Of ceqa. Ceqa is hardly even brought to bear on the kind of projects that were looking at. No abuse however, Eureka Valley has an enormous number of Historic Resources which have not been mapped and have not been surveyed except for the windshield survey which, as i read the legislation, it seems as though those Historic Resources are not official and would not be protected with some level of protection would be removed by this legislation. They wouldnt be defined as Historic Resource, Something Like that. Its very com merit indicated, though. Complicated so, i think ordinary people who dont have a background in the law, they just have to rely on you to, to look at the details of this legislation and think about how its going to apply, how its going to affect the publics right to know. I just add that our ability to know is very limited to know whats going on in the Planning Department, is very live ted. And when a project is under review in the Planning Department, we dont know that its happening. Now on the level that i work on, the neighborhood level, we now finally have the preapplication notification, brandnew, completely wonderful because we dont have to wait for the 311 notice before we know whats going on. So, please take to heart all the concerns that have been expressed to you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If i can have the overhead, please. Good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. My name is joe butler. Im an architect here in the city. One of the things that i had seen in the legislation because of some concern, if the resources that were inventoried hadnt been updated, if the inventory itself hadnt been updated within five years, then one couldnt use that inventory as a basis for declaring that a building is an Historic Resource. Well, the Planning Department barely does inventory. And when they do the inventory there may be two or three or fiveyears time. Let alone the backlog of updating that would have to occur in order to make the existing adopted surveys updated for the purposes of this legislationedthv id like to show you on the overhead some houses, 2564 sutter street. This house was saved by ceqa. Water color of the same property, they wanted to take out the garden and put in you a garage and add about 5,000 square feet to this 1500square foot home. This little house was saved by ceqa, 40 38 17th street. 40 38 was to be replaced by an Apartment Building in demolition, but a ceqa appeal saved that project. All the way along, the Planning Commission approved an Apartment Building. The board of appeals upheld an Apartment Building. But the board of supervisors said, no, the house has merit. This is the oldest house in noe valley saved by ceqa, 39 chattanooga. They wanted again to make a multiunit building here. Many more thousands of square feet. Because of ceqa, they made an addition to the rear of this house and the Historic Resource was saved. Heres a case where the ceqa notices that sue hester mentioned, they come in the mail. Several of us have them. And somebody saw this photograph and said, that looks like a refugee shaq. And sure enough at 5 252 hole holyoke, two refugee shacks [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] they were going to make an addition to loom over the little house in the front. The house had original windows. Ceqa saved this house. There is an addition at the rear which is the same footprint, the same Square Footage as the old building, but no more. 4 49 [speaker not understood] was not saved by ceqa. They were allowed to lift this house up, put it in the center of a threestory building and add a garage underneath it, triple the size of the building. Nobody watched this one. Thank you. And thats the difference between a successful outcome under ceqa as we have it. Thank you. Your time is up, sir. If we can further, it would only get worse. applause members of the commission, my name is [speaker not understood]. I think what is before you today is purely procedure. It gives the public two things, especially when it comes to categorical exemption. It gives members of the Public Notice that something is going to happen so that if it is one of the cases that was referred to by mr. Butler, the public would have 30day notice so they can act on it early. What is happening now and what the type of individual most affected by not having an appeal defined appeal period, the homeowners who want to do something to their home in the back, expand it, or someone who wants to tear a building down that has that does not have any significance, historic significance, what happens now, you go through the planning process, a dr is filed, you come before the commission. Then you wait until a Building Permit is issued. Then they go to the board of permit appeals. And then at the board of permit appeals they actually have a hearing, get the commissions decision affirmed, then there is a tenday period on rehearing. The ninth day they file an appeal. What happens is then they go to the board of supervisors. One of the cases [speaker not understood] the commission knows about the one on 32nd avenue and el camino del mar. That project is going to go back before you. It had a full hearing before this commission. But because of the process that i just described, it goes back to the drawing board. And, so, that project two years later is coming back before you after a new ceqa review is again performed. So, all this legislation does is make sure the ceqa review and appeal is done properly at an earliest possible time. And if anything fall through the cracks by the staff or a pushy developer, it gets caught early in the ceqa process. And i urge that this Commission Vote in favor of this recommend approval of this ordinance to the board of supervisors. Hi, commissioners, [speaker not understood] San Francisco preservation consortium. The whole conceptual basis for this legislation is instances of ceqa abuse that brought this about. There is a little bit about codifying it and making it a little bit clearer. So, youre an independent body. You can requisition that information if you want. I wanted to point out there is a list of 48 appeals since 2010 that is part of your packet. The case studies that were done identified three of them three as abuse examples. One of them Lafayette Park wasnt a ceqa delay. You heard two people here talk about that already. Another one, 31 51 scott street cowed a maximum twomonth delay. So, a twomonth delay is what this comes down to. The third, 28 53 broderick forced a discussion between neighbors and the developers who would not otherwise have happened. So, if you want to, why dont you go ahead and requisition that information. Lets weigh this hevthv. One of the examples i could give you is that a Single Person filed a ceqa review for 869 northpoint. Them but behind that ceqa review, there were more than 200 people as part of the aquatic park neighbors. We sat around and said whose name goes on the ceqa review . The reason we had to file that ceqa review is because the process upstream wasnt performed correctly. What we found as a result of the review was that the developer, in order to obtain a demolition permit, had misrepresented, i. E. , lied on his applications about the age of the building, about its historical significance. Thankfully, because of the review, there was the revelation that this in fact was property in a historic, prospective historic neighborhood, contiguous historic neighborhood block 26. We found that the person who had built the house and lived in the house had a direct historic recognition which is part of ceqa. Ceqa recognizes historic contexts. Because he was the reservoir keeper which is a block away. We also found out that the so, basically, the point of that is that if it werent forsee qua in that case 869 would not have been it would have been demolished. Its an a forwardable house. A family is living there now. It was abuse of the process upstream. So, ceqa, had there been an appeal at the beginning of the project, would never have happened. This information would not have come forward from the Planning Department that did the further investigation. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment portion is closed and opening it up to commissioners for comments. Commissioner borden. Theres a lot to be said. I want to ask maybe staff a few clarifying questions about the legislation and just general process. So, one is the point that was brought up related to now youve moved it up, if there was a ceqa if there was a zoning decision and general plan, zoning map amendment decision that was going before the board, then the ceqa to be heard with that decision is what we were told. Does that mean it would supersede whether or not it had been heard at the Planning Commission . Bill wyco, planning staff. Simply no. All the example was a park merced Treasure Island. The process that went on right, right. Just in general. Would not be changed. [multiple voices] so, eir is prepared, its published. There is a hearing at this body. There is comments and responses. Theres a my only question to you, so, the certification process would still have to happen that hearing to certify or not to certify, presumably wed have to certify the document before it could go to the board thats correct. The only thing that changes on this proposal, Department Staff has raised some reservations about this proposal in terms of projects where the board is the ultimate Decision Maker in terms of process. You know, those concerns are over the fact there isnt a briefing, if you want to call it that. Someone can bring a matter f ceqa to the board without having submittal of appeal process. Supervisor wiener called it kind of automatic appeal right. On balance, our judgment is that given some of the procedural games that are played at the board around something being calendared and then it being not being able to be heard, in terms of the boards own procedures that theres advantage to this to this to outweigh that. Cult managemently that is the decision of the board. The beneficiary of the proposal, thats the board. Right, but i still want to get it straight. So, in order for them to actually hear any sort of zoning map amendments or legislative changes, the ordinance or the project eir already would have been heard or environmental negative declaration, or whatever, your appeal would already have to happen first under the commission . Under the [speaker not understood] existing lack of rules, negative declaration would come to you unless somebody chooses to bring to you. Even though the document itself says you have 20 to 30 days to appeal to the Planning Commission. Someone doesnt do that now in the absence of rules, effective rules, what we say doesnt matter. And then, so, in terms of, you know, theres been an issue of other different sort of those other various permits, whether they be rec and park or a tree or all those other permits. Are the appeals processes separate to those permits that are unrelated to ceqa . [speaker not understood] the City Attorney. Basically contrary to what a couple people have said, not every single permit in the city is discretionary. Only discretionary permits are subject to ceqa. So, the permits that are discretionary, there is ceqa review that is conducted. At this time in general, other than the special notice of the ordinance i understand what youre saying. Im trying to figure out like if someone appeals if i appeal a tree permit, is that a ceqa appeal or is that an appeal to the permit just generally and it doesnt have anything to do im trying to determine the differences because i think that that one of the things thats up for deebate deputy City AttorneySusan 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 ceqa. So, the question is some of the appeals may not be ceqa appeals. There would be other appeals. But then could you appeal the permit twice from the same agency, one time being ceqa, one time being Something Else . Thats what you do now, thats what you can do in the future. Theyre separate appeals. One is on the substance, the merits of the project. One is on the ceqa. 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 what theyre supposed to do. If there is no notice about any discretionary action, that notice will incorporate notice about the ceqa that would, you know but you could appeal ceqa on nonplanning related permits. I just want to yes. So, i guess so, in terms of this argument, looking at the first discretionary action, can you describe what currently are considered you said not all permits are discretionary permits. So, could you outline some of the permits that are discretionary . Maybe the City Attorney could do that. Ill take a start. I think the simplest thing is to talk about the things that are in the Planning Departments domain. Conditional use permit is a discretionary permit. A Building Permit is maybe the most widespread for exemptions. But there are many departments that take discretionary actions. The park takes actions. Mta takes actions, puc takes actions. Some of those are discretionary, some are not. All that are discretionary subject to ceqa. And did we look at in our recommendation, you know, i think there is a lot to be said about having a window of appeal. But why didnt we limit it to planning or building related discretionary permit . I think by far we have the biggest notice requirement of other agencies. Its a ceqa appeal, i think it would be related to planning or Building Permits. Did we think about that when you were reviewing the legislation in terms of if youre going to choose a discretionary action as the trigger that it would be a planning or Building Permit only as opposed to, you know, kind of these ancillary permits . Well, i dont think that the other permits are ancillary. In fact, maybe the concerns have been voiced here about those permits that are issued by other agencies where the notice is lesser bust. One of the things thats not really come out explicitly in this discussion is, and i think its unlikely that the notice provisions will adversely affect how the Planning Department does things basically well send out a dr, 311 notice, a notice before this body, all of those notices, up until the point that action that triggers ceqa review will say x has been [speaker not understood] in term of Environmental Review. At this hearing or some subsequent hearing, there could be an action that would trigger a ceqa review period. If you have ceqa concerns, contact Planning Department, rec, park, whoever, and that department has an obligation to notify those people. And the thing i think has not come out at all in this discussion so far is if there isnt notice, then none of the streamlined process is triggered. Similarly so, there is no notice, there is no streamline. In the legislation as its written right now, there is a 20day period for exercising appeals if you have notice. There is a 30day period if there isnt notice. A number of people architect heritage has expressed concerns. If there isnt notice, why is 10 days more adequate . I think thats a fair question. You know, again, reminder that there is no notice requirement in ceqa for exemptions period under ceqa for any kind of ceqa action. There is a default of six months that has nothing to do with notice. Right. So, that is something i think is, you know, a legitimate concern as to what is, should it be 30 days, should it be Something Else, should it be if you dont provide notice you default to the sachs statutory limitations of six months. Thats up to the guidance that you and others provide and the supervisor and the boards judgment. And i guess my question, though, then, so just kind of playing this out. Say my project is a dr, im going to use a dr as an example. Part of my project would require me to remove a tree and put in two knew trees and then to do my edition. New trees first id go to dpw, go get my tree permit that nobody is paying attention. That action happened. Then it comes to the Planning Commission. Is it now that they could not file a ceqa appeal because they didnt file it on the tree permit . Again, assuming the tree permit is a discretionary action, we did a cad ex for it, the cad ex would only apply to the action if thats the only action that we had in place [multiple voices] if the information that we acted on was incomplete and there was a change to the project or further development of the project that changed those conditions, go back to go here. Essentially the ceqa clearance is on what we know and what we address. If we didnt address an aspect of the project because it wasnt put before us, then that becomes a new discretionary action subject to new Environmental Review subject to new appeals. I guess, i would imagine people would give the whole project i do think were shortening the window. I guess the question is, then, what is the process currently . Like how someone related a story about trying to get to the planner and the planner was on vacation.