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. if that is true, half of the city is suburban korea that is nonsense. the management deserves better from the city as a partner in the department's economic development.

this is limited in scope and defies possibly that the city could be an active partner for development because economic development is an important part of the allocation of resources necessary to deal with the mitigation effects. there are the boundaries of the project, impacting san francisco university, and thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is laura traveler, and i have lived in parkmerced for 26

years, and i am here representing the action coalition. it is my professional opinion that the planning commission needs to further review and study the eir. it appears that they rushed to approval of the eir, and in their haste for approval, three major areas were not addressed, area one, the environmental impact on parkmerced. number two, the displacement of people, seniors, parents with young children, because the developers have forgotten that they are dealing with human beings of all races, creeds, and

that room. it does not mean that the planning commission should do the same. decades of destruction impacting existing tenant can only lead to homelessness as well as terrible health issues among thousands of people. in closing, only the board of supervisors can address my three areas of mikey concerns. to review, we do, but and reconsider -- redo, and we consider it the eir. thank you very much. president chiu: 80. next speaker. >> my name is jennifer clearing, and i am president of san francisco tomorrow. i am going to put this on the

overhead. i want you to look where i just through the square or round up, and that is the four high rises that will be retained, and one of the things that our attorney did not have a chance to talk about is the additional displacements because of the high-rise. it is an interesting eir because it determines the olivine low-rise buildings are structurally inadequate and must be removed, and all of the high- rise buildings are structurally adequate and do not even have to be retrofitted, and eir even admits that in a severe earthquake, these buildings would not even be habitable, and the total number of high-rise units i believe that are going to be retained and would still be under rent control is about 1500, so we are looking a potentially a double in displacement which is inadequately listed in the eir. i am highlighting these four buildings because they are on an area of fill, former wetlands

leading into the lake, and that means they are more and vulnerable to damage in an earthquake, so we really, really believe that the current environmental impact report it is horribly inadequate in assessing the viability of the current structures, and we think that we really have to look at not destroying in neighborhood but looking at how we retain a neighborhood and make it better, retain the historic elements, allow an increase in density, without creating this terrible displacement in cut and without the series fair isaac issues. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i do not live at parkmerced.

but i have been there and no people there. we are dealing with people, who heard just like the next person, and when you start doing stuff like this, especially to the elderly, some of them are going to die, and i am very serious about this. i have seen this elsewhere. do you have time to listen to us? this is a tragedy. this is not something you can handle with a big vote. these are people. they heard just like anybody else. they are elderly. they are children from it they have made their life there, so when you start digging up their homes, make sure you find some grades, and i am very sure about this because i have seen it happen. make sure you know what you are doing korea a lot of young people, this is new for you. understand that they've heard just like the next person. i do not care about structures or all of this other stuff. i care about the people who live there, and you should also. [cheers and applause]

president chiu: thank you. before the next speaker, i have to say that it is a role in the chamber that we do not share applause or comments. if you did not appreciate -- i would appreciate it if you could follow that. thank you. >> my name is -- i have lived there for 50 years and a part of the coalition. we would like to request that when people speak a state whether or not they actually live there. even if rent-controlled housing is guaranteed, it is not, do you really believe that people are going to live there for 30 years of construction with the proposed health hazards outlined in the environmental impact project cooking i have chemical sensitivities. chemical said the people may never be able to live in new buildings. what will happen to us? there will be increased emf.

there are no guarantees, as there are no universal standards for this. new construction materials tend to be inferior to even the cheapest materials in 1940. in a letter which i have submitted 18 copies of, it states that presently the city of vancouver is on the hook for 474 unsold units, and lawsuits from 62 condominium owners for the shoddy quality of their houses. they left the city of vancouver holding responsibility. you want jobs. there is ample jobs retrofitting the 1500 garden apartments. it is hard to say that the eir is there when the city will be paid $500,000. we have heard the developers say, "we will pay the city for every dollar the planning department has spent."

i will lead to read the comments of catherine more. "the eir is incomplete. it fails to say why demolition is even necessary korea this will become a heavy traffic generator. the eir fails to identify impacts. future residents will remain car dependent. [bell] damn. president chiu: thank you. >> a less parking alternative. more and more projects in san francisco are analyzing the parking alternative. you guys approved one last year, on market street, and the fact that it gave you some leverage, some leverage to deal with it.

treasure island, 8000 new units with considerably less parking. it gives you ammunition. this only shows all of the impacts of the extra cars that they allowed to park there, and then people drive them. it does not show if they have less parking near what the alternatives might be. the impacts on the 28 orsillo, someone made a special study to show what would happen if we had a hotly on 19th avenue, asking people to pay to drive on 19th avenue, all of this is better of one by having a full eir discussion with less parking. i like a lot of things in this project, but because it has too much parking, i would ask you to not certify it. not certify in this would send the message that every be considering -- everyone

considered less parking. the phrase that the neighbors would all get of said, well, the neighbors are pretty far from this project. one side is the university, the other is across a busy drive. people and not want to park in front of someone's house because it will not have a car. it is true those that do get a garage, we are not or to go for zero parking, of course, they will drive a little bit more, but it will be less impact on u.d.. more people writing -- less impact on muni. more people riding. [bell] president chiu: before the next speaker, if i could read these names? [reading names] next speaker. >> my wife and i have lived at

one of the garden apartments for 36 years. we are retired. there is my letter dated march 25, 2011, to the board supporting this project. notwithstanding the reasons set forth in my march 25 letter, i want to draw your attention to wanted to give a documentarian a 16 page document draft memorandum to the mayor's office on economic and work force development. this is to conduct an independent review. this document shows serious shortcomings listed below are the major findings along with my comments. number one, the eir is below the threshold required