When San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener went before the Planning Commission in November proposing to attach a deadline to some California Environmental Quality Act appeals, he was met by 90 minutes of strong opposition from public commenters and commissioners, who told him to come back with a better plan done with more public outreach.

Thirty-four amendments later, Wiener will be back at the commission Thursday hoping to change an appeals process that he calls unpredictable and chaotic.

“If you’re not a land-use lawyer, it’s completely opaque. It’s unclear even when the deadline is to file the appeal,” Wiener said.

San Francisco is one of few cities where smaller projects that don’t require environmental impact reports aren’t subject to a set deadline for appeals to the Board of Supervisors. Wiener wants to establish a deadline so that any appeal of the state environmental quality act would be made within 30 days of a project’s approval.

Currently the city attorney determines on a case-by-case basis whether an appeal is timely.

“The bottom line is we’re not taking away anyone’s right to appeal the CEQA decision,” said Planning Director John Rahaim, who supports Wiener’s efforts. “What this does is establish some very basic rules around deadline appeals.”

Simplifying process

Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said that the city’s planning code is thousands of pages long and that Wiener’s legislation would simplify things without resulting in material changes for bigger projects.

“We have a system that is designed for maximum confusion and maximum frustration,” he said. “The amendments we’re talking about here would help clear up a little bit of the confusion and a little bit of the frustration for a small set of projects.”

Wiener stresses that his legislation is focused on smaller projects that can least afford to have an unpredictable environmental process, as opposed to large developers who can afford to wage long, costly legal battles.

“This isn’t about the Parkmerceds, the Treasure Islands and America’s Cups of the world,” he said. “This is the much larger category ranging from small park projects, to pedestrian projects, to people doing work on their homes.”

But some groups wary of development say they do believe the legislation puts unreasonable constraints on the appeals process.

“Scott Wiener’s legislation puts forward a time frame that will hamper our ability to effectively file an appeal,” said Michelle Myers, the director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay chapter.

Eric Brooks, an organizer for the Our City activist group that opposed past efforts by supervisors to streamline the CEQA process, said he also shares Myers’ concern about a provision in Wiener’s legislation that would allow some appeals to be heard before a board committee instead of the full Board of Supervisors.

“Basically what the legislation is doing is taking some small problems in the current law that do need some fixing and using them as a vehicle to completely gut the public’s ability to use CEQA to support San Francisco and its neighborhoods from bad real estate developments,” Brooks said.

Miss appeal window

He also worried that project opponents would miss the appeal window if the legislation is approved.

Brooks and Myers said they are working with Supervisor Jane Kim on alternative CEQA legislation that would involve the full board in appeals and push back the appeal deadlines, which Wiener said would make the process worse than it already is.

Other neighborhood leaders say they welcome clear rules for appeals on smaller projects. Raymond Holland, president of the Planning Association for the Richmond recalled that when ATT started adding utility boxes on sidewalks in his neighborhoods a few years ago, there was a debate over whether it was too late to appeal.

“It was real unclear when the decision of the exemption was made and secondly when the clock started to run,” he said. “It’s been sort of a free-for-all whenever you have an appeal, so I think codifying makes sense.”

Once the Planning Commission makes its recommendation Thursday, there will be several more public hearings before the legislation is voted on by the Board of Supervisors.

Neal J. Riley is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nriley@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @realdealneal

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supervisor-s-2nd-try-to-change-environmental-4352827.php

Political consultant Jim Stearns, who is representing the labor organizations behind the recount effort, said after reviewing the cost estimates provided by the Department of Elections late Friday, the group decided it was simply too expensive. Elections Director John Arntz estimated that it would cost nearly $80,000 to manually re-tally the 35,140 ballots cast in the race and that a machine recount would cost about $7,000 less. In a Monday letter to Arntz announcing their intent to cancel the recount request, lawyer Jim Sutton wrote that a complete recount could cost as much as $120,000.

A recount has never been done since San Francisco instituted ranked-choice voting eight years ago, and it appears to be two to three times as expensive as in a normal, two-candidate race.

“We still believe that the election was close enough to merit a recount, and believe there was good chance that results could have changed,” Stearns said Monday. “But given the prices from the Department of Elections, we simply can’t afford it. At these costs, it’s hard to see how any individual campaign or organization other than the most wealthy ones could ever afford a recount.”

Considering the costs, Stearns said, city officials may want to consider whether taxpayers should at least partially fund recounts under ranked-choice voting. In the letter, Sutton urged city officials to consider “adopting a rule whereby the city would pay for a recount should the results be within a certain margin, as is done in several states,” or to explore a change in city law, which currently limits the amount a candidate can raise from their existing donor pool to $100 per person. The letter noted that $120,000 is more than many candidates raise during their entire race.

- Marisa Lagos

On the move: Mayor Ed Lee is focusing on former Building Inspection Commissioner Mel Murphy as he looks to fill an open seat on the city’s Port Commission, an influential panel that will consider major developments planned for the waterfront, including a proposed arena.

Lee on Monday took a break from holding up his end of the bargain on his World Series bet with Detroit’s Mayor David Bing to tell the Insider he was waiting for a completed background check of Murphy before making an appointment.

“He’s a contender for sure,” Lee said.

Murphy, co-owner of Murphy O’Brien Real Estate Investments, is also a director of the Coalition for Responsible Growth, a political advocacy group funded largely by developers and others with real estate interests.

If appointed, his confirmation could face opposition from some on the Board of Supervisors’ left flank who consider the group too conservative.

Last year, Lee’s election campaign said it had returned seven contributions from Department of Building Inspection employees totaling $2,150 that were donated at a fundraiser at Murphy’s home. City law prohibits commissioners from soliciting city employees for campaign contributions.

- John Coté

E-mail: cityinsider@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @SFCityInsider.

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-election-loser-drops-recount-request-4088402.php