importance that these events play in their lives and development as young in coming to city hall in speaking about this important issue, and i look forward to a conversation about how we make san francisco a place to come and live their lives and seek these kinds of outlets, so i asked you for your support on this resolution. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, can we take this motion, same house, same call? that is adopted. it is now 4:00. why do we not move to items 22 through 25. clerk calvillo: items 22 through 25, item number 22, emotion

affirming the certification by the planning commission of the final environmental impact report for the 350 mission street project. item 24 is a motion reversing the certification, and item 25 is a motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings. president chiu: these will be continued until april 12. can i have a motion? a motion from the supervisor and a second. is there anyone who has come to speak on the 350 mission? we will be coming back on april 12 to also discuss this. so is there anyone here who wants to comment on 350 mission? and is there any public comment on whether we should continue this item until the 12th? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection? these items will be continued until april 12.

[gavel] but madam clerk, could you please read the 4:00 special order in regard to parkmerced? clerk calvillo: a hearing a person is interested in, or objecting to the decision of the planning commission's february 10, 2011, certification of the final environmental impact report for the parkmerced project, item 27, a motion affirming the certification, item 28, a motion reversing the certification of the planning commission of the final environmental impact, and item 29, in motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings for the parkmerced. president chiu: this is about the parkmerced project, and we

all have copies of the final eir. as required under chapter 31 of the administrative code, the appeals have been consolidated 41 hearing. we will first hear from the appellants who have up to 20 minutes in total to explain the grounds for the appeal, and what i would suggest is that each appellant to take up to five minutes, unless you would like to divide it up differently. i will be calling the appellants in the order of which we received the appeals, and that would be first from the park merced, the coalition, and others. after we hear from the appellants, we will take public comment from individuals. each speaker will have up to two minutes.

we will then hear from the real party interests, who will have up to 20 minutes to present. we will then hear from individuals who want to speak on behalf of the project sponsor, and then, finally, appellants will have up to six minutes to be used as the parties see fit. colleagues, any objections to proceeding in this way? and as we all know, if folks want to ask questions of any of the parties at the podium, please indicate that on the roster. why do i not ask supervisor elsbernd, who is the supervisor of that district, if he has any comments? you do not. first, from the coalition to save parkmerced? >> my name is julian. [bell \ -- [bell] president chiu: apologies.

that was not five minutes. you can speak again. >> good afternoon. my name is jolene. i speak from the coalition to save parkmeerced. -- parkmerced. two supervisors recused themselves q2 conflicts of interests, specifically having received campaign donations in the past. once again, we respectfully request that these two supervisors recused themselves from voting on any item dealing with this project today and in the future. president chiu: actually, if i could hold your time for one moment, i understand a city attorney has looked at this, and there is no conflict of interest? >> that is correct. >> may i rebut that?

president chiu: you can say whatever you want in your five minutes. >> this is being investigated. if i may continue, i go to the appeal of the eir, which fails to totally address the significant cumulative and unmitigated environmental impacts brought on by the parkmerced project, including the campus expansion plan and the 800 brother would way project plan. the san francisco city planners and commissioners have failed to put into context the following significant cumulative and unmitigated impacts. impact number one is the destruction of over 1500 rent- controlled buildings, the displacement of 10,000 renters to be replaced with a minimum of 9000 luxury high-rise in

units. number two, building a commercial retail shopping district, luxury hotels on 19th avenue, museums along a boulevard, and art centers along lake merced boulevard. impact number three is the destruction of habitat and tranquillity along parkmerced and at 800 brotherhood way.

we ask that the board's vote to reverse this for the eir. there is a mass of carbon footprint that will be left by the project. thank you, mr. president. president chiu: thank you. mr. barack's? >> good afternoon. this is very, very simple because this is a very simple issue.

this does not have the dates, but i had to write it in. this is very easy to understand. the existing homes start way down here at the bottom of this graph. starting at the beginning of the installation of the project, as you can see, these will produce a lot more greenhouse gases at the beginning of the project.

they do not start lowering the greenhouse gases until you reach around the year 2036. that is 24 years of increase emissions. president chiu: let's hear from the coalition. >> the planning commission should be limited to 10 minutes. i would just jump into this. president chiu: i will say for the record that the various parties, we do what we always do your at the board. >> all right. starting at the five minute

mark. >> i want to start right out from the beginning. my name is mitchell. i am with the coalition. what is the standard that we are looking at today. there is the informational document and the correctness of it. i believe we should be candid, honest, straightforward, direct, and transparent. right off of that, the eir fails to meet the standards. first, there's the demolition of the rent-controlled products. this is not an impact to be studied. this is not -- this is an attempt to downplay an obvious take the issue. there is the state law housing definition.

this is like saying i do not have a flat tire because i have a spare in the truck. some of these people will get replacement homes. some of them may not, but they are all being displaced. the eir fails to recognize the very human impact by simply denying this is occurring. the eir claims there is no displacement also because the replacement housing will have a rent control on it. likewise, the assessment that the demolition is not an impact also rests on the fact that the new housing will have a rent control on it. there are two key underpinnings that rely on this, but there is a serious question. response from planning has been completely irresponsive, and all that they do in the eir is repeat that it is going to be this way because it says so. meanwhile, the whole time this

has been going on, until the most recent development, and all the subsequent ones, there has also been a contingency plan about what to do when a court does throw out rent-controlled in new construction, and that is the mayor's office in housing, which is fine but does not really address the issues. meanwhile, also want to point out that the rent control on new construction differs in the belief from the one which korea currently addressing in the development agreement, so here again, the eir is clearly inadequate. it is based on a different rent control scheme than the one currently being proposed. finally, we are going to have to but epps -- at costa hawkins. there are two narrow exceptions, subsidized housing and density

bonuses. this is how these work. if you are a developer of multi unit housing, and you come to say, "i am going to do high- density housing, i want assistance under this provision, the city must give that assistance, so it is not merely in consideration for anything. it is not optional. they have to give the consideration. they have to give the assistance, which is in the form of a density bonus or other concessions. what they do is set aside a certain amount for low-income or very low income people. the government assures this goes on for 30 years. this is different from rent control. it is much more narrow. it has restrictions. it maintains a web level but only for 30 years, based on affordability levels. rent control has no time limits

and does not match rents or affordability. really, is a complicated scheme. full-scale rent-controlled construction by parking inside the density bonus program. this is a risky proposition. it is like parking smi truck in a motorcycle . this has been repeatedly shown. rather than acknowledge and discuss the rent control units are a risk and not to guarantee, the eir simply state that is going to happen and then relies on the to show that there is no displacement and the demolition is not an impact. the eir is not accurate or objective. it is insufficient and certainly not candid or honest. it is almost hiding stuff or sneaky. his project needs to go back for a non demolition alternative to be for the study, not just mentioned and dismissed. it has numerous other flaws that

i will not mention in the next half a second. president chiu: thank you. if we could now move to the appeal by san francisco tomorrow. >> i apologize, i am going to be running very fast because there is only 5 minutes, so i wish i could spend a little more time doing this, but that is all i got, so this is what i have to do. i am going to talk a little bit about the product description, alternative analysis, some of the impacts that have been ignored, and then mitigation measures which are of questionable feasibility, so starting the project area and try to description, the eir, i

have to say, the cash will read through of the eir, it reads very well. it seems like a very nice document korea it is only when you start thinking about that you realize there are problems with it, and the start with just the description of the project area and the product itself. the description of the project area does not take into account the fact that this goes beyond what the parkmerced --it goes beyond. there are parts that are not in this project, and yet, they were part of the parkmerced. this just looks at the project area as defined it. it also does not look at the keeneland of effect of the project on the san francisco greenbelt, which this is part of. the landscaping of parkmerced is

part of the greenbelt. the timelines are inconsistent, sometimes talking about 30 years, sometimes 20 years. in some places, it mentions some areas, and then later on, it says no. there were a number of feasible alternatives that were put forward, and they were all dismissed. one of the alternative that is most obvious is rather than to create new units to simply rehabilitate and update the existing project. there are certainly things that one could do to improve the way the project is now. one could, for example, add some small commercial spaces within the existing area. as it points out, people cannot

go to a grocery store without going five or six blocks. well, you could put a small grocery store or several small sundries stores within the criteria without having to tear anything down. you could add extra floors to some of these buildings. none of that was looked at, and certainly nothing was done to look at how one might retrofit the existing buildings, and i think that is one of the biggest issues on this project. on the transit side of things, they just looked at the light rail project. there is no consideration of a possibility for a bus for rapid transit, which will be much less expensive and could connect the bart stations directly. there is no consideration of adaptive use. again, some of the commercial area that is in the project proposal could be in existing buildings, and this is something

that has happened throughout the bay area with no consideration about it at all in the eir. finally, there is no consideration for alternative projects that. the eir deals with the fact that this is one to be a very trended oriented situation. there are 20 impacts that cannot be mitigated, in most of those are traffic impacts. if this is a friendly, why is it making a mess of the streets in the area? it is not the transit friendly. if this was right near a transit stop, then it would have a much better chance of being able to be carbon neutral. this is a carbon neutral project. the claim that it is is not true. since the impacts that were not disclosed, there are numerous violations of policies that were

put in place. measure m calls on preserving neighborhood character. this is destroying a neighborhood, and it is pretending that it is not. that is not on the steep. all these projects were put in place not just for public policy but also to protect the environment. these are the exact -- [bell] thank you. president chiu: thank you very much. you may distribute them to our colleagues. and if we could ask our final appellate to step >> tell me

what i should start, please. clerk calvillo: please begin. >> hello, my name is -- i have been a resident since 1993. president chiu: could you please bring the microphone forward? put there is a planning commission notion with an eir certification dated february 10, 2011, signed in march, 2011.

my argument is this. the mayor of san francisco, the planning commission, and the board of supervisors that not presented a full issue. they have spoken about all of the money, i think of which is half of $1 billion. the project is mostly based on assumptions, which has not been solved, like when control and in new . supervisors, facing the facts, not the assumptions. there is a well-known legal precedent, a legal ruling coming flypast judicial decision where

pg&e paid millions to 600 residents of a community in california. that was due to ground water contamination. that was little over half of $1 million for the affected residences of that. . if you multiplied that for the eight dozen or more of the residents of parkmerced, with the destruction of their home over three decades, that means they will have to pay about $4.40 billion when the case goes to court. $4.40 billion will certainly wipe out the half of $1 billion this city is expected to get from the project, and it would make any company want to think twice before investing with a

17.8 internal rate of return, it will be way below below the rate of return considered and festival -- acceptable by any investor. due to contamination, it will go to court, and that is exactly what i'm trying to avoid here, an outcome of catastrophic proportions, not only for park merced but for the city, with the current budget deficits facing not only fit this bill but also the state. number two, with no. 7 of the above mentioned, the planning commission finds that the eir reflect the intended -- independent judgment and that it is adequate, accurate, and

objected. considering that the eir analysis is neither independent nor objective, and the city will be paid by the developer over $229 million to the mayor's counsel on housing, dated december 16, 2010. the third alternative is chosen. considering that there is a flagrant conflict of interest between the city and the developer working together on this project, only for these reasons, -- the city in corp. will make a considerable amount of money if the city -- if the product is approved. therefore, it can not reflect the city's independent judgment and analysis. if the project is approved by the supervisors, this money must go to the present tenants and

not to the city. it should be paid for all of the leaseholders, those who decide to stay and those who for any reason would be displaced or that cannot stay for health reasons or any other cause during the duration of the project, considering that the project -- [bell] president chiu: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions to any of the appellants? ok, seeing none, let me suggest to the appellants agenda of up to six minutes at the end, and you can divide that into 1.5 minutes, or you can discuss among yourselves how you would like to buy back up. let me move to the members of the public. i of a number of speaker cards. there is a box to check whether you're in favor or opposed. i think some of you who are in favor of the project checked

that, as well, so i may be calling folks who are not supporting the appellants today. this is the time if you support the appellants, in other words, oppose what it sponsors are doing, this is a time to speak. you are the ones that i think on this side. bernie from san francisco -- i cannot read it. i am sorry. jennifer from san francisco tomorrow, kathy, laura, steve, gene adams, ethel silverstein, stuart fleischman, howard stroessner, dr. terence faulkner, and james. all of those individuals, if you could please line up? if you wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. in other words, the parties to just argued for the appeal of this project >> if i could have

the screen? president chiu: thank you, sfgtv. >> a very large document you have before you, regarding supporting of the appeal. first of all, there are two highly possibly volatile gas lines at parkmerced that requires immediate action before any further action. secondly, this is a model of urban density and development. vacant space, infill development, professional integrity.