misleading fannie mae investors, which required a $130 billion taxpayer bailout at the olympic village, he left vancouver on the hook with unsold units. i believe the city of vancouver has had to take on about $570 million worth of debt that the city now oppose because of fortress backing out. these are the people who are making these promises, and these promises cannot be maintained. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- i in the chair of a lathe use and housing committee. i would like to make some comments in regards to the parker said cryochick.

it was pointed out that this project was different from many other projects. it was pointed out that the growth is good, in this project was different from others in the sense that people actually live in this area, whereas in the other areas, treasurer island or mission bay, bayview hunters point projects, or even in the old days, the western area, people did not live there. now, this project is one to be undertaken for a period of 20 and 30 years, and can you imagine if you, yourself, or your family lived in this area with the construction noises for that long period of time? i do not think that many people could tolerate that. in effect, this project will be

victimizing of the people who live there. i believe. another thing, all of this pie in the sky free money and whether the benefits will be developed meant, one wonders if all of these units are needed. in the 2010 census, there were over 31,000 vacant units in the city now. that does not mean that they are all available, but a good part of them could be rental units, houses, condominiums, and then there is a new segment, called recreational use, and those are secondary homes, or propose. i do not think we need all of those units. supervisor mar: thank you, mr.

fukudu. >> good afternoon. i am with the bicycle association. that describes it would bring such intensity to that area, a notion that new leewood -- representative real, that was tragic. -- a notion that muni was going to be direct rail, that was tragic. it is quite exciting that not only will this bring benefits and make this project possible but rationalize muni all of the way down into the city and, in fact, bring other transportation benefits, so i wanted to talk to you about this as a former

skeptic. these benefits seem real and that there are benefits be on this project. also, as always, we are skeptical about the parking requirements at one to one or the notion of one to one parking. of course, i am with the bicycle people. we agree with spur. there is an opportunity to read this -- we consider that as the product moves forward. we will keep checking. is it really necessary to have so much parking? so we are willing to go with that. we think it is a reasonable way to go, and i think in many ways, the face buildup of this project is how it will work. parking, things like finding the right mix of building types and so forth, so, on behalf of the coalition, --

supervisor mar: this is moving from transportation -- could you comment on that? >> yes, having something that is more heterogeneous rather than homogenous, corner stores within the area that will give some variety, the height of varieties we have heard about. we will always be close to a corner store. you will always be close to community services. you will not have to walk all of the way up to 19th avenue. this is really how it becomes a dancer.

do not to get in your car to get things. supervisor mar: thank you. i will call some others. [reading names and organizations] >> i am here to speak on behalf of this project. i urge you to move this very important project forward. they will be creating a sustainable community which will bring about 900 units of affordable housing, much needed in that part of the city, and also, they will be bringing thousands of construction jobs, which we all know are needed in the city. i urge you to move it forward. supervisor mar: thank you. i have another. please come forward. >> they to come supervisors. i am actually not with a group. i am a resident of san francisco, a resident in the

haight-ashbury neighborhood. i in your primarily as a san francisco resident. as an architect, i agree appreciation for what the proposal for park mayor said in bringing to the city, and i am some they also who is committed to raising my family. i speak out on these things. i urge you to uphold the eir approval. this is far reaching, and in these goals need our sympathies go goals. this is an example of sustainability. i am proud we have a city that is willing to move forward with that agenda, while we are doing all of our own parts to reduce our own carbon footprint, it is a rare opportunity for the city and the residents to support steps like this and to make the kind of improvements that we cannot do individually.

when will there be another clot in the city of san francisco at this scale? i support this private-public partnership because it extends that transportation system into parker said, making it safer, and it reduces the necessity of private cars and connects the city, and also with the believe that the proposal is a really important step to lead the way for that kind of improvement on the stormwater separation from all of the city, and i want to make just one last point about making the city more livable. we are committed to raising our children here in the city because of the parks and open land. our families are becoming part of a diverse network of the community. so for all of these reasons, i

asked you to support this project. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> hi, i would like to thank supervisor elsbernd and think you for listening to us. my name is -- i eliminated san francisco and a resident of park ridge said for almost 20 years, almost 18 in my current apartment. i am in phase one, one of the first people who will have to move to a new unit, and although i love my garden apartment, i totally support this plan. i believe that each one of us as an individual member of the community and member of the city and beyond has a responsibility to look to the future, and this parcourse envisioned plan is very feature oriented. it is extremely sustainable. you have heard some of that.

the current apartments, you have to work very hard to keep your pg&e bills low. the new units, people will be able to live much more easily in a sustainable fashion. san francisco needs economic growth. we all need that. more housing units will help attract businesses, like twitter. if we get twitter, how many people would like to live in the city? affordable housing, as was mentioned, is very necessary. there are two major academic institutions, including city college of san francisco, within two miles, and next door. there are many living in park merced right now. this will allow students to the close to where they're going to school. it was already mentioned, but

we have 20 or 30 years of construction jobs. we have construction jobs. korea architectural jobs. we have the administrative jobs. and to go back to agenda item number two, a large, organic urban area. thank you so much, and i hope you support it. supervisor mar: think you, ma'am. >> good afternoon, and eric brooks, the san francisco green party. even though the rent control issue is huge, and the only way to solve that issue legally is to change state law, that is not the main issue that is the problem with why the green party is opposing this. the main issue is that this is a massive demolition to rebuild a new community that is almost exactly the same.

this is the situation we have with the redevelopment in the fillmore and in japandown. this gets me to the next point, which is in doing so, this project makes itself inherently unsustainable. at the planning commission, the planning commissioners themselves repeatedly asked the developer and planning to show the net carbon footprint of this project over its entire history, and neither planning commission nor the developers provided that carbon footprint, and the reason they did not is because they knew it would look bad. what they finally did do was put a slide up a few weeks ago that showed the comparison between the old units, their contribution to greet us gases, and the new units, and what it shows is that in least the first 14 years of this project, the

new units would create a lot more greenhouse gas emissions, and right now, the intergovernmental panel on climate change scientists, even though they tend to be pretty conservative in careful, are saying that over the next decade, we need to start making massive decreases in our greenhouse gas emissions right now. we cannot have a spike in the first 14 years of a project. so what we need to do is make sure we are scaling down this project so this but does not happen, and easiest way to do this is to not allow the demolition of the existing units. supervisor mar: thank you. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chairman mar. i was born in san francisco, and we had three generations and my family. i want to talk about some of the transportation issues that have

come up surrounding this. as may or may not be aware, if you have read the corridor study that i believe was done by the board back in 2007 or was started in 2007, it talks about background traffic congestion that has been building in respect of of any of the products going on out there, and it says that left to its own devices, absent any development, there is going to be a snippet increase in congestion. right now, there is the fourth deadliest intersection in san francisco. 19th and holoway. supervisor mar: that was 19th and holloway? >> yes. i have gone to many of the meetings, working with peter, looking at the solutions, where we are going to go with this, and there seems to be a great

improvement. i have a personal interest in this. years ago, an issue that will be addressed if this plan goes forward, i had a little brother who was killed by a car, and i would like to see that that does not happen to other people unnecessarily, so as a landlord in san francisco, aug. $14,000 for moving, really, trying to take what trinity did and doing a little bit better, let's look about the other balances. we are looking at a vibrant new neighborhood. we're talking about transportation. at a minimum, over $230 million in financing from the government. i am not sure if the supervisors are aware of that. as soon as this product gets approved and goes back to the neighbors and stakeholders, by law, we have to work over were the troubled trouble spots are in this neighborhood.

we are not want to have another chance korea if we send this back, it very well could die, and i think that would be a shame. you know, one of your predecessors, mr. peskin, he was asking about why all of the traffic passed to the east of twin peaks. aside from the people being directly into a means by it, it has support of the neighborhood. it has a lot of support. we want to have restaurants. we want to have little stores and coffee shops. we want to see green buildings. i completely disagree with the predecessor, the guy who just came up here. supervisor mar: thank you. >> please approve the project. >> i have lived at parker said since 1996, and in that time, i

have experienced three landlords there, and i can tell you very clearly this is the best one. the first one basically to the property in the people with neglect. the second one export to the neighborhood and pass through every possible expense that they could to tenants. this one had done major improvements without a single pass through. they have promised they would not pass it through, and they have not. they can be trusted. i have been too many hearing for the planning commission, and one of the phrases i learned there was complete neighborhood, and that has been what i have wanted for park were said since i moved there, and when i heard this land with a that was their idea, i could not believe what a good idea it was. mostly now, when i want to go to a restaurant or shop, i am leaving the neighborhood, in a car, using the peninsula and going into the city. i would rather not korea in the

neighborhood, but there are some things to do. but they're all on one side of the neighborhood. it is just not a convenient place to be to be doing the usual business. this plan will increase ts above greenspace, as well. there was still be private courtyards but more public space that can be used. and most of all of the garden floor apartment bathrooms are on the second floor. this is a good place. i just heard the report of the huge growth expected for san francisco. this is the opportunity. it is right on time. if you do not take the bench of this opportunity, some landlords will be responsible, some will not. i do not think he will ever have this opportunity again. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is

pauly marshall. i actually came to speak as a commissioner on the rent board. i have been on the rent board since 1984, which is 27 years as a tenant representative, but first, after hearing the testimony and watching the presentation, i am here now as a mother. i have raised two children in san francisco. i have friends in parker said. it is over 1500 units of family rental housing. is a great place to raise kids. secrets in san francisco. i have a friend who just told me kids run in and out. you can ride your bike. there are beautiful sidewalks, clean areas. it is a great place for children, and the idea that we would tear it down, tear down rent-controlled units that

family's live-in with the risk of replacement that may not materialize, it is a tragedy. i agree it is not infill housing if it is an existing neighborhood. why tear it down? quickly, turning to my other role as a rent board commissioner, because i have been on the board for 27 years, i was on the board when costa hawkins passed. i am persons familiar. it has two narrow exceptions. one is with housing and the other is for density. when we were up there and saw the language, the subsequent runs, we pointed out that this is going to affect subsidized housing, inclusionary housing, and density.

we made two exceptions that are narrow. michael yarne said -- supervisor mar: please finish up. >> you cannot guarantee -- supervisor mar: 50. if there is anybody else to live like to speak, please come up. >> this is a test of litigation with ceqa. they need to deal with modernization and seismic events. a performance bond or a declaratory review.

that needs to be done up front before any of this is on the ground. there is a need to deal with the range of in packs and the costs for the public infrastructure. capital costs need to be met up front, not in 30 years with future profits. we do not have the money for it. there is a need to look at alternative financing. for example, there is korea development in this area, things to the legislature. we could have tax increment funding which will be equivalent to about 30% of whatever the holdman needs to be created to create equity.

there is the effect on the surrounding area which is not been looked at, including san francisco state. there is a public institution. you deal with it through ceqa. you deal with the other side. this has not been done. the m line is a public transportation institution. i am a bit of an expert on this. supervisor mar: please wrap-up. >> ok, this needs to go back to the planning department. supervisors mar: thank you. thank you. >> they he very much.

>> the afternoon, ted, with intense union. i suspect this has to go back to planning for the development without demolitions, because demolishing 1500 units of homes with 3000 people, i think we have heard a lot about costa hawkins today. the city attorney is looking about the stuff that they can put in the agreement. we have heard about trinity. trinity worked only because the trinity was not tested. we have had the palmer decision since then. we have had other issues as well. i think evictions is a huge problem. the forgotten apartments around different lots. that is the sort of thing that happens in l.a.

condominiums that demolished. it is more profitable for the developer of the cash flow is not working out, expected are not. it is going to be tempted to ls some of those garden apartments and build market rate condominiums there. i think thirdly we have to look at what is going to happen until the point of demolitions. we're going to see great incentive to get out tenants who are paying $900,000 and have to replace those units at $900,000 or rented to someone month ago at $2,500. i think we are going to see a lot of harassment. we're going to see intimidation. we are going to see natural vacation of those units by living in a construction zone. we're going to see buyouts. i think that was implicated in

the plan that tenants can get money at any point to move. if this gets approved, we will see at least a thousand people lose their homes. chairperson mar: thank you. >> good afternoon. i will start with a ". i will state a future residents of parkmerced will remain car dependent. this is not a model for a 21st century neighborhood. this is a single purpose developer with a proposal lacking hindsight and foresight. that was stated by commissioner moore at the february 2 planning commission hearing. i think we have heard by every tenant advocate that has come before any of these hearings that rent control will not be secure, contrary to what the

mayor's office has been saying. they have been told rent control will be guaranteed not only for the life of their stay, but for the life of the building, which is not state law and is not enforceable. thank you for your time. my name is ben vigory. >> good afternoon. dean preston with tenants together. i was pleased to hear one aspect of the presentation, the admission that he is not 100% sure this is going to work. i think that is a telling statement. i appreciate his candor. there are significant questions whether this can work. that leads us to the question of why we are even considering such a massive demolition of rent- control housing, in direct violation of city policy. if you propose to demolish one

rent-control housing unit, you get an earful. it is taken seriously. the idea we would demolish over 1500 units is appalling. i would hope we have learned a lesson from the fillmore redevelopment. that is the last time we talked about dil neighborhood with promises that it will be ok because of replacement housing and the right to move back. these are parallel. it is the closest thing we have seen since that time. this project, as the city's own consultant said, may not be financially feasible. i would urge you to look at the consulting report that specifically says that. it is part of the reason you see the reaction about the details of what is going to happen when this rent-controlled housing gets challenged. when you take a project that is not financially feasible, the only way to make it financially feasible is to start reneging on various promises.

that is what you see on other predatory equity schemes of this type. on the public benefit, i think the public benefits are overstated. the capital improvements and operating and maintenance money is a private benefit. the rent control suppose a benefit -- subtract from that the loss of the house. there is really no public benefit in that whatsoever. colin marshall addressed this. on ellis, i would be happy to answer any questions you might have it is a very important issue -- you might have. it is a very important issue. >> thank you for hearing us today. i am an long-time san francisco parkmerced resident and a fourth generation san franciscan. i bring forth the concern of many others in my neighborhood about the size and scope of this