it's over 800 acres of land with the shipyard. and with the sewage plant. aim very concerned about how we have been shafted. you all shafted us before. and what happened, we had to get a lawyer. we shouldn't have to get a lawyer because of ceqa. we should thev have to get a lawyer because you vote on something that you should not be voting on because of big development. and i am getting tired of hearing about development and not about the people of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, ms. jackson. ms. stevens. say what? >> i'm calling the next speaker. hi, my name is [speaker not understood] stevens, i live in the golden gates neighborhood association. our association represents about 500 household in the west of twin peak center [speaker not understood] part of the city. our neighborhoods primarily owner occupied single-family houses. for many of us our only action

with ceqa is one to make changes or additions to our house. right now the process is just complicated. people don't know what's going on. there is disagreement about that. supervisor wiener's legislation will create an open predictable process to resolve these disputes. it will make it easy for everyday people, not just attorneys to understand the deadlines. it will make the ceqa process open and more clear for the little guys in san francisco, the homeowners who want to make small, important to the home owner improvements to their home. we therefore support supervisor wiener's legislation. by contrast, we're concerned that supervisor kim's legislation might have a negative impact on our members because nearly all the homes in golden gate heights are more than 50 years old. according to supervisor kim's proposal as i understand t the over the counter permits that our members currently can get for minor projects, for example, you know, replacing a broken handrail, windows, leaky roof, that sort of things, would no longer be allowed. this would add months of delay

to a home remodel project upwards of $500,000 or more to obtain a categorical exemption certificate they would need to continue with what is essentially a minor project. home repair. we think that her legislation will make it more difficult for our members to make the kind of home -- minor home repairs and remodels that we need to enhance our homes and protect our investments in them. we therefore oppose supervisor kim's alternative legislation and support the legislation of supervisor wiener. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. steve seltzer, united public workers for action. it is interesting that this so kayedv reform being proposed is also coming alongside governor brown's attack on ceqa because that's what this idea of reform is. ~ it's to dee regulate land use and make it cheaper and more profitable for the developers. that's really what's drive thing and that's what's been driving our big chairperson here who says he's interested

in good government. i think that's a laugh because i was at a park merced hearing where i saw your good government. the city attorney came in with documents from the developer and said that was the legal [speaker not understood] of the city. is that good government when you take the developer's legal opinions paid for by the developer? i think this really is a fraud. i think that it shows actually that what's going on is the bully -- the people of san francisco, the community for the projects of the developers, and i have to say that we have a case where the supervisors, all the supervisors just voted for $750,000 settlement for dr. derek kerr because he was bullied, as have been the planners in the city department, senior developers were bullied out of the department [speaker not understood]. where is your concern of good government when you're voting millions of dollars for retaliation suits [speaker not understood] by the workers of san francisco, public workers who oppose the corruption? because that's really what's

going on i think in san francisco at this point. workers, public workers are being bullied. they're being told go along with the corruption, go along with the scams that are being put forward. and that is a clearly the case in the park merced where you violated the sunshine agreement to push through new amendments without public comment, violating. instead of dealing with that you get rid of the sunshine commission. you refuse to employ people in the sunshine commission. it is clear corruption, [speaker not understood]. >> before we get to the next speaker, i have a question for the city attorney. supervisor kim, her legislation, which i understand will be introduced tomorrow, has been mentioned obliquely or directly a few times. can i get a clarification since that is not on the agenda today, what we as a committee can say or not say with respect

to it and what members of the public -- i just want to make sure that -- [multiple voices] >> please come to order. [gavel] >> mr. givener. >> john givener, deputy city attorney. the committee and members of the public can discuss the legislation that is being considered by the committee today. of course, supervisor kim's legislation is closely related, deals with the same topic. so, it's perfectly fair for a member of the public or committee member to mention ideas in supervisor kim's legislation as a counter point or suggestion for amendments to this legislation. >> okay. i think that's very important. i'm glad to hear that. i think some people may have thought otherwise. so, just to be clear, we are allowed to talk about supervisor kim's legislation today. if folks could please -- this

is a hearing that is run in a certain order. everyone will have an opportunity to make public comment. please no outburst from the chamber. yes, mr. givener, just to be clear, we can discuss that? >> you can discuss it. again, to the extent it informs decisions about this particular legislation. >> okay, thank you very much. okay, next speaker. [speaker not understood], a member of the sun site heights association [speaker not understood], which strongly supports supervisor wiener's ceqa legislation. our neighborhood association is 100 years old and we thought we saw it all. we think that this is a very important open government measure that promotes transparency. it's unjust to keep the planning process hidden from the general public and accessible only to the experts.

who under the confusing rules. you're going to hear from the usual suspects here, i trust, and maybe their attorneys. i heard one activist saying i had a long talk with aaron last night. so, you will hear that. but let's think about everybody else here who doesn't have time to come to all the hearings who doesn't fully understand ceqa. supervisor chiu asked about what specifics, what's important. what's important to us is clear notice, clear notification so we all know what's happening and when we can register our thoughts. we want one appeal, not two or three or four appeals. people who are working people who have families don't have time to come to multiple hearings. do it. and then finally, we think it's only fair to prohibit appeals. the very end or particularly in some cases in the middle of construction, that is simply

not fair. san francisco is the only city in california that uses such complex and confusing procedures. this clearly is not going to hurt ceqa because other counties and cities have similar processes. let's make it clear. are we so special that we have to be bureaucratic and wasteful? i think not. this legislation doesn't take away the right to appeal any planning decision instead it strengthens noticing requirements. thank you very much. >> thank you. before we get to the next speaker, i just want to call a few more cards. anthony urbina, pat scott, hiroshi fakuda. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. rose hillson, tamika ross, mike [speaker not understood], mike bueler, robert [speaker not understood], judith. nick hefner. judy irving.

and next speaker. i am [speaker not understood] bronson, [speaker not understood], and volunteer san francisco biking soccer league. we register 8,000 kids to play soccer. we are a significant partner with our rec and park department to provide that for children. and the opponents to the supervisor's legislation, supervisor wiener's legislation, have brought up the beach l.a. project in a way and i think that's a misunderstanding. i want to be clear. my understanding here is that under supervisor wiener's legislation, there would have been more proactive notification of the categorical exemption for beach l.a. and it would have been easier and better for opponents to know what's going on under supervisor wiener's legislation than as it was last spring.

in support of supervisor wiener's legislation, it is common sense and as a journalist easily understanding the rules of governance that creates fair competition of these ideas is vital to the city to pass this legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. hi, xiiixv. supervisors. my name is sam ball. i'm a film documentary maker at the [speaker not understood]. my wife say public school teacher in san francisco unified. i really appreciate supervisor kim's questions and comments about large scale development and i just want to speak about my experience in support of supervisor wiener's legislation because i think it's a small step in the right direction of transparency. i think the current process the way we've experienced it discourages transparency. we notified our neighbors of our plans and showed them plans

well before we began construction. we brought up lighted property and uninhabitable property with holes in the walls, faulty electrical, faulty plumbing. and we were not expanding the building [speaker not understood] or changing the building or the appearance of the facade. and as happens with severely dilapidated properties we found dry rot into the walls about 40% of the way through construction, 40% of the way into our budget when our next door neighbor who had seen the plans many months before suddenly started filing appeal after appeal and waiting until the 11th hour of the last day every time. just one of those six appeals was a ceqa appeal, but it was a devastating one. it took a long time to schedule a hearing. it cost us mortgage. in total over this process, we spent more than $100,000 on the

six appeals, though not one of them went the wrong way. all of these appeals were very easily decided, and yet the bureaucratic process and the overlapping jurisdictions and the sheer amount of expertise it takes just to understand the legislation cost us far more than a public school teacher's salary for the year. thank you. >> thank you. mr. ball, that was the bernal heights appeal i referred to. i should mention its was the appeal. it's just off mission street both of you are referring to. >> with the rotted out walls? that's right. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is paul page. i submitted something to each of you. it's an e-mail. it's an e-mail of a project that happened on 5 37 natoma street in supervisor kim's district. and it was a discussion between

myself, ben fu, and to a lesser extent john ram. what i wanted to highlight is that there are already timelines and deadlines on appeals to planning decisions, dbi decisions. so, it's not entirely true to say there aren't. and the other point i wanted to make that the ero mentioned to one of supervisor kim's questions is she was surprised or had never seen an example of someone appealing a project after the public notification period had ended. i work with nepa in transit projects and i see it fairly regularly and i don't deal with 6,000 projects or cat x's every year. even in the instances i work with perhaps 10% are appealed after the public comment period, frequently by the owners themselves. so, this isn't an unusual thing to have happen. i think if you restrict the time period for commenting or close the public comment period, it's simply going to

create more problems, legal problems later on in the process. so, if you look at the 5 37 natoma example, i had wanted to -- i had asked some questions of planning while the project was still in the planning stage. and i basically asked, is there a pre-app meeting that it happened? and the planner blew me off and waited for the expiration of the comment period and then he sends me a comment, an e-mail saying, well, i commented but you didn't respond back. so, what ended up happening is the developer of that project had to spend a lot of money as it went through subsequent appeals while he's pouring concrete into the ground. so, if you did a better job at planning, you wouldn't probably need to do much modification with the actual ceqa regulation or the rules you're talking about. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, supervisors. i'm here speaking on behalf of golden gate [speaker not understood] society. we have thousands of members and volunteers in san francisco bay area. we believe that ceqa is a tool

for ensuring decision-making process he and [speaker not understood] public involvement. but i have to say that supervisor wiener's proposal amendments would undermine both of them. first, the amendments would undermine public involvement because it will reduce the amount of time for the public to be engaged in the decision-making process. it has been our experience that the city departments will work closely with developers especially significant financial and political sources in the city which might prevent city employees from providing objective ceqa analysis. so, therefore, the community must be involved in the process and also the amendments are designed to prevent appeals. ceqa is designed to ensure decision making which can only come about through robust public involvement including appeals of questionable projects. i'm afraid that the new legislation will quietly start the [speaker not understood]

environmental review appeals while also declaring exemption of one aspect of project from environmental review. so, these amendments are, therefore, in direct conflict with the spirit of ceqa and its interpretations by california courts. even if they are legal, the amendments will force community groups like golden gate audubon society to sue the city more because we are struggling to make our voice heard. so, we ask that the land use committee to delay the supervisor wiener's amendments and instead work closely with community members and give us serious consideration to supervisor kim's legislation which will be put forward in a few days. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is hiroshi fakuda.

i am somewhat disappointed with you, supervisor wiener. [speaker not understood]. i want to thank you for meeting with us on some occasions. however, this scheduling of this meeting is very unfortunate because we have [speaker not understood] legislation coming through and you're trying to cut that off at the pass. that cuts off public debate. very unfortunate. now, ceqa is very important and here we're trying to cut off public debates on several options, deplorable. now, planning department has been doing a very extraordinary job in processing permits. director ram's department is doing such a good job that is going forward beyond the capabilities of the city to maintain itself. muni, on the other hand, is deplorable. now, the thing is this is a city for all people. now, we can't have one thing,

development going on [speaker not understood], and muni not keeping up. now, this is a transit first city supposedly. now, with this it has become developers first. now, how about people first? muni is way behind. you yourself said deferred maintenance is outrageous, it needs to be done. well, we need to set up priorities. we need all functions, all departments to have -- to be functional. you can't just have development and no transit. that's ridiculous. we need to slow down the building process, let muni catch up. let them become functional and to cut off debate like this for the other alternative legislation, deplorable. i am very disappointed, supervisors. please do not take any action today. >> thank you. mr. fakuda, i'm glad we can at

least agree on muni. we can always find common ground. [laughter] >> okay, next speaker. my name is michael russem, and i want to tell you that the organizations over 35 neighborhood environmental and labor organizations are totally opposed to the first approval trigger. it's for appeal deadlines. it's unacceptable. in addition, all ceqa appeals must be heard or directed by state law by the full 11 members of the board of supervisors. there are many other problems with your legislation, supervisor wiener. but i want to ask you one question. i am interested in the process of how octavia street was done. how many homes had to be destroyed to build the octavia street [speaker not understood]? how many homes had to be destroyed to build the octavia street housing? >> sir, this is public comment. please make your public comment. okay. let's just assume it's zero. how many do you think were destroyed in park merced, will be destroyed in the legislation

you pushed? is it 6,000, 7,000? you call it apples and apples. you say that you've done your development there in octavia street and we have to do it in park merced. i think that's the kind of thinking that we don't like in the legislation you're proposing. it's totally unreasonable. i want to give you one specific example and that is park merced. what you're saying about the legislation that doesn't apply to park merced is totally false. it's entirely specious. it does apply to large projects like park merced. under your legislation, for any project in which the board of supervisors will be voting on any approval item, the board will not be required to hear a full legal appeal before the entire board. instead the e-i-r will just be formally lumped in with [speaker not understood]. under normal public comment procedure with no opportunity for appellants to present a formal appeal. for project like park merced that is so contentious and profoundly important to the existing residents, a mere three member committee hearing will be totally inadequate to presenting serious problems

with an e-i-r. there were many changes with the park more said after the first e-i-r were released by not siting by planning staff to do an e-i-r what had been called for. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. mr. [speaker not understood]. yes, i'm robert [speaker not understood], and i'm with dolores park works, the friends of dolores park. and i'm speaking mostly as a supporter of san francisco's parks. we're in the middle of trying to rehabilitate dolores park. this is a project we had hoped for since almost 2000. the park is on its last legs and the ceqa process has been very, very difficult. and any clarity that could come to this we would most welcome. i want to thank supervisor kim, supervisor wiener and president chiu for working, working on

this. i feel that if we just get it so that we make enough time for reasonable discussion of the environmental issues and then please let the project proceed. no surprise interruptions as has happened to many other park projects. we live in fear of that. so, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. russ. mr. urbina. hi, my name is anthony urbina, sheet metal workers number 104. we align with the san francisco building trades, the alliance for jobs and sustainable growth, san francisco labor council. i'm here today to speak for sheet metal workers union 104. we stabbed firmly in opposition to gutting the california environmental quality act that is being proposed in sacramento. within the last month our rank and file members have locked

hand in hand with affordable housing advocates and environmentalists to help legislators in sacramento understand how vital ceqa is to our state. that being said, we stand with supervisor wiener's legislation to have the implementation of ceqa in san francisco more closely conform to the practice in other jurisdictions in the state. nothing in the supervisor's proposal can supersede state law. it will provide clear, predictable and transparent procedures that benefit everyone. neighbors, project sponsors, and labor. we urge you to support supervisor wiener's legislation. thank you. >> thank you. mr. bueler. good afternoon, members of the committee. mike bueler on behalf of san francisco architectural heritage. first i would like to thank supervisor wiener for incorporating changes in response to our initial comments on the legislation including restoring the existing definition of historical resources for

purposes of triggering mandatory notice requirements, extending the appeal period from 20 to 30 days and providing a more clear definition of first approval action. however, heritage does remain concerned about the specific aspects of the proposed legislation, especially potential changes in proposed projects after the first approval action. and this was alluded to by supervisor chiu earlier. although law currently acknowledges projects may change significantly after initial approval by authorizing the ero to reevaluate exemption, it does not define a process or threshold for when the ero must issue a new exemption, determination, or other environmental document. nor does it provide an opportunity for the public to appeal subsequent changes to a project that mayo can you remember after first approval. we believe that having clear standards would not only ensure the public's participation rights, but would also provide

clear disincentive to project applicants to change their projects in material ways after first project approval. ~ may occur we also have some concerns regarding notice of approval actions. for example, we recommend that there be one place or notice of first approval action provided regardless of who the decision maker is. we also have questions about what happens if no notice occurs on the planning department website. also, if not the planning commission, how does the first approval body know that they are the first approval body? of course, we understand that supervisor kim's legislation is set to be introduced tomorrow. heritage has not had an opportunity to review the revised legislation. however, [speaker not understood] [inaudible]. >> thank you. mr. terrio. supervisors, michael terrio, san francisco building trades construction council. [speaker not understood].

we did approach supervisor wiener's legislation with real hesitancy as i'm sure supervisor wiener can tell you. we did so because our [speaker not understood] is a heavy users of the ceqa appeals process and a staunch opponent of changes in ceqa itself. and we wanted to do nothing that would serve as an evil precedent for their appeals efforts or work against their efforts to preserve ceqa at the state level. so, we ran this legislation by them. we gained initial approval of the legislation from them. and when they eventually did raise a concern about the fair argument provision in the legislation, supervisor wiener was very quick to address it. and, so, our statewide organization, we've relied on for their expertise in this because we are not the experts, they are. and they believe that this is exactly as it has been portrayed by supervisor wiener, a clarification of the appeals process and a regularization of it. and on that basis we are supporter of supervisor wiener's legislation.

thank you. >> thank you. [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisor. i'm nick hester, a parent [speaker not understood] and i'm also on the san francisco bicycle coalition board. i want to change the topic a little bit away from buildings and toward better projects that lead to a better environment but have been somewhat overlooked in the hearing so far. as some of the [speaker not understood] and environmental initiatives, i realize that one of the most important things we can do is to make our cities greener and that means making them more livable and attractive so we draw people from the less dense suburban areas and have them live in our more dense and potentially walkable bikable communities in san francisco. for this reason one of the things [speaker not understood] review is [speaker not understood], a project that clearly encourages car pool living but unfortunately has

had impacts that have drawn out opponents from the community. similarly, of course, the bike plan was delayed for four years also because of environmental review. and during that time other cities [speaker not understood] in terms of street safety, in terms of saving lives, reducing carbon emissions, et cetera. i feel very strongly this commission support the legislation for it and to uphold the good projects that are actually doing something to improve the environment and focus lesson whether the building next door is esthetically pleasing or not to its neighbors. thank you very much. >> thank you. ms. stampf. thank you. i'm elizabeth stampf, [speaker not understood] walk some of. i want to say first of all, to supervisors wiener, kim and chiu for supporting a more transparent, clear and predictable process forsee qua. walk san francisco walk san francisco [speaker not

understood] [speaker not understood] public notification forsee qua appeals. walk sf has actually used the ceqa appeal process in the past, for example, to win a precedent setting fee to mitigate impacts on pedestrians at some of the most dangerous intersections in the city around what at least was previously called the city place development. walk s.f. supports this legislation because we believe we still can use this process to make necessary improvements necessary appeals, but we're also very concerned about how the current process slows down critical improvements for pedestrian safety. for example, the fallen oak project was not just a bikeway. it included, again, precedent setting 12 build outs. in the appeal there was actually about a build out making the specious argument a bulb out would slow down traffic make it somehow more dangerous for people, which is exactly the opposite of the case. also, on dolores street pedestrian