legislation that second, booker t., bike lane, this is the reason why we must set some type of reform ative process around how we hear ceqa appeals. so, if these are the projects that were enumerated in the beginning ~ as the reason, the impetus behind why we are doing t then we are going to respond. so, we decided to put something into place that will help expedite pet safety, bike lanes and affordable house. ~ housing. those are the three we heard about. i didn't hear about child care centers, parks. we were addressing exactly what we heard. i think that's why that was the piece that moved out of here. last, on the alterations to

buildings 50 years or older, i want to clarify, we did amend that language. it is a broad scope, but we want to put it out there to get feedback from members of the public and planning. buildings 50 years or older that changes the roof, adds a garage, modifies the facade except replacement in kind and expands expands the occupied square footage of the building. ~ i do think that was a compromise way to define character defining features of buildings 50 years or older. last thing i would say, i think it's important we do what is required by the state. that is either in the ceqa ordinance, the state ordinance, or in its guidelines. what i think makes this very challenging is that a lot of the guidelines in the ordinance is suggest how local entities and municipalities take on ceqa appeals. and i think a lot of what we

debate about is how lawyers -- how we interpret state code and state guidelines. so, i do think there is a lot of room in how we interpret that. and i think many of us are attorneys in this room. words are meaning. , but they also mean a lot of different things. i do think there is still a meaningful debate about how the state gives us guidance on ceqa appeals. the last piece that i just wanted to continue to push on a little bit that supervisor chiu has put into place already and supervisor wiener's legislation, but i want to hopefully have a discussion how to make it more specific what triggers review at hpc. so, the language that i see here is that for proposed projects that the ero or the planning department has determined may have an impact on historical cultural resources, the hpc and neighbor viewing comment on such environmental documents. and why i think that's largely the practice today, i do think it's important to make it a little clearer what triggers a hearing at hpc and not leave it to the discretion of the

planning department, although i think largely the discretion would be the right projects at the hpc. we did have some specific triggers in terms of what types of projects e-i-rs would get heard at hpc and i think it's important -- is that in there? >> the e-i-r you're talking about or negative declaration? >> i'm sorry, projects, environmental documents, all environmental documents. so, i just was hoping that we could have as we move through this discussion, a discussion of what exactly would trigger a hearing at hpc and not just by discretion. that's the one thing that i would push back on. and if i'm misreading the way the amendment is, please do clarify. but other than that, i think the amendments that supervisor chiu is proposing are largely in line with what we'd like to see and so happy to see this all be put in place. >> thank you. and there definitely is a debate here about how to treat

changes to buildings that are 50 years or older which is almost everything. and it does have a pretty significant ramifications, even if you limit it to facade and roof, et cetera, whether it's requiring added notice, whether it's an automatic referring for an hpc hearing. i completely understand the rationale for wanting to do that. it can have pretty extraordinary impacts on people's ability to fix up or make changes [inaudible]. colleagues, if there are no additional comments, why don't we open it up to public comment. public comment will be two minutes. i'll read the cards that we have. rose hilton. tess well borne. kathrin howard. tim cohen.

steve aiello. linda chatman who filled out two cards. aaron franks. fernando marti. [speaker not understood]. ms. hilton. good afternoon, supervisors. the land use and economic development committee. i appreciate your work in incorporating the class of the larger community of stakeholders and crafting this very important piece of legislation on chapter 1 of the administrative code on california environmental quality act ceqa procedures. many projects are cad exed from ceqa after an initial environmental review and the legislation being massaged over these many months people have said projects and more from both sides have agreed that after a permit approval, this occurs on many occasions. the legislation [speaker not understood] the right to appeal projects after changes even if those changes are within the original project description on the permit application or within the scope of the project, due to the fact that there could be nonfindings at the time of the initial project review, but evidence of environmental impact subsequently with the modifications.

[speaker not understood] appeal a change of a staircase bannister provided in example of the earlier meetings. [speaker not understood]. it is to protect the right of the public to appeal these modifications that could impact the environment and to afford the elected and appointed government [speaker not understood]. this sometimes is about hard decisions, but this is about land use which does impact the environment and economic development, but may not necessarily care. so, since you have the strongest environmental protection for the future of our city as the greatest model for the city, ensure people have right to appeal, it can damage the environment, i ask this be included in the main body of the legislation rather than as a supplemental piece of legislatev asian as needed for clear and open government process. and i submit these. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for your continued attention on this important setting of the rules for ceqa which affects so many projects in san francisco. i'd like to thank supervisor wiener for getting the ball rolling in something that we've all wanted to see some closure on. and supervisor kim, thank you so much for working with the public and getting many, many issues included in your legislation. thank you, supervisor chiu, for getting the best and bringing in your own wisdom, too. i'd like to ask that, again, that the hearings, the modifications continue to be public as you put in, that the electronic notification occur, that must be, that the legislation be fully finished, not with any trailing legislation. and i'd like to speak up for

giving the historic preservation a chance to weigh in on things. they are a newly created body and they need to have a chance to have some real charter. thank you again for including the affordable housing and other priority projects to get their initial leg through planning. we want this to be a success for the public. there are many projects that are going to be built in san francisco and we want to have this work well for everybody. so, thank you for your work and please get this done so that we can be all pleased and go on with the next big project like plan bay area. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. kathrin howard, golden gate park preservation alliance. i want to thank you for working to integrate the various proposed ordinances. we support the community amendments and the ability to appeal projects that have been modified after they have

already passed the environmental review. we hope that you will endeavor to fast track the modification appeal language so that it is included in the ceqa ordinance at the full board. this language is especially important for our parks and open spaces where projects are often modified throughout the review process. our parks and open spaces are vital to the overall health of our city and residents. open space once developed cannot easily be reclaimed. last year i attended a celebration of a golden gate national recreation area. many listening here today may not be aware that there were massive plans for the marin head lands which included a houston housing development. it took many people working hard to protect that land. there are always people who are ready to build inappropriate projects on our park land. at the ggnra anniversary celebration, amy meyer, a

founder of the naggra, what it saved, saved temporarily. but what is lost is lost forever. our parks and open space need strong ceqa protection. we hope that you will support strong modification appeal language. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. linda chatman, north hill neighbors and i'm confused about the summary that was given. maybe i don't understand it. appeals, whatever is the final date when you can do an e-i-r -- appeal of a negative declaration or cad ex or an e-i-r, i would hope is not the date when that is -- that item is approved by the planning commission. i hope that it's a date when the project is finally approved because you run into situations -- we certainly did -- where, you know, making an e-i-r certified that the proswore is turned down. there is no plan or approval of the project. you could file an appeal,