>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products. >> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that

you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.

to the planning code sessions. we can provide you with references and there are copies for the public. we would provide zoinning regulations regarding generalized building heights. this is a complex project.

this is protecting the public interest. all of the developers in the city. we will consider the draft development agreement which was submitted to you today. this is part of the development agreement with the other affordable housing provisions. this is with the transportation and the water, maintenance obligations, and recovery for all the city projects relate to the implementation the full discussion -- and a full discussion as set for the commission hearing. as for the amendments set for

today, he will not be asked to take any action on the development agreement before certifying the impact report. assuming you will initiate a day, on no. 18, you'll have the totality of the project to implement the peace is for your consideration. the amendment to the planning code and the development agreement. all the subjects -- there will be taken before the board of supervisors. i would like to remind you that the legislation is only for the initiation. this is more or less and housekeeping step to begin the public notice and processed annual consider these announcements at a future hearing. and it would receive notice of a hearing today. they'll begin noticing process so that the commission can take action. approval of this does not lead to the past judgments behind the commission for the future public

hearing which is stated in the draft resolution following certification. and the planning department's staff says that you should adopt the draft resolution, for the planning code and the general plan. the planning department to provide notice for a public hearing on these items before november 18. this concludes my presentation and we're happy to answer any questions. >> i assume public, this first? >> i like to reiterate what he was saying, for the benefit of the public, and those hearing on television. the only thing before the commission at this time is a public hearing, to provide notice for the public hearing. this is not the public hearing.

we are not considering the ordinance, the amendment, or the project. all that we are considering is whether or not we will instruct the department to initiate this, and that will have all the notices that are required by the code. and so, if people will speak to the initiation, and not to the project, and not to the changes, those would be before us at a separate time. there will be a two minute time limit. cholin, heidikayama, steve heiden. >> i will appeal to the initiation because this will introduce a drag and this will

create problems for the subject of this hearing. >> i cannot hear you. can you say when you have said? >> this is usually too loud. we should get substance. the seismic retrofit of the high rise must be completed. but the financing of these projects is a problematic issue that must be brought to the floor of before we initiate a public hearing. for the following reasons. we have previously submitted to the -- to san francisco, the financing that would engage in a limited equity cooperative, coupled with the redevelopment fraud agency that would substantially lower the cost of the project.

this would require far less impact under social and public concerns regarding this project. we need to have this evidence ahead of time before we need to consider the kind of zoning that is being brought before you. given the alternatives for the financing, not that these are in accord with public responsibility, regarding this commission, and the health of office and what this will require. this is un comprehensible -- incomprehensible that we will engage in this process that provides equity, for the unreasonable process that would remove the public good and social need. i am not certain that i am

completely clear on this. i would recommend your questions. when the public becomes a partner, for the equity systems, it becomes liable, legally and morally. [reading names] >> i am a representative of the neighborhood association. and we actually support this project but we do have concerns regarding the size and scope of the project related to the overall infrastructure. with water and electricity, and that sort of thing. we want mitigation and we are

opposed to any changes to the planning and the code. we do not feel that the initiation should go through the public -- that this has been approved. it does not make sense to us that something should go ahead without knowing the environmental issues have been approved and resolved for this process. >> thank you. steve? >> i am with the travel -- triangle neighborhood association. the map for the parks that were drawn up were drawn at a time when traffic on 19th avenue was not a problem. now you are asking to increase the density threefold, from 3200 to about 89 units. and the corridor shows the level

of service -- this is that most of the intersections and will become increasingly more congested. the weekday morning intersection is operating at unacceptable levels of service with an increase in the intersections to 11. the intersection is operating at an unacceptable level and would increase in the 11 intersections to the 19 intersections. and when they are not in session, this could affect possibly seven intersections. this is not take into account the other infrastructure issues, warranting not going ahead with the current high and trembled issue. -- with the current issue. this compromise is what is needed to move this forward.

this is in the best interest of all the people of san francisco. this has assets totaling $41.7 billion. this affects the reasonable height and bulk limits, and that is too much for this area. >> [reading names] >> i am a member of the merced triangle association. several months ago i attended a meeting of the board of supervisors committee meeting and i was not noticed about this meeting regarding to this. the same thing happened on this meeting. i found out about this yesterday, graciously, to the people accept -- through the people at park merced.

i asked to be notified on any meeting, whenever this will be. i hope that in the future, you can extend me that courtesy. i represent an entire neighborhood association. i will now begin my comments. this looks to be a very nice development in the county of san francisco. and this is going to be if this is scaled down. the reasons that they want to change this to make it a special use district, with the extra towers is because they want to turn 3221 units into 8900 units. 20% of the units will be three- bedrooms, and 40 percent will be two-bedrooms, and 40% will be having one bedroom. this is 16,000 bedrooms. two people for each bedroom means 42,000 people.

this is about 4.1% of the current population of san francisco. all of this on 160 acres of land, not including the streets. this is more than the projected population for hunter's ppoint. -- hunter's point. we will look at an infrastructure that cannot support a cut -- a project of this size. the impact would be significant and unavoidable. scaling back the project, this will not allow the drastic changes that would lessen the impact. it is time for serious dialogue between the developers, with the stakeholders in the city to scale back the size and scope. the first applies with the planning department and the commission. as far as presenting this, i

agree. i should -- until this is considered high -- this will not move forward. -- until this is considered i do not think this should move forward. >> i am laura traveller and i have been living here since 1996. i find it incredible that a developer would come here today and that they would say that they want for this to be a beginning for me. this is to inform people about this development. and we have some new things for you. we do not want for you to do anything today. i find that this is incredible. this is simply because this development as it stands right now is absolutely insane, to

think that he would have a developer stand up and say that they really want to tear down people's homes, their way of rything that has to do with their living. we're talking about a lack of any rent control guaranteeing comparable housing at the current rent-controlled rate. we're talking about demolition and building in environmental repercussions including noise and toxic pollution as well as massive increases in traffic. we're talking about a massive population increase which the speaker before me just alluded to. we're talking about towers constructed in a major fault zone. we're talking about destruction of animal and plant habitat. here we have developers who do

not even have the courtesy to sit down with the ten acts first and talk to them. we have the november 18 e.i.r. approval and i certainly hope that this commission will not approve such a development and such a complete disregard to human beings and their needs. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> hi, my name is john and i own the parkmerced shopping center in parkmerced. i think the project is doable, but as a small owner of a small shopping center that has been there for 60 years, my certain is that we're able to co-exist

and that we are able to survive with parkmerced. i think they're making the effort, but i just want to make sure that they include us with their plans. thank you. president miguel: thank you. aaron goodman, dennis norgton -- >> my name is dennis norrington, i'm the longest tenant in parkmerced. i have addressed the planning commission before. i lived in parkmerced for 64 years, 53 at my current address. i want to speak today to two points that i think are important and should be included in the plan which are currently not part of it. first of all, is that the rights of the tenants who will be displaced by this plan, their right under rent control will not be protected unless a

special written document is included in the plan. under the ellis act, this has to be done. i have discussed this with people down at the rent control and stabilization board and they are very adamant about this that without a special document protecting the rights of the tenants who will be displaced protecting the rights under rent control, they will lose those rights. and even if they are offered new units by parkmerced, it will be in a vastly higher rent which few of the displaced tenants would be able to afford. secondly, i want to speak to the issue of seismic problems. there is a whole section in the report that has been prepared pages b.n. 1 to b.n. 9. under this document, it details the vulnerability of parkmerced to our earthquake shaking, the tendencies of liquidfication of

the soils and many other aspects. there is a seismic hazards mapping act that would require a geotechnical investigation and consideration of retrofitting before any plan goes forward. as far as i understand, this is not present in the planet. so these are the two points i'm making, tenants rights protection under rent control and seismic retrofit qualifications, thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> this is my statement, commissioners, this evening, on initiation, two documents for your review. parkmerced is a visible site seen from many views throughout the city. parkmerced's towers break the sky plane repeatedly and visual within and outs the adjacent neighborhoods. there is no need to protect the

sky plane has has been stated by the architect and developer. there are numerous views which already challenge this motion. the master plan project also jointly impacts visually and physically on portions of pars's original outline of the historic neighborhood district. the current work on the open space directly impacts open space that was made available for the residents initially on parkmerced's development due to initial density of the plan development and the need for a community center. they effect transit, traffic, and housing is a key indicator of visual impact of the proposed heightened density issues both projects will have on the existing residents adjacent to parkmerced. parkmerced's streets are enjoyed by many who stroll along the landscape and sidewalk areas daily for exercise and quiet enjoyment of the community shared and open landscape design. it is without question of national instance and its layout, urban planning and

landscape design by an architect. what is missing from meeting and hearings and the presentations is a discussion about the report and the interior landscape courtyards. in a memo submitted 209 planning department on may 5 on behalf of the developer, it was noted as a solution to the conundrum that seems to be recurring about whether the court yards are public or private in both the existing and proposed plans. i suggest you state that we label the areas simply court yards in the existing and proposed dramas. these court yards are just as exquisitely designed as st. francis woods and represent shared communal areas, hardscape and softscape elements that to date have been inappropriately eliminated from the calculations by the e.i.r.

that has been submitted to date. there is no factual review of the soundness of the existing units or the seismic units of the towers or the transit that would solve the transit problems out will which is dealing with the intersections. without those types of solutions and effort to really address these issues, we are inadvertently and directly affecting low and middle of course renters in the city and county of san francisco and a lot of people that are students, disabled seniors and families. here are a couple of images of parkmerced taken recently. i don't know if you have the overhead on or maybe not. there you go. i'll show you some of the images of parkmerced as an open space. it far exceeds any images that

being shown by the actual developer or the architect. the original architect stated initially his intent to do the towers. he thought the towers were the best things to deal with initially. he should have stuck to his first instinct. that is the solution that would most address some of the problems we have currently. you can have preservation incentives and still retain and provide some infill in the existing units. by taking out some of the parking area or parking structures onsite. there are alternatives that have been eliminated by the planning department that should have been addressed and have not been to date in the planning department documents that have been submitted to you or will be submitted to you. initiation should not occur currently. please do not consider those amendments or initiations. president miguel: thank you.