>> we received these last evening, a letter from the director of the small business commission forward i by mr. shulman fully supporting it. i think that the business commission, together with the director, is making every effort to get the word out and there are many people working in the same direction here. i support. this >> commissioner wu. >> just wanted to clarify that's a motion to approve with the modifications suggested by staff. >> second. >> commissioners, on that motion to adopt a recommendation to the board of supervisors approving the ordinance with modifications, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. >> let's go one more. >> one more? okay. >> i'm not sure staff is ready.

sounds like we've got 13 -- staff for 13? >> i don't see mary. >> the commission will take a very short break. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> i'd like to remind people to please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings and do state your name for the record. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar, item 11 for case no. 2013.0463u, the commission will consider a proposed ordinance amending administrative code, chapter 31 sponsored by supervisor kim. the commission will consider a proposed ordinance administrative code chapter 31 sponsored by supervisor kim. ~ >> good afternoon, commissioners. ann marie rodgers again, planning department staff. commissioners, this item before you today is a proposal that would amend the administrative code for new procedures for ceqa appeals, procedures and notices. as you will remember, you heard

proposal a while ago that would amend the same section in the administrative code but in a different manner. before staff begins our presentation, i'd like to introduce the honorable supervisor kim to explain the implications of the proposal and then i'll present the department's position. >> thank you, ms. rodgers. give me a moment to put all these papers in place. so, thank you to the members of the planning commission for sharing this item today. ~ hearing as you well know, the california environmental quality act may be the singlemost important law californians have in preserving the environment and here in san francisco, c-e-q-a may be the singlemost important law in san francisco having a -- requiring a community dialogue for development projects. changes to the law will significantly impact the course of development in our city and i'm proud to be part of a legislation that will determine

how our city implements c-e-q-a and improves the process as we move forward. as you know, for roughly about the last ten years since the state has determined that all c-e-q-a decisions are appealable to an elected decision making body, we have not set up a process in which we hear appeals of exemptions and negative declarations and that is what our legislation largely addresses. several supervisors before us have tried to put a process in place and clearly we have not been able to do that. so, that's i think goes to show the breadth of passion and really multiple opinions about what c-e-q-a reform means. but i do think that we all largely agree that a process should be put in place. i think the question is what that process looks like. this legislation came to our office actually from a number of different community groups and we've been working with them over the last couple of months to put this together. and it's really to provide one

of the perspectives of how that c-e-q-a process should be reformed. you've already been presented by supervisor wiener on another perspective of how c-e-q-a should be performed. but i do want to acknowledge and some of those folks are here today, the sierra club, the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, unite here local 2, seiu local 10 to 1, san francisco beautiful, take back our parks and the advisory council from u.c. hastings community economic development clinic. i also want to say a particular thanks to our city attorney elaine warren. she has not only been working furiously on our c-e-q-a legislation that we're preventing today, but also supervisor wiener and on top of that president chiu's amendments. so, we have been keeping her very, very busy. along with our planning department staff, ann marie rodgers, and our ero sarah jones. we believe this legislation offers a balanced approach to c-e-q-a reform that focuses largely on improving public notification and maintaining a

robust input in the environmental review process. we do establish the much needed deadlines for the appeals of cad ex and negative declarationses, but we also realize if we're going to put deadlines in place, that we need to have an easily understandable process in order to file the appeals. we believe that increasing triggers for notification will greatly enhance the ability for the average san franciscan to understand when projects are coming up in their neighborhood and when they can appeal those projects. ~ so, i will just highlight some pieces of our legislation that are being reviewed today. the legislation before you will substantially improve the notification process for projects as i have mentioned. it expands upon existing noticing requirements to ensure that communities stay informed about the projects around them. in addition to historic projects and demolitions currently requiring notices, projects on potentially historic buildings and also parks often consider the living room of our neighborhoods, will

also require public notice. ~ for projects that are not publicly noticed but instead posted online, the legislation requires the planning department to create a geographically referenced searchable database that member of the public can subscribe to. this way the resident can receive alerts on projects and avoid surprises. and this is feedback that we heard over and over again from a lot of different community members. most folks want to be responsible users of the c-e-q-a process. they don't want to be kind of the horror story laid out over and over again. but in order for them to appeal early and in a timely manner, that notification needs to happen. it will also give the historic preservation commission the authority to opine on projects of potential historical significance prior to any project approvals. the hpc which was established in 2008 has not been given an established role in the c-e-q-a process since its creation. the legislation gives the commission the authority to review and comment on all environmental documents or projects that may have an

impact on historical or cultural resources. it also does require hearing at hpc for draft e-i-rs that involve potentially historic buildings. third, another improvement from our existing process is that our legislation does establish the deadlines that prevent appellants from, quote-unquote, gaming the system. it requires appealed materials to be submitted 11 days before a hearing to give the planning department enough time to respond and have the response as part of the official record. materials submitted less than 8 days prior to the full board hearing will not be considered part of the record to prevent what are called document dumping where appellants submit hundreds of materials on the day of appeal, but the board of supervisors is accountable for but ultimates really has no time to review. unlike the legislation that has come prior from supervisor wiener, the c-e-q-a legislation before you today maintains the integrity of the existing process in many ways. first, it will not allow for project approvals to occur

while c-e-q-a appeal -- while the c-e-q-a appeal is pending which is the current practice. our thought around this was primarily one, not wasting other commission and department's time on approvals when the appeal is pending. and the second is also that members of the board often hear from departments and folks that have really invested a lot of time, saying that we've already done all of this for the project. why stop the project now? something that sometimes happens at the board of supervisors. two, it will not require previous hearings -- it will not require a previous hearing to file a c-e-q-a appeal. specifically in regard to negative declarations which are often our midsize projects, the existing practice does not require a hearing at planning commission before an appeal can ~ come to the full board of supervisors. supervisor wiener's leg asia tempts to change. this the existing logic is to have appeals go straight to the full board of supervisors. i think it would be a problem

if we saw a myriad of negative declarations taking up our time. but in the last three years we've only seen one negative declaration appeal. i did want to respond to some of the planning department's response to our legislation. some of which were we're very open to discuss feedback and some we'd like to keep in place. the first which comes up a lot which is our legislation does allow the planning commission to allow testimony on exemptions when the project approval is before you. it does not require the commission to make determinations on a project capacity to be exempt. and the intent is really to give the commission an ability to send the exemption back to the ero, not to have you actually make the determination. i know one of the concerns that the sfmta had is that this would delay their exemption process. the question that i would have, first of all, is how many sfmta

exemptions actually come before the planning commission for approval? but even if it has to come before the planning commission for approval, it doesn't delay the process because they can't move forward with the project until the planning commission approves it anyway. so, why not allow testimony for those exemptions at the same time that you're hearing that approval. another point that had come up in the planning commission -- i'm sorry, planning staff's report is that our legislation requires staff to attend every project approval hearing before the planning commission. our legislation does not require staff to be present for the hearing. an ero report may be enough, and we certainly don't want to increase staff time here at the commission. there is also a question about whether notice of determinations for negative declarations and e-i-rs are necessary and whether we should include that as an option. our intent is really just to have a written determination

that members of the public can reference. we are open to feedback, though, from the planning commissioners on that piece of our legislation. the next is our legislation does require that there will be public scoping meetings required for every e-i-r. it has been stated that that is not necessary. however, we only conduct roughly 10e i r.s per year. and, so, the question that we have really asked back is how much additional work is that truly? another feedback that we got from the response was that our legislation requires hpc hearings on e-i-rs involving known historical resources, demolitions, or projects that contain buildings that are 50 years or older. the 10-day separation in meeting that we give to give planning commission time to review the hpc comment, we're open to determining how we do that. perhaps we can have a clause

allowing sponsors to skip the process if [speaker not understood], or we can allow hpc to agendize projects that have e-i-rs that involve -- that they believe may be buildingses historical resource. again, that's something we would like comment on as well. ~ i don't want to go through all of the responses unless planning commissioners have questions, but i'll just highlight a few more. one was the issue, the subscription based electronic notification system. i know planning was concerned about the potential for error and also the amount of time this would take up. but we really want to figure out how to give the department resources to develop a web-based map under development and how we can make a subscription service automated. this actually -- we were hoping would save planning department staff time, not add to it. ~ i think, you know, for me because i've come of age in this technology cycle, it's

hard for me to imagine why we can't tag exemption projects as parks, as being in certain neighborhoods, what types they are, and then allowing subscribers to check the types of notifications that they would like to take on an almost daily level i get e-mails from trader joe's or macy's asking me what types of newsletters i would like to sign up for, whether it's home furniture or women's clothing or shoes. i think that there has to be ~ the technology out there in order for planning department to do this. and we really believe that it will actually ultimately save the planning department time. so, if it's a question of how we provide those resource toes planning, that's what we would like to be able to do. another point of comment came up to alterations to buildings that are 50 years or older. we recognize that this is a great proportion of the building stock. so, we're open to changing that language to making it changes to buildings 50 years or older with alterations to character

defining features. i also wanted to talk a little bit about some amendments of the legislation that we do intend to introduce over the next week. the first was what i had mentioned. we're already committed to changing the language to 50 year -- building 50 years or older that alter character defining features. the second, we understand the concern for multiple appeals. the language that we have currently for exemptions are a little bit vague on that, and i know that in speaking with one of the commissioners this week that there was a concern of allowing two appeals on one exemption project when the ero hasn't determined that that project has been modified in scope. i think there's just a lot of concern from members of the public what a modification and scope means. and i think there has to be a greater discussion either an objective set of criteria that everybody knows, this is what changes the scope of a project.

so, some things that we know for sure, the change in the size of the envelope, like that's pretty well known. but what else is it that changes a project to the point that you need to issue a new determination which would trigger a new appeal window? we're open to having an amendment that says not that there's another c-e-q-a appeal on that exemption, which i think our ordinance language is currently vague on, but that we would -- that the ero determination that modified exemption does not require a new exemption is appealable. so, it's not a second c-e-q-a appeal on that exemption. the last amendment that we're interested in introducing is how to help priority projects, projects that our city considers to be a priority for our city. we've currently been working with council of communities housing organizations. for example, on an amendment that projects providing 100% affordable housing will receive a prioritized assignment from environmental review beyond what is currently in place.

since that is streamlining the review process for them, we have actually increased certainty on the timing of notification for what type of review would be required, whether it's a cat ex or a negative declaration or full blown e-i-r. that's some of the feedback that we heard from our affordable housing developers. so, the language that they've suggested that all applications shall be assigned, reviewed, and completed in the order received except that applications for projects that provide 100% permanent affordable housing of dwelling units, and funded by the city and county of san francisco shall be given nod, a notice of determination within 60 days of receipt. so, we would love your feedback on that. another type of project that we have heard over the last couple months that is incredibly important to community members are, of course, pet safety improvements and bike lanes. we don't actually have a suggestion for how we would prioritize those projects, but we're certainly open to departmental feedback and of

course, commissioners, on that on how we might be able to do that. so, just in concluding remarks, i had talked about how there are two perspectives of c-e-q-a that are being considered before the commission and the board of supervisors. our legislation intends to place a process into place for exemptions and negative declarations that make it easier for member of the public to be engaged and participate in projects occurring in their neighborhood and community. admittedly, our legislation, as you've read in the planning department, response does not necessarily use planning staff to administer the c-e-q-a process. we understand that, we know it's a question of whether we need to provide more resource he than not. i think i have heard at least over and over again that community would like to see a process that's understandable to them. so, if we are going to have a process that is clear or more transparent, then we should provide those resources. after all, we are planning for people, real people who live in

our neighborhoods and our city, and we live in a city that -- where people do care a lot about what development occurs. they want to stay in our parks. they want the same developments that will be built across the street from their house. and i want to emphasize it doesn't mean that they get what they want. it means their voice and concerns are heard in the process. notification is an important piece of this. as a member of the board of supervisors, i probably have been one of the more pro development members of this board. in fact, as i said over and over again, i sit on the other side actually of members that worked with our office on -- in putting this legislation together and are now supporting the legislation. so, i'll just have to say while we may not all agree on the outcomes of the project, whether we approve or not, we all as a whole agree that there should be a robust process that allows members of the public to easily participate and voice their opinion. now, it's true that there are

horror stories about how this process has been abused. i think that in any process that we put forward, there's always going to be a small minority of individuals who figure out a way to quote-unquote game that process. that goes to both residents and developers. but i want to be real about what the problem is. out of over 5,000 exemptions that we get on any given year, only five are even appealed to the board of supervisors on average. and as i had mentioned before over the last three years, we've only heard one negative declaration appeal. so, i think it's important that we not penalize the larger, more responsible community who just wants to know about a project. they usually support the project or are able to improve the project before it even comes to an appeal. but we do want to create a process, but if we want to create a process making it harder for the crazy, smaller minority, we do hurt the majority of community members who just want good projects in their neighborhoods and are responsible actors. i also don't want to confuse

other approval processes with c-e-q-a. c-e-q-a's only a part of that approval process. so, i don't believe our legislation makes the process more arduous for developers, however, we do raise the bar for the city in terms of what we expect of ourselves. i think -- i know i've taken up quite a bit of time, but this legislation is a complex process and i really wanted to be able to explain our intent in drafting this legislation and some of the thinking that came behind it. we're open to any questions. i know that planning department also has a presentation, and me and danny who i forgot to thank, spent quite a number of hours the last two months working on this. i just want to appreciate him for all of his work as well. we will both be here to answer questions. >> great, thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor kim. as i mentioned i'm joined today by our acting ero sarah jones,

and you have a detailed case report before you that describes our department's recommendation. the recommendation before you is to support certain portions of the proposal, but not all of the proposal. as i mentioned earlier during my board report this week, on monday when the board committee heard supervisor kim's proposal and supervisor wiener's proposal, supervisor chiu made some amendments to supervisor wiener's proposal which he felt responded to the community concerns. as a result of those amendments, supervisor kim's proposal and supervisor wiener's amended proposal are much closer in content than they were at the time this case report was originally written. therefore, the commission secretary is now providing you with a supplemental memorandum today which compares and contrasts the two current versions. while staff will be available today to go over our detailed analysis as provided in your first case report, for this presentation i'd like to focus on a little bit higher level of review.

our department, like this commission, trixv to ensure that the local application of c-e-q-a benefits all of the people of san francisco. as parties on all sides have stated, our current process could use some improvement and we welcome engagement of supervisors wiener, chiu, and cam pos in helping to codify these procedures. so, let's get started with the discussion with the supervisors at hand today. supervisor kim's proem sail provides much more noticing about c-e-q-a. this proposed approach is not on noticing the specific project approvals but rather to notice the publication of a c-e-q-a document. historically, planning notices have focused on the projects and associated review and approval of the news for those projects. we feel that additional notification about c-e-q-a on the very smallest projects is a level of notification that is not commensurate with associated projects. the projects that are currently not noticed are generally

projects that have no potential impacts to the environment. and in your first case report, the very last page of your first case report, provides a list of all the different types of projects we currently do notification on. [speaker not understood]. in today's supplemental memorandum, we describe how the wiener proposal emphasizes the approval action as the vehicle for informing the public about the project. this is the concept that is already embedded in c-e-q-a. and in chapter 31. it's the project approval that's key. the department believes that the information about the c-e-q-a determination and the associated appeal rights should rightly be tied to notification and information about the approval of the project. state law establishes that in allowing for administrative appeals, c-e-q-a itself ties the appeals to that single approval. on the other hand, supervisor kim's proposed ordinance emphasizes the c-e-q-a determination itself. there is no added information

about the approvals. and the connection between the c-e-q-a appeal and the project approval is not substantially strengthened compared to the status quo. codifying appeals after discretionary approval disregards the aspect of approval, that pivots on recognized approval. the reasons stated in our case report, our recommendation to you is that this commission evaluate supervisor kim's ordinance for what it brings to the table. the beneficial elements of this proposal should be forwarded to the board of supervisors. some of the elements the department would support include broadening the appeal window to allow for appeals on the front end of the process as opposed to a longer appeal window after the approval. we would support the elimination of the board as a c-e-q-a decision making body and the identification of associated approval for each c-e-q-a determination, something that is good public policy. and lastly, a robust posting system for all c-e-q-a

determinations is a necessarily pro. that y improvement that should be on our website. that concludes my presentation today and the acting e he ro are available in case you have any questions. >> thank you. i'll go ahead and open it up to public comment. and calling some speaker cards, dr. espinola jackson, erica brooks. bernie, sue vaughan. michelle meyers. and peter cohan. good afternoon, dr. espinola jackson, bayview hunters point. i want to make sure it's part of the record, and that you're able to read what's here. in recent years we have [speaker not understood]

impacts linked with the projects [speaker not understood]. we must also factor in the precautionary principles as the ordinance that permit us to have a project and impact, be it [speaker not understood] animal or humans. the san francisco planning department [speaker not understood] because this has been going on for sometime and you might not have been here. but san francisco planning department again and again has sent a wrong signal to those that want to circumvent a holistic planning practice, not giving credibility to c-e-q-a and precautionary principles. this department did this with lennar and partial a at the san

francisco shipyard as well as the recent approved wellness center [speaker not understood] in san francisco. all this was done without giving consideration to seniors, children, and more important, quality of life issues. and as i mentioned -- i didn't mention it before, but i'd like to say this process should be your process, not an individual supervisor. you need to look at everything that is going on and what has happened and compile it and it becomes city planning's process for all of us, not a wiener project -- process, not a kim process. let's get things done for the citizens of san francisco. thank you so very much and you all have a blessed day. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. eric brooks representing san

francisco green party, the local grassroots organization, our city, and here as the coordinator of the c-e-q-a community improvement team. first of all, stand in strong support of supervisor kim's excellent legislation, very well thought out. partly the reason that we feel it's well thought out is we helped to think it out and there are now 41 organizations including labor, parks, you know, all across the spectrum, historic preservation, environmental groups, social justice groups that have all worked for the last few months to come up with this language that's now before you. and as you heard, in committee the direction that things are going is to harmonize the approach of supervisor wiener and our approach together to the best extent we can. but definitely heading in the direction of the kim approach. and, so, we would urge you to

support supervisor kim's legislation with the modifications that supervisor kim is willing to accept as far as comments from planning staff. but otherwise, we need to stand firm and send this forward with your approval. the key here is that in 2006 we opposed any changes. and in 2010 we opposed any changes to this process. because, quite frankly, with a little bit of hubris on our part, this is working well enough for us. let's just stop any changes from going forward and keep it the way it is. but since 2010 what we've seen is that it's not working for us either because the staff and the city attorney and the city, county clerk have to make up rules as they go along. so, we finally have come to the table and said, yes, we are willing to do this with the developers, with project sponsors, with city sponsors. we agree now that it's time to make changes. and the key things that we are

giving up are the ability to appeal a project multiple times . under kim's legislation now, it's essentially going to be once unless there is a major change in the project, after which as you heard, if there is a major modification, we'll be able to appeal the decision of the ero if the ero decides it's not a major food modification. so, we'll be able to have one bite at the apple, but not all these extensive appeals that happened in history. ~ and we're also very importantly accepting a clear deadline for negative declarations and other -- and exemptions. and those are big things. it would be better for us if we could appeal every single permit . but it would be better for the environment. but we're willing to accept that. in return, we need planning staff to accept that it's going to take some more work. and i will guarantee you that my groups at least are willing to come forward and fight hard to get more fu