i know these were discussed with van holley and kate stacey. right now, the language states that appellants shall sign a letter of appeal or may have an agent authorized in writing file an appeal on their behalf. the suggestion is that we take out the phrase authorized in writing, since that is not a requirement that exists elsewhere in the state for this type of a filing. the second amendment which i have circulated would replace section e1, which is on pages 24 and 25. the language that would be proposed, which i understand was worked out between the various lawyers, would be as follows. any person or entity may appeal an exemption determination no later than 20 days after the final discretionary action for the project, provided it is prior to the conclusion of the city appeale period for city discretionary action, even if it is less than 20 days. the rest of the language, starting with the phrase "for purposes of a determination made" shall stay intact. i want to thank ms. stacey for your work on this. chairperson maxwell: thank you. we are

i would like to ask our city attorney, kate stacey, to talk about those. i also have been pleased to work with advocates including holley, who have had some additional amendments we will be considering. i would like to thank her for all of her help as all -- as well. i know that i have a list of amendments. i am not sure i have additions to yours, correct? these are simple procedural amendments, if you would like to begin with the procedural. >> kate stacey from the city attorney's office. madame chair, there were three cleanup amendments that i recommended, all having to do with section 31.16. the first one is to subsection 31.16b8 on page 21, starting at line 21. the legislation is silent as to what happens if the board of firms -- affirms the determination on appeal. i suggested adding a sentence in online 21 after the first sentence, so it reads the board may affirm or reversed and the ceqa decision or determination but a vote a majority of all members of the board. the new sentence would read that if the board of firms the secret decision our determin

i wanted to confirm whether it truly is >> kate stacey, a city attorney's office. it the city moves in these amendments, we believe they should hold off in moving them to the full board. chairperson maxwell: again, we will have a week. maybe during that time you all can talk again. i know supervisor avalos normally does a very thorough job of trying to represent everybody. thank you for that. colleagues, any further comments or questions? the seeing none, we shall continue this item to -- why do we move the amendments first? we will move the amendments. without objection, we moved the amendments. we will continue the legislation as amended for one week. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. chairperson maxwell: well, finally, items nine, 10, 11 -- will you please read together items nine, 10 and 11? >> item 9, hearing on the status of the public utilities commission community benefits program. i contend -- the se taskforce recognition of the biosolids digester. item 11, commending the benefits program. chairperson maxwell: this is part of our continued