accuracy. in reading the environmental impact report, i found a lot of these facts were either not significant, significant but unavoidable, it's a truck. i know the city can get certain benefits from developers, but are they benefits if they cause traffic congestion in neighboring residential areas due to a shortage of 3000 parking spaces? what do we know about the benefits to the city if the cause harm to the residents at parkmerced, where they have had their homes for decades, some people. these are vulnerable people. they are not well off. this product is supposed to go through a bake 20 to 30 year phase-in. what are the transit benefits? what happens if you ok this eir today and this hinges on other agenda items coming up where if you have enough benefits the protection of the tenants increases? if you do not have enough protections -- enough benefits to the city, the tenants do not get protection. there is a nexus between all these hearings that are separated out. i urge you to reconsider certifying and approving the eir for those reasons. thank you very much. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> i am a resident of parkmerced. i am just a resident. it hurts me to think that such a beautiful and special place in san francisco would be destroyed for something that is so common. we are a unique city. this is a unique area. if you come out and see this area, you will see what i am talking about. i love my home. i grew up there since i was 11 or 12. i am a san francisco resident, native. this means a lot to me. i do not want to see parkmerced become like the fillmore. it will. many of my fellow natives in the city had to move to other cities. i talked to them all the time about how they cannot afford to be in this city. the reason i am able to stay in the city is because i have a place that is affordable for me. i would not leave parkmerced even if i made a lot more money. it means a lot to me. i continue to want to live there, no matter how much money i make. i am not living there because of the money. but that is a real relevant issue in san francisco. we are pushing out a lot more people every year who cannot live in the city they grew up in. i would like to see this project not take place. there are numerous reasons why people talk about the eir. i was there in '89 and i saw how it was. >> good afternoon, esteemed supervisors. thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you. my name is judith flam and i am the director of the montessori children's center in parkmerced. it was founded in 1976. it is a licensed preschool for 58 children. it is now in its 35th year of continuous operation, serving children from parkmerced and the broader community. we have an extraordinarily diverse population as well as adverse socio-economic population, but -- because we do have many children on vouchers from the city agencies. this was purpose built by the previous ownership and is just five years old. i have three main points. the center is scheduled for demolition during the project, which was never professionally revealed to us. there was no discussion on the part of management about demolition, relocation, a future alternate site, or a timeline of the above. it creates uncertainty for the future as far as continuing to operate a business. demolition -- demolition of the size proposed brings massive toxicity to the air both outside and inside, and poses significant documented health risks. i want to get on to my third point. since the proposed plant increases the population significantly and is targeted at families who will need child care, it is outrageous to get rid of a new facility which has 58 licensed basis. the southwest corner of san francisco has the lowest number of child care spaces in the city. >> good afternoon. i am here today to speak to you about the eir and parkmerced. i'm wanted to say there are many individuals here that took the time to write appeals. coalition to save parkmerced, san francisco tomorrow, parkmerced action coalition -- all these individuals plus thousands of other people in parkmerced are opposed to this tared arm. i have only spoken to one or two people who thought maybe this was a good idea. the rest of us feel this is a terrible idea, perhaps because we have been there 40 years. we have been there a long time. many of us have paid off as apartments already five times. so of course there was a lot to take out. he took the equity out, $250 million. we feel it is a beautiful place. we want to stay there. we do not want to move. we have made been carved out a lovely life for ourselves. there are many -- i guess this has happened to many other communities in san francisco over the years. i think one comes to mind, 1906, when san francisco wanted to move the chinese community of chinatown to hunters point. they barricaded themselves. we feel you can help us. we feel you can save our homes and our lifestyle here. there is no reason to push us out. you have done enough. supervisor mar: before the next speaker, let me call up some additional folks for the appellants. if you want to speak on behalf of the project sponsor, you can line up at a different point in today's presentation. troy martinez, heather phillips, kevin guibarra, ramon caleb adams, brian bernard, ian o'toole, corey bray, robert reid, bruce kennedy. >> i have been a resident at parkmerced for 16 years. my daughter came when she was nine. she was upstairs at my home when my 12 year-old son was born there. i am speaking in favor of the appeal and against the expansion project. can we get this on? we live in a garden courtyard apartment. i probably spent $25,000 on the courtyard since i moved in there. i would like to speak about what we are going to lose. this is a japanese maple and weeping cherry. there is a population of birds. there are 34 different types of birds at least that have come to my courtyard. the courtyard and my patio is an audubon-approved wildlife sanctuary. there are often as many as 20 or 30 birds of one type at a time in my patio. this is all when to be habitat destruction. i have not heard anybody talk about the loss there. my wife could not be here today but wanted me to address some issues. she is chair of the health education department of san francisco state, the only university i know of where health equity is their primary concern. she runs the customer project as well as many others. she has brought millions of dollars of grants into the city for public health. she is totally opposed to the destruction that is when to take place here, and the pollution and environmental threats. in our case alone, given our children and what we need to feel safe, we will probably have to move rather than move into an apartment that is 586 square feet short of the private space we have, in addition to -- here is the documentation. supervisor mar: thank you very much. thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. i am fairly new resident to parkmerced. it was not disclosed to me they wanted to demolish the apartment. had they done that, i would not be a resident there. i am opposed to and the demolition whatsoever of parkmerced. i think it is a very beautiful place. it was supposed to look like presidio terrace. the only difference is that it was designed and built for renters. i think to have that killed nearly 70 years ago is phenomenal. perhaps that is one of the reasons so many people love san francisco. i hear the word progressive talked about in regards to san francisco politics. i am not going to comment on that. after speaking with one of my neighbors, i decided to talk about this incident. dear board of supervisors, i am opposed to the demolition for the following reasons. i am paraphrasing the eir. there was a statement that said there were mitigating factors that could not be overcome and that hazardous materials would be released into the air. if that is true, i would like to speak about hazardous materials as it pertains to the expectant mother and the unborn child. unbeknownst to me, when i was in my 20s and had recently got married, but i miss carried by very first child. that was a very devastating experience for my ex-husband and i. unbeknownst to us, i was exposed to hazardous materials and did not know about it. that was over 20 years ago. for many people in the work force, there are laws to protect them. it was a truly painful -- supervisor mar: can you very much. thank you very much. excuse him. thank you very much. [applause] next speaker. if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants, lined up at this time. i do not have any more cards. feel free to line up behind the current speakers. next speaker, please. could we have the microphone turned on? try it again. hold on one second. >> hello? good afternoon, supervisors. i am the organizer of parent of voices in san francisco. we are fighting for access to top care and health care. i am speaking on behalf of the 58 young children who are residents of parkmerced. they are in the montessori child care center. you heard the executive director of the center speak a little bit earlier. she was not able to finish her statement. i'll start with her closing statement. we respectfully request a review and modification of the plan in a fair and socially just agreement. she mentioned that the center was not told that they would be demolished. this is a brand-new center, built five years ago. the center has been there 35 years. "it cost more than $2 million to build the center. i think not to inform her that there were going to be demolished is not fair at all. it is not fair for the children. i think there should be a relocation plan, if that are going to do the construction and demolition. there should be a plan to bring back the children if that happens. with increased residence there -- i am not for or against the plan. i am here to speak for the top care center. i hope you would consider saving these spots for children. once our capacity disappears, it is hard to get back. >> i live in the mission district. i will not pretend i am worried about the environmental impact report. however, my experience with this type of prophecies is that environmental impact reports are largely treated as some type of formality that needs to occur to create an illusion that a democratic process is taking place, and which will be largely ignored, to the extent that they raise serious issues, and will be taken into account to the extent merely that they affirm pre-existing bias on behalf of decision makers to go through or not go through with a particular project. so i really find that objectionable. there is a human impact of the project being proposed. there is displacement of over a thousand individuals, many of whom are elderly, many of whom have known this as their home for decades or more. there is a promise that somehow this housing will be replaced with a friend-controlled housing. but as we all know, there is no way to enforce that guarantee. to the extent that that is being held up as a canard, any of you who go along with it should be ashamed of yourselves. u.s. politicians need to have a backbone and standup in this age, recede -- where we see -- supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> i am here to speak to you to sustain these appeals today. i would like to note that at least three supervisors have been absent while people spoke here. that in validates your deliberations. i would suggest you have the full complement of the board for any hearing on an eir. that said, i have submitted written comment that delineates many of the legal flaws. not all of them, but some of the more egregious ones in the eir. i would know right now, because time is so limited, that the eir makes no effort to mitigate the many identified impacts on transportation, transit, and so on. of course, the human impacts, which have been spoken to so eloquently by speakers before me, are nowhere in the eir. one of the biggest smelly white elephants in the room that everyone seems to be avoiding is the development agreement that is nowhere in the eir, since it does require and ask for physical changes to this environment and is a principal component of the product itself. it was required to be in the eir and be subject to public scrutiny and comment and to your deliberations today. it is not because it was not. it just in validates the -- invalidates the eir entirely. the development agreement is a dangerous document. we know the city just past $32 million for -- supervisor mar: thank you very much. next speaker. >> lavigne preston, tenants together. thank you for your time and for looking through the stacks of material. i cannot believe this project has gotten this far. i cannot believe we are seriously considering it. imagine any other low-density area of the city, and imagine if we decided to carve out 152 acres and demolish all the single-family homes there because we need more density there, and we are going to bring transit there and increase tax revenues through that. you would vote 11-0 on the project. i hope you will on this one as well. anyone who proposed that would be left out of the city. we have not seen this since the fell more redevelopment. if you want president, it is the film more redevelopment, mass demolition with unenforceable promises of replacement housing. the prior speakers covered most of the specific eir issues. no consideration of a no- demolition alternative. it is mentioned in the eir, which then states this potential alternative was considered but not selected for analysis. regardless of what mr. yarney tells you, no analysis. second, the comment letter is very important. the development agreement is not analyzed. it is the key to how the city says nobody is going to be displaced. it is not even analyzed in the eir. the development agreement should have been finished with public input before you even finalized an eir. it is a fundamental problem. there are many others. i urge you to look at them. thank you very much. >> i am with san francisco tenants united. we also agree this should be sent back to planning for a thorough analysis of a non- demolition alternative, not a one-paragraph mentioned. it is not necessary to demolish. you can use some of the 6000 parking spaces that are going to put out there to build some housing, for example. rent-control housing stock in san francisco is too much at risk to risk losing another 1500 units. we have a condo conversions. we have mergers. we have demolitions. we have tourist conversions. we cannot build anything new. we have to preserve for we have. it is way too risky to think that under costa-hawkins we can have some sort of protection for these units. you have heard from these people who are going to lose their homes. do not put this -- do not put them at risk. send this back to planning. thank you. >> i have been living in parkmerced since 1959. in case you don't know it, this is the eir. i suspect to probably have not seen it yet. i have emailed each of the supervisors and the staff of the board some comments with respect to this. i would like to emphasize certain points. one, one-third of the proposed 1500 units being demolished were not built in 1941. they were built in the 1950's, at that standard, when the towers were built. if the towers do not need to be replaced, than one-third of these units do not need to be replaced either. they are made of concrete, not lath and plaster. the muni reroute is probably one of the more bring was ideas i have seen short of the crosstown subway plan. any route of the m line goes one block inside parkmerced. it serves may be 5% of the population in that unit. it leaves the entire west side no closer to the station and then they were. somebody needs to rethink the entire process. it would be a lot cheaper if they spend the money improving bus lines, and they can find that with a lot less money. auto congestion would be horrible on 19th avenue. it is bad enough now. it would only get worse. a rough year -- i refer also to the comments on earthquake safety. >> thank you for hearing us today. i am a long-time resident. i am a third-generation some consistent and a proud giants fan, of course. i am a high-school teacher. i teach high-school in san francisco. i would like to speak quickly to parkmerced as my home. the size and density of this program is huge, and way beyond the proper skill for the size of our neighborhood. potentially 25,000 to 30,000 people in that little corner of the city is unimaginable. not to mention that the traffic and congestion issues that have already been mentioned. i would urge you to look carefully at the eir and look at the size and density issues, the hazardous materials issue as a result of 20 to 30 years of demolition. i would also urge you to look carefully at commissioner moore's report once again. she has made a lot of careful remarks i think are very relevant to this discussion and to deciding on whether or not this proposal should go through. also to be considered is the finances and who is financing this project. porkers development. i suspected several documents yesterday, several documents about fortress development and their previous projects in new york and vancouver. finally, and this is -- it is hard for me not to get emotional, because we are talking about my home, the only home i have ever known. the people that our funding this do not live here. there are a lot of people interested in this form and the reasons who do not live there. but it is my home and the home of many others. thank you for your consideration. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is john kim. i have been living in parkmerced for 35 years. thank you for this opportunity to speak. i respect all of you for your integrity and hard work. i have trust in you. you will come to an informed decision eventually. thank you. supervisor chiu -- when he last visited parkmerced, i had a chance to meet him. he said san francisco is a great city. we can do better. we can do better by keeping san francisco -- let's keep san francisco beautiful. people all over the world visit san francisco and spend money, making tourism the number one industry in san francisco. they come because san francisco