there is liveable city. there is the friends of the urban forest. the neighborhood parks council. the reason i bring these up now is part of the conversations with stake holders you have are with the fiscal sponsor. many of the fiscal sponsors have technical skills and lots of experience with the city that they will absolutely share with you and become stake holders in your project. >> yep. >> right. you might want to bounce your if you have an idea and we haven't addressed it. you might go down and talk to those people and bounce your ideas. >> one of my sponsors 8 years ago was the bernel heights neighborhood center and it dealt with the vandalized wall. they became my fiscal sponsor and talk about a community alli and way to reach, like the tree with branches that reached out to the other people in the neighborhood. what better resource to work with? >> great. >> >> right. the question is if you require certain permits if your project requires permits dou have to have the permit necessary place before you aply the answer is, no. however, you would caution you th that there are

liveable cities and the market and octavia actions community.c also endorsed this. so we are very happy about it. it is not as if the community was not involved. it was very involved, and we are very happy to see this extended. my colleague just referred to the community plan for a firm market, which was a long process that involved community agreements and all kinds of things for upper market, but the zoning controls in that plan -- it was relying on the zoning controls of the market octavia plan, but that was not covered. it just makes good sense. it is rational, and we fully support the way it has turned out, and we hope you will, too. >> i counted on three minutes, so i may go a little longer. i hope that is okay with you. our office has been working on a residential project on the northwest corner of castro and market street since 2004. the proposed extension would have a negative effect on our project. we have a co-conforming commission and request that it be grandfathered as we have the application in prior to december 31, 2005. i would l

strong link between the retention of the historic preservation on the one hand and creating liveable, sustainable cities for the future. i think this project represents really excellent balance of those two elements. in fact i believe it will become -- it serves as an exemplary model for what's sustainable urban living should be in the future that will be influential around the country. i urge you to approve the e.i.r. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my name is kathy lands. i'm a part of the parkmerced action coalition. a true vision of the future would be inclusive of the people who live here now. taking them and their children into the future, not exposing them and the students of san francisco state to 30 years of cancer-causing toxins in an uncertain future. please see parkmerced project e.i.r. pages 7 to 10 impact aq 12, aq 13, aq 15, aq 19 and aq 20. all of these say cancer-causing toxins are significant and unavoidable. the e.i.r. should not be recertified until these conditions are addressed and resolved. you have no right to expose part of san francisco for 30 years of cancer-causing agen

liveable neighborhood. finally, our environmental challenges and fairness demands all of our city's neighborhoods, including those on the west side, accept increamental -- incremental changes in size and density. a new term was introduced to us, "density equity." he said it is not fair some neighborhoods continually accept a much higher share of development in their neighborhoods while other neighborhoods accept much less. density equity requires that the west side also help contribute in addressing our city's need for more housing and in bringing housing closer to jobs. the project opponents are clear and vehement in their rejection. bless our hearts, we should acknowledge their fears about change. but their clearest and most unified message must be, we want the past. we don't want the future, we want the past. even if it were possible to accommodate that, it can only be done by paying a terrible price both by what this could deliver environmentally and the enormous investment it would make of an investment on the west side. this project represents a pivot point in west side neighborhoods. i hope you will

liveable development. while we're all doing our part as residents to reduce our own carbon footprints and live in a sustainable way, it's a rare opportunity for the city and for us residents to support broad stroke and bold steps such as this, to do the kinds of improvements to the infrastructure and to sustainable measure that's we can't do as individuals and we can't do with just tax dollars alone. i'm in support of this because this is private moneys that are going in part towards the extension of public transportation system, which is something that is rare to see a private developer being willing to aparticipate in partnering in something like this. i'm supportive because it's leading the way for the right kind of infrastructure improvements. it's crazy the storm water system is mixed with waste water throughout the city. and here is a large enough portion of our city where the private developer is willing to foot the bill to develop a significant part of the city's