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 several years after the parks and recreation commission consideration. under

supervisor wiener's legislation, the exemption determination would identify the approval action, in this case the parks and recreation commission on the project and that would be posted online. the appeal could be filed after issuance of the exemption same with supervisor kim's and would not be scheduled after the action by the parks and recreation and the appeal window would end 30 days after the parks and recreation commission action. >> if there was no parks and recreation action, because i don't think the commission approves everything. >> under supervisor wiener's legislation that department would need to notify us and we would post notice of that approval on our website and indication of when the allowable period would be. it would be a 30 day appeal period

that would not have started until we posted that on our website and i believe supervisor kim's legislation is around the issue of legislation and not discussion about the approval action. >> so it wouldn't be analogues where pulling the permit to start the construction in either case? >> the appeal window would open, but there would not be notification that the appeal window had opened. >> but that would still be the the trigger for an appeal was the permit? >> the 30 day trigger of -- the appeal could be scheduled anytime 30 days after the discretionary approval would occur so that would apply to both the administrative and parks and recreation department and building and permit.

>> i think that's kind of the crux. i kind of like the definition of when the project is approved under supervisor wiener's legislation but supervisor kim's legislation raises points about notification. i like her idea of you being able to go and subscribe. if you are interested in parks, for instance, you would be able to flag that as something. it not geographic base but it's more in the type of process if you are interest in bike lanes. i don't know if that's doable. that could be done but oppositely -- obviously it's going to cost money and time but certainly that is doable. >> if you are talking about exemptions on public projects, there are fewer than the very

small private projects and it's relatively simple process to say, anytime there is a park project involved, there needs to be notice to interested parties. that would not be something that would add time to every single exemption issued by the department. >> or even if i wanted to go in and search for projects that were on buildings that were 50 years old or older, is that something that is doable? >> it's 5 percent of the building. >> if you want to do that if besides searching something geographically. >> it's the challenge we have. it's not just about the time and money. that's one factor, but these are 4,000 of these a year and they are very small projects and in most cities these projects aren't even reviewed by the planning department. we have to review

projects in the planning department in san francisco that most cities are reviewed by the building department and signed because there is no discretion. i think there is a basic appropriateness issue here about how much notification we get for very minor permits. >> if someone wanted to go and search for, if someone was obsessed with stop signs and they are going to challenge stop sign projects and appeal the exemption that goes along with the stop sign project, for instance, is there a way to find out about that? i think that would be something where you need to -- >> one thing that is difficult is tayloring notification to every single person's desires to what they want to know about. it's not really equitable for us to tailor our

system to what one person is interested in without doing the same for others as well. that's one of the reasons that we think it's really important to improve the posting of the exemptions in a way that somebody can search and filter in whatever way they are interested in and they can zoom in on their neighborhood and see what is done on public projects and then that way they can find out what they want to know. >> okay. just switching topics, if the project is modified dro makes the difference whether the project needs new analysis under ceqa, are there kind of written guidelines as to what is modified or non-modified? >> that's a pretty straight

forward way to look at something. in a product with a more categorical exemption, that's an abbreviated version. i brought a certification if you want to see it. we really do base that exemption determination on a certain size, a certain setback, a certain foot print, certain amounts of parking. the issues to consider in it are issues regulated under the planning code and that is a lot to -- i will pull it out later and we'll bring to discussion specifically about what a project description looks like in a categorical xems --

exemption but there is a lot of categorical exemptions to this. if you are adding a percentage to this. the exemption project description need to describe the aspects of the project that might trigger unusual circumstances so when there is say it is a project that involves a historic resource, the project description needs to identify that this is the historic character defining feature of the building and this is what the project is doing relative to that. if you have a situation where you might not be making change to the project, but that is affecting historic material whereas the original project did not, that's clear from the project

description. >> right. okay. and then public scoping meeting for all eir's, can you just talk about that and why the recommendation was. when do you determine that a public -- is appropriate and why not have it for all the eir's? >> for the most part we do public scoping meetings in any swiegs -- situations where they are required under ceqa and there are situations in specific guidance of ceqa about public meetings that need to occur, but for the most part with some just to add to that there are some situations where we feel like the nature of the project would be -- well, our environmental review would be well served by holding a public meeting. we might choose to hold a public meeting even

though it not required under ceqa. in general i would say and our city attorney warren may choose to aed to this, but i would say chapter would codify our procedures under managed what is required for -- ceqa. there is situation where ceqa is required for example we give out notices, but for the most part, it really is something that tried to stay as close to what is required under the state code -- as possible. in a situation where it's listed out in state code for where you have to have a public scoping meeting, we just want

to explore more what the reasons are beyond that. >> okay. finally the discussion about prioritizing affordable projects in getting determination earlier within a certain period with the planning commission we prioritize our affordable housing project and we think there is a policy on that. is there something procedurally that you all would have issues with? >> yeah. as the government code does mandate that we establish priorities as the department and we do have those established and essentially are one of our top priorities is affordable housing projects and that affects the entire review process, not only ceqa. also in general for all of our projects we have been making a very concerted effort as the department to provide more

specific information much earlier in the process in fact even before a project application has been filed through our preliminary project assessment process. and i feel that it's been a very successful effort and we are able to make the easy calls on environmental determinations. we can at least make the call that yes in fact we do clearly trigger this or that environmental issue and therefore this or that type of environmental document will be needed. >> if i may on this, a directors bolt -- which projects get priority and second is our other public project. it's any affordable housing project. my only concern here is codifying something like this. i find it

awkward that it would be on the code. that's what i find troubling. >> i guess what i would add to that is i think if i were making a list of pit falls in ceqa review one on the list is decided before you have enough information what kind of environmental document would be required. sometimes we need lengthy technical studies to see whether there is a significant impact. i think that having a specific time period in which we have to make that determination, could, if you accelerate that ak expect of the process, we could have unnecessary eir's prepared on affordable housing assuming where there is impact or not

and insufficient -- ceqa documents which doesn't serve the program well. while i'm very much in favor of a making the process more efficient shths -- this is one of the area where i think should be curtailed. >> ceremony i think it's important with some form of this. i think getting and it's easy to define too. if you say it's on affordable housing project -- or not. the problem is getting to other pedestrian safety is hard. i mean intersection improvement can be done but that may not be the reason why intersection need

improvement. >> my concern is really around the having the specific time limit on making the environmental document determination. >> i get there is no real, if you are working with the developer leverage for them and the affordable housing developer. if it doesn't happen in 60 days. i don't know what's written in the legislation as to what happens. >> well, we would like to follow the law. >> commissioner antonini. >> for that reason i raise that issue because i have concerns and i think the environmental process an we want to do it as quickly as possible to make the determination between kad ek, nag deck and eir, but as you start to point out the position could have too much review and

not enough review. we had a couple projects which was 100 percent affordable and within a block of each other and the same wind effect on both projects and no discussion about the affordable project and hours of discussion about the wind effects on the market rate. obviously, i'm not saying, i think we have to -- the impact is the same no matter what's there for those around there, those who are affected by traffic, sidewalks and other things that a project has. i think codifying this is not a place to put it. if you want to fast track affordable housing project do it in other ways. but to try to cut short on the necessary environmental reviews is saying let's do a quickie mr. because it's such a beneficial thing. couple things i wanted to ask

for miss rogers. i notice in the memo, i don't want to go into too much detail today but as we move forward and try to make a motion to forward, we said that adding to eir's and kim's proposal and not appealable to wiener's legislation. we want to exhaust all administrative remedies on a deir or appeal board. there is some significant differences in these and i tend to in these instances side with wiener and chiu. i would like to see the kim legislation forwarded to the board of supervisors with the recommendations of staff and that would be what i would

support of and make a motion to that effect. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask the city attorney's advice. since we were at the beginning of the meeting and the debrief on what happened last monday and none of us have seen how this particular new memorandum affects, of course miss rogers summarizes an what is been forwarded for us for approval and disapproval of other portions. how can we possibly prove something than when that what was given to us somewhat modifying of what described in the memo no. 1 isn't really quite holding because it modified. wouldn't it be better to pursue to the board to sort

out what the next level of clarity is. i think it happened last monday which will supercede on the prepared memo. i'm asking the city attorney at this moment and she can ask you what the issues are because i haven't read it. >> kate stacy from the city attorneys office. i think that's whether the commissioners feel they want to continue it to consider the changes, get more explanation from staff, act today. it really depend on how the commissioners feel about absorbing that information. >> this has happened to us at project level and approvals where changes were submitted and while we all have intentions to help and support,

if i don't know what's been happening in between i'm personally feeling unable to move forward and simply recommend it to the board to consider. if you can help sort that out that simple nature. >> of course. thank you very much for the recognition. i just want to clarify there were no changes to the support. the supervisor kim's proposal we mand unchanged but what the supervisor and staff indicated today that they will be open for this. if you were to continue this item next week would you still be able to comment on this which the board is scheduled for may 6. >> would you mind staying there. this is a very simple thing. but i personally did not support mr. wiener's legislation. those people who are sitting there and did support it are now having to

work through those changes with supervisor chiu suggested to that legislation, how can they not first acknowledge that in order to fully rectify their complete position. >> is this a rhetorical question? >> that is a rhetorical question, yes. >> before you today supervisor kim's legislation, not supervisor wiener. >> supervisor kim stands as elaboration of supervisor wiener's piece. mr. wiener's piece has also been modified. wouldn't we have to fully understand his changes are before they can taken an honest stand on supervisor kim's

position. that's the way i think but it may not be everybody else's requirements. >> i would defer to the commission on that. >> commissioner wu? >> thanks. i do feel i want to forward to supervisor kim's legislation. the real compromise is on land use and we want to help them make some determinations on issue areas. what commissioner antonini has suggested is staff's recommendation. let me try something out with staff. i would like to forward it with staff's recommendation with exceptions and i think there is a couple areas where i want to see further examination or i don't know if the commission wants to make hard line exceptions. for me i want to see further examination of the notification. what's feasible

or under what time period it would be feasible to do more of what supervisor kim is requesting out of the notification. for me i also want to -- i would like to recommend to the land use committee to examine this question to recommend approval while the appeal is pending and also the amendment of the priority project. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would agree to recommend staff's moves recommendation and i agree to exploring. i would want to kick it down the curb and ask that we explore additional notification or additional kind of search able in a data bass that allows folks to search project base

and also supporting priority for affordable housing projects. the issue of, on the issue of kind of projects stopping while a ceqa determination is made. like the shipyard, somehow miraculously. it's designed to happen so staff and the project sponsor will make -- that's the most complex project we can possibly have where there is numerous approvals and somehow miraculously the approval is made before it got up to the board? you can kind of call how it works the system. i

don't think it really matters. it's got 30 days. i think either way. it doesn't necessarily matter. but i think i agree with commissioner wu with a way to explore to have our data base explorable. that maybe not the way it works. we maybe go to supervisor chiu's office. >> to answer the rhetorical question, i feel fine voting today because what we saw supervisor wiener brought forward and i liked it and i vote for it and he needs modifications even after our hearing. had there been more modifications compliant with

supervisor chiu. that's generally speaking most of the proposals that were put forth by supervisor kim i had problems with many of them and staff answered my concerns in my recommendations. unless we prove the staff modified version i would be uncomfortable to move forward without my recommendation. that's how i feel about it and i don't think i got a second to my motion. >> commissioner wu? >> i will move to recommend approval with staff modifications, with the request for further analysis on notifications whether or not project approvals can happen before or while the appeal is pending and also prioritizing affordable housing nod. >> that captures my thoughts.

>> i think we disagree on that one aspect to moving it forward just noting that i don't think that -- yeah, second. >> i just have a question on the motion. study further these things, it doesn't mean we are necessarily supporting what supervisor kim has brought forward. it just means look at these three areas and see whether or not we agree with staff or whether we agree with the supervisor on those. is that what you are saying in the motion? >> i think not exactly. i think i'm -- i know it's such a complicated motion. i want staff to analyze whether or not it is feasible especially on the notifications, what is reasonable, what is feasible and if not now, then under what kind of timeframe or with what

kind of resources. i think it's more neutral than saying i don't support the elements of supervisor kim. >> i appreciate all the hard work by supervisor kim although the initial by supervisor wiener was where possible capture the idea of some sort of time restraint on appeals on nag deg and kad ex-that's why i'm going to vote against it. generally i have concerns. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just want to clarify. we are sending it with basically with staff's recommendation in saying we want a review of what can be done in the realm of notification and how things maybe able to be searched or

you can have a description on the project. >> okay. agreed. >> the second aspect of where i think for affordable housing to endorse the proposal for affordable housing project and then to serve are we asking to look at project approvals on that? >> i think that's okay. >> you are not saying it to change, you are saying just to look at this issue of project approvals being allowed to not moving it forward. >> sure i think further analysis of what that means for further projects if that's helpful. >> okay. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very concerned that the specific language that the department uses in