i'm trying to figure out like if someone appeals -- if i appeal a tree permit, is that a c-e-q-a appeal or is that an appeal to the permit just generally and it doesn't have anything to do -- i'm trying to determine the differences because i think that that -- one of the things that's up for deebate -- >> deputy city attorney susan cleveland noel. my colleague might be able to elaborate on this further. yes, you can appeal a permit for any reason. normally through the board of appeals. * you could also appeal that same permit in most instances under c-e-q-a. >> so, the question is some of the appeals may not be c-e-q-a appeals. there would be other appeals. but then could you appeal the permit twice from the same agency, one time being c-e-q-a, one time being something else? >> that's what you do now, that's what you can do in the future. they're separate appeals. one is on the substance, the merits of the project. one is on the c-e-q-a. the difference now is depending on what permit it is, the public has made it abundantly clear, you may have no knowledge because there is no notice wha

, choose to appeal [speaker not understood], choose to appeal to the board. exemptions are only to the board. >> okay. thank you for the -- answering the question. i think that there are a lot of great procedural changes and codificationses that the legislation does that's really -- that need to be done. i think that that's very true. i think the challenge is that there are some details related to what that mean when you start talking about discretionary actions and how one discretionary action, do people game the system and get a discretionary action, a place where they're left notice, no one is paying attention so they can get -- have an easier time in other places. i think that is problematic. i also think the appeals window the 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 30 days with no notice, 20 days with some notice, is also somewhat problematic. those seem to be the two biggest issues that everybody is touching on. there is another thing about the fair argument which i don't see -- i can't find that language in the legislation because i'm not going to address it. it s

appeal to the board. however, if someone chooses not to take what this says, which is you have 20 days to appeal and to take it to the planning commission, they can just ignore that and then wait until there is a entitlement action or permitting action and take it to the board directly. so, under this legislation it would be that you would have to take it to the commission first and then there would be a triggering action associated with the appeal. the permit that would then go to the board. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thanks. i have a bunch of disjointed comments here. first of all, i'd like to thank ann marie for responding to some questions that i had with respect to the table we have here -- i asked you first. i know we're going to get additional information with respect to this in terms of some more timelines is what i'm looking for. i also like to thank staff for providing some responses to all of the letters, the fine questions that were previously submitted and it's also in the

appeal, don't wait. another aspect of the legislation is a way of ensuring more predictability about situations where a project requires legislative action by the board of supervisors whether it's a zoning change or special use district. and where you also have, of course, c-e-q-a determination. right now when we have zoning that comes to the board for a project, there can be a separate c-e-q-a appeal fired. but that appeal can be filed late, it will disrupt the board's process. i'll give you an example of that. when the booker t. washington affordable youth housing project came to the board, we had to approve a special use district for that project. at the last minute, i think the day before or the day of our land use hearing, a c-e-q-a appeal was filed. we were required to take the entire matter off calendar and it delayed our consideration by two months. this legislation would provide that if the board is required to legislate for a project to happen, the board of supervisors becomes the c-e-q-a decis

there were also appeals filed since 2010, a list of time frames -- a list of time frames for appeals as well as the department's responses to the comments that we've received thus far on the legislation. * results these materials were prepared in response to requests for information from commissioners. so, i'm mainly going to focus on the cover memo. what we did in that cover memo was broke down the proportion of time that the appeal process takes relative to other portions of the environmental review process for each major type of environmental document. this turned out, actually, to be a very helpful exercise for us because it really highlighted that the most problematic aspect of the current situation is the lack of predictability and clarity with regard to negative declaration and categorical exemption appeals. so, first for e-i-rs. under the proposed legislation, that wouldn't change much. e-i-rs take a small amount of time compared to the preparation process. the time lines are specified now in chapter 31. for negative declarations, that's where it starts to get a little hairy.

appeal.ng administrator could have ruled that he'll take that dr appeal he won't schedule the hearing before the commission, he'll acknowledge the appeal that there is a right to a hearing, but he won't schedule it pending your decision on the neighbor's request for you to rule that noza extension should have been givenu$: to my client at all. there was no reason why the zoning administrator couldn't have started that 311 process the day2njyafter the appeal by the neighbor was made. and then, if you had1n%( f decision, as you really did last month, that the neighbor's appeal was in error, and that mr. sanchez had made the right decision we would already have had a 30 day 311 period and a request for a hearing. and after the hearing you had a month ago, there would have been time to have an actual planning commission hearing before the n mt of the extension period, again which was 30 days after your last hearing. once again, the 3111 could have gone out when the neighbor made the appeal, she c

it would not be curtail of appeal rights. it would provide for greater predictability and greater clarity. now i'll turn it over to bill, our environmental review officer. thank you. >> commissioners, thank you. it's bill wyco. i'm going to start kind of at kind of a general level because this discussion is going to probably mire in details. get in the big picture first and plunge into a detail or two that you're going to hear in comments, you've seen in comment letters. big picture, all that this ordinance -- all that the existing ordinance does and all the proposed ordinance does is fill gaps in state law. state law does not address -- state law was changed 10 years ago to allow an administrative appeal to the board -- to elected body if the elected body is the decision maker. we've had 10 years now of having no procedure in place. this is trying to establish a procedure. so, number one, it's addressing a gap in state law that did not establish procedures for such administrative appeals. secondly, it addresses a gap in stat

things will go through, no appeals. it will cut down costs because, well, no appeals. and the time frame would be shortened. and some of these projects that were mentioned, the bike grant for example, tw

things will go through, no appeals. it will cut down costs because, well, no appeals. and the time frame would be shortened. and some of these projects that were mentioned, the bike grant for example, that was delayed because the department didn't do an e-i-r. give me a break. and the housing element of 2004, again, no e-i-r. it was a negative declaration. the department really has to be watched. san francisco is only 47 square miles and we need the strongest c-e-q-a laws that could be in existence. we can't lower it to the state level. this is crucial. we live in a dense area and here people are just trying to cut back public debate, public opportunities for appeal. it's almost as though the lobbyists were allowed to write this. you heard some of the developers here -- one developer. you know, for them it's great. for the rest of us, terrible, unbelievable. supervisor peskin says he can't understand what the problem is. he says tens of thousands of c-e-q-a determinations are being made every year and only a couple dozens are appealed. that's a small price to pay to tr

who happened to sign the appeal. but there were many others, including pacific heights residents association who have understood that these issues were much more, they were led to believe by rec and park. the whole reason this came about, one of the reasons, i had gone to their meetings and i was trying to be an informed citizen about what was going on. and it frightens me to think that now you want to take away the tiny, tiny bit of notice that people get around some of these things that are happening. at the hearing, at the meetings, we weren't told anything about a categorical exemption. we weren't told anything about historic resource. and, in fact, when i asked the question about tree cuttings, we weren't even told about that. i only was able to find out about how many trees were to be cut at a public park the week that they were starting the work. and i was persistent because i watch the birds up there. and it was orctionv after -- only after that that we started getting very concerned. over 500 people signed a

i don't have the total number to compare this to, but in 2010 there were 16 appeals, 2011 18 appeals, and 15 appeals so far this year, which is -- we still have the month of december to go. of that, in 2010 six e-i-rs were appealed. in 2011 there were 7. and this year there are 6. and there were 10 exemptions three years ago, 9 exemptions and 9 exemptions this year. that is in context of what various people have said of thousands of exemptionses and e-i-rs of the process every year. i don't know if thousand is a correct number. it sounds high to me. but maybe if they're processing requests from the building department, from rec and park, other departments, mta, et cetera, i guess conceivably it could be that high. it just seems like if the argument forsee qua reform is based on some kind of abuse and some kind of huge problem at the board of supervisors, these number don't seem to bear that out. that the process seem to be working in the majority of times despite the fact that we have issues with negative declaration and exemption notificationses and that kind of thing. and, so, i don

and you can appeal it. it's all very vague and it should be avoided on vagueness and the whole thing -- the whole legislation probably needs an e-i-r and the last thing i wanted to say is there is a letter from coalition from san francisco neighborhoods and it says, therefore we urge you to strongly disapprove this proposed legislation in your recommendation to the board of supervisors. here are 12 copies. thank you very much. >> thank you. [laughter] (applause) >> excuse me, excuse me. please, no outbursts or disruptions. thank you. >>> commissioners, good afternoon. judy berkowitz, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the coalition urges you to strongly disapprove this proposal in your recommendation to the board of supervisors. along with we would -- we urge you to -- one of you to make a motion of improper notice because you were not provided with the appropriate documents in a timely manner. i'd like to warn you, there may or may not be hyperbole ensuing. [laughter] >>> this proposal is basically

please deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> next, speaker, please. >> betsy any and i am speaking as the president of the diamond heights association. prior to the meeting we submitted a letter to your board requesting that you deny the appeal. our board feels that the community out reach and the community plan that met with the community and provided so much opportunity for input we feel that that long and thorough process came up with a really good thought out plan. now diamond heights our western border is right at glen park. and our residents would greatly benefit from the renovations and the improvements. and so we do urge you as association to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, next, speaker, please? >> good evening, my name is hugh (inaudible) i would like to say something that the project will except some of the park of the project. i mean the moving their tennis court and cut the trees. my point is to this project is substitution of the bad maintenance over this park. i

so i would vote to deny the appeal. >> question? >> so, i would move to deny the appeal, based on the dpw's finding that this was not like food. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny this appeal and to up hold this permit on the basis that the sale of espresso is not like food. >> on that motion, vice president fung. >> no. >> president hwang of >> aye. >> and commissioner lazarus? >> no. >> the vote is two to two, the motion does fail, however, because three votes are needed to over turn or modify any departmental action, this permit would be upheld by default unless there is another motion. >> okay. no further motion, then we are done with this item. >> permit upheld. >> thank you. >> so commissioners, the last item... if i could ask the folks to please clear the room, we have additional business to attend to this evening. thank you so much and thank you for your patience throughout this evening. the last item on your calendar is the board consideration and possible adoption of your annual report for the fisca

you're shot your entire 20 day period for appeal. you don't have the basic information on which to base your appeal in the first place. so, especially if you want -- and i understand substantial evidence. i think the issue with that is if you guys would -- if the supervisor would just take what it says in the state law as substantial evidence having to back up the fair argument and leave the fair argument in there, then i think it would be much clearer to the public. the public when they read this in the ordinance or however it's going to be put forth is going to see substantial evidence and they're going to go, oh, well, you know, that means lawyers. that means this and that, whatever. when, in fact, substantial evidence doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have what most people -- in reading substantial evidence would conjure up as what they need to provide. it is a very low threshold. even if you use the word substantial evidence, it's a very low threshold. and that's i think the problem that people are having by excluding th

this is a ceqa appeal. i agree with president chiu's question so i will be supporting the -- upholding the eir as well. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: i want to thank the appellants for coming to speak. taking a look at the project itself there are things i support, that will improve the safety of the residents in the area, including the bulbouts and a number of other aspects. the area i'm not so comfortable with is the parking issue. i think that impact is something that unfortunately i would like to see less parking being lost as a result of the improvements. that being said, there is an exemption within ceqa for this kind of a project and because of that, in applying those rules, i think that we need to actually uphold this exemption. and so unfortunately, i won't be voting to do -- or to uphold your appeal at this moment but again i do think that the parking issue is a large one. >> president chiu: any further discussion? mr. clerk, roll call vote on the motion. >> supervisor farr

so that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. those the board of asupervisors does regularly deal with the sequa appeals and i am available for any questions. >> commissioners? the matter is submitted. >> i wanted to confirm one thing, and i am not sure who it should be addressed. >> but a permit is not required to take down a tree on rec and park property? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> i have a question, of rec and park. you know, it is clear that the principle issue here relates to the trees and the removal that rec and park feels was in jurisdiction to do as it wishes. to the extend that you have a plan for the planting of new bushes or whatever it is that you are proposing to do, has that been sort of laid out and also put before the public as part of that process? >> yes. i included in both in the appendixes but we have posted that on-line. it is also has been submitted to various appellants have actually sunshined those documents. we have 163 trees and we have inceased the number of trees for a variety of reasons, we

the hvna enthusiastically endorsed this project and we ask that you reject this appeal. i've participated in multiple meetings on this project. there was a thorough public process. density has been mentioned. the real problem that we acknowledge in hayes valley is the density of cars is the real problem, not the density of people. in fact, we're disappointed that the fell and oak project didn't reduce a lane and look at the whole corridor. but that's another matter and we understand compromise. and so removing the parking was

appeal no. 12-085, cambon connoisseur cooperative, inc. versus the zoning administrator. 33 cambon drive aka 6-85 cambon drive, appealing a letter of determination dated july 10 20 12 addressed to matthew girardi regarding whether a medical cannabis dispensary use would be permitted at the subject property. >> my name is matthew girardi and i'm a lawyer and represent the managing patient members of a proposed collective called cambon connoisseur collective and we're challenging a letter of did determination issued by mr. sanchez in which he found 33 cambon drive is not a suitable location for a mcmcd site because it may be within 1,000 feet of a park, namely the merced playground. california law mandates that the site be 600' away from schools, churches, places where people get treatment for drug and alcohol. the city of san francisco enacted planning code section 790-141 which increases the radius from 600' to 1,000'. the public policy behind the law is clear, and that the city of san francisco and, in fact the managing patient members of

and i'm here to encourage you to reject this appeal and affirm the planning

so we didn't know the content of the appeal, specifically. so we have had since gotten a copy of the appeal through the applicant and we have reviewed it and we want to address the concerns that were brought up to this commission, to this board. in this specific case, i think that there is a misnomer under the concept of like foods which appears to be estimated by the applicant is about the type of food. the applicant sells coffee products espresso specifically. what we have looked at is the composition of the menus, among all of the businesses around in many cases, except for two, which is petes coffee and starbucks, those two companies through the majorty of the revenue through coffee products i don't think that is disputed in any case. in these other cases they do, many of the merchants sell coffee, but also sell other food products throughout the day. so, the evaluation from the hearing office determined that yes, while coffee is one product, it is not the majority of the specific and that is why they need to be deemed not like food. we d

that is something that needs to be appealed to the board of supervisors. i think that the ramp is something that is a plan that is in development now, it is not a planning department plan, it is not something that we developed and implement and enforce. so when reviewing the applications we would not be reviewing it. it is something that the rec park is enforcing and we are doing the review for that because we are the lead agency for the city and doing environmental review. but in terms of the ramp that is something that is a policy development that guides the management for rec park and i am available to answer any more questions that the board may have. >> what involvement does the planning department have with parks and rec in looking at their long range plans and master plans for various natural areas? >> it depends, there is a lot of overlap. so for the green connections is one program that the department is working close with rec park on and that is developing the actual paths. so making sure that there is, you know, various levels of you know either

, is -- and this is an appeal under ceqa, it's not an appeal on the merits of the project. and so i think there are times when appeals -- ceqa appeals come before us, and you sometimes arguments about the merits of the project get mixed in, and that may be because that's the only way for the item to come to us. and whether -- agree or disagree with it but in 1999 the voters gave the policy authority over these kinds of issues to the mta board of directors and took that authority away from the board of supervisors. so i'm hearing, both in the written submissions and also in what you're saying today, rernss references to what's good or bad engineering, what's a better route or a worse route, references to disability access, to fire safety. those are all very legitimate and important policy considerations to weigh and coming up with any plan. but how should we think about this distinction between what is the right policy decision, which is not within our power, versus whether this project was categorically exempt or not from ceqa. because i think it's really important for us,

therefore, i urge you to uphold the department's categorical exemption and deny the appeal. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions if the board has any. thank you. >> president chiu: colleagues, any questions to planning? okay. seeing none, let's hear from the project sponsor, who will have up to 10 minutes for their presentation. >> good evening, president chiu, members of the board of supervisors. my name is luis montoya. i am the project manager on the oak and fell pedestrian bicycle and safety projects. i wanted to give you background about why it's so important that we do it but i also wanted to respond to the matter at hand which is the ceqa appeal and some of the specific concerns that were raised by the appellants. as you know, this project has been on the front lines of this neighborhood for decades. ever since we've been talking about how to improve the bike network in san francisco and ever since we've been talking about how to increase pedestrian safety, oak street and fell street are three lanes in each direction, four lanes in some place

. >> president chiu: is this comment relevant to this appeal? >> yes. >> president chiu: okay. thank you. next speaker. and if i could ask folks again, your comments during this comment period, is on this appeal. >> hello. i'm dan coolly, and i am concerned that there is no environmental impact report associated with this major change to the city's traffic flow, major change to pedestrians, major change to folks that will be in wheelchairs, attempting to access, major change to neighbors that are trying to park their vehicles in that very highly impacted and highly crowded neighborhood. it's shocking to me that the city would -- with a straight face, think that this was not some kind of a significant impact that would at least warrant environmental review. i'm not saying ultimately whether the project should or should not be adopted, but to think that it's entitled to some kind of a categorical exemption is a minor alteration is absolutely shocking to me as a member of the public. i am personally very concerned about these plantares in the middle of the street. if they get into