Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 13, 2010 4:30am-5:00am PST

4:30 am
houses, you will be able to see how elegant they are and how we cannot want our homes destroyed. this developer is ambitious and greedy and this would destroy the 16-acre site that constitutes part merced. this would destroy apartments. there are 11 of them now. this would teardown the 1530 townhomes. what the developers failed to understand is that in every one of these buildings, whether this is a tower or a town home, our human being who call this their home. i am 72 years old and i've been in one of the towers since 1986. my mother came in 1974 and she referred to the beautiful city of parker said as i am.
4:31 am
the developers talk about replacing town homes and apartments but cannot talk about the increased density of the self proposed project. their plants can be done now without destroying an entire community. the transportation program, the one with the three shuttles, the one with bicycle sharing, that can all be done now. you don't have to tear down all of these townhomes to do this. the phrase that is used is that this is in ottawa center design from the past. there descriptor covers the true one which should be the manhattan is asian of parker said. greedy maniacal developers should not destroy this beautiful city.
4:32 am
thank you. >> thank you. >> it has been a tough night waiting for this. i am very happy to be here to talk to you about park merced. my family has lived there since 1966. we were there before pro ever got developed. as it stands now, the organization is an organization that you have to pay dues in order to be a member us. they have about 10 or 15
4:33 am
members. the majority of the people live in park merced are not members and do not share their ideas. they are against the teardown of their homes. yes, they are renters. they are little people but they felt like they had homes. these beautiful town homes make you feel like you have a home, like real people. yes, we are under the gun all of the time and under the auspices of a landlord who is going to tell us if we will be able to lay our heads down and go to sleep and there is nothing that we are allowed to keep. they have stripped my family of their garden twice.
4:34 am
they say that they're going to replant and make it all beautiful and green and try to keep a garden there. that is really ridiculous to think this. what is this. because we are renters, we cannot live like a real family in a single-family home? we cannot feel like we have a little grudge or feel like we have a place to live? well, no, we are the little people but we certainly make san francisco fabulous. we are always pain. weak pay to get on the buses, we are pain to go shop and to do all of those things. then we will just have to pay more because when the new owners come in, that means that they can put in another passed
4:35 am
through even though we have come in a long time ago and we are under rent control, they will try to get us up to $4,000 a month. they will figure out how to pass these on. maybe it is truth that the city has no risk, that is because they will change this to the renter. they will make sure that the renter will pay everything back with interest. >> thank you. >> i have lived in park merced since 1953. there is no stand on the city's knows because the renters will bear it all. i feel before you come out on december 9th and you should look in the backyards and walk around
4:36 am
the property and see the pictures do not do this justice. the backyard looks gorgeous. we should have counseling on our rights. not that we are going to give you a washer and dryer but the bones on what the development agreement is. we should have counseling said that we can approach you on december 9th with some intelligent points. i want to make a couple of points. because this will be done over a long time and future portions may in fact not be developed, this does not address people that will have to go for 30 years and put up with all these buildings. we have not been offered any buyouts. i did not see this in the contract. 4.4 0.3, the pages are all changed.
4:37 am
if people accept these 1500 units and to know that they are entitled to rent control. those who want to stay until demolition will lose their homes. i don't think that this is right. they offered to pay moving fees for some seniors but they will not help to box and pack up. seniors should be allowed to stay in their homes upon notification of demolition, not upon permit to demolish. what is between a permit to demolish and demolition? an 80-year-old having to pack up the apartment, they should be allowed to do this as long as possible. our organization is in revolt. the board of directors is trying to get the president ad out. we're planning to put the
4:38 am
general manager of park merced and the head of residential relations. so they are tenants, they do not represent us. they are being paid by park merced. our president will not allow tenants issues to be heard. the board of directors has tried to shut us down and have an organization that represent the tenants. >> thank you. i have been a tenant for 20 years. many other people that i know are very excited about this
4:39 am
project as an environmentalist, this is exactly what i want to see. i want to see the transit and the bike paths and walking paths and the water and the energy. i am excited about this project. i know that there are down sides. living in a construction zone will be difficult. i and stand the challenges of moving. i think the rhetoric of having your home destroyed is a little bit at odds. there will be new beautiful units with washers and dryers and maybe that is not mean that much to some people but this is a pretty good compensation for losing an apartment that is not holding up so well over time. also, the truth is as an environmental activist, i have to say that there is a done side to the things that we do if that are better for the environment. this is not as easy to compost
4:40 am
and recycle and put everything and the right place and put it in the right beens. this is not your -- easy to plan trips and take pikes and walking as opposed to just getting in your car and going away. i have to pay so much more attention. it is not comfortable are always easy. this is a huge benefit for our society to live more sustainable. i just want to let you know that i fully support to this and a lot of other people do as well. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am representing the san francisco green party and the group, our city.
4:41 am
i want to turn on its head the testimony you just heard about environmental issues. i chair the sustainability working group of the san francisco green party. i want to focus on global greenhouse emissions. how this ends up after it is pulled out in relation to its admissions person is one thing. the net release of global warming gases from this is a completely different picture and it was not a picture that was painted for us this evening. when you cut down trees, when you destroy a building and then build another one, when you do all of those things, get big releases of co2 because you have new materials, diesel equipment which has huge releases that are building these as you go on. releases from trees and turf and
4:42 am
the soil but starts releasing a lot of greenhouse gases. this needs to be a completely different in division meant. this needs to happen in slow stages. we are already on the verge of hitting tipping points that will send us into crisis with the global warming situation. in the 30-year life of this project, what we need from staff and the developer is a real analysis of what the net increases will be, especially with 5000 more units and demolishing those that could be retrofitted instead and rebuilding them and one to one parking. we will see increased co2
4:43 am
emissions. the climate cannot handle one to one. this needs to be 25% and that means much more robust transit in this production. so, this must be a smaller phased and true to the neighbors you're hearing from and the residents that would like to retain their beautiful community and we get a net analysis of what the releases will be. one note on water, similar water stuff sounds interesting one thing that we need to start putting an even though this is more expensive, we need to start separating sewage wastes just like trash and we need to start installing composting toilet and similar types of torrance and any new units that are billed. also, for rent control. the final analysis points to the fact that we need to not
4:44 am
demolish any of the rent- controlled units, we need to retrofit them as well. >> is there additional public comment? >> i represent the affordable housing alliance. i think that there is substantial risk that the promise that is being made that these newly made units will be under rent control not be previously capped. there's a prohibition of establishing rent-controlled except under very limited circumstances. i want to talk about the problems with the ellis act which was decided by the court
4:45 am
of appeals in june. in that case, the owner of the property entered into agreement and promised to operate certain units as rent-controlled units. however, some time later, they or their successor decided that they no longer wish to do that and when they stopped doing that, litigation resulted and we went to the california court of appeals and the court of appeals look at that situation and said, they can remove these units right now, these rights are not able to be waived. there is an attempt to wave them that the california court of appeals said that they cannot be waived. the also said that they would not even look at the agreement that was being litigated. this was not relevant to the court of appeals. what agreement was made between the owner of the property and anyone else but continues to have a rent-controlled unit?
4:46 am
the california league of cities road a brief asking the california supreme court here to please review this case to deal with the uncertainty that was created. the reference the fact that it was risky and unclear whether a development agreement in the context of this case would be effective in handling these kinds of situations and they specifically mentioned this development as something that has uncertainty. i think that there is a lot riskier. this might not be with the city of certainly with the people that live there now. thank you. >> thank you >> good evening. i promise not to talk about
4:47 am
baseball. i am here on behalf of st. stephen's perish. this is located at 473 eucalyptus. this is the largest community that is contiguous to parker said. about three years ago when we learned of the plans to expand, we decided that we were going to form a committee to review this. we are fortunate in that we have land use attorneys and a gentle man who is a lead environmental assessor. we have small builders and developers. we have a fairly well versed community that has had several meetings separate from the park merced people we have had the
4:48 am
elements come and go, development teams and our neighborhood has unable to ferret out who we think is a legitimate developer and who will follow through and who we do not. we were a large part of the opposition before. these people are all members of our community. on what we really got out of this to reduce this down to my three minutes timeframe is that this project promises infrastructure improvements and traffic safety that we don't see happening without this project. 19th avenue is by far one of the most dangerous corridors. our kids go up and down this all the time. you have the ymca, san francisco state. and i don't see this coming from
4:49 am
the state. what we do see is a developer who was willing to hold the rental units and not turn them over. the basel agreement might be a little bit more enforceable than the last gentlemen intimated. our attorneys seem to believe that this is a document that can be enforced. the parker said group has done many meetings. they brought them in specifically for us. we really feel that if this project is not go forward, aside from missing a new and final neighborhood, we will not have safe streets. even with your five funding, this is a busy area. at least we have an opportunity
4:50 am
to have safer streets. we will be bringing many more people at the meetings go on. we have about 400 people that like to talk. >> good evening, commissioners. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you and express my support for the new park merced and the long-range vision. i had been a resident since 1997. the reason i support the long- range plan is the fact that the owners have gone the extra mile to involve our residential community as well as the neighbors with over 100 meetings. i attended a majority of the meetings which have been held specifically for the residents. they have listened to our concerns and suggestions and have addressed issues and challenges and have made adjustments to the master plan
4:51 am
based on our template. after investing in our community, they have improved the safety and quality of life in our homes. they have positive vision of what it means to be community. most impressive besides the obvious sustainable mixture of the new housing and moving into more affordable housing is the pledge to maintain the rent controls for current residents even if they are relocated to do to the new housing. this is a safe, clean, more energy-efficient community today than the one i moved into in 1997 and it will be even better after implementation of the new plan. i urge the board to listen to what the owners are promising for the new park merced and to hold them to those promises which will be the model of 21st
4:52 am
century urban sustainability. an innovative committee that showed cases what can be in san francisco and become a deacon of irresponsible neighborhood for the world. i've been pleased with the progress they have made and the time they have been in charge and i look forward to a better part in the future. i believe that you will be to end will be able to say some of the best new communities are killed in san francisco. thank you. >> thankp built in san francisco. thank you for your time. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, president miguel, commissioners. i am a member of st. stephen's parish. i have two kids across the street and take the school bus home. i'm also an engineer, and i have watched the construction
4:53 am
industry on ravel overbuilt -- unravel over the last few years, so i'm excited to see a developer who is stepping forward with 56 new homes. that means a lot, maybe not to the planning commission, but it means a lot to union and nonunion carpenters and laborers and engineers. we don't have a lot of good news happening right now. this is exciting for me, and i would kind of like to see some commissioner step up and see if we could increase the density. the knee-jerk reaction is to find a way to reduce the density. it seems like the answer, the green party gentleman earlier was suggesting we do very little or retrofit with the
4:54 am
existing, but density is the answer. density is the greenway to live. manhattan is the greatest way to live, and we all live in a tower and everything is centralized and there is large space between the towers. that is actually a greenway to live, greener than 25-foot high house is, as we were talking about earlier. it was almost like we were trying to talk about the project as if it should be in the context of sunset. those are endless two-story houses, that is not the green way to live. i would challenge some commissioner to say maybe we could increase the density. commissioner moore was talking about the towers and how far
4:55 am
they are from transit. a it is hard to get the train over there, but it is right where the of m train terminates. that is a positive thing, and i would like to hear somebody say some positive comments than just developers putting up a huge amount and intend to invest another billion dollars, when what i see in my business is nobody else putting money up, no banks putting money up. i think the developer should be applauded for their confidence in the city, and i would like to hear somebody perhaps thankful for that. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good evening, president miguel and commissioners. i am a resident of the san francisco. it is a commercial building, and
4:56 am
glad be here on a less controversial project than i have been involved in before. i am a developer by trade. some of you remember some of them. i will be short. one of the things that stood out to me when i was approached by this project was the amount of infrastructure that the developer is proposing to do. one of the worst sections of road in san francisco is 19th avenue. basically you have an opportunity with the density of state college and the town center and the density of park merced right now and take the transit center out of the middle of the road and put it off the side, which is an unbelievable opportunity. when you take the tracks out there, it creates more capacity on 19th avenue. i don't think we put letters on how bad the traffic service is
4:57 am
there, and it will increase the safety and slow down traffic. it is a start. one of the other things, as a kid, one of the things i did not know is the kind of reenergize in -- putting the water back into the ground for lake merced, which is a huge problem for anybody on the west side. it has been a problem and it continues to go there. the other thing, it is smart growth. it is something where you have a responsible developer who is coming up and taking most of the burden from the city. i believe the development agreement is enforceable, and i think we have had a recent success with another project on
4:58 am
market street where it was promised that some of the units would stay affordable. they moved into a brand-new building, and i have not told anybody there, but everything i have heard is that has been a huge success and the people who moved in their are happy with their new and improved, safer, cleaner, better development. these guys are giving us everything that we want with this. i urge you to have an open mind and work with them. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public, disclosed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: thank you. this is a difficult task. that exceeds many of our lifetimes. i always have a question as to whether or not we can look at clearly into the future, but perhaps you can.
4:59 am
one thing i would like to ask is, is there not a physical plan by which incrementally we know where on the site actions will occur and how compensatory improvements regarding streets, transit, etc., will occur? that is a very important question that allows us to understand the complexity of the development aggrieve meant -- agreement, which is the legal over lead. >> commissioner, great question. unlike shipyard, there are no physical predetermined phases. there are some well-defined rules for how such future phases must be implemented. in the eir, which i believe you have a draft copy of, you will see it illustrated phases,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on