any agreement that is entered into with respect to rent control going forward over the course of this project. i would just like to say that i can speak confidently in my 14- plus years working with the city attorney's office, that they have always first and foremost with the concerns of the rent ordinance and those of the tenants in their minds when they worked on any ordinances that we have dealt with, brock, or in force. i'm quite confident based on what i have read there is a lot of safety items and points in the agreement that i have read, that track, that speaks to this issue. this is, besides the issues i know are concerning some, about

the law and its ability to upset the apple cart, and there is also the matter of contract law, and that has also been addressed in the agreement i have seen, and i think that the tenants, regardless of what happens with rent control, there is still contract law in this country, and this contract law will govern and control the lives and destinies of any agreements that these tenants into into because there will be a written contract that will be signed by the developer. i think we also have a blueprint in terms of trinity, where we had a situation with tenants that were also subject to moving inton -- into an un-rent- controlled building.

[inaudible] [applause] commissioners, my statement here is printed. commissioner miguel: if you want to present it, just leave it in the basket. >> good evening, commissioners. i have been a garden apartment resident since july 1993. i'm speaking here tonight to

oppose any plan to demolish over 1500 beautiful garden apartments in historic parkmerced, including my own. these are my reasons -- one, the current garden apartments are more than adequate to meet san francisco's need for affordable, sustainable housing and urban open spaces. they should be preserved as a historical landmark along with the rest of parkmerced and sold to the tenants as a co-op. [applause] two, any plans to demolish our current garden apartments would interrupt our quiet enjoyment of living in parkmerced and could be legally challenged as a constructive the eviction action, leaving both the owners and city liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation costs from lawsuits.

[applause] 3, the owner was a purported plans to relocate tenants is illusory at best. any new units offered to current tenants under this scheme would effectively be controlled by both state and local laws, leaving renters with no protections and no viable housing options. finally, it is no secret that the current equity holder, fortress investment group, have major financial problems, as to their minority partner. it would be highly irresponsible for the city to issue development in titles to applicants who cannot financially guaranteed that their project will be built or even completed. thank you. [applause]

>> in the basket. commissioner miguel: yes, thank you. >> i live in parkmerced for 19 years. i'm standing here to oppose the proposed development. if any of you have visited, you would appreciate the open space and it's uniquely designed architecture that all the tenants have enjoyed, but what the developer wants is to destroy this beautiful place. they hijacked the term green or sustainable to make it sound good, as though they really care about the environment, but the bottom line is this place as many people as they can to maximize their profits. [applause] what they are going to build our

those ugly gray concrete boxes housing that have absolutely no character. the people would be forced to live on top of each other so that the developer can squeeze as much money as they can. they do not care about how the tenants -- their lives are being impacted. do you think this is really green when they attacked three times as many people in the same area? [applause] although i want to point out that the developer has not adequately address the issue such as pollution, dust, and noise issues coming from demolition and construction that all the residents have to endure. think about the seniors back here and the low-income working family that cannot afford to

move away and also people with illnesses. think about what kind of health impact they would have to suffer. so i strongly urge you to say no to these proposed developments or to any of the developments in the future, and fees preserve this beautiful place. thank you flow. -- please preserve this beautiful place. thank you. [applause] >> hello, good evening. unlike some of the people here, i have only been a resident for the past five years. work brought me to the city, and i absolutely love this community. it is one of the best places i have ever been and lived at. i am a richer. i do not see it as a formidable future to be owning in san francisco, but this is one of the best areas i have ever lived

in. i live in one of the townhomes. i'm opposed to the destruction of my home. i'm not opposed to the advancement for the opportunity to make our home better, our neighborhood better. that is all fine, but i do have some huge concerns. first is parking. we have little or no parking. i have a car for. my husband and i have two vehicles. it is very hard to find parking with the university, which is expanding as we speak. the parking is insane when students are in town and in school. the other concern is crime. i do not get any updates from parkmerced management, but i do get updates from the police department on crime in the area, and we do have escalating crime in the area. assault, robbery, occasionally sexual assault.

you put another 30,000, how many widows are you going to attract? i have a father-in-law who live here for many years. he had concerns about firefighting then. he said that the fire fighting apparatus in san francisco will not reach past the 10th floor. i have seen what happens out here when there is a fire call. there are six or seven units that respond, and that is great, but you put 30,000 more people in this place, what is going to happen? that is scary to me. the other problem is traffic. you come around here it 6:30 in the afternoon and tried to get at 19th avenue for parkmerced boulevard, it is insane. i drive all over to go to work. the traffic is getting increasingly bad. you put another 30,000 people,

53,000 units in here, what is going to happen? that is my concern. my other concern is the rent control. if you are going to improve it, fine. you do what you want because you own the place. it is your right. but the rent control is a huge concern. our neighbors are our best friends. let us keep our neighborhoods intact. thank you very much. [applause] commissioner miguel: to thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i used to be a resident of parkmerced. i do not live there currently. i am concerned and have been for a number of years about the issues regarding parkmerced, longer than many of you may have known about the issues or have served on the commission. some of the issues i have been involved in include the preservation of parkmerced.

i have submitted numerous comments, letters, and drawings to both the planning commission and the planning department and the san francisco historic preservation commission. i did not see anything going on right now that currently indicates that the current plans in any way shape or form after all the meetings i have attended, and i think it is critical that the planning department and planning commission begin to listen to the people that are out here. i'm amazed to see how many people are sitting here behind me tonight. i'm glad they are here to speak to you. i thank each and every one of them for attending tonight, and it helps me speaking here tonight. i do not have time anymore to fight this issue, but i feel very strongly about it and have fought for a number of years on it.

i have taken time away from my child and my wife to fight for this. i do not care any more. i have the drawings here i have submitted to the planning department, and those drawings i feel strongly about. i'm concerned that they have not looked at these things. i think you should all be looking at them seriously. there are ways to improve transit. there are ways to improve open space throughout the district. demolishing parkmerced is not one of them. [applause] i have submitted the letter on tuesday, november 18, on some of the. i hope you do raise those issues and have that as a discussion topic on whatever future meeting you can discuss it. i can view these copies of that

in color. i hope you will take the time to look seriously at it and go back to the drawing board. go back to the architect. go back to the architect and say this is not appropriate. we need a new plan. we need to reinvent this design. we need to go back to square one on this and really, with something that the planning commission, the community is involved with, the surrounding community organizations are involved with, not just a development organization that says this is the only thing there is. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. i was the one who asked you to come out here. i felt that it was a good idea for you to come here. [applause] most of the people here are working people, disabled, and

not able to get downtown, and they most certainly could not stand getting there at 12:00 noon and having you bring parkmerced subject of at 11:00 or 12:00. it would just be too hard to wait 12 hours. i wanted to address two issues. one was the rent control. i understand that under the rules and regulations in san francisco city and county that anything built after 1979 is not covered by rent control, no matter what happens, no matter what a landlord would say. the bottom line that the california supreme court looks at is if the building was built after 1979, it will not be covered by rent control. we are going to just take the blows as they come. there is nothing to say that they could not come right back in the following month and say,

"i thought i could handle giving you the rent control, but as it turns out, i cannot, so everybody's read will be raised to $4,000 a month." we will be definitely pushed out. where are all of us going to go? many of the individuals here work -- were born in parkmerced. they have been here for 25, 35, 45 years. where are they going to go? one, they cannot find housing at the price they are paying now. that is out of the question. relocation? they would relocate as. does that mean they would buy as homes somewhere else? i think some of us could go for that. we could have our very own homes somewhere. we could stop being renters.

maybe it means being cashed out. we have paid month after month, year after year. we have made them rich. we have made them where they stand now. they could not be redeveloping now if they did not think they could get some of the little people to keep paying. i guess each and every one of them, no matter if you have been here 10 minutes or 67 years, i think and $1.5 million been cashed out to all of us will do it. they can get rid of us and then build whatever they want. they can do whatever they want here. [applause] $1.5 million for each individual whether you are a master tenant for a roommate. that is what we want in order to leave here. how about $1.5 million for everyone? [applause] commissioner miguel: thank you, your time is up.

[unintelligible] laura traveller, lee, pallejo, howard strassner, larsen. line up in the aisle in order that i am calling you. garfield cpowell, michelle diamond.

>> we are ready. good evening. i am lara traveller. i have been in parkmerced for over 26 years. i have made presentations to the planning commission before. i can start off with the same statement. i am totally against this developer's idea of redevelopment. anytime you are going to stand up and demolish 1596 town homes that are the homes of people who live here, something is wrong. i think we have heard one of the major reasons that is wrong. it is about greed and money

only. [applause] people who are seniors, as myself, people who are disabled, people who are trying to raise their families here because of the horrible rent that exists throughout the city. they are living here. somewhere along the line, this board has to recognize that we're talking about human beings. we're talking about human beings as well as their homes. these developers think they can

be destroyed in one fell swoop. is horrible. -- it is horrible to even think that way. it is far from the loud beaches where he goes fishing and crying. why is the sea gulls flying the decline as he flies over -- why is the siegel crying as he flies over parkmerced? he is crying for the same reason we are. routes and homes are being possibly destroyed. there the very places that the sea gull can land. these are our homes. we are not going to stand by and see them destroyed for greed. that is the only word that

covers it. thank you very much. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. i am speaking for the sierra club. we wrote you a long comment on the eir. our main concern is the way you evaluate those eir's. people drive from land-use to land use. that is not true. they drive from parking place to parking place. you cannot drive if you do not have a parking place. when you evaluate the project in this way, it gives developer no incentive for building less parking. based on land use, even have so much driving. we have so much congestion on 19th avenue and around. nothing happens.

we have issued an alternative that would have much less parking and impact. then you and the board of supervisors could see that the alternate project does not have these impacts. the way you analyze the project, there are so many units that will dry. you cannot do business that way. they were providing a big commercial center. it would draw people to drive there. we said it should be smaller. you have to provide enough commercial for the residents to walk and have shuttles. we made comments about allowing other people to use the shuttle. people who get off on the bus or the lrv can use the shuttle to visit relatives. they do not need all the parking. we tried to add more green space.

we said you did not need all of the curb parking. you need more green space. this is very hard to do because of the way that you evaluate these projects. we have the same problems going on in other places. all of these crazy things happen. there is so much housing, therefore there is so much riding. they look to the table and say there is a much driving. no, that is changing. as san franciscans get wealthier, they have fewer cars. there are more families without cars. start the future right now. all of these projects that you are looking at welcome back to you sometime soon for t.i. with less parking and less impact, people will be walking around their communities with all the good improvements. we hope that we can get bthe

developers t to put some nichckles in the pot for the m. adding more parking does not help. we said facetiously that if you want to have fewer people parking volume of 24/7 parking meters and then you have more money to help me out -- muni o ut. we hope to with a steady for less parking. thank you very much. -- we hope that you look at the steady for less parking. thank you very much. >> my wife and i have lived in parkmerced for almost 36 years. both of us are retirees. this is the second time i have appeared before your condition.

being a former business executive at chevron, i look at this as a total project. i am not a gambler, but i am willing to bet each of you eight commissioners $100 that within the next few years if the investment group does not bail out and try to sell the project to another company, then you will pay me $1. [laughter] if you win, i pay you $100, each of you. to make it short, i strongly oppose this project. i do not think it is going to work. please spare the city of san francisco a big embarrassment. thank you. [applause]

>> i am arnie larsen. i have lived in parkmerced for 14 years. when i first heard about the proposal, it made me very happy. it is the kind of thing i have been waiting for. moving to san francisco, i was looking forward to a neighborhood where there were a lot of things to do within walking distance. i found that there were none. now there are some. there is one edge of the property. -- they are at one edge of the property. part of the plan has places to go and things to do scattered throughout the neighborhood. it makes it a much more walkable neighborhood. that is one of the reasons the san francisco appeal to me in the first place and would make this neighborhood, parkmerced, a more attractive to live in. there's often a great temptation to drive down the peninsula to one of the suburbs for a lot of the things i would like to do. i would rather stay in my neighborhood.

the neighborhood was designed around cars, from what i understand. it was designed to be a neighborhood for cars. we're trying to move away from that. these changes will help that. i see that as a very positive things in terms of the environment and quality of life. with that, there will still be a parking problem. that is a very serious concern. but understanding is they have planned for one parking space per unit. i am not convinced that is enough. in terms of the transportation plan, i support the tier 5 plan that has the m coming in in going back out through juniper. that would bring more traffic to help support businesses. i mean foot traffic, people, to support those businesses in the neighborhood.

that is critical for them to exist, obviously. i have heard many people talking about the need for more housing in san francisco. i think that is true. i think this is a good place for it. looking around the city, this seems like the one best suited for that. i support that idea as well. housing alone, apart from the benefits that having more people would bring to the quality of life. rent-controll? i was at one of the meetings earlier down at city hall. supervisor maxwell, i do not know if i can say that she pledged the city to support making sure that there's rent control, but she made a statement to that effect, the way would be found -- that we would be found. it is not is the landlord working on it. the city is working on it.

that gives me a lot of insurance. still, having something in writing saying that none of these people have to pay higher rent will -- thank you. [unintelligible] [laughter] >> i am steve hydy. 19th avenue corridor cannot possibly support all of the additional traffic. the study has indicated that it cannot. they need a 900 units and over 16,000 veterans. that is way out of scale. listen to the people and not the developers. the people are here tonight telling you that they are appalled by the development. it is way out of scale. the buildings are way too high the buildings are way too high for an area that is so close to