one way would be an amendment to costa-hawkins. i met with burt he said he would talk with that development about supporting that, and that might be something that developers across the board in san francisco would get behind. we will keep running into this problem where tenants are going to have to oppose new very well ment. -- new development. the promise of rent control is more dubious than it was at that time. we're talking about 1,500 units vs. 300. it is also important to note that without a change in costa hawkins, we are simply talking about the tenans who move getting rent control until they move on. we are not talking about permanent rent control. this is units that may have rent control for another two years but will eventually be 1,500 units lolvet with rent control, and if you brought a picture of costa-hawkins, we are only losing rent-control units. we cannot add a single new rent control unit in san francisco today because of state law. between democrat missions and evictions and all of that, the number of rental uni

one way would be an amendment to costa-hawkins. i met with burt he said he would talk with that development about supporting that, and that might be something that developers across the board in san francisco would get behind. we will keep running into this problem where tenants are going to have to oppose new very well ment. -- new development. the promise of rent control is more dubious than it was at that time. we're talking about 1,500 units vs. 300. it is also important to note that without a change in costa hawkins, we are simply talking

that can't be good enough, especially because of the recent changes and law addressed in costa-hawkins. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. eric burks representing the green party and our city. as written we are opposed to this project. sorry, i left my muzzle at home. just start with transit and parking. one-to-one parking is a 20th century dinosaur. it shouldn't be part of the project. the transit aspects of the project should be more robust. the m line to daly city should be guaranteed and not a possibility. i want to strongly agree with all the museum that spoke on the rent control issue. that's huge. we're not going to be able to guarantee that these units stay rent controled, and once the current 10 apts leave it will be -- once the current tenants leave it will be impossible. to dovetail on to that, something i haven't heard in response to e.i.r. or on this yet the carbon emigs factor needs to be -- emissions factor needs to be understood in all this demolition and reconstruction. you may have over time a carbon neutral project over several decades or over more than a cen

no matter what the developer's promise, they cannot under the costa-hawkins act -- i'm sorry, i can't read so quickly, promise us rent-controlled apartments. i studied the 2,000-page e.i.r. which was a task in itself. the thing the e.r. says in itself, the best alternative for the environment is no development. as one of the speakers says, many of things are unsustainable and unmitigable, being toxic levels of construction, noise levels are unmitigable. wind and shadow, traffic in spite of all the crecks is still unavoidable and unmitigable. we were never told about 300,000 square feed feet development of commercial space, and we do have a coffee shop, a brand new coffee shop that sells blue bottled coffee. we also say park merced is in financial problems, and the problems they have repaired have been supervision. winter -- i would like to submit a wrin written statement. we only find out about this meeting on saturday. i feel we should be notified much earlier than we are. it seems to me, the offers developing the -- it seems to me their developing the city seems to me a bribe. i've