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
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
i m a person who is slated to lose her home of 57 years along with 2,800 other people who are slated to lose their homes if this development goes through. so far we have no written document guaranteeing us future rent controlled departments, only verbal promises. suspending the protection of ceqa, environmental guidelines for this entitlement process is wrong. this process involves regrading of the entire site and will cause extreme environmental stress to the land. there will also be an expenditure of enormous amounts of water and gas to accomplish this. massive destruction of plant, animal, and human habitat will also result. by not allowing protests for demolition of individual residential dwellings, you are taking away the rights of present, future tenants and residential owners. this provision does not appear to extend to businesses. no adequate notification of hearings by parkmerced has been given to residents. no resident responded to the entitlements issue because no