or against necessity kind of legislation. that is asking for more resources and shifting resources and asking for more support which the public and everybody else is definitely here to provide. following on some of the specification i am interested in the modifications that supervisor kim made regarding buildings that are 50 years or old. the housing stock is over 50 years and requires scrutiny and protection in that weakening on what is proposed is not helped at all. on the other hand as we are simultaneously supporting. i should speak about myself, i am supporting the request for affordable housing on this land which is a caveat to this particular request if something is supporting our own interest knowing how desperate the housing situation in san

francisco is. i think i need for clarification. perhaps commissioner antonini is a city on its own land which is a particular modification and the law would apply. i am very interested in seeing the city use the geographic notification system. i would encourage in particular because we have all been quite late as a city jumping into a fully computer based notification system to also work with the mayor's office of notification, particularly mr. jane, who is the director of that to really talk about the implementation about the smart and connect city. san francisco as a city has fought into open date a number of years ago. this is a really serious wonderful

challenge particularly in public notification and notification based on user and recipient interest to create data retrieval to use that system effectively. i would strongly suggest that at least you talk to him about what resources he cease because in technological innovation there is a lot more than what the average user has in day-to-day data that has been set up. i actually have a lot of nitty picky details by which i wanted to challenge some of the verbiage of that response. the process has been moved based on what happened on monday and i would want to express my full and unconditional support to move this forward. >> commissioner hillis? >> i just want to quickly

address commissioner ooh! -- wu on the character defining features. i think we are open to that. i think what we just generally heard if an if we are going to put a deadline, the community is going to agree to this process. we just want more notification of what is currently going. 85 percent don't require notification. if we are going to put something on the back end, we need to do more on the front end of what we can move forward with. we don't allow appeals of exemption. we nearly ask if you are going to have an approval of a project that receive an extension that you allow

testimony on that xems -- exemption at the commission. if the commissioner decides based on the testimony that you have heard, you may do so. it's not quite the same as an appeal. after you certify the nag dak you have to certify it before you bring the it to the full board of supervisors. i apologize, i have another meeting at 3:30 but danny from our office will be here to answer any questions or any kind of confusing or vague aspects from the language. this has been quite helpful for us in tightening this legislation but i really appreciate your thoughtfulness in supporting this process. thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> just a couple questions for staff and thank you supervisor

kim and the public for coming out. i know this is a complicated issue and i think ceqa is an important and challenging project. we can't really separate ceqa from the project whether it's a der type of appeal or ceqa appeal. i recognize we are not, it's always tough taking on ceqa and the rules around nasdaq and exemptions. it really doesn't affect the projects in e i r, i

want to follow-up on commissioner wu's comment with projects going through eir is generally the same. what's different in either piece of legislation about those projects? >> as supervisor wiener's legislation has been amended, at this point in time, the most substantive difference is that they appeal the length from 20 to 30 days on the eir and also under supervisor wiener's legislation there would need to be a project approval. a project approval would need to be appealed after the certification of the eir but there does not to be a project

approval. >> clearing that up. you would need an approval action at some level before you can appeal >> before the eir appeal, you can file it the appeal for eir but wouldn't be scheduled until after an approval would occur. >> and there is an approval before the hearing process. eight -- it allows the act before the appeals board. >> understand supervisor's wiener -- that would apply regardless of the document that had occurred. >> so nearing and looking at

nag dak exemption, i think a again there is a lot of similarity. if you have an over the counter permit, that doesn't come to this body for approval. the first approval, the last approval is the building permit. it's pulling that first building permit. >> yes. well, the approval action under supervisor wiener's legislation would be the building permit issued for the project. the first building permit that allowed the whole of the project to go forward. most projects particularly those that are large enough to require 311 will have multiple building permits associated with them. >> and the current practice or supervisor kim's notification was the appeal at the 4th building permit?

>> under supervisor kim's legislation an appeal can be filed after any discretionary permit, so any building permit. >> okay. and then there is a slight difference, but not really, it could tepid to be an appeal of that permit. i guess you could wait until -- >> the length of time over which a permit is pulled could be substantial in which the amount of time which the appeal could be filed. if something comes here to this body, it's normally a dr. if it's a dr, that's a discretionary review on a permit. the clock would not start on supervisor

wiener's proposal. and i think there are similarity in those and i think where i have issues is like a c u, where we approve a c u, someone can wait until the building permit is filed and then file an appeal of the ceqa determination at that point. >> i'm going to ask warren to clarify that question. it's been sorted out differently. >> elaine warren deputy city attorney. a c u is a unique beast because the cu is the final discretionary approval for the project. there is no appeal of a building permit that's provided for in the charter. when a building permit is issued personally to a c u. >> there is no permit appeals

board, is that ceqa? >> no. it's the only building commission would have to act the c u would be the final approval. >> so there is similarity between the two pieces where that's going to be the action, that's the first and last action that would trigger an appeal over -- ceqa. >> that's a very different thing. that is unique that way. no other type of approval is like that. >> right. there are projects that tend to have issues in public opposed cu's. it's gastrointestinal -- good to know the process is 30 days after that appeal. after that action to appeal the ceqa determination. >> just received, other types

there are differences. cu 's are unusual. >> the projects, one was kind of beat los angeles and no one knew about it and the other one was dolores park where there was an appeal at the last minute after the building permit is filed. can you tell us what is that? i don't quite understand, we deal with more with cu and building permits. how does that work? where at the legislation where a rec's park wants to come in and build a skate park. exempt perhaps. where does that get notified or where does that get appealed.

>> with regard to beach l.a., our procedures have changed and at parks and rec's. that will had not been approved by the parks and recreation. that exemption was not right for appeal even in 2010 even though it had been issued four years earlier. what could have if the issues had not been raised as they were, if they had considered the project at a notice of public hearing and

they approved the project, this isn't under either ordinance, if they approved the project, 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