i don't know. it isn't the observations by other commissioners about the surrounding neighborhoods are attached single-family dwellings which produces -- and this will be interesting to see what is that part merced. although it has high-rises and what not, which breaks the pattern.

the north beach area is fairly densely packed. anyway, just a comment.

>> michael pros today presentation and this would continue over the next couple of hearings. >> does this supersede those given previously the.

if anyone would like to see how the documents more vaulting, you will be able to track them on the web site. good evening, commissioners. >> this will probably be located where? >> i believed at an auditorium at s.f. state.

thank you for holding out. i will try to be brief. it will be helpful to go over the highlights. i would like to address the issues such as the density. this is surprisingly low by san francisco kosh -- san francisco standards. these are within the range of what we consider a normal neighborhood. in fact. 21 is low.

>> before i launched into this presentation, there is a question about what sort of meetings and interactions that happened the. i would offer a list of those meetings and contacts. we can certainly post this on the web site as well. from november, 2006 to the present day, there has been about 176 formal schedule of meetings between the city and county of san francisco agencies and the project sponsor. the planning department has met most with the project sponsor, approximately 70 that we have documented. 36 with our office, 13 with the public utilities commission.

i mentioned this to let you know that there has been a lot of setting and work and also the plant documents that we distributed. the division planned has gone through seven separate revisions. 8 on city agency feedback and edits. the transportation plan has gone through four sets of revision. for the records, we have copies of all of the comments that were given by the agencies that influence the outcome and shape of these documents. bernanke for your questions and if you have any follow-ups, we will be happy to answer. i will fly through hopefully

what is a quick summary. i would like to remind everyone what a development agreement is. this is a contract. this is a contract that is a legally binding promise of mutual benefits. there are benefits for the city and the project sponsor. the agreement that allows them was agreed upon in 1979. since then, there has been about 500 created.

this is a relatively new thing in san francisco. statewide, there has been over 500 development agreements. the development agreement statutes grew out of a lot of litigation in the second nepos and 80's. there was concern that the state was losing their ability to negotiate in a more open way. development agreements were tools specifically created to allow cities to negotiate transparently for public benefits outside the conference of the mitigation.

the point of the development agreement is to come up with greater public benefits that would otherwise be allowed under convention ordinances. what we are up to it is to get something better for the city then we could if we applied conventional rules, okay. i already mentioned transparent negotiations and the fifth bullet, development agreements run with a land, not the individual developer or the owner. i want to emphasize that because i have heard a lot of concerns. people are hearing about changes in ownership, restructuring of debt and equity. what this means is nothing in terms of what can be enforced. whoever runs this will have to follow the rules. this is not unique to investors for focus capital, this is

unique whoever owns the land at the time. i am happy to get into that more but i'm happy to emphasize that. why would lead to a development agreement? we get greater certainty, flexibility, accountability. we have greater control over the type and delivery of benefits. we can ask for things that we can not under traditional long. this development of long-term large scale protects. retrofitting suburbia is a big challenge. the interesting thing is that we have exactly the tool and situation to do just that. finally, this in forces the implementation of public benefits.

we have been through a bunch of planning processes. we have all seen the better neighborhoods, and state. getting those public benefits delivered is a difficult task. we have heard the complaint that he cannot guarantee good stuff, this is all dependent on impact fees and little projects happening here and there. we actually have a great situation where we have a neighborhood and a simple project. i would argue that this is the best of both worlds as we can create a neighborhood and have enforceable public benefit delivery in a way that you cannot have in a neighborhood like eastern neighborhoods where you have 10,000 landowners. some go live anywhere near san francisco. that is why one would want to do this.

i would like all of you to keep this in mind. this is a very unique project. this is a private public partnership. hthe city has no skin in this game with the exception of a handful of streets and our ability to regulate. we have no land involved in the deal. we're not selling any land. we're getting more land than we have now. we are not required to spend a single dollar. there are tax increments going into those deals. in all of those deals, the city is the land owner and the

investor. this is radically different even though this is a development agreement. i will keep returning to this theme. that is the primary reason we have structured this deal. the master homeowners association will take care of and permanently maintain the fast majority of these improvements in perpetuity. finally, the developer carries all of the risk financially. i will explain later what those costs and risks are. four primary public benefits. which is talked about this being a private public partnership. i want to talk about what we're asking for. there are four themes and you

will see these in the development agreement. we are asking for a one-to-one replacement in the rent- controlled units with new units and full location rights for all existing tenants. that is non-negotiable. we are requiring all existing code required baseline improvements. any existing rules today, st. tree requirements, courtyards, private open spaces, these all apply to this project. so, there is no waiver of those rules. the project is proposing a state of the bart system. we will get into much more detail at that.

those are above and beyond the standard approach. finally, we have a whole package where we define the kennedy improvements. these are the items that i mentioned earlier. those are the things above and beyond what normal ordinances could gets. this is the gravy, so to speak. there is a list of all of these items and the exhibits to bolster the development agreements. these benefits, there are some that are publicly-owned and some that are privately owned. we have incorporated process in the developed a degree but for a negotiated alternate community improvements in the event that a non city agency will not allow

us to do an improvement unlike the extension. we have a process for compensating the city and what we have negotiated on the front end that we cannot get on the back end. >> minimum risk = flexibility. i started by saying that we don't have a lot of skin in the game. we don't own the land and we are not doing tax increment finance, we are offering great flexibility in how they build this out. because we have nothing to gain, we are not demanding specific development schedules or pre development phases. instead we have created a development phase application process that allows the developer to come forward when they are ready with a proposal that means the market demand and

if they think that they can finance. this allows us to review that. until that commences, nothing happens. theoretically, if we enter into another great depression or recession, this could sit for 10 years with no changes. the agreement sets for 30 years and once there is a private development, then the requirements can.

-- can. i think several of the commissioners mentioned how the development phase in works. what i am presenting here is the four tiers of reproval. this creates a process. the two fit together hand in glove. the developer is the referee.

it could be like a thousand units of housing, 50,000 square feet of retail and three community improvements. these have to conform with -- and they must integrate into the greater citywide system. the development phase approvals are the individual buildings and the community improvements, the parts, the transit extensions, the pike programs, etc.. all of those are subject to individual design review process.

at the lowest level, we are implementing approvals and the those are all of the standard permits the city currently issues, building permits, street improvement permits, a whole host of technical permits that the city applies to projects outside. there is a 30-year term for this agreement. the development can happen if we suddenly have a huge surge in our economy. theoretically, this could happen in 10 years. the term is 30 years.

after the term, the development agreement expires and the structure goes away. this plan is based on the three requirements. there is a phasing plan attached to the development and this is literally a list of all the goodies, all the transportation improvements, both mitigation measures required and all of the additional stuff, the community improvements, pedestrian improvements, all of that is listed based on rates and density. when you hit a certain trigger, you are at a certain number of trip generates. when an application is submitted, it has to conform with that system that we set up.

the city will never give less than they have bargained for. it is the timing that we don't control. the city retains full discretion which is important to review every development phase application to make sure it conforms with the constitution that i was just describing. if an effective city agency objects, they need to name the reasons that the developer can resubmit their face applications of this complies. this is an example of what of the phasing plan inside of the agreement looks like. the list of specific made the improvements and negations is on the left, the reference to the plan documents, this our specific references to the plan.

on the far right is the trigger for other items, this is density. ahthis is a quick preview. these are the minimum contents of what goes into a phasing plan. again, i already went over the standards for review and they are here in your packet. and there is always an exception for public health and safety. there is an exception for that and the city can make sure that we meet that requirement.

this applies to all new buildings and community improvements and the department has a standard of review that allows for discretion when it comes to subjective for qualitative standards. we have committed to approve projects that conform with the quantitative or detective standards. there are setbacks and street walls and -- over open space and markets. that is the certainty we are getting. the commission plays a role in reviewing the subject of elements, the design, the look

and feel of the buildings. the commission can play a role if the projects sponsored requires any role. we have just presented a structure on how regulating development and growth and approval unfolds. there are multiple levels of enforcement here.

what i call a light to heavy. the heavy is termination of the agreement. if the developer or future developer violates or does not comply with one of the requirements or provisions of this agreement, that is a material breach, that is like a provision of a park or a rail line and they don't sure that the fault, the city has a right to terminate this agreement and all developments stop and all benefits to go away. on you can call this the nuclear option if you want. beneath that are lesser levels of pressure. there is a provision in here annually, the planning director must review the status of the development agreement. this is actually state law.

every year, this is where things stand. here is where things are in terms of implementation. if the commission finds the developers are out of compliance, they issue a certificate of noncompliance. there are additional measures like holding in the issuance of a stock provision. if a developer would like to build a particular side, it is standard practice for them to ask for the seller to provide a certificate to say that all of your rights are ok. the city has the ability to withhold those certificates if the agreement is not delivered on schedule. finally, i mentioned that there is a long-term maintenance provision.

we are giving third-party beneficiary rise to enforce the master homeowners association obligation to maintain the property. the city is at the table. if this is not performing, we can enforce their obligations. finally, we have specific informant's remedies as well. this is not just that we terminate the agreements but we can pursue specific remedies so that if this is only half completed, the rail line is half finished, we have the ability to pursue the developers or developers responsible.

we are proposing to substantially richer fit a piece of because i suburbia. that takes a lot of energy and resources. this is not something to be taken lightly. we have facing their ownership and motivated owner who was willing to invest substantial sums to help the city create a told that we can force through public benefits, not imaginary benefits, over a long amana time in a way that we would not able to do in every single neighborhood in san francisco because of the ownership structures and the land use laws. this is an exceptional opportunity. think you. >> i would like to take public comment before we continue.