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 with appeal. we do have a few neighborhood organizations that are pretty astute and discuss the eir, ceqa, other amendments, and i think it would be good that whoever is initiating the amendment, that you reach out we should allow the public when it comes to big developers and dubious ploys -- that the

community get involved. we have some changes to the planning department. the last time i met the planning department, i had the pleasure to note the new zoning czar. this has to go through him. the planning director is here. he is listening to me. hopefully he will report it to the planning commission. we need time to bet -- vet whatever has been discussed. that is the way to go. thank you very much. chairperson maxwell: other public comment on this item? sue hester, you wished to comment? >> up until friday, i thought this legislation could be salvaged. i do not think so right now.

i have asked for two changes. when i have been asking for along with other people for four years. this is for common notice. it never shows up in any legislation. i have asked for three or four times. second, the current structure we have, which sets the time of appeal for an e.r. -- an e i are -- and eir after the product certification. the planning commission schedules to have a 12 or 15 hour hearing with two commissions because they do not want any intervene or appeal. it is an easier soft -- and easily solved problem. time the eir appeal to the planning decision. i have a hard time understanding the changes that

were being made today. i am not sure whether the entire cadex process was taken out. i am pleading for you to make specific -- you have cadex notices for this brand new category we have a lot of. you adopt an area plan and there are no more eirs in that area because they are tiered from that document. need something that says that just because you're in the east part of the city you are not second-class citizens and do not have notices like you have in supervisor mar's district. the rest of us do not get any notices anymore. it is an affirmative change. i have sent you the changes i want. i thought we could solve this. but i do not think we can solve it by tomorrow thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. robert black, san francisco chamber of commerce. i am glad we are considering ceqa reform here in san francisco. i had the pleasure of attending the green california sixth annual conference in sacramento last week. i was able to hear speaker perez and nancy skinner speak to this on a state level. one of the things that was brought over -- brought up over and over again is the environmental community has been good in the last 40 years at saying no to things. many of those things needed to be said no to. but what we need to be able to do is to say yes to the things we want as well -- yes to smart development, smart growth, transit-oriented growth. ceqa has been used, whether it is a by clan are other things, to prevent things we think are good public policy.

we would like to see some certainty developed in the local ceqa rules. we think this is a good step towards that. the more secure we can make that -- while we are looking out for what is best for the environment, we can also build the things we want to build in san francisco. i think this is a step in the right direction. thank you. >> my name is hiroshi sakuda. i am here again to state our concerns from csfn. we are a neighborhood organization of over 40 neighborhood groups. this is the third time that this has been tried to be amended --

ceqa amendments. twice before, it was rejected. this is the third time. we have concerns about these things. first of all, the neighborhood organizations, environmentalists, and the public, has not been involved in the process from the very beginning. this has been essentially a developer-proven process. the public was left out in the cold. we think for good government that everyone should be included. here we are at this meeting and there are more amendments at the very last moment. no one seemed to quite understand what it is. obviously, we cannot proceed. why the rush? this is introduced in 2004 and

2006. here we are again. planning director ram -- i'm want to thank you for the meeting you had last week, the conversation with director moran about the health element. that was very useful. if we could have something like this on the ceqa amendments, that would be also very useful and informative. the public can be more assured that are not going to be left holding the bag. or that there will have no appeal process. please try to discuss it. chairperson maxwell: any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: let me say that what happened is we

amended the document the last time we were in committee, and a lot of those amendments did not have the opportunity to go before the planning department. everything else had. it had come out of planning unanimously i believe. what we are really asking for today is to pull out a certain part of it, frankly, to allow that to go to planning for more in-depth looks. i want to be clear about that. the other thing is this does not get rid of the appeals process at all. it puts a time line so that people have an idea of the constraints that are working under. right now, they do not. as a result, that leads to bigger problems and less clarity in our system. i certainly hope to get this committee's support for what is in front of us. chairperson maxwell: thank you. supervisor chiu: i wanted think

supervisor al -- i want to thank supervisor alioto-pier for suggesting we sever the portions that had the most controversy over the last week. it is important we look at these without holding up the other portions. i think we are doing is we are clarifying a lot of cleanup in a way that protect neighborhoods while having some appropriate balance and some predictability. we do obviously need to continue to have a conversation of how we strengthen and insure protections for neighborhoods. i do want to make too friendly amendments' based on some of the questions i started off with. -- i do want to make two friendly amendments based on some of the questions i started off with. online 15, i would like to suggest that the appellants may have an authorized agent --

striking the phrase authorized in writing. if i can ask the sponsor of the legislation if that would be acceptable. if i can also suggest on page 22, i am wondering, mr. stacy, if you have a chance to propose some language to ensure that language does not apply to exemptions? >> supervisors, kate stacy in the city attorney's office. if you are discussing severing out subsection e of 2116 and eliminating appeals of exemptions at this point, a could be amended to read "if the board of first the negative declaration or eir, that should be final and shall not be appealed again." then it would not be discussing exemptions any longer. supervisor chiu: thank you.

that is exactly what i am trying to achieve and i would ask if we can incorporate that. chairperson maxwell: that is to additional amendments. -- two additional amendments. supervisor mar: my head is spinning from the legal language in changes that have been made so quickly. i share planning department staff concerns. a lot of neighborhood representatives -- i do not think this is ready for prime time. i appreciate the efforts to try to move forward with some of this, but i do feel we are tinkering with a 40-year-old law that is about protecting the environment and giving a voice and some say to neighborhood groups, sometimes challenging good and bad projects. i do not feel comfortable supporting the legislation, but i feel comfortable with the work of bill barnes and you have done on this legislation, with others chipping in. as soon hester and others have pointed out, -- as sue hester

and others have pointed out, i am not comfortable yet. i would like to see other people's -- other people at the table. i support the amendments but i will not support the legislation at this time. supervisor alioto-pier: i want to reiterate that i believe this is the fifth time that this particular legislation has come before us here at land use. in has come for historic preservation price. it has come for planning and was unanimously passed. it was introduced back in april. at some point, i think that we need to act and move forward. the amendments that were made today were frankly just taking at some of the things that were put in last time. and it was because planning felt uncomfortable with it and needed to take a second look at it. i will respect fully agree with the supervisor. i do believe this is ready for prime time. i do believe it is time that we

start letting the public know, and our neighbors. unfortunately, my neighbors are not here today. it is a big concern in our neighborhood that we do not know what the time lines are. we do not know what the rules of the game are. it has led to a lot of confusion in areas of san francisco where there is a lot of residential building. it really has a great impact on an individual's life, on an individual's pocket book. i think it is time we do something to help the citizens of san francisco game clarity in the planning process. chairperson maxwell: colleagues, what i am hearing is that we can pass the amendment and we can consider moving this to the full board without recommendation. that is another way we can go. we can move this without recommendation if people are not comfortable with it. are we prepared to move on all of the amendments?

>> madame chair, just for clarification, are we dividing the file? chairperson maxwell: yes we are. and you understand that division? on the part of the file that is divided, we will add the amendments. those amendments have been approved. we will send that out without recommendation, ok? without objection, so moved. the other part of the legislation, we will file to the call of the chair. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you, colleagues. chairperson maxwell: madame clerk, next item please. >> item two, amending the environment code to modify the existing commercial buildings energy performance. chairperson maxwell: we heard this last week and are hearing

it again this week. supervisor chiu: colleagues and members of the public, i think everyone for their conversation around this important legislation involving commercial building energy performance. the concept is to require commercial buildings to do energy efficiency audits, which will tell all of us where buildings can save energy, save money, and save the environment at the same time. from my perspective and the perspective of the public, we agree that the sooner this can happen the better. it is good for the environment and it is good for the bottom line of companies, so they can invest early and start saving on energy bills. i would like to offer to amendments to this legislation which i have circulated to colleagues which are meant to tighten the timeframe we have. the original version had essentially three time frames that were in discussion. one was an initial 12 month period to notify building

owners. the next with a five-year period during which the first energy audit would occur, 25% of each building every year. the third time frame would be a rolling five-year requirement on audits. the amendment last year stretch the time from 12 months to 18 months and kept the five years. what i am proposing today is that we slightly amend to shortened time. the preparation in the initial -- but i am proposing today is that we slightly amend the shortened timeperiod in the preparation in the initial audit. and instead of having a five- year time in which the buildings would be audited, we could have a three-year time. i am comfortable with having the third time from around subsequent ruling audits -- to

keep that at the rolling five years. i think the reason we need to do that is because we all know the inconvenient truth of the environment. we also know that what we are trying to do is we are trying to save money as well as save the environment. i understand this is a more aggressive timetable, but i think it is very doable. i think what this will entail is when this legislation passes, rather than having to wait potentially 6.5 years for every building to be audited once, we are really talking about ensuring an initial audit at the end of four years. i want to thank the various stakeholders. i have had conversations over the last few days with folks. i appreciate the flexibility. i understand there will be public comment about this and potentially other ideas, but this is what i would like to propose as the direction for us to go. chairperson maxwell: thank you. any further comments? then why don't we open this up?

supervisor, from the mayor's office -- any comments from the mayor's office, the department of the environment on the amendment? >> thank you very much, supervisors, and thank you broadly for your general support of this ordinance. we agree this will be a huge catalyst for helping the city meet our carbon goals and our energy efficiency goals. we are very appreciative of all your support. generally, we are much more supportive of doing things faster rather than slower because of the urgency around our energy efficiency needs and our climate needs. however, based on several discussions we had with stakeholders' including large building owners, medium-sized business owners, the small business commission, and will double stakeholders -- based on the recommendations of the task force and looking at what other cities have done, including seattle, new york, and other cities that have done this,