difficulties and dangers. you have a very earthquake prone area. i gave you copies of the map. this area will get hit the worst, you have high density. i have read the stuff that they have been earthquakes, this is very superficial. in any event, you have the map. there is much more available. there is the u.s. to logical survey. >> thank you.

>> tiny them an architect and i have a small -- in the city. i have had a remarkable process that the owners and architects engage din. a number of the small firms in the city have come together to test some of the principles of the plan and in that process, there is a lot of engagement and discussion about the study of how these things work relative to the water patterns, the wind patterns, the solar shading.

these buildings have been placed very specifically in a very impressive way. they have been vetted by a number of people. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am an architectural educator in san francisco. i commented on the hearing and i have looked at documents on a website. the principals in the plant that half urban and natural systems, a variety of housing types, open spaces, neighborhoods that have

a well thought out and this is important for san francisco to keep making progress on adding diversified housing within city limits, housing that is closest to places of employment. housing that is supported by transit and services, housing that is well designed. i think that the park does this and it does this in detail. thank you. >> thank you. >> this project it ignores a lot of issues and we will not have the time to talk about this. but i will put this on the overhead.

the interior courtyards, there are multiple photos. i will show you what it looks like. there is a beautiful landscape. this should all be labeled courtyards. there is no fine grain analysis on what is available. i submitted drawings like this which shows options and alternatives. this book's for adequate development along the eastern side and providing direct transit. anything else is not acceptable. thank you.

>> i am here today for san francisco and planning. these are four very different aspects of the project. this replenishes the lake. we are enthusiastic about the open space plans and we have gotten plenty of active recreational space. also the community gardens and the york and the gardens. we are very interested in a plan that brings transportation- oriented development to the west side of the city and we have

definitely approve the gentrification. this project has been endorsed and we sent you a letter. thank you. >> i have come to you before. every time i come to this meeting, i feel that even though you are appointed by the mayor of san francisco, i feel that you have some responsibility. last time i was at one of these meetings, you spoke to us with such contempt. i see one of the supervisors all close to the developer i am not insinuating that people have you in their pocket of seeing strange because you are appointed officials, you get to

talk to us differently than elected officials. i want you to take a look at fortress investment group. please. i am going to city college and getting back into school. i have a bachelors of arts degree in public relations. thank you. >> a pleasure to speak with you. i made 20-year resident of park merced. i am in support of this plan. i am excited about the plans to

make the small parks and this is a thriving community. i think that it can be even more vibrant, you can have people who are hanging out and socializing. i also wanted to let you know that his plan is a result of many community meetings. we went to many many meetings over the last couple of years and i do feel that the residents had an opportunity to get feedback. not all of this will be reflected but i think a lot of this is in there and this is a result of a lot of work. >> thank you. >> thank you for hearing me. i have been a resident for 16 years. i was against this at first but

i think it is prefer bolted be sustainable. i do not want to lose my garden. i've changed my mind as i heard the plan. i like a lot of things that they were planning to do. i like the fact that they have communication. they are thinking about putting in native plants that attracts native animals and making sustainable buildings and retail for the seniors and four all of us. i am for this and i liked the idea of the garden. this is really important that we start thinking in terms of the future. thank you for hearing me out. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am a resident of park merced. i would like to speak about the development agreement. this contract is missing some essential components to make it legal. this is not include the agreement of the people at parker said in -- park merced. you are entering into a legally binding contract claiming that this would benefit the community. the draft a tenafly's potentially difficult and environmental impacts.

thank you. >> are there additional public comments? >> good evening, commissioners. i will say something about sustainability. i would agree that this needs to be the core. the character of this neighborhood is a very specific neighborhood and it has a very futuristic quality. this will completely wipe that out and change this very rapidly. there needs to be a real time line for the development and we need to make these smaller because there are other parts of the city better downtown closer to transit which are more corporate for this level of density. to keep from demolishing some

much and getting rid of rent control, we need to adopt a plan that keeps much of the existing infrastructure in place and does this much more slowly. >> bernanke. >> if people are only going to get a minute, they should not have to wait hours. of >> good evening. on behalf of the housing action coalition, we are going into our fourth year following this project. i am not speaking for myself but rather for the dozens and dozens of our members that have been following this. we would like to acknowledge the extraordinary length that this project has gone to to solicit input and get feedback on it. not all of this has been accepted but this is

exceptional. finally, as we all well know, there are deep cultural prejudices against increasing heights of density on the west side of san francisco. when an opportunity like this presents itself, it cannot be ignored or taken lightly. i would like to say how deeply the principles and designed features of this project satisfy our endorsement guidelines. thank you. >> is there additional public comment? >> yes, thank you very much. thank you. i wanted to say that there were many things that were presented but not much financial disclosure about what type of grant will be charged. it will be charging for the water, the garbage, the homeowner association.

how will those individuals withstand that? they will not be able to. they will be forced out. this will be very difficult. we did not discuss anything about what the sizes of those new apartments would be or the size of the condominiums. they did not say anything. they might be smaller than what we have now. there is no telling what is in store for us. they have made no effort to show us or tell us. >> is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. is there any additional communication? >> is an 5:30 time certain.

>> no, we have never had time certain. there's no reason to come before 5:30? >> know. >> i want to remind everyone that we will be having another informational hearing at san francisco state university on december 9th at 6:00 p.m.. you can find the specific location on our website. >> the calendar will be out next tuesday. i>> if you are not doing sustainability, then that would conclude --

>> wait, i have a question. at some point, can you write down this question? based on the last testimony, people who are currently running in one of the units that would be removed will then get a new unit at the same price. could we have an analysis of what is included in the current price vs what is included in the new price and what additional costs might be added to that? >> excellent. >> one comment that was made in this will be dealt with more when we take up the environmental impact report but there was comments about the earthquake and the seismic situation, particularly with the existing towers. in 1989, we did relocate some of

the tenants temporarily at least out of one of the towers. i know that it will be all and there but it is important to look at the special reference to those towers that are still existing. >> i would like to approach the issue of saving. it was made clear to us that this is not something that you really want to commit to, and there is a logic in construction sequence. the it would be good to described to the commission in some form even if this is alternative. i would like to have an idea o s well as the physical manifestation. ultimately, we would like to see a time frame by which the commitment to rerouting the light rail is clear as we

reshape the front end of the project. i assume that this will be further away, it is logical to think that would be the last area in which he would undertake construction. this would be good to discuss. this will contribute towards the credibility of the plan including an expression a public commitment because with each phase, each increment in construction sequence, comes a commitment to realize partial amenities and the community gardens or whatever. >> if that concludes commissioner's comments, that concludes this item for tonight. commissioners, you are now on your closing comments. >> is there any general public

comment on the items that are not on the agenda? >> just really quickly on a point that i did raise but not related to what this book about earlier, what i'm getting at is that these people are coming all the way from parker said. if it is 5:30, they need to know that it will not start at 8:30. we need to find some way to put it last or whatever and figure out a way to schedule some things so that these people and spending their whole lives coming in for imminent of a testimony. i know that is not easy but i would encourage you to ask staff to do something so this is not so onerous to these people. >> is there additional general public comment? >> i would like to ask for a residence meeting.

some will be disabled and having to stay until 10:00 at night is not fair. thank you. >> it in following was just said, we are requesting reasonable accommodations so that the elderly and disabled can speak. thank you for your time. >> would also like to invite the various commissioners to come out and look at the existing facility which is actually a very nice area which would be greatly constrained by any of these developments. the park will be destroyed. thank you. >> if there's no additional public comment, public comment is closed and this hearing is adjourned. >> we are returning in memory of

--, we are turning -- we are adjourning in memory of -- supervisor mirkarimi: madame, clerk, and good afternoon. if you do not have any announcements, can you read roll call? commissioner campos: present.

commissioner dufty: present. commissioner avalos: present. commissioner schmeltzer: absent. commissioner mirkarimi: present. commissioner pimentel: present. commissioner mirkarimi: item number two. >> presentation of minutes. seeing none, any public comment? public comment is closed. without approval, some moved. -- so moved.

>> an update of the process. commissioner mirkarimi: mr. campbell, welcome. >> before i get into the next steps, i wanted to highlight those that were not aware that last tuesday, there was a hearing on issues related to cca. nancy miller was there as well as commissioner mirkarimi. the committee was interested in what legislation might be helpful to promote cca in

california. the issues raised were related to some of the challenges you have all heard here, like putting some real teeth into the laws that would -- the law says that pg&e should fully cooperate with cca. there should be some legislative changes to really compel them to cooperate, and what that would mean. we talked about some of the existing rules about benefit fees and the application for energy efficiency. participating customers are creating a subsidy where they

are paying for benefits that accrue to the investor-owned portfolio and their energy supply portfolio. it was a well attended hearing, and the senators were very receptive to what they were hearing. a ton of she wants to add to that now or later -- i do not know if she wants to add to that now or later. commissioner mirkarimi: please. maybe we'll pepper this in, but i of appreciated your comments. from the portion that i missed of your first panel discussion, i thought it was very useful to have san francisco and other

jurisdictions together were able to illustrate the painful experience that we have gone through, sometimes we think we are alone, but pg&e has really blitzkrieged, attempted to pursue similar objectives. i have to say that it was very validating. it was not an activist a ton, it was a very academic policy. and they were sort of able to share those. people who probably did not have any -- i think they would have

had to have walked away knowing how reprehensible pg&e's actions have been. it enabled municipalities to use cca. we're not an investor-owned utility or governement. when the private sector decides to rain down, we have no treasury to draw from. we can't return fire if that was what we needed to begin with. san joaquin, what san francisco has been experiencing, it was

very helpful to modernize the approach. >> so the exciting part in terms of what is next hot how we are going to move forward, we made some modifications to the rfp following the september meeting. on nobemb - -november -- on november 3, we received 04 responses. there were various elements of those responses and wanted to make sure that we could have the

broadest number of firms to be considered and scored. we are holding meetings with all four respondents on monday. we will sit down and be able to have a dialogue to have a frank dialogue and to make clear what needs to be included in the responses. and give them a bit more time to let them explain to us whether her or not that is what they want to do. and putting together their packages, it just wasn't included in what we saw. and give them some time to provide the follow up material