reiterate what other people have said. rent-control is prohibited on newly constructed units unless you fall under one of the exceptions. the city has made a valiant attempt in the agreement to fall under an exception. frankly, nobody knows whether that will legally work. i have the amicus brief that the california league of cities filed on the case in santa monica. it actually uses parkmerced as its example. it says that the issue is not academic. the owners of the parkmerced complex in san francisco have sought approval to redevelop the site. they're promising to replace the units of rental apartments. but if the opinion is allowed to

stand, no city can be certain that these promises could be enforced once the landlord decided to ignore them. the opinion will make it more difficult for owners to obtain approval to redevelop properties. no city can be sure that the landlords proposal to protect tenants is not simply an effort to bait and switch. i agree that the city would valiant try to uphold the promise for rent control but 90% chance the court of appeals would find the promises invalid. i also want to add that i really believe that state relocation law applies to the development

agreement. i have read the over 100-page document. there are significant public improvements that the city is getting from this development. the city is inextricably intertwined in making this project happen under the development agreement. there is no way that a court would not find -- the law says that anyone displaced by a public agency or private party acting under contract with a public agency, under program undertaken by the public agency, will be displaced and entitled to benefits. i would say the court will find that state relocation law applies. let me finish my sentence. we let people finish their thought when their time runs out. [applause] the tenant protections in the development agreement are

inadequate. they only give tenants the right to move into replacement units if they stay all the way through construction. they do not provide the someone moves out because of construction or if somebody does not want to stay in the place where their home was destroyed and wants to move to a different neighborhood in the city, that those people will have any rights at all. that is not right. thank you. [applause] >> i represent the affordable housing alliance. i have been a city hall for years. commissioner miguel, i worked with you on another project.

i am an attorney. i have been lobbying. we're all of the same ilk year. i want to apologize within certain limits for the behavior of the crowd. this is what happens when we deal with real people who are not professionals who are affected by things. i listened to michael yarney distinguish this project from hunters point and treasure island. i think he missed the key distinction between those projects and is. this one involves an existing occupied, continuously occupied residential neighborhood. i have sat here and listened to the planning staffs. they have criticized and disrespected and demonized this neighborhood as a relic of suburbia. this is an existing neighborhood

of low and moderate income people. it is the first. their families here. their family size din as you will not find elsewhere. the garden apartments are rather charming. -- there are family sized units you will not find anywhere else. perhaps a better comparison is to compare this with what we did to the fillmore some years ago, the wholesale destruction of an existing community. those planning and officials who presided over that were not less any -- were not any less competent than those of us today when they demonized that neighborhood is a slum that needed to be cleared. i stood here and listened to the architect talk about how he wanted a clean slate. this is not a sleet to be cleaned by some architect or planner something else to be drawn. this is an existing, occupied neighborhood with people who live here. there are tricycles, strollers,

and all of the things that go with that. [applause] perhaps the project should not be compared with hunter's point. maybe we should compare it briefly with the demolition of the international hotel. there are significant differences. year, we're talking about 3- bedroom units. there they were single room occupancies. if these were just single room occupancy units, we would be talking about the equivalent of demolishing 10 international hotels. that was the battle wrecking the soul of the city when i came here. it is acceptable except under limited and poorly defined circumstances. it is far from clear that the agreement will meet the challenges in light of the court cases that have come out since trinity. there is significant risk. the risk is borne by the tenants. i am reluctant to make the next

landlord's arguments. i am going to go ahead and do it. the next landlord is going to say that the certainty of the rules not changing is not a direct financial consideration in exchange for rent control. they give. [applause] -- thank you. [applause] >> i have lived and parkmerced -- in parkmerced for 30 years. this is my home. three years ago when my mother passed away, they tried to fight me and say i was not eligible to continue rent-control. i will continue fighting because this is my home. this has charm. if i wanted to live in a box, i could go by and over pl--

overpriced place on king. the website was flashing. they wanted to tear down our garden homes and create high- rise condos. i was very upset. i am still very upset. people who do not live here fail to realize the charm that parkmerced has. i am very young. i could choose to live somewhere hip, but i am raising my daughter here with my husband. i choose to live here. many of our friends of asked is why we do not live elsewhere. it is not because of rent control. it is because i truly love parkmerced. i live on the corner. even though i am awakened at night by loud noises, i still love to live in parkmerced. i am against this. i fought for parkmerced once.

if i have to continue fighting, i will. this is my home. [applause] >> i am the 20-year resident. i have spoken to you before at other meetings on behalf of parkmerced's plans. i come to you with a change of heart into its expressed serious concerns. within the past few weeks, certain things to come to light. it is not easy to do. i am an environmental activist. i really like the green aspects of the plan. it it has become clear that they did not appreciate the impact it will have on existing long-term tenants like my family. parkmerced has been clear about the tenants who will be using their existing units, but they have not taken into consideration the tower residents whose homes will remain intact, although greatly

impacted. the plan calls for an additional -- i believe it is five other 10-story buildings to be built in close proximity, but one of them will be billed directly behind my building, the corner where 19th avenue curve toward the freeway. because of the nature of the curve, and it is going to block my view. it is going to take away my view, my life. i have a view department, which we paid extra for to get, and i'm going to lose that. this is somewhat unavoidable, they say, but i'd think just not building there is how you avoid it. [applause] i'm concerned about the densely populated east side. most of the housing on the east side, and i love the idea of dense housing, and i did live in

new york, and i like an urban lifestyle, but i do have a car. i take transit most of the time to work, but my family has one car, and we do use it. i'm concerned i'm not even going to be able to do that, that with so much more population, in addition to the muni the train coming in, which i assume will remove some of the parking where the station is going to be, i think there will be a lot of pressure on fewer spots, and i'm concerned that when friends and family come to visit, they will not be able to park. i do support urban development and creation of affordable housing. i love the green aspects of this plan. i'm willing to live with the inconveniences of construction, but i'm not willing to completely sacrifice my quality of life right losing my view and light and parking. i think parkmerced is ignoring the real issues of tower residence in its current plans, and i urge you to breast and to

consider the issues of tower residence. we are not losing our unit, but we are being seriously impacted, and i have not heard anything with regard to how the plan to deal with us. until i see that done, i will have to withhold my support for this plan. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [applause] >> i am a resident of parkmerced. i moved here in 1983 from casper, wyoming. i have learned a lot -- first of all, i want to thank the members of the commission for coming here tonight to hear these folks. there is a lot of emotion going around. i've heard a lot of very good arguments. i've also changed my position somewhat. i'm opposed to the project, although not as opposed as i was a little earlier. when did the man said we need to upgrade.

from what i've heard here about another 9000 people, that is hardly an upgrade. that is something else -- the word escapes me, but it is not upgrading. my understanding is that san francisco is the most densely populated city in the state of california. over 1 million people in 49 square miles. parkmerced you might say is a historic unique development. the planning that went into it in the 1940's i think was unique. i would not like to see that concept of green that came from those times completely destroyed. when i came in, there was a presenter talking about making the neighborhood more walkable. i almost choked. i would invite you, commissioners, to come sometime to parkmerced on a foggy day,

sunday, leave your staff and everyone behind, and walk around this neighborhood. the garden apartment -- [applause] the garden apartments are open. children run and play. neighbors interact. they say let's have new designs, bring porches and community back. we have a community here. it may need to be improved or upgraded, and i think it can be done, but it should not be destroyed. if you look sometime at the map behind you, where do we go in this city to see a bird? we go to golden gate park. most of this green space is privately held if you are not a member of that golf course. it is a very unique experience, and i just urge you from the decisions you make in the next couple of months or years will

impact and effect san francisco for hundreds of years to come and you will not be able to withdraw your decision once it is made. thank you very much for your time. commissioner miguel: [reading names]

." -- >> thank you. i'm part of the pack their coalition. we had to found a sister organization because management took over pro and we were not able to get a voice for residents, but as you see, residents are here, so please recognize us. in the comments and responses, it says there are no physical or environmental effects identified as a result of the displacement of residence. therefore, a separate socio- economic study is not required by ceqa. two years ago, i received toxic poisoning. i have hypersensitivity to chemicals, and i'm sure you know all about sensitivity if you do not, but i may never be able to move to a new unit because of upgraded electrical synthetic

carpets, construction, pollution, and we have many babies here and elderly who may also be sensitive to this. in my own garden apartment, i'm able to function. with the twin peaks, we have very clean air. my gas is shut off at my meter, and i'm able to live in my apartment without gas. ceqa should not be suspended for the residence because there can be a substantial environmental impact. it also states no impact physically for the moving. one of the residents told me that if she had to move -- she has lived here 35 years -- that it would kill her husband and. i have two letters from my neighbors, and i'm going to start to read one. "i look at the developer agreement. i'm not an attorney. i also looked at the vision plan. the plans and promises

parkmerced -- the developer agreement in no way matches with the plan promises. "i'm a resident of 316 to reynaud. i've lived here 15 years. my life actually started back in 1972. my grandmother moved to parkmerced when i was two years old. i cannot remember a time when parkmerced was not part of my life. when i got married, my husband and i knew this was where we wanted to live. we started our family here. we have two young children who have known this as their only home. we loved living here. this is our home. please do not demolish our home. it would be a terrible financial hardship on our family to move. parkmerced is a wonderful place in san francisco to raise children, to build forces many units would ruin a wonderful neighborhood. many things can be done to

improve parkmerced in its existing state. there is no reason for it to be demolished. please consider the families of the elderly who will suffer the most. thank you for your consideration." thank you. [applause] >> my name is dr. terence faulkner. i have been an elected member of the committee 1974 cents, representing the western side of san francisco, and i have also been a member of the board of directors parkmerced residents' organization. unfortunately, for the first time in my life, i had to sign an impeachment order against our president when he tried to purge our board of directors. sari in happened, but he forced

it. we did not. when i last appeared before your board, i handed out some copies of this geologic map. it is from the united states geological survey. it basically shows the western side of sand and cisco, basically the format of their is the most vulnerable area of san francisco. means the most susceptible area to look for vacation and everything else. the whole western side of san francisco has historically been low rise. because it can take a good hard hit with an earthquake. remember, the san andreas fault is right off the coast. it is literally only a few hundred feet off the coast. in any event, what we are doing with parkmerced -- if they tried to build large towers, there will be an extreme danger of failure. this is why we are handing out

these maps. this could end up in court at some point where there is wrongful death suits and/or manslaughter charges. things come down and people get killed. this whole issue i think is going to be a major issue. this is one that is not going to go away. there is too much money, too much power, too much of many things. building on some of the most prickly vulnerable land in the city and county of san francisco highrise is borderline insanity. they call it the park merced vision. i call it insanity. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. my name is dennis snoring 10.

i want to thank you for the privilege of being allowed to speak before you today. i am the longest term tenants in parkmerced. i have lived in parkmerced longer than anyone else. i moved into my current apartment in 1957. before that, my family and i lived one block away for 11 years. that is a total of 64 years of residency in parkmerced. [applause] i have read the plan over as much as one can do with such a huge document, and it appears to me that there are two very grave of missions, both of which have been spoken to by a number of the speakers tonight, and i appreciate that. the first is in response to one of the early speakers who asked what the rights of tenants are

with regard to this plan under the red control laws, and the answer is as far as the event control laws as amended by the ellis act, there are not any rights. if you are a tenant in parkmerced and your unit is demolished, under the current rent control laws, you have no rights. however, this can be dealt with, and i think it is important to know back -- note that a special dispensation bill must be added to the plan to protect the rights of tenants. without this, any verbal or written promises by the landlord are legally unenforceable, so that is the first omission, which i think should be corrected in the plan. secondly, mr. faulkner spoke to

the other omission, which may be corrected eventually, but that is the seismically unstable nature of the soil in parkmerced makes this one of the most earthquake-prone sections of the area. the soil in parkmerced is of a sandy nature and is subject to immediately qualification in any kind of severe earthquake. the loan will create a quake, which was not centered anywhere near parkmerced -- it was 60 miles south -- there was enough shaking so that one of the old tower apartments almost came down. it appears to me that while the plan itself discusses the problems of a seismic threat to parkmerced in the case of an earthquake, the plan itself has no provisions for specifically dealing with this situation. i find it very problematic that

in addition to the old tower apartments, which were never retrofitted after the law will create a quake, the plan calls for putting up numerous other 13 to 15-story tower apartments in one of the most seismically unstable pieces of land in the bay area, so these are the two major points that i want to make tonight, and i appreciate once again the privilege of being able to speak before the commissioners, and i hope you will take these omissions of the plan into consideration when you deal with whatever action you are going to take. thank you very much. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. do not start yet.

i have a tenant for about 15 years. my wife is chair of the health education environment san francisco state. she gets to walk to work. i am an artist and a teacher. i have to drive. but i love living here. i have raised two and a half kids here. i have spent close to $25,000 on the courtyard where i live. i planted 15 rose bushes, trees, and i have invested a lot in this community because it is a real community. i have four yale degrees, and i studied in the master of architecture program. my teacher has been called -- just retired in his late a.d.'s, and has been called the four most critic and historian of architecture in the indebted

states. he is the rally against this project. he is a good friend of the head of the national historic register, and he is determined to recommend this to his friend to be on the national historic register. the architect for the courtyard is the godfather of landscape architect to design, the man who laid out the plan, did the plaza hotel in new york. if it is not broke, do not fix it. this is an incredibly successful housing development that mixes high rise garden apartments, and the court of where we live is like a miniature italian hill town. it is a fortress for the safe raising of children. they run around free and secure in a courtyard like you will not find any place in san francisco. these apartments are going to be bulldozed, and we will move -- we will be moved into apartments lined up on a straight line. what kind of courtyard are you going to raise kids there? it is not going to work.

how many people on the panel here have read the late, great, jane jacobs book "the death and life of american cities"? can i see a show of hands? if you have not, please read it. what everybody is speaking here tonight is directly relevant to that book. she was revolutionary. she says when you bulldoze a community and build a new community and move strangers into it, you lose the fabric of community. it integrates into a slum. i fought a project like this when i live in a silk mill in massachusetts. they wanted to turn this beautiful building -- an art historian wrote a beautiful book about it. they wanted to turn it into 26 apartments. the little village got a lawyer. we fought at city hall. we came close to stopping it. i got them to reduce its to 19

apartments. it is now an incredibly depressing slump. one of the most beautiful buildings in massachusetts. it is going to happen here again. we can keep the community that is here and not destroy it. please do not do this. [applause] commissioner miguel: before the next speaker, because we have been here this length of time, we are going to take a