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 that benefit this community without it costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars more dealing with an honorable ceqa process. and i know you have no control over the state process, which i

intend to weigh on as well. but for this one, an administrative process that makes sense that has clear guidelines is something that we actually need in san francisco. and san francisco right now, delays are used to kill a project and they almost killed the booker t. project. kalla fordable housing for emancipated foster youth [speaker not understood], and i think clarity is what we need to make this thing go forward. thanks. >> thank you very much. next speaker. supervisors, my name is dennis [speaker not understood]. i'm a native san franciscan. i serve on the park committee as a [speaker not understood]. and i'm here today, one, to urge that you guys, in the interest not only of good government, but in creating

even better legislation, put those two pieces of legislation together and not act today on supervisor wiener's legislation alone. but i wanted to talk about something else, and that is it looks to me like -- and it came up as prozac. it looks to me like small, small examples of appeals have been made in the mountains. for example -- and i think even you, scott wiener, mentioned this early on in the process -- the lafayette park appeal. first of all, it has made a very big deal, prozac and the press. lafayette park wasn't a ceqa appeal, it was a board of permits a people. secondly, by the rec and park management admission themselves, there were five permits, only one of which was appealed. the project went forward. 85% of the project just proceeded. that one permit was the only permit, it didn't stop the project accountv the project is

virtually finished. but somehow it was made into a mountain. i think the same kind of thing is happening with this dolores park thing that conveniently came up this week. ~ i don't know who that person s but maybe they're more interested in kids than dogs. but let me get to the point. the first approval is to me really one of the key things that's not clear here and there's a project that rec and park is now doing at the former hank site which they've gotten a cat ex for for the project which claims that it was only going to deal with 5,000 square feet and it is now at two-thirds of an acre and the amount of money being spent is from a quarter million to 1.6 million and it's never gone before the public. and i think they're going to try and [speaker not understood] cat exed. >> thank you very much. thank you. mr. holland. thank you. murry holland with the planning association for the richmond park. you have a letter from me, it's

over a month old by now, in support of this legislation. our basis of our support, the primary basis is the fact that there is no codes for an appeal of either an exemption or a negative declaration in itself is the most opaque part of the process. if you can't appeal the two major decisions to basically deny an environmental review, you've got some real problems. and we think it's important that we get some codification immediately for those two kinds of decisions. and i appreciate the fact that the 20 days we complained about initially and i appreciate and thank you for making that 30 days, that make a lot more sense. but we still have a problem with the issue of the notification. just knowing when the decision is made and knowing that it's

related to ceqa is not going to cut it totally. what you have to know is also and the public needs to know is the details of either the exemption what the reasoning is why it was done, or in the case of a negative declaration, what mitigations are being proposed. those need to be followed. so, you were talking earlier in your meeting about advance notification of a ceqa decision. i think the clock starts running after that decision has been made and you get that follow-up information as an integral part of the notice. that's what we'd like to see, okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. commissioner. supervisors, ron miguel. i'm speaking basically from experience of being a neighborhood activist from back in the '80s, president of the neighborhood association for some 16 years, five years on the planning commission.

so, having people, citizens of san francisco ask me questions and ask me to clarify including those regarding ceqa. and when i came into a situation where i could not do so and i thought i knew the process, i still think i know the process, i still can't explain the law. and obviously from your opening remarks, supervisor wiener, even the city attorney's explanation cannot be easily understood. supervisor chiu, you wanted something specific. i'll give you one instance that's personal to me. we did, my wife and i, a major remodel on our home a number of years ago, some 20 years ago. 1870s house in san francisco, the type of home that is not

unusual in this city where it is easy to discover thing as you go along. we did get an exemption. there is a minor dormer that can be seen from the street, goes into the house next door. but we hadn't decided on appliances. and when we started decide on appliances for the kitchen, we realized we had to pull another electric permit for the 220. multiple permits are not at all unusual. it had nothing to do with a major project. it had nothing to do with the building envelope. the concept of the first permit is what controlled. as far as enforcement and the rest, which you have heard about, that has nothing [inaudible]. >> thank you. thank you, mr. miguel. mr. lazarus. good afternoon, supervisors. jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce and the alliance for jobs and

sustainable growth, are partners with numerous civic and labor unions. we urge approval of supervisor wiener's legislation today. it's outrageous, really, that for more than a decade san francisco has not had a codified process so that everybody can understand what the appeal process is on cat ex and negative declarations. that's a real function of government to make sure that the issuance of permits, the issuance of contracts, appeal process are known and codified. so, we urge you to move forward with this today. there is no shortage of appeal opportunities in san francisco. when that second or third permit has to be pulled on a project, the board of appeals is there and has been there for decades before ceqa was ever on the books. so, these -- the issues before you today are meeting an obligation long overdue to create a transparent process so

that everybody knows how they file an appeal, the timelines, and the numbers of people that have failed to meet those. nobody here today has talked about every year there must be dozens of people who have tripped up for the lack of a transparent process. so, we urge you to approve the appeal process before you today. thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible]. thank you, supervisors. i want to thank supervisor kim specifically for asking us to look at the proposed amendments that are before us and to provide some comments. as supervisor wiener said at the beginning, what is being attempted to do is a modest proposal to present predictability and clarity, clarifying rules and timelines. we believe this is exactly what these legislations should do. and, so far as they do that, the council of community

housing organizations is fully in support. we support the 30-daytime limit. and we support creating a procedure for negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations and cat x's. however, what the proposed amendment before us does ~ is a lot more. it takes entire section 3.16 that leaks it and replaces it with something new. supervisor wiener in his opening statement said this is not a proposal that attempts to change anything about full e-i-rs. given the back and forth between the supervisors and the staff, it's clear that that is not entirely factual. in fact, it does change the process for changing e-i-rs. we looked at this as a policy committee of our members and a couple of items stuck out. there were a lot of things that were confusing, but in particular section 31.16 b changes the responsibility for hearing appeals of a full e-i-r from the full board to

[inaudible] committee of the board taking away the accountability and the ability for all board members to understand what is being heard in a hearing like this. secondly, you've heard a lot about this question of approval actions. that needs to be clarified. and given this, we would like to see proposals linked seen side by side and amended, we will be providing some written comments shortly with some of the proposals. thank you very much. >> sorry, [inaudible], i have a question. does -- has chu-chu taken a position on what i have introduced? we have not. we are taking a look at parts of them. [speaker not understood]. i had been informed it had not

taken a position on this legislation. i was surprised you would come today, say you had not taken a position, criticize key parts and say you have questions. its was one of the first organizations in that role. at the time we were not asked to look at a second proposal so, we didn't have sort of two things to look at. now we have a comparison of item. and as this moves forward, i think there is a process, i think one of the things that has been spoken to quite a bit is when we have a second proposal, why not hear both at the same time. what chu-chu will be doing is looking at ways of amending the proposal and what we think might be a better way to address these. like we said, there is a specific question you raised at the beginning that we are not in compliance with state law around, a time limit for cat x's and negative declarations. we support that. that is a problem for affordable housing developers, market rate developers, it is a problem across the line.

we fully support that be addressed. thank you. >> okay. next speaker. chairman wiener, supervisors, my name is matt reagan. i'm here representing the bay area council, we are a [speaker not understood]. and before the ad hominems and the straw men get set up, we helped craft ceqa in 1969 and in the interim we were the first business group in california to support ab 32, the global warming solutions act, sb 375, land use [speaker not understood] just a couple of years ago. we're here to support supervisor wiener's legislation. it clarifies the rules for everyone. it favors neither project proponent or appellant. it simply tells everybody in advance what the rules are. a resident of san francisco should not have to hire a land use attorney to ask his or her government what the timeline is

on their project's negative declaration. ceqa at its heart is a wonderful law. it reflects our best intentions as californians and it gives good people great [speaker not understood] to stop bad projects. unfortunately it also gives people with no environmental motives [speaker not understood] to stop good projects. we had today [speaker not understood] san francisco bicycle master plan, affordable housing projects, housing for transitional youth, all stopped needlessly and at great expense because of ceqa delays. we also saw a great number of divisions among the community on the position on supervisor wiener's bill. labor is divided. neighborhood groups are divided, environmental groups are divided. the moral of the story is everybody loves ceqa. everybody loves ceqa's process until it kills a project that is near and dear to your heart. so, i think it is incumbent on this board to bring san francisco ceqa processes into uniformity with the rest of

california and make san francisco a great place to live and work. thank you. >> thank you. before we go to mr. cho, let me call a few more cards. i only have a few left. david graft, leonard lynch, [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood], sorry. shawn a mcgregor. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. david oz good. [speaker not understood]. my apologies for mispronouncing. and we'll leave it there. mr. [speaker not understood]. would you turn on the overhead, please? my name is bernie showed en. i'm with san francisco tomorrow. in good faith, it would seem that we should postpone the hearing until we hear supervisor kim's proposal as you indicated. i would