supervisor wiener: would those include penalties? >> there are many options, including terminating the agreement. the sec would be to not allow further demolition of existing units, and, for example, we would not want to necessarily terminate building the light rail line, so we do not want that to terminate, said there could be more surgical approaches than stopping the rent-controlled units, and then there are provisions will weaken essentially guarantee financial benefit for having the cash up provision, for example, and then putting that money into a fund to support it. it is the equivalent of a voucher program, so there is a range of options. supervisor wiener: i think that is an important one to confront head on.

>> we strongly agree, although we would like to emphasize that from the city attorney's point of view, this agreement is fully enforceable. it is a tricky situation, because any new agreement, you can never say with 100% certainty that this is going to work. i think that is just the nature, and the trinity development agreement, a big everyone agrees that has worked quite well. supervisor mar: cohen has mentioned that there are many legal questions that would be good for the attorney. mr. yarne, palmer is relatively

new, and i like to hear more about a weekend protect the units. it seems the development agreements run with the land, and how they can supersede it challenged in court? >> no one is suggesting that this supersedes state law. you cannot contract around state law. we have never represented the. what we believe is that we are complying with state law. and i do want to say again, i apologize that we have the bad luck of having the to build your primary attorneys who have worked on this not available. i have requested that cheryl adams be present, but i know that susan in charles sullivan have been the advising attorneys on this. >> and hopefully mr. sullivan gets out of jury duty rather quickly. thank you.

any other questions, colleagues? then i think we should open this up for public comment. thank you, mr. yarne. we have a number of speakers, so we are going to limit them for two minutes. [reading names and organizations] >> hello, my name is a million. i am at the international high school. i think that if you're thinking about restoring a neighborhood, you should get to know in first.

my dad's friend robert pander lives there. ♪ >> ♪ i see trees of green i see the blue form -- from me to you and i think to myself, what a wonderful world ♪ >> ok. >> ♪ i see skies of blue and i think to myself, what a wonderful world ♪

♪ the colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky ♪ [bell] i see friends shaking hands i love you ♪ ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ [bell] supervisor mar: thank you, a

media, for the creative use of your time and for dedicating it to mr. pander. >> i had planned to talk about some of the environmental impacts, but since that will be on the jury tomorrow, will put that aside, and i will talk instead about the issue of the development agreement validity in terms of getting around costa hawkins. i think what i want to emphasize is this is an untried attempt. this is not something that has been done before. it is a question. there is a good likelihood that it will fail. and if it fails, and people of already basically moved in to the units, had units demolished, and the court and of will and

that the development agreement is not good as far as this particular provision, those people are going to be s.o.l, and that is unfortunate. in fact, it would be more than an unfortunate. it would be tragic. to approve the developing agreement before you let them go ahead, with conditional approval, singing we need to go to the court and get the relief as to provision is valid or not, because there are hundreds of people's lives that depend on whether this is going to work, and do not want to love that for about six years down the road. we really need to find that it -- at the start, so that is my suggestion, that you agree, maybe find a test tenant who is willing to serve as a plaintiff and have it litigated and determined before this project.

thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thousands of tenants have apartments that will be destroyed. i want to point out that the continued use of the phrase bourbon in fill is really a hero aeneas and not supported. as was pointed out in the substantive comments on the inadequacy in in accuracy of the environmental impact report, urban infill does not comprised of destroying one additional unit and replacing it with two or three. it is not urban and fell. urban infill is not about destroying open space. that is not urban infill. so i would just like to remind you all to be scrutinized -- to really scrutinize the comments

were she said land use, open space, the sponsor appears to have made objectives to justify the high ramallah is live and the store property there is no blighted space there. -- to justify destroying historic property. i also want to talk about now that they are 75% of the developers. these guarantees are being made by fortress. the ceo a fortress, daniel, was the ceo of fannie mae, which she ran into the ground. he may face claims for misleading fannie mae investors,

which required a $130 billion taxpayer bailout at the olympic village, he left vancouver on the hook with unsold units. i believe the city of vancouver has had to take on about $570 million worth of debt that the city now oppose because of fortress backing out. these are the people who are making these promises, and these promises cannot be maintained. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- i in the chair of a lathe use and housing committee. i would like to make some comments in regards to the parker said cryochick. it was pointed out that this

project was different from many other projects. it was pointed out that the growth is good, in this project was different from others in the sense that people actually live in this area, whereas in the other areas, treasurer island or mission bay, bayview hunters point projects, or even in the old days, the western area, people did not live there. now, this project is one to be undertaken for a period of 20 and 30 years, and can you imagine if you, yourself, or your family lived in this area with the construction noises for that long period of time? i do not think that many people could tolerate that. in effect, this project will be victimizing of the people who live there. i believe.

another thing, all of this pie in the sky free money and whether the benefits will be developed meant, one wonders if all of these units are needed. in the 2010 census, there were over 31,000 vacant units in the city now. that does not mean that they are all available, but a good part of them could be rental units, houses, condominiums, and then there is a new segment, called recreational use, and those are secondary homes, or propose. i do not think we need all of those units. supervisor mar: thank you, mr.

fukudu. >> good afternoon. i am with the bicycle association. that describes it would bring such intensity to that area, a notion that new leewood -- representative real, that was tragic. -- a notion that muni was going to be direct rail, that was tragic. it is quite exciting that not only will this bring benefits and make this project possible but rationalize muni all of the way down into the city and, in fact, bring other transportation benefits, so i wanted to talk to you about this as a former skeptic. these benefits seem real and

that there are benefits be on this project. also, as always, we are skeptical about the parking requirements at one to one or the notion of one to one parking. of course, i am with the bicycle people. we agree with spur. there is an opportunity to read this -- we consider that as the product moves forward. we will keep checking. is it really necessary to have so much parking? so we are willing to go with that. we think it is a reasonable way to go, and i think in many ways, the face buildup of this project is how it will work. parking, things like finding the right mix of building types and so forth, so, on behalf of the coalition, --

supervisor mar: this is moving from transportation -- could you comment on that? >> yes, having something that is more heterogeneous rather than homogenous, corner stores within the area that will give some variety, the height of varieties we have heard about. we will always be close to a corner store. you will always be close to community services. you will not have to walk all of the way up to 19th avenue. this is really how it becomes a dancer. do not to get in your car to get things.

supervisor mar: thank you. i will call some others. [reading names and organizations] >> i am here to speak on behalf of this project. i urge you to move this very important project forward. they will be creating a sustainable community which will bring about 900 units of affordable housing, much needed in that part of the city, and also, they will be bringing thousands of construction jobs, which we all know are needed in the city. i urge you to move it forward. supervisor mar: thank you. i have another. please come forward. >> they to come supervisors. i am actually not with a group. i am a resident of san francisco, a resident in the haight-ashbury neighborhood.

i in your primarily as a san francisco resident. as an architect, i agree appreciation for what the proposal for park mayor said in bringing to the city, and i am some they also who is committed to raising my family. i speak out on these things. i urge you to uphold the eir approval. this is far reaching, and in these goals need our sympathies go goals. this is an example of sustainability. i am proud we have a city that is willing to move forward with that agenda, while we are doing all of our own parts to reduce our own carbon footprint, it is a rare opportunity for the city and the residents to support steps like this and to make the kind of improvements that we cannot do individually.

when will there be another clot in the city of san francisco at this scale? i support this private-public partnership because it extends that transportation system into parker said, making it safer, and it reduces the necessity of private cars and connects the city, and also with the believe that the proposal is a really important step to lead the way for that kind of improvement on the stormwater separation from all of the city, and i want to make just one last point about making the city more livable. we are committed to raising our children here in the city because of the parks and open land. our families are becoming part of a diverse network of the community. so for all of these reasons, i asked you to support this project. thank you.

supervisor mar: thank you. >> hi, i would like to thank supervisor elsbernd and think you for listening to us. my name is -- i eliminated san francisco and a resident of park ridge said for almost 20 years, almost 18 in my current apartment. i am in phase one, one of the first people who will have to move to a new unit, and although i love my garden apartment, i totally support this plan. i believe that each one of us as an individual member of the community and member of the city and beyond has a responsibility to look to the future, and this parcourse envisioned plan is very feature oriented. it is extremely sustainable. you have heard some of that. the current apartments, you have

to work very hard to keep your pg&e bills low. the new units, people will be able to live much more easily in a sustainable fashion. san francisco needs economic growth. we all need that. more housing units will help attract businesses, like twitter. if we get twitter, how many people would like to live in the city? affordable housing, as was mentioned, is very necessary. there are two major academic institutions, including city college of san francisco, within two miles, and next door. there are many living in park merced right now. this will allow students to the close to where they're going to school. it was already mentioned, but we have 20 or 30 years of construction jobs.

we have construction jobs. korea architectural jobs. we have the administrative jobs. and to go back to agenda item number two, a large, organic urban area. thank you so much, and i hope you support it. supervisor mar: think you, ma'am. >> good afternoon, and eric brooks, the san francisco green party. even though the rent control issue is huge, and the only way to solve that issue legally is to change state law, that is not the main issue that is the problem with why the green party is opposing this. the main issue is that this is a massive demolition to rebuild a new community that is almost exactly the same. this is the situation we have with the redevelopment in the

fillmore and in japandown. this gets me to the next point, which is in doing so, this project makes itself inherently unsustainable. at the planning commission, the planning commissioners themselves repeatedly asked the developer and planning to show the net carbon footprint of this project over its entire history, and neither planning commission nor the developers provided that carbon footprint, and the reason they did not is because they knew it would look bad. what they finally did do was put a slide up a few weeks ago that showed the comparison between the old units, their contribution to greet us gases, and the new units, and what it shows is that in least the first 14 years of this project, the new units would create a lot

more greenhouse gas emissions, and right now, the intergovernmental panel on climate change scientists, even though they tend to be pretty conservative in careful, are saying that over the next decade, we need to start making massive decreases in our greenhouse gas emissions right now. we cannot have a spike in the first 14 years of a project. so what we need to do is make sure we are scaling down this project so this but does not happen, and easiest way to do this is to not allow the demolition of the existing units. supervisor mar: thank you. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chairman mar. i was born in san francisco, and we had three generations and my family. i want to talk about some of the transportation issues that have come up surrounding this. as may or may not be aware, if

you have read the corridor study that i believe was done by the board back in 2007 or was started in 2007, it talks about background traffic congestion that has been building in respect of of any of the products going on out there, and it says that left to its own devices, absent any development, there is going to be a snippet increase in congestion. right now, there is the fourth deadliest intersection in san francisco. 19th and holoway. supervisor mar: that was 19th and holloway? >> yes. i have gone to many of the meetings, working with peter, looking at the solutions, where we are going to go with this, and there seems to be a great improvement. i have a personal interest in

this. years ago, an issue that will be addressed if this plan goes forward, i had a little brother who was killed by a car, and i would like to see that that does not happen to other people unnecessarily, so as a landlord in san francisco, aug. $14,000 for moving, really, trying to take what trinity did and doing a little bit better, let's look about the other balances. we are looking at a vibrant new neighborhood. we're talking about transportation. at a minimum, over $230 million in financing from the government. i am not sure if the supervisors are aware of that. as soon as this product gets approved and goes back to the neighbors and stakeholders, by law, we have to work over were the troubled trouble spots are in this neighborhood. we are not want to have another chance korea if we send this

back, it very well could die, and i think that would be a shame. you know, one of your predecessors, mr. peskin, he was asking about why all of the traffic passed to the east of twin peaks. aside from the people being directly into a means by it, it has support of the neighborhood. it has a lot of support. we want to have restaurants. we want to have little stores and coffee shops. we want to see green buildings. i completely disagree with the predecessor, the guy who just came up here. supervisor mar: thank you. >> please approve the project. >> i have lived at parker said since 1996, and in that time, i have experienced three landlords there, and i can tell you very

clearly this is the best one. the first one basically to the property in the people with neglect. the second one export to the neighborhood and pass through every possible expense that they could to tenants. this one had done major improvements without a single pass through. they have promised they would not pass it through, and they have not. they can be trusted. i have been too many hearing for the planning commission, and one of the phrases i learned there was complete neighborhood, and that has been what i have wanted for park were said since i moved there, and when i heard this land with a that was their idea, i could not believe what a good idea it was. mostly now, when i want to go to a restaurant or shop, i am leaving the neighborhood, in a car, using the peninsula and going into the city. i would rather not korea in the neighborhood, but there are some things to do. but they're all on one side of

the neighborhood. it is just not a convenient place to be to be doing the usual business. this plan will increase ts above greenspace, as well. there was still be private courtyards but more public space that can be used. and most of all of the garden floor apartment bathrooms are on the second floor. this is a good place. i just heard the report of the huge growth expected for san francisco. this is the opportunity. it is right on time. if you do not take the bench of this opportunity, some landlords will be responsible, some will not. i do not think he will ever have this opportunity again. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is pauly marshall.

i actually came to speak as a commissioner on the rent board. i have been on the rent board since 1984, which is 27 years as a tenant representative, but first, after hearing the testimony and watching the presentation, i am here now as a mother. i have raised two children in san francisco. i have friends in parker said. it is over 1500 units of family rental housing. is a great place to raise kids. secrets in san francisco. i have a friend who just told me kids run in and out. you can ride your bike. there are beautiful sidewalks, clean areas. it is a great place for children, and the idea that we would tear it down, tear down rent-controlled units that family's live-in