Latest Breaking News On - Polly marshall - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Beck Isle Museum: Lego, Bayko, life-sized paintings and historic Kodak cameras among exhibits at site documenting social history of Pickering

Pioneering Research Led By Breast Cancer Survivors Links Phthalates and Parabens In Personal Care Products To Higher Risk of Breast Cancer

Pioneering Research Led By Breast Cancer Survivors Links Phthalates and Parabens In Personal Care Products To Higher Risk of Breast Cancer

/PRNewswire/ -- Breast Cancer Over Time (BCOT), a non-profit organization created and controlled by breast cancer survivors, has released findings from an...

Bay Area Reporter :: Political Notebook: Gay affordable housing advocate joins SF rent board

A gay affordable housing advocate has joined the San Francisco Rent Board as a tenant representative in one of the oversight body's alternate seats.

Bay Area Reporter :: Political Notebook: Gay affordable housing advocate joins SF rent board

A gay affordable housing advocate has joined the San Francisco Rent Board as a tenant representative in one of the oversight body's alternate seats.

The future of the Board of Supes is on the line as redistricting moves forward

A set of crucial decisions that could impact the city’s politics for the next decade are going to start to play out Monday/19 at the Board of Supes Rules Committee – and most of the news media hasn’t even notices. The committee will recommend three people to serve on the city’s Redistricting Task Force, which will write new lines for the supervisorial districts based on the 2020 census. This is potentially critical – even small changes in the current lines could have a big political impact. And the task force will be making more than small changes: The city has picked up 80,000 new residents in the past ten years, most of them on the East Side of town, so some district lines will have to change pretty significantly.

Bay Area Reporter :: Political Notes: With home purchase, SF gay rent board member resigns

After two years as a tenant representative on the San Francisco Rent Board, Reese Aaron Isbell will be stepping down at the end of July. The gay mayoral appointee and his husband, Sheng "Bruce" Yang, are becoming homeowners.

Transcripts For SFGTV 20110214

asking, offering he spoke eloquew the development agreement would have found success of the owners -- successive owners. that this is a setup. the stellar management was unable to handle this project on their own. they almost went into foreclosure. the sole purpose of this application is to enhance the value of the property and making it more attractive to a new investor that will come down the road and rescue unheard it. i have a comment about muni re- routing. from the looks of the latest, it will go very close to nineteenth avenue and scoot back up next to the store that is currently there. this is probably one of the less desirable aspects. through the years, it has been relatively free of street crime due to isolation and lack of terrain by outsiders. putting the metro line in will serve to bring opportunities for those that commit such crimes. they have done less than nothing for the student population. along with the san francisco metropolitan transit authority, they have done nothing about the illegally parked cars every night. these are the red zone throughout the property. rerouting the m metro will affect the writers on the line. it does not perform very well at best. every time it is rerouted from the center of the street, there is a serious delay. rerouting this again will further congest traffic. the cost is almost unimaginable considering the talent for overruns. they might have the developer underwrite the expansion, including a late-night bus service. [chime] >> thank you. >> they told me i had to roll up my flag. i hope it is ok. as those california, so goes the nation. how about, as goes virginia, so goes california. welcome to fairfax, a community with a significant future. they are carefully nestled into 132 landscaped acres. this community began as rental construction. many washingtonians have chosen us as their first homes. in honor of black history month, i would like to pay tribute to an african-american woman. they filed a complaint alleging that metropolitan life was engaging in racially discriminatory practices. the case went all the way to the united states supreme court, and in the end, they won. it was integrated along with its counterparts in other parts of the nation. this case is considered a landmark case. it is the breeding ground for civil rights. god bless america. some are trying to destroy it. >> [reading names] >> eric brooks representing the green party and the grass-roots organization "our city." i'm saying something new. along with -- i will end with something old, most likely. i have been watching this process for several months assuming that the old towers were going to be retrofitted as part of this project. i did not realize that that was the case. you can build some buildings that have incredible strength and resilience, but when you have a bunch of bull towers that are vulnerable and not up to spec, the emergency response is going to be required for those hours -- towers and it will put a strain on the entire emergency response. this is going to be a more dangerous neighborhood, and if you're going to go with this monster, require them to retrofit those towers with current specs. on greenhouse gas emissions, which he presented to prove my point for me. it did not include the massive carbon releases that will happen from the landscape reorganization. it wasn't even included in the analysis. it did not include the landscaping, and more importantly, if you go with of the numbers presented, you do not get a carbon that effective for 24 years out -- benefit for 24 years out. if you look at the panel on climate change, they are saying that we need to start reducing carbon emissions immediately and dramatically. that means that the beginning of this project, it is increasing carbon emissions that is not good. the analysis did not include 5000 parking spaces. it is absurd. we heard a staff member claimed that with 5000 more parking spaces, which would get less traffic. if that is not a reason for you to vote against what has been presented to you, i don't know what is. that is a ludicrous claim. what it boils down to, this project must be extremely scale down. -- scaled down. we have brought up trinity. [chime] thanks. >> i am a fifth degeneration of native san franciscan. i have lived in district 4 and 7. i was born and raised in the cities that i have just said. much of it i lived outside of san francisco and california. when i moved back here to the city, i bought a house just about a mile away. one of the things that really struck me about the neighborhood, i am talking about richmond district. clearly to me, that is a great demand to live in san francisco. these illegal units do not seem to be dissipating. they seem to be growing. because of the issues it is causing in other neighborhoods, a lot of people have spoken tonight. i want to talk about the balance of the city on that. i think what the development group is considering what they will do here, there is an opportunity to alleviate the overcrowding in the issues -- and the issues that have been done to our town. i also want to discuss the current situation of our economics in california. we have a lot of issues. we just elected a governor that is having to make some hard choices. he is looking to be a little bit left of center. he will have to make tough decisions about human services. the way that will be addressed is with tax revenues. the numbers that we saw tonight that were presented by the city primarily and representatives of the city show a great opportunity that will be provided by this project. i know that there are various members that will get great jobs. coupled with the small business that has been discussed already, this is a win for california and san francisco. i urge you to vote yes on this matter. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. he is hard to know where to start. >> state your name. >> i'm polly marshall. in my other life, i am a housing attorney in private practice. i have some written comments that i will give to you. i am not sure how much time i want to spend going over them. i am so discouraged about what i have been hearing. the development agreement continues to inadequately protected the tenant -- protect the tenant. i did speak about this on your last year hearing. in spite of publicly saying that i was in with a member of the board of supervisors, the state law relocation rights and benefits -- that is not the case. it is a vague statement that developers apply with all applicable laws. and they require the tenants to stay, and they have to stay till the very end or else they get nothing. they have no rights. i will skip the rest of that so i can get to what i really want to say. it was really article in the newspaper has that got me here tonight. because the proposed development is the kind of development that i normally would support. it is the kind of thing i work on in my profession. as a redeveloped lawyer, i help cities accomplished these kinds of projects. and what is different about this project, it involves an existing community. it requires devastation of that community in reminds me of the old-style redevelopment projects like the one in the fillmore. but that that area out. -- look at that area now. it was destroyed a decade ago. i can't believe this is happening again. [chime] why destroy it? >> thank you. i know you will probably be too tired to stay, but some of us might call you back up. thank you. [reading names] >> good evening, commissioners. i am president of the triangle neighborhood association. we are just across the street from the brotherhood. the project needs to be scaled back. all reports and studies show that the impact of having 8900 units, 16,200 bedrooms, and a population between 25,000 people and 30,000 people is not in the best interest of the residents. it is in the interest of san francisco for one reason. a larger tax base. instead of moving to 8900 units, we should look at a moderate growth for this area. also, the transit proposals need to be implemented. and development funding should be secured and guaranteed before it moves forward. not during or after. this would require modifications to the development agreement. but it can be done. the surrounding neighborhood associations would like to have input about the size and scope of the projects. however, they are firm that there is no room for compromise. it is all or nothing. frankly, neither is a desirable alternative. i would like to hear one commission member and probably one of the four who vated in fav -- voted in favor of the eir, a scaled-back version that will be a compromise and one for all residents, the surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the developers that we can all agree upon a scaled-down project before passage of the excuse development on such a grandiose scale. this will impact the city of san francisco well into the twenty second century. >> i have lived there for 53 years. last night, residents received the enclosed plan phasing of this at our doors. it shows each phase begins with the words "could phase 2," etcetera. in the developer agreement, page 25, it clearly states that the development phase is currently unknown. it is not known and not specified. the residents could have a very different reality than that shown on the flyer received. we are not included in a true process. the developer agreement does not support greater public benefit. the fire proposes over two years of notification of anticipated time of removal. on page 54 b, it clearly states notice not sooner than one year before the anticipated completion of replacement building. you expect us to trust a developer that has consistently not had a real dialogue with the residents. and now our own city is proposing to throw us to the wolves. those are the commissioners that vote to support this project and should be held responsible for their actions. this project is a vision that is not in harmony with the people, place, where the environment. it is a narrow vision. a corporate vision built on the backs of the people that live here. it will include people that live here, taking them and their children into the future. had not -- and not expose the children to cancer causing toxins. it was designed in relation to the nation that surrounds it. it is a gentle transition, even with its powers. it integrates into the greater san francisco. this does not, in any way, shape, or form integrate the surrounding landscape. it will simply be a monument to human centered corporate worlds. thank you. [chime] >> hello, commissioners. i went to san francisco state university. i am here to support the project. i think the redevelopment is a great plan for san francisco. it will help keep families in san francisco. please help us address this by holding the proposed plan today. >> we heard some speakers say that the current housing hall is of questionable standards. but we are being proposed renovation vs. demolition. what would be demolished are many family homes that would be affordable. we hear tim say this is the largest replacement project undertaken in san francisco or the region. he talked about the city's need for more housing. we recently heard about all of the foreclosures. things will adjust. you are raising a well- established community -- razing a well-established community. we must preserve existing neighborhoods. this neighborhood is being removed. we talked about the controls that were on the books to preserve affordable housing. this isn't even being looked at, is it? instead of the 3200 i believe it is -- 8900 units. only a third are going to be on site. 2/3 will be somewhere. and this just is not -- it is too massive a project. there were people that talked about how much greener it will be, but with the increased density, it will throw off as many tons of co2 as it does currently. and water usage, they say is almost double that. they are tripling the number of units. a lot of very well established trees are being cut out. it will process the co2 that is being released. it will take some time to

Transcripts For SFGTV 20110212

the development agreement would have found success of the owners -- successive owners. that this is a setup. the stellar management was unable to handle this project on their own. they almost went into foreclosure. the sole purpose of this application is to enhance the value of the property and making it more attractive to a new investor that will come down the road and rescue unheard it. i have a comment about muni re- routing. from the looks of the latest, it will go very close to nineteenth avenue and scoot back up next to the store that is currently there. this is probably one of the less desirable aspects. through the years, it has been relatively free of street crime due to isolation and lack of terrain by outsiders. putting the metro line in will serve to bring opportunities for those that commit such crimes. they have done less than nothing for the student population. along with the san francisco metropolitan transit authority, they have done nothing about the illegally parked cars every night. these are the red zone throughout the property. rerouting the m metro will affect the writers on the line. it does not perform very well at best. every time it is rerouted from the center of the street, there is a serious delay. rerouting this again will further congest traffic. the cost is almost unimaginable considering the talent for overruns. they might have the developer underwrite the expansion, including a late-night bus service. [chime] >> thank you. >> they told me i had to roll up my flag. i hope it is ok. as those california, so goes the nation. how about, as goes virginia, so goes california. welcome to fairfax, a community with a significant future. they are carefully nestled into 132 landscaped acres. this community began as rental construction. many washingtonians have chosen us as their first homes. in honor of black history month, i would like to pay tribute to an african-american woman. they filed a complaint alleging that metropolitan life was engaging in racially discriminatory practices. the case went all the way to the united states supreme court, and in the end, they won. it was integrated along with its counterparts in other parts of the nation. this case is considered a landmark case. it is the breeding ground for civil rights. god bless america. some are trying to destroy it. >> [reading names] >> eric brooks representing the green party and the grass-roots organization "our city." i'm saying something new. along with -- i will end with something old, most likely. i have been watching this process for several months assuming that the old towers were going to be retrofitted as part of this project. i did not realize that that was the case. you can build some buildings that have incredible strength and resilience, but when you have a bunch of bull towers that are vulnerable and not up to spec, the emergency response is going to be required for those hours -- towers and it will put a strain on the entire emergency response. this is going to be a more dangerous neighborhood, and if you're going to go with this monster, require them to retrofit those towers with current specs. on greenhouse gas emissions, which he presented to prove my point for me. it did not include the massive carbon releases that will happen from the landscape reorganization. it wasn't even included in the analysis. it did not include the landscaping, and more importantly, if you go with of the numbers presented, you do not get a carbon that effective for 24 years out -- benefit for 24 years out. if you look at the panel on climate change, they are saying that we need to start reducing carbon emissions immediately and dramatically. that means that the beginning of this project, it is increasing carbon emissions that is not good. the analysis did not include 5000 parking spaces. it is absurd. we heard a staff member claimed that with 5000 more parking spaces, which would get less traffic. if that is not a reason for you to vote against what has been presented to you, i don't know what is. that is a ludicrous claim. what it boils down to, this project must be extremely scale down. -- scaled down. we have brought up trinity. [chime] thanks. >> i am a fifth degeneration of native san franciscan. i have lived in district 4 and 7. i was born and raised in the cities that i have just said. much of it i lived outside of san francisco and california. when i moved back here to the city, i bought a house just about a mile away. one of the things that really struck me about the neighborhood, i am talking about richmond district. clearly to me, that is a great demand to live in san francisco. these illegal units do not seem to be dissipating. they seem to be growing. because of the issues it is causing in other neighborhoods, a lot of people have spoken tonight. i want to talk about the balance of the city on that. i think what the development group is considering what they will do here, there is an opportunity to alleviate the overcrowding in the issues -- and the issues that have been done to our town. i also want to discuss the current situation of our economics in california. we have a lot of issues. we just elected a governor that is having to make some hard choices. he is looking to be a little bit left of center. he will have to make tough decisions about human services. the way that will be addressed is with tax revenues. the numbers that we saw tonight that were presented by the city primarily and representatives of the city show a great opportunity that will be provided by this project. i know that there are various members that will get great jobs. coupled with the small business that has been discussed already, this is a win for california and san francisco. i urge you to vote yes on this matter. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. he is hard to know where to start. >> state your name. >> i'm polly marshall. in my other life, i am a housing attorney in private practice. i have some written comments that i will give to you. i am not sure how much time i want to spend going over them. i am so discouraged about what i have been hearing. the development agreement continues to inadequately protected the tenant -- protect the tenant. i did speak about this on your last year hearing. in spite of publicly saying that i was in with a member of the board of supervisors, the state law relocation rights and benefits -- that is not the case. it is a vague statement that developers apply with all applicable laws. and they require the tenants to stay, and they have to stay till the very end or else they get nothing. they have no rights. i will skip the rest of that so i can get to what i really want to say. it was really article in the newspaper has that got me here tonight. because the proposed development is the kind of development that i normally would support. it is the kind of thing i work on in my profession. as a redeveloped lawyer, i help cities accomplished these kinds of projects. and what is different about this project, it involves an existing community. it requires devastation of that community in reminds me of the old-style redevelopment projects like the one in the fillmore. but that that area out. -- look at that area now. it was destroyed a decade ago. i can't believe this is happening again. [chime] why destroy it? >> thank you. i know you will probably be too tired to stay, but some of us might call you back up. thank you. [reading names] >> good evening, commissioners. i am president of the triangle neighborhood association. we are just across the street from the brotherhood. the project needs to be scaled back. all reports and studies show that the impact of having 8900 units, 16,200 bedrooms, and a population between 25,000 people and 30,000 people is not in the best interest of the residents. it is in the interest of san francisco for one reason. a larger tax base. instead of moving to 8900 units, we should look at a moderate growth for this area. also, the transit proposals need to be implemented. and development funding should be secured and guaranteed before it moves forward. not during or after. this would require modifications to the development agreement. but it can be done. the surrounding neighborhood associations would like to have input about the size and scope of the projects. however, they are firm that there is no room for compromise. it is all or nothing. frankly, neither is a desirable alternative. i would like to hear one commission member and probably one of the four who vated in fav -- voted in favor of the eir, a scaled-back version that will be a compromise and one for all residents, the surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the developers that we can all agree upon a scaled-down project before passage of the excuse development on such a grandiose scale. this will impact the city of san francisco well into the twenty second century. >> i have lived there for 53 years. last night, residents received the enclosed plan phasing of this at our doors. it shows each phase begins with the words "could phase 2," etcetera. in the developer agreement, page 25, it clearly states that the development phase is currently unknown. it is not known and not specified. the residents could have a very different reality than that shown on the flyer received. we are not included in a true process. the developer agreement does not support greater public benefit. the fire proposes over two years of notification of anticipated time of removal. on page 54 b, it clearly states notice not sooner than one year before the anticipated completion of replacement building. you expect us to trust a developer that has consistently not had a real dialogue with the residents. and now our own city is proposing to throw us to the wolves. those are the commissioners that vote to support this project and should be held responsible for their actions. this project is a vision that is not in harmony with the people, place, where the environment. it is a narrow vision. a corporate vision built on the backs of the people that live here. it will include people that live here, taking them and their children into the future. had not -- and not expose the children to cancer causing toxins. it was designed in relation to the nation that surrounds it. it is a gentle transition, even with its powers. it integrates into the greater san francisco. this does not, in any way, shape, or form integrate the surrounding landscape. it will simply be a monument to human centered corporate worlds. thank you. [chime] >> hello, commissioners. i went to san francisco state university. i am here to support the project. i think the redevelopment is a great plan for san francisco. it will help keep families in san francisco. please help us address this by holding the proposed plan today. >> we heard some speakers say that the current housing hall is of questionable standards. but we are being proposed renovation vs. demolition. what would be demolished are many family homes that would be affordable. we hear tim say this is the largest replacement project undertaken in san francisco or the region. he talked about the city's need for more housing. we recently heard about all of the foreclosures. things will adjust. you are raising a well- established community -- razing a well-established community. we must preserve existing neighborhoods. this neighborhood is being removed. we talked about the controls that were on the books to preserve affordable housing. this isn't even being looked at, is it? instead of the 3200 i believe it is -- 8900 units. only a third are going to be on site. 2/3 will be somewhere. and this just is not -- it is too massive a project. there were people that talked about how much greener it will be, but with the increased density, it will throw off as many tons of co2 as it does currently. and water usage, they say is almost double that. they are tripling the number of units. a lot of very well established trees are being cut out. it will process the co2 that is being released. it will take some time to grow, i am sure.

Transcripts For SFGTV2 20110211

thank you for your time. >> i am a three-year resident. if i ask people what they wanted, what the developers are asking, offering he spoke eloquew the development agreement would have found success of the owners -- successive owners. that this is a setup. the stellar management was unable to handle this project on their own. they almost went into foreclosure. the sole purpose of this application is to enhance the value of the property and making it more attractive to a new investor that will come down the road and rescue unheard it. i have a comment about muni re- routing. from the looks of the latest, it will go very close to nineteenth avenue and scoot back up next to the store that is currently there. this is probably one of the less desirable aspects. through the years, it has been relatively free of street crime due to isolation and lack of terrain by outsiders. putting the metro line in will serve to bring opportunities for those that commit such crimes. they have done less than nothing for the student population. along with the san francisco metropolitan transit authority, they have done nothing about the illegally parked cars every night. these are the red zone throughout the property. rerouting the m metro will affect the writers on the line. it does not perform very well at best. every time it is rerouted from the center of the street, there is a serious delay. rerouting this again will further congest traffic. the cost is almost unimaginable considering the talent for overruns. they might have the developer underwrite the expansion, including a late-night bus service. [chime] >> thank you. >> they told me i had to roll up my flag. i hope it is ok. as those california, so goes the nation. how about, as goes virginia, so goes california. welcome to fairfax, a community with a significant future. they are carefully nestled into 132 landscaped acres. this community began as rental construction. many washingtonians have chosen us as their first homes. in honor of black history month, i would like to pay tribute to an african-american woman. they filed a complaint alleging that metropolitan life was engaging in racially discriminatory practices. the case went all the way to the united states supreme court, and in the end, they won. it was integrated along with its counterparts in other parts of the nation. this case is considered a landmark case. it is the breeding ground for civil rights. god bless america. some are trying to destroy it. >> [reading names] >> eric brooks representing the green party and the grass-roots organization "our city." i'm saying something new. along with -- i will end with something old, most likely. i have been watching this process for several months assuming that the old towers were going to be retrofitted as part of this project. i did not realize that that was the case. you can build some buildings that have incredible strength and resilience, but when you have a bunch of bull towers that are vulnerable and not up to spec, the emergency response is going to be required for those hours -- towers and it will put a strain on the entire emergency response. this is going to be a more dangerous neighborhood, and if you're going to go with this monster, require them to retrofit those towers with current specs. on greenhouse gas emissions, which he presented to prove my point for me. it did not include the massive carbon releases that will happen from the landscape reorganization. it wasn't even included in the analysis. it did not include the landscaping, and more importantly, if you go with of the numbers presented, you do not get a carbon that effective for 24 years out -- benefit for 24 years out. if you look at the panel on climate change, they are saying that we need to start reducing carbon emissions immediately and dramatically. that means that the beginning of this project, it is increasing carbon emissions that is not good. the analysis did not include 5000 parking spaces. it is absurd. we heard a staff member claimed that with 5000 more parking spaces, which would get less traffic. if that is not a reason for you to vote against what has been presented to you, i don't know what is. that is a ludicrous claim. what it boils down to, this project must be extremely scale down. -- scaled down. we have brought up trinity. [chime] thanks. >> i am a fifth degeneration of native san franciscan. i have lived in district 4 and 7. i was born and raised in the cities that i have just said. much of it i lived outside of san francisco and california. when i moved back here to the city, i bought a house just about a mile away. one of the things that really struck me about the neighborhood, i am talking about richmond district. clearly to me, that is a great demand to live in san francisco. these illegal units do not seem to be dissipating. they seem to be growing. because of the issues it is causing in other neighborhoods, a lot of people have spoken tonight. i want to talk about the balance of the city on that. i think what the development group is considering what they will do here, there is an opportunity to alleviate the overcrowding in the issues -- and the issues that have been done to our town. i also want to discuss the current situation of our economics in california. we have a lot of issues. we just elected a governor that is having to make some hard choices. he is looking to be a little bit left of center. he will have to make tough decisions about human services. the way that will be addressed is with tax revenues. the numbers that we saw tonight that were presented by the city primarily and representatives of the city show a great opportunity that will be provided by this project. i know that there are various members that will get great jobs. coupled with the small business that has been discussed already, this is a win for california and san francisco. i urge you to vote yes on this matter. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. he is hard to know where to start. >> state your name. >> i'm polly marshall. in my other life, i am a housing attorney in private practice. i have some written comments that i will give to you. i am not sure how much time i want to spend going over them. i am so discouraged about what i have been hearing. the development agreement continues to inadequately protected the tenant -- protect the tenant. i did speak about this on your last year hearing. in spite of publicly saying that i was in with a member of the board of supervisors, the state law relocation rights and benefits -- that is not the case. it is a vague statement that developers apply with all applicable laws. and they require the tenants to stay, and they have to stay till the very end or else they get nothing. they have no rights. i will skip the rest of that so i can get to what i really want to say. it was really article in the newspaper has that got me here tonight. because the proposed development is the kind of development that i normally would support. it is the kind of thing i work on in my profession. as a redeveloped lawyer, i help cities accomplished these kinds of projects. and what is different about this project, it involves an existing community. it requires devastation of that community in reminds me of the old-style redevelopment projects like the one in the fillmore. but that that area out. -- look at that area now. it was destroyed a decade ago. i can't believe this is happening again. [chime] why destroy it? >> thank you. i know you will probably be too tired to stay, but some of us might call you back up. thank you. [reading names] >> good evening, commissioners. i am president of the triangle neighborhood association. we are just across the street from the brotherhood. the project needs to be scaled back. all reports and studies show that the impact of having 8900 units, 16,200 bedrooms, and a population between 25,000 people and 30,000 people is not in the best interest of the residents. it is in the interest of san francisco for one reason. a larger tax base. instead of moving to 8900 units, we should look at a moderate growth for this area. also, the transit proposals need to be implemented. and development funding should be secured and guaranteed before it moves forward. not during or after. this would require modifications to the development agreement. but it can be done. the surrounding neighborhood associations would like to have input about the size and scope of the projects. however, they are firm that there is no room for compromise. it is all or nothing. frankly, neither is a desirable alternative. i would like to hear one commission member and probably one of the four who vated in fav -- voted in favor of the eir, a scaled-back version that will be a compromise and one for all residents, the surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the developers that we can all agree upon a scaled-down project before passage of the excuse development on such a grandiose scale. this will impact the city of san francisco well into the twenty second century. >> i have lived there for 53 years. last night, residents received the enclosed plan phasing of this at our doors. it shows each phase begins with the words "could phase 2," etcetera. in the developer agreement, page 25, it clearly states that the development phase is currently unknown. it is not known and not specified. the residents could have a very different reality than that shown on the flyer received. we are not included in a true process. the developer agreement does not support greater public benefit. the fire proposes over two years of notification of anticipated time of removal. on page 54 b, it clearly states notice not sooner than one year before the anticipated completion of replacement building. you expect us to trust a developer that has consistently not had a real dialogue with the residents. and now our own city is proposing to throw us to the wolves. those are the commissioners that vote to support this project and should be held responsible for their actions. this project is a vision that is not in harmony with the people, place, where the environment. it is a narrow vision. a corporate vision built on the backs of the people that live here. it will include people that live here, taking them and their children into the future. had not -- and not expose the children to cancer causing toxins. it was designed in relation to the nation that surrounds it. it is a gentle transition, even with its powers. it integrates into the greater san francisco. this does not, in any way, shape, or form integrate the surrounding landscape. it will simply be a monument to human centered corporate worlds. thank you. [chime] >> hello, commissioners. i went to san francisco state university. i am here to support the project. i think the redevelopment is a great plan for san francisco. it will help keep families in san francisco. please help us address this by holding the proposed plan today. >> we heard some speakers say that the current housing hall is of questionable standards. but we are being proposed renovation vs. demolition. what would be demolished are many family homes that would be affordable. we hear tim say this is the largest replacement project undertaken in san francisco or the region. he talked about the city's need for more housing. we recently heard about all of the foreclosures. things will adjust. you are raising a well- established community -- razing a well-established community. we must preserve existing neighborhoods. this neighborhood is being removed. we talked about the controls that were on the books to preserve affordable housing. this isn't even being looked at, is it? instead of the 3200 i believe it is -- 8900 units. only a third are going to be on site. 2/3 will be somewhere. and this just is not -- it is too massive a project. there were people that talked about how much greener it will be, but with the increased density, it will throw off as density, it will throw off as many tons of co2