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 with the risk of replacement that may not materialize, it is a tragedy. i agree it is not infill housing

if it is an existing neighborhood. why tear it down? quickly, turning to my other role as a rent board commissioner, because i have been on the board for 27 years, i was on the board when costa hawkins passed. i am persons familiar. it has two narrow exceptions. one is with housing and the other is for density. when we were up there and saw the language, the subsequent runs, we pointed out that this is going to affect subsidized housing, inclusionary housing, and density. we made two exceptions that are narrow. michael yarne said --

supervisor mar: please finish up. >> you cannot guarantee -- supervisor mar: 50. if there is anybody else to live like to speak, please come up. >> this is a test of litigation with ceqa. they need to deal with modernization and seismic events. a performance bond or a declaratory review. that needs to be done up front before any of this is on the ground. there is a need to deal with the range of in packs and the costs for the public infrastructure.

capital costs need to be met up front, not in 30 years with future profits. we do not have the money for it. there is a need to look at alternative financing. for example, there is korea development in this area, things to the legislature. we could have tax increment funding which will be equivalent to about 30% of whatever the holdman needs to be created to create equity. there is the effect on the surrounding area which is not been looked at, including san francisco state. there is a public institution. you deal with it through ceqa.

you deal with the other side. this has not been done. the m line is a public transportation institution. i am a bit of an expert on this. supervisor mar: please wrap-up. >> ok, this needs to go back to the planning department. supervisors mar: thank you. thank you. >> they he very much. >> the afternoon, ted, with intense union. i suspect this has to go back to planning for the development without demolitions, because

demolishing 1500 units of homes with 3000 people, i think we have heard a lot about costa hawkins today. the city attorney is looking about the stuff that they can put in the agreement. we have heard about trinity. trinity worked only because the trinity was not tested. we have had the palmer decision since then. we have had other issues as well. i think evictions is a huge problem. the forgotten apartments around different lots. that is the sort of thing that happens in l.a. condominiums that demolished. it is more profitable for the developer of the cash flow is not working out, expected are not. it is going to be tempted to ls

some of those garden apartments and build market rate condominiums there. i think thirdly we have to look at what is going to happen until the point of demolitions. we're going to see great incentive to get out tenants who are paying $900,000 and have to replace those units at $900,000 or rented to someone month ago at $2,500. i think we are going to see a lot of harassment. we're going to see intimidation. we are going to see natural vacation of those units by living in a construction zone. we're going to see buyouts. i think that was implicated in the plan that tenants can get money at any point to move. if this gets approved, we will see at least a thousand people lose their homes. chairperson mar: thank you.

>> good afternoon. i will start with a ". i will state a future residents of parkmerced will remain car dependent. this is not a model for a 21st century neighborhood. this is a single purpose developer with a proposal lacking hindsight and foresight. that was stated by commissioner moore at the february 2 planning commission hearing. i think we have heard by every tenant advocate that has come before any of these hearings that rent control will not be secure, contrary to what the mayor's office has been saying. they have been told rent control will be guaranteed not only for the life of their stay, but for the life of the building, which is not state law and is not

enforceable. thank you for your time. my name is ben vigory. >> good afternoon. dean preston with tenants together. i was pleased to hear one aspect of the presentation, the admission that he is not 100% sure this is going to work. i think that is a telling statement. i appreciate his candor. there are significant questions whether this can work. that leads us to the question of why we are even considering such a massive demolition of rent- control housing, in direct violation of city policy. if you propose to demolish one rent-control housing unit, you get an earful. it is taken seriously. the idea we would demolish over 1500 units is appalling. i would hope we have learned a lesson from the fillmore

redevelopment. that is the last time we talked about dil neighborhood with promises that it will be ok because of replacement housing and the right to move back. these are parallel. it is the closest thing we have seen since that time. this project, as the city's own consultant said, may not be financially feasible. i would urge you to look at the consulting report that specifically says that. it is part of the reason you see the reaction about the details of what is going to happen when this rent-controlled housing gets challenged. when you take a project that is not financially feasible, the only way to make it financially feasible is to start reneging on various promises. that is what you see on other predatory equity schemes of this type. on the public benefit, i think the public benefits are overstated. the capital improvements and operating and maintenance money is a private benefit.

the rent control suppose a benefit -- subtract from that the loss of the house. there is really no public benefit in that whatsoever. colin marshall addressed this. on ellis, i would be happy to answer any questions you might have it is a very important issue -- you might have. it is a very important issue. >> thank you for hearing us today. i am an long-time san francisco parkmerced resident and a fourth generation san franciscan. i bring forth the concern of many others in my neighborhood about the size and scope of this project as well as the rent control concerns that have already been stated. this project will certainly change the character of the west side of san francisco forever. if it is not scrutinized very carefully, i will also refer

you to commissioner moore's report. if things are not looked at carefully, this could have really negative impact. i do not think tripling the density of my neighborhood is a good solution. it is going to make traffic unbearable in that southern approach to san francisco, as well as liakemerced boulevard. it is hard for me to bend my mind around what that will look like. it is a vital community of working-class people and families. it is not blighted. it is an actual community of people. 20 or 30 years of construction is also unimaginable, especially for the people on fixed incomes. the impact of that construction will be unimaginable. i would like to submit several

articles regarding the developer fortress, as well as, if i could submit those documents, and also speak quickly to the financial feasibility. if it is not financially feasible, all of these projects can be pulled off the table. i would like you to consider that as well. thank you very much for your time. >> good afternoon. i am managing partner of the parker said -- of the parkmerced shopping center and an active member of the merchants association. i am part owner of the parkmerced supermarket there. we are concerned about this project. the tenants are 12 other stores,

some 30 different partners. they are all families that got together in different businesses. they are all small businesses. they are doing well. we were concerned at the beginning. but due to parkmerced management's credit, they came forward to make sure we can coexist with the future of the big shopping centers and retail space. our property is below grade level. you can barely see it. it is behind 19th ave. one of our main concerns was to try to get a road from 19th avenue so we could be a little different and people could still come and shop there and support the family businesses and the shopping center businesses. i would just like to thank the management for coming to the table to do that, adding also a future shuttle stop in that

area, and for the city of san francisco planning department for understanding the need for that road for our existence. that is our lifeline. the worked to help us out extremely to coexist. thank you. chairperson mar: thank you. if anyone else would like to speak, please come forward. we are going to close public comment in a second. >> brook turner. amounted to discuss two things that were brought up so far by speakers that i do not believe are correct. the first is about the number of vacancies available in our town today. we are at the lowest vacancy rate we have had since the.com -- since the dotcom bust. we need affordable rental housing, family rental housing. this is best shown by the fact

that the coalition for better housing, which represents many other rental property owners in san francisco, support this project. we are not afraid this is a coin to create a market that we will see more or less vacancy. we have very little vacancy in this town right now. we need rental housing built in san francisco. we need environmentally friendly rental housing built in this town. this would provide that. the other thing is about casta hawkins. i do not believe these guarantees will fail. while i was part of negotiations that took place in sacramento on this issue, i was part of the group that drafted that. it was expressly discussed, this issue, when it was drafted, how

to address it. the express exception will stand up in court. it is a red herring that should not be taken as fact. i do hope you will support this for my children as well, who deserve to have the availability of environmentally friendly rental housing in san francisco. thank you. >> good afternoon. i think it is time to look will be closely at casta hawkins rather than just repeating that everything is ok, or engaging in wishful thinking. that law was written to preempt local gun-control laws. they wanted to get rid of them completely, but they decided to try to clip the wings of certain features because they could not get rid of rent control. they had a second problem, which was that they denied while they

were curtailing rent-controlled and want to appear to be authorizing in some way. that is because at that time the real-estate interests were still harboring a hope the could get rid of rent control in a legal move which failed. we have an oddly written bill we are working with today because of that. the law says that local government cannot control and landlords right to set an initial or subsequent round. that is extremely broad language. when it was pointed out, and i was one of those who did the pointing out when this bill was being drafted in the early '80s, that they were affecting a lot of other things besides rent control because of the way they had written it. they did respond. they did do something about subsidized housing. they did not do anything about inclusion their rezoning. it took 20 years, but we were

proved right that was a problem when the court of appeals said so. they liked the density bonus programs and the grandfather of that in. that is a very specific program where a developer comes to a city and says, "i want to apply for a density bonus for a multi- unit housing." the local government must provide assistance. there is no discretion. there is a problem where there is no consideration. would you like me to answer your questions? chairperson mar: please wrap up. >> the point being that the density bonus program is specific. it anticipates lin board setting 10% of the units for very low income people. if the minority of units are accepted as affordable, it does not control runs. it is a different narrow scheme

in which we now try to place the san francisco rent ordinance. there is a risk here i do not believe anybody can contradict. it is not a risk worth taking when what is on the table is 1538 when-controlled family units. -- rent-controlled family units. supervisor weiner: i have asked to this privately. it is now on my time. >> so i can breathe now, thank you. supervisor weiner: i still think this is a really important point and issue, and i would like to hear perspective on that. i was not on the board when trinity was negotiated. i do not remember whether tenants groups formally endorsed it. there seemed to be broad consensus by the end on it.

there was probably some, but not overwhelming. casta hawkins was around there. another have been some intervening for decisions related to bmr apartments. i still do not totally understand why there was such approaching consensus around trinity, which may not have been as big as parkmerced, but it was a significant number of units, and why there is such behemoths opposition now. i understand the issues around the transformation of this neighborhood. i understand that. but focusing on the casta hawkins issue -- why the 180 degree flip? >> i was not involved in the trinity deal. something was going on in my life at a time. -- at the time. i raised an eyebrow at the time.

i think there are major differences and people confuse this. first of all, it was not a long standing and to a community filled with family housing. it was a hotel which had been converted into residential use. the housing stock had some difference. i guess i would say it was not really as valuable, to put it bluntly. the second difference is that there was a calculation made about what was likely to a car. this is where there is a discussion about the kind of landlord and what they are doing. the landlord in that case is somebody who is solidly in the landlord business in san francisco and does not appear to be going anywhere. they felt it was likely that he would continue to own it and continue to abide by the agreement. in this case, there is serious doubt in our minds, because this is a company that does not have a history and has brought in and investors who seem to be in the

business of buying into the property and figuring out a way to raise the units to market even or find a way to make the project worth more, or closer to what date paid for it, by developing it and selling it off and doing things like that. it is just a judgment that what is likely to occur here is different because of the kind of landlord and what is going to happen, and the buzzing of the -- the value of the housing stock in one case versus the other. there was a court case, the palmer decision, which said to me that i was right, what i said in 1984. it stopped inclusionary housing programs for rental units. you cannot set aside 15% of your unit's poor people under certain units if it is rental. the second case that came out,

which fits into a more complex scenario of how this goes down in the ensuing years -- that is the embassy case. what was disturbing about that case -- the city of santa monica had a settlement agreement. it was a settlement agreement with the landlord to continue to rent certain units as rental units. subsequently, the landlord decided they did not want to abide by that agreement. when they went to court, the court of appeals found and said the landlord has an absolute right to go out of the business of maintaining these units. that is a right which cannot be waived by a landlord for themselves or a subsequent landlord. further, we do not need to look at the underlying agreement the tenants are raising. it is not relevant. do not care what kind of agreement it is. presumably would not care if it

is a development agreement. there is an absolute right to go out of business under ellis. the development agreement makes no attempt to deal with this. i am not sure there is much you could do about it. i think there are other aspects that may complicate how you would go about doing that. we could play out what that looks like over 10 years. but my point is that there is significant risk here. if i am advising tenants who live up there, i cannot talk to them with rosy-colored glasses and glowing optimism. i think it is highly questionable, not a good deal. have a distinguished it? -- i distinguished it? supervisor weiner: i don't know. chairperson mar: last speakers, please. supervisor elsbernd: we are going to potentially have a lot more discussion on this, but for me, what i am going to need to

hear -- you have not distinguished it on legal grounds. you have distinguished it on the notion of housing stock. but there is nothing in casta hawkins that says formerly hotel properties should be distinguished one way or the other. it is not a legal argument. >> one of the things you do as an attorney is analyze the risk under the circumstances to the parties. supervisor elsbernd: i understand. but we are talking about the law. your second point is about what is likely to occur or not. again, and i am not looking for an answer today, because there is no vote today. show me something that says in casta hawkins this is something that is likely to be sold or not. you are not making legal discussions. >> sometimes the law opens you up to a risk, but how that will

play out will be different. supervisor elsbernd: you are not making legal distinctions. you are making property distinctions. if you are going to make the argument that this is different than trinity, i am going to need you to make legal arguments. right now, you are just making value choices. you are not making legal distinctions, in my eyes. >> i think those judgments would be shared by many. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the director of the san francisco apartment association. at this hearing today, i would like to speak in support of the parkmerced development. i think the addition of 6000 rental units to our city would be helpful, and adding more supply and keeping rents down so folks can find an affordable place to live -- if we want to talk about the merits of the

product or legal aspects of the project, i agree both sides can lawyer up and fight it out amongst themselves. you will probably come out with two different opinions. the only opinion that really matters to all of you is the city attorney's opinion, and we have the city attorney here today. so i am not sure how this is a valid hearing without the city attorney weighing in on this. thank you. if we need more advocates at the next meeting on this issue and more attorneys, let me know and i will bring my crew out to speak also. thank you for your time. chairperson mar: mr. paulson? >> i used to live in parkmerced in the way back when, in one of the towers. ♪ parkmerced city spirit moved me

every time i am near and you were like the project sponsor in my mind could it be parkmerced city magic? major building fast could it be the city magic, parkmerced at last? let me take you and show you the building's height upon a steady building district high up were the buildings meet the sun could it be building magic i want parkmerced magic last to last please make it work a right

tonight, mcgee last -- make it last ♪ chairperson mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? anybody else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, are other comments or questions? supervisor weiner: i pressed on mr. yearney on this issue. the reason i did that is because i remember the time when trinity was under consideration and we had this wonderful solution where we got to dramatically increase the amount of rental housing in mid market. we do not often create a lot of new rental housing in san francisco. and we got to take care of the tenants. we got an agreement with the landlord.