ceqa review in san francisco. the proposed ceqa procedures are needed and beneficial. over my time with the glenn park association, i have seen virtually every 311, 312, discretionary review request, zoning appeals or adjustments and major building permit applications. those are all projects typically processed under ceqa categorical exemptions or in some cases negative declarations. the widely distributed mail or posted notices typically have a 20 or 30-day appeal period. state ceqa law and guidelines call for disclosure and review of environmental effects early in the project process. proposed amendments will clarify that the ceqa appeal clock would start at the first approval. using current improved notice practices without an information about ceqa appeals would mean that the parties most concerned about a project will know their ceqa rights at this stage. while some are called for no appeal -- longer appeal periods, the 30-day period is consistent with state ceqa guidelines. supervisor wiener alluded to the a

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

of ceqa. but we have a responsibility to have a local appeal process. and because san francisco is the only city in california where almost all of our permits are discretionary in nature, meaning that somewhere between 5 and 8,000 permits a year receive a ceqa primarily categorical exemption stamp, that is not the case in other localities. we have an extra responsibility to make sure that we have a clear appeal process which we do not have now. now, since the legislation was introduced, i have convened a series of very well attend and had very robust and at times contentious round table meetings with supporters and with many opponents of the legislation. listening to a variety of organizations both individually and in these group meetings to hear their concerns, suggestions, and questions about my proposal. i've had the planning department and the city attorney present at all of those meetings to make sure that we could have a good and accurate dialogue. resulting from these conversations, i h

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

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 bo

ceqa at its heart is a wonderful law. it reflects our best intentions as californians and it gives good people great [speaker not understood] to stop bad projects. unfortunately it also gives people with no environmental motives [speaker not understood] to stop good projects. we had today [speaker not understood] san francisco bicycle master plan, affordable housing projects, housing for transitional youth, all stopped needlessly and at great expense because of ceqa delays. we also saw a great number of divisions among the community on the position on supervisor wiener's bill. labor is divided. neighborhood groups are divided, environmental groups are divided. the moral of the story is everybody loves ceqa. everybody loves ceqa's process until it kills a project that is near and dear to your heart. so, i think it is incumbent on this board to bring san francisco ceqa processes into uniformity with the rest of california and make san francisco a great place to live and work. thank you. >> thank you. before we go to mr. cho

we shouldn't have to get a lawyer because of ceqa. we should thev have to get a lawyer because you vote on something that you should not be voting on because of big development. and i am getting tired of hearing about development and not about the people of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, ms. jackson. ms. stevens. >>> say what? >> i'm calling the next speaker. >>> hi, my name is [speaker not understood] stevens, i live in the golden gates neighborhood association. our association represents about 500 household in the west of twin peak center [speaker not understood] part of the city. our neighborhoods primarily owner occupied single-family houses. for many of us our only action with ceqa is one to make changes or additions to our house. right now the process is just complicated. people don't know what's going on. there is disagreement about that. supervisor wiener's legislation will create an open predictable process to resolve these disputes. it will make it easy for everyday people, not just attorneys to understand the deadl

if the board of supervisors is a ceqa decision making body or not. if they're not the ceqa decision making body, then the public needs to submit an appeal letter. not just that, all written materials. they need to have the letter signed either by them or an agent authorized in writing. essentially, this provision, the revamping [inaudible]. >> next speaker. >>> supervisors, david oz good, head of the rincon tenants association, a member of the rincon [speaker not understood] of south beach cmc and vice-chair mayor brown's neighborhood advisory committee. i ask that you continue the matter. this matter is obviously very controversial and there is a thoughtful alternative from supervisor kim on the table. this needs to be -- >> i'm sorry, hold on one second. can you stop his clock? we've had these sound issues all day. is there a problem with the mic? >> [inaudible]. >> okay, why don't we start again and hopefully it won't have static any more. okay, you can start. >>> supervisor kim's alternative needs to be considered. i'm also concerned about superv

we can't really separate ceqa from the project whether it's a der type of appeal or ceqa appeal. i recognize we are not, it's always tough taking on ceqa and the rules around nasdaq and exemptions. it really doesn't affect the projects in e i r, i want to follow-up on commissioner wu's comment with projects going through eir is generally the same. what's different in either piece of legislation about those projects? >> as supervisor wiener's legislation has been amended, at this point in time, the most substantive difference is that they appeal the length from 20 to 30 days on the eir and also under supervisor wiener's legislation there would need to be a project approval. a project approval would need to be appealed after the certification of the eir but there does not to be a project approval. >> clearing that up. you would need an approval action at some level before you can appeal >> before the eir appeal, you can file it the appeal for eir but wouldn't be scheduled until after an approval would occur. >> and there is an approval before the hearing process. eight -- it allows

opponent of changes in ceqa itself. and we wanted to do nothing that would serve as an evil precedent for their appeals efforts or work against their efforts to preserve ceqa at the state level. so, we ran this legislation by them. we gained initial approval of the legislation from them. and when they eventually did raise a concern about the fair argument provision in the legislation, supervisor wiener was very quick to address it. and, so, our statewide organization, we've relied on for their expertise in this because we are not the experts, they are. and they believe that this is exactly as it has been portrayed by supervisor wiener, a clarification of the appeals process and a regularization of it. and on that basis we are supporter of supervisor wiener's legislation. thank you. >> thank you. [speaker not understood]. >>> good afternoon, supervisor. i'm nick hester, a parent [speaker not understood] and i'm also on the san francisco bicycle coalition board. i want to change the topic a little bit away from buildings

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

some level of ceqa reform is necessary. it's not unreasonable to seek a beginning, a middle, and all good things need to have an end. right now there is no ending. i'd like to hit on two points. one, i'm glad to hear director ram mention about, a, an improved website. and if we can establish a clear beginning, then i think the next step is understanding and having a clear ending. but we understand it's difficult to have a clear ending if you don't have the clear beginning. so, i think that's a first good step. the second point i'd like to reiterate is what redmond just hit on, the multiple permits issued throughout the jobs and the debate between the first approval and the last approval. many of these permits are linked and it's not uncommon for someone to come at the end of the job and put an awning on or a fire permit permit, or something is not quite right. the inspector may ask you to go down and pull one more permit to show that the way it's written now, that would trigger the whole 30-day again on the environmental ap

then the ceqa determination and kad ek determination would have been appealed and as a result the ceqa exemption could have been appealed. but i will go over how the -- unless you have another question. >> in dolores park that was approved at some point. >> dolores park, the planning department issued a negative declaration which has a 20 day circulation period which at any time any individual can comment on the negative declaration and request that it be heard before the planning commission which is also an appeal. it's a different animal to the board of supervisors and that process would not be affected under any legislation. do you want know continue on beach l.a.? >> sure. >> okay. very quickly under supervisor kim's legislation, there would have been notification to interested parties when the exemption was originally issued and that would occur by mail and online an appeal could be filed after issuance of that exemption but would not be scheduled after the parks and recreation. and then the appeal window on the project would stay until the last building permit issue which will be

of ceqa. but we have a responsibility to have a local appeal process. and because san francisco is the only city in california where almost all of our