have been delayed or blocked by historical preservation claims around the median. already it takes 5 alarms to make improvementses that will save people's lives and we know you're all supporters of more pedestrian safety in the city and safer more walkable streets. and, so, we urge you to use this opportunity to do just that and help make our streets safer sooner. thank you. >> thank you. ms. moss. actually, before public comments, let me call a few more names. stephen a yellow, lynn bee son, evan reeves, mark bitner. robin levitt. michael [speaker not understood]. marlene morgan. steve pedal mike casey. [speaker not understood]. john rizzo. good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is tamika moss and i'm the community development director at spur. spur is strongly supporting the legislation before you. i passed out a letter for your review. i did have an opportunity to have a really respectful discussion with some of the opponents of this legislation and i thought it was a really great opportunity to better understand some of the concerns that we've all heard about today. and i have not -- spur has not had an opportunity to review supervisor kim's legislation. and we have really vetted the legislation before you to ensure that the points that we relate to are strong and one in particular is really around the noticing and timing. the comments that you all made earlier in terms of increased noticing is -- the parallel process of timing. but noticing needs to be transparent and effective for everyone to be able to use and we believe that this legislation does that, but that

we need to hold the planning department accountable to ensure that that process actually happens. so, we really believe that that's an important piece of this legislation and we support that very strongly. certainly the discussion about the first appeals process is one that is quite controversial and we believe that when the project is fully approved, the appeals process should move forward and we currently know that the process is not working ask it now -- the appeals process happens at the last approval. so, we really believe that the first appeals process, as long as the citizens have an opportunity to participate in a transparent process should be enough time for this. >> when you say a first appeals process, you mean for approval? i'm sorry, first approval. thank you. >> thank you. mr. [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisors.

time cohen on behalf of the housing action coalition. i wish i had a dollar for every time we've been in a public hearing complaining about what ceqa has done to our public process and the obstacles it places and what the city needs to do. we saw the news this weekend about dolores park's improvement being stopped dead by a single person after two years of public process. this is bad government. it's undemocratic, and it creates cynicism among people trying to improve their community. it most certainly has nothing to do with improving the environment. but there are also perfect parallels to how ceqa can be used as a tool to stop delay and impede housing. in particular, the low-income folks. our particular favorites would be the booker t. washington center and edward ii for transition age youth and bridges' correspond net project for low-income families. ~ ceqa is repeatedly used against proposals that embody agreed principles of sensible land use

and appropriate urban infill. the harm this causes us is not theoretical. these abuses raise risk and uncertainty which makes good projects take longer and cost more to build. they have to be passed some abouter and we all suffer from the spurious appeals is to make housing scarce and expensive. i'd like to remind you that supervisor wiener's effort is to continuation of work that's been going on for 10 years. it continues work started by supervisors fiona ma and alioto-pier. it's been delayed for months to get additional community outreach and make modifications. as the dolores park project shows, simple fairness says we have to put limits at some point on these appeals and it's rare that we see. it is crystal clear an example of how san francisco is being [speaker not understood] by the difference in views between folks that want san francisco to be able to move ahead and

those that want [speaker not understood] to stand still. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. hillson. i've never used this, so, i'm supposed to click on something, i guess. i think it's this one. it isn't coming up. >> i'm sorry. why don't we go -- go ahead. [inaudible]. >> why don't we go to the next speaker and perhaps if there is someone that can work with ms. hillson and we'll put you on as soon as we fix the technical issue. thanks for your patience, ms. hillson. next speaker. hello, my name is judy irving and i'm the executive director of a nonprofit called pelican media. and i'd like to talk about good government.

i would like to ask that you continue the vote and actually consider two variations of this legislation. it seems to me that supervisor wiener's legislation is -- does an attempt to ram it down our throats. it's an attempt to bypass the kind of discussion that we could have if we had two side by side views on how to improve this kind of permit appeal process. i'm just a regular ordinary citizen and a lot of this is extremely confusing to me. but my impression is that the appeal notification is going to be almost hidden. we don't know exactly when the first approval is.

we don't know what organization makes the first approval. and we don't have a chance to appeal the process or the project after that first approval. it just doesn't make sense to me and i think that we deserve to have a full discussion of two alternative ways of reforming this process. i'm not against development. i'm for fair and reasonable development in the city. and i'm also hoping that public participation not only continues in this process, but is made more robust rather than being cut off. thank you very much. >> thank you. ms. hillson, i think we're ready now. can i talk from this mic? thanks. so, the first slide you're seeing [speaker not understood] coalition for san francisco

neighborhoods. first slide you're going to see is this house on 44 9 [speaker not understood] district 8, supervisor wiener's district. and it's a 1-1/2 story, one and a third story house that was built in 1900s, and then it got transformed into this, which is the raising of the house [speaker not understood] and building setback. and then this is the area -- it's not showing, but there is an aerial view slide that comes after this and it shows the whole aerial -- there it is, so, it's delayed. so, my number of seconds is ticking faster. this slide shows the process by which planning and dbi went through cat exing november 2007 with an [speaker not understood]. the 311 notification didn't get sent out until april 2nd of 2008. that's about 4-1/2, 5 months later. cat ex needs to change poe at thectiontiontion historic resource to not harm its integrity which is a category.

by doing all the things that was harmed, but planning department, you know, cat exed it. so, now it's a c category, not historic resource. so, we're sort of relying on planning to make these subjective decisions on what is a ceqa ruling on these cat x's. and the first approval as you notice from this slide, it shows that it was done way early in the process. so, the number of days forsee qua review being cut short is not going to help in these matters because eventually the project will morph and it will not allow a lot of public discussion prior to all these other changes coming through. cat x's and historical resources are listed on the planning website. however, it's not always clear when those things come out. this is the latest version, only shows up to march 25th. there's 91 pages. [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hillson.

next speaker. my name is mark bitner. i'm a 40 year resident of the city, and for the last 12 years i'm the owner of 130-year old home. i don't trust the assurances that this legislation is merely designed to streamline the process. it seems to me that it's development driven and there is no reason whatsoever not to consider supervisor kim's proposal. there is no reason not to wait for that. we don't have to rush forward. i think in america we do too much of this. we have thing, we jump the gun, we make bad decisions. there's no reason not to have a thorough discussion of this. so, i would encourage you to vote for waiting. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is stephen aiello, i am

chair of the san francisco housing action coalition. and i hold that position as the volunteer representative for greenbelt alliance, one of the endorsers of supervisor wiener's legislation. i think it's important remember both the planning commission and the historic preservation commission have reviewed this legislation and approved it. this has been through a months and months-long process. and i think it's disingenuous for those on the other side and understandably they're supporting a different legislative vehicle, but the claim shod you this process has been rushed, more than 10 years after the state legislature gave the authority to the board of supervisors to make a change just seems like a specious argument to me. supervisor chiu asked for specifics in the testimony. i as a professional architect would recommend this question of first approval versus final approval that you actually go

with the first approval a the beginning of the appeal notification period. and the reason for that is pretty simple. any project that has done a proper initial scoping for its environmental document has essentially defined an envelope within which to operate. any good project sponsor, developer, even a homeowner or [speaker not understood] architect knows that if you are going to radically change that overall envelope, you're going to reopen your approval process. it's very simple. whereas other thing that you encounter typically in construction like dry rot or let's say you want to move a bathroom because of a structural condition that gets uncovered during demolition and you have to go back in for a revision permit, those types of things don't need to reopen an approval process because they will thin that envelope scope. so, those are my comments and thank you. >> thank you very much.

next speaker. good afternoon, committee. my name is evan reeves. i'm with the center for creative land recycling. we're a nonprofit based here in san francisco that advocates for smart growth infill development and brown field redevelopment and we strongly support supervisor wiener's proposal. we come at this from the perspective of smaller community developers working on affordable housing projects where they are operating a very small margins of profitability and very tight timelines. and, so, the specific question about our first approval or last approval hits home with these smaller affordable housing developers because they need more than anybody, they need certainty about the development, schedule of development timeline and they need to know that once their project has gone forward, has

gotten this discretionary approval, that they will not be additional delays way down the road that may spell the death of the project. these are community supported projects. often there is a distinction made between the developers and the community that evil versus good versus evil. we don't see there is that. that is a false distinction because the projects that we're involved with are projects that are intend today revitalize the community and they rely on funding that will not be there. the funding will not be there if there isn't. there is certainty about the appeals process and there is obviously funding that data projects can happen. so, we believe this is a sensible reform that simply adds that clarity to the process so that these projects can move forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. levitt. good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is robin levitt. i'm an owner of an 1880s victorian hayes valley where i've lived for the past 20 years. i am an architect. i am a former dbi commissioner, and i am an active member in the san francisco bicycle coalition. so, i am a strong supporter of this legislation and i won't reiterate some of the reasons that people have said to support this. but i want to first applaud supervisor wiener for taking this on. it's a very controversial and difficult thing to take on. and i also want to applaud you for your restraint in light of some unfortunate comments that were made here today. but i agree that ceqa has some important safeguards, but we have to find ways to streamline the process, make it more fair and more workable. and i think if we do that, that's good for everyone.

unless we want san francisco to be a city for only the rich and the advantaged, we have to find ways to make the construction process more affordable. and oftentimes the ceqa process adds a lot to the cost of construction. so, it's to everybody's advantage to try to make it -- to streamline this process. and i'll just leave you with this thought. the proof is in the pudding. everybody here has left san francisco for different reasons. i think we'd all agree in this room we left san francisco in large -- love san francisco for because of victorian architecture. the san francisco everybody loves was built before ceqa was in place. a lot of san francisco that people find offensive was built after ceqa was in place. so, it's not necessarily that ceqa protects -- does the protecting that everybody expects it to do. and if we can streamline the

process that's much better. >> thank you, mr. levitt. next speaker. before you go, let me call a few more names. i'll start your two minutes, don't worry. [speaker not understood]. fernando mar tee, peter [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. go ahead. great. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mark english. i am on the board of directors of the aia san francisco chapter. we represent 2300 members. about 80% of us are involved with small businesses. we design obviously everything around you, affordable housing. we include preservation specialists. and i've been practicing for about 22 years on my own here. because of our role as architects, we're in the middle of this conversation every project.

you have before you a letter that i brought from the president of our board of directors urging the following. we urge your forwarding with the recommendation to the full board supervisor wiener's proposed amendmentses to the san francisco administrative code as before you today. this legislation outlines modest changes to begin to put forth a clearer and more streamline process for everyone. that includes appellants, that includes the planning department, and that includes project sponsors. i'd like -- i'm not going to reiterate a lot of what's been said, but i want to bring up a couple of points, some in reference to what supervisor kim said earlier about permitting. i practice now 22 years, mostly residential, never once have i had just one permit on a project, never. it's impossible. so, to consider that or to

expect that that would be the case going forward is not -- is never going to work. we don't have a system where we have revision permits. we get a new permit for everything that might show up during the process. so, again, i urge you to send supervisor wiener's changes to the full board for consideration. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. english. ~ next speaker. hi, my name is [speaker not understood], and i'm here to ask that this not go forward at this time in this way. i don't see that there is anything that stands in the way of transparency today. my background as long-time activist, i started with the city through model cities, all

of community developments. the director of the mayor's office of child care. [speaker not understood], i think i saw the most amazing processes. i think that the true is that this legislation is a unsuccessful and probably well intended effort to make thing easier, but i think it only confuses things more in the absence of real, real changes that obviously have to be made. and the only thing i can say is since i retired in '99, this is my second hearing. and it's over the issues of the environmental review process. it's ore the children's soccer field. my daughter is a public school teacher. i'm a lifelong child care advocate. and when i tried to use the process and testify, my grandson was coming through in a family of athletes where there was complete denial of the legitimacy of toxic turf.

i never felt so disappointed and in a sense frozen out of any process. so, [speaker not understood] it would really be appreciated. it looked like this process would was not being ramroded and was more open and took place in a more thoughtful timely way. and i think it's tragic and i think it's exactly what the country is facing with the key stone pipeline. jobs versus environment. you know, making projects cheaper. if we want to do that, eliminate all regulations and then we can have what the gentleman earlier referred to what we had in the '60s. i'm obviously not advocating, but [inaudible]. >> thank you very much. you're welcome. thank you. >> have a good kay. you, too. >> next speaker. ~ day my name is molly morgan and i'm with cathedral neighborhood association. cathedral hill neighbors worked for eight years on the cpmc project which started out in 2005 and i want to note

supervisor kim's comment about the hearing that was held in december 27th. this $3.5 billion five-hospital project, we had 10 base notice to appear at the scoping hearing and it was held on july 5th. it's not an accident that so many of these important hearings are scheduled right around holidays. it's not a -- an accident the public is not prepared, is overburdened having to attend a lot of hearings, and hearings postponed [speaker not understood]. it is very difficult to hang in there. if we didn't hang in there for the eight years, the project that is now going to be approved now was approved by the board for the new cpc hospital plans would not be the great project it would be today. it would have been rushed through. it would have been much environmentally and health karin fear yore project. and, so, the problem was not there was too much public

comment and too much delay. the problem was that the developers were trying to rush through an inappropriate project. that's why ceqa is so important. even the smaller details of ceqa, and that's why we would urge you all to postpone any kind of action today until we can see supervisor kim's legislation tomorrow. thank you. >> thank you. [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for your work on this issue. i'm michael rice. i'm speaking for myself today. but i'm currently president of the joint park association and my comments are based on over 10 years' experience in project review in glenn park, also participated in two round tables [speaker not understood] called by supervisor wiener. and for full disclosure, i am retired from previous employment in ceqa consulting, including work on ceqa review in san francisco. the proposed ceqa procedures are needed and beneficial.

over my time with the glenn park association, i have seen virtually every 311, 312, discretionary review request, zoning appeals or adjustments and major building permit applications. those are all projects typically processed under ceqa categorical exemptions or in some cases negative declarations. the widely distributed mail or posted notices typically have a 20 or 30-day appeal period. state ceqa law and guidelines call for disclosure and review of environmental effects early in the project process. proposed amendments will clarify that the ceqa appeal clock would start at the first approval. using current improved notice practices without an information about ceqa appeals would mean that the parties most concerned about a project will know their ceqa rights at this stage. while some are called for no appeal -- longer appeal periods, the 30-day period is

consistent with state ceqa guidelines. supervisor wiener alluded to the appeal of the glenn park recreation project. while that was found to be untimely and most of us in glenn park are happy that the project is moving ahead, it would have been better for that appeal to have been heard early and clearly. finally -- >> thank you, mr. rice. mr. rizzo. john rizzo speaking for the sierra club today. the sierra club is asking the committee to continue this item so that it may have a fair hearing of supervisor kim's legislation which we find has been carefully thought out, has some very appealing aspects to it. the california environmental quality act has been a very

successful piece of legislation and it has made good projects better. and here locally cpmc is a prime example of that. it's a much better project now because of ceqa and the process. we've heard about the difficulty of building things in san francisco that is absolutely true. this initiative needs to be addressed. however, there are all kinds of reasons for that that don't have to do with ceqa. it is equally very difficult in this city to appeal a project through the ceqa process. the finding of information from the city is very difficult and the amount of time, shortening the amount of time and requirements make it even more difficult for people who are not professionals, for people who care about their neighborhoods to follow this process.

so, i think this is one thing that has to be kept in mind. when ceqa was written specifically so that appeals are not based on whether you like the project or not, but they're very focused on technical technicalities that are very specific that you as an appeal appellant have to learn. so, there is much research that has to be done before a ceqa appeal. thank you. >> thank you. mr. casey. mike casey, the hotel workers union local 2 here today seeking that you continue this piece of legislation. there's been a lot of discussion about boards like good government, transparency, fully vetted. there was a time when any round tables would be inclusive of the san francisco labor council. to date there has been no notification of any or

invitation to attend such meetings. clearly there are two visions here as to the best way to address needed change in ceqa. there is supervisor wiener's and there is the emerging supervisor kim's which has not yet been fully discussed. it only seems to me if we're going to talk about good government, we should have those two alternatives side by side so that we can compare and contrast and make some decisions, informed decisions about what the best way to proceed is. so, i would appeal to you to continue this for at least the time that it takes for supervisor kim's to get out there and for the public to review both pieces of legislation. thanks. >> mr. casey, my understanding today, you're here for the hotel workers? yes, i'm speaking for hotel workers local 2. >> okay, thank you. the labor council has not taken a position. >> that was my understanding.

thank you. ms. scott. good afternoon, supervisors. back again. listen, i'm urging you to really pass thises as it currently is. ~ i spent a good bit of this weekend thinking about it. i think sometimes we tend to beat thing to death. i think this one has been beat to death quite enough. i don't see why we can't have deadlines. and while i understand the cpmc because i have a serious interest in that, and i'm glad that the ceqa process made that much better, i think [speaker not understood] the booker t. project as well, i think the ceqa process serves us well, except that because of the timelines and because there's no clarity about those timelines, there's just no way that you can really figure on doing affordable housing, supportive housing, projects