-- again, that is part of e1, and i think the supervisors will consider further amendments to e1. those are the amendments our office has suggested. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you very much. in addition to those procedural cleanups, i have just passed out a piece of paper. would you like me to read these into the -- i can do it quickly, if you would like. chairperson maxwell: i think we have them. supervisor alioto-pier: great. it is my understanding that supervisor chiu will have an amendment as well. but with that. chairperson maxwell: why don't you read them in so that the public can hear them? supervisor alioto-pier: page six, line 21, would add that excepting certificates of determiner ration -- of

determination. page seven, line 24. the addition -- the issuance of the final discretionary permit or other final approval of the project but it's not is subject to an exemption determination. the environmental officer may issue an order of exception. it shall be posted as required by ceqa. page eight, line five. a notice of exemption shall not be filed until after the final discretionary product approval and the appeal period has been expired or any appeals have been finally resolved and the exemption determination becomes file -- becomes final. page eight, line one. the final e a i r -- eir shall be made available to the public. if it may affect any historic resources as defined by ceqa, no

less than 14 days. page 19, 919. while the appeal is pending, the city shall not approve or issue any permits for the subject of the appeal, provided the activities may be undertaken only to the extent that they are essential to avoid hazards. page 22, line 24. plows are effective until all appeals. have expired or all appeals have been -- files are effective until all appeal periods have been expired or all appeals have been satisfied. we are taking out the portion of the sentence that reads "in the event in-determination is remanded to the planning department" and add in, "if the planning department is required to prepare an eir, hov prepared

in accordance with procedures and requirements in this administrative code. if the planning department is now required to prepare and -- not required to prepare an eir, the board shall take action. the environmental review officer show finalize. page 28, line 13. we will be taking at the progress that read the board may approve additional analysis of the determination, provided that the environmental review officer recommends such additional analysis, and provided further that ceqa does not require further public notice, a public hearing, or further review for such additional analysis. those are all ceqa procedural cleanups. supervisor chiu: i have two additional amendments to add to this. i know these were discussed with

van holley and kate stacey. right now, the language states that appellants shall sign a letter of appeal or may have an agent authorized in writing file an appeal on their behalf. the suggestion is that we take out the phrase authorized in writing, since that is not a requirement that exists elsewhere in the state for this type of a filing. the second amendment which i have circulated would replace section e1, which is on pages 24 and 25. the language that would be proposed, which i understand was worked out between the various lawyers, would be as follows. any person or entity may appeal an exemption determination no later than 20 days after the final discretionary action for the project, provided it is prior to the conclusion of the city appeale period for city

discretionary action, even if it is less than 20 days. the rest of the language, starting with the phrase "for purposes of a determination made" shall stay intact. i want to thank ms. stacey for your work on this. chairperson maxwell: thank you. we are open to public comment on this item. mark renny? no, that was next. anyone? david pilpel, sue hester, david glober, and eric brooks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this new version was only available on friday, and the amendments you just discussed today, i think, are individually

or cumulatively substantive. so you should continue this matter so that the public can review this. there are a lot of complicated sessions that interrelate here. this legislation does not just affect planning and people concerned with private action, but affects all city departments including the airport, mta, puc, rec park, and the court. i think this is to be discussed with the other departments, as it affects how the consider actions. -- they consider actions. this means and interested persons workshop at planning. that apparently has not happened. i have not been invited to any meetings on this, and i think this needs to be discussed with interested persons and not just discussed among certain lawyers, as we just heard about, behind closed doors. in terms of substantive

concerns, section 31. 08h -- 31.08h, there is conflict on notice versus action. approval action is not the same as issuance. it does not make clear what happens when discretionary approval lies with an individual such as the department had with respect to leases and permits. 31.08i -- extension by a policy department, it is not sure how that would apply. that is a new provision. why is the first policy body able to reject a negative declaration, and how does that work when the discretionary approval lies with? i have other substantive

concerns and would like them addressed at some point. chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> i want the city attorney to hear my objections. i have some major ones. i will wait. we have a big conflict that has arisen because we have area plants that have been adopted since this legislation process started. we have a situation where the decision to appeal should not be made, particularly on aerial plants, after eir consideration and project approval. all we had in the eastern neighborhoods and market octavio was extraordinarily difficult hearings, because the planning commission could not have their hearing until after the eir was certified. because of that, you have these

massive hearings that basically become a charade. you cannot have real serious discussions about changes to a plan after your eir certification in one hearing that is 18 hours, which is what happened on the eastern neighborhoods. the old way before this change in state law, and i give you the down-home plan, which was massive, was the eir was certified and then they would start doing all the nitty gritty on the plan. and there would be a final determination by mea that evaluated the changes that have happened. this assumes that there is a change process, that the planning commission and board of supervisors are not just rubber stamps, that would you have coming in as a plan is what you can take out. there would be a subsequent determination that said that if the eir was still sufficient,

but minor modifications were necessary. this was the practice up until state law changed. what happened after state law changed was dysfunctional hearings, where you cannot really talk about changes in the plan until you have the eir certified. when the eir is certified, it is one monster hearing. the solution is the timing should be -- this is the big one. the eir -- the trigger for appeal should be approval of the plan our project. then the clock starts running. that would allow more thoughtful hearings on massive project. i have other things, but that is the huge one. thank you. chairperson maxwell: next.

>> i am david glober. i am involved in community and land use issues, especially in district 10. i believe this legislation is largely or entirely counterproductive. i have alternative suggestions. first, improve education and outreach to both neighbors and developers regarding ceqa, what it is, what it is for, and how it works. second, and rich public awareness of environmental protections under the california environmental quality act. three, set clearer guidelines -- more clear guidelines for what is and what is not frivolous in terms of using ceqa as a tool. for, in form the public promptly -- four, inform the public

promptly when there has been major analysis at planning. five, please do not shorten the appeals when the 220 days. leave it as it is, or if you are going to streamline it, as hester just mentioned, make sure the sequence just makes sense. have a relationship between 311 and the ceqa process and make sure people understand what is taking place and how to use it appropriately. thank you. >> good afternoon again, supervisors. eric brooks, representing san francisco green party on this issue. i first want to, as i have said in the past, think supervisor -- thank supervisor alioto-pier for previous environmental leadership on fillets -- pthalates. however, on this one we strongly

disagree. all of this legislation has been changed and approved, there is a gaggle of properly more actors and neighborhood groups out in the community that is even more alarmed over these changes and we were over the discretionary review changes that this committee held meetings on several months ago to a year ago. the issue here is that timing and various other things in this document simply create a lot of bureaucratic spaghetti that is going to be harder for most people and most groups to get through to make environmental challenges. rather than try to tweak this, same as with the discretionary review legislation -- whether than trying to treat this document that we feel started out on the wrong foot in the first place, i am sorry, but we need to go back to square one and start again. if we are going to change this process, we need to have

neighborhood groups and environmental groups squarely at the table to help hammer it out so that we are getting a fair deal on this. to give you one example of a thing that is a complication, in the-declarations section, and this is just an example -- in the negative declaration section, and this is just an example, planning staff can allow an appeal to go forward if it makes a "fair argument." that is incredibly vague. there are a lot of other things in this document. we need to start again. i urge you not to move this forward today. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we have concerns about this ordinance because we feel that it is going to circumvent the

appeals process and the public process. and this ordinance, or one similar to it, has been presented twice before and turned down twice before. we feel this third attempt should also be turned down again. we feel this is not a progressive idea or concept. this is more in line with satisfying or appeasing the development community. i urge you not to let or short circuit the appeals process for categorical exceptions. this is an effort to circumvent due process and remove the public from this process. this may allow ceqa exceptions for very large projects. the public has not been involved in this process at all, to an

extent. we need to know and understand what is being given up, what our rights are. this needs to go back for a fourth time. we need to get everyone involved. this has been an improper process, incomplete. please start your process again with public input from everyone. thank you. >> supervisors, ceqa is very important. right now, right here, you saw a number of amendments made. some of them are not substantial, but some are. and from the comments that you have heard from people that attended the planning commission, the side talk is

distracting. either you have public comment or whatever, you know? please. i mean, it is disrespectful. i go before the planning department, and i really do not like anything to go before the planning department. you know that about nine planners have been fired. and some of us used to go to the planning commission and do not go there anymore. you have heard from one member of the san francisco -- it is a big organization -- stating that who the hell do you think you are when it comes to ceqa that you do not run this by the community? who the hell do you think you all are? i analyzed many environmental

documents and then i came out and analyzed many seek what documents. over 90% of them have loopholes. over 90%. it came to hunters point. cumulative pollution, transportation documents. you will do not even give a damn. and i am happy some of you are getting turned out. before you get turned out, do not adopt this. it is bad for us. >> hello, supervisors. my name is joan would. i am speaking as an individual. i belong to several preservationist organizations. they are all opposed to this. i have not done the homework that several people here --

where does david fine the time to do the homework? i do know two things for sure. ceqa is a state law. it was put in place for a purpose. the other thing i know is this seems to be a massive gift to the planning department. maybe it is a farewell gift to them. because of the remarks that i have heard here, i do think it needs more study. thank you. >> david tornheim. i have to agree this was a gift for the planning department and developers. this did not come from the community with the idea of making the community more aware of what projects are going to have in them. ceqa is an important part of the planning process. the purpose of ceqa is so that we will know what is going to be in a project. we can see the detail all fleshed out for the public. the planning department loves to give exemptions to projects and negative declarations.

all the important projects, negative the corporations. the historic theater in my neighborhood -- they called it a church. it was unbelievable. this is unacceptable to have a reduction in the time for people to be able to appeal. basically, the idea here is that by the time neighbors find out about something that is messed up, the appeal time will already have been run. also, i would like to say that there is nothing like this in any other city in the state. this is the most complicated thing. i have tried to look over this and figure out what is going on. other people who love and following it closely cannot even figure out what all these changes are. at a minimum, this needs to be continued so we can look at it again. thank you.

>> supervisors, steve williams. i cannot figure out the deadlines for the exclusions for the categorical exemptions. i think the negatives and eir appeals are really clear. part of the problem is there is not uniform treatment of the categorical exemptions issued. sometimes it is a stamp. sometimes it is a statement. sometimes it is a notice. if you read through section 3116 that covers the exemption, it is not clear. it says a reasonable amount of time and it says 20 days. it recites back to the 20 days. it cites a final permit. with the site permiting process in san francisco, the final permit comes out often vote for -- long before the product is ready, a final permit comes out.

other addendums are added to it. i think that that portion of this legislation needs to be clarified and dealt with before it goes out of this committee and to the board, because it is really not clear. and i think it is going to cause a lot more problems than it is going to solve. if the idea is to make the ceqa process more clear and to make it more definitive, i think in particular that section does not even come close. so i think that needs to be addressed. whether it is a change within the department to a uniform treatment of notices of exemption, that might be where the problem lies. it sounds as if some of them are going to be posted on the website, so you might end up in a situation where controversial projects are posted on the website and 20 days after that posted that may or may not be seen, the caulk is run. that is my concern about the

proposed legislation. chairperson maxwell: any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor, are there people here who can speak to some of the issues we have heard today? supervisor alioto-pier: yes. thank you, supervisor maxwell. let me start. a lot of people talked about public comment. one person mentioned this being done in the dark. this legislation -- the new version was introduced on april 20, 2010. the planning commission heard the item on june 24 and recommended approval for modification on a vote of 6-1. the historic preservation commission recommended the approval and additional modifications on july 7 by a vote of 5-0. on july 20, substitute legislation was introduced that inc. both the planning commission and historic preservation commission comments, as well as those that the public concerned.

after receiving written feedback, we introduce substantive legislation incorporating what we have heard from the community and the stakeholders, and introduced substitute legislation on september 21. and again on november 16. that responded to additional community concerns. this has been heard in committee four times. this has been heard in front of the historic preservation commission twice. this has been heard in front of the planning commission once. i do not think anyone can make a valid argument that this has been held behind doors and has not been publicly discussed. it has been publicly discussed. it has been publicly discussed thoroughly. one thing i would like to add is that the legislation in front of us significantly expands public notice for exemptions, including for building demolitions and buildings over 50 years old.

the exception notices would be in writing, posted on planning web sites, and mailed to interested parties. public notices ofthey will notif exemptions and how to get a copy. the list exemptions used to establish time lines are also posted online. environmental impact reports will have to be available for at least 14 days before the planning commission. we try to open it up and make sure people get the timely information they niihau and that is all out there. some of the problems that we have been faced with is that it has been hard to find. because there have been no deadlines, we don't know where they are in the process or in the timeline. if i may ask the city attorney to talk about the extensions, how they were, and clarify some

of the comments that were made. with that, give it back to the committee. gosh i think that the amendments that president chiu made simplify the process rather than having the distinction between permits that were noticed at the planning commission or zoning the administrator level and permits that were not noticed. the amendments to the subsection have the appeal period running from the final discretionary permit. any project may have different permits. it will be unique to each project what the number of permits might be and what kinds of permits there might be. whatever the final

discretionary permit, it is sort of the last to trigger. as the committee moved in those amendments yet? i can speak to the existing ordinance as well. as i mentioned, the existing ordinance distinguishes for purpose of exemption appeal between a permit that as notice that the planning commission or the zoning administrator for which the public has noticed that an exemption determination is made if that notice is provided. the appeal time runs from that -- if no notice is provided, it runs from the last discretionary permit. were there other questions you wanted me to address? >> that was the basis of the concern. supervisor maxwell: i think she

had some comments. i did not write it down. somebody from the planning department, can you speak to some of her concerns? thank you, city attorney. >> she called me about six weeks ago. supervisor maxwell: you will have to speak directly into the microphone. >> i am not speaking for or against. but i think her concern was, an eir, -- you can only appeal to the board after there is an action taken on the project. they can be appealed before there is any action. her concern is that she feels

in a case of major projects, because there is a desire of the planning commission and of the board, if there is going to be a c.u. that the entirety of the action be heard on appeal. in order to have all of the items heard, there is an action on the findings, and action on three of nine, i believe what she is suggesting is to change the ability to appeal immediately and substitute that there be requirements for hearings on the substance