under costa hawkins, this parkmerced contract comes squarely within the provisions of what is permitted. costa hawkins does allow for exceptions when a city contributes, makes city contributions or other forms of assistance. and the document on page two and three list the various forms of assassins that the city is providing that according to supreme court justice reynosa would allow the city and developmenter to allow to agree on an agreement that would be exaptable to costa hawkins. >> i have just received this opinion for the first time and i quickly scanned it but it does reiterate what we have included in the text of the development agreement, about reliance on the exception of costa hawkins for the forms of assassins given to the city under the state bonus statutes. so it appears to be giving an opinion based on their review of the development agreement and the specific things the city is giving to the developer in the development agreement that we sit with the express exception that's in costa hawkins for contracts with public entity that is provide assassins. supervisor chu: tha

it was the exact same costa- hawkins question. not only is it comparable to trinity. it is comparable to any other project anywhere in san francisco that includes bmr units. you were sent to an -- you are saying to any tenant in those units that it is legally questionable. i hope you continue forward with any other project that includes one bmr unit or thousands. it is the same law. to supervisor avalos, i assume you know the value of the rent control subsidies already offered is $160 million. i am betting you do not know the value of the amendment you are offering care. i do not think any of us know. but it is not going to be $160 million. it is going to be significantly more. i think we also know the developers are not going to say yes. it is a nonstarter. it destroys the entire project. let us not put on a sure way that this is an amendment that is coy to help move the -- not -- let us not put on a sure raid -- a charade that this is an amendment that is going to help move the project forward. superivsor mar: in a to three for our land use committee meeting this mo

costa-hawkins -- supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. superivsor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: please call items 3 through 5, as well as items 25 through 28, related to parkmerced. >> item 3 is a motion approving the final environmental impact report for the project. item four is in motion reversing the certification of the final environmental impact report. item five is a motion directing the preparation of findings. item 25 is the ordinance approving a development agreement between the city and parkmerced investors, making various findings and waiving certain provisions of the a minister to code. item 26, ordinance amending the planning code to establish the parkmerced special use district. item 27 is a zoning map to reflect a special use district. item 28 is an ordinance amending the general plan by amending the urban design element height map with respect to the site. items 29 through -- these items were reviewed by the planning department. president chiu: we had publi

for example, one for replacement units, one based on costa- hawkins, all the things we thought the board would be concerned bond. if one of those things were to change or work to change in the text of the ordinance before you, that could require noticing. but what you have in front of you is an ordinance that approves a development agreement substantially in the form of the board file. it is contemplated that the board might want to make changes or talk about changing. if the board and the developer agree upon those changes, it is appropriate for those changes to be made to the development agreement, as has been done in other major development deals. most importantly, the shipyard redevelopment project -- a number of changes were made before the board at the hearing. the important distinction here is we are making changes to an underlying document that is in the board file. there is a form of a delegation substantially in the form. for purposes of sunshine noticing and brown records of this and, anybody who has been following this project would be familiar, and it would be reasonable to

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.