despite some of the rhetoric that's been used about gutting ceqa or changing the standards forsee qua, we, of course, have no power to do that. ceqa is a state law and only the legislature and the governor can make changes to any of the provisions of ceqa. but we have a responsibility to have a local appeal process. and because san francisco is the only city in california where almost all of our permits are discretionary in nature, meaning that somewhere between 5 and 8,000 permits a year receive a ceqa primarily categorical exemption stamp, that is not the case in other localities. we have an extra responsibility to make sure that we have a clear appeal process which we do not have now. now, since the legislation was introduced, i have convened a series of very well attend and had very robust and at times contentious round table meetings with supporters and with many opponents of the legislation. listening to a variety of organizations both individually and in these group meetings to hear their concerns, suggestions, and questions about my proposal. i've had the planning department a

so, the number of days forsee qua review being cut short is not going to help in these matters because eventually the project will morph and it will not allow a lot of public discussion prior to all these other changes coming through. cat x's and historical resources are listed on the planning website. however, it's not always clear when those things come out. this is the latest version, only shows up to march 25th. there's 91 pages. [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hillson. next speaker. >>> my name is mark bitner. i'm a 40 year resident of the city, and for the last 12 years i'm the owner of 130-year old home. i don't trust the assurances that this legislation is merely designed to streamline the process. it seems to me that it's development driven and there is no reason whatsoever not to consider supervisor kim's proposal. there is no reason not to wait for that. we don't have to rush forward. i think in america we do too much of this. we have thing, we jump the gun, we make bad decisions. there's no reason not to have a thorough discussion of this. so, i would

supervisors wiener, kim and chiu for supporting a more transparent, clear and predictable process forsee qua. walk san francisco walk san francisco [speaker not understood] [speaker not understood] public notification forsee qua appeals. walk sf has actually used the ceqa appeal process in the past, for example, to win a precedent setting fee to mitigate impacts on pedestrians at some of the most dangerous intersections in the city around what at least was previously called the city place development. walk s.f. supports this legislation because we believe we still can use this process to make necessary improvements necessary appeals, but we're also very concerned about how the current process slows down critical improvements for pedestrian safety. for example, the fallen oak project was not just a bikeway. it included, again, precedent setting 12 build outs. in the appeal there was actually about a build out making the specious argument a bulb out would slow down traffic make it somehow more dangerous for people, which is exactly the opposite of the case. also, on dolores street pedestri

at that point there is no guarantee of any time frame on appeals forsee qua. they did a lot of legal registering of documents that hopefully were going to make it harder for these appeals to occur. but the reality is building codes and building department approvals require addendums. building department dbi addendums. you go et your site permit and then there's 6 or 8 addendums for the technical aspects of the building. these people can actually have 80% of this 35 to $40 million project and get their last minute mechanical addendum which is required and that can be appealed to ceqa. that would be totally devastating to a project like that. and that can happen to any project. we have addendums on small projects. it's just what happens through the building process through dbi. the other thing i'd like to say, too, i would say in almost every case these late, late ceqa appeals are just to hold up the project and nothing more and they never, never get overturned. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional public speakers? please come forward. i have called

that is not going to change simply because we have figured out how to codify appellate procedures forsee qua exemptions and negative declarations. that being said, though, i do believe and i hope that we can come together to figure out how to make the process a bit more predictable and train parent for all san franciscans. with that i look forward to listening to what folks have to say here and continue that conversation. >> thank you, president chiu. at the conclusion of the hearing i do look forward to hearing my colleagues' ideas. one of the frustrations sometimes of being on a committee with other very engaged supervisors is that we sometimes you don't until we come into our public brown act meeting, you don't actually know what your colleagues think. so, i am very interested in knowing what president chiu thinks, very interested to know what my colleague supervisor kim thinks. so, with that i'll turn it over to the planning department, mr. ram. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. john ram with the planning department. i first want to thank supervisor wiener for putting this l

despite some of the rhetoric that's been used about gutting ceqa or changing the standards forsee qua, we, of course, have no power to do that. ceqa is a state law and only the legislature and the governor can make changes to any of the provisions of ceqa. but we have a responsibility to have a local appeal process. and because san francisco is the only city in california where almost all of our

so, the desire was to consolidate that into one notification and not have separate requirements forsee qua notification and other notification in two different parts of the -- of our codes. >> so, to be clear, the ceqa notification occurs as part of the other notice. it's not like it doesn't mention ceqa. >> yes. also, there would be the other ceqa notification that -- there would be the other notification required under chapter 31 for the type of environmental document that is involved. so, advertisements placed in newspaper and mailing to neighborhood groups and all of those ongoing outreach efforts that occur as part of our ceqa process. >> so, if i heard you correctly in the beginning before we got to the area plan, so, there's going to be more robust notification process before the [speaker not understood] happens. notification to the public when the 30-day window occur with the project. what i hear is notification of the project itself. so, once you inform the public they have 30 days to appeal, that's important. but, you know, if we're going to shorten the window for the timelin

of christian churches has held for as long as two to about two thousand years now a little i don't forsee that changing you don't see anyone around saying that are already about it i have to see is this what i fancy is more and more christians coming out and being like look we have to be very specific about this we love gay people and i know this is something the left hates we love gay people but we only believe in traditional what's your take on that mark well i think you have to draw a lot i saw something the other day i was watching some show and it was talking about how if this goes through they they have to force pastors to you know go and marry certain people this isn't about what's going to happen in the church this doesn't even have to do with the. people view it i say i do know people that don't believe in a racial marriage but as a political issue as a legal issue it's been settled for a long a horse i do know people like that and the bottom line here is you have to you have to divorce this and they're relevant as people they're actually irrelevant they're completely wrong i'm j