eight years or whatever, and left it up to them to pick the number of years. they chose three. i don't have the total number to compare this to, but in 2010 there were 16 appeals, 2011 18 appeals, and 15 appeals so far this year, which is -- we still have the month of december to go. of that, in 2010 six e-i-rs were appealed. in 2011 there were 7. and this year there are 6. and there were 10 exemptions three years ago, 9 exemptions and 9 exemptions this year. that is in context of what various people have said of thousands of exemptionses and e-i-rs of the process every year. i don't know if thousand is a correct number. it sounds high to me. but maybe if they're processing

requests from the building department, from rec and park, other departments, mta, et cetera, i guess conceivably it could be that high. it just seems like if the argument forsee qua reform is based on some kind of abuse and some kind of huge problem at the board of supervisors, these number don't seem to bear that out. that the process seem to be working in the majority of times despite the fact that we have issues with negative declaration and exemption notificationses and that kind of thing. and, so, i don't see an issue with trying to attack and clarify is and make more clear to the public what the process with neglect dick and exemptions. i'm perfectly fine with that. i think it's in the details a lot of us have questions about and are completely clear about. * negative declaration

i do support that move. and i think the other aspect of it is ms. hester said that if the supervisor would open it up a little bit, there may be other areas of c-e-q-a reform that we could be looking at that he hasn't thought of or haven't been brought forth by the people he's been talking to. and ms. hester might have additional in the neighborhood organizations might have additional c-e-q-a reform ideas that could be incorporated into this process. i do have a question with respect -- well, back to the original question that supervisor borden started with or other commissioners have mentioned. in terms of the process of automatically going to the board of supervisors on issues like zoning or whatever that they also have jurisdiction over , isn't the wording in the

legislation such that it says the board of supervisors will be the final certification body? i didn't quite understand that language. because if we're now saying that the -- that this commission certifies the e-i-r, then how can the board of supervisors certify the e-i-r? >> bill wyco again. there's was one commenter -- actually, it should be the board. that's not what the legislation says. the legislation says that if there is an appeal of the c-e-q-a action to the board, then they have to be either affirmed, recertify, if you will, that's not technically legally what it is. but the matter is before them in their consideration. so, it's only in the case of a c-e-q-a appeal that they are acting to certify. in the case of something that isn't appealed but is a legislative action by the board, like any body that uses

a c-e-q-a document, they have to adopt the c-e-q-a document, the findings, the mitigation measures, whatever else applies. so, that's really unchanged as we discussed earlier, this whole concept. >> but there is a way the legislation is presented at least the way i've understood it, is there is no appeal to the board of supervisors on a certification. it just automatically goes to them. isn't that correct? >> elaine warren, deputy city attorney. you're referring to actions where the board has to act to approve the projerk anyway. >> yes. >> and the way the ordinance is written, in those cases as bill explained earlier, the c-e-q-a process -- let's say there is an e-i-r that requires certification. * project the process would be the same as it is now at the planning commission. you would certify the c-e-q-a document before it could get to the board. assuming you would certify the document. when it gets to the board, the

board would be required before it approves the project, to affirm that certification, which is exactly what it does when it hears an appeal. it gives it -- it affirms the action taken by this body. so, i think as supervisor wiener explained, it's essentially an automatic appeal. so, if they have to approve the project, it would go to them. the c-e-q-a issue would go to them along with the -- whatever the approval action related to the project that they're being asked to take, they would consider them together through their normal processes ann marie explained. and before they approve the project, if they decide to approve the project, they would have to affirm the c-e-q-a decision that was made by the planning commission. >> but doesn't that -- i don't know what the state law says. but other people have claimed that that skirts the state law because the state law says a

certification can be appealed to the legislative body. >> only if it's not -- if they're not the final decision making body on the c-e-q-a document. so, in this case they would be required to be the final decision making body. the fact that the planning commission would have done all the hard work getting through the document, getting the record all put together, making sure that it's in good shape before it gets to them doesn't mean that the board isn't the final decision making body. >> in those instances, wouldn't it be just easier for the board just to be the certifying body and to bypass the commission all together? >> i think they appreciate the work that you do here. >> well, i'm saying it just seems like -- then you're forcing the people who may be in the current system thinking of filing an appeal on a

certification to then -- the process just changes to where instead of filing an actual appeal, they would prepare the same kind of document, let's say, for themselves as an appeal, but then they would present that at the board of supervisors hearing. >> yes, they would not be precluded from doing that, yes. >> okay. on the triggering actions, i think there's been lots of discussions about what that is. and i think there needs to be a lot more discussion about specifically saying what that is at various departmental levels because nobody understands what that means. for example, if i go in -- the firm i work with is working with a property owner and we go in for a site permit, is that the triggering action for a building permit? because it's been issued. and i think it goes to planning

and whatever and there's back and forth. i don't know, mr. wyco, if you're familiar with that part of the building department. >> i'm not the person in terms of policy intricacies of the building department [speaker not understood]. my understanding is the site permit could be the triggering action. >> the issue i have with that is you don't have to provide a lot of information about the actual building itself when you're going in for a site permit. it's conceptual. >> the environmental document, whatever it is, doesn't cover it, you just invited yourself back into a recycling process. >> you see, my problem with that is that it's not going to work. i mean, we have had -- and i don't want to get into dirty laundry here, but i'll get into it. staff is not reliable, okay. i'll just say it flat out. staff is not reliable.

staff does not know what is going on, especially in the building department. , and you know, i'm going to get quoted on this and have to apologize so somebody. but, you know, i have some firsthand knowledge of projects that have gone through a certain approval processes, gets there, and the whole thing falls apart. and, so, i think that shortening it to 20 days isn't going to work. especially since i think there was some examples given trying to obtain documents. it takes us two to three weeks to get building request records answered. you're shot your entire 20 day period for appeal. you don't have the basic information on which to base your appeal in the first place. so, especially if you want -- and i understand substantial evidence. i think the issue with that is if you guys would -- if the supervisor would just take what

it says in the state law as substantial evidence having to back up the fair argument and leave the fair argument in there, then i think it would be much clearer to the public. the public when they read this in the ordinance or however it's going to be put forth is going to see substantial evidence and they're going to go, oh, well, you know, that means lawyers. that means this and that, whatever. when, in fact, substantial evidence doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have what most people -- in reading substantial evidence would conjure up as what they need to provide. it is a very low threshold. even if you use the word substantial evidence, it's a very low threshold. and that's i think the problem that people are having by excluding the fair argument phrase in conjunction with substantial evidence. so, that's something i think the supervisor needs to take a

look at and maybe use the way the state law is written to address both those phrases. in terms of -- i don't have much more. i think that -- i don't know what the commission wants to do. in some ways i feel that it's not ready yet, but i don't know how much direction we're being able to give to the supervisor at this point. these are admin code changes, so, they're not planning code changes but i don't want to get out of it because of that. so, i don't know if we want to have another hearing, whether that would do any good. i think the -- several supervisors including supervisor wu and others have

voiced the opinion that -- that the supervisor really needs to do more outreach. i kind of argued against that earlier today. [laughter] >> you know, i'm not consistent. so, you know, i think we need to at least encourage him or recommend that he do that, especially given the number of groups that have got their letters together for the first hearing that we had. and i know there is a historic preservation commission has had a hearing and we have not had the benefit of input yet. and they are holding yet another hearing. * of their input yet. i know they continued the item them self. >> december 5th, commissioner. >> okay. >> maybe it would be helpful just for you and the public. i know you are on the e-mail what is the future plan hearings for this one. >> right. >> this was introduced in october 16th of this year.

normally as administrative code we would have 30 days to weigh in. that's why we did try to schedule hearings very quickly. the hpc has already had hearings, on november 11th and 21st. this is your first hearing. we've been told from the chair of the land use committee hearing that they are not going to schedule it for the -- there's only two remaining land use committee hearings this year. it will not be heard in december. that does mean that even though there's no official hold that this body has on the board preventing them from hearing t we are told they will not hear it until the new year. certainly you can plan for hearings through december and that would be before what we've been told board action would be. >> well, let me think about it. go ahead. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. so, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my

idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more process added in some of these. i would move that we recommend to the supervisor support, but with these modifications. longer, but clear, clear appeal periods, not to exceed three months from whatever we determine to be the date of the first complete approval document. and what i mean by that is something that you can begin to build on. if you get a plumbing permit, if you get, you know, the very first permit that you're going to be building something that really doesn't give the public much of an input as to what you're going to build. but if you have something that has the plans together and you're basically permitted to

go forward with this, i'm not sure if this is an unrealistically late period. but it would seem to me it would answer any critics that say there isn't enough there. you'd have a pretty complete document about what's being built and they'd have 90 days. and then notice to all in the department website and in some printed form where possible where those who for some reason may not have access to the internet, they could see this. and finally, i would ask the supervisor to in the interim period because it's going to be at least till january to solicit input from the public wherever possible. so, that would be my motion if it makes any sense. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate ms. rodgers saying whitewash. indeed, i believe we need an additional one or two hearings and my basic expectation would

be that everybody who has spoken here today, the groups they represent or they spoke as individuals, that their concerns are addressed in some form or another because there seemed to be a general feeling of uncertainty of what's in front of us. and i have to really actually be very honest. it resonated quite well with me when mr. fairchild said, if you don't understand it, vote no on it. i think i want to be real simple here. i did not get the rewritten legislation till 4:00, what was the exact moment here? 4:19, yee, 4:19 this afternoon while we were already in the middle of discussion. so, i am in no motion to say how substantive some of the concerns have been addressed or not and why there is a matrix, no, yes, no, i always say the devil is in the details.

and the detail is really more in the purview of people understanding in simple language of what ultimately is a legal document. and if that's unclear, which it is to me, i think don't vote on it. and if there is no pressure, if the supervisors indeed are not hearing it and they do no place else, why are we with an incomplete set of information being asked to support or not support it? i think in general, i think there is clear consensus that everybody from the state down through all of the communities who have tried to change c-e-q-a, there is a consensus that certain changes need to be made. when they are made, it is obviously an issue of great concern, don't do it before the holidays like 2 minutes before closing time. do it when there is time to do it, do it in the clear light of the public participating because their rights are the ones who seem to be mostly affected by it.

having said that, i think the supervisor would be very well advised to put his ear to the ground or have his helpers put their ear to the ground of what the state of california is already discussing because we had the presentation today, i think it was mr. wong about representative steinberg together with mr. rubio who has already apparently toured the city with spur about the state starting to address changes. and why not just streamline it so we don't have to go back and revise it and adjust it? i think it's all a question of efficiency and who participates in the discussion. from my personal experience sitting here where i sit, i would actually strongly advise that appeals are not filed early on when the first action is taken, but that they are filed when there is as much wrote et disclosure as there is possibly available. i have participated in the

project which was heard in front of this commission over a time frame of ten years. that being treasure island. the first e-i-r on that project was probably file number 2004, 2005, only for the project to completely and totally transform itself even in the hearing, in the e-i-r hearing. there were design and major changes pushed through in the last five days. different documents were issued [speaker not understood] including during the hearing. there were substantive changes made. that applies to bayview hunters point and that applies to park merced, all three projects which i have strong objections to. and if that is an indication of what would happen is the time frame would be moved earlier, i would personally say let's not go there. >> maybe i can correct what may be a misunderstanding. in this case the c-e-q-a certification and the last

minute changes, the approval that happened at the last hearing would be considered the first approval hearing because that's when you have both a valid c-e-q-a document and you have the first approval with that valid c-e-q-a document. >> the e-i-r was never adjusted to reflect those changes. and there was no way until you basically reconsidered the e-i-r from square 1 and that was never done. >> commissioner borden. >> maybe we can make a recommendation. i think that there is a lot of different details that werer we're not in a position to say approve with these modifications, but i think we can make a recommendation to the supervisor saying we like, for example, we like the streamline board processes and kind of the enumeration of how things should happen and what time frames, what kind of documents are necessary. i think that air the area we all identified most problematic is the issue around the first

discretionary action appeal kick-in process, clarity around what that would be. would that be, i think -- whether clarity around what kinds of permits or actions that would apply to so we can discuss that although my personal preference would be it relate to planning or building related permit. at least we could have -- in future discussions with the community and others, looking at what those field of permits are going to the 30 days versus 20 days, when there is -- when there should be notice, [speaker not understood] default into a longer time 012a yd because it there wasn't notification. obviously the biggest thing is continue to work with the community. and i would ask the community that in return to genuinely work with the supervisor. * i know that some people say, oh, we weren't consulted and they really mean they'd like to be consulted and really provide feedback to fix things. and there are other people who are like, i want to kill it. and, so, you know, i just hope

that when people, if they choose to engage in the process, can provide really good and useful feedback. if there are some problems the members of the public identified here which aren't going to -- that are not really what this legislation is talking about, and maybe in the future when we present this, we could separate out e-i-rs from the cad ex and negative declarations because all the big projects, park merced and treasure island and everyone is discussing, this actually wouldn't even be what -- this wouldn't be impacting those projects. everything that happened would happen as they've happened. but i think that that's still not clear for the general public. and i think kind of maybe spelling that out a little more like i know you had that one chart for the public would be useful. my observation is more time with the community, you know, codify the things we know people like and work on those two issues that are the main ones, the notification. >> commissioner sugaya. >> was that a motion? >> i mean, i wish -- can we

make -- i don't want to -- would that be okay to make a motion out of? >> i still have concerns about having things triggered right at the very first of the project. >> that's what i'm talking about. >> and also, i think that we should -- if the supervisor under our encouragement can engage in a process with the community and with those who have submitted letters and, you know, with everybody i suppose, then i think my preference would be to have that process take place. have some legislative draft done again, and then have that come back to us rather than our taking more and more testimony and the supervisor over here hasn't engaged or is in the process of engaging. we hold a hearing, it doesn't

make any sense to me. so, maybe if we can somehow have a process if he's willing to do so where there's more engagement, and then there's another draft. we have a second draft, that we just got today. you know, he's willing, i think, to move forward in some fashion. * if we could then have some more definitive piece of legislation that we could reconsider, so to speak, or that would come back to us as another draft -- >> a third draft. >> yeah. unless they've produced one in the meantime here, but no. yeah, the third draft. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that would resemble very much the way we worked with supervisor chiu on a number of recycling of basic principles and ultimately the community and the different groups which were really not at first started to impact the outcome. i would be comfortable with that process which basically says we don't have to take action today. we'll leave it with a

recommendation to the supervisor for continued work with specific pointing toward those areas of change or interaction with the community that were outlined and leave it with that. >> so, i'm a little confused -- to see that third draft, if we approve, but we're requesting review that of third draft where we don't take action, waiting on the third draft and take action on that? >> that's the city attorney could advise us on what best would be done in a case like that. * perhaps >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland knowles. [speaker not understood] you're asking the supervisor to engage the public and come back to the commission with another draft. as i understand the process outlined by ms. rodgers, that would be up to the supervisor

whether he would be willing to do that. you could make an alternative motion where that's your recommendation to the supervisor. but in the case that the process continues at the board of supervisors, then you have some other recommendations that you've already put forward, including further engagement with the community. so, if you'd like to make a motion that has an alternative, you can certainly do that. >> so, we could approve with recommendations? >> you're adopting a resolution recommending approval with the modifications you've all discussed in case it goes forward and the supervisor chooses not to engage the public and submit a third draft. but if he does, but with the emphasis that that's your recommendation that he do that, then it come back to you. >> got it, thank you. commissioner antonini. [multiple voices] >> let me see if i can craft something that sounds like what we're trying to talk about.

our recommendation, my motion would be that we ask the supervisor to engage the public and produce a third draft to be submitted to us before he takes action at the board for the administrative action. and if he does not choose to do that, then we certainly would ask him to take into consideration our comments from today to give him direction because, as you know, he does not have to do that. but what we want him to do, and that would be the motion, we're asking him to produce a third draft. and ideally, if he could have it back to us by -- what's our last hearing date, the 13th of december? well, maybe the first hearing in january probably. we would have a hearing before the board of supervisors. >> the point of it is for the

more outreach to the public. you want to give that time. >> give him as much time -- >> january is as much time as he's going to allow, but let's say mid january or something like that. what's our second hearing in january? >> for him to get a draft, i don't want to put pressure on him. [multiple voices] >> i don't think he set a date. >> all right, we don't need a date. that would be it. >> the only other thing i would say, though, don't we want to spell out area for him -- of concern we want him to work on so there is this new draft. we've talked about it and i don't know if staff feels we have captured it enough or we need to put it in the resolution. but i just think -- you want us to put it in the resolution? yes, they want us to put in the resolution -- >> the motion? >> in the motion that you're putting forth the thing that we'd like him to work on in this third draft which would include the, you know,

triggering of the first discretionary permit, work on around that issue. specifically that we don't necessarily think that that's the right place. look at other places looksal what discretionary permit, look at when the permit should be specific in the planning and building department. i think the people were talking about the length of the appeal process being 30 days for noticed projects and reverting to maybe the state standards and look at that. and whoever else wants to jump in. >> can we include both of those as part of the motion? we're looking at the initial trigger and whether that should be a more substantial permit rather than somebody just pulling the first possible permit as being the period. and second of all, the permitting period in some instances, 30 days, 20 days is fine, but, you know, could be as long as six months in some instances where there's no notice. and