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

Critics of the plan have said the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which guides policy for region’s host of transit agencies, should not use toll money to purchase the new headquarters, at 390 Main St. in San Francisco. The relocation plan drew particular heat since the MTC’s proposed bid for the building — $105 million before renovation costs — was nearly twice as much as the $60 million that the U.S. Postal Service sold the property in 2009.

East Bay officials in particular criticized the proposal, saying the MTC should pursue new headquarters in its longtime Oakland home. Disabled activists also said the new location was too far from local transit options. In response to these criticisms, the MTC rescinded an earlier approval of the relocation plan, in favor of forming an ad-hoc committee to explore its other options.

Despite the concerns, the ad-hoc committee has recommended again that the MTC should move forward with the relocation effort to 390 Main St.. The committee detailed a number of findings supporting its decision, noting that market prices have appreciated considerably since the post office sold the building.

The committee also said that the new location is only four blocks from the Embarcadero BART station, and that a van would be available to provide shuttle service for disabled passengers.

Although the MTC plans on spending nearly $180 million to purchase and renovate the building, the agency actually projects to net $49 million over the next 30 years by renting out the property to other tenants, according to agency spokesman Randy Rentschler. The agency has said it’s essential to purchase the new building to accommodate its growing staff.

San Francisco Supervisor and MTC Commissioner Scott Wiener said the relocation plan is a good idea. “Over time, this will pay for itself,” Wiener said. “This committee conducted an extensive analysis of various options, and it was not even a close call.”

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, an opponent of the move, said that using toll funds for the project was inappropriate.

“Commuters must travel Bay Area bridges daily to get back and forth to work,” DeSaulnier said in a letter addressed to the MTC. “They expect that their toll fees go to road repair and bridge maintenance, not for real estate speculation.”

On Wednesday, the MTC will vote once again on the relocation proposal.

Middling returns?

$179 million: Cost to purchase and renovate 390 Main St.*
$60 million: Cost that the USPS sold the building for in 2009
$49 million: Rent revenue the MTC projects to net over the next 30 years

*Includes contingency costs

Source: MTC

wreisman@sfexaminer.com

Article source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/09/mtc-reiterates-desire-move-san-francisco

The commission, the Bay Area’s transportation planning and financing agency, voted 12-2 on July 27 to buy the almost 500,000-square-foot building for $105.7 million and spend up to $74 million on improvements. The commission, which has outgrown the headquarters building it shares with the Association of Bay Area Governments in Oakland, planned to relocate across the bay and move in with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

But Oakland officials, who want the regional agencies to relocate in a yet-to-be-built 20-story glass tower in downtown Oakland, complained that the commission violated state open meeting laws by allowing members of ABAG to attend their closed session meeting to ask questions. The commission disagreed with that accusation but decided to hold a new meeting Wednesday to rescind the vote and reconsider the issue.

But after listening to almost three hours of criticism, questions and pleas to stay in Oakland, the commission decided unanimously to put off a decision on buying 390 Main St.

San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener said the vote was not a decision to reject the San Francisco site but to take the needed time to answer questions ranging from whether it’s appropriate to use bridge toll revenue to buy real estate, some of which will be leased commercially, to whether the location is seismically safe and close enough to public transportation.

“It should not be interpreted that … we made a grievous error,” he said. “We simply want to get the answers to some questions and avoid a lawsuit by Oakland, which has been pretty aggressive.”

Oakland officials, in addition to challenging the legality of the commission’s July vote, argued that the proposed building at 1100 Broadway would sit atop a BART station while the San Francisco building would be about a half mile away from one. They also argued that the Oakland building would be cheaper to build and operate if compared fairly.

Commissioners said the three dozen speakers raised many questions that deserved further research. A six-member committee will take up to 60 days to do that research and bring the issue back to the full commission for a decision.

“I’m disappointed in the political heat this has generated,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, the commission chairwoman. “But it has raised some important issues we need to address.”

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C – 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Article source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/17/BA4H1KOJTM.DTL