process tools or begins. [multiple voices] >> sarah can certainly address that question. >> good afternoon, supervisors. sarah jones from the planning department. i want to address supervisor kim's specific questions. i think i'm going to back up a little bit, though. the aspect of notification that this ordinance most heavily addresses is notification of the actual approval actions and the reason for that is that under ceqa, appeals can be filed after an approval action has occurred. so, the important -- the important event for people to be aware of with regard to filing of appeals is approval actions. so, under this ordinance there would be notification as to the issuance of a ceqa document -- or the fact that a ceqa

document was issued. and the timeline for the appeal connected to our existing notification of approval actions, which is extensive. we have 311, 312 process. we have the notification of hearings. we have a lot of ways to notify people that approval actions occur. what we don't have now is a ceqa notification that is tied to that, that informs people that now their ability to appeal has begun. so, that's the aspect of the notification that is extended in this -- under this ordinance. the only notification that the ordinance pulls back on has to do with some duplicative noticing that occurs with area plans when there is an area plan or large project in which rezoning is involved or general plan amendment where there is

already required noticing. we wanted to remove the duplicative noticing of the ceqa that occurs also. so, that is actually the only -- the only proposed reduction in noticing. otherwise, the strategy or the idea of the increase in notification is around notification of the ceqa appeal along with notifications about [inaudible] sorry, notifications about the project. the issue -- the other issues about notification or information about issuance of ceqa documents that have emerged in the discussions about this process really have to do with the desire for better information about the actual issuance of the ceqa document. that can occur, you know, and often does occur, many months -- it's not a permit that's issued over the counter. the ceqa document is issued a

long time, before the approval action occurs. so, there's no right to appeal that is key to that, however, we have definitely heard and i think anybody who looks at our website and how the exemptionses are posted right now on the website, can see that the way it's done now is not very user friendly. it's hard to find what is going on. so, we want to -- you know, we really see this as an effort that we want to pursue in the planning department regardless of what happens with this legislation, provide geographically visible information about exemptions that have been issued in a timely way. so, what we envision is using the active permits in our -- in my neighborhood map that already exist on the planning department's website, and also show ceqa exemptions on that, on that map. so, that would be information that's available, as i said,

well before any approval action might occur and well before any appeal can be filed. >> could you -- just to make sure -- we have supervisor kim's question. in term of the area plans -- by the way, we did make an amendment based on feedback to increase the minimum that would result in the consolidation and noticing from five acres to 20 acres and that was based on the dialogue with some of the opponents of the legislation. can you just explain the rationale for the changes to the 20-acre plus area plan noticing change? >> yes, there is already noticing that occurs. this noticing is quite -- essentially, quite expensive and essentially wasteful to do duplicative noticing. so, the desire was to consolidate that into one notification and not have separate requirements forsee qua notification and other notification in two different

parts of the -- of our codes. >> so, to be clear, the ceqa notification occurs as part of the other notice. it's not like it doesn't mention ceqa. >> yes. also, there would be the other ceqa notification that -- there would be the other notification required under chapter 31 for the type of environmental document that is involved. so, advertisements placed in newspaper and mailing to neighborhood groups and all of those ongoing outreach efforts that occur as part of our ceqa process. >> so, if i heard you correctly in the beginning before we got to the area plan, so, there's going to be more robust notification process before the [speaker not understood] happens. notification to the public when the 30-day window occur with the project. what i hear is notification of the project itself.

so, once you inform the public they have 30 days to appeal, that's important. but, you know, if we're going to shorten the window for the timeline to appeal, then i think members of the public would like to know about the project when the exemption is given. and obviously there is over 5,000, so, we're not talking about every single project. i think there are projects that deserve more notification than others. so, do we strengthen the notification at the point of the exemption? >> well, that would be -- i think that would be one of the major benefits of getting the timely and geographically visible posting of the exemptions via the active permits in my neighborhood map. >> okay. that's what director ram was talking about in term of the process that you are looking for to putting in place over the next couple of months. >> yes. >> but it's not in the legislation. >> it's not -- that particular effort -- excuse me. >> it could be in the

legislation in terms of putting a timeline. >> not as it is proposed now. i mean, i guess i would say that in terms of the projects that we do see appeals on and that people have concerns about, there is a lot of notification in the process, in the overall permitting process already. so, we feel that under the legislation people would get adequate information about their opportunity to appeal the ceqa determination, but there would be substantially more information about the little over the counter permits that would result from this permits in my neighborhood map approach. >> okay, thank you. >> and i think one of the things we discussed before is that -- this is certainly not the entire universe, but many of the projects that people have

-- sometimes fight, 311 notice, 312 notice, there are different kinds of notifications for those kinds of projects. so, when neighbors have a concern about someone turning their house into a monster home or doing something that could be a demolition, those tend to have 311, 312 -- >> essentially anything that is -- anything that changes the building envelope of a house or of any structure in a residential neighborhood, anything that changes the building envelope to go out for notification to the neighbors, it has to be mailed out and they will have an opportunity to bring it to the planning commission for discretionary review. something that doesn't affect the building envelope, in-kind window replacements, say, that's about the extent that can be issued over the counter. >> um-hm. >> thank you. now, did the department --

>> just to wrap up, i think we've essentially touched on most of what i was intending to say today. but i will add that this ordinance, as supervisor wiener indicated at the beginning, is an ordinance that really is about a very small piece of our process. it would not change how we do our environmental review and the bulk of what happens before a project ever comes to appeal. it is also not about curtailing appeals. ceqa provides for the ability to appeal. we think that's completely appropriate and we stand behind the work that we do on the environmental review. the aspect of it that is i'd say a little difficult to stand behind is needing to get city attorney opinion on whether an appeal is timely. and the reason that we need to do that is because under the current system, appeals can be filed up to the end of the administrative appeal period on the final approval action and for each appeal filed we have

to figure out if the project is or isn't pending its final approval action. i do want to thank supervisor wiener very much for working with those of our planning commission and historic preservation commission. and for continuing to make amendments. i also want to thank mr. power and ms. warren for all of their very hard work on this. at our final hearings, both the historic preservation commission and the planning commission had two remaining requests regarding the 30-day appeal period and the clarity around the process whereby the board is ceqa decision maker. as ero, i would like to thank the commission for making changes on those. i'm happy to take questions if [speaker not understood]. >> i had more of a comment.

it's not a question because it's true while the bulk of the legislation focuses on negative declarations and exemptions, there are some changes to the full blown e. -i-r process. there are two key thing. one is that if you don't participate in the public comment period, you can't actually appeal the e-i-r document later on. so, that does change the larger process as well. so, if you maybe weren't paying attention to a project or weren't able to get your comments in on time -- because sometimes the windows aren't very long -- a year later when the full e-i-r document comes out, you can't -- you have no standing to appeal under the way this legislation is written. i think that is one significant change. the second, of course, is how the appeal might be heard. and, of course, the appeal in this legislation is automatic if i am understanding that. >> if there is legislation attached to it. >> right, if there is legislation attached to it. so, that would change the

process, too, because currently we allow members of the community to appeal on a project that comes to the full board to get to right in kind of their comments, a brief in terms of what the environmental impact concerns that they have are. in fact, that's heard by the board. you know, i think there are a lot of concerns in terms of how this process would look differently. at least for members of the community that are very used to the process the way it is now and of course would like to have that opportunity to have the dialogue with the full board. >> i will address those two issues in turn. in terms of submittal of an appeal only if you have submitted a comment on the draft e-i-r, e-i-rs have a very wide circulation effort. both at the initial scoping process and then at the time of the draft environmental impact report.

and the comment period is to even have a 30-day comment period requires special approval from the state. so, if the comment period is a minimum of 45 days. to add to that, maybe i am shooting myself in the foot, but we certainly never ignored comments that are submitted after the draft e-i-r comment period closes. those are comments in the record. and we do address the subtantive issues that are raised. ~ substantive i do not recall ever seeing an appeal on an environmental impact report that was filed by a party that did not comment on the draft environmental [inaudible]. oh, i'm messing it up, i'm sorry. or was not part of the process. also, ceqa itself and maybe our city attorney can better speak to this, but ceqa itself builds in substantial due process and

also calls for exhaustion of administrative remedies in order to file a lawsuit on a ceqa document. and, so, i think that it is consistent with that to say submittal of comments on a draft environmental impact report is a very important part of the administrative process. i'm preparing an environmental impact report and to somebody who has not submitted their comments at the time that the draft e-i-r is circulated really has not exhausted their remedies. that's something that would be considered case by case in courts, but that is a very important part of the process. >> can i ask some questions, then, about that? i have a couple of questions, actually. so, if it's not an issue anyway, if most parties' comments that do actually 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 categol