San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

The Parkmerced Vision:

Published: February 10, 2011 16 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 5 findings

F1
By not explaining how it will override/resolve potentially conflicting provisions of state law, the Development Agreement does not protect tenants against rent increases as it claims.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Having no penalties or disincentives for the owner/developer in the Development Agreement should it choose to abandon the project before completion, encourages short term investment speculation over long term collaborative development with the City, and adds risk to the program.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The owner/developer fails to address the social and financial impact to the Parkmerced citizen/tenants, local businesses and citizen users of the 19th Avenue traffic corridor if it elects to abandon re‐development of Parkmerced and sell the property to another party.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Development Agreement presumes demolition is necessary, and presents no alternative, or combination of alternatives, that might satisfy the programmatic goals of re‐ development without the demolition of 1,583 occupied units.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Development Agreement’s claim that it provides rent control protection on newly constructed units under the City’s rent stabilization ordinance is uncertain. It may not be enforceable.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 1

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

San Francisco County County