Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CEQA topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission backs ERO hearing for appeals of exempt project modifications, 6–1
Summary
After extended public testimony and debate, the commission voted 6–1 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors include an Environmental Review Officer (ERO) hearing option for appeals of determinations that post‑exemption modifications are not 'substantial,' while staff had recommended a written reconsideration procedure.
The Historic Preservation Commission voted 6–1 to forward a recommendation supporting trailing legislation authored by Supervisor Kim that would create an administrative avenue to challenge an Environmental Review Officer’s (ERO) determination that a post‑exemption project change is not a "substantial modification" requiring new CEQA review.
Anne Marie Rogers of the Planning Department outlined the proposal and staff’s position. The staff recommended a less resource‑intensive written reconsideration process, citing limited historical need for a new hearing body and the additional staffing and broadcasting costs of televised hearings. Rogers said the new ordinance’s clarified definition of "substantial modification" would reduce ERO discretion but that staff still preferred an administrative written mechanism.
Supporters of the ordinance (including representatives from Supervisors Kim and Wiener’s offices and several community advocates) argued a limited, public ERO hearing would provide transparency and an accessible record without halting construction. April Veneracion of Supervisor Kim’s office said the amended language narrows the definition and that the ERO hearing would be attached to a planning commission hearing and videotaped for public access. "This hearing process is related to the decision being appealed — that the project has not had a substantial modification," she stated.
Opponents — including housing advocates and developers — warned the new process could reopen avenues to delay projects and undercut the reform efforts that passed the Board on first reading. Tim Cohen of the Housing Action Coalition said appeals add delay and cost and cautioned against re‑opening appeal pathways for otherwise entitled projects.
The Commission’s motion to endorse Supervisor Kim’s version passed 6–1, with Commissioner Pearlman dissenting. Commissioners who supported the motion said the added public forum would not pause projects and would allow new information to be aired publicly; dissenters noted potential for additional appeals and administrative burden.
Next steps: the Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission as part of the Board’s continuing ordinance process.
