it does not abide by the code, the code of seqa and disregards the guidelines. i do not know how many of the planning commissioners have read the whole two volumes, but i know mr. miguel has, because he was well represented in the comments he made. i concur with his eloquence. to contribute eloquence and design is something to be dismissed is absurdity. i think what is important that this not be certified as final. all of the shortcomings. the law was created as a last resort for communities individuals to be able to respond to city-sponsored development. i call this a city sponsored development, because the planning commission and the port have made accommodations to the waterfront partners. sometimes i wonder who is pushing for this more than the developer? i find this to the department can do so. what is left for us is to really question this document before you certify it is final. i think the problem is it should be -- the correction should be made in additions should be added. i think the planning should not -- >> it did ring. thank you very much. >> good

waterfront partners is inconsistent, and the proposed plan is inadequate and does not comply with seqa, a few of the major deficiencies. i am clear -- due to numerous changes made to the project by the project sponsor come inaccurate statements about the parking agreement and obligations of the port and the rights. transportation analyses based on outdated and incomplete traffic and parking data resulted in a failure to disclose, parking and transportation impacts. during construction and after completion. ignoring the project significant traffic and air quality impacts during the america's cup, and the virtual passant -- absence of analysis despite the obvious environmental impacts, particularly in an era of global warming and sea level rise. and for these reasons come as well as those that many others as stated, the final eir does not comply with ceqa. it must be revised to provide adequate information and the recirculated to love the public to review this augmented information. eop respectfully request the commission take no action until the significant deficiencies are corrected. t

it does not abide by the code, the code of seqa and disregards the guidelines. i do not know how many of the planning commissioners have read the whole two volumes, but i know mr. miguel has, because he was well represented in the comments he made. i concur with his eloquence. to contribute eloquence and design is something to be dismissed is absurdity. i think what is important that this not be certified as final. all of the shortcomings. the law was created as a last resort for communities individuals

it does not abide by the code, the code of seqa and disregards the guidelines. i do not know how many of the planning commissioners have read the whole two volumes, but i kno.