. only the matter that you were concerned about in your appeal could be subsequently appealed, and things that were not appealed would not be subject to the subsequent appeal. that has been incorporated. the planning commission requested clarification that would require objection in order to maintain appeal rights. this is no longer relevant, and the requirement that you have to have a prior has been deleted, so that is no longer relevant. the supervisor can specify what kind of demolition would be applicable to this, in section

317 of the planning code, as well as alterations to buildings of a surge in your or older. -- of a surge in year or older -- a certain year or older. and we requested an additional note, -- an additional item. this was actually not incorporated. this is something that we can do to further provide clarity. i guess there are some things in the ordinance before you that describe what sort of notice is required, but we do many additional notices before you get to that step of the eir, such as the notice of preparation, and that it be

codified in specified in the law, we can post the information online and make that part of the previous notice requirements more publicly known. and then there was the recommendation of the city attorney. that has inc. -- has been incorporated. they want fairness in any potential limiting of appellants, and the was a requirement for prior participation. -- there was a requirement. they also wanted specificity in their required role in the process, and they wanted notice for categorical exemption, and

they also asked about limiting future actions in that there was simultaneous approvals. this could happen with the potential historic district, and if there was a ceqa appeal, they wanted to make sure that their potential for action was not limited. so that is line by line what those commissions wanted. supervisor alioto-pier responded to the vast majority of these recommendations. i guess i could say the examples of how she you responded, which of summarize unless you want them all in detail, is that they were setting reasonable timelines for the hearings so that all parties have time to prepare, while allowing for the additional time in case the board is on recess during that time, providing for staggered and deadlines -- standard deadlines -- staggered

deadlines. other recommendations also incorporated clarify what may be subject to appeal after a decision has been remanded, as i discussed, and then there were some minor -- minor technical issues. the supervisor did eliminate prior participation for an appeal. they expanded notice of exemption, and they included the historic preservation commission in the process. as well as the determinations of historic districts would not be interrupted by a potential ceqa appeal, so our department wants to think the supervisor for addressing this. it has long lain but we do long

language. -- it has long language. i think it is a good thing to get the requirements into law so it is better for everyone. that concludes my presentation. also, the chief of environmental review officer, bill, is here. if you have any questions, he could probably best answer them. chair maxwell: i believe, we will, and i mentioned one week, but it will probably be more like one month, because we do not have a meeting on october 11, so it will probably be beyond that. there is a lot of large pieces of legislation, and supervisor chiu will discuss that, but i think we will need more time for people to digest the changes. supervisor chiu, would you like

a question, or would you like the gentleman to come up first? supervisor chiu: he can come up. chair maxwell: i saw him here. >> a very good summary of the suggestions we made as well as the many revisions that were made, both in terms of both commissions and other members of the public both here and at the planning commission. supervisor chiu: all right, i will start with a few brief comments, and that we will obviously hear from the public. i think these changes concerning the ceqa law makes sense. i know there is a lot of legislation that clarifies things from the developer's perspective. i am just starting to hear, because this is from a lot of maybin association leaders which

of not been fully answered -- this is from a lot of neighborhood association leaders. one thing i would like to suggest that would be helpful note is for my staff to potentially convene with planning or with supervisor alioto-pier's office. they're always continues to be a lot of concerns around the lack of consistency and the lack of uniformity around public notices and environmental decisions, and i know there had been some discussion about requiring the environmental review officer, yourself, i am wondering if you could talk about the consideration around that. >> there were five specific requirements in the code.

in summary, whether they are designated or potential, the planning department code, instead of the building department, so it has always been a little bit ambiguous, so i think the notice has been addressed. i think the remaining areas of ambiguity and the lack of closure is on some exemptions which do not have a hearing before the planning commission or some kind of discretionary action, and the next step is a

building permit. that remains a challenge in terms of what would be noticed that would let people know about " -- what would be noticed -- notice. a building permit for which there is not a lot of its potential documents -- a lot of extensive documents. tying it to the section 311, 312 notices. the problems that i have understood from our neighborhood planners is that those notices have been on a different timeline -- have been on a different timeline. -- happened noon a different timeline. we do our environmental

documents on those kinds of projects, and they would have to change how they do the noticing, and it is not clear that the underlying purposes of 311, 3 under 12 are well served by merging them -- 312 are well served by merging them. this is sometimes more confusing than helpful, so i think whenever we get in terms of merging, expanding our notice on those types of exemptions, it should be consistent with this and not with what people get in the mail which is confusing. supervisor chiu: i agree about the public transparency. whether saddam's or checklists -- whether stamps or checklists, does this legislation deal with the? it does not seem to.

>> it does reflect what the change in our practice has been in response to that case, which the we are posting all exemptions, stamps, anything that we are aware of that is an exception. it is being posted on a weekly basis on the website. that is a practice we have changed in the last several months, and that is in the legislation. supervisor chiu: that is in the legislation, ok. and there was a new requirement about the appellants, if they want to preserve their right to appeal. can you talk about why that restriction is there? from my note -- from my perspective, i think many members of the public do not become aware until a decision is made, and that is when you get a lot more public scrutiny. tell me why that requirement was

made more restrictive on who actually has a right to appeal. >> that was in the regional legislation, more or less consistent with processes with the next line of concerns. that is no longer in the legislation and has not been in the legislation for many months, so that has been stricken from all instances. you do not have to be the appellant in order to preserve in subsequent right. supervisor chiu: there is a lot of confusion in the neighborhood as to exactly what is being proposed here, so i think it is appropriate to spend more time going into this so it is more clear what rights are being given up or restricted. that being said, i am happy to answer these questions in another setting so we can get to public comment. chair maxwell: all right, thank you.

why do we not open this up to public comment? i have two cards. zach, and another. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please lineup. -- line up. >> my name is zach stewart, and i wanted to mention some conditions where it has taken longer -- it has not been streamlined. for example, there is something that others did. all of these individuals slow down the process of getting a new piece of the environment for the city. i would like to speak to the

idea that the environmental impact reports should be made more difficult and make it slow down the construction and the development process. developers worldwide salivate to have a project in san francisco. it is crazy tune of a project in st. francisco. we do not need to make things more streamlined for them -- note is crazy to have a project in san francisco. the new urbanists, basically los angeles, go too fast to get a good result. chair maxwell: all right, next speakers, please, and also this other. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is sue vaughn. the sierra club opposes weakening ceqa. i do not know if people knew about the 11 changes and the additional ones from the historic preservation committee, but the sierra club opposes weakening ceqa. thank you. >> david. i agree completely with what sue vaughn said. i did not have much time to review this, and i have heard about it before and was concerned about it. basically, ceqa is the way to protect us, the community, and having a way to slow things down, and the planning

department is consistently used in such a way where it does not follow the rules. the public has no right to appeal if they do not find out that the planning department did not do what they were supposed to do. one thing that they have gone over and over again is that they say this project does not need to go by ceqa, and the reality is, no, actually, they should have used ceqa. with one, they claimed it was a church. it did not get the ceqa review. under guidelines like this, maybe the theater would not have been saved, so i am really concerned about this. i would like to see this not

move forward. thank you. chair maxwell: nan and paul. >> oh, my name is na. i did try to go through the 60- page file. it struck me that it had a lot of dodgy language. maybe somebody could have done an executive summary so these are easier to understand. i cannot understand that people are not having the same problem i am having. it is very complicated. it is very difficult to sort out. i will read you a message that i sent to members of the committee in regards to today's hearing. i urge leann used to not do this using mcginley alter the balance between public and private interests -- i urge land-useur -- i urged land use to not do this altering the

balance between public and private interests. somehow, it strikes me that this is being slipped in here in a manner -- it should be dealt with as somewhat of a separate issue. i got hung up on this by a next- door neighbor. however, they had 10 days after the appeal to file an appeal. rather than do that, they went ahead with the demolition, so i do feel this is an area, a specialized area, that needs to be addressed, not just in regards to appeals of this appeals ofceqa process but in regards of appeals in general, and it should include the area

during which the demolition would not occur. [bell] all right, thank you. chair maxwell: does anybody else after paul -- please line up and come forward. >> thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to get in touch with the front of a coatt -- he the fun topic of ceqa. this is not doing a good job either for the product sponsors or as the community as a whole. i have not had time to begin the most recent revision of this proposal legislation in death, but i am extremely concerned about the timing after documents

are released, the tight restrictions for an appeal. when you consider the voluminous comments, the voluminous documentation that comes out with the final eir, the short time. i believe you will see people rushing to file appeals simply because they have no option but to do so in that time period. it also creates an incentive to hide things and very things that you do not want found if you are a developer, it is you can count on the fact that they may not have time to dig it up. it is complex comedy, and demands. this really needs to get looked at, the timing. -- it is complex, and demanding. budgetary reasons, that dropped.

there were specific discussions about tiny and the importance of timing so that the community and community groups could review documents, and a 20-day notice or a 14-day period is simply not enough time to do a good job. thank you. >> afternoon. i am a land-use attorney. i guess i am the only one so far in favor of this, at least in favor of the time period to appeal ceqa determination after the planning division. this is not pro-developer. this is pro-family. most of the actual exemptions go to families who are bringing in their elderly parents or having additional children, and homes tend to be small. one example, but not the only, and i speak for a lot of my

former clients. my client, when she was pregnant, three months later, she found herself in front of the discretionary review at the planning commission. the planning commission unanimously approved. she spent a great deal of money on building permits, consultant fees. all she wanted to do was add a one-bedroom to create a 400- square-foot third floor. after spending all that money on the developing, someone filed an appeal to the board of appeals, and the day before that hearing -- and this is typical -- a categorical extension appeal was made to the board of supervisors. i have never understood but at least 1/3 of the cases i have seen, it is the day before the board of appeals hearing that one files to the board of supervisors for an appeal. that is after all the architectural work has been done and the other consultant work, and your board has the opportunity to let it go

forward or not. this is very important. believe me, all of my former clients who have been delayed -- in one case, my client had the twins a year before her home was actually ready. these people talk to their friends or families, and they say, "do not build in the city. move out. forget about the extra bedroom." [bell rings] thank you. >> good afternoon. executive director of livable cities. here to purge you not to support this legislation. livable city is an organization, one of many concerned in the city with sustainability, which is really the challenge of our generation, the thing we must do if we are going to create a better world for our children and grandchildren, and see what

is the most powerful tool that exists to really look at sustainability. it should be an amazing and effective tool, by which we can look at the effects of decisions we make and improve them and finally. we think that there is a lot of work that we need to do with ceqa to make it the tool that it should be. sometimes we are appalled to see the amount of time and energy that goes into ceqa and c projects not emerging better. we are appalled to see some of the perverse outcomes. but that is not a reason to curtail the public's right to be able to review and comment and engage thru the ceqa process. there is a lot of reform we need to do to turn it into the environmental protection tool id needs to be. that is not happening in any other transportation process. all the sustainability of

planning we do is done for the sequel process. there is no parallel or alternative process. we do want to engage you in conversations about how ceqa can be what it needs to be, how our standards can be clearer, however project that goes in comes out a better project. there are some things that absolutely we need to do to use it to it's full potential, but the proposal before you today is anti-democratic and destructive, and we urge you not to support it. >> good afternoon. this legislation needs additional work. the version i have seen is better than the zero original version as introduced, but it still has some questions, and eat you amend today, i would urge you to continue this and ask for more discussion.

i think it would be helpful if the planning department were asked to convene a community meeting or workshop to discuss this. paul talk about this upn project from last summer that was a good start upon notification procedures, but they never got to environmental review, and i think this would be a good opportunity to explain what the current deadlines and requirements are and what would be proposed here and to try to work out some of the issues. there are some important, and i think in some ways a good, parts of this legislation, but in its current form, it still needs additional work. we should have timely appeals and determinations of environmental matters and not drag things out, but at the same time, the public needs to know when things are happening. it is difficult right now to know when a project has even applied for environmental review. the legislation talks about putting things on the website

but does not talk about how long they will be there and how accessible. the final thing i wanted to mention was mitigation managers and monitoring and reporting programs. those are often required with respect to projects, but it is not clear to the public at all how those measures are monitored, with those reports are, and whether there is any monitoring by the planning department or other city agencies of those conditions that attached the projects, so i think there is other work to be done here, and i would encourage you to ask the planning department to hold the public work on this. thank you. >> i have been involved in numerous community open space and planning issues. we need to be environmentally healthy as well as economically healthy as a city. i'm concerned this legislation would move us away from that balance. while i do echo some of the

comments earlier that the ceqa process -- the whole planning process, for that matter -- merits some streamlining. i'm concerned what this will streamline is a path to exemptions on a much more frequent basis. please reject it or take it back for further review. thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right, any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will continue this item for at least a month, and you will have an opportunity at that time for more public comment, and, supervisor chiu, do you have closing comments? supervisor chiu: obviously, there are many members of the community, including members of this board, that are still trying to understand the changes that were made. ms. rodgers just laid out the 11 changes that were made, and i would love to see that in a document that needs to be disseminated to the public.

the suggestion of having more public comment on this makes sense. there was work done before the commission, but now that it is you before the board, the importance of that i think cannot be underestimated, so i look forward to working with supervisor alioto-pier's office and planning. the concerns that were raised i think are well founded, and we have to figure out how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater as we try to figure out a way to improve the legislation without gutting would have been important protections for the community. >> on behalf of supervisor alioto-pier, i want to thank members of the public and commit the our city is available. i think a continued sometime in oc