forward with protecting ten yanlts and moving forward with a project like this. i think we all know that in the near future with -- if we don't succeed with the approach we will need to do very significant construction to the units in parkmerced that will be passed in significant ways to the tenants, or more likely, the owner of the project will very likely need to sell off parcels of this project in a piecemeal way that will likely also involve tenants and also novel significant disruption to the community in order to keep park merced moving forward. from my perspective we don't have a lot of great options but i think this agreement not only lays out a vision that is part of what i think the future of the city should be, but i think

with all of the amendments that i have made creates, in addition to the protections that we've already seen in the agreement, a lot of significant protections that i think are critical to helping protect the future of the ten nanlts and working families that live within parkmerced. with that, colleagues, i would like to ask that you could adopt these as pieces of the underlying agreement and move this forward. mar-mile-an-hour thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor wiener? it's been moved and seconded. now discussion? >> this is on the amendment? >> yeah, on the amendment. >> i can't hear you. supervisor mar: there's been a motion and a second on the amendment and now we're discussing the amendments. >> i want to thank president chu, who i know has spent enormous amount of time on this subject and who i know has

really worked hard to try to tighten up the tenant protections so that this goes beyond the protections that were proved by trinity plaza and so i'm very supportive of these amendments and will be voting to support them. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: supervisor, chu, thank you very much for your work and your leadership in trying to protect the renters. i would have to say i share some of the sentiments in the folks in the audience today who just received the amendments last minute. i would have prevored to have had more time to review them and have an opportunity to fully process and digest the amendments. with that said, i also had a breach conversation with michael yarney yesterday. i am in favor and will support

the amendment you're proposing today but in the future we honor the process and give everyone an opportunity to speak to the proposed amendments. thank you. supervisor mar: i appreciate president chu and his office, all the work that was done. i wish the ten nanlt organizations were more a part of the discussion but it sounds like your intent is to increase and improve the conditions for existing conditions. i wanted to ask our legal counsel. are these substantive or could they be moved forward today? >> the amendments that were made to the development agreement are within the scope of the agreement that was noticed for your hearing today. so if you wanted to move them forward, you could do so without requiring additional public comment.

supervisor mar: ok. so i guess i will be supportive to have amendments, but like supervisor cohen, i do feel that there hasn't been enough transparency of the process and that we need much more discussion on a number of the mitigations and the question of the protection of the rent controlled units still to me is not rock solid. so i definitely hear the comments from the -- a number of the tenant organizations. in all of a sudden and i don't feel comfortable with moving anything forward without further vetting by many of the stakeholder groups that are here today but i'll support the amendment. supervisor chu? supervisor chu: most of these amendments came out of conversations with tenant advocates in recent weeks and months. so i do know that not all the members of the public here had a chance to see them but i certainly appreciate the

perspective of our colleagues on this. these are complicated issues and certainly we will in the coming weeks have time for folks to evaluate the language here and i will obviously continue to meet with folks to receive feedback on that. with that obviou hands of the committee. supervisor mar: colleagues, can we move the amendments without objection? now on the amended items, supervisor wine summer supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. chairman. i am -- i move that we forward items two through five to the board and that's without recommendation because we have not voted -- we do not have a certified e.i.r. so we need to do it without recommendation. so we have had this -- this project has been around and discussed for years. there have been an enormous

number of hearings whether at the planning commission before this committee, before full board of supervisorses with a very lengthy e.i.r. hearing. every conceivable view has been expressed, every point of discussion has been had. the development agreement has been tightened in terms -- in various respects including on the ten nanlt protection issues. we held a lengthy closed session with the city attorney's office to receive additional advice about the costa hawkins and related issues. i believe we have the information that we need to move this forward to the board. and i want to give mr. omerberg and others credit for being

candid that these protections are not going to convince the opponents -- the opposition to this is pretty fundamental and i truly respect that position, but i don't think that a continuance is going to change anything in terms of the dynamics around this process and if i thought that there would be a chance to actually come up with a consensus, i'd be the first to support a continuance, but i have not heard anything at all during the course of this project that would lead me to believe that anything approaching a consensus could be had, unfortunately. i do move that by -- we forward it to the full board without recommendation. supervisor mar: also at our mar 24 later today? supervisor wiener: correct. supervisor mar: other comments, colleagues? i'm going to be voting against the motion. but i appreciate the harmed work

of mr. michael yarney and mr. swits can i and alan ball from planning. there are great parts of the project, especially the transportation tier five improvements that supervisor elsbernd raised that would not happen but for this profpblgt also the e planning and sustainable planning that is being developed is very positive. but like many of the speakers in the audience, including three planning commissioners, miss marshall from the rent board and many community based organizations, i have many questions about the project, especially, the as mr. preston called it. the clear cutting of the 1,500 rent controlled units. i'm still not convinced that it's not too risk withy and it's

not a rock solid guarantee that those units will exist for the future. i feel that a lot of the speakers have raised questions about the need for rent controlled housing. i'm acknowledging the positive aspects of the project but i feel it's too risky for those units. so i will be voting against the motion and still feel we need more time to fully vet this project but i do appreciate supervisor wiener's proposal. if there are no other comments, could we have a roll call? supervisor elsbernd is here as well. supervisor wean summer >> on the motion of items two through five to the full board without recommendations. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: aye. >> supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: iowa.

>> supervisor mar? supervisor mar: no. the meeting at 2:00 p.m. today. thank you so much, everyone. any other items on the agenda? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor mar: so with no other items, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.