Ways in which the term substantial evidence is used in ceqa. One is an evidencery standard. One is an appellate standard. The way in which this is introduced in this legislation has to do with evidence and very simply, if you want to make a case for conclusion, whether you is the city or you is the appellant, you need to substantial evident to support it. Thats all that this ordinance says. Thats what the state statutes say, thats what the state guidelines say, thats what the statute says. It doesnt produce any permissible standard. The other way in which substantial evidence is used in ceqa is as a standard of review. And in very simple terms, theres two basic standards. Theres substantial evidence which is defresidential to a lead agency, it primarily applies to eirs and addenda and infill exemptions. And theres fair argument which primarily applies to negative declarations. This does not addressing that. In fact, more broadly, this ordinance does not address the substance of how ceq
Equity institute. We at the center strongly support the twin purposes of ceqa which are Environmental Protection and informed selfgovernment. And we all know that compliance with ceqa including public input has improved countless public and private projects in california over the last 40 years. Its resulted in tangible protection for endangered species and their habitats, cleaner hair and water and more efficient use of scarce public resources. Although many of the proposed amendments before you today appear to be technical conforming changes, the proposal as a whole would make Public Participation in city Decision Making even more difficult. Even more difficult than sitting in these hard benches for many hours as weve done in many chambers here. And were concerned that the proposed amendments improperly subvert the important public informed selfgovernment principles of ceqa. So, first and foremost, the repeal of existing appeal procedures and administrative code 31. 16 and the replace
A full board. Its very possible, and in fact likely, that a subcommittee of the board would be making the hearing the public hearing and the ceqa determination. Furthermore, there is no requirement under these amendments that the Planning Department would be engaged in that process. So, the clarifications here are inadequate. Second, the change allows more projects to receive minimal review under negative declaration. Weve heard so much, based upon the standard of fair argument versus substantial evidence. As youve heard multi38 times, there is a good question as to whether this is legal under california state law based upon 30 years of ceqa history here. And finally, the changes are requiring an approval action before anyone can make a ceqa appeal is ultimately going to inhibit the ability of Community Members to make contact with this board and with decisionmakers about particular projects. And it does so in an ambiguous way. Its unclear what the first approval approval action is and
They usually are. And ceqa is only a very small part of that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is tess well born representing the Haight Ashbury neighborhood. [speaker not understood]. This late draft legislation is not yet. This was crafted without significant input from environmentalists, neighbors, social justice, housing, tenant Rights Groups and Historic Preservation, and now a week after it was or so after it was introduced, we are being asked to come in and help tailor it. But what has to be done is toss this out and actually say, lets have everybody at the table at the beginning. Its very difficult to go through all of these pages and to manager this spot or that spot. This is a failing of public process here to have something presented with that kind of timeline, this kind of impact and with no involvement by the public. Ceqa offers many benefits to city residents, government, and to developers by providing considerable notice to the public, encoura
This out and actually say, lets have everybody at the table at the beginning. Its very difficult to go through all of these pages and to manager this spot or that spot. This is a failing of public process here to have something presented with that kind of timeline, this kind of impact and with no involvement by the public. Ceqa offers many benefits to city residents, government, and to developers by providing considerable notice to the public, encouraging developers and residents to Work Together and to develop mutually beneficial plans, to reduce appeals and costly litigation which is beyond most residents and Community Organizations means anyway, and the government doesnt need costly litigation either. Also, the ceqa process allows reducing appeals to the board of supervisors. But, in fact, there are only about 10 appeals to the board of supervisors in any given year of the thousands of projects. So, thats kind of a safe argument to say we have to protect the board of supervisors fro