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

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

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

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

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

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

decisions for our city. so, colleagues, if there are no other -- just one question? >> i do have a question on -- and i'll speak a little bit more about the first and last approval because that is obviously another place i think there is some disagreement around folks that are interested in reforming ceqa. but i'm curious as to how many exemptions really require multiple approvals. because most exemption projects by their nature are small. and, so, do we have a sense of what percentage of these exemptions actually require multiple approvals? >> i would say that the -- the thousands of exemptions we issue each year, we keep bringing up the exemption stance, those by and large are a one-shot deal. >> right. >> you come into the department, you get your planning sign off which includes an exemption, you get your building permit over the counter. i think that some of the projects that are -- the

projects that involve changes to the building envelope, perhaps i will refer this question to scott sanchez, although we might need to do a little background work and get back to you on that. if there are changes to the building envelope, there may well be more than one building permit issued on the project. the cad ex, though, ceqa is very fair about this. a ceqa determination needs to look at the entirety of the project no matter how many approvals are involved. >> i guess my question is really just around like what is the problem that we're trying to solve for and what percentage of this is it really. because what i saw in the report that went to planning commission is that over the last four years we've seen 21 exemptions actually appeals heard at a hearing, right. so, you know, for four years it's roughly five a year. i don't, you know, i don't want

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that's within the old exemption it's still appealable to the board of permit appeals which is the appropriate appeal authority for whether a building permit was issued appropriately. so, that appeal right is still part of things. speaking as administrator and as ero, i am -- i'm very open and welcome any language that strengthens the assurance that a changed project comes back for redetermination by the ero. that is what happens now and that is what we would want to see happen. if a project comes -- if a project rises to the level of coming back to planning, it should come back to the ero to make sure that the environmental review is still appropriate. >> okay, thank you. so, colleagues, if there are no more questions, why don't we go to public comment. thank you, ms. jones. >> thank you. >> so, we'll now open it up to public comment. public comment will be two

minutes. when you have 30 seconds left, there will be a soft bell. when you're two minutes is up, there will be a louder bell. yes. >> if i could just make one comment. i have received hundreds of e-mails the last few weeks on this topic on both sides. and frankly a lot of the e-mails and communications i've got have been i think etiologically based might be a strong word. folks hate what one, my colleagues have put out, what i find would be helpful is specific comments addressing specific issues with legislation as opposed to sort of i hate this or i love that. the more we can sort of boil this down into specific issues and specific solutions, i think that will help certainly me and hopefully my colleagues figure out the best way to move forward on that. i just want to say at the outset that is what i will be listening for. >> thank you. i think of course it's always important for people to be specific. but there is also -- and this is on both sides.

i think there are -- in addition to the specifics, i think that there are people who have a great frustration in general with how ceqa applies and its impacts on projects in the community that are broad in nature. in addition to the fact i think there are people opposed to this legislation who have a generalized frustration about not knowing enough, believing that they don't have enough opportunity to object. i'm all for specifics, but i also don't want to downgrade the more general views about how land use happens in the city and the perceptions on both sides because i think that those are valid as well. >> i'm sure we'll hear a lot of that today. >> so, okay. i will call a number of speakers, and you can line up. you don't have to go in the exact order that i call you. christin ham son. pat scott. francisco dee costa. howard wong.

sally stevens. steve seltzer. po bronson. tess well born. [speaker not understood]. espinola jackson. [speaker not understood]. paul page. leah [speaker not understood]. and george wedding. welcome. thank you. >> you can go ahead. okay, all right. hi, i am christin ham son and i'd like to thank you for having me here today, supervisors. ~ obviously this is an important law. i also believe that the reforms that are being considered today are very important as well. i was asked to share a little bit about our family's story. i'm here to talk about one of those home remodel projects that came up against the ceqa process as they are implemented today in san francisco. and, so, i'm here to talk about some of the real impacts to real families.

i can sense there is concern in the room about some of the changes that are being considered, but i hope that our story might help people think about some of the impacts and the way ceqa is implemented currently as well. we did a home remodel project. it took us about 2-1/2 years to get through the full approval process. we went through mediation, the planning commission, and the board of appeals. and that was the first year and a half. once we did all of that and we were approved at the board of appeals, our opposition triggered ceqa at that point in time. we didn't expect that that was going to happen. we knew it was the remote possibility, but they did in fact trigger it, it was consecutive and it followed after all the other appeal processes that occurred. ceqa was by far the longest most unpredictable, most stressful and most costly part of the process for us. and i don't know whether the

reforms being considered today will [speaker not understood] addressing situations like that confronted by our family, but it might be a good start. anything that would compress the ceqa process, make it more transparent and allow people like us embarking on remodel have a better sense of what we're going to be up against from the very outset would be a lot better. we might have been able to decide earlier what decisions we needed to make, what costs were involved, and [inaudible]. >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker. francisco de costa. supervisors, this is a very important topic. and as you see, when we come here for the meetings, you three supervisors at the podium have had your say and i don't think any one of y'all are land use experts. and, so, with your comments,

you have convoluted this issue. and ton top of that, one already had the audacity to tell us what we should speak to you about. let me tell you, for 45 years i've been reviewing e-i-rs and i'm pretty well attuned to ceqa. now, in our planning department we have a system. the planning director stated that. you've heard those comments. unless we can connect the dots from our ero and we the community, especially the bayview community, again and again and again have been shafted by the supervisors. ceqa came about from the light

of the e-i-r going way back in 1969. some of y'all were toddlers. yet we the advocates who come to the meetings and have to suffer, as we did today, out of no respect for seniors who have to sit there for 45 minutes and that is the point i want to make. we do not need any amendments. because the amendments are not coming from the right place. one of y'all doesn't have the heart to represent the community. thank you very much. >> thank you. (applause) >> actually -- okay, a couple things. first of all, under our board rules, we request the members of the public not make audible either booses or clapping. ~ if you want to do a thumbs up or thumbs down, feel free to do that. also i should have noted

earlier, if there is anyone who because of the disability or other need physically needs to go early, even if i haven't called you, let us know and we will accommodate you. [speaker not understood]. thank you, supervisor. you have a copy of my letter in front of you. i would like to make comments about one particular negative declaration that shows the need for a change. and will be addressed [speaker not understood] supervisor kim's legislation that we'll be seeing tomorrow. on october 24th of 2012, there was an e-i-r filed for no more than 5,000 square foot ground disturbance at 789 frederic street. in fact, more than 16,000 square feet were disturbed so there was a deception there on the part of rec and park.

and there were potentially hazardous materials at that site. and nothing was done about that. so not only are there issues about why that was given a negative declaration, but there is no follow through on saying you blew it. and that's one of the very frustrating things about this, too. so, besides the permits that are going through this process, once decisions are made, where is the teeth? here's something that rec and park did that has not -- [speaker not understood]. i would say, too, that permission that was given at whole foods on stanyan, that were conditions that were not upheld. so, [speaker not understood] supervisor wiener was drafted at ceqa and not discussed. supervisor kim's legislation was drafted in public and now

is being continued in public. when notice is given it needs to be pushed out to the public. we do not need to go to the website and have to search for information. we need 60 days on large projects. thank you. >> next speaker. howard wong speaking for san francisco tomorrow. first, we'd like to see supervisor kim's proposed legislation fully considered before adopting any measure before you. the ceqa process, as you know, is a very difficult to understand even for elected officials. but for the average citizen it's almost incomprehensible. the changes that occur in a project are a great multitude of changes. as an architect, i have seen critical path schedules which are very complex.

ceqa is often a very small part of the very complex project. we also don't always appreciate that even planning professional are not always accurate. a project can be defined in such a way that easily is misunderstood by the project provided by the public. look at 110 embarcadaro where an historic building was to be demolished because the address of 110 embarcadaro and not 113 stuart which is on the other side of the building by which it was known. an historic resource where long shore men had their headquarters during the great general strike of the 1930s. the cpmc project, look at the evolution of that project or americas cup and its evolution. many houses change dramatically, many houses which are historic resources are not

even identified by planning staff at the counter because for whatever reason they don't have the databases or the knowledge about what the buildings constitute. it's complex enough for legislators and architects to understand [speaker not understood]. you need time. you need time for people to [speaker not understood] and react. >> thank you. mr. wooding. good afternoon, supervisors. is this on? >> now it's on. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is george wooding, 120 central council coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i wanted to say quickly that many neighborhood groups do not support what scott wiener has been representing. the groups he mentioned are just about a small fraction of what san francisco neighborhoods are all about. i think