investors -- and why is the city attorney taking these documents presented by the developers? this is a sham. >> thank you. >> think you for giving me this chance to speak. the entire program will destroy 1500 rent-controlled units, and in the future we will not have that many rent-controlled units. the agenda is not updated. the people can vote on this project so they can know what

they're facing with this project. they'll be affected by what is going on. i recommend that we go to the people of the city. >> can i get your name? >> >> i will call several more names. matt miller, burt pill, jim san giacomo. sir? >> good morning, supervisors. i am the business owner in this corridor. i am here to be the voice of many who would like to see the revitalization of the business district. a small but good example -- that

the owner purchased not too many years ago for the purpose of redevelopment. instead of a ghost town and a gathering place for unruly characters, this is a place of community gathering and commerce. we have added many local jobs from people living across the street. the redevelopment project is a much grander scale. i am here to speak on the fact that basically, i cannot guide people in. the infrastructure is outdated, and it needs to be upgraded. the building of this will stimulate the global economy with the housing business and it

will enhance transportation. this city needs a tax revenue and jobs. the tax revenue has cut social programs and raise the cost for other services. it will take me 240 quarters because we raise the cost of parking. last week to approve this, to bring the city into the 20 a century. -- 20th century. >> i do not think looking for jobs to justify destroying people's homes. i do appreciate members of the board of supervisors who have come out to see that the apartments are not blighted, and

that may very diligent attempts, to mitigate the damage that is coming to these apartments to the people who do not want their homes destroyed. i agree that this is a wonderful, historic project. and this is not really going to win the day if we lose the wonders treasure that this -- wondrous treasure we have today. i would like to read from na article by candice taylor. looking at the catastrophies in the past, the riverton housing project that went into fault. if anybody knew abou tthis, it was lwarrarry glauk.

tenants protested when he recieved an award from builders and owners of greater new york. they called him community destroyer of the year.cynthi he wanted everyone t ot5hio thie was great. the financing caused for losing 50% of them. they forced them out of rent-controlled apartments. >> thank you. >> his plan was to default. that is what we see. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. on bedhalf -- behalf of our 3000

members, we are urging it to pass this project. we represent the maintenance on park merced. we're asking you to support this, and we also have members living there. we ask you to approve this project going forward. >> and this is from local -- think you >> good morning. i represent a small group people in the shopping center. we support the redevelopment plan, and we believe this project will provide much to the

house and to the neighborhood, and i asked for you to be supportive. thank you. >> good morning. i am of 35 you're president of the west side of san francisco. i have never had a financial interest in this project. i have spoken to you in various meetings, with the transportation changes that will take place. today, i wanted to help you see what would happen if this project failed at this time. imagine what would happen? it would be like the helmsley era. $150 million to bring this up, and if you look at this -- we will go into selling off property and in the long term,

it will mean less to everybody. another aspect we have to take a look at, the history of the west side of san francisco. particularly those with high density housing, secondary units, even along the trans alliance. this is a very important project because it shows the difference on the west side. we can provide more housing that people need, especially family housing. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i live off ocean avenue near park merced. with the park merced project adding 25,000 people to the area, that is 25,000 students of san francisco state.

anyone who has been to the park, trying to get out of there with 50,000 people, you know how much fun that this says. transportation cannot handle this. if you extend this line, you cannot rely on them to provide transportation at muni. you have kindergarten and fifth grade school projected, and there are enough will schools in the area, and not enough high school seats available forever students may be available. >> do you have a question. >> housing is necessary and jobs are necessary, even short-term jobs like construction. but if you look down ocean

avenue, at the avalon project across the street from city college, is very similar to the situation with san francisco state. it is chaos going down this avenue. at a the clock in the morning, you have thousands of students getting into the city, and then people leaving avon, with the same situation at san francisco state. thank you very much. >> jim lazarus, barney larceny, bruce kennedy and mark solomon. >> i am with the triangle labour association and i have lived in this neighborhood -- close by for 18 years.

this plan has not taken into account the negative impact on the surrounding community. the developers -- this project needs to be scaled back, in bold in population. there is congestion on the already packed 19th ave. tripling the population of a congested area, this is not the planning policy. the garden apartments our beloved wales life. when not replicate a low line environment. the danger of putting these buildings here is not good planning policy. the safety of the residence is severely compromised.

the irony is that many of the projects featured are harmful to the environment. ignoring earthquakes safety is not green, and i also deplored demolishing 1500 units of supportable housing. the entire area is on the way to gentrification. there is space on this basis and that is another factor. this is a nightmare with the surrounding communities. a little dose of reality is necessary. people will drive their cars the matter what is in place.

>> i am mary anne. >> please pull the microphone closer. >> thank you. i have been arrested at for over one year. i have been in san francisco for over 30 years. i ask the board of supervisors to protect and serve the community. now, i am s. gilmore from the people who took money from these developers. there is no moral value in selling your soul. and how you can look at your

children as you take people of their houses, destroying this beautiful environment is beyond me. this is the, you have to deal with. to renovate, and develop this area half in an environmentally sound way, this is a sham and a scam, and daniel mud -- he is like the bernie madoff of the west. he got away with this in canada. do not let him do this here. please, but this town.

if you have any common sense. >> golden gate construction trade. there is a basic conflicts of interest, and i have represented these people on a lot -- many occasions. the trinity plaza debate, until a deal was made. i waws comfoted when -- comforted when this deal ca mme up. a similar deal had come through. i turned to tim paulson and said, wwe could solidify those projections. i heard that there were possible

state legislation that could be brought up to solidify this, and trying to find out what this legislation may be. we can throw these resources behind legislation. that is if this is useful to the people. i never heard the specific legislation that we could support. if so happy to hear about the stronger protections and i support this project. >> gene adam, matthew fontas, kevin -- it looks like a doubling of cards. corey brae. ramsef maro. hiroshi fakuda. >> do so one of the principal

managers there, and is interesting, what we spoke about. i would like to say, i am from san francisco, 51 years old from the western part of town, just like the western portal. i grew up and all of that here, and i think that we're lucky to have such a wonderful team of architects and developers, such a great plan, to know that this line will be going right to the middle of the project. this is very fantastic. i understand the concerns, very much. we have dealt with the same kinds of issues. it all works out. we have the construction michael yarne has addressed a

lot of great concerns and so has mr. chiu. i would caution you to not show developers and allow this to happen any reasonable time period before interest rates go up, seriously. i would hate to see dilapidated, mold-infested, thin-walled units just stay there. i think we all read the article about the poor lady with the mold into a statifestation. is a colleague of mine. i would not be here if i did not think he was a quality guy. it's a great part of town over there. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. bart broom. mr. lazarus? >> i want to thank supervisor chiu and the parkmerced owners.

we urge you to adopt the amendments and adopt a package of legislation necessary to have this project go forward. i think i mentioned this before. many of you serve on regional bodies and your predecessors have. we have pledged to take our share of population growth in this city, a regional population growth in san francisco and we have done that. our population has hit a historic high of 805,000 people. much of that growth is on the east side of town. we have rare opportunities elsewhere in the city to have in-fill growth of the type that is proposed, not overnight, but over a 15 to 20-year period. the chamber, our alliance with labor, urges you to approve this

project. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. tommy, ben, brooke turner. i think i already called bart broom. my apologies for not recognizing bart from the sf public utilities commission. >> i've lived in the garden apartments since 1959, when they were only 18 years old. i recently sent in march a four- page e-mail to each of the supervisors recommending that they not confirm this project. the e.i.r. arguments that the property was built in the 1940's is not wholly true.

of the units that are being the most for the sake of density, roughly 31% of those units were built in the 1950's when the towers were built, under the same construction, same materials, and same quality. these units, as it happens, are almost entirely located in phase one, the portion that will be demolished first. those are the best of the garden units in parkmerced. for some reason, they want to destroy the evidence that the fact that the property is not as deteriorated as they say. the commissioners, when they voted on this project, voted in lockstep 4-3. the mayor's office appointees all voted in favor of it. the supervisor appointees all voted against it. i would urge that this be sent

back to the planning commission to be properly evaluated and everybody do their homework. i appreciate the efforts of the supervisors to try to ameliorate some of these issues, but i do not know that it's necessarily enough. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. marc solomon from the sixth district. i think what we have here is a case where we have a to big to fail project. the solution to its failure is to make it even too-bigger-to- fail. in district 6, we've taken on about 30,000 or 40,000 new residents. a quick bicycle ride will show you the difficulty and danger that these have placed into our district with even smaller amounts of parking. it is a gauntlet every day.

we're looking at parkmerced right on the cusp of i-280. one-to-one parking. we're also looking at the extension. what of the existing san franciscans? you're like to add on 10 more minutes to their trip, as well? we are seen developers and hypothetical san franciscans interests placed before that of the existing san franciscans. last november, development was barely a topic for discussion in districts 6 and 10. it was minor to what it was compared to in the past. we have a planning department that is in the grips of regulatory capture. they do not need to be told what to do. they give developers what they want. we saw all the planning commission but reflect that. the environmental impact report,

like so many that have come out of the planning department is incomplete, inaccurate, and it conceals the impact because the goal is to spur profit without a care for the impact on existing communities. what we need is real development that has fewer parking spaces -- is not right on the freeway and does not meet environmental concerns. send this back to the planning commission. thank you. [applause] supervisor mar: thank you. please come forward. thank you for being here, mr. broom. >> thank you, and supervisors. sf puc is continue to work on the energy agreements freely provided to a list of the outstanding concerns on which we continue to work. we very much appreciate mr. yarne's comments earlier that the sf puc is able to address

remaining changes through the puc process that will be coming up in june at our commission. with that, we do not need to see these amendments incorporated at the board today. we very much appreciate where the developers have come tthus far. i just wanted to make sure i was clear on what our intentions were at this point. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. ms. marshall. >> good morning. my name is paul e. marshall. i'm the tenet commissioner on the san francisco rent board. i'm also a redevelopment and affordable housing attorney. i have a fair amount of expertise in areas i'm going to address. first of all, i would like to

ask you, even beg you, to continue this item. the process is very unimaginable for people who are doing this like me on volunteer, weekend, and night *. i was told by supervisor chiu's aides that the city and developing attorneys were up all night negotiating the amendments that were just introduced. they were passed out to us at 10:00 a.m. this morning. i have been through them. i already see that they are well-intentioned, but there are numerous big issues that could be addressed and should be addressed. for example, i came here today to talk about the may 20 version, which posted at 5:00 p.m. on friday. it included a change that was not even summarized by mr. barnevarney. it includes under the definition

of existing standards, for the very first time, the administrative code. the administrative code is where the san francisco rent ordinance lies. this means that we suddenly have two versions of the rent law. the version as it may exist in the future after amendments that will apply to every other tenant in san francisco, including the tenants of the towers of parkmerced. sure enough, the amendments that came out today have a lifetime lease. some people will tell you this is not the intention. the lifetime lease says there are two brand ordinances. it says there's a separate rent ordinance. supervisor mar: let me just ask you to succinctly summarized the one other big issue, if you can. really quickly, ms. marshall.

>> this is just an example of why we need to continue this. there are also provisions. we were told the tenants were protected from rent increases related to construction work. repeatedly, they refused to add language to the development agreement that would protect tenants from operating and maintenance increases, in addition to capital improvement increases. there are people of expertise that could make this better. not if we are given it at 10:00 a.m. in the morning the day the board of supervisors is going to vote on it. i think that process tanks and i also think it is illegal. please give us more time. i have many other substantive comments. if you want to have meaningful input, give us more time. [applause] supervisor mar: thank you. >> my name is bruce kennedy and i'm a 19-year resident of

parkmerced, a 46-year resident of san francisco. i have lived here under three different owners. i've studied the plans for the future development and discussed it with parkmerced management. i've listened to much of the testimony presented both for and opposed to the plan. my judgment -- the most basic issue is one of trust. based on past experience, long time residents have every reason to be wary of proposals made by owners of the property. as a former member and officer of the parkmerced residents organization, i've also experienced battles with previous owners. earlier landlords have frankly not been trust for the. they have made promises which they have never carried out.