existing. >> what we were looking at most importantly was, what is going to take the kind -- to make the kind of community for support and service and amenities that everyone in the neighborhood were asking for? one of the things that we thought of, from the land area, it covers about 152 acres, which is comparable to some of the neighborhoods in san and disco. some of the neighborhoods actually have the kind of service and effort to have the access to transit that we think this neighborhood should have. we worked with the ownership group to see what kind of

population we would need in order to support the kind of services everybody was asking for. including the grocery store that is almost nonexistent. commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner miguel: commissioners, i will continue with commissioner questions on this subject, but afterwards, i was going to ask whether or not you want us to -- it will keep us here wonder this evening. think about that. -- longer this evening. think about that. commissioner sugaya: one observation, or question, or

something. it is interesting to me that the transit line comes in as a diagonal and continues to the south east through another diagonal streets. i guess it seems that without seeing something rendering lies, it seems like a diagonal and is organizing or something in my mind. and yet, we have transit of violating a whole segment with that. it seems like a strange way to do it, i guess. for lack of technical terms. just an observation. when it gets down to the end of the southeast corner, and to the cars just a turnaround and go

back up? i did not quite understand that. >> this was one of the goals of the mta. so that muni was not in traffic to help their travel time. the second goal was to make sure that the plan that we had would accommodate the effect of this plan the future that would possibly bring home the j-line -- bring the j-line to this end. another thing that was important was the amount of writer ship is quite large.

so starting with san francisco state, the writer should drop off dramatically. if you gave mta the possibility of running more trains to serve that a heavier population and having the appropriate level of service from the community to the east, they were very excited about the dead end. it gives them a place to pull a disabled train out of the way. in the future, they can extend this line and set it up to allow extensions for daily city work. commissioner sugaya: it just seems strange that it is right in the middle of a diagonal streets that would be some kind of way to organize this thing. unless you're going to

completely -- if you have already used in the open space to the southwest and i know that going the other direction to the northwest is kind of short. it is just something that hit me. commissioner moore: i would like to ask something about building placement without stepping on anybody's toes. to my eye, the placement of the existing tall towers is rather awkward. it is like little butterflies over the side and not creating a lot of logic. the addition of towers on the west side with the existing towers is from one point of view, a very difficult thing to do.

[unintelligible] when we tried to checkerboard them to not create the effect, it is like the great wall. because they are alongside each other, it is very important. we are doing that here for this side in the major way. we're not really creating an element of surprise at which you all of a sudden say, it used to be a lower density neighborhood. overall, while i appreciate the way your ideas are developed, it is a small concept in terms of whatever his place making, from

a formal point of view, i find it difficult in a number of places. this goes back to what i said earlier about the awkward geometry on the front end, and i am looking at this overall plan has nothing in its entirety is totally convincing for me as the model of an urban dense a vacation for the future. i am concerned that because of the density, it will be even more apparent. it is irrelevant to what it was. somebody used the expression that over identification is dehumanization -- over identification is dehumanization -- over densification is dehumanization.

i would like to have a discussion about how density works against an economic model that we are all familiar with. how do we create a balance for density that deals with the aspect of the livable neighborhood, a denser neighborhood that we all realize is a possibility, but it still creates something that is equal or better than what we have. on the other side, every and all neighbors knowing that this neighborhood will be completely redeveloped to the extent that it will be unrecognizable to them in the future. that is my responsibility to sit here and ask the questions i do. i am not saying i am for or against the project. but i want to create a balance.

commissioner miguel: there is one more part to this section, if you could be sustained -- succinct. >> good evening, commissioners. i will have a very brief review of the primary contacts that i introduced to you a few weeks ago and i will skip over that for the purposes of time.

what i am here to speak very briefly about, you have just seen a bunch of public improvements in the open spaces , i wanted to talk briefly about how all of that space will be managed and maintained over time. we have sometimes been that of providing public infrastructure and there is always the question of how to maintain it. all the good design in the world will not create a good public space. what does development agreement has allowed us to do, the fact that this entire thing is under a single owner share, the question was raised at the last hearing. i would suggest it is an amazing opportunity because we are able to do some creative things.

what we proposed in the agreement is that there be long- term maintenance propagation on the developer. so the city would not be required to fund the cleaning and repair and maintenance against the vast majority of the site. what this shows are the types of improvements that would be covered by the maintenance agreement. specifically, a good portion of the public improvements are often built by the developer and dedicated to the city. not all of which will be maintained by the city. we have gone into great detail for those that will be maintained by the city. it is to the benefit of the city, the degree that we can manage the operations costs. most of the community

improvements are covered by the maintenance operation. what are the improvements? in the park system, for example. some of the other thing is that you saw. there are privately owned and publicly on the improvements. a majority of the storm water management improvements or a good portion of them will also be maintained. all of the areas subject to this agreement which i have included in the next slide, unfortunately, i apologize to the public, but your packets provide a pretty good diagram. the areas that are light blue, all of those areas will be subject to this ongoing

maintenance obligation. the only areas that are not subject to that are the public right of way, and in some cases the equipment itself. in effect, almost everything would be a hall under the obligation of the developer to maintain a. the standard that applies throughout the site and all of the areas that you just saw a is that they be maintained in perpetuity. the mechanism that we proposed is a device called the master ccnr's. all of the parcels that would eventually be developed individually would include a

master of homeowners association that would be required to manage a budget to maintain and repair all of these areas whether it is the belvedere gardens at the southwest corner of the site, they would all be subject to this application. the city has a couple of rolls in this thing. there is the requirement that we hire a third-party experts in this sort of large-scale private maintenance. we have maintained a very respected firm that manages and maintains hall of the open space and union square gardens, for example. they are skilled at this public- private situation, and they are conducting interviews

independent of the developer to determine if the budget is being proposed, we feel it is sufficient moving forward. the city has a right to reasonably review and approve these themselves. the governing documents for all of these subdivisions in sure that the public rights are protected. a couple other key points. what the of vantage of them doing this work, they are developed [unintelligible] they will sell those condominiums. the master howa, unlike a cfd, community facilities district that might have a 30-year or 40- year life that would have to be renewed, this instrument would

live in perpetuity and the sort of a self-governing party if, for some reason, the master hoa was not meeting its guidelines. i would argue that this is one of the common ways that the master developers union through the community's district -- this thing lives on in the future. if the organization fails to perform, we are not going to hold a particular develop -- in particular developer to the side. finally, on these beautiful diagrams, there are a lot of pictures of parks and open

space. we're negotiating a detailed set of guidelines. managing public access to all of the publicly accessible and privately owned areas. by definition, the public realm that becomes public improvement, these are automatically publicly accessible. what these rules are that we have created, a majority of the areas are accessible. the provisions are nondiscrimination clauses. i guarantee a full public access except for certain events and for temporary construction staging, just

briefly, [unintelligible] the whole area, all of these will be subject to special park rules. specifically, we are negotiating a guaranteed minimum hours of operation. the only event that the developer could reduce those hours as with the consent of the city. we are allowing a limited number of special private events a month, so there could be private special events on occasion. again, this is just a diagram of some of those spaces. that is my very quick summary and i am available for questions

before you move on to the sustainability. commissioner moore: this might not be part of the section, but what is the liability of the case of an earthquake or unforeseen event that causes major havoc. what is the owners' liability? what is the city's liability in case of a major event. all those things the describe to be in different categories of maintenance and ownership. >> what happens if we need to rebuild? >commissioner moore: who is

responsible for the destruction in case of an earthquake destroying all open spaces. >> the vast majority remains in private ownership, and the city has no obligation to repair or replace any of those private improvements. where is accepted in public improvement, like i knew right away. -- right away. except where we have, by express agreement, a developer to maintain and repair. to get your point, a good number of the sidewalks, all of these

three designs are based on the better street program that we are all quite familiar with. there is street furniture, not your standard curve and sidewalk. the agreement right now as the developer responsible for maintenance and repair. my educated guess, and i am not the city attorney right now, but my educated guess is that it would stay with the developer where the developer has expressly agreed to that. the d.a. would still exist, so let's say something terrible happens or a fire happens. as far as i understand, all of the responsibilities. if a portion of the site was wiped out, they would have the

same rights to rebuild and we would have the same responsibility or obligation and responsibility. how does that help answer your question? >> sometimes, in certain instances, there is an expression. in the event of a major event, what ever is. perhaps an act of god or whatever it might be. basically, you don't have a responsibility because it exceeds the predictable and normal form of responsibility or liability. i just want to touch on that, because there are a lot of independent elements in order

for this plan to really work. i hope that these possibilities are clearly spelled out and we're not running into a major surprise because we did not think about it today. >> remember that there are no obligations to perform under this agreement until private development commences. if some disaster happens, there is no obligation to rebuild. if one wants to rebuild, the city can do all of the improvement guidelines and standards. we could see this plan approved, and we could sit still for five years. there is no obligation to perform. commissioner moore: of this project was built and realized

with many wonderful parts to it, all requiring attention to maintenance. that was the only basis of my question. commissioner antonini: kind of on the same lines as commissioner moore, you talked about the master hoa that would probably be the developer or owner at that particular time. we know that certain parts of it would be condominium buys. they would probably still have responsibility over the common areas, open spaces, or improvements. >> it would cover zero parcels on the property, and as each building is built, they would

have their own buildings specifically. he would be members, and if it is a single apartment building, they would all be obligated to pay into this larger fund, and all of the parcels would be obligated to contribute and participate. it would be like any other management structure. again, think of it -- master is the best term. each parcel would have its own hoa. more specifically to your comment, let's say the developer holds on to the rental properties, the developer would be participating in contributing, but the developer overtime would lose control as the condominiums get built.

the ownership would shift to a collective group of owners. it would evolve organically over time. the developer would have a lot more control, and over the life of the project. commissioner antonini: there would still be a some party that would have ownership of the rental units aside from the condominium owners? >> correct. perhaps they sell something to avalon they -- bay. they are obligated to pay their fair share of the total portion of the budget and the maintenance obligations. commissioner antonini: no difference from mission bay, you

have read the units and the rental units might be on so that they would still be responsible for problems that develop their as opposed to the and that's where the ownership would be jointly responsible for it. >> in that apartment might not even have a building-specific hoa. it would still be part of the master, so they would be paying one check every month or however the payment works. the condo buildings would have an assessment for the building as well as the master. >commissioner antonini: the only responsibility would be the streets themselves. they would be responsible for the repairs of the streets. in >> and currently, the

agreement is that they would be responsible for that. commissioner sugaya: that was my same question. commissioner miguel: commissioners, who do you want to continue with this this evening? we still have a public comment. we will hold on the sustainability for the hour, and we will take public comment at this time. we will take a two minute break to stretch.