reasons. one was mentioned today. and the reason why it's failing is because they -- a certain organization misrepresented facts to the federal government and they're not getting funding. i think that we should be very circumvent on how we vote on this. and i think that the notice should be 45 days. my reason? it takes two weeks for it to get to my neighborhood from the planning commission. there is a hearing right now, a pre-application meeting that i still haven't gotten a notice on. tonight it goes to 9 o'clock. this has been a wonderful day in city hall. and -- but i think that to allow something that is on appeal to keep building and keep processing, i think that we are hurting ourselves and

setting our self-up for big lawsuits if something should fail under the c-e-q-a process. ~ with the appeals. and if somebody continues to build while they're going through the process, on the project, then all of a sudden they say they can't do it for valid c-e-q-a actions, then all of a sudden who gets it? the city. so, i think we really should be very, very, very careful on how we do it. i think this is a great beginning. i think it's pretty good, pretty good legislation, but this factor really worries me. thank you. good evening, commissioners. i'm judith hoyam, and i'm connected with a long-time

member of san francisco preservation consortium and that's where my interest is. i like so many others have been quite disturbed about supervisor wiener's legislation. it seemed to tighten down the process and i'm really unfamiliar with participatory democracy. i think the public has a right to make certain demands, such as greater c-e-q-a -- greater application of c-e-q-a rather than a quicker process for everyone to get through. >> go on. yes. so, i won't reiterate the problems with supervisor

wiener's legislation. at the 11th hour, we have heard from the planning department that certain thing would be, would be asked of you to amend the legislation. it seems to me that supervisor wiener has been so concerned with having this chaotic process of c-e-q-a, but he has introduced a chaotic process in trying to amend c-e-q-a. so, i am very disturbed by the whole process. now you have another -- if we have another competing piece of legislation that's going to come before the board of supervisors, and i would ask you to hold off oncoming to any conclusion about this legislation. and i would hope that you would do more work on this by looking at supervisor kim's legislation before you make any kind of

decisions. but thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? ~ on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> yeah, i want to thank everyone who has participated in the process and supervisor wiener for engaging with the community around c-e-q-a and the issues, many of the issues that we raised in the last hearing have been dealt with. i want to make sure the public understands we do not have supervisor kim's legislation. we have not seen supervisor kim's legislation. i don't think it's been properly quote-unquote introduced, i guess, in the way that it would be sent from the clerk of the board to our commission. so, we cannot weigh on that decision. also, as you all might know, there is a decision clock that starts when legislation comes to the board of supervisors. we have a window in which we can weigh in on it. the supervisor doesn't have to listen to what we have to say. we are not elected official, we

are a discretionary body. so, at the end, our opinion while valuable is not necessarily, you know, the final word on that. in terms of c-e-q-a, i think that what is often misunderstood is that the california environmental quality act is an information tool. i mean, the sole purpose of c-e-q-a is to provide the public with information about projects being proposed. it doesn't take an affirmative or negative position on projects and it's not supposed to be seen in that regard. you are supposed to use it to evaluate the projects or become controversial is whether or not people agree with when the city, if decision maker choose to move forward with the project, their determination of why they can do that. i mean the issue is thev actually with the documents or with c-e-q-a itself. it's whether or not you agree given the information that you agree, right? i mean, that's really what we're talking about here. in terms of the very large

projects, the park merceds, the major projects that go on in the city, this has nothing to do with that, right. the projects we're talking about are categorical exemptions and negative declarations. these are projects that are typically an addition to your neighbor's house, maybe something on a public building. we're not -- the major projects that people really get concerned about are not being influenced by this because this is -- they have a different process that already exists. that is just a fact because this does not deal with e-i-rs. this is p dealing with e-i-rs. it's dealing with cad ex's and negative declarations. fundamentally it's created a process for those documents where one does not exist. i will agree the website of the planning department is not user friendly and that needs to change. regardless of whether or not we're talking about c-e-q-a form, that does need to change. you have to go under the e-i-r section and then look under the

categorical exemption, then i do think we should make it more obvious and i think that that's something, i know that our communications team is working on. at this point one of the big issues that seems to be discussed is the first approval versus the last approval. that seems to be the major source of contention between those people supporting supervisor wiener's legislation and those people who do not. in terms of the community planning exemption, i did have a question for the supervisor. projects that would be under the community plan exemption, in this process when would the appeal period begin for that? that's one thing i think would be useful to worry about because i think that's the one area where larger projects would be impacted. >> thank you, sara jones in environmental planning. with community plan exemptions we administer them in the same

way as regular exemptions. so, these would be appealable at the same time as regular exemptions. sometimes there is a focused environmental review document that's dealing just with the specific issues where there are significant impacts and mitigationses needed. and then we use essentially the process for the "highest" environmental document. they would be treated as a negative declaration or e-i-r in that case. >> great, perfect. the other thing is that it was interesting because one of the thing that people mentioned about people crafting the legislation around c-e-q-a that there were c-e-q-a attorneys. i was like, wow, and people always make kind of charge the developers support legislation that support their work. one could argue a c-e-q-a attorney would be more, you know, inclined toward legislation that met with their work. people work by the hour and they want to make money, you know, some c-e-q-a attorney, maybe ambiguity is something that works well for me.

but i think that that's not best served. i believe that this document seems very balanced to me in terms of what is being suggested here. i actually don't really get the controversy. i recognize, like i said, there is a major sticking point around whether or not you feel the first approval or the last approval should be the point. i mean, the thing that's not happening is people aren't losing their ability to appeal a project. that is saying the same and we're actually increasing noticing requirements in creating rules when there is ambiguity. so, that's a good thing. we often say when we're working on a plan, when we do neighborhood plans, you know, when we had eastern neighborhoods or even western soma, when people came at the end of the process, we actually said, oh, this process has been going on eight years, too late to the people. we said, you should have been around sooner. it is a kind of funny when we come to c-e-q-a, we say, you can do it at the end, but it's not important in the beginning. i think we can't have it both

ways. we think that people's input is valuable and paying attention in the beginning, then that's where the emphasis should be placed. better notification so people can be informed. the fact that the legislation is now changed that when there is a substantive change in a project, then c-e-q-a process opens up again, it makes sense. what we've heard a lot about in general where people are -- even things they bring up that they're upset about is there is more opposition to specific projects than there is c-e-q-a. people use c-e-q-a because they are opposed to a project. but it doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the environmental review process. and i think that's kind of what's troubling in the conversation. a true environmentalist should want c-e-q-a to work as it is intended to work because it's alluded or changed in a way that makes it about anything other than the environment, it is counterproductive to supporting the environment. so, for me if i were -- i mean,

if that was my position, i would be very supportive of c-e-q-a form that really allowed people to focus on the environmental aspects and then you can debate an appeal project and what you don't like about those projects moving forward. but i think that what's too often the case is that the confusion between c-e-q-a and dislike of a project, and people use c-e-q-a -- if you were to actually look at the number of appeals that actually do happen and whether or not they are upheld by a court or, you know, or by the board of supervisors, there aren't that many. it tells me that the environmental review process along the way is working even if members of the community don't necessarily agree with how it works. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you. my experience is somewhat similar to that of commissioner borden. i first came on the commission in november of 2002, and i was

informed on january 1st of 2003 that state legislation had passed making all environmental decisions that we made appealable or those that weren't even made by us, such as some cad x's and negative declarations were appealable to the elected body in the particular county, which happens to be the board of supervisors. and all of a sudden, we were flooded with almost every single project coming under appeal on the environmental piece. and i was always confused. i said, if they're against the project, why don't they just try to block the project when the project is before us, not try to comment that the environmental document is inadequate? well, actually, there's a reason for that, because, you know, the bar is not as high because if you can get an appeal to the board of supervisors, you can accept the appeal for sick votes. whereas if you've got appeal for project, you have to have a super majority, which is 8 votes, either a cu or a 309

approval. ~ six and if you do, are successful in an environmental action and a document has to be recirculated, particularly an e-i-r which we're not talking about today, but even the process it would take a cad ex up to a negative declaration or a negative declaration to an e-i-r, it's often devastating. and, so, that was always something. so, i realized after awhile why we see so many appeals. although many of these appeals legitimately believe that the document that they have does not completely address accurately the environmental impacts. we're not talking about that. what we're talking about here is a much more focused legislation by supervisor wiener. and to compare that to what we hear, at least what he represented as supervisor kim's legislation, they're two different things. they're apples and oranges. supervisor wiener is talking about the regulating the appeals process for cad x's and negative declarations to get

more notification, which is really important. everybody said, we don't know when these things happen. that's extremely important. and then putting time frames on it. i mean, there was a huge difference between the appeal period for e-i-rs, which was a matter of just a few days because you have to appeal it into that. and i think the average appeal time for cad x's and negative declarations were something like 200 days. so, a lot longer than the other. so, it only adds -- it does significantly add to the cost of projects in san francisco to have this process going uncontrolled. so, i heard what the public was saying and i have some comments and some suggestions. there was one commenter that said we should have 60 days appeal period for unnoticed. well, i think everything should be noticed. i mean, i'll have to see how the supervisor feels about it, but the whole purpose of this is there is what we believe to

be adequate notice. and when we establish what adequate notice is, then the appeal period begins at the time when there is adequate notice for the particular project be it a cad ex or a negative declaration. and once we've agreed upon that notice being out there, that that is adequate notice. then the clock begins to tick. and i'm fine with it being -- i think there was a move to extend the period of time to 30 days, which i think the supervisor is in favor of. i see no problem with that. the difference between 20 and 30 days is negligible. the difference between 30 days and a couple of years which sometimes happens is what the problem is. then the other thing that i heard projects about, when is the first notice, first appeal notice? you know, approval. i guess maybe we could get some

answers on this as far as that, but i'm thinking if it's something that comes before us it's quite clear that we have a hearing. we have the negative declaration, you know, that we pass this as the environmental piece, or there is a cad ex. we have a hearing, there is a cad ex. so, that would be very clear what that is. now, if there is not a public hearing for the particular item, i don't know if there is some way that this noticing could come through the planning commission and be part of a memo or something that we might publicly announce as part of our program. maybe not in public session, but at least it would be something that the public would see it's noted. ~ maybe you could answer that, ms. jones, if you could let me know that's a possibility. >> certainly. well, commissioner antonini, under the proposed legislation, the notification and the approval actions are defined.

the 311, 312 notification that goes out would serve -- would include an indication that a cad ex had been issued. that if dr is requested, the hearing would constitute the approval action. if dr is not requested, then the building permit would constitute the approval action. and then the notice has been given the flag has been raised to track this project and a potential appellant is interested. we did, in analyzing these projects, see that the projects that get appealed are the ones that also had dr hearings on them. so, people are aware through that process clearly of the requirements and the opportunity. >> sorry, if i might, commissioner, just to clarify. the way it works is if a notice

goes out that there has been a c-e-q-a action, an environmental review completed, but the actual 30-day clock starts when the first action happens. >> yes, thank you. the 30-day clock is not from the c-e-q-a document issuance or from the fart notice itself. it is from that action. >> i understand that. but i think this is where people have raised some questions and where concerns can exist. obviously if it's a dr it's going to be heard here. if it's some other kind of action, cu or 309 or whatever sort of action it is, you know, that would be an environmental piece, it would come before us. but if it is one where there is a permit and that's the triggering point, then how -- if the public was not part of the universe that gets the 311, 312 notice, how would they know? they might be out of the area. so, how would they know that a permit has been issued? >> they would receive notification through the

building permit process. so, the notification of the c-e-q-a action and the ability to appeal would follow the notification of -- follow the existing notifications that exist in the city. the type of action that we did identify as needing notification, because it wasn't occurring through a hearing or through the permits, would be discretionary actions taken by other departments that are not -- that do not occur at a hearing. those -- the legislation does provide for a new notice provided through the planning department's website. it is contingent on those departments to provide us that notice. and the reason for doing so is that it allows that appeal window to open and then close. >> my suggestion would be not everyone necessarily is online and reads the website, but if there could be some sort of

notice at the planning department or some other noticing that would be available for people, that's why i brought up the idea of it coming before the commission or being part of the paperwork the commission would have as its record. >> i think one of the graceful things about the proposal that is before you now, the way the noticing for the c-e-q-a exemption works is it's based off of our years of experiencing about what do people care about and what projects do they need to be noticed about. so, the 311 and 312 notification provides notice for those more minor projects that might not have a hearing notification. and then beyond that, it seems most people are interested in public projects. so, those would be required to be listed on our website and we would have a specific case. and sara as our new e-i-r, would revamp the c-e-q-a noticing section. that would be a clear area where are the public projects. and then there's a lot of --

thousands of projects that are reviewed over the counter that have exemptions that would be incredibly burdensome if there were a hold up in notice for that particular type of over the counter c-e-q-a bill. so, there is not a notice of those, but in our practice when people are concerned about, are covered by our 311, 312 notification. >> to that point, even now if it's over the counter, you know, the appeal -- they don't get any more notice. they get even less notice if it's just over the counter at the present time. unless somebody sees a construction starting, they're not going to be aware of it probably. so, i think that does increase the amount of notification. >> commissioner, [speaker not understood] supervisor stanch. i think one thing to bring to notice to the commission is that the city issues tens of thousands of cad x's on a yearly basis. ~ staff so, anything from planting a street tree, [speaker not understood] on the sidewalk,

all of those rely on a cad ex. essentially any permit that's issued. so, if we start requiring notice here at the commission for the tens of thousands of cad x's, just becomes such a deluge of information, everything gets buried in that. as i mentioned, if the noticing procedures are geared toward making advertising the project, that people generally care about and have an interest in. >> okay. that sounds fine as long as there is someplace where the public would be aware of these, even though there may be one of tens of thousands, at least, they would be aware if they are concerned about a street tree in their particular neighborhood happening, they should be able to check some kind of notification, either on the website or at the planning department to see what's going on. i think our outreach might have to be more to just make the public aware of where they can go to find these if they are interested in it. so, that might be good. a couple other things that came up. there was a question about whether changes in a project

would trigger another environmental hearing. with youv, we have to go through that now. the city attorney generally has to make the decision whether or not the changes are material and whether or not the project is the same project and therefore it does not require new environmental action. so, that's nothing that we're not already doing and, so, for that concern we're not proposing anything new. and the other thing that came up would be the question of whether the hearing at the board of supervisors would be in committee or it would be a committee of the whole, that being the entire board of supervisors. maybe someone could comment on which of those it would be, or what would trigger it to be a committee of the whole. >> thank you, commissioners. it's actually not a committee of the whole. the way it works nowth at the

board, so, for example, the booker t. washington project where we had to do a special use district to rezone it, we held a hearing at the land use committee on the underlying legislation. and then we had a separate hearing on the c-e-q-a appeal at the full board of supervisors. right now every single c-e-q-a appeal is heard by the entire board of supervisors no matter what the appeal is, whether or not it has already been a separate hearing. what the legislation provides is that if there is -- if the board is already taking legislative action that's necessary for the project to happen, the c-e-q-a would automatically, even if it's not appealed, attach to that legislation and it would be heard in committee. the board can always hear any matter, any piece of legislation as a committee of the whole if the board wants to do that. but this would occur presumptively in committee. if there were no underlying legislation, then the hearing would happen at the full board

as it currently does. >> okay. and then as far as the planning commission would be concerned, if there is an appeal of one of our environmental actionses and we find out that the full board -- the board is going to hear it anyway, it would not come back to us to consider the appeal t. would go directly to the board for the appeal process. >> well, it depends ~ for an e-i-r where you certify it, that can always be appealed to us. and i guess unless we overturn it, you would not see it again. and for a negative declaration, right now you can file directly at the board or the legislation. now is requires you go to the planning commission then to the board of supervisors to give the commission first a chance to address any infish iss and negative declarations. >> great. that gives us more process at our end. not that we're trying to add more process ~ -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> yes, for those concerned about their rights to hear items at all different

forumses, it would actually now mandate that we do have a hearing on that, then it would go on to the board. okay, supervisor. appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> so, i like this legislation a lot as written with the modifications i have talked about, and see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> so, thank you for this discussion. thank you for those who have e-mailed us with substantive comments or called us because it's been helpful. as someone who has worked in this 15 years there is a lot i learned throughout this process. so, i think it's been helpful. i know c-e-q-a is kind of the third rail of land use approval. so, even taking on something as simple as making the process it is more predictable, leads to a lot of questions and frustration. so, i think this first approval, you know, is kind of a key issue. i still have a couple questions on when that is and how that differs from what we do now. so, a normal -- many of these

10,000 permits, or these 10,000 cad x's or exemptions that are issued every year by planning that don't have a hearing, that don't require 311, 312 notice, would the first approval then be the building permit? and is that consistent with what it is -- with how the city attorney is interpreting that now, that that's now -- that's also the final approval. is that correct? so -- >> sara jones again, planning department. yes, at this point many of the projects that come through our department and all of these thousands and thousands of cad x's, there's one and only approval -- >> which is a building permit approval, that would be the first approval or last approval. a majority of these -- >> yes. >> c-e-q-a actionses or exemptions that the city takes

on. >> yes. >> so, no change on those. and then for projects that require 311 or 312 notice, those that are not dr'd or there is not a cu that don't come here to planning, that are approved at the staff level, again, the first approval and the last approval is the building department. >> yes. >> so, no change -- >> right. it's one action. >> so, there is actually increased notice because you'll get notice -- you'll get c-e-q-a notice in the 311 and 312 notice that you don't currently get now. >> exactly, you would get c-e-q-a notice. the first approval action as a trigger for the c-e-q-a appeal process, that is defined here as the approval -- it's the section 31 04. and it's essentially the first

action ~ at which the c-e-q-a document is implicated. and by that i mean at which the c-e-q-a document and the project description in the c-e-q-a document are fully considered. the entirety of that project. so, the minor permit issue, is it a tree, is it a curb cut, those are not the approvals that would trigger this activity. or this ability to appeal. it would be the addition to the house. it would be the -- it would be the full project. >> right. but i think the vast majority of, you know, the 10,000 exemptions, there's no change, really, to what's happening. if the final approval and the first approval is the permit that's issued by the building department, which nobody gets like a formal c-e-q-a notice about, you kind of have to know to go down to building or you have a block notation or something like that that gives you, y