appeal, then why actually write that into the legislation? that would be my first question. the second, this came up a lot around recently a big development that's happening in the district that i represent which is a proposal for a warriors arena on piers 30-32. that public comment period was originally scheduled to begin in december during the holiday season, which of course our community protested because a lot of them are going away for vacation, spending time with family. the last thing they want to do is comment on a project that's happening in their neighborhood. we were able to kind of push it down a little bit and then give them 45 days. but even then i feel a lot of folks in our neighborhoods are busy. they have full-time jobs, they might have kids, they have families. i mean, they have a lot of responsibilities. so, i think a lot of people would debate how, how rigorous the 30 and even more days is for the public comment period in order to get your voice included. but the question i would ask is what would happen if someone

moved into south beach after the comment period but moved across the street from the warriors arena? so, they would have no standing to appeal the e-i-r certification. and what would happen to someone who has lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years but maybe didn't have concerns when the project was first presented or it just wasn't on their radar because they had multiple projects going on, or family issues, and then later after the public comment period they realize that they had some environmental concerns but were not able to appeal because they didn't participate in the public comment period? >> on the topic of the warriors arena, that was the notice of preparation of the environmental impact report. so, that was not the draft environmental impact report. and the legislation does not give any requirement that you comment on the noticing of preparation.

we often get substantially less comment on the initial scoping than we get on the draft e-i-r the >> right. i use that more -- >> new york city i understand. [multiple voices] >> i understand. in terms of the sort of possible late breaking desire, i guess i would say, one, one reason that i would like to see that provision in legislation is because it is really important to us at the planning department to have had the maximum opportunity to respond to substantive issues that are raised on environmental impact reports. so, it is very -- it is very problematic obviously when the issue is first raised at the time of appeal. it is more consistent with the intent and purpose of ceqa that we can address the subtantive comments in the context of the environmental document and that

these issues are worked out prior to any project actually being approved rather than in a post-approval appeal. so, that is our reasoning for essentially a preference that the comments' own substantive issues that rise to the level of being legitimate ceqa appeals be submitted earlier on so that we can really proactively address them and not be in the position of defending an environmental document on it. that is one issue. and then again, there is the issue of ceqa's own requirements about exhaustion of administrative remedies and the importance of commenting on a draft e-i-r in order to make sure that the document serves its purpose. >> is there something in the state legislation where there are comments about what

exhaustion means? i'm not sure if i consider commenting during a public comment period a part of an appeals process where a first step at remedying -- i see where you're going. i'm not sure i agree that that would be show of proof that you real difficult everything you could before you appealed just by submitting a comment. >> i guess i'll put that question to elaine warren in the city attorney's office who -- i'm not aware if there is -- it would have been something that would have been addressed in the context of case law. >> elaine warren, city attorney's office. i might just mention that this provision having to do with e-i-rs and a requirement to submit comments -- to have to submit comments during the comment period on the draft is in our current ordinance in section 31.16 for appeals to the e-i-r.

so, it's not actually a new requirement for e-i-rs. on the issue of exhaustion, ceqa does encourage participation in the process as early as possible. it encourages that the environmental review process start as early as possible so that if there are major problems of an environmental nature, they can be addressed and the project can be modified. that is why it puts a lot of emphasis on -- for e-i-rs for developing alternatives to a project to really consider different, entirely different ways of doing a project that may have a lot of environmental effects. as far as the formal requirement for having exhausted to bring a case in court -- >> that i understand. >> okay. i was just going to say -- >> public comment period to me is not equivalent to appealing

to the board before you go to the state courts. >> right. i was just going to say what ceqa says is that you had to have provided comments no later than during the -- any public hearing on the project itself. i was just going to let you know that. >> i appreciate the clarification that is in our current law. that is not a new proposal. >> could i just follow-up on the line of questions from supervisor kim? i appreciate that back and forth. i guess from my perspective, this legislation has always been advocated for as [speaker not understood] certainty around the cad ex and negative declaration world but not necessarily when it comes to e-i-rs. obviously part of this legislation deals with striking the legislation involving replacement of something new. [speaker not understood]. where it comes to with regards to e-i-rs, if it ain't broke, i'm not sure why we're trying to fix certain aspects of that and i'm wondering could you

summarize what changes do you see to the e-i-r process? because for those aspects i think the case to make those changes is just not as compelling. so, i'm wondering if you could -- not even sure supervisor kim has tried to tease out some of those differences, but what do you see as amendments here to that process? >> sure. one amendment is that unlike the current situation where there are 20 days in which to file an appeal of an e-i-r after certification of the e-i-r, it would be, like with other documents, 30 days after the first approval action has occurred. so that is definitely one difference. i think for e-i-rs in general, there is some codification of existing procedures just generally having to do with the requirements for what needs to be filed with an appeal, state

thattion a letter of appeal needs to be filed that states your reasons for appeal. what that does is it codifies the rules that were set out by the clerk of the board in terms of how to manage the appeal procedure. there is also the issue of the situation that this applies not just to e-i-rs, but to any type of environmental document including e-i-rs when the board has decision making authority, any kind of action to be taken by the board of supervisors on a project. legislation, rezoning, special use district, an area plan, anything that requires board action. in that case, if the board is taking an approval action, just like any other decision making body they -- what this legislation calls for them to do is to acknowledge the ceqa

work that was completed and affirm that it is -- that it was appropriately done in order to support the approval action that they are taking. so, the planning commission would continue to certify e-i-rs as they do now. but if the board were taking action, say, on a type change, that an e-i-r had been done for, they would be to affirm the planning commission's action. ~ on that. so, in that case, the board would automatically be required to act on the ceqa. it would not -- it would no longer be a situation in which the board had not acted on the ceqa and therefore the appeal would -- an appeal of ceqa would come to the board. so, this is the aspect of the ordinance that deals with the board as ceqa decision making body. so, that is i think a difference that is applicable

to e-i-rs. >> okay. and i'll just say -- and this is really for the benefit of colleagues on at least two of those issues. i know i've got some questions specifically around the language that suggests that all documents have to be in as far as that letter of appeal, i know there have been questions raised about the timing of those documents. and i look forward to hearing some public comment on that topic, in particular having a conversation about it. and then on the topic of whether the board and how the board acts as a ceqa decision making body has some implications about the land use committee can sit to consider ceqa actions and i know that is something that is also elicited some reactions from the community and i look forward to having a conversation around that topic as well. >> so, the aspect of when the material needs to be submitted, as i read the ordinance, it says that written materials need to be submitted by 11 days before the scheduled hearing. i guess i'll confirm that with our city attorney, but that is -- that is what is spelled out in the ordinance at this point.

>> this is regarding the 11 what it says specifically about submitting comments 11 days ahead. >> um-hm. >> i believe it mentions members of the public and -- submittal of written -- project sponsors and the like, it doesn't specifically mention appellants submitting comments at that point, but it certainly could be added. >> thank you. that's just a couple of comments. with respect to the board of decision maker or if the board is already conducting a hearing in committee on legislation that is necessary for the project to proceed and that the ceqa would automatically attach to that ask it would be considered together in committee, there's been some i think loose language around that. and i've seen some documents

from some of the opponents implying that somehow the committee would be the decision maker and you would have three supervisors affirming or denying the validity of the ceqa document. and that is absolutely not the case. under this legislation, if the ceqa attaches to the legislative act, they would be heard together in committee and the full 11 -- full board of supervisors would still make the decision. the dispute here is not about who makes the decision, it's about where the public comment occurs. and right now we have a situation -- and we've seen this in a number of situations where we have legislation that gets heard at a full hearing at land use committee, and we have a parallel ceqa appeal that gets heard in a separate hearing at the full board of supervisors. the intent here is to have those heard together in one hearing. people can agree or disagree with that, but that is what this does and what the purpose

is behind it. and i know that, you know, in terms of the public comment occurring in committee instead of at the board, i don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking that all important public comment happens at the board level. we consider some very, very block buster legislation where public comment is only heard in committee by three members of the board and the full board then makes a very reasoned and intelligent decision on -- of course, always -- on the legislation. and, so, to suggest that everything important happens at the full board in terms of public comment is not the case. in fact, we've passed a $7.3 billion budget every year where the public comment happens at the -- in committee, not at the full board. so, but in any event, that's a totally reasonable topic of discussion about whether every single ceqa appeal should

happen -- in terms of public comment -- should happen at the full board regardless of whether there is already hearing happening in committee. it is a valid point of view and i'm sure something we'll be discussing. i do want to focus before we get to public comment, briefly on the topic that i think has been one of the largest topics of conversation, that is the first approval versus the final approval. right now under our interim procedures it effectively is the final approval. i know under i believe under supervisor kim's proposal, it's the final, and this is the -- under the first, under my legislation, the first approval, assuming that that approval encompasses the whole -- and describes the whole projects in the ceqa clearance. i want to just make sure that people understand what it means or can mean when you use the final approval as the trigger so that if you, for example, if

there is a park project that say relies on a categorical commission and the parka prove that project, and after that approval there are -- you go into construction and three different building permits are pulled, if the final building permit is pulled in the middle of construction, that can be the trigger for the cad ex appeal to the board even though you're in the middle of construction. that is my understanding. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. and if -- so, under my legislation it would be keyed from the approval by the rec and park commission. there will be a notice on its agenda that x project is being approved, that it is subject to a categorical exemption, that you can appeal that categorical exemption, and then once rec and park commission approves it, you have 30 days to appeal. >> yes. >> now, under the current

practice or under the final approval rule -- so, you have a categorical exemption let's say for a park project and then the rec/park commission approves it, the rec and park [speaker not understood] the project, contractor comes n pulls a building permit, begins work, and then a month later pulls another building permit and someone files a ceqa appeal on the whole project at that point. my understanding is that project has to stop during the pendency of the appeal. >> yes. >> okay. and we continue to pay the contractor during that multi-month process, right? >> yes. >> that's the taxpayer is paying that. >> yes, absolutely. >> if the appeal is rejected, you'd have to pay the contractor to [speaker not understood] after that. so, whether it's a park project or whether you're doing -- and we saw, you know, we had an appeal a couple years ago out of bernal heights where a

homeowner did a project on their home and their neighbors opposed them and they were able to get fully entitled in the middle of a project, they found that one of the walls in the building was rotted out. they pulled a building permit and to replace that wall, a nonrotted out wall, a ceqa appeal was filed. to me, again, people have every right to oppose a project whether it's a park project, the neighbor's home changes, but i think to have a system where you can wait and wait and wait and actually then file the appeal, even though you knew about the scope of the project, file that appeal in the middle of construction, that is not a rational way to make land use decisions. this is really in a way at the heart of what this debate about

the first versus the final appeal because allowing that kind of system to persist is not the right way to make good decisions for our city. so, colleagues, if there are no other -- just one question? >> i do have a question on -- and i'll speak a little bit more about the first and last approval because that is obviously another place i think there is some disagreement around folks that are interested in reforming ceqa. but i'm curious as to how many exemptions really require multiple approvals. because most exemption projects by their nature are small. and, so, do we have a sense of what percentage of these exemptions actually require multiple approvals? >> i would say that the -- the thousands of exemptions we issue each year, we keep bringing up the exemption stance, those by and large are a one-shot deal. >> right. >> you come into the department, you get your planning sign off which includes an exemption, you get your building permit over the

counter. i think that some of the projects that are -- the projects that involve changes to the building envelope, perhaps i will refer this question to scott sanchez, although we might need to do a little background work and get back to you on that. if there are changes to the building envelope, there may well be more than one building permit issued on the project. the cad ex, though, ceqa is very fair about this. a ceqa determination needs to look at the entirety of the project no matter how many approvals are involved. >> i guess my question is really just around like what is the problem that we're trying to solve for and what percentage of this is it really. because what i saw in the report that went to planning commission is that over the last four years we've seen 21 exemptions actually appeals heard at a hearing, right. so, you know, for four years

it's roughly five a year. i don't, you know, i don't want to negate the comments that were made. i think that the project in the mission that supervisor wiener was referring to in the park, those are all very unfortunate. i think we all agree those are things we would like to try prevent for, but i think there are also maybe slightly larger projects that are difficult for members of the public to keep track of. and that's why there is a desire for the last approval versus the first. but in most cases, for most of these small home projects, it's literally the first and the last is not a huge difference. and those are not the projects that i think we are trying to kind of have more oversight over. they're for the slightly larger projects where there are multiple approvals. my next question after that would be what makes it difficult for contractors to really just line up all of their permits in advance to prevent a scenario like that from happening?

and then, of course, why can't we consolidate the permitting process? [laughter] >> i think the part that i can speak to right now and i'll ask mr. sanchez to address any more details about the permitting process, but the aspect i can speak to in term of why are we doing this, what's the problem, it's so few exemptions are actually appealed. it's really -- this is really not about the number of appeals at all. the problem isn't that appeals are filed. it is that there is always the potential for an appeal to be filed and it is -- we are not able to convey to project sponsors at what point an appeal can or can't be filed because it needs to be

determined by an attorney. in terms of the issue of first approval action versus final approval action and why that's problematic, every project has a first approval action. that is a clear and defined time frame for filing of appeals. appropriately, in order for any approval action to be happening, the ceqa document needs to be valid and legitimate and correct. then projects change over time, you know. there's always the example of once you get into there in the building, you're going to find new thing that need to happen, new permits that need to be issued. and, so, once a project has moved past its first approval, it can go in a lot of different directions. so, we cannot clearly convey -- if you have an appeal period that is keyed off of a final

approval action as it is now, that is the situation that makes it impossible for us to clearly convey when an appeal can and cannot be filed. that is why it is something that is an issue. >> yeah, i'm not going to speak to, you know, the legislation that we are introducing tomorrow that is now assigned to [speaker not understood], but i think we have an answer to that in terms of how you can close the window at the final approval. but i think the key thing is that you will be asking project sponsors to line up all of their permits and now if their project changes, then again, there is another window of opportunity that will [speaker not understood]. i think there are ways to address that. i think -- for me, i think when you give out over 5,000 exemptions per year and maybe five gets heard at a hearing, then, you know, i start to question the problem that we're solving for. and i don't want to over exaggerate. i think what the problem is that with ceqa, i think the

deadline is a real issue. we clearly need a deadline for exemptions and negative declarations, but making it more difficult for members of the community to participate in the process to me is not the answer. given the number in comparison to the number of exemptionses that we get that actually get appealed and heard by a board. >> if i can just -- i want to be really clear on one thing. you mentioned before a change in the building envelope in the middle of the project. if the building envelope changes, you're going to need to get a new cad ex. >> absolutely. >> so, that would trigger a new appeal period. to be very clear. >> if i said building envelope, i'm sorry. i meant when you get into the building, if you see that something needs to change. but as to that issue of a change in -- a change in the project as it is described in the building permit and in the categorical exemption, that is something that needs to be -- that is now and would continue to be and i think would be

strengthened under this ordinance needs to come back to the ero for review as to whether the environmental review was -- whether the existing environmental review document still covers the project. >> you know, i just want to also respond. in terms of -- yes, in an ideal world when you're doing a project, whether it's a park project or a home improvement project or a larger project, ideally it would be great just to pull all your permits on day one and be done with it, it's all god. that's not the reality of doing projects in the real world. ~ good people -- there are often a lot of reasons people don't pull every permit on day one or there might be the need to pull a permit, even though it's perfectly within the scope of the project that was approved and within the ceqa clearance there's no change, but maybe they didn't realize they needed to pull a permit for x and turns out they do. so, there are many, many reasons why not all the permits are pulled on day one.

and the question is is it a good idea to have a system where if you have full approval of the project after a public process and then you have to pull a permit in the middle of construction that was within the scope of that approval, that that triggers a full ceqa appeal of the entire project even the part this is' been built already to the board of supervisors. and i think that that is not a good way to make land use decisions in any city. president chiu. >> just to weigh in quickly on this discussion. i have to say i hear cases being made on both sides for final approval versus first approval and i'm not sure -- i think there are some draw backs with both approaches and i'm trying to think through if there is something that can be done to strengthen one or the other. i think supervisor wiener has laid out the problem of final approval, one, we may not know what the final approval is. and two, the park situation you just arose, that is the edge case and i think we have seen

time after time. on the other hand with the very first approval and supervisor wiener allude today this, when projects change, it concerns folks. [speaker not understood] address that situation and what type of a change, what sort of substantial change might trigger additional approval that could lead to another appeal. and this is something i'm thinking b. i want to articulate it so we can think about it collectively. >> the ero is actually in some ways not a state officer, but we have to have ero delegated the authority from ceqa of the state to make these determinations. and, so, ceqa in a way determines, of course, a applied by the ero whether a change is such that it's a project that needs a new environmental clearance and thus triggers a new appeal period. again, in projects whether it's

home projects or public projects, you can imagine many, many, many very, very small changes that might come up in the midst of it and go back and it either is -- requires a new ceqa clearance or it doesn't. and, so, we did think about that. is there a way -- we tried -- we did include extra language to require the ero to make sure you're determining whether it's -- requires a new ceqa clearance. i think it's challenging to sort of envision all the different scenarios, but that's certainly something to think about. >> we do -- the ceqa appeals that come in and, you know, everyone sitting up here is very familiar with them. they are not -- we do not see the point raised that this exemption was fine in the first place and then the project changed and now it's not fine any more. that's not -- you know, that's not the point that gets raised on ceqa appeals.

furthermore, if a project gets changed and a new building permit is issued, even if that's within the old exemption it's still appealable to the board of permit appeals which is the appropriate appeal authority for whether a building permit was issued appropriately. so, that appeal right is still part of things. speaking as administrator and as ero, i am -- i'm very open and welcome any language that strengthens the assurance that a changed project comes back for redetermination by the ero. that is what happens now and that is what we would want to see happen. if a project comes -- if a project rises to the level of coming back to planning, it should come back to the ero to make sure that the environmental review is still appropriate. >> okay, thank you. so, colleagues, if er