yet, have not been willing to compromise on the number of units, the number of bedrooms, and thus the skies and scope of the projects. as a strong neighborhood association located directly across from park merced and brotherhood way, we hope to eventually reach a mutual compromise with respect to the size and scope, prior to any resolutions passed by the board of supervisors and any committees. just to note, this project will be three to four times denser than the hundred -- denser than the hunters point project just passed. eye ron click, -- ironically, the planning department did not use the miller sed project in its draft d.i.r. it did not include neighborhoods

to the east including the proposal of the 28 units at 1 capital which came before your committee last week. in conclusion, i just want to state that we are supportive of a project that would be scaled down in size. we thri the scope and size of the project currently is not good for the neighborhood. i have the miller sed association -- i have the merced association news and articles. i would like to leave that with you. chair maxwell: ok. thank you. sara? >> i live at park merced. i live in a carden apartment. i have -- i live in a garden apartment. i have been there six years. i am very much in favor of their vision plan. i see that park merced really needs to move into the future. i am concerned about the environmental issues that we're

probably going to be facing, if not even now, and that's water conservation, energy use, and i'm really serious about the -- i'm real enenthused about the organic farm, and i would be really enenthused about having one of those energy efficiency apartments, because the one i have now, i have to call them in about leaking roof, there are hot water issues that don't really neat my needs, and as far as installation, it is not very good. in fact, it is nonexistant. there is quite a few issues with that property if i had owned it, it would probably be a lot of money for me to fix. i would probably never have bought it. so park merced has to move into the future. we all have to move into the future. the visions is doing that.

i am looking forward to that. i am enjoying living there with the thought of this. thank you very much. >> jim cook. laura. >> good afternoon. thank you for then't opportunity to come here and speak in support of the long-range vision of the park merced community. i have been a resident of park merced since moving. and i am a member of the sustainability community. i have attended the meetings put on by the planners of the park merced community and i have zint consistently listened to all the comminets and surrounding neighborhoods and organizations. so the surprise of myself as well as residents, the new park merced management has acted on our suggestions. i atend aid first community event in march of 2006.

it was put on by the ownership and the planners of the new park merced. it was a fee day, which was exciting for those of us who would like to go skiing, and they brought in snow and some other things to the benefit of people who actually live at park merced. to me, it gave me an idea, that this was going to be a different organization from the prior ownership that had not made many changes or improvements over the years. from the beginning, they offered various community oriented events, including farmer's market. they offered us opportunities as residents to clean the neighborhood, through neighborhood project. and management has made a significant difference in our community. the vision called for a smart new community, protection of residents in the rent-controlled housing, and to make this the

model of sustainability. the new owners have accomplished what they promised, living in a tower apartment. we have a new fitness center, office lobby. the building is a safer, cleaner, greener more efficient home than i moved into in 1997 under the then owner leona helmsly. they have acted on these to create a better eek owe responsibility. what are they expected? approved transportation, a shuttle to bart, better transit, improved transit circulation in and around our community. retail shopping, coffee shops, restaurants. playgrounds. we want sustainable sveltement. open spaces, recreational facilities, efficient use of water and energy t -- energy.

solar power. i would suggest that the board listen to the plans for the new park merced community which will be a beacon of innovation in our world. [bell] thank you. chair maxwell: jacqueline and john wenot. fill yips and then saunders. >> good afternoon, supervisor maxwell. i'm here to raise my voice in protest of the park merced

expansion plan, so-called vision plan. this very weller's greedy plan would destroy the 16-acre site that now constitutes park merced. it would destroy 1,683 rental apartments teering down those apartments to make smaller ones. in the massive residential towers. then they would tear down apartments in what are now townhouse yesms in every one of those buildings are human beings who call their residences their home. someone caucus -- someone talked about children not being there in park merced. it is too expensive. someone talked about tier 1, and

is tier 1 the 30-year plan or does tear 1 through 5 constitute 35 years? that was very unclear. i am 75 years old, and i have been in my apartment at home since 1986. my mother game in 1974. she referred to the beautiful city of park merced as -- i must carry on. sean eldrand has left the tenants high and dry. his words are empty and his acks are worse. showing that he is 100% in the hands of the developers. we elected you. chair maxwell: excuse me. if you could keep your comments general. >> the developers talk about

replacing town homes and apartments, but they do not talk about the increased density of the proposed project. their plan for bringing in muni could be done now without destroying an entire community. the phrase the developers use to describe park merced is that it is an auto sen trick -- autocentric design from the past. their description covers the new one, which should be the manhattanization of park merced. greedy developers should not destroy this beautiful city of zion. thank you. chair maxwell: thank you, and next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jacqueline. when the park merced project was first introduced was of great concern what would become of the

present retail space of park merced and the small business owners that very recently opened their doors in the park merced community. oufer, the present owners of park merced have shown extreme amount of support and cooperation to keep the retail space co-existent within the project. the small business owners are greatly aappreciative of all the concerns and attention that have been displayed by the park merced ownership. we look forward to the changes that will be made in the community and are exsided to be part of the new and improved park merced. the park rerstedsed project will be a positive step forward into the future for san francisco and its residents. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. any name is john guina.

i'm the owner of the retail center. we just recently retenanted the center, and we had concerns about the future of the retail center. our center is below grade off 19th avenue, but we have been assured by park merced ownership that they are going to work with us, that they are going to add a -- an entrance from 19th avenue to help the center survive from a massive center. with that and the signs of direction to our center, we support them because they are also in return supporting us. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is mary beth, and i'm speaking on behalf of s.p.u.r. s.p.u.r. has reviewed the project. i am a co-chair. with each generation they have responded to our comments. because we reviewed it a couple times and our project review committee considered it a favorable project, we referred it to the organization as a whole. the endorsement committee is made up of committee chairs of several of our different committees within s.p.u.r., and we have reviewed the projects according to their land use, their public relevant many interface, building design, and environmental affect. in all cases, we were seeking a combination of design that will ensure positive contribution of each project to a safe, visually appealing, and vibrant urban

setting for the people that live and work in san francisco. as we reviewed the project, we were very happy to see the project sponsor's commitment to residential community and their policy toward rent control and affordable units. we agreed with the plans and he we are impressed with the eelaborate plans for an environmently sustainable community. we are impressed with efforts that project sponsors have made to engage the m.t.a. as it relates to moving the muni lines into a safer and more sustainable position within the site. in sort, we are pleased to endorse this complex and significant community plans, and i sfr cop yiies of our endorsement letters here for you. >> thank you.

chair maxwell: kathy lents,, kevin drew. >> del are 200 more residents there. in mitch omemberg's letter, he stadse 1,500 rent control apartments will be destroyed. no matter what the developer's promise, they cannot under the costa-hawkins act -- i'm sorry, i can't read so quickly, promise us rent-controlled apartments. i studied the 2,000-page e.i.r.

which was a task in itself. the thing the e.r. says in itself, the best alternative for the environment is no development. as one of the speakers says, many of things are unsustainable and unmitigable, being toxic levels of construction, noise levels are unmitigable. wind and shadow, traffic in spite of all the crecks is still unavoidable and unmitigable. we were never told about 300,000 square feed feet development of commercial space, and we do have a coffee shop, a brand new coffee shop that sells blue bottled coffee. we also say park merced is in financial problems, and the

problems they have repaired have been supervision. winter -- i would like to submit a wrin written statement. we only find out about this meeting on saturday. i feel we should be notified much earlier than we are. it seems to me, the offers developing the -- it seems to me their developing the city seems to me a bribe.

i've lived here 57 years. i love this place. i think it is in relation to the environment. [bell] chair maxwell: daniel phillips, kevin drew. if you hear your name, please come on up. >> i want to thank you for allowing me to speak. i endured the helsmsly fascist regime. i endured the carmel contemptuous disdain for

residents at park merced. i was skepped skeptical when he took over and i did not believe the promises he made. he has been a person of his word. we have not only new lobbies, they are not just glitzy, they are brightly lit, they are safer, they have windows into other rooms. we have improved speed elevators. we have done everything that can be done for the safety of these elevators, short of putting in a third elevator, which building code did not permit. every time i have made a suggestion or a request of park merced since the rosania regime took over, it has been met with blower than my expectations.

i have have difficulty opening doors. i suggest that the door to my tower building be played automatic. within two weeks that automatic door was in place. all of the towers have been made wheelchair accessible. many of the towers had stairways. they now all have wheelchair accessible ramps. every time i have heard a promise from park merced, i have seen if kept. i have understood skeptcally -- skeptically at times what they are promoting. i of course have this sentiment at times for san francisco. i am here. i don't want more people in. i believe that's a selfish, selfish attitude, and i have a feeling that many of the people,

if not all who are opposed to this development, are only doing so from selfish reasons. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors, madame chair. i want to speak in support of our department's commitment to park merced and the strong working relationship we developed with them over the past numbers of years and just tell you a couple of those specifics, sort of historical facts. our department worked long and hard at implementing composting prior to the passage of the mandatory ordinance. park merced is a leader in

getting these programs into difficult multi-family settings. they have worked with us and they have continued to work with us since the implementation to see that we get the program right, not just for the individual towers and the garden apartments but for all the individual residents that live there. the other pleas that we have worked closely with them is on the sustainability committee. we have been participating in those meetings for three or four years and found them to be a good place to provide a resource for the development company to understand how sustainability works as we go forward. park merced's support of recycling was important in helping large settings understand it can be done when we approach the mandatory ordinance. i want to give you those little bits of information. we provide as well teams that

work with them. we worked with park merced on a lot of other programs, and we look forward to working closely with them on this project and other projects. chair maxwell: well, your work looks good so far. and we have a long way to go, but this part of it looks good, the suss tannability, the environmental -- the sustainability, the environmental part, it looks good. >> fa you. -- thank you. chair maxwell: any other comments? >> good afternoon. i'm with the affordable housing ordinance. i think one point we need to pay attention to, i have had discussions with the management at park merced and burt polochi,

and it is unfortunate to me we are having the conversation with what is for me mid-conversation with them. we are particularly concerned with what these owners have with the past. i think that is particularly true. i have no reason to doubt that. i think what we have to do here is figure out what's going to happen. landlords come and go, as do tenants. we'll be back with a leona helmsly in 10 years, or maybe not, but if has -- it has to be about the project, not who is in charge. we are talking about demolishing these apartments. we believe they are irreplaceable. we believe they are irreplaceable because they are rent controlled. there is going to be a big problem because of the costas

-hawkins act and another act. both have language and it gets pretty tricky. we believe pretty strongly we will not be able to control the rent of the new units or even assure that they are going to remain rental units. that's not a question about these particular owners. it is about if we demolish them and rebuild them. palmer, they redid the city's inclusion ri housing policy, and the case of sant monica's ability to enforce certain rent restrictions. in its settlement agreement, which is about a month old, makes that very clear. you will not be able to control the rents on the new units, unless you subsidize them with a direct financial contribution. that's the language that the drafters of those pieces of legislation, ellis scompsm

costas-hawkins. you won't be able to assure they remain rental units, also, unless they are subsidized with a direct financial contribution. i don't think we are planning on doing this. the analysis here is complicated. i'm not going to pack it all in to these two minutes. i'm willing to continue the conversations with the management and hear what they have to sayment but i also want to say to them, i have receive veer doubts. given the case law we believe it is uncertain a government code will be capable of over coming these acts. i believe we need to look at the development agreement. that should be part of the i.r. process. here is a copy of the four letters for the four of you that was written on this topic. chair maxwell: we also need to make sure in some way we can do

that. the buildings should not have to fall down, because then they would be gone. so we have to work on making sure that this can happen. >> i think we need to see if there is a way we can maintain them as rent-controlled, eviction controlled units. unless we decide that we don't care about that and the rest of the whole thing is so great, and we want to throw that away. chair maxwell: no, i think that is one of our most important -- that is what we usually do. certainly in the past, that's what we've done, and i don't see that changing. what we're going to work on is how we can do this. >> the city doesn't do very many government code agreements, as i understand it, and the law has gotten worse since we dealt with trinity plaza. chair maxwell: well, we have good people like you who can help us come up with some creative ways of making sure that happens. >> we'll see.

chair maxwell: next speaker, please. thank you. >> i want to reiterate what mitchell said without being too redid you understandant. one way would be an amendment to costa-hawkins. i met with burt he said he would talk with that development about supporting that, and that might be something that developers across the board in san francisco would get behind. we will keep running into this problem where tenants are going to have to oppose new very well ment. -- new development. the promise of rent control is more dubious than it was at that time. we're talking about 1,500 units vs. 300. it is also important to note that without a change in costa

hawkins, we are simply talking about the tenans who move getting rent control until they move on. we are not talking about permanent rent control. this is units that may have rent control for another two years but will eventually be 1,500 units lolvet with rent control, and if you brought a picture of costa-hawkins, we are only losing rent-control units. we cannot add a single new rent control unit in san francisco today because of state law. between democrat missions and evictions and all of that, the number of rental units being lost, the number one loss is in the thousands every year. it is difficult to swallow another 1,500 all at one fell swoop unless we can really address that issue.

i think that moving forward, we have to look at a very severe challenge of how do we ensure that those rent-controlled units will in fact be replaced in a way that's both fool-proof and permanent. it is good that the developers are starting at the sort of trinity model, and that's our starting point these days, but we need to move fwr there. that can't be good enough, especially because of the recent changes and law addressed in costa-hawkins. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. eric burks representing the green party and our city. as written we are opposed to this project. sorry, i left my muzzle at home. just start with transit and parking. one-to-one parking is a