issued. this language in my view captures the guidance that is needed as to giving indication as to what needs a new cadet and what wasn't. >> colleagues, questions? >> i think i know this conversation has been going on for a while. let me try to wrap up with two questions. there were a must be of edits around the issue of substantial evidence and standards i think we all agree is what ought to hold true understate ceqa law. and there are additional changes made to put back in evidence. i wonder if city planning attorney if you have any information on that

>> i think you maybe referring to a particular language that is in supervisor wiener's ordinance in section 3110 f. that is language that is taken directly from the ceqa guidelines and it appears that this proposal would alter that language. i think certainly our recommendation would be for using language under the ceqa guidelines, that we should keep the language the same as in the ceqa guidelines and not change, not appear to be changing ceqa somehow by changing that language. however we intentioned it might be. >> if i may comment on that. i have, while i have been very much respect the disagreement

about whether the deadline should be the first approval versus the last approval whether a hearing should occur at the full board. there have been a number of very good faith policies on this and we are having a debate, this is one of the ones where i think it's been a real red herring from the beginning. ceqa controls, whether it's defined from the argument. in the very beginning when the city attorney drafted the legislation that i introduced the goal was to conform to ceqa guidelines. we have made a number of changes in terms of the standard, to try to clarify to make it as crystal clear to as in addition to not make it the power the standard of the

ceqa. when we have objection to an actual lining that the city attorney has quoted words very verbatim. >> whether it's publically funding social projects. there is something that tries to address this and i want to guess perspective on how this could happen. >> i don't have the specific language in front of me. our

only it was codifying this one project. the whole project gets prioritizing in our department. there is a bulletin that certain types of projects should come to the cue when it's proposed. typically all public projects come to the front of the cue. when the city

department's propose a project we bring those to the front of the cue as well as affordable housing project. >> given that body that in planning code ? >> it's just that it creates a situation where it's much harder to change it if we choose to change it along the way. it's only one type of project. there is so many other projects that people want to prioritize. that's my only concern about codifying something. >> many of us believe as the projects in regards to affordable housing and pedestrian safety, we want to think about these in prioritizing. just mulling over whether there is language to include that. colleagues i appreciate your discussion in this discussion and one of the

things i will be doing over the next week is engaging planning staff with community folks and these issues to see if we can boil them down to common areas that we can agree on. but look forward continue conversation on it. >> i had some continuing questions on the hundred percent affordable housing project. i know that current it's under the administrative process that they do get moved up the cue, they get assigned a planner within two weeks and the completeness of the application should be two weeks after that. how long does it typically take then to get a determination from that point? >> i have to ask -- to answer that question. >> the way we treat that and the priority is they get assigned a planner right away and throughout their

environmental review process, they are dealt with ahead of any other projects that a planner might have going on at the time. for all of the aspect of the process that are within our control, we do what we can to deal with those projects first and move them through process as quickly as possible. in terms of the question of the determination as to what type of environmental review they need, we actually in a lot of cases now are able to make that determination even before a project comes in. we do a preliminary project assessment and we can flag if we know for certain that a project will not be able to get an exemption. for that study, it can be made quickly. when there is a complex situation and there are technical studies to

be done, that can be a process that is lengthier. there is time that is spent in order to do the appropriate documents for the project. >> this is initial study to see if it would lead to a nag dec or full eir? >> this is to where we need to prepare an additional study leading to a nag dec or eir. >> if we don't need to do a

technical study, we make the decision during the initial assessment of the project. it's within a couple weeks basically. but we will identify those studies. we can rule out whether a project is eligible for an exemption relatively quickly although sometimes as a result of the technical studies we are surprised but a decision to whether a nag dec. it can depend on a number of issues. i'm sorry i'm not able to give a more specific answer. we try to make that determination as

quickly as possible or narrow down the possibilities. >> i only say this because as we are exploring language around affordable housing that is funding, it was pointed out to us that the state has it's own requirements. i'm not sure if we are following this requirement. the lead agency shall determine if it's needed. so the state has that deadline and that's the planning department. i would hope that we are doing that within the 30 days and this is for all projects. this suspect just a hundred percent affordable housing. >> i guess we are doing that within the 30 days but what happens sometimes when you do the technical studies is you en

significant impacts anymore and you can do an exemption. so sometimes as the project evolves which you can say actually project is not technically complete until it's fully defind. as the project evolves that decision as to the appropriate environmental document is changed. >> from the moment that you deem an application complete, then do you do this within 30 days. either the initial study or the exemption? >> yes we follow the state law. these are complicated decisions and as i say when the project changes and we are then able to get a revised project

application in, we no longer would have a complete project application. >> as long as the application is complete, we take 30 days to provide an exemption or have an additional study. we've always done that and we do the initial study. >> we are not counting the days, but yes we are making the determines. we are making that determination at least initially just to take the application in because it affects what fee we take in with the project. the substantive answer to your question is yes. >> i guess i ask because the recommendation by the council to me how is the organization within 60 days to two weeks for

planner and 30 days to get a determination. so within state law that would actually work. within our current planning what's currently in our administrative process which is four weeks plus state law, it would be 60 days. >> i just want to be really concerned about being forced into making what is a very important determination prematurely to some degree that making that determination prematurely is one of the biggest mistakes that you can make in the ceqa process if you are trying to pass up a project that in fact does have significant impacts as not having significant impacts. so i feel that we would be able to have the studies that we need to conduct in order to make that determination and you

cannot conduct technical studies in that period of time. >> if we allow some type of, i guess i'm trying to explore this more because i think it's important to a lot of us because i think one of the rationalize that why we need to install ceqa is affordable housing and parks, if that's the problem we are solving for then what can we do for this project if the projects that the city can move forward, affordable housing, safety and bike lane. what else can we do. i'm hearing it's not really the appeal. it's actually getting the determines. that is what is holding up these projects. that's what i have been hearing now from some of our

developers. i guess i'm trying to push on you to get that. >> what would require to us get project priority is to identify the process in our control to treat expeditiously. >> that is not the project of the aspect that holds up the project. >> this is what i have been hearing from developers. >> that is not been our experience. it's after that point where there are studies that projects change where we have to do studies that determine, what types of impacts are, that's the time, it isn't the determines of what the level of the review is. the project changes or the studies required or studies find impacts and we try to reduce those impacts. that's where the time sync is. i'm not sure why

that is hot button issue. the problem is later in the studies. >> okay. that's helpful. >> on that issue, i am very supportive in moving affordable housing and publically funding social services projects through the projects in an expeditious manner particularly because these projects may delay, may have an exacerbated impact on them because they are non-profit and government agencies and delays can be even more harmful than they are even to some private parties. my challenges with this is that this is a major codify kaigs in

terms of this concept without the broader without many of the stake holders at the ble. we have a limited planning department resources and that's how we chose to fund our planning department. and there are times when the planning department is very over taxed. i think if we are going to talk about how to allocate resources, specifically i don't agree with supervisor kim that it's affordable housing that we need to keep a better process here. it's more than that. if

it's not a hundred percent affordable, if there is a long term vacant store front building in the neighborhood and someone buys the property and wants to open it. like real foods, it's private property. that was a major thorn on the sign of the neighborhood, i would hope that would get some priority consideration as well. you can imagine a home, other projects that are not in here, transit projects, park projects, rehabilitating pier at the port and projects of the right of way. this list

doesn't encompass projects that may come in between that have a real social benefit. i think this is a seat of the pants legislation for whoever wrote this. i don't think it includes everything that needs to be involved in this conversation. just going back briefly to the whole multi-appeal issue. one of the proposals in here which was mentioned but not discussed is the idea of the planning department has to predict all the different permits from every department even though there is 4 or 5 or 6, have to predict for this project what the permits are going to be and if there is anything different from that. as anyone who knows construction affordable or

market or otherwise knows there are times in construction where you have to pull another permit. there is an additional permit that you didn't think you had to get an encroachment permit. under this proposal, the planning department would have to modify it's memo and put it on there and trigger a new board of appeals to supervisor. if you have units for affordable housing, that's additional ero because they have to amend their memo. i think it's important to keep that one as well. >> i just don't know how many

affordable projects for exemption will get that. >> 30 units. that's just a number. >> actually exemptions have most of the projects we've been talking about are the single family homes. but a community plan exemption is issued on a project that is consistent with an area that doesn't have any significant impacts. we issue plans on projects that are a hundred feet at all. there are the bill exemption the class 32 that is something that we use extensively. there is no limit on the number of units for those projects as long as you can make the findings. those aren't the ones that get

thought about, but yes. >> my assumption is that most of those would get a nag dec. i also don't know what are a hundred percent market rate. i have never seen anything in between those two. i can be wrong about that. i don't remember seeing a project like that. i think we can bring up as many scenarios as what would bring it under review. often times they have a series of deadlines and it's our city money that's on the line. i can see that argument be put in place for bike lane and pet safety. i think we would need t

of defining this. so that would be the limited to which they would give the priority to. if we can come up with that type of parameters so it's not overall broad. >> i appreciate that but there are not a lot of perspectives. if you have a hundred percent affordable projects that delivers 34 affordable units and you have a market rate on-site that delivers 40 units, we can argue back and forth which ones should go forth. i'm saying there are a lot of perspectives about difference

which project to get. i might think one thing and someone else something else. >> i am done. i appreciate the feedback and this is going to be an on going conversation. great. looks like we have no further comments in our robust debate. we'll open for public comment. i have four public comments. if anyone would like to speak on item sf 19 3 and 4.

>> we have raised the question of what is measurable that needs to be a running account of their health, welfare and safety as affordable housing, the ability to sustain infrastructure and so on. we need to supply the planning process. what is proper planning process, namely how do we account for what is measurable. that is not being done. we need to have in place the mitigation required by state law in terms of resources and institutions. that can be done. there are resources this city and we should be doing that. as to availability of appeals under the sunshine act of the state. it is appealable

in terms of contents and comments and that needs to be put into your accounts. as to the criteria i spelled out what they should be. you cannot have two laws, one state law in the other an abrogation by 120 lawyers of the city. thank you good evening supervisors, first thanks to all three of you, supervisor wiener you started a discussion that would not have happened if you had not started it. that is real progress that

looks like now three of you and we are are all working together to try to come to something that after ten years we finally will pass something. that's i think that is really impressive that we are get to go that point. to focus on the main issue, all details can be worked out. the real issue that we are facing is that currently the way it is you can appeal a project two or three years after the last approval. we are willing to accept 30 days after the last approval the reason it's so important, what's really what we are debating here is that the closer you get to requiring the appeal to happen at the beginning of the process at the first approval or way towards the beginning of the process, the more than appeal is over it's up to the objective statement of that

planning stuff. the more you push it up like that the more we need abilities to appeal modifications in a project. the more we need, we should get this anyway. the more we need robust noticing. the process we are involved now in taking all these versions and figuring out a balance. we would just say last is not onerous. we need that ability to sit back and look at what happens. >> thank you, mr. brook. >> we have a public speaker on the phone. we'll take it now. >> yes. we have received a timely request for a reasonable modification with our process under our men's with disabilities act in order to allow an individual with a

disability to make a public comment by telephone. >> hello. yes. >> you are onto the line. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i have been on the line for a couple hours. this is a very important topic to all of the residents of san francisco. and it's been very interesting to listen to. but i want to thank you for working so hard in trying to come to a resolution because we are in a democratic nation and we are in a city known for the participatory government. i'm concerned that we have the ceqa version, but with the two we are going to go forward and i would like to say that appeals are projects with

multiple approvals must be filed within nooipt -- 90 days of the full approval that would result to physical changes to process but i think this is something as the sending speaker mentioned. we have something that we can work with and we do not have to rush it, we do not need to rush it because unbeknownst to some of you, this is one of their legacies that the board is going to leave with the residents of san francisco. it's very important that we get this right on the first time around because we have to live with whatever decisions that the board is going to apov