secondly, 899 northpoint, there was a variance hearing, a negative declaration was issued and there was a demolition permit. each one of those could have been considered first approval. that's a second example that you requested, mr. chiu, of flaws in the first approval. and then, of course, you've already heard the big one, cpmc park merced. i think you were hoping that we depth bring that up. those were excellent examples. now for the frustration part. the frustration that i want to quote is actually coming from the planning department. and here's a quote from ms. jones who spoke today when she was asked what the issues are with first approval versus second approval. she said, quote, it's problematic if an issue a raised post approval. it's better if it's raised proactively. well, of course, we don't want to be in the position of having to defend an e-i-r.

the fact of the matter is the planning department really needs the public's help and that's one of the beauties of preserving ceqa the way it is with the long-timelines, with the multiple opportunities to participate. we are actually helping the planners as we are helping the supervisor pass this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, supervisors. my name is michelle meyers. i am the director of the san francisco bay capture the sierra club. first, i want to thank supervisor jane kim for a thoughtful process in listening to community stakeholders which include 35 different organizations that had attracted a lot of supervisor wiener [speaker not understood] realize we're not going to make the headway needed to be supportive of your legislation. the sierra club is opposed to supervisor wiener's legislation. i also want to thank [speaker not understood] hastings comparing what some of the community stakeholder's concerns were and thoughtfully

cast crafting alternative legislation that supervisor kim's office has been work with. we do not have a position on supervisor kim's legislation as of yet and we are really looking forward to seeing it tomorrow so we can examine it on its merits. and i'm hopeful that the community still [speaker not understood] will create something even better and stronger that addresses the concerns to set forth clear timelines and approval processes without compromising the public's ability to file appeal, prepare documents, [speaker not understood] arguments and appeal comments to the full board of supervisors. so, please continue this and consider both pieces of legislation side by side. thank you. >> next speaker. my name is rebecca evans. i want to echo what ms. meyers said. i also want to thank all of you for being here today and sitting through this whole thing. i particularly want to thank supervisor kim for working with

community advocates to come up with alternate legislation. i'ved with the cpmv c process from a distance living in that neighborhoodv. i'm glad that the community people that were involved it in it had a chance to work on it. it still isn't satisfactory to my liking because there are far too many [speaker not understood] being involved but i think it is much better than it was before. another example has to do with proper notice and it has to do with the [speaker not understood] property. apparently the project lay dormant for a couple of years but heart felt they had issued a category exemption, they had not. when it came to light then they had to exempt -- have one, now it's gone to litigation. so, i think it is really important that the noticing be clear. and that the approval process wherever it is, should be later in the process. i don't know exactly what the america's cup initial process approval was. i watched it for a period of about 15, 16 months. it could have been the first agreement of the board of supervisors to oppose -- to approve the [speaker not understood] agreement. over the many months, there

were lots of approvements that came over to that project. you all have been witness to them. some of the parts of the project fell away. out of it came a sustainability plan, a waste plan, a people plan. there were improvements made to the system. the water and supply systems in the port area. so, i think it is really important for the projects -- the process to be very transparent and for the public to have good opportunity to get into the process wherever possible. thank you. >> ms. bobbitt. hello, supervisors. i made a tactical error here not turning in my card. everybody said everything i thought i was going to mention so i'll drawing this out, i'll just say the [speaker not understood]. in general, in listening to the discussion today, i am just having a little trouble figuring out why folks who were concerned about the process the way it is now, which sounds like there is good reason to be, wouldn't hurt to hear jane

kim's legislation first. so, i would like to ask you to continue this and to continue the discussion so we can hear -- see both side by side. thank you. >> next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. [speaker not understood], judy berkowitz, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i also urge you to consider both pieces of legislation. the one before us present and the one that will be introduced tomorrow side by side. coalition for san francisco neighborhoods always looks at both sides of an issue before it goes on the ballot and i urge you to please do the same, make a motion to do the same. i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. last december, you know the neighborhoods are just sitting

around twittling their thumbs with nothing to do. [laughter] [speaker not understood]. >> i'm real obliged. we have two, hopefully there is a letter in the packet containing a resolution that we passed [speaker not understood]. by the way, 48 neighborhood organizations in every corner of the city. two item that haven't been mentioned quite yet are the reassertion into legislation about substantial evidence which supports a fair argument rather than just substantial evidence which is a very, very high onerous level to attain. and proactive noticing by the planning department to the public rather than online noticing. other than that, fernando [speaker not understood] of

choo choo has explained san francisco coalition for neighborhoods items much better than i ever could have. although several organizations have said that they don't like [speaker not understood]. >> thank you very much. next speaker. i'll admit i have not been following this closely. i have referring to [speaker not understood]. so many people more qualified than i. but there are three things as i'm sitting here listening that occur to me. one is the enormous amount of effort that it takes for volunteers to get involved in the appeal process to begin with who are not being paid at all. and very often even the lawierx that work with us were not being paid either. ~ lawyers to maybe expend all of this, if it's not going to get pot point where any project is going forward at all, you know, i mean maybe this is not the most

practical thing. another thing is when i'm speaking for knob hill neighbors here. we had several lawsuits over the years before we finally got all the heights reduced to no more than 65 feet t. was like a 10 year process for numerous high-rises. both high-rises might get approval and we would be involved in lawsuits or not. and then they would pass from hand to hand with maybe the same conditional use even after our height limits passed, one was hanging on fought conditional use for the next three years and so forth. they might change quite a bit. they might actually be under the same e-i-r because it can take in various permutations of a project, you know. so, that would concern me. and i would be very concerned about not having testimony before the whole 11 -- the whole board of 11 supervisors. after all, you're sitting in judgment. and i think like let's say in a court situation, if there is a panel and there is less than the whole panel, but i think that's the group that votes on

it, isn't it? i don't think that a little part of the panel hears it then the whole group votes on it. and i think it needs to be the same way. you know, i've been in there arguing on various cases like cmmt and cpmc and so on and i think it's just incredibly important that each supervisor who is going to vote hears from the public. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. thanks for all your efforts to date. my name is david sternberg. i'm with sternberg benjamin architects here in the city. we've done a number of multi-family projects in san francisco and around the bay area and have a lot of knowledge around the bay area. san francisco is the only jurisdiction that allows ceqa appeals after other major appeals. we have a client right now that's spending 35 to $40 million for an ongoing rental project in san francisco when

you add up all the expenses. i was involved when they were purchasing the project with planning department approvals. at that point there is no guarantee of any time frame on appeals forsee qua. they did a lot of legal registering of documents that hopefully were going to make it harder for these appeals to occur. but the reality is building codes and building department approvals require addendums. building department dbi addendums. you go et your site permit and then there's 6 or 8 addendums for the technical aspects of the building. these people can actually have 80% of this 35 to $40 million project and get their last minute mechanical addendum which is required and that can be appealed to ceqa. that would be totally devastating to a project like that. and that can happen to any project.

we have addendums on small projects. it's just what happens through the building process through dbi. the other thing i'd like to say, too, i would say in almost every case these late, late ceqa appeals are just to hold up the project and nothing more and they never, never get overturned. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional public speakers? please come forward. i have called all the card that i've received. supervisor, welcome back. thank you, former supervisor jakemcgoldrick. i chaired the committee four years and i certainly would never look forward to becoming the appellate party or administrative interpretation body forsee qua appeals for two reasons, for two reasons. number one, it would not be fair to the other eight supervisors to allow two supervisors out of 11 to take control of ceqa under any conditions. in other words, two out of

three would basically take control of the decisions in the adjudicative process or administrative process, whichever the city attorney wishes to pontificate on, would accept. but the deal here is that any attempt to try to reduce the political involvement is extremely antisan francisco. any attempt to say that oh, this is all simple notification stuff is contradicted by the 6, 7, 8 important issues here in the legislation. [speaker not understood] the public can talk about legislation that either exists or that hasn't been introduced yet through [speaker not understood] legislation which doesn't exist officially that is not noticed here. it's not on the agenda. how can you three talk about it? you might want to verify whether the city attorney is correct in that brown act and sunshine act might be violated if you all talk about it but you can determine that after i talk or you can opine now. but i don't want to take my time. >> it has been introduced. it's going to be reintroduced tomorrow. it's going to be reintroduced.

i don't know what you're talking about. the members of the public are talking as if they haven't had a chance to hear it. [speaker not understood]. one other issue. when we had to judge or interpret administratively cases, the question of fair argument was extremely important and i think a lot of that has to do with judgment and interpretation. in fact, the question of whether or not there will be a heavier burden put on [speaker not understood] legalistic issues makes it incomprehensible what it is you're supposed to present. so, i would ask that certainly that would be addressed and i would thank you for your time. >> thank you, supervisor. mr. welch. supervisor wiener, supervisor kim, supervisor chiu. simple fairness would require acknowledgment of the efficacy of your proposals to deal with categorical exemptions and negative declarations. there's no question that that

aspect of environmental review needs clarity. i'm not totally convinced that the way in which you go about solving them is the way to solve, but it is without question the right thing to do to put them on the public table to be debate and had discussed. cat ex and negative declarations need to be clarified, the process needs to be made transparent. however, simple accuracy requires me to say that it is simply not as you assert at the beginning of this, that this has nothing to do, your legislation has nothing to do with e-i-rs and it has nothing to with projects like cpmc. if it had nothing to do with e-i-rs, why did you repeal section 31.16 of the administrative code which only addresses e-i-rs and replace it with new language that has caused two-thirds of the commentary today?

clearly this legislation does deal with ceqa, with e-i-rs, with projects that require full e-i-rs, not simply negative declarations and cat ex's. so, it would again seem simply fair to allow full debate of those big questions that are encompassed by supervisor kim's legislation as well. i strongly urge you to hold action today until both supervisor kim's and your legislation is before us so that we can see how both deal with the critically important question of full e-i-rs. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. brookes. good evening, supervisors. eric brookes representing san francisco green party, local grassroots organization. our city and earth quart nater, the community ceqa improvement team. first of all, i want to reiterate what a couple other speakers on this side of the aisle said, which is that we

realize that there are some problems that for a few people really cause a nightmare and we realize that this needs to be fixed. we realize that cat ex's and negative declarations need an improved process. and let me assure you that the legislation that we have helped craft that will be coming from supervisor kim's office is not going to be a piece of legislation that is going to allow a problem like discovering a rotting wall to really mess things up for a homeowner that wants to fix their house. that's not in our interest. we won't support legislation that causes that kind of a problem. so, i think folks should rest assured that the super improvement team is not going to put its stamp of approval on something that would cause that sort of a problem. and i think we can figure out a way to work those things out. and i want to get to the most important point, and that is

the first approval and how that relates to noticing. you know, when you trigger the appeals clock at the first approval at the very beginning of the process, that inherently zaps months of noticing and sometimes years of noticing, years of preparation that people need to understand what's going to happen, not with these little projects, but with kind of gray area and large projects where profound changes will happen. we must have a final approval trigger that is well defined so that during that buildup process to the end as the project changes, we can still appeal it and not allow disasters to go forward. and that is what -- [inaudible]. >> thank you. thank you, mr. brookes. thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is roby [speaker not understood].

i'm an architectural historian but i'm not here speaking to you as that today. i'm speaking as an elected executive board member of the health care workers union here in san francisco seiuhw, not in an official capacity, but as a representative in that union of working people who are the majority of the people of this city, two-thirds renting. the city, first of all, is a place of living and the people that seem to be so hyped to push this through are connected one way or another with the development process as either a profit making or in other ways. so, i would urge that the issue be continued so that we can have a more full discussion. it's very important that this go forward in a way that improves and not tightens down on the ceqa process. having spent time, you know,

using that process, i was pretty horrified and a lot of things, i know there's things that need to be done. but in your legislation, supervisor wiener, it seems like you're approaching this like your proposition e and f where things are thrown in here that does not expand and improve the ceqa process in the city, but rather tightens down timelines, throws in other curves and takes away the chance for a wider exposition of the issues that have to be considered. it's very important that we keep san francisco, first of all, as a place to live. and, you know, if we can make a buck, that's fine, too. thank you. >> sir, can i just clarify something? are you here as an individual or on behalf of unitedhealth care workers? i'm here as an individual. i think i made that clear. >> unitedhealth care workers taken a position on this legislation? no, they have not. >> thank you for that clarification.

it was a little unclear. i'm glad i verified that for you. >> next speaker. good evening, supervisors. my name is kieran buckley. i'm a small vendor. [speaker not understood]. and i think you're going the right direction, supervisor wiener, with this. i think if you look at the first speaker there gave a good example of how difficult it can be as a homeowner and when it -- it can drag out forever and cost a lot of money. and it ends up costing the -- sometimes it will end up costing the person who borrows a lot of money when it drag on like that. so, basically [speaker not understood]. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much.

supervisor. mr. chairman, mr. president, supervisor, madam clerk, deputy city attorneys, my name is aaron peskin. i have met with myself and i am representing myself. [laughter] so, let me do a little history, a little good, a little bad, a little ugly. on the history, as you know, ceqa was amended in 1999 to allow e-i-rs to appeal from nonelected bodies to elected bodies. the board of supervisors, not in 2006, but 2001 adopted legislation that allowed for said appeals that are set forth in 31.16. let me commend all of you, supervisor kim, mr. chairman, and the entire board, for grappling with an issue that the board that i served on grappled with for 12 years. i introduced one. i failed. fiona ma introduced one, she failed. ma kelp a introduced one after i left the board. she failed. i think you guys can get this

done. that is the good. let me deal with the bad. 31.16 which has worked just fine for 12 years ~ and let me associate myself with comments of mr. welch, needs not be changed, not one word of it, supervisor wiener. let me deal with the ugly. i would respectfully suggest, mr. president, that in the new age of conciliatory behavior, that members of the public like mike casey and like the last gentleman who spoke, not be questioned in such an aggressive and offensive way. or alternatively, that individuals -- and let me name names like frank noto who is being paid for his behavior -- be addressed in the same way. thank you for the opportunity to address you. i suggest you continue this item. i hope that you can resolve this in a reasonable amount of time. if i were president of the board, i would say it could be

done in two or three weeks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm a contractor/developer. supervisor wiener, i'd like to thank you for bringing this forward. i've been developing buildings here in the city for the last 20 years and this has just been going on and on. the one thing we want to, when we have finished the process, the approval process, we do not want ceqa to continue afterwards because as a developer, we see that as a way of prolonging and delaying the project. can he westbound in the middle of construction at this stage. we can have three sides addendums. we can be halfway through framing the building and that type of stuff. we have to find a way, and i think 30 days appeal process and the first approval process to appeal it is a good system.

you know, we can appeal to the board of supervisors or to the board of appeals in 15 days. nobody has a problem putting everything together. we can appeal drs, there are so many appeal periods. when we pick up a permit to do some work, a small remodel or something, we have 180 days to do the work. there is a time limit. but first we have here at the moment with ceqa is an unending time limit that we don't know how to deal with it. so, i want to thank you for bringing this forward and hopefully we can get clarity and move forward with something that will help us in this process. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. sean [speaker not understood], rba. supervisors, we all know and we have known for sometime that the system is flawed. but it is especially flawed for smaller builders, smaller contractors and homeowners. some level of ceqa reform is

necessary. it's not unreasonable to seek a beginning, a middle, and all good things need to have an end. right now there is no ending. i'd like to hit on two points. one, i'm glad to hear director ram mention about, a, an improved website. and if we can establish a clear beginning, then i think the next step is understanding and having a clear ending. but we understand it's difficult to have a clear ending if you don't have the clear beginning. so, i think that's a first good step. the second point i'd like to reiterate is what redmond just hit on, the multiple permits issued throughout the jobs and the debate between the first approval and the last approval. many of these permits are linked and it's not uncommon for someone to come at the end of the job and put an awning on or a fire permit permit, or something is not quite right.

the inspector may ask you to go down and pull one more permit to show that the way it's written now, that would trigger the whole 30-day again on the environmental appeal. most of the people -- certainly everyone in our industry is looking for a fair and transparent process. we don't see it unreasonable to have an open and fair transparent process at the beginning, a clear middle, and an ending based upon first approval so we can pull our construction loans, begin to build our projects, and focus on the next phases of our lives. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor. mr. chairman and president of the board chiu, and supervisor kim, john vargas. and a past member of [speaker not understood] president of the [speaker not understood]

action committee. 40 years ago we had probably the first environmental lawsuit in san francisco against the university of california san francisco. at that time [speaker not understood] and also the hospital building. at the conclusion of the negotiations, they had violated the ceqa. and the conclusion of our [speaker not understood], the housing in the sunset, let's say several blocks, as well as a lot of restrictions we impose on future expansion of the campus. but most important at the dedication of the dental school building, they thank the community for the taking -- for challenging the project and for bringing many impacts [speaker not understood] and therefore they had a much more improved

project and much better [speaker not understood] balance with the community. as a former supervisor, i would urge that at this time you have -- respect the fact that one of your colleagues is proposing [speaker not understood] that might add to what is being proposed here and could add much to the dialogue that needs to take place and would hope that the committee would take its initiative to supervisor chiu to move that we have this continued and have it be considered with supervisor kim's legislation so we can [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]

>> colleagues, the matter is in the hands of the committee. i will note that the clerk of the board of the supervisors requested a minor amendment of interest to the clerk in terms of processing of appeals. i will just briefly note them. one is to add on page 29 line 14 before the term the clerk of the board of supervisors may reject the following, quote, the clerk of the board may have three days from the time of the submittal to check the package for validity and completeness. if validated, [speaker not understood] from provisional acceptance. second amendment requested by the clerk on page 30 line 6, to put back a sentence that is currently removed. quote, if more than one person submits a letter