Civil grand jury flags Park Merced development agreement; supervisors split on committee response

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee heard the San Francisco civil grand jury's Park Merced report and considered a resolution responding to its findings.

Linda Clardy, foreperson, and Michael Golnick, committee chair for the Park Merced investigation, summarized the grand jury’s five key findings: the development agreement (DA) may not provide enforceable tenant protections if state law overrides local measures; it lacks meaningful penalties if a developer abandons the project; it does not sufficiently mitigate social and traffic impacts near Nineteenth Avenue; it presumes demolition rather than considering alternatives; and its claim that replacement units will be subject to rent control could be legally uncertain. Golnick said, "Only a future court can provide the definitive conclusion," and warned tenants would live under "a cloud of uncertainty" until that point.

Planning Director John Grama and Jennifer Matz of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development disputed the jury’s conclusions in part and said the final DA (as approved) included additional protections not present in earlier drafts the jury reviewed. Matz said the city added measures designed to bolster enforceability — including contractual privity between tenant and landlord, the city's role as signatory to assignment agreements, phasing and additional remedies, and a requirement that new units be in place before demolition proceeds.

Deputy City Attorney Charles Sullivan told the committee the city has "strong arguments" for enforceability but acknowledged that the legal questions are novel in places and that he "cannot predict" how a court ultimately would rule. President David Chu and other supervisors emphasized the protections the city negotiated and noted a fund set aside (about $200 million, per Chu’s comments) to compensate tenants in a worst-case scenario; Chair David Campos reiterated that uncertainty remains and that the civil grand jury raised legitimate legal risk concerns.

Public speakers — including tenants, tenant advocates and former jurors — urged the committee to produce an independent response to the grand jury rather than simply incorporating the planning department's reply. Speakers repeatedly cited displacement risks for thousands of residents and asked for stronger, explicit clarifications in any committee resolution.

President Chu moved that the committee disagree with the grand jury findings and incorporate the administration's responses into the committee resolution. The motion drew a roll call: Supervisor Mark Farrell voted aye, President David Chu voted aye and Chair David Campos voted no. The clerk recorded the motion as fallen (two in agreement, one dissent), and the item was forwarded to the full Board per committee process.

The committee recorded debate on legal risk and the city's available remedies; no final independent amendment of the resolution was adopted in committee.