>> good afternoon this is a special meeting of the planning commission for thursday, february 10, 2011. before i take roll, if i can row mind everyone to turn off your cell phone, pagers and any electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. i will also note that this is a very large hearing. crowded room. we have overflow. the commission is not going to tolerate disruption. we will actually stop the hearing if you feel the need to disrupt these proceedings. having said that if you feel the need to engage in a secondarry discussion, we ask you take the discussions outside so we can proceed with the hearing. with that commissioner moore. >> here. >> commissioner saguyia?

>> here. >> commissioner antonini? >> here. [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. the item on this special calendar, category a of the calendar is public comment on agenda item for the public hearing has been closed and at this time members of the public may address this commission on any agenda item that has already been reviewed in a public hearing to which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed. your opportunity to address the commission on both items would be at this time. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes on those items. the only item on this calendar that this pertains to is item one, chase number 2008.0021-e for 3711 19th avenue. this is on the certification of the final environmental impact report. i have one speaker card. i'm sure there are other ones.

>> if folks can limit their comments to just the environmental impact report, you will have an opportunity afterwards to speak to the project itself. the sooner we get through this and move to the project, then we will be able to start hearing from members of the public, many whom have to leave at 5:30, 6:00. so that's why we're going to try to keep it as con science as possible for that reason. mark solomon. we will limit it to two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. as usual i think the environmental report on this is quite inadequate. i think we're seeing a situation now where media is being disinvested in. we're seeing deteriorating levels of service yet we're trying to add more load onto those systems as if they don't exist. what we're seeing here is shove ling of public resources into private pockets to bail out a

too big to fail development by making it even bigger so that next time speculative investors come at this, we're going to see an even larger bailout required. i think it's really bad for san francisco we're getting rid of rent-controlled units. that's critical for affordability in san francisco. this is a place where i wouldn't want to live and folks live there and find the community there and respect that and acknowledge that if we're not going to be seeing the kind of investment in transwit this project that's going to mitigate any of the impacts, in fact this project is located within three minutes of interstate 280. so that's going to mean we're talking about being sold, this transit-oriented development will be freeway-oriented development which means more cars and auto trips and greenhouse gases which goes against the city's stated goals for environmental protection. but that's the way it is in san francisco. development is being coddled. the cost being shifted on the backs of taxpayers and yet developers are running away with uning our city and using it as a

get rich quick scheme. i urge you to reject this environmental report and project and come back with a staged plan report that puts the residents in san francisco first before bailing out investors. thank you. >> thank you. aaron goodman followed by arlene madel and laura traveler. >> good afternoon, commissioners. here's a letter and submittal from six national organizations, the national trust for historic preservation, california preservation foundation, san francisco architecture heritage, culture landscape foundation, the northern california chapter of delcomo, northern california chapter of historic american landscape survey. it in regards to the e.i.r., also there's a memo from me on some of the case law issues being discussed currently in the e.i.r. and development agreement. i'm completely opposed to it and i think the e.i.r. should be thrown out, the whole

development. you should rethink the whole project and have the architect and development team go back to square one on this project based on all of the impacts and all of the other discussions we submit prior. there's no reason to push this through so fast and so furious without looking seriously at the e.i.r. and what stuff has been modified by the developers in their best interest versus the best interest of the city and existing community out there. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i will try and glean out some of my e.i.r.-specific comments from what i have written. i would also like to resubmit my paperwork from the audubon society -- i'm sorry? >> state your name for the record. >> i'm sorry, my name is marlene madel. for the autobond society, my

clients submitted concerns for the development regarding a treaty mobile and replacement of significant concern for the autobond society, rural and natural lands. and along the pacific flyway, one of the most important migetory pathways in the world. residents birds nest and raise in young trees. they're concerned about the buildings and bird strikes to the proposed new buildings. they're concerned about the storm runoff and they would like the e.i.r. to address more in depth the lake merced master plan along with the ocean coastal impact. any loss and the other point is any loss of seven acres of green space living earth in or more in any development is an environmental concern to the autobahn sew side. they would like the e.i.r. studies to include local and environmental organizations,

biologists, biodiversity agencies and other experts for diversification and e.i.r. studies. i'm submitting a copy of the letter. actually two copies. and then getting from the birds to the people. the development project has pointed out in the e.i.r. reports to date highlight and results from the san francisco environment unneeded pollution and health concerns for bay area residents, specifically citizens of san francisco and daly city. this demands additional e.i.r. studies to be conducted. with traffic and congestion, long-term construction of 20 to 30 years devastation of a major part of san francisco requires involvement -- is >> thank you. >> thank you. and we'll review your letter. >> ok. >> laura traveler, did you have comments on the e.i.r.?

>> the cost of the development involves human beings, people who have lived in parkmerced for over 30 or like myself, 26 years. these developers seem to feel that they can simply say anything and have people write anything about it. the e.i.r. is not addressing the needs of the human beings in parkmerced. this development besides being an historical development as you know so well, houses people of all different cultures, all different ages, living in a beautiful community.

one that does not need to be torn down. the e.i.r. is not addressing -- and i have to say it again and again, the idea that human beings are living in parkmerced. they want to continue to link in this beautiful development just as it is. thank you very much. >> thank you. if you could limit your comments solely to the environmental impact reports, then it would be useful for us. nay additional public comment on the environmental impact report? please stand over here and if anyone downstairs has any desire to speak to the environmental impact report, i would suggest they come up at this time. that's great. thank you, bernie. >> i'm peter anderson. architect in san francisco and faculty member of the california

college of arts and architecture. i want to speak in favor of approving the e.i.r. statement. i reviewed it. i think it is very thorough in its coverage of the issues. the issue of whether it needs to be preserved from a historical point of view and someone who frequently speaks in favor of preserving significant, important architectural heritage items, in this case none of the individual buildings are important or preserved to the overall planning. it's not the best example of this in the country anyway. it's a much higher and better use for the property to develop it. i think the development plans very well address the environment sensitivity issues and it's a much more resource -- once it is completed in the higher density, it will be much more resource-efficient and in harmony with the goals and aims of the city. i feel strongly it should be preserved and the new

environmental stage. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is ethyl. i do not live in parkmerced but know plenty of people who have cobblely. this is an outrage to tell people and children their homes are going to be taken away from them. and where in the world do you expect them to go? there is nowhere. the rents are enormous. everything. think about what you're doing before you throw people out on the street. thank you. >> thank you.

>> start talking and it will come up. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you. as you know with e.i.r.'s there must be resources to in effect offset mitigation. there is suff in the e.i.r.'s presently. we have not looked at the alternative sin neros that we have such as limited equity co-op that would have lessened the impact on the developer and the need to mitigate the necessary development that must occur to offset the investments in seismic safety improvements and conservation. that is not sufficient. i have also put down the effect for your immediate attention, two gas lines with unprovable utility to pass parkmerced. i will suggest the developer and the city to in effect deal with the potential disaster impact.

this has not been done. in addition, there is -- i would suggest performance problems that regard the developer regard, the development, the agreements that exist between -- or those between the city and developer are not sufficient without a performance bond. if you can find them to offset your risk. there's also an area wide impact which is insufficiently developed. the impact area extend beyond the owners' property. and to the university. e.i.r.'s do have impact statewide laws, in infect it says the university must participate. they are not part of that development. also unproven in terms of the e.i.r. assessment is whether the so-called public offsets are sufficient to pay for these

offsets. for that i suggest the development include an autonomous redevelopment area that would underpin some of these offsets in terms of capital retrieval. we have received no comments back from the developer. this is all really an attempt to help both the developer and the residents and we don't see that neutrality here. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> by the way, we have the submission for you. >> great. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the parkmerced action coalition and i'm here to ask you to please not certify the e.r.i. -- e.r.i.r. and please do not certify the development agreement and please do not

certify the rezoning. i feel that this is completely wrong and not proper to do that to us. we don't want to feel like like the planning commission is going to do the same thing they did in the fillmore district when they ramrodded everyone out of there. my family was put out of there. this will be the third time that i'm redeveloped -- >> ma'am, if you could live your comments to the environmental impact report. >> yes, that is part of it. absolutely. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. my name is gail and i have been a resident here in san francisco for 19 years. i'm trained as an architect and right now raising my family here in the city. my husband has a small business here and i'm speaking out in support of the plans and for the approval of the e.i.r. for the parkmerced area. it is far reaching in goals and especially to the degree that it

is a sustainable version of a 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 infrastructure to separate the storm water so it has a chance to recharge our own water table. i think that's significant and it's an example setting for the rest of the city. and most importantly from my own personal perspective, it's a long-range plan that slowly over time creates more useable, open space. my own children have been growing up using park and playgrounds. and having more open space available to the public domain is an important part of building the social infrastructure of our city and making for viable communities. we don't live in suburbs where our kids play in isolation and playgrounds. they play with other kids and it's families and meeting other families that make for a viable city environment. for all of these reasons, i'm investing my children's upbringing, foundations of their very own future in this city and i urge this commission to invest in the future of the city by approving this plan.

thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is steve zeltser. i'm with the united public workers for action and peace and freedom party. first of all, i want to ask the planning commission what is happening on the attack on planners who have been harassed out of their jobs in san francisco? >> i'm sorry if you can limit your comment to the environmental impact report. >> this is the environmental impact. planners have been kicked out -- >> is that the environmental impact sflort >> yes, it has to do with impact. what is the impact on working class families in san francisco? has this documented the working class families who can't live in san francisco anymore, the working people, trade unions, hotel workers and teachers who will be kicked out of their homes? that's part of the environmental impact. >> you don't believe that the environmental impact adequately relates to that. >> this is not defending these people and say they should have their homes and keep their homes. the environmental impact statement represents the developers. that's what the environmental impact statement represents. and, frankly, the planning

commission should be elected to represent the community of san francisco, and not political hacks, not political hacks and developer interest who appoint you. that's what the planning commission should represent. and i want to say further about the question of where this development was taking place in san francisco, the environmental impact of the students of san francisco, the san francisco state university is spending millions of dollars buying out property not for working class students and at the same time they're attacking the students of san francisco state, working class students who can't afford the fees. this is an environmental impact about the development of this space for the people of san francisco. this should be a working class university and students should be able to go here. lastly i want to say as far as the environmental impact, their cutting off duty drivers today, cutting transportation workers and you say you don't have enough money. that's what you have to have a partnership with the developers. i say that's the wrong approach. why don't we start having a

development like this in pacific heights? why don't we have it there in pacific heights? you know why, the billionaires who are going to develop all of this live in pacific heights and they would oppose it. thank you. >> thank you. >> and you don't know any of us so you make a lot of assumptions. >> good afternoon. i'm byron kutz, small business own here and raise my family in the city. in terms of the environmental report, i want to stand here in support of it. i think it's comprehensive in the assessment of what this development represents. i think it goes to some of the key issues which is transit-based community. i think that's important. i think it's consistent with the citywide mandate. it also represents a diversity in housing, which was particularly important for this neighborhood. and another note on the historic aspect of the buildings, i want to say relative to what i was saying earlier, these current

buildings are designed for an automobile culture. and they're based around land use and water use that's inconsistent with what the city is trying to move forward with. so i believe that to reenvision this area in terms of transit and in terms of diversity, really brings the city forward into a future and into kind of more vital and more sustainable future. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david mechanical. i'm the director of research and planning here in the neighborhood where i have been for 25 years. i'm here to fully support the certification of the final e.i.r. for the parkmerced plan. in reviewing the e.i.r., i found the nall sis thorough and complete.

the plan provides a carefully considered model for creating a vibrant, sustainable neighborhood. it's a well conceived urban infield project in my opinion, accompanied by planned street scape design that's will create an active public realm and terrific neighborhood streets that are consistent with the city's better street plans. i do, however, believe the e.i.r. is very conservative in its analysis of parkmerced as a historic resource since none of the buildings on the site are individually significant for their architecture. although the 1940's era planning and landscape ideas that represents are perhaps romantic or nostalgic, i don't believe the city should preserve and promote outmoated planning ideals. it's incredibly important for san francisco to keep making progress on adding diverse housing types within city limits. the amount of housing proposed and its carefully deployed density is appropriate and

necessary to support a successful trans-oriented development. the plan provides a nice ray of housing types to support a diverse population of current and future residents including young professionals, families, seniors and students. i urge the commission to recommend certification of the e.i.r. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is william luddy. i'm a resident and small business owner in san francisco. also an architect specializing in sustainable design and historic preservation projects. i've reviewed the e.i.r., find it to be very thorough and in fact, as some of the other speakers have mentioned, somewhat conservative with regard to its evaluation of historic resources of this project. and i believe -- i believe there's a really 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 agents. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is kristin and i'm representing the national trust historic preservation. the national trust is concerned the impact resulting from the parkmerced project are not receiving enough consideration in the environmental and plan regular view processes. we discussed these concerns in a letter to the commission dated january 28th and mr. aaron goodman has given you a copy of

that. it's signed by six local and regional state and national preservation organizations. at the root of our concern is the fact parkmerced without question a architecture and design resource of national significance. one of only four remaining examples of large scale, preand post world war ii residential developments in the country and one of the largest works completed by celebrated landscape architect thomas church. our colleagues at the culture landscape foundation who are national experts in the study of design landscape and help to institute the parks and services national landscape culture program believe parkmerced could indeed qualify for national historic lan mark status. the highest recognition afforded to historic resources in our country. the original vision for parkmerced may be underappreciated in san francisco today but the hiss tore ig significance of the property and its place in the national canyons and urban residential design is