shows where all of the emissions come from. 40% come from passenger transportation. the other sectors are much lower. this directly relates to our housing patterns. no matter where you go across the country and the world, no matter what city you are in, more dense development, housing patterns, directly correlates to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. i will use this chart. the bay area is less than 10 units per acre. the average vehicle's miles per household is about 18,000 per year. this proposes an average density of 59 per acre. it could be a reduction,

assuming the statistics told of a reduction of over 10,000 miles per year by each household. multiplying that by the number of units proposed in the plan area. it is a reduction of over 9 million miles per year, driven by folks who live in parkmerced. these folks will love some -- will live somewhere. if they live here, presumably, they would drive that much less and contribute substantially toward the bay area achieving its goal. to move forward from there, commissioner olague asked us to look at the housing and how the policies and housing element relate to this proposal. we combed through the housing element and look to see what the appurtenant policies were. -- what the pertinent policies

were. there's a list of different policies. we paraphrased them into groups and discussed how the project relate. first, we provided the citations here. the first is to ensure that all new housing we build has supporting services nearby. we see it as a complete neighborhood effort. we see that in the planning efforts we have done all around the city in the last decade or so. we are proposing to read the supporting services to make this a complete neighborhood. the next group of policies relate to encouraging new housing that make efficient use of existing infrastructure and transportation, particularly public transit. as you have seen, we have talked

about transportation. this project is in an area that is already developed. there is a significant amount of planned improvements. moving towards the housing itself, there are explicit policies about the rental units that the encourage the construction of new rental units. there are policies regarding demolition, except where projects that would provide replacement of those units, particularly a net increase in the number of units, and this project is proposing to replace the existing rental units with units on a one-to-one basis. there is no substantial net increase in the number of units built on the site based on the reconfiguration of the site. i will touch on a portable units

right now. -- on affordable units right now. we have made efforts to create new, affordable housing, and to build it in all neighborhoods, not just concentrated in certain neighborhoods. we want to make sure all parts of the city help to achieve our goals. this project will, at a minimum, me to the existing inclusion mary housing requirements in the planning code. the project has agreed to provide 1/3 of their required units on site. projects have the option to build on site, off site, or elsewhere. they would build at least 1/3 on site. that would amount to a least 271 unit. the other options, if all of the

units were on site, there would be 812 on-site, based on the proposed project. if they build 1/3 on-site, we would have over 1000 units built as a result of the project. if they paid a fee for the other 2/3, that would be a hefty payment of over $220 million that the mayor's office of housing would spend as it saw fit around the city. then, the last set of policies in the housing element of wanted to touch on, regarding housing type, the housing element speaks to the need to provide aid diversity of housing types -- provide a diversity of housing

types. there are lots of different means. let me touch on more details in terms of what the project is proposing in terms of unit types. the project -- to the site -- there are two typologies. there is a distinction between them. there are the two-story garden apartments. in terms of the current unit makes, 65% of the units are two- bedroom and larger. 35% are 1-bedroom. there are a few studios. of the ones that are two-units and larger, 7% of the total units are 3-bedroom and larger. a little bit more than half, 52%, are in the towers.

in relation -- there is a broad range of housing types. there is a gap between existing low rise and the towers. there will be a component of town home. three stories, four stories. going up towards the scale of the existing towers, there will be 8- and 10-story buildings. there will be a wide range of housing types and building types for people of different means -- needs. multi-story units can become challenging. people may prefer to live in

elevator-serve the units. families may find it more desirable to live in ground- level units. the project would provide a greater diversity. there was a specific question about how many walk-up units are comparable to the existing garden apartments. we have the project sponsor do the calculation. there would be over 800 direct, sidewalk-access, walk-up units in the project. it is important to note that the design requirements, the design standards, require ground-floor, walk-up residential units at the base of all buildings. those are all buildings, even at the base of some of the towers. the neighborhood commercial core

would not have walk-up townhouse, ground-floor units at the base. you can see that all around the project. in terms of the unit makes, in terms of unit sizes, the mix would be essentially the same. two-bedroom and larger as opposed to 1-bedroom. 65% would be two-bedroom and larger. the percentage of 3-bedroom units would rise substantially from 7% up to 15% in the future. before, there were only 230 units. now it is over 1300. in terms of the mix between the high-rise tower units and the lower-rise units, we are over 52% in the towers. if we take the project as proposed, it goes down.

with that, i will turn it over to craig to take you through some of the proposed building amenities. >> and good evening, commissioners. i have the overall design responsibility for this project. i would like to begin with a quick overview of existing apartments, their qualities. there have been questions raised about how the new construction, the new apartments, might compare to what there is today. some are critical of the cookie- cutter-like repetition of the architecture in -- and the suburban-enclave nature. it is not without purpose. it has individual, private front doors. patios are connected directly to outside. there is a town house quality.

it is a sense of almost a single-family housing. at the same time, there are challenges associated with this. it has been pointed out that these units were built during wartime shortages. materials were used for the garden apartments, plaster, plywood, material not put together will to sustain long- term viability as ongoing construction. much has been done. much will continue to have to be done throughout the course of time that these buildings exist. interest -- infiltration and dry run exists. there are substantial qualities of the existing buildings that can only be brought up to current code if they are replaced. those include ada accessibility, meeting code today, specifically

with the size of kitchens and bathrooms, soundproofing, and these bring obvious challenges with them. as has been pointed out in the past, the window configuration misoriented -- is oriented to trying to put the major windows to the courtyard. the result is a lack of eyes on the street and they perceive a lack of security in public portions of parkmerced street itself. the movement -- the new amenities will be state of the art in terms of quality of furnishings, fixtures, and the construction itself. windows will be designed to maximize daylight in these buildings and to minimize energy loss. new finish, new casework. these are actual photographs of

something that was prepared to test these units. this unit was built a year and a half ago. it was the subject of a competition across the city for the most in green-loving family to live in this unit to test it. these are some above materials you see here. each of these new units will have its own washer and dryer built in. new casework, finishes, new windows, state of the art. this will be built not at one time, but over a period of many years. therefore, the latest technologies are available as we progress. they will be available for incorporation. in the ego unit, -- eco unit, you see a monitor or a dash board installed. you can see energy being consumed throughout your unit, my kitchen, water consumption,

etc. you can see where money is going and where you are consuming, and where you can conserve. this is one of the most effective ways to reduce energy consumption. other obvious things will be done will be to incorporate low- flow fixtures to minimize water consumption, as you perhaps remember. the analysis showed we can reduce water consumption by over 60% for a dwelling unit as this project moves forward as implemented. part of what gets us there is low-flow fixtures, as mentioned. this is a view of the kind of kitchen that is anticipated. energy star, low-energy appliances will be part of it. the simple incorporation of energy star refrigerators throughout the last 15 years in

california has reduced and made an incredible reduction in the amount of energy used in california. this is part of the goal for parkmerced. likewise, the question has been asked about the nature of outdoor space and how it relates to the new plan. again, there are benefits to the ways parkmerced is laid out right now with low density. in its reflection of a very clear suburban quality of courtyards, large yards, there are three playgrounds. there is a community garden. the drawbacks are, as you can see in the little picture, much of the open space is captured in yards that are not usable. their captor between esplanades and streets. in quantity, it would add up to a lot of free space in terms of usability. not so good.

one of the problems is, in the current irrigation system, there are leaks. as you may remember, we have identified there are over 55 million gallons of drinking water used to irrigate the lawns of parkmerced. part of the reduction in water consumption, which is a critical thing facing us in california, is making more efficient kind of landscapes in this new project. so, moving forward, looking at some of the other benefits, existing open space configuration, the community gardens are proposed going forward. playgrounds are proposed in the courtyard. as you may remember, neighborhood parks specifically

designed for this place a series of these. there are six parks situated within the community. a large organic farm of almost 3 acres, and a pond in the center feeds the beginning of a water system. a plainfield, a recreation field, is a part of this. this cannot be achieved right now because of the spread out nature of low-density housing. we will make a living areas compact and walkable. part of this open space will be dedicated bicycle lanes. of course, pedestrians. there are existing public amenities at parkmerced that have been very popular. the farmers' market was one. there are business centers in

each of the towers. there is space to do this. in the lower picture, you see a picture of the new gym. these are the towers. we lost the farmers' market. it lasted three years. there was not enough density to support it, to make it viable. it has been discontinued. the proposal going forward is to reintroduce this, add density to support it. their business centers spread throughout the project. they will make it possible to reduce perhaps even further the car trips that were just articulated as one of the benefits. grocery stores are at the heart of this. with neighborhood parks will be support so -- support facilities, including work rooms

and corner cafes. coffee shops are adjacent to it. there will be a dedicated, a new community center, which will help support the needs of all ages. this is near the organic farm. along with this is, of course, the provision for land for a new school. k through grade 5. also, a lot of questions raised about the nature of construction and the kind of comfort or discomfort that residents will be subjected to throughout the course of construction. it is important to note that a development of this sort, it is subject to ongoing construction work. this ongoing work is renovations that require work to existing

occupied structures. there is significant disturbance that will occur and continue to occur. it will have to be repaired over the years. new construction, by comparison, will be done separately. it was done in independent pieces, using the current, state of the art techniques, reduction of impact on neighborhood. these include dust control, techniques such as a mist cu rtain, a significant amount of recycled water used to clean trucks before and after they leave the site, they are not creating debris in streets. construction management in terms of providing transportation, there are shuttles bringing them to the site. a number of these are available to really reduce the impact.

perhaps most importantly is the technique of construction and the nature of phasing incremental growth. there is not a single year -- singular project in which a vast area is swept clean, demolished, and reconstructed. this will be built very much like a typical neighborhood. the city grows over the years. redevelopment will occur incrementally. we are taking one section to illustrate this. the first piece of this would include approximately 150 to 200 units per increment. the next one will be built away from adjacent neighbors. you can see others as they go forward. finally, there is not a single group of individuals who are subjected to ongoing, continuous construction disturbance.

that is a quick summary of trying to articulate how units are currently, how the current existence qualities are, open space, and techniques for construction. we can go into more detail. now we will talk about the questions raised about property control. >> good evening, commissioners. i am pleased to be here this evening. i do want to say briefly that i am happy to go into more detail about the affordable housing program if there is interest tonight. because i know many people are interested in the rent control issues, i will focus my presentation on that topic. i am prepared for questions you might have. i want to start by emphasizing

an important point. this is a draft. it is, by definition, not complete. we are actively working on improving. we are continuing making revisions based on feedback from the city attorney's office, from the rent board, and their staff attorneys, and from these public hearings. i emphasize that because i want to say we did post the new version today on the department website. redistributed hard copies to you. this will be official draft 3. the public is encouraged to download that from the website. we have a clean copy and the red line. the red line is based on changes to draft number two. it is also posted on the website. there is a problem with posting every set of revisions we make every week.

we do not want to overwhelm the public record with these documents. that is opposed to waiting a while until we collect enough to post. we have every intent and will make this process as transparent as possible. we have records of all the copies and all of the revisions. for the sake of limiting the amount of documentation on the website in public circulation, we are only releasing draft approximately every month, ok? i emphasize this because last week, several comments remained on the record about what was in and what was not in the agreement. many of the comments were based on an older draft that did not include revisions we received from the rent board, which we had already agreed to incorporate, which are now available for you to look -- to review in draft 3, ok? if you have questions, i am happy to answer them. another key point that was raised at the last hearing, and i want everyone to know that

we're listening at those hearings, even if we are tired, we're listening, the city cannot contract around state law. comments were made about if it is complying with state law. we by definition cannot contract around state law. a development agreement cannot ignore state law. that being said, we have a provision that has been added to the agreement, just to clarify that point, which is section 2.7, which makes clear that the city is indemnified in the event that any provisions of the agreement are held to be contrary to state law. finally, and this is very important in this debate, that we distinguish between policy decisions verses legal requirements. a lot of comments were made by a particular individual at last week's hearing. we have heard other comments about what the development agreement should include as opposed to what it must include.

i am going to do my best to explain where we make policy decisions and where we are meeting existing code or legal requirements, ok? i am going to start with some guiding principles. these are the principles that our office, the planning department, the mayor's office, and others have been using as we craft this agreement. i am speaking to section four, governing all housing-related matters, and the rent-control replacement provisions. number one central to our guiding principle is to protect existing tenants. the city wants to protect the existing tenants. it is not the city's intent to leave the existing tenants vulnerable to the evictions or two displacement. second, we are intending in all of this work to put nobody in a materially worse position than they are today. what i mean by that is we want to give the tenants better units

than they have today. we're committed to transparency and fairness in this process that we are designing. we are also committed to a knowledge in that there are policy tradeoffs in this project. not everything can remain the same to accommodate the pro -- of program. we are committed to adjudicating through existing rent board procedures, except for limited range of policy decisions, which i will clarify. we are also committed to finding and creating more it -- more affordable, incoming housing. i'm sure the commissioners are all aware that rent-controlled housing is not income-targeted housing. we do not control who occupies this housing. a rich person or a poor person can occupy a rent-control unit. they all equally benefit. the city is interested in targeting housing to those who

are in the most need, specifically low-income households. this is an important principle. we are trying to balance the primary principle of protecting tenants with another principal, acknowledging that there are region-wide needs. ok. costa hawkins. i am delighted to walk through some of the principles we are attempting to apply in this document related to it. in fact, it is true that, in general, it does not allow cities to impose rent control on newly constructed units. that is true. but, it does contain an express exception. it is in red. it allows cities and private parties by mutual consent -- consent to impose rent control on a newly constructed unit. it is in the law.

this is not a waiver we are seeking more something outside of the law. it is different than the cases you have heard about the ellis act, where santa monica -- the case specifically entered into a waiver agreement. the city of santa monica did not use an existing provision in the ellis act. it's simply drafted a waiver and had a property owner sign it. this exception refers to specific forms of assistance that are identified in the state against the law, which includes both density bonuses, increases in housing density, or concessions and incentives. they go want to clarify what those are. we believe strongly that the combined package of benefits in the development agreement satisfies this public assistance exception that