and not representing the group. we feel that these mendments that now you aren't considering but shouldn't be considered because you haven't even listened to the appeal that was filed on the e.i.r. so it seems a bit out of sync to go forward when you of you haven't even looked at other alternatives. some of us would very much like to be part of a limited equity coop and buy park merced and have the residents own their places. this is the end of the middle-class in san francisco. we could become an affordable housing recentable in san francisco. we have 3,000 units that i am sure people would love to live in. this project has no hind sight, insight or foresight. it is the destruction of 1,500 units of sound housing for the developer's agenda. we met with the city are

attorney last saturday. he has said there are no guarantees for rent control. commissioner elsbernd spoke in the west side observer that this is a change of ownership. there are no guarantees for the tenants there. the matter will be decided in court. we already had the university building their library and working on the auditorium. levels are increasing. how do you expect residents to stand through 30 years of construction? our homes are will be being threatened. i ask you to not pass this. it is not sound. it is unconscionable, no common sense. let us buy this as residents and turn this into a coop and make the city of san francisco proud. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. mr. roth?

mr. ruston. >> yes, my name is michael ruston. i am a resident of 16 years. i would like to recommend that you deny the motion to approve these rezonings, et cetera. i think it's a violation of due process, that the recommendations of katherine moore have not been considered. there was no consideration of a non-demolition scheme for improving park merced. i would like to point out, i understand you aring looking for fair treatment on densification in the city, but to say we need to do more development on the west is questionable at best, you need to look at development that does not bulldoze people's hirms. you did it when the highway

came down and new territory opened up that didn't destroy people's home. i would like you to consider there are many dogs that play and use this open space, and that there are people as well. i really would like to ask you look at who is behind the promises. i went on google and looked at stellar management and fortress' previous developments. they got rid of affordable housing and rent control. there is complaint after complaint by residents whose lives have been ruined by these developers. herrera said to me there is no guarantee that rent control will be maintained. the developers have hired city workers and paid them do do these studies that are tainted. they are not independent studies recommending the projects. many of the people who are pushing the development have been paid by fortress, and i

think their work needs to be looked at. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. thank you for allowing me this time to speak. my name is james. i stand in support of this project. i work for an organization, painters and dry wall finishers local union 913, which is painters and allied trades council 16. that covers painters, dry wall finishers, glazers and floor layers. as you are aware, our construction workers are 30% unemployed. in a project like this where the area is committed will provide a tremendous amount of work.

therefore i stand in support of this. >> i am bernie, and i am the principal appellant for san francisco tomorrow. may i have more time? >> we are limiting to two minutes per person. >> including the principal appellant. i am going to read our statement. approval for park merced exroosm should be aborted now. until such time as fainlscation of the park merced e.i.r. and alternate development scenarios. conditions are also considered. proceed proceeding as proposed is prejudicial to the outcome

for the board of supervisors' consideration as it narrows options, adopts agreements with possible legal comblicts and leads to litigation and is supported by a necessary general plan and its implementation. therefore this item violates the necessity for due process. we have asked and provided you with alternative scenarios, none of which have been considered or acknowledged. they are all professionally legitimate. therefore, to proceed on a singular idea is prejudicial before the outcome of such things as e.i.r. or the sustainability of time certain needs. there is no guarantee of a performance bond that would ensure the risk to the city, proving that you can under pin it, given the possibility i

will legality or questionability. you should not proceed with this hearing any further. supervisor mar: thank you. >> my name is jeannie scott, and i am a resident of park merced. when i first heard about this vision plan, i was very enthusiastic about it. i heard about it a couple of years ago. i have been to many meetings. i lover all aspects of it. >> please pull the mic closer to your mouth. >> i have been to many meetings. i have red articles in the paper about it. one thing that struck me is that i keep reading about how the residents are not in favorite of this vision plan. i am, and i knew others were. i volunteered.

when i first heard that park merced was going to send out staff members to go door to door to communicate with people on a one-on-one basis to answer questions and concerns, they asked for volunteers and i volunteered as a neighbor. i went out once or twice a week for about three weeks. what i found interesting is of all the people we talked to, there were two people that were not happy. once the staff member had a conversation with them and asked them if there were any questions and concerns, by the time we had this conversation, they were relaxed with a big smile on their face. everybody else we talked to were very happy that they came door to door, and they were interested in learning about it. it showed me -- some of the people were neutral, but a lot

of people were really very pleased by the time the staff and i left. i realize that there are many more people besides me and a few others and that is not just the tenants who are opposed, but many who are for it. i have this year, and i will pass this out a synopsis of 9% -- >> supervisor mar: thank you. next, please. >> thank you so much supervisors. i am helaniting. i am part of the action combs. we want to say we are opposed to this development. we know it will not be any good, especially to all of us long-term people there. as far as trying to speak to other people that want to tear

down park merced, they are brand new people there, hardly been there at all. no, i think if park merced wants to make a big splash and wants to help make more families, they can reopen frederickburg elementary school, which has been closed for 30 years. no, i don't think that is their great calling in life. all they want to do is tear the place down, cram as many people into a small area as possible and charge the highest amount of represent that they can. that is all that is going to happen. as the san francisco city and county attorney said, there are no guarantees, and the rent control discussion absolutely will not be upheld because it is not part of the law or

anything. if they want to change their mind later, they can. thank you very much. supervisor mar: i am going to call several more names. jim cook, elizabeth cook, bill blackle weapon, and hirkuda. that is the remainder of the cards i have. >> good afternoon, honorable supervisors. i am speaking as an arc at the time and the father of two children here in france -- san francisco. i support park merced. this is an opportunity to confront head on the crushing responsibilities we will be facing as a city, state and region for the next 100 yards. horrible housing, environmental sustainability and rent control make this is a response inproject in a local sense. but adding 5,700 units t the

city's housing stock will be a huge benefit over time. an earlier speaker spoke about the history of this place as a plan from the garden city. if this is approved, it will become historic as a moment in time when the city of san francisco and the bay region got serious about living in a sustainable manner. thank you. >> what was your name again? >> owen kinnerly. supervisor mar: thank you >> my name is mike smith. i am an eight-year resident of park merced. i have enough brain cells to know things are not quite right in the garden home i live in. most recently a continuation of the plumbing problems i had nearly cost an injury in my

home when a pope broke, and it started leaking through the kitchen fixture. the lens came down and almost crashed on my wife's head. i have put up with this for a long time. i am in favor of the vision. i think park merced is old, tired, and i think it needs some rejuvenation. it just is getting to be one thing after another. i, too, have talked to a lot of people on my block. some of them were against it at first and have changed their mind, a lot of them for the same reasons as i. when you are ill, you for to the doctor to get fix. i think park merced needs to get fixed. it is old, tire and dying. i like what arnie said. if we do nothing, what is the future going to be there? is it going to turn into a

ghetto? are they going to piecemeal it off? i am concerned about those things. the city attorney convinced me about rent control. i think it is going to take affect, and we are going to be ok. i am in favor of the vision, thank you. >> hello, i am elizabeth keith. i have been at park merced for 17 years, and most of the people i know that are for this project, including me, have been there a long time. so that statement about us being short-term is not correct. these apartments are far from sound. they need constant maintenance. there is an incredible waste of space. the parks require hero water and maintenance than makes sense. the construction is three minutes away from me. i barely notice it. i don't think the people

against this are going to be happy with the alternatives to this project because no one is going to want to pay or put money into fixing these apartments up as they are. i had the same experience as jeannie. when i went door to door, people were asking questions, and they appreciated the information and the visit. for the people against this, i just want to say this i am sure there were people against the original park merced plan, and in the end there are people that are resistant to it now. but the result in the end will be more convenience for everyone, especially the elderly, nicer apartments with dish washer, washers and dryers with no rent increase, better use of the space, rent control, recreational space, shopping, picnic areas, et cetera. the reason i trust this plan is because they have kept their word all along, and they have changed their plan according to our needs.

thanks for listening. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for your time. my name is jim cook, and i am a 14-year resident of park merced, district seven, and supervisor elsbernd is my supervisor. park merced recently has been going door to door, as mentioned by elizabeth and others, to speak to every resident in the garden units to answer their questions and concerns, and to walk them through the tenant relocation process and tenant protection. park merced will comply with the current housing ordinances, which will provide 800 units in addition to the other units. there will be 25,000 jobs created and 1,600 permanent

on-site jobs and 550 sbrenth permanent jobs. this brings significance improvements, including safety for pedestrians along the 19th avenue corridor, much needed transportation improvements, and this opens the door for tier five improvements. i have watched owners sell off parcels of the property. i am concerned that if the vision doesn't go through as presented, that will happen again. you can look at what is happening over at the university with their changes in the area. the cost of future renovations without this vision will be passed on to the residents. i am a current resident, and i support the project, and i urge you to do so as well. supervisor mar: i am going to read a couple of names. matt preston, dean chamberlain,

george woodalling, carroll coppell, nikollo. >> good afternoon, my name is bill blackwell with the plumbers and pipe fitters in san francisco. just to reiterate what some of these tenants have said, this is a property that has lived its life. some of the areas are 60 years old. the infrastructure for this property is failing. we can walk any days you would like to, and i can show you gas lines, sewer lines and water lines in the walls that are failing. when we have redone it, they have passed the construction on to tenants. i understand the concerns the tenants have about being relocated and no rent control, but this owner has kept its word every step of the way.

if not, they are going to get all these pass-throughs put on to them, and it will be worse for them. i hope you support this project. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i am the chair of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. nine years on the housing committee. this is recommend says ent of redevelopment of the edition in 1950's. this displacement of thousands i guess is ok because they are just renters, not homeowners. they don't have to be treated with much respect. now, it is my understanding that rents at one point were $1,600 a month, and they went up to over $2,000 when they

were renovated, and now the new minutes might be $3,000 a month. now that is a brilliant idea to get by rent control. we can just have these agreements, displace the people, have them move back in, and the rent is going to be quite a bit higher. this process is really flawed. this is a very important project, and here at the beginning of this meeting we were told of all these minor changes, and here we were given documents that are 32 pages long. i don't under -- understand why this is being rushed through when this is a 30-year project. i think we need to study this and evaluate it thoroughly and not just rush through this so they can get their 20% profit. now this developer from way understand was involved with the vancouver olympics, and

they left voon with $700 million in debt. is this what is going to happen to san francisco? there an answer to that? is there some kind of assurance that we are not going to have the same debt? you can fool me ones -- once. you can't fool me twice. please allow more time for this project. >> good afternoon supervisors, adrian -- supervisor mar: did you fill out a card? >> i did not. supervisor mar: you are jumping in front of people who filled out cards and others as well. people should fill out the cards so that we are hearing people as they come in. >> thank you. supervisor mar: since you are

up here now, please go. >> thank you, supervisors. field representative adrian seemie from kearpt's 22. i will tell you about what i know about disorganizing and misinformation. i'm hearing a lot of that here. this job is progress. the whole backbone behind it is not to misplace or mistreat tenants, raising their rent. this is about helping tenants out, a good project on the west side of san francisco that we haven't seen for decades. this job has to go through. it is a good project, and local 22 stands behind it. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. paul, and kathy. >> dean preston, tenants together. good afternoon, supervisors. a 30-year project to demolish

over 1,500 rent-controlled housing units occupied by tenants. who decided this project was a good idea? as we dive into the details, let's step back and ask who decided this was a good way to develop and to create denialsity? who has approved it? certainly not this board, the voice of the people of san francisco. in fact, the three planning commissioners appointed by the board all vote thed against this project because they recognized this was a bad idea. this project is a bad idea from conception. ask yourselves would you approve the demolition of 1,500 homes occupied by people living in your district? would you approve the demolition in a 152-acre area of your district to serve the purpose of densification?

of course you wouldn't. this stuff was built 50 years after a lot of the housing in all of your districts. are we going to start knocking victorians down? that is what we did in the western edition as a prior speaker said. if they are old, submit a soundness report. if someone wanted to demolish one unit on my block, they would have to come before the rent control commission. but they don't have to do that because they are rezoning the whole area. if they did, you would see this is undersound housing. we may get cut off on time. i am very disappointed in what barely qualifies as the analysis of this los angeles case that was provided to you. i will be happy to discuss that with any supervisors. all it does is require that the

units -- if they are offered for rent in a five-year period, that it is subject to rent control. it doesn't stop the owners with holding the units vacant or any other. supervisor mar: thank you. please don't yell out from the audience in the future. sir? >> good afternoon. my name is matt chamberlain. i am a ress sent not of park merced but close to mark merced along the west side. i am active in several neighborhood organizations, and i have spent a huge amount of time thinking and breathing housing in san francisco. i spent over a year and a half of the housing element 2009 community advisory body. so i have been thinking about that a lot. generally speaking, i find myself tending against development. however, in this case i find

myself very clearly in support of this project. there are a lot of reasons you have heard probably 10 times, and radio i am not going to repeat them here. the thing that opened my eyes for the need for this project is the opportunity for a huge amount of planning. we are talking about a development effort that will take 30 years. it is not like we will snap our fingers and see something radical happening overnight. probably the single biggest gold star on the resume of these developers is the commitment and involvement in the long-term traffic plan, the tier five traffic plan along 19th avenue. i drive it a lot. it is practically a parking lot

now, and it will only get worse. this project does give us an opportunity to improve things in a large area of san francisco that i think has been ignored for a long time. i support it. please support it as well. thank you. >> tim and danny campbell. >> hello, my name is nikolo. good afternoon to everybody. i have been lived in park merced for a few years now. i am excited to see their perhaps for the new park merced. i am happy to be able to live in a community that i will be able to call home for many years. current deparned units are reaching the end of their useful life. the park merced division addresses the issues in park merced without burdenening the residents or the city. please, listen to us residents who actually want the community

to survive for years to come. people against the addition don't understand that by keeping the units the way they are not will only result in more maintenance needed, more pass-through, more financial hardship for any company. change is needed to survive. thank you. >> thank you, chairman mar. tim on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. this project represents the largest investment in affordable housing in the history of the west side. it is the largest investment in transit infrastructure on the west side since the l and n lincecum went in, and it doesn't cost the tax payers a nickel. we believe it is on sound footing. and three, the project's

opponents believe if this project is rejected, everything will happily return to how it is today. we believe this is the least likely of all the outcomes it faces today. change is coming to park merced. the only question is whether the city contains the investments. this is a highly under utilized property. the result, no rebuild of the aging garden apartments. no building of retail open space or gardens. no investment of transit, but certainly likely sharply increasing rents from capital pass-through. a second unpleasant outcome might be the piecemeal sell-off of chunks of the property. as happened with previous owners in the past.