Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 13, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PST

11:00 pm
>> good evening commissioners. joel koppel. homeowner of san francisco, my mom raised me at park merced. let me express my support for the project tonight. this part of town needs to make a green statement over long periods of time respect sustainable buildings makes project more economically feasible. up front construction costs are off set by less energy consumption and monetary savings. these -- these can in a couple of ways play-pay for themselves. not only is this good for the environment, it is good for the wallet. afterward park merced will be a more attractive property, will have higher occupancy rates and this will result in a more successful project. i urge you to move the project forward, thank you. >> thank you. good evening. my name is gene darcy. i'm a third generation san franciscan, i'm approaching my
11:01 pm
19th year of living in park merced. i have read all of the e.i.r., attended just about every informational meeting and hearing. i have weighed the pros and cons of a long-term vision and after speaking with various stake holders, i'm in support of the long-term vision. while i love for park merced to remain the same, i realize that would not be economically viable, nor environmentally sound. i also raise my three daughters in park merced as a single parent and a middle school science and math teacher in san francisco unified. my salary, i can never afford to buy a home in the city where i was born. and where i -- i hope to live for all of my life and -- until i die and so i need a rent controlled apartment. i also have a 26-year-old handicapped daughter who gets no assistance from the government. and i fear that if this plan
11:02 pm
does not go forward, that -- that park merced will not be a viable place and will -- will parcel off. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm elizabeth keith, i'm onnie 17th year at park merced. i'm in support of the project. this is a great opportunity to be a part of something that keeps the future and our limented resources in mind. the new rico friendly takes the residents in consideration and plants and animals native to the area. the plan to recycle the water is important to our future. i believe park merced takes into consideration the disruption of new construction as well and has a plan to separate it out so it is not just happening in one location. if people are concerned about having to move because of their age or being disabled, i am so willing to help them move and i
11:03 pm
hope my neighbors are too. i think people will be more satisfied than they realize and the owners have promised affordable housing. as one 0 -- one of my fellow neighbors has said, a chance to create a better community. >> maurn egg bar and mary ann miller and ellen goodman. >> good evening. my name is eveningburg. i lived in merced since 1993. i'm 100% opposed to the project. the city claims that they're -- there are public benefits to the project. how can the city claim that making me and the other 8,000 residents of park merced -- sick with cancer by exposing us to
11:04 pm
asbestos and other substance that is we know are in the building being demolished is a good thing for all of us. the fact we will be subject to construction noise and other air and water pollutants for the next 30 years of our life is for the public good, according to -- to the e.i.r., asbestos is not part of the e.i.r. and is not -- nor on the draft e.i.r. how can asbestos not be an essential part of any environmental report is beyond my comprehension and one of the most absurd statements i ever heard. as of july 99, merced was 196 acres, 4 blocks and 3,487 rental units. the planners have not taken into consideration that blocks one, two, five, six, 41 and 42 are part of town houses and parking spaces that caramel partners sold to san francisco state
11:05 pm
university from 2000, 2005 and -- realty was the landlord. thank you so much. >> can i give these comments? >> yes. >> i'm speaking on behalf of mary ann mill war is not able to stay longer tonight. she's -- she's a board member of san francisco tomorrow and she is. >> you could submit her comments. >> i'm submitting her comments right here. now go to my minute. gardens are for people. thomas oliver church wrote that book. i don't think that anybody so far has even discussed that. the loss of open space, the effects of the loss of this landscape are irreplaceable. you cannot demolish a national eligible site and not assess a value to this to the people that are living there. they're losing way more than
11:06 pm
anything that is being discussed in this developer agreement or in the financial analysis being shown to you. the principles of unity and function and simplicity and scale were part of that discussion. gardens are for people. sitting on the dock of the bay. i hear when i think of the developer agreement, it is not about the bay anymore, it is about with making pun. wait a minute. what happened to the landscape and character of the city that we have? are we going to lose it, throw it away? let somebody clean the slate and start from scratch. i don't think that's appropriate. >> thank you. barney larsen, cynthia, car roeschy. >> good evening commissioners. i'm artie larsen. i lived at park merced for 14 years. i support this project. i noticed in the consultant's
11:07 pm
report that it indicates this project will have a significant positive economic impact throughout san francisco and that includes 1600 new permanent jobs and 159 million in subsidies for rent controlled replacement apartments. these are real benefits for real people. there have been over four years of meetings on this project, the land lord made 250 presentations to residents, residents of other neighborhoods and other interested parties. i haven't been to all, but i seen the project change over time. i been listened to by the land lord and the architects and some of my ideas have been included in the current plan. in chicago they say vote early and often. i -- you have listened to us late and often, i thank you for that and i encourage you to vote yes on this project. >> thank you.
11:08 pm
>> good evening. i'm cynthia with the san francisco preservation group. we're concerned your considering the amendment with the maps and general plan and approving related infrastructure improvements. in advance of the issuance of the comments and responses document of the final environmental impact report, kind of gives the appearance that this project is a fate that comply and it may evidence a subjective intent to carry out the project. the draft report appears to minimize the historical significance of the existing national register eligible development. we feel the cumulative impacts have not been properly assessed, especially with regard to -- to pier world war suburbs such as
11:09 pm
sunnieside gardens and fairfax. our comments were submitted in writing. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is ruiz. i'm president of the richmond association and the line use. there -- there are many concerns. first of all, there has not been serious discussion as to the -- totalitytive plans for this project. i think that -- that needs to be -- that needs to be vetted. another is that this is a -- such a huge project going on for 20 years and i don't believe that the cumulative impacts of -- of this for over 20 years has been considered. many residents are elderly and they can't attend meetings at
11:10 pm
this hour. meetings should be scheduled and -- in a certain way so that their time and their. is are respected. affordability. this is not market rate work force -- excuse me -- this is not work force housing. teachers here -- that -- that spoke before, they won't be able to afford -- >> thank you. >> this should be than considered at this time. it seems like it is a done deal within >> rose, tim, nancy, stefan, heidi. >> good evening commissioners. rose hilson. i would like to address the financial feasibility report. the person who ran all of the numbers, there seem to be scenarios such as 50% rent controlled and certain percentage of the units or -- are running a feasibility sen farrow on having no rent controlled units and various other things. but i don't think that the
11:11 pm
alternate proposals have their own financial feasibility analysis and that should be considered. i want to know what each option will mean in regard to what will be built for the sake of the tenants and as far as sustainability, the phases to be held, should be held to a higher energy saving standard just like automobiles as they get newer and newer, the tightening of the legislation for cleaner air and everything, gets more stringent and maybe that's what should be done since it is going to take 20 to 30 years. >> thank you. >> good evening. tim colon on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i like to draw your attention to the contrast on the environmental sustainability and what the project actually is now as -- as -- designed and built
11:12 pm
60 years ago as a celebration of low density suburban housing and -- and abundance -- abundant supply of cheap fossil fuels and huge amounts of pottable water and convenience for automobiles and drivers. the project that -- that you have heard described for today has very different values. it is an enormous contrast. second on the historic preservation, we, the housing action coalition discussed it and would support preservation of a small number of the church units as examples of that type of architecture. but the idea that some how this is a historically significant project that the entire thing is deserving of protection is frankly kind of outlandish and further debases the discussion about historic preservation. >> i'm steve heidi and i live very close to the park merced project. it is going to be a tremendous impact on the surrounding
11:13 pm
neighborhood. i urge you to not vote for it. in its presence -- present proposed form. it is way too massive. it needs to be scaled down. the developers refused to negotiate with the surrounding neighborhood associations. we like to hear from -- from the planning commission -- if a compromise can be reached regarding the number of units, bedrooms and all of that. the current proposal is way too massive and will forever change the landscape of the south west portion of san francisco. according to the development, they will have -- go from 3200 housing units to 8900. they plan to have 16 thousand bedrooms. 30,000 plus residents. this could be well above that number. especially with san francisco state students occupying some of the dwellings. please don't vote -- >> there any further public
11:14 pm
comment. >> good evening commissioners. this -- this project is definitely not ready for initiation, please do not initiate this evening. i'll just -- now we're getting to the independent of the process, i'll bring up brass tacks. a couple of months ago, commissioner sugaya asked the developers and staff to -- to show a net carbon footprint for this project. now we can listen to hyper boll lick statements and see pair boll i think charts about sustainability for months -- we need to see the net carbon footprint. that also needs to be compared with -- with what the net would be if the demolished apartments were instead retro fitted and also compare it with -- with what would happen with a similar number of apartments in -- in better density in the downtown
11:15 pm
core next to transit. those false need to be done or this project should not be initiated in -- and it hasn't been done yet. thanks. >> thank you. additional public comment. if not public comment is closed. i would caution the commissioners that -- we are at -- >> evening. i know it is late. i'm here as a representative of the -- of stevens parish and i spent about four years going over this project with the -- with the help and aid of the project developers and had conversations with -- with -- with michael yarny and joshua and -- i probably read over 5,000 pages in different -- going from the supervisor's report, to the e.i.r. and the development agreement and many iterations. there's been a lot of time spent
11:16 pm
on this project. there's been a lot of good thought, i urge you to entertain people that will engaidge you with the actual facts of the project. it is -- it is a daunting project -- to understand all of it and like i said, i spent four years in -- and i can't tell you how many hours but probably approaching a thousand hours reading different things and living in the neighborhood. don't short sell this. get involved in it. it is important for us. talk to ray hood, the secretary of transportation, we got -- we got -- >> separation. >> separation of church and state. >> good evening. responsible growth. less than a minute, say i support the project. i think you do have a lot of responsibility with this. perhaps more than you're normally used to to make sure that it is done sensitively and done with a regard for the -- for the residents of the neighborhood but if it is done -- if it is done appropriately,
11:17 pm
i think it'll be -- a good thing for the city fp thank you. >> thank you. >> any further public comment? if not public comment is closed. as i was saying, i caution the commissioners we have a -- less than a half hour to get out of here. to the garage and we still have one more item. antonini. >> i'm going to try to keep this really quick and -- some -- some bullet points in reaction to what we heard. and of course, entitlement goes with the project, not with the -- with the entity that owns it. so if there were concerns about -- about the economic status of the particular owner, remember the project goes -- the entitlements go with the project and certainly it could be sold if there ever were -- were a nonviable situation. there was comments about the existing shopping center, that's is is a separate ownership as everybody probably knows. i think that concerns about the
11:18 pm
viability of the existing shopping center should be addressed to the owners of that -- of that portion which is not the ownership of the current park merced. also, i think it is really important that we're taking steps to address the concerns of -- of the e present residents who live it -- present residents that live there and assure them continued rent controlled units -- but of course that is -- that's of equal and probably better units because they'll be new units but of equal importance, i think are the home -- the home ownership opportunities and new rental opportunities for three times the number of people that will live there and can't live there now. i think that's an important thing to keep in mind. i think there was a question about seismic safety and one would think that newly constructed buildings should be under higher seismic standards than existing ones and those existing and being kept have to
11:19 pm
be upgraded to a level that be of that quality, i would think. >> not in the proposal. >> excuse me. okay. and the development agreement is a really important thing to keep in mind. because -- there's no guarantee that the laws that are in existence today are always going to be the same. we know of other cities where -- where rent stabilization laws have changed to santa monica, berkeley and new york. i'm not saying anything is going to happen here. at least you have -- you will have in place a development agreement that is an additional assurance for people who may live there and future -- future people who want to occupy rent controlled units that would not exist if there wasn't this development agreement, so i think that is an additional insurance to what exists now. and -- finally on carbon -- carbon footprint, as you heard mr. yarny say, the goal is to have three times the number of residents with the same carbon impact as is now the case.
11:20 pm
so that would be one-third the impact -- if i'm interpreting that right, mr. yarny for three times the residents -- the same amount. so, i -- i know -- i foe other commissioners have -- i know other commissioners have comments. i'm interested in initiating. an initiation is a beginning. we already begun but now we're going to begin formally. i would move to initiate tonight. >> what is the other item? >> just for the benefit of the public. this is the informational portion only. we have one more item on the calendar. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. yarny made a thought for presentation. i'm not an economist, i would like to have a follow up question and answer session page by page, i took a number of -- of -- i have a number of questions, partially because of this being a complex issue, has implications over a very long
11:21 pm
time frame, your percentage set aside for efrpblialities, what do they mean spread -- edgialities spread over 20 years. there are many questions, a level of detail which probably is all at your finger tips for -- for -- speaking for myself on the receiving end at this hour of the day it is a lot. i appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you presented. it was clear. well laid out. i like the firm you're working with as really objective advisor to you. it needs more q and a and i'll ask for that. >> olague. >> even if we initiate, we shouldn't soum that we're going to be -- we shouldn't make -- shouldn't make assumptions about anything at this point. i know we did acknowledge that we'll be moving into a date in february 3rd for -- for -- for some of the bigger items. i think that before -- before --
11:22 pm
before whatever date -- we schedule for -- for final action, i think that -- there does need to be several more -- more -- meetings and opportunities for the public and -- residents to -- to weigh in, so, we will be having this meeting. i'll be reaching out to some of the tenants here, if they're interested but the purpose of the meeting is to -- to present a place where there's dialogue, so it is for the meant to pressure tenants into feeling like they have to support or not this project. it is not to try to pressure people to change their minds or to influence them in that way. it is just to have another -- another place where they could talk to the supervisors and mayor's office and some of the tenants, representatives. so, i -- i want to make that clear that it is no way meant as a sales pitch or as a place to manipulate people into -- into thinking any particular way about the project. perhaps uale get the small
11:23 pm
business -- you'll get the small business commission to weigh in. i always get your first name and i never catch your last name. john? okay. that's why. but maybe we'll have some more talks and -- with them and -- i think we need to have more, maybe -- maybe more serious conversation with you about some of these things. because you been here at all of the hearings, i don't think any of us have gone beyond the hearings to hear, to go over. >> yeah. >> commissioner moore. >> as commissioner, i'm expressing interest to discuss rent control and replacement units. i followed that closely. i'm on citizen advisorys for other projects of similar kind. i like to read across what they're doing, what is proposed here. i would like to add myself to the list, the facts that -- that -- the fact i continue to ask questions does not have anything to do with the fact that i'm trying to start the project but
11:24 pm
i owe it to myself, making lock -- long reaching and far reaching decisions which -- will exceed our life-spans, because year one is not the first year in 20 years. since this project was -- was market driven, i don't think fib has a crystal ball when this project will take in, it could be seven years, five years. we don't know. having said that, having said that, i like to take the next -- the next critical question i have asked this question from the very beginning. commission sugaya picked it up in my absence last week. i would like to have the architect -- the architect take their best guess at the -- the question which was asked, was every architectural project or every planning project i designed in my career, when is the architects vision on phasing. that doesn't mean the developer makes a commitment. it is a simple urban design
11:25 pm
rules which allows an architect to talk about it. i would encourage that -- that -- that together with staff from the planning department avail themselves to have that discussion. that doesn't mean that a commitment implies -- implied but i think it allows all of us to have a feeling that this has been thought through. >> commissioner aol laggy. >> i agree -- i agree with commissioner moore and sugaya. i don't know if that would involve a 10:00 hearing. i think we need to schedule this. i would be interested in that also. >> would you call the next item? >> commissioners, you're now on item 19, case number 2008.0021 epmtzw to initiate planning code zoning map and general plan amendments as part of the merced development project. >> commissioners planning staff.
11:26 pm
you have before you the amendments to the zoning map and the general plan related to the park merced mixed use project. you have the ordinary innocences for some time now. they were submitted to you -- to you and have been continued a couple of times. december 9th, you received updated corrections to the ordinances and you had those as well. up. happy to answer any questions you have about the ordinances, the planning code and general plan amendments. but -- to just -- to just repeat what is -- has been said a couple of times, this is the initiation to begin the process so you may hold a hearing at a future date, sometime on or after february 3rd. croo an update is to be -- an update is to be determined. that's to discuss the finer points of planning code and other proers fored amendments. we're happy to answer questions.
11:27 pm
>> i'm going to ask the public who -- whose comment i would normally call for now, it is going to be up to them. we can either take regular public comment, again at one minute apiece, if we do that, we are going to exceed our -- our 11:45 of which we have to -- to take a break of at least 15 to 20 minutes if not more, in order to get cars out of the garage and you're going to be here well into the morning. or i can just ask those in favor of the initiation to stand and those opposed to the initiation to stand. that's going to be up to you. if anyone starts speaking, believe me, you're going dobb in here until well in the morning. >> we want to speak. >> we got to move cars. >> yeah. >> you're, you're -- >> you're going to lose commissioners.
11:28 pm
>> you're going to lose commissioners also. >> postpone. >> i made the offer. >> go home. >> suspend. >> suspend the hearing. >> suspend. >> we'll stay. i'm staying. >> i'm staying. >> if it is 3 :00 this the morning i'm staying. >> i'm calling. >> every single person who has been here for five hours, with -- with -- i object, my family on scrects. this needs to be defended and you need to honor our rights in the united states of america. >> i'm calling for public comment. >> i object. >> of one minute. these -- >> those, line up on the side.
11:29 pm
16 minutes we will suspend the hearing for 15 minutes. >> it is improper to initiate, i sent a letter to mr. swits ski about the website that shows specifically that this initiation would not occur until after the third, about states it on the website of the fran government website on the planning department that it would not be initiated prior to february 3rd to initiate tonight is improper. it is against regulation and code and whatever you want to say. this should not occur, you do not have all of the information in front of you. you haven't heard the issues. that's definitely against any kind of law or issue i ever heard of. i think it is improper you're doing it at this time of night. there was people that were here to push this meeting as late as possible. this is human beings, this has nothing to do with anything else. you guys are commissioners, you're appointed by people that want to see this ram rodded through on the fastest track possible. you need to stop and think about who this is affec