foot preschool facility on the parkmerced project site. we added a provision in the development that requires a one- for-one replacement of all of that existing space prior to a demolition and removal of that space. the commitment is that the project must provide operational -- space that is ready for occupancy and operation prior to that preschool space that is existing today being removed. supervisor mar: let me just slow it down a little bit. i think judith from the moderate -- montessori school testified earlier in opposition, and you say now this is a new agreement that allows for a one-for-one slot for a preschool but not necessarily the montessori program that is there, but it could be a different provider? >> correct. it is my understanding that we could not commit the city to a specific provider, but what we

can do, and we are enforcing this to the development agreement, is that it be replaced in its entirety, and the space be dedicated to providing preschool. supervisor mar: i just wanted to follow-up on the power generation agreement. i know that ed harrington and some from the pc have concerns about how enforceable this would be. could you address that? >> i actually would like to request that we present to you on tuesday the discussions are ongoing, but in some, the basic structure is that with every development based application, the sfpuc would be required to review development for some middle, and if they disagree, they can reject that

development and request additional information and work. in this way, we want to hold the project sponsor -- rather, we want to make sure that we enforce their commitments and that the city is able to monitor their progress. for example, if after approval of one development phase, a second was submitted and the previous commitments have not been met, they get hold of the development phase application, so it is sort of a monitoring and enforcement provisions, and it is the details and structure of that that we're working on with the puc to make sure it is something they feel they can manage. basically, the administration of it is something that they can manage. supervisor mar: i will be in communication with supervisor elsbernd's office as well. the language in question, maybe some changes should be made.

one of the concerns is energy consumption at the development was 20% less than expected, there's not the kind of language that would hold it accountable to invest in renewable energy. >> i actually think that that concern is addressed. but i wanted to continue our conversations with staff and then do a joint presentation or at least be able to present to you a solution to their questions. supervisor mar: very good. >> i will continue then. thanks for your question. there were additional organizational improvements to section four, a majority of which are technical in terms of reorganizing certain sections for clarification. a few of them are substantive in a minor way. most notable is that we clarify that the average size of existing units becomes the

minimum size for replacement units, to ease administration and enforceability of the replacement unit requirement for the staff, all of these minor technical amendments are based on requests from the rent board staff, and i did want to emphasize to the committee members we have been in continual dialogue with staff for the last six months over how to improve the readability and enforceability of section four of the development agreement. a minor revision was made as well to the annual reporting requirements. all of you may remember that state law requires that the director present an annual report to the planning commission and the board on the progress of the development agreement and status of the developer was a compliance with it. we just made some revisions at the suggestion of the city

attorney to clarify that reporting rule. most significantly, and the city attorney is here today also to answer questions about this change, section four 0.1 0.2 -- 4.1.2, a new section was added acknowledging and incorporating an express exception allowed under the ellis act. based on feedback from the board of supervisors and public testimony, we continue additional research on the subject of enforceability, and the city attorney identified an important case in los angeles county which actually upheld a provision in the l.a. ordinance that require replacement housing where of grid control hausen had been demolished, and specifically references an exception -- where many control housing had been demolished.

this is in our existing rent ordinance in san francisco. the requirement was challenged by the l.a. apartment association in 2009 -- rather, it was challenged before then, but the case came to the appellate court in 2009, and the appellate court clarified that in fact, this exception is enforceable and that a city like los angeles or san francisco under the ellis act may require new replacement units and may allow them to be subject to rent control as long as they comply with this exception. based on that very positive case law, we have expressly inc. that exception into the agreement. that section is simply restating what is the law of the land. it is arguably not necessary, but we thought it was important to clarify that in fact, this

additional exception, to the exceptions were already operating under, is in fact available to the parkmerced development agreement, and we believe it strengthens the agreement even further. i will leave it at that, and of course, if you have questions, as i mentioned, the city attorney is available to answer questions. supervisor mar: thank you. there are no other presentations. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: thanks for your presentation. i am glad that you raised the issues. when i reviewed the documents, i had similar concerns as it relates to the power aspect of the project. i also want to acknowledge you for addressing my concerns for the child care and appreciate you going on record showing the public where the modifications are. thank you.

supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. i have a number of cards. again, two minutes limit each. [reading names] >> good afternoon, again, supervisors. ibew local 6. we are supporting this project. the difference from avalon date is parkmerced developers are responsible developers. they create work. bottom-line is we are

supporting any -- we support any projects that support our members, create work for san francisco. thank you. >> supervisors, it is astounding that you are willing to consider even discussing this project any further at this point. with all the statements by the developer, the mayor's office, the city attorney's office, there are too many questions on this project alone to be allowing this to go forward. the issues involved have been raised by preservation organizations, community organizations, city organizations. this has been discussed ad nauseam in all sorts of meetings and hearings. there are some basic premises here. parkmerced is an important plant garden city. it is an of a city in and of itself. letters and memos that have been sent state clearly that it is significant on a local and national level.

there is no other development in san francisco that represents in such a distinctive manner and with such great integrity, the feeling and character of a modern party city. as an architect, the person concerned about design and concept generation, there are so many other alternatives that can be done here. you are looking at a maros 20 or 30 years in the future. we need those transit connections now. we do not need it five years down the road or 10 years down the road. and we need the housing now, but we do not need to demolish sound existing family units, just to bulldoze them and build up as high as you can without looking at existing towers. those are not retrofitted. what has been done in independent analysis is to look at these projects. i am reminded only of a book that was read to me by my father. i will put it on the overhead.

"the biggest house in the world take a simple issue here. it is about bigger is not always better. in this project, they are showing you a an extreme version of a green sustainable project, but it is far from that. i think you should seriously reconsider. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for this opportunity to speak on the parkmerced project. i have lived in parkmerced in district 7 for over 14 years. one of the things i have heard since i have attended many of these hearings, is what i call a supposition that things will just go along nicely at parkmerced if nothing is done. the project is voted down, everything will be ok, but i have the feeling that the project were voted down, this landlord will not try again. from a business standpoint, they have made a business plan, and

they would then have to go to plan b. i think it would be either massive passthroughs for the residents, or selling the property. the property is sold to a new owner, i do not think they will try this either. if the property is sold to many small owners, i think some blocks will be allowed to be -- to deteriorate, some will be maintained, some will just be taken down and buildings split up, and there will be no vision at all in any of those cases. this vision is very positive. it is housing for the san francisco future, provides jobs, increases the city's tax base. it is environmentally progressive and family friendly. some of my friends joke that sent this is becoming a child- free zone. child-free cities cannot continue to exist. it takes care of current residents with more neighborhood

services and businesses, new apartments without rent increases and without passthroughs. you will never have this opportunity again. please support the park merced project -- the parkmerced project. >> i am representing the newly organized tenant organization that is against this development. parkmerced action coalition has come about as a result of this horrible plan written by developers who are greedy and totally out of contact with the existing people there and the existing property. i would like to let each of the members know here that there is

no such thing as a minor change in this developers program. there is no such thing as a major change. it affects my life. my home is my home, and it is my life. that does not affect you, you see. to think that my home is being considered to be torn down because of some developer's agreed. it is not right, and it never has been, and it never will be, and the role of our organization is to stand and fight and continue to fight to keep our homes. i had a few words here i have written, and a few words from one of the articles from a newspaper, and i will just take them -- another minute, i am hoping. the developer's ambitious and greedy 30-year plan would

destroy the site that now constitutes parkmerced. it would destroy 1683 rental apartments in the 11 massive residential towers and tear down 1530 apartments that are presently townhomes. with the developer fails to understand is that in every one of these buildings are human beings. we are here fighting for our homes because we are human beings. thank you very much. supervisor mar: there are copies the supervisor elsbernd has provided that are sitting up on the counter. please come forward. i'm going to call several more names. [reading names]

>> the founder of the house of rothschild i'd 7000 said many brilliant men who have also to business plans -- he always believed in looking into what they had done in the past. warren buffett, 200 years later, made very similar comments. if it does not look good in the newspapers the next night, you do not want to get involved in it. in the case of what we're dealing with, we are dealing with the former ceo of fannie mae, one of the men who presided over what almost became another depression. he ran fannie mae into the ground. he is now the ceo of fortress, the dominant partner at parkmerced. frankly, i think he should take a good, hard look at what you are dealing with.

or to put it another way, do you think warren buffet or mere rothschild would want to do business with these people? i do not think they would. -- >> name is kathy, and i have lived in park merced 58 years, i am part of the action coalition. i am speaking as an individual 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 to 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? >>