entered into the system. >> the way i look at it is buildings over 50 years. >> that would be my push back. the second thing i wanted to note is that when the planners did was they do a planning study on subscription base notices. i'm curious to what that would be regarding this process. good afternoon, rogers

with the planning staff. to help the board study we'll do an informational memorandum you mean and make sure the historic preservation will hear your ordinance and see if there are anymore they would like studied and we are already doing staff work and we'll have that ready for you this following monday. >> okay. i think that feedback will be helpful. just for your information that we didn't include that piece in our substitute amendments tomorrow though. we are putting in our substitute legislation tomorrow is specific properties neighborhood december made historic district park exemption, eir, those are the categories. >> i think as often happens when ceqa is involved there are different issues being talked

about. we do intend to post in a better way the categorical exemption so we replace that stang system. the issue of buildings 50 years and older, that is proposed, that category is proposed as an addition to the list of types of projects for which mailed notices are required. so that specific addition which would be as i say mailed notice rather than the general posting of all categorical exemptions that would be adding a significant amount of work to provide mailed notice of these minor alterations to properties 50 years and older that do not now get mailed notice. any sizable project on those kinds of properties, gets mailed notice already through both the ceqa

process and the 311/312 notification. so the concern, i need to identify the section in the ordinance, but the concern is the addition of those types of property to the list of projects that need mailed notice of exemptions. >> if i can add from the beginning we added since the very original introduction one of the goals was to improve noticing and we in the very original version included a number of improvements to noticing and sent amendment to improving more and i think we want to have good noticing. but we also want to have noticing

that is feasible. and not so exorbitant in terms of time staff so it doesn't get you enough benefit to justify that. but to be clear and this is mentioned earlier, this noticing provision applies to buildings i did percent -- 80 percent of buildings. for any changes to roof, garage, would require this special noticing. this is a very very significant change. one can support it or not but i think it's important to really acknowledge what the real world impact is and impact

particularly in terms of when people's homes. that's what this impacts the most is people trying to do small projects on their homes. there is also right after that applies to same provision to any park or open space. so even small work, maintenance work and i mentioned this at the last hearing. the jungle gym or playground guess run over by a car, we want parks and recreation to repair that quickly and not go through a cumbersome noticing for small projects. in fact i know that supervisor kim, this goes well beyond what supervisor kim is proposed because supervisor kim

has amended her legislation to restrict just the parks in jurisdiction and this expands it to not just parks and recreation but other city department board of commission and that's a pretty broad expansion cording to dpw space. i think it's important to keep all of that scope in mind. >> i have a bunch of issues. i would like to highlight the issues. i would like to get your perspective and move through it with the idea at the end of this, i'm trying to get a better sense of the views. second set of issues related to when appeals are permissible. at some level we are having discussion around the ideas versus less approvals. the draft that i have circumstance lady is that there be appeals for negative decks and eir's

without disapproval. there is a guideline for those types of appeals there is not a requirement under the state's guidelines for approval. i know this is an issue of difference of opinion and i wanted to know if you had a different perspective on that issue. i want to thank mr. warn for all the brain damage in dealing with this in all areas. >> e elaine warren deputy district attorney. what i would like to take a look at this an

what it an appears and how the different two ornsz -- ordinances as they are pending. we provide that addresses the declaration. on the rightness issue which is at what point could an appeal first be considered to qualify for of consideration by the board. our advice was when there was both i ceqa decision, plus an approval of that project. that continues to be our advice. this ordinance perhaps this is not entirely intended, i'm not sure, but as for exemptions, it appears that there is actually

a scenario under which the appeal period for exemptions would never close because it would provide it to be accepted by the clerk and to that point cutoff all approval action as soon as planning as issued and exemption determines. and since the appeal period doesn't run until 30 days after the approval action, it doesn't appear it would actually ever close. >> could you explain that again. >> as i said that maybe a drafting error. this is not something our office has drafted. so it may not have been the intent but it seems to be the consequence. once it's filed as an appeal and

exemption then the court would schedule for a hearing is 30 days after the approval of action. as soon as the appeal is filed there would never been an -- appeals action. the first decision making body of the city adopts the negative declaration under section 3111. this would provide for appeals when that happens but in other instances one could appeal without having been adopted. it's not consistent with the advice previously given to the board on those two points. both of the wiener ordinance and the kim ordinance provide an appeal for eir after both

certification and approval. i don't think i have to go into detail about that, but this does not provide for that. it simply provides for appeal after certification. >> okay. thank you. let me ask also the planning department i know we had a brief conversation around whether there were other issues raised in this version that i have circulated to you around when appeals could happen and sort of the timing and when the closure would happen and i wonder if you had any additional thoughts on that. >> my first thought is what she said. in a nutshell i'm concerned about the clarity around this issue. my concern is the potential for multiple appeals and the timeliness for these appeals. if there is only one appeal process when it happens in the process, we are

less concerned about. if it's less confusing as what just has been stated i'm very concerned about the language that it's an endless appeals process and it might open the possibility for multiple appeals. >> if i can bring up a different sections related to that. there is newly drafted section. where it involves multiple involves. i'm sure that's what you are talking about? >> yes. the multiple appeals possibility for approval. >> i want to clarify one thing. first in terms of eir appeals right now sitting in front of us today we have procedure that is to trigger the deadline to file an appeal to the eir,

correct? >> correct. >> then two days later files to the board of supervisors and that can happen before the actual approval happens under current process. and so there could be a situation where you have multiple appeals of eir. i heard that and i don't know if that's true or not under our current system? >> it's not clear. part of our recommendation on having certifications and approval for having the period after the fist approval was to assure that the board would have the entire record in front of it. ceqa provides for comments on the hearings on the consideration of the project. the city routinely has hearings

on projects including at the board of supervisors, if the board approving it and providing the appeal for all of that testimony, it will have a more complete record. >> under what i originally proposed and this is i think at the visor recommendation of the city attorney, for eir to be approved, and whether it's parks and recreation or puc whichever the approving entity approves the project, at that point, after the approval, certification it's then right for appeal . >> right. the planning commission often is the

approving entity but it's not always been the case. >> personally it seems to make sense to me that the approval have happened and consistent with ceqa in order to trigger or make the appeal right. similar to that and if i'm reading these proposed amendments from whoever drafted them that circulated. for cadet that if currently if someone files and appeal for cadet early, the clerk will simply return it and say it's not right and you can file it when it's ripe. >> if someone files it early, the clerk would le required to hold it and when it becomes ripe then it's active. if

someone filed an early non-ripe appeal for a cat ed or nag dak. >> the problem is kim's ordinance to address the concern that people maybe aware that when an exemption is issued but not when the project is approved. her proposition is for when it's appealed and approved but the clerk as you say hold it and more for purposes of bringing closure to the appeal process. the city can continue to appeal that project until the time for the appeal had run and at that point the clerk would schedule it for a hearing and that is what would shut off if you

would further approval action. the approvals would have occurred they would be before the board with the ceqa document at the board had the approval over the project. this ordinance may have been inadvertent. because it does not allow any approval after the appeal is filed. if it did have an approval, you would not have an approval. the proposal, yes. >> the proposal that has no sponsor that some folks who are an opposed to my legislation that have no sponsor at the board. okay. supervisor kim. >> could i ask to go back to the current process. we currently allow an eir. we heard the appeal of a 706

environmental impact review before it had been made. is it your point that it can be submitted for approval? >> i'm concerned that it would never come in advance prior to getting approval. i'm not sure how often that happens. 706 is the first. i'm not sure since 2003, if how often this has happened. it's never come up before. i think it seems to be this big part of the law that maybe none of us had a firm understanding of. >> what i can tell you is our

recommendeded approach is reflected in both of the ordinance that you and supervisor wiener have put forward. >> let's say an exempt project is modified. i know there is an exception to that we need to have a consideration if a project changes . under supervisor wieners's legislation the environmental review office does a process in which she can evaluate modifications of the project in the version that i have circulated for comment from everyone there is an attempt to provide more objective standards for what this modification needs. it would say that modifications requiring reevaluation shall include and there are 6

specifically enumerated categories, a change in the scope of the project describing the original application, and second a change in the project from the public notice exempt determines and the project approval not included in section for projects with multiple approvals, force a change in the project. a change in the project that would constitute a demolition and then 6 the environmental review officers presented with new information or evidence regarding the environmental impact of the project. it states if the environmental review office again determination the project is exempt it maybe an appealed to the boards of supervisors. to

the planning department, could you respond to this suggestion that it be an approach for modifications? >> yes. thank you supervisor chiu. i have some concerns about these components specifically about no. 3 additional discretionary permits or project approval not submitted under determines and no. 6, the environmental review officer is presented with new information. i have concerns about this on a number of levels. one is the additional -- the identification of additional discretionary permits during the process of permit approvals does not constitute a change of project. a project can be unchanged and then if a new building permit,

a new type of permit from mta, tree removal, if those are identified and necessary, that would under this definition constitute a modification which then would require a new exemption determines which is then appealable. so not to put ideas in anybody's heads but that means a project whose exemption had already been an appealed can be an appealed again. and with new or evidence, clearly new information can be generated and identified. it simply takes somebody else submitting their opinion about a projector or

another report. that creates an ability for projects that have not changed to appeal on multiple times. so those two aspects of these proposed guidelines are very concerning to me. >> if i may jump in, in terms of no. 1 and 2. i don't have a copy of the two proposals. but one of the intent, i think is current practice where there is a material change to the project, that you have one story addition approved and you have two skris and you are going to expand materially change a project as opposed to we got it approved with the window here and in construction we realize that it has to be two inches over here an i think, i don't want to speak for everyone. most people say if you are adding one story to

two, it should be new project, new cadet and if you move a window two inches over, chance are that is not a change in the material project. in terms of one and two, how does that fit in? >> one and two are essentially the issues that we look at now in making a determines as to whether the former exemption is applicable t exemption is written this way. those are the issues that we are already considering. i think a 3rd issue which is not reflective here but the most common types

of modification we see or we one of the common types is the additional use. the issues i think that we consider that are appropriate to consider in terms of setting out a guideline as to whether a project has been modified would be the information in the application, the information in the exemption determinations project dript and third what we are looking at is under the planning code and that is issues like building envelope set backs and build heights for the purposes of ceqa it's not so much about stylistic issues or whether a window is in one location but i think the three issues to consider are

application, project description and issues regulated under the planning code. >> it seems that even when you say quote a change in scope, that's pretty broad. scope can be what we might have a different definition of scope that means a change in project. i think i'm getting back to my two for my examples for things that would clearly want there to be a new cadet and new opportunity to appeal to the board. just backing up and understanding that any time there is a modification that triggers a new categorical exemption under these drafted amendments that's a new appeal

to the board and if there are modifications that might be small or falling to these categories that's an appeal to the board. maybe there are not many projects in these categories but there are projects where you can see that happening. in terms of line one and two -- >> that's why i say that the issue was relating it back to an issue that was regulated under the planning code would capture that point that the planning code would then sort of serve as the mechanism to say is this a meaningful change in the project that does actually affect an issue like building height, like foot print, like parking, those aspects. right. >> i pulled up my legislation and this is definitely different than what i proposed.

i think one and two strike me as broad. >> we give out a chance. it's

clearly delineated for the public in terms of what a scope means. we may have a less of an argument about the appeals process. but because there is no definition, the public feels there is a vagueness on the side of planning in terms of decided when that happens. either we give it more specificity ora allow it to appeal. i would say that is where we are today? >> president chiu? >> i just want to ask a question. what in legislation are you going to introduce tomorrow what is your approach? >> it would allow us to have an appeal for the planning commission. if the public wanted to appeal by the ero that is no modification to the project. >> so, if there is someone who is doing home renovation and

they go through entire process could they approval categorical exemption approval without the appeals and they move forward and in construction and they determine that they need to move a window six inches. and they are good citizens and pull a building permit and do that instead of unilaterally making the change, is that in your legislation would that automatically trigger a new categorical exemption. >> if there is a modification of the project, the ero determines when they have a new exemption or not or whether it's in the current exemption. there is a