i totally opposed to this project. the only acceptable project is a no project alternatives. this is a beautiful and quiet place for us to enjoy. the draft development agreement between the city and the developer is fundamentally flawed and is ignoring an essential component. our opinion matters. an order for this to be approved with any semblance of legality, the majority of the 3000 should have been consulted. this is not the case. the environmental review process drafting this should be sending letters to every resident informing them of this every

time there is a meeting scheduled by the planning commission. in each meeting, the city's attorney's office is assessing the planning commission as the legal counsel. the developer is also -- by legal counsel. only those tenants are coming to these without compensation. i'm asking the attorney on this, how do you think that the undeniable fact and the legality will look in any court of law. montano that your actions will have a profound negative impact. i will not sit and watch as you

destroyed my home and pretend i don't care. the least i can do is to say that this is ethically wrong. you are treating us like we don't exist or matter. do not certify this project. take the time you need to talk to the thousands of tenants. you should use in good conscience. belau little children to continue to play and safety. >> thank you.

>> good evening, i am here to raise my voice in protest of the expansion plan for the so- called position plan. also, i'm so happy to know that the commissioners will be out on the property on december 9th. then that you will be able to see the 1538 town houses that are scheduled to be torn down. you will be able to see how each one of those townhouses has

carports. you'll be able to see the existing underground carports matter their. if you to visit and come to the meeting at one of the town houses, you will be able to see how elegant they are and how we cannot want our homes destroyed. this developer is ambitious and greedy and this would destroy the 16-acre site that constitutes part merced. this would destroy apartments. there are 11 of them now. this would teardown the 1530 townhomes. what the developers failed to understand is that in every one of these buildings, whether this is a tower or a town home, our human being who call this their home. i am 72 years old and i've been

in one of the towers since 1986. my mother came in 1974 and she referred to the beautiful city of parker said as i am. the developers talk about replacing town homes and apartments but cannot talk about the increased density of the self proposed project. their plants can be done now without destroying an entire community. the transportation program, the one with the three shuttles, the one with bicycle sharing, that can all be done now. you don't have to tear down all of these townhomes to do this. the phrase that is used is that this is in ottawa center design from the past.

there descriptor covers the true one which should be the manhattan is asian of parker said. greedy maniacal developers should not destroy this beautiful city. thank you. >> thank you. >> it has been a tough night waiting for this. i am very happy to be here to talk to you about park merced. my family has lived there since 1966. we were there before pro ever got developed.

as it stands now, the organization is an organization that you have to pay dues in order to be a member us. they have about 10 or 15 members. the majority of the people live in park merced are not members and do not share their ideas. they are against the teardown of their homes. yes, they are renters. they are little people but they felt like they had homes. these beautiful town homes make you feel like you have a home, like real people. yes, we are under the gun all of the time and under the auspices of a landlord who is going to tell us if we will be able to lay our heads down and go to sleep and there is nothing that

we are allowed to keep. they have stripped my family of their garden twice. they say that they're going to replant and make it all beautiful and green and try to keep a garden there. that is really ridiculous to think this. what is this. because we are renters, we cannot live like a real family in a single-family home? we cannot feel like we have a little grudge or feel like we have a place to live? well, no, we are the little people but we certainly make san francisco fabulous. we are always pain. weak pay to get on the buses, we

are pain to go shop and to do all of those things. then we will just have to pay more because when the new owners come in, that means that they can put in another passed through even though we have come in a long time ago and we are under rent control, they will try to get us up to $4,000 a month. they will figure out how to pass these on. maybe it is truth that the city has no risk, that is because they will change this to the renter. they will make sure that the renter will pay everything back with interest. >> thank you. >> i have lived in park merced since 1953. there is no stand on the city's

knows because the renters will bear it all. i feel before you come out on december 9th and you should look in the backyards and walk around the property and see the pictures do not do this justice. the backyard looks gorgeous. we should have counseling on our rights. not that we are going to give you a washer and dryer but the bones on what the development agreement is. we should have counseling said that we can approach you on december 9th with some intelligent points. i want to make a couple of points. because this will be done over a long time and future portions may in fact not be developed, this does not address people that will have to go for 30 years and put up with all these

buildings. we have not been offered any buyouts. i did not see this in the contract. 4.4 0.3, the pages are all changed. if people accept these 1500 units and to know that they are entitled to rent control. those who want to stay until demolition will lose their homes. i don't think that this is right. they offered to pay moving fees for some seniors but they will not help to box and pack up. seniors should be allowed to stay in their homes upon notification of demolition, not upon permit to demolish. what is between a permit to demolish and demolition? an 80-year-old having to pack up the apartment, they should be allowed to do this as long as

possible. our organization is in revolt. the board of directors is trying to get the president ad out. we're planning to put the general manager of park merced and the head of residential relations. so they are tenants, they do not represent us. they are being paid by park merced. our president will not allow tenants issues to be heard. the board of directors has tried to shut us down and have an organization that represent the tenants. >> thank you.

i have been a tenant for 20 years. many other people that i know are very excited about this project as an environmentalist, this is exactly what i want to see. i want to see the transit and the bike paths and walking paths and the water and the energy. i am excited about this project. i know that there are down sides. living in a construction zone will be difficult. i and stand the challenges of moving. i think the rhetoric of having your home destroyed is a little bit at odds. there will be new beautiful units with washers and dryers and maybe that is not mean that much to some people but this is a pretty good compensation for losing an apartment that is not holding up so well over time. also, the truth is as an

environmental activist, i have to say that there is a done side to the things that we do if that are better for the environment. this is not as easy to compost and recycle and put everything and the right place and put it in the right beens. this is not your -- easy to plan trips and take pikes and walking as opposed to just getting in your car and going away. i have to pay so much more attention. it is not comfortable are always easy. this is a huge benefit for our society to live more sustainable. i just want to let you know that i fully support to this and a lot of other people do as well.

>> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am representing the san francisco green party and the group, our city. i want to turn on its head the testimony you just heard about environmental issues. i chair the sustainability working group of the san francisco green party. i want to focus on global greenhouse emissions. how this ends up after it is pulled out in relation to its admissions person is one thing. the net release of global warming gases from this is a completely different picture and it was not a picture that was painted for us this evening. when you cut down trees, when you destroy a building and then build another one, when you do all of those things, get big releases of co2 because you have

new materials, diesel equipment which has huge releases that are building these as you go on. releases from trees and turf and the soil but starts releasing a lot of greenhouse gases. this needs to be a completely different in division meant. this needs to happen in slow stages. we are already on the verge of hitting tipping points that will send us into crisis with the global warming situation. in the 30-year life of this project, what we need from staff and the developer is a real analysis of what the net increases will be, especially with 5000 more units and

demolishing those that could be retrofitted instead and rebuilding them and one to one parking. we will see increased co2 emissions. the climate cannot handle one to one. this needs to be 25% and that means much more robust transit in this production. so, this must be a smaller phased and true to the neighbors you're hearing from and the residents that would like to retain their beautiful community and we get a net analysis of what the releases will be. one note on water, similar water stuff sounds interesting one thing that we need to start putting an even though this is more expensive, we need to start separating sewage wastes just like trash and we need to start installing composting toilet and similar types of

torrance and any new units that are billed. also, for rent control. the final analysis points to the fact that we need to not demolish any of the rent- controlled units, we need to retrofit them as well. >> is there additional public comment? >> i represent the affordable housing alliance. i think that there is substantial risk that the promise that is being made that these newly made units will be under rent control not be previously capped.

there's a prohibition of establishing rent-controlled except under very limited circumstances. i want to talk about the problems with the ellis act which was decided by the court of appeals in june. in that case, the owner of the property entered into agreement and promised to operate certain units as rent-controlled units. however, some time later, they or their successor decided that they no longer wish to do that and when they stopped doing that, litigation resulted and we went to the california court of appeals and the court of appeals look at that situation and said, they can remove these units right now, these rights are not able to be waived. there is an attempt to wave them that the california court of appeals said that they cannot be waived. the also said that they would not even look at the agreement

that was being litigated. this was not relevant to the court of appeals. what agreement was made between the owner of the property and anyone else but continues to have a rent-controlled unit? the california league of cities road a brief asking the california supreme court here to please review this case to deal with the uncertainty that was created. the reference the fact that it was risky and unclear whether a development agreement in the context of this case would be effective in handling these kinds of situations and they specifically mentioned this development as something that has uncertainty. i think that there is a lot riskier. this might not be with the city of certainly with the people that live there now. thank you. >> thank you >> good evening.

i promise not to talk about baseball. i am here on behalf of st. stephen's perish. this is located at 473 eucalyptus. this is the largest community that is contiguous to parker said. about three years ago when we learned of the plans to expand, we decided that we were going to form a committee to review this. we are fortunate in that we have land use attorneys and a gentle man who is a lead environmental assessor. we have small builders and

developers. we have a fairly well versed community that has had several meetings separate from the park merced people we have had the elements come and go, development teams and our neighborhood has unable to ferret out who we think is a legitimate developer and who will follow through and who we do not. we were a large part of the opposition before. these people are all members of our community. on what we really got out of this to reduce this down to my three minutes timeframe is that this project promises infrastructure improvements and traffic safety that we don't see happening without this project. 19th avenue is by far one of the

most dangerous corridors. our kids go up and down this all the time. you have the ymca, san francisco state. and i don't see this coming from the state. what we do see is a developer who was willing to hold the rental units and not turn them over. the basel agreement might be a little bit more enforceable than the last gentlemen intimated. our attorneys seem to believe that this is a document that can be enforced. the parker said group has done many meetings. they brought them in specifically for us. we really feel that if this project is not go forward, aside from missing a new and final

neighborhood, we will not have safe streets. even with your five funding, this is a busy area. at least we have an opportunity to have safer streets. we will be bringing many more people at the meetings go on. we have about 400 people that like to talk. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you and express my support for the new park merced and the long-range vision. i had been a resident since 1997. the reason i support the long- range plan is the fact that the owners have gone the extra mile to involve our residential community as well as the neighbors with over 100 meetings.

i attended a majority of the meetings which have been held specifically for the residents. they have listened to our concerns and suggestions and have addressed issues and challenges and have made adjustments to the master plan based on our template. after investing in our community, they have improved the safety and quality of life in our homes. they have positive vision of what it means to be community. most impressive besides the obvious sustainable mixture of the new housing and moving into more affordable housing is the pledge to maintain the rent controls for current residents even if they are relocated to do to the new housing. this is a safe, clean, more energy-efficient community today than the one i moved into in 1997 and it will be even better after implementation of the new plan.

i urge the board to listen to what the owners are promising for the new park merced and to hold them to those promises which will be the model of 21st century urban sustainability. an innovative committee that showed cases what can be in san francisco and become a deacon of irresponsible neighborhood for the world. i've been pleased with the progress they have made and the time they have been in charge and i look forward to a better part in the future. i believe that you will be to end will be able to say some of the best new communities are killed in san francisco. thank you. >> thankp built in san francisco. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, president miguel, commissioners. i am a member of st. stephen's parish.

i have two kids across the street and take the school bus home. i'm also an engineer, and i have watched the construction industry on ravel overbuilt -- unravel over the last few years, so i'm excited to see a developer who is stepping forward with 56 new homes. that means a lot, maybe not to the planning commission, but it means a lot to union and nonunion carpenters and laborers and engineers. we don't have a lot of good news happening right now. this is exciting for me, and i would kind of like to see some commissioner step up and see if we could increase the density. the knee-jerk reaction is to find a way to reduce the

density. it seems like the answer, the green party gentleman earlier was suggesting we do very little or retrofit with the existing, but density is the answer. density is the greenway to live. manhattan is the greatest way to live, and we all live in a tower and everything is centralized and there is large space between the towers. that is actually a greenway to live, greener than 25-foot high house is, as we were talking about earlier. it was almost like we were trying to talk about the project as if it should be in the context of sunset. those are endless two-story houses, that is not the green

way to live. i would challenge some commissioner to say maybe we could increase the density. commissioner moore was talking about the towers and how far they are from transit. a it is hard to get the train over there, but it is right where the of m train terminates. that is a positive thing, and i would like to hear somebody say some positive comments than just developers putting up a huge amount and intend to invest another billion dollars, when what i see in my business is nobody else putting money up, no banks putting money up. i think the developer should be applauded for their confidence in the city, and i would like to hear somebody perhaps thankful for that. thank you. president miguel: thank you.