Park north on giant game day. This site has been used piers thirty and 32 the park for giants games and it handled 15 hundred cars were proposing 5 hundred. We believe the use of the parking will be both for event night but to support the retail when theres not enough activity at the building. We have a prosecution against using it for residential parking or Hotel Parking or things are arent open to the public. This was part of our negotiation around the trust and consistent of this project its not for consumer parking. And of course, personnel in the area or rather than the workers. I guess how will this space feel during a nongame day. I think the retail is great it obey active but i think thats one area where the giant ball park failed youre not lured out to the waterfront or maybe the retail is not as active there but can you give us a sense of how it will feel what will draw you out to the i understand of the pier well have on the Southern Area of the pier it is the most sunlight.
We finally, got some antenna up in the neighborhood and welcome them because since then we have had better reception. We ail clamor for better clarity and use our phones for professional and personal business but in the case of american peop an emergency we have alter at come before you so ask for the antennas so we customers stop exclaiming and get the type of service we need especially in emergency situations. I know you all care about San Francisco and we have to make decisions theyre not the easy sdpigz but in the best interest of the public any additional Public Comment . Commissioner, i wasnt planning on speaking today, i have a voices disability but i feel i need to at this point. I live 25 feet from this proposed project. My husband and i bought our property in 1967. Ive lived there continual since were love our neighborhood. And were opposed to this installation. Which does not fit with our community at all. What id like to bring tourngs is that recently in the last few years
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
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 who is going to be making that approval action. Accordingly, these changes overall mean less informed discussion of Environmental Impacts and increase the probability that the board of supervisors will be forced to make a decision about a project that has been less carefully scrutinized and without the independent judgment of this Planning Commission. Accordingly, we recommend a rejection to the board of supervisors. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is shannon gallagher, and i received notice of this hearing today and this issue being aired through the newspaper. When i read that i had single handedly stopped the project at Lafayette Park using ceqa, i actually aired my complaints when the city began construction as the park with no Building Permits. And i aired tho
My name is [speaker not understood] and im a member of the sierra club. I believe we need more Community Involvement in the shaping of our city, not less. This legislation makes a complicated process even more difficult for the average citizen by limiting the time frame for commenting and appeals. It also replace he the current Legal Standard of fair argument with substantial evidence. By doing so it cripple the democratic process. Forces groups or individuals to hire lawyers, scientists or consultants making it so we have no voice unless we have large sums of money to effectively pay someone to speak for them. This is wrong and this legislation needs to be thrown out. Thank you. Hi, my name is terrence faulkner. [speaker not understood] for many years, 1974. Ive had a chance to see a lot of local politics. Supervisor Dianne Feinstein when she was a supervisor more than 34 years ago frequently used to joke and she said this both to the press and on the floor of the board, if the develo