And letting this happen. We need a different voice from the jewish Adult Population to save their own children, our children, our future. Here in San Francisco about 45 years ago in this building an a tallian american Roman Catholic put a gay man in one of your seats. Right now theres a bishop here in San Francisco that wants people to sign thank you sir. Are there any other members of the public who would like to provide Public Comment at this time . You have already spoken sir. Thank you. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] okay. Now it is time for our 3 00 p. M. Special order. We have a appeal of ceqa categorical exemption for this project at 53 states street. Madam clerk can you call 18 through 21. These comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determine aigdz of categorical exemption from Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act issued by the Planning Department on january 8, 2015 for the proposed project at 53 states stree
The appeal and 10 minutes from the Planning Department. Up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. Up to two minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or representatives. Colleagues are there any objections to this proceeding . Seeing none we are now in the process of having this hearing and at this time we will have the presentation from the appellant or representation. Sir can you please identify yourself . You will have 10 minutes. [inaudible] my name is hector martienez and a appellant and resident of state street. I live there with my partner and two boys who are born and now raised in San Francisco. The project at issue at 53 states street and this project is located in a neighborhood recently described by the San Francisco chronicle as a leaf on clarify and fanciful and quirky and modest size homes and wildlife. One only needs to walk up and there are plenty of trees and wildlife and squi
Exemption from the Environmental Review under ceqa so without objection we will proceed as follows. 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or representative and up to two minutes per speaker in favor of the appeal and 10 minutes from the Planning Department. Up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. Up to two minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or representatives. Colleagues are there any objections to this proceeding . Seeing none we are now in the process of having this hearing and at this time we will have the presentation from the appellant or representation. Sir can you please identify yourself . You will have 10 minutes. [inaudible] my name is hector martienez and a appellant and resident of state street. I live there with my partner and two boys who are born and now raised in San Francisco. The project at issue at 53 states street and this project is located in a neighborho
Exemption and 20 determination and 21 is motion for findings. Colleagues i understand that supervisor wiener needs to recuse himself for the matter. Is there a motion . Moved by supervisor christensen and seconded by supervisor tang. Without objection this motion passes. Thank you supervisor wiener. Okay. At this time for this hearing we will be considering the adequacy and accuracy and completeness and efficiency of the Planning Department determination that the proposed project at 53 states street is categorical exemption from the Environmental Review under ceqa so without objection we will proceed as follows. 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant or representative and up to two minutes per speaker in favor of the appeal and 10 minutes from the Planning Department. Up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. Up to two minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal and finally up to three minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or representatives. Collea
Look at [inaudible] heights when adopting controls last month to protect the community and aesthetics and under assault of increasing numbers of large homes and we incorporate the legislation here know by reference. The cumulative impact is referenced in the San Francisco chronicle article titled growing controversy developers with big plans descend on the area. Now this legislation is clearly substantial evidence of the significant Environmental Impact. What we see here is a solution for this board is that this board obviously didnt include 53 states street in the protective legislation and unique location within 500 feet of the residents of Supervisor Scott Wiener but today the board [inaudible] interim controls to protect the neighborhood. What i am asking today is consistent with that legislation and what we ask is that this project be required to comply with the ceqa and have an report to assess what significant to address the significant Environmental Impacts that we in our neigh