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 safety improvements 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.