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 table. 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 caim 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 to create parameters in terms 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 approve of. i would like us to take a deep breath and take a look at what this is. thank you for accommodating me. >> thank you. >> howard wong. i also want to thank you for all your input and all your in deptsd evaluation of the details of this complex issue. the very fact that we are trying to understand it, demonstrates how difficult it is for the average citizen to have a grasp of the nuances of ceqa legislation. but there is actually a better

approach which is to look at the reasonableness of this legislation. and that reasonableness can look at how we look at projects. when i have been on a number of committees and organizations, city agencies and have my career in city government is that when we look at a project, it's described clearly by some means and that means is usually defined drawings, a scope, a description in itself doesn't describe a project as you have seen many many projects before you. projects that come before civic organizations a year in advance proposed will have at minimum plans, elevations,

anything to convince people that it's a good project. but there is a minimum standard which you have to make it understandable . in reality, bigger problems i see in projects the solicitation in our city is the in box syndrome. being set in in box that different agencies for long periods of time. we need to take the look at the total of the project for the betterment of everyone in the city. i think it can be done. thank you. >> good afternoon. land use committee. i would like to again thank supervisor kim for

being our hero. in my mind you are like wonder woman fighting off bad legislation. supervisor chiu, i want to thank you for coming up with these amendments that bring everything closer together and hopefully supervisor wiener would come to a compromise and result in one legislation which mostly satisfies the residents of san francisco and not necessarily the developer. the residents of san francisco are very concerned about this and they are concerned voters and i hope that we can come up with something that protects the residents and what protects the residents foremost is the deny first approval trigger. we

think it's very harm ful and we need something in in addition to that. we need something that would allow residents to have time to think over what's going on. that's not available in supervisor wiener's legislation. going on, criteria for appeal for modification. that's really important. we can't just depend on one person's opinion. we need a set criteria. and another thing, in regards to supervisor wiener, he said there are three organizations working.cfn has three organizations. environmental justice. >> thank you. good afternoon,

neighborhood council. thank you. a little more work will give this the certainty and better impact. thank you for working with the over 40 organizations. currently final approval is the law and by putting in an appeal period of 90 days after the final approval will give certainty and incentive for developers and neighbors for them to make sure that projects fit the neighborhood. all of planning objections about more work should be considered and balanced against the publics need to know and public's need to work city. please make the best possible legislation by giving it another week. i really appreciate supervisor chiu's open discussion taking

on the community coalition on the thoughts and i am improvements that you have made. the hearing on wash ington last week was educational. there are certainly issues that we need to look at. finally the permit list should be developed by the developer. affordable housing is one of the city's high priers -- priorities and goals and giving a chance for a hearing within 60 days is very modest to me. thank you supervisors. >> next speaker? good

afternoon supervisors, thank you again for these session we've had. i'm rose hill son and i would like to address a couple things about going back to scope and what we want throughout this whole process -- may i have the overhead. i passed out the -- and the situation arose as to some sort of sewer line. the project

description says e erect 12 story of type 1a construction. i know we are talking about more words but we see applications that are one liners. we need to see that the scope doesn't get so broad that everything fits in one line description. the other thing is we need to make sure in this whole process that there are various stages at dbi. these are planning stations and in san francisco fire department decide they have to move half the building to the other side, are they going to be able to appeal. are planning departments going to make mistakes. i'm not saying they make mistakes. these are some of the questions that arise if we are not careful in defining everything for clarity. thank you very much. >> next speaker?

>> supervisors, good afternoon. i'm mark herring ton with the development community. i would like to discuss points with regards to supervisor chiu. whether an exemption eir or negative declaration. with regard to this exemption guideline 15061 that it requires a public agency approves or determines to carry out the project before the decision becomes appealable. there is no such language in the guidelines with respect to either negative declarations or

eir's. that's why it makes sense to have an approval of the project prior to an appeal of an elected body exemption. the opposite is probably the case when there is a determination regarding an eir or negative declaration. the second point going to these are just specific legal points goes to the issue of why it makes sense to have a fair argument qualifying substantial evident standard. that's what our current ordinance requires. when you look at the ceqa guidelines there is some confusion. some of the provision say fair arguments, others don't. but there is nothing in consistent for this city as a matter of

policy as it's been doing all along to continue to modify. >> [captionist switch]. >>

>> so please take your time on this matter, thank you. >> good afternoon. , one of the earlier speakers said that the planning department does not make any

well we all make mistakes, there are a lot of errors, and there are communication flaws and short comings and surrounding us, so this is why, the sequa process has been so helpful to everybody, but because the planning department given their lack of resources, lack of money, lack of consistentcy, lack of standards, lack of time lines, lack of deadlines, that you have discovered today, they need the help of the public. there was a hearing last week that was stunning for me to listen to, it was so stunning that i had to forgo, you know, dinner to watch this recorded session, that showed that even though the planning department had information, and did not share it with the board of supervisors before the approval of washington, why? well, given the benefit of the doubt, they were just lacking coordination. and so this wa