to consent to that agreement. we have direct contractual privity with any subsequent owner to confirm, again, that all of these rights and provisions for the benefit of the tenants would be there. and with the specific right of city and tenants to inform them. we also now site a case that came out of los angeles in 2009, the l.a. apartment association case, which recognized yet a third exception to the cost of hawkins' law. it is found within the ellis act. the state legislature amended the act to allow cost of hawkins to allow either, if a tenant decides it wants to continue to be in the rental business, if they do not demolish the unit, we rent it,

and the city can post rent control. if they do demolish the unit on the property and we build new units within five years on the same property, under the ellis act, the city has the right to impose and require the imposition of rent control. we have the ordinance in place in san francisco already. to that ordinance and that case, as to why we believe the rent control provisions should be enforced in this case. i know you have all seen the case. it is worth pointing out some of the express language of the case, which i will read to you quickly right now. this is in the los angeles county vs. some the of los angeles. they cite that you can control rent-controlled on new units.

"residential property is subject to rent control is the following conditions are satisfied. one is the real property consisting of accommodations constructed on the same property where the previous accommodations were demolished. the second condition, the previous accommodations were subject to rent control before withdrawn. the third is that the new accommodations are offered within five years." it is pretty strong language in that case, but we think is pretty helpful. we do recognize that this case is not directly on point. can be distinguished. we are not proceeding under the ellis act here. we have agreed that essentially what we are trying to do here is the functional equivalent. the city, as you know, repeatedly says we would not be willing to enter into this agreement without these rent control provisions in the

importance of these rent control provisions to the city. bottom line to all of this is we essentially have three lines of defenses. the first is the exception in the cost of hawkins ordinance for the forms of assistance provided under the density bonus statute. you heard my statement about how we've made clear what those are and however but has agreed to them. second is the case that basically acknowledges under the ellis act that creates an exception to costa pockets. the california legislature adopted this. it has been confirmed enforceable for replacement units built on the same property within five years. the difference is we are not proceeding under the ellis act. and then the very extensive provisions we have included in the development agreement that established the clear intent the parties, the clear considerations, the contractual privity with each and every owner.

like i said, our unwillingness to proceed without the tenants' private right of action. there is no case directly on point, but we have a strong argument that it is enforceable. it has been strengthened with some of the revisions you have suggested and we have made. not only the ones you introduced today, but the ones we've made throughout the last three or four months as a result of concerns tenants have and various issues that have been raised by tenants. we started out this agreement with trinity as the model. i think it is safe to say that we have greatly improved upon what we did in trinity to make sure there are sufficient protections for the tenants here. with regard to the remedies you specifically asked, think you

summarized it correctly. we have included a right of first refusal for the city. we would essentially use the liquidation payment amount of that you have described, which is valued currently at $150 million plus 20%. supervisor mar: $160 million plus 20%. >> yes. the money would be used by the voucher program for tenants to provide the difference between the brand controlled rent and what ever rent was charged. frankly, we have the right to make sure with the right of first refusal, which is pretty

cumbersome and difficult -- we have made it as unattractive as possible for a developer or subsequent owner to try to seek to renege. if they do, we made the provision that would give us the right of first refusal to lease the units so we can make sure the tenants get the rent to go into those units. we also have the language -- one other piece you did not mention. if there is a reneging act or any sort of judicial determination -- the developer and subsequent owners agree they would not take any action against existing tenants, unless until the matter is finally adjudicated or they pay the liquidation amount. we would have the money in hand to make sure those tenants get the vouchers so they will then

not be forced out of these units. supervisor mar: mr. sullivan, could you please start to summarize more succinctly so we can get to public comment? >> ok. the remedies introduced today include termination rights for against reneging owners and developers. if it happens at all, there would be a termination of the development agreement. if it happens after substantial construction, so we're in the middle of construction, developers have an option of either continuing to abide by rent control or pay the liquidation amount. like i said, we also have the right of first resultrefusal. i'm happy to answer further questions on that. supervisor mar: we have the 14 page document and a summary. we also have mr. yarne's summary

of the different amendments. thank you for that. my understanding is there's a puc recommendation, as well, which i think is on our desks, too. my aide has distributed copies. if anybody wants them, please raise your hand. there are two documents you should be able to receive. one is a summary document that summarizes all the amendments i am proposing. the others are the 14 pages of the actual language of the amendments. folks can see that and review it. supervisor mar: thank you. our city attorney is cheryl adams. i've been advised we will get through public comment quickly and then we will come back to discussion of those amendments. let's open it up for public comment. >> if i could just make two final comments. first of all, thank you for the work. i know that not everyone in this room is going to agree that this

agreement is where it needs to be. frankly, i do not think there's anyone on either side that wish is that all the provisions that are in here were in here. i know that the developer would probably have not referred to have considered putting these amendments into the development agreement. i know there are advocates for tenants who may not think this is enough. that said, again, i am a tenant in san francisco. this is a set of issues i've really struggled with, how to ensure that all of the folks that are currently living at park merced get to continue to live at park merced and continue to live the kind of life that we all want to live in san francisco. it's my absolute intent with these amendments to ensure the protection of all of you who have made park merced your home,

who have been part of our san francisco community tree as our deputy city attorney just said, i do think that the agreement itself before the agreements that i put in are extremely dispensable. i believe that with the amendments that i placed in, we now have protections that would insure that in the small, small circumstance something would happen to this development agreement, our tenants would be protected. i think that's incredibly important. again, i look forward to discussion. i do want to mention that at 10:00 a.m., supervisor elsbernd and i need to go for a few minutes to be part of an announcement around pension reform. supervisor mar: we're all going to recess at 10:00 a.m. thank you. let's open this up for public comment. i'm only going to qualified

people. we are going to recess at 10:00 a.m. and come back in 15 minutes at 10:15 a.m. i have about 100 cards here. we're going to come back and have quite a bit more testimony. please keep it short. thank you. >> thank you. i'm speaking on behalf of san francisco. tomorrow, first of all, the proceeding is out of due process. you cannot make a determination before finalization. prejudice is the outcome. therefore, the process is out of whack. i have made that point before. secondly, i have proposed an alternative pro forma for the development to indicate that

there are examples, there are alternatives that lower cost for the developer and insure rent control stabilization for the tenants. if i can do this, then your experts need to do this, as well. therefore, if there are alternatives, everything needs to be postponed until those alternatives are exposed. shall we say, indicated by alternative professional experts that you can trust who are not in conflict of interest? thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> i have one more point. i'm going to indicate regard for the suggestions by president chu. if it cannot be insured, it cannot be mitigated. therefore, if you can find an insurer, then you have a project. supervisor mar: thank you.

please come forward. thank you. >> good morning. i'm a 25-year resident of park merced in a garden apartment. i'm here to ask you to not vote to destroy the garden apartments and especially the common areas. i have lived here for many years and i've raised my two children. the common areas, which we share with our neighbors -- we have a common history -- are very important to our quality of life. being able to walk outside and walk and the grass, we will not have that in a high-rise. i'm also concerned with losing rent control. i know it has been discussed that it will be protected. you know, it is our home and our lives. we really cannot afford to lose it. thank you.

>> good morning, supervisor mar. i am an attorney for san francisco tomorrow. i want to echo the comments about the fact that you really should not be voting on this because there's not a certified e.i.r. i noticed that the findings for the development agreement approval say that the board of supervisors has adopted the findings as its own and incorporated them by reference. course, that has not happened yet. the planning commission's findings are essentially under appeal and have no validity. you're not in a position to make a recommendation on this. the planning commission did because they had already certified e.i.r's. getting to the substance of the issue, i appreciate the proposed amendments, but i have a major

concern. if a court acts to invalidate the rent control provisions of the development agreement he will do so on the basis that it is against public policy. if he does that, you will almost certainly find that the additional provisions added to the development agreement are voided, again because they violate costa toxhawkins. it is not any help. finally, i want to point out that the development agreement itself in its findings recognizes the fact that the high-rise apartments are part of the project and are being left as is. you will essentially be approving demolition by earthquake with the subsequent displacement of all of the high- rise tenants. that is improper and certainly should have been highlighted in the e.i.r.

thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. overflow is available in room 250 mr.. goodman? >> good morning. thank you for letting me speak early today. he spoke very eloquently about the issues involved. no matter what is added to it, when it goes to the state courts, any discussion you make today can be tossed out. that is what the concern is. are you looking beyond the development agreement -- the financial issues involved. is that dealing thing that matters -- is that the only thing that matters? i want to thank the people that did come out and look at park merced. it is far from blighted. it's a far from blighted community. it's a marvel of modernism.

it's a landscape at risk. that's the concern here. diit just gets lost in the weeds of the discussion. you are missing the point when it comes to what you are risking. if you demolish park merced, you are never going to see that open space again. it can be a national park. can be preserved. it can be renovated. you have a lot of options involved, including in-fill. you can densify on the eastern side of the site. you can address the towers, which are a concern of structural stability. you have empty parking lots. you have all sorts of transit available land that simple story buildings are on. we can do a lot better job of equity density throughout the city without displacing and demolishing these sound units. we do not have family-style units anymore. we do not have once created or

built. that's the problem. that's why a lot of people are leaving the city. that's why a lot of people are looking to find a place they can live again. that's what park merced represented and that's what we need again today. supervisor mar: thank you. we are going to recess until 10:15 a.m. i'm going to call the next cards. they will be the first to speak as we come back at 10:15 a.m. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors. i'm here to support sending the park merced items forward as the committee reports to the full board. it's incredibly important for san francisco to keep making progress on adding diverse types

of housing within city limits. the amount of housing proposed and its carefully deployed density is necessary to support a successful transit-first community. i've been impressed with supervisor chu's transit- oriented planning and i see this project as consistent with that thinking. the plan provides a nice array of housing types to support a diverse population, with the current and future work force residents, including young professionals and families with children, seniors and students. if we cannot add comprehensive plans, the transit oriented and sustainable housing like this within the city limits, we're facing a very grim future. i ask for these items to be sent forward to the full board. >> thank you. we will recess this meeting

until >> thank you for your patience. i will start calling several more names. grace shannahan, j.j. panther, john loomis, corey brae, guitano baso, and carl hanson. please come forward. >> i am kevin gabarra, from district 3. i support this project, because it will bring jobs and housing in revenue to the city of san francisco.

the developer has made an extensive effort for 290 community outreach meetings, to watch out for the residents of san francisco. thank you. >> i am j.j. panzer from the property management association and i support this project. having been born and raised in san francisco and having experiences in park merced, i think this will be an important part of turning this into a modern part of the future of san francisco. without this development, there is a danger that this place will need extensive of grades to maintain the old standard for the needs of san francisco in

the 21st century. for one i have seen of the development plans, this meets the needs of the of the housing accommodations, and the public space for housing more people in san francisco to accommodate more people in the future. >> readin [reading names] i will keep calling names. please come forward. if you are in the overflow room, please come to the chambers. >> i want to thank you for your time and your vigilance and making certain that this is the best that can be. i want to thank you for the amendments to safeguarding the

young in the old. i have lived in westport for almost 10 years, and this is about traffic and infrastructure. this is not a position to support the many infrastructure improvements that are needed, for the current level of traffic. not to mind when i have predicted for the future. we have talked about a bond measure for fixing potholes. and the basic budgetary line items. as part of the developer agreement, we have improvements and additions that will benefit everyone at no cost to the city. the project would ensure a great many jobs, and this is vital for

the blue-collar families, that we are losing on a daily basis. thank you an estimate for this item with your support. >> a good morning. i am john loomis and i probably reside in cohen's district. although i love in san francisco, i live in park merced. the period i lived in, i spent a lot of time and i understand the problems that this shares. i think that the new plan is a visionary, and i think that this is exciting. here are few things the transpoo

improve the quality of life and the environment, leading to zero carbon, with amazing sabin's -- savings in water with additional housing units to guarantee social equity. planning that leads to real neighborhoods, not the misguided landscape of the 1950's. enhancing the existing landscape with the order of magnitude in beauty, this is a design for a humane and socially responsible life, valued in san francisco. this is an important part of the future for others to learn. we can be a leader. this is san francisco and there are those who will not like any

change, whatsoever, despite how beneficial it may be. let's do the right thing and not be bullied by the naysayers. let's be a leader in the city as an example. >> thank you very much. >> i live in district 7. there was once a market there and this was called the green frog. i have gone through their all my life. i have looked at the economics and we all know unemployment is 12%. tax revenue is down.

it is good for the community that we have access to this. 19th avenue is a disaster. killed on the 19th and holloway by a muni bus. i know the problem we are faced with. i have three kids next door. two kids across the street. one graduated -- and i counted, within two minutes, five cars going the wrong way. this is a very dangerous corridor. this is the danger of the 19th quarter. this needs to be addressed. and this project has addressed all of these concerns. i have been born and raised

here. >> please come forward if your name is called. >> is so with the united public workers for action, and i think we have here is a case of a grand jury that says that there are serious problems with this. what you are trying to do you are trying to run this through without proper comment. we get 15 pages from a supervisor who is running for mayor. you are trying to push this through without proper discussion or analysis. the fact of the matter -- they are bad actors. the people who pay contributions to push this thing forward. these are the bad actors.

this is a union busting proposition. they increased the age in retirement. in san francisco and this hearing, they're pushing their agenda against working people. we need more rental units in san francisco, not less. there are 1500 rent-controlled units that will be destroyed. and maybe we can preserve this in the future. this is giving more money to the lawyers but i did not think that this is working. the corporations to run this. we have the man running for city attorney, presenting us with a document that says that the tenants will be protected.