. >> we have no problem with that but i think elaine warren can provided a better response. >> and ms. warren do you have any thoughts. >> i don't see any problem with changing the language that now reads as the clerk will determine the completeness of the packet to say 7 and add a separate provision that says that planning will make a determination on the timeliness of the issue within 3 business days. >> okay. and the author did you have any questions? >> yep. so in terms we're keeping everything calory the amendments so far are the ones i outlined so as changed in the title outline by ms. warren president chiu describes several amendments and i'm supportive of those amendments. and then the clerk - outlined in the amendment i'm also supportive of. so i think it's good to work those details out so we're not driving the clerk crazy with our pursues >> and i understand in the planning commission there was some discussion around the website so we can understand this and apparently there was some discussion that your department feels their might be some arrays issues around operating an

. >> 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 somethi