the land use committee that's why i have accepted a number of amendments by president chiu. if there are reasonable amendments that further the spirit of this legislation, i'm happy to accept them. if they are amendments which initially glancing as these that i think would actually really undermine making the process more predictable and transparent then i will not support those. i'm looking forward to this discussion. >> thank you. let me go through these issues and they are really in no order of importance, but i think these are just categories of concerns that have been raise that have been in part addressed by supervisor wiener's legislation but there is a suggestion by supervisor kim's version that

ought to be changed. first is the question around notification. if we are going to somehow create some more certainty around various appeals that it's important to have some level of notification. supervisor wiener in part reflecting the planning department's plan to provide more technology to notification essentially has something that is more e-mail based that it be pushed out via e-mail. supervisor kim has a more paper version approach. the way i read it is that supervisor sentence e-mail notification unless paper notification is requested. i wanted to ask in particular for the planning department could you provide a different clarityey on the

different categories and what you think is the most efficient way to do this to provide the due notices that the community wants to see and deserves? by the way, i will just say these are through pages 3 and 4 as well as other places in the draft. >> good afternoon, supervisors, sarah jones environmental review officer. the way i understand this legislation is difference between the opt in e-mail notification versus the opt in mail notification addresses those notices that are done. we do a lot of noticing now. for example we already under chapter 31 have

several categories of exemption that require mail notification. it's notification required for the city's purposes. under supervisor wiener's legislation that would be e-mail unless somebody asks for mailed notification of that versus under supervisor kim's legislation that will remain as mailed notice although someone can ask they receive it electronically instead. so at the mail versus the mailed notification would apply to current notification as well as any new notification under chapter 31. would you like me to address the other aspects of notification that are embodied in these various proposals? >> under both supervisor wiener

and supervisor kim's legislation as well as in these new amendments that came up there is discussion of map based posting of categorical exemption. we do now post one big pdf file that has all the categorical issues during the week. that is a system that really one of the up sides of this entire process is it made us focus on that system and we all understand that that is not a system that is working for the public or frankly for the planning department right now. so we are actively working towards change that go system over so that we have a map based posting of categorical exemption. it would be much more timely, much more easy to find an individual exemption. i think this is going to go a

huge amount of distance towards raising interested parties awareness of the issues instead of exemptions. there is that piece of it. as supervisor wiener's legislation is written and amended that would need to be in place before the legislation can become effective. the third category of notification that is discussed under supervisor kim's legislation as well as under these amendments is a subscription based e-mail list people can question mail, flagging or notification or linking to different types of environmental documents or different categories of environmental documents. that is a system we've been talking through that proposal a lot over at the planning department. i think our general

conclusion is no. one while we do not at this point in time have an e-mail system that supports that, we are working towards an e-mail system that will allow for more electric subscription based e-mail notification of all of our activities, not just environmental determinations. in terms of giving people options for categorizing, we essentially need to be able to tie it to categories that already exist. so something that is already geo coded in our system like the planning department neighborhood maps, that is something that would be relatively easy for us to categories. when a parcel is already linked to that map area of the department list. so if it's items that are already geo

coded, that's something we anticipate the system to be able to handle. over time there is a growing demand for this type of technology as supervisor kim has noted, we at the city are not necessarily able to, we don't have the kind of systems that people who are like a store that's trying to get people to buy things has in place, but there is a very large interest in growing this capability. i think over time we will be able to do more, but what we can do now is what i have expressed. >> okay. so given all of that, the language that was proposed in this community draft do you have a perspective on that about whether it captures what you are talking about? >> the language that is proposed i think there is more, with regard to the e-mail, i

think more specificity about it would bring it to a level that we can work with in terms of defining what is meant by historic district, what is meant by neighborhood. so if there were more specificitien it. however i would suggest that specificity of that type of ordinance which we are pretty much going to have to live with for the rest of our lives is, something that needs to be carefully balanced. >> okay. >> if i might. i might go a little farther on that comment because i'm concerned about some of the language that would require fairly intense specific notice for very very modest projects. if you look at the language the way i read it on page 13, it would involve any alteration to buildings 13

years old or spans the occupied square footage. the concern we have about this notification is that because we have fairly robust notification in place for larger projects, what we are talking about is incredibly small projects in some cases window replacement, porch railings. i think the concern that you are hearing is the shear numbers of those projects and the public resources that would go into having to make that happen. that's where some of the concerns of the department are besides the lack specificity and the technological challenge is if this is a primary resource. >> part of what this legislation does is it does require the planning department to put out a lot more information about over the counter permits, but that

suggestion that everyone should be able to receive a paper notification of that, feels onerous to me but i want to hear from other supervisors and their perspectives. >> we are introduce an amendment for legislation tomorrow. what we are proposing is that we would make an amendment that online subscription would allow people to describe to a couple of different categories. so one is a specific property, two a specific neighborhood, three a designated historic district. i'm not sure why that would be difficult to tease out. parks and nasdaq and eir's. we already list these exemption but we list it in a way that is

unsearchable. i don't think we would be reducing the work. literally you would be inputting it into a different system that is searchable. >> this reason it's so cumbersome today is that those documents are scanned. the issue is the automation that we are talking about and that's the difficulty we have under our current system. if they are in historic district we can include that. but when it gets to high level, that's when it becomes a real challenge for us because the projects are not categorize that had way when 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 o 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 fian early non-ripe ve. if

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 apve

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