i'm eric brooks. i'm here representing the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization. our city, as you know, and in strong opposition to this plan, as it is currently before you. so what we need to talk about is the actual meeting the true meaning of earthquake safety and hospitals. we need to remember back first of all in the 1906 earthquake, that it was not the failure of buildings that was the issue. it was the failuror water systems and the failure of access to transportation, especially of our emergency vehicles. so you saw on the basis of earthquake safety, cpmc present to you their plan for how to give good service in san francisco for health care is to centralize in one large facility the hospital services for san francisco and they plan to downgrade facilities like st. luke's and others. they will also be in competition with facilities like st. francis making it likely they will be downgraded as well. so imagine in the case of an earthquake that 80% of the people can't g

. >> good evening, eric brooks representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization, our city. i want to expand on what i said during the e.i.r. comments to get to the core problem you're facing with the votes you have right now. you know that the e.i.r. will be dealt with a challenge at the board, possible legal action, et cetera. so that track is taken care of. this one needs a lot more time and a lot more thought. and just to give you an example of what i'm talking about, i'll refer to what i raised in the e.i.r. discussion as an example of how staff is in way over their heads right now. they're not treading water. because of the governance and extensive financial changes in the project -- and here's an example. just on tsunami. less than two weeks ago in land use staff went forward, admitted that the e.i.r. and the plan do not account for 10-foot -- higher than 10 feet of a tsunami and they said point blank, very honestly, that's for emergency planning, not for design planning and this project, which is, as i said in the e.i.r. comments, was crazy. tonight, we he

. >> good afternoon, and eric brooks, the san francisco green party. even though the rent control issue is huge, and the only way to solve that issue legally is to change state law, that is not the main issue that is the problem with why the green party is opposing this. the main issue is that this is a massive demolition to rebuild a new community that is almost exactly the same. this is the situation we have with the redevelopment in the fillmore and in japandown. this gets me to the next point, which is in doing so, this project makes itself inherently unsustainable. at the planning commission, the planning commissioners themselves repeatedly asked the developer and planning to show the net carbon footprint of this project over its entire history, and neither planning commission nor the developers provided that carbon footprint, and the reason they did not is because they knew it would look bad. what they finally did do was put a slide up a few weeks ago that showed the comparison between the old units, their contribution to greet us gases, and the

>> eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and our city.last week's planning commission hearing, we reiterated our strong opposition to this project and that the eir should be recirculated. we were joined by the sierra club and others in that same call for the eir to be recirculated. the reason for this is not only the past things i have seen -- i have said about c level dangers, but the main reason now is the massive financial and governments changes in this project. these changes have happened all within the last month. the have caused staff to completely rewrite this whole thing in the last month, notwithstanding the claim that the product is not changing. the fact that they are going to have 20% less financing and do not know whether they can get that number back up from the state not only affects local hiring, not only affects affordable housing, but you heard them say today that the future preparation for sea level rise depends on future financing. if we are going to start this project with 25% less financing and no guarantee it is go

eric brooks speaking on behalf of san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization of our city. those of you who have already heard me speak about tsunami danger please listen. the san francisco green party in our city also just as sierra club insists this e.i.r. be recirculated. it is extremely deficient. you have seen my remarks hopefully about sea level rise. since those remarks, we have seen the japan tsunami happen. we have seen reports and n many newspapers about what would happen in the case of a similar tsunami from alaska which would raise at least by 10 feet the water level in an immediate sense around treasure island in the midst of that kind of an event. since then, however, i have also learned, and please look this up before you make a vote on this e.i.r., you can look it up online. look up cascadia zone, the fault off the coast of canada, washington, oregon and california and it is a fault that if it had a serious earthquake, it had one 300 years ago. it has one ever 300 years. it is a tsunami events. we are due for one and it would raise the water levels