there may be others. commissioner sugaya: there is a potential for 106 evaluation. the agreement anticipates the contingency where non-city agencies do not agree with our plans. the presentation on the power point that had to do with the energy -- the line that is the existing parkmerced is a straight line, but does not

include the potential of having improvements made to the existing unit overtime that would result in greater savings -- over time that would result in greater savings or lower greenhouse emissions. >> that is correct. just like inflation, we said we would take the best of what we have now and what the product is proposing now, and both will hopefully improve. it is an imperfect science. commissioner sugaya: this is part of, eventually, my comment on the developing agreement -- a development agreement. on the review of basic principles, the developer must return after every development phase for approval from the city. i think you mentioned that would be -- i do not remember the exact words -- visible to the

public, or something to that regard. i think in a lot of instances the developer returned to the city for various approvals. a lot of them are done to the planning director. later on, i have a comment about that. >> you are correct. the planning director serves as referee. any city resident affected by the development plan is allowed to view and comment as necessary. the development phase approval is -- the agreement mandates the developer present that publicly to any and all affected. commissioner sugaya: i think that is all the questions i have at the moment. thank you. this kind of goes to the city attorney. when we were talking about the

ceqa document earlier and were talking about magicians with respect to, specifically, historic preservation and demolition of historic units, there was a comment the national trust made that i also asked about. that was this mixes idea about whether the mitigation is affected by the impact itself. staff mentioned there needed to be some kind of nexus study. i believe i am right in saying that. yet in the development agreement, it says there is no need to follow traditional nexus requirements. so is there a conflict here? are they two different things?

how does one relate to the other? >> the statement regarding the next study -- is it in the written documentation? commissioner sugaya: it was a statement made by staff in reaction to the national trust statement. to offset the loss of the units. >> i think that mr. cooper made that statement because of the financial contribution. . >> the -- to offset.

for that to happen, there had to be an exit study. >> there is a distinction here in the regulatory process which is your usual process. you can impose mitigation measures either as a sikh what impact or as just an impact of development. -- seece -- +qa impact. there is a requirement that there is a measure and the impact of the development.

hear, where there is a development agreement. the state statute specifically exempts the -- from the terms. if the developer was to agree to a specific mitigation measure, but there would not necessarily be the need to establish that reasonable relationships. our advice because it needs to be supported by a nexus analysis. >> there does not seem to be a

proposal to retrofit any of the existing towers perrin to out i don't know if that means that the towers themselves structurally are going to be retrofitted or did not appear to be part of the project. it is also a concern that does not extend to more of environmental -- related retrofits whether that is the window replacements. i don't know, maybe some of this has been done. more efficient toilets, more efficient water systems, whatever. so, that is a concern. there was mention about the tear

5 improvements and other improvements on 19th avenue. the medications that are being proposed in relationship to the transportation impacts are to offset problems that are created by the project. they don't necessarily stand up on 19th avenue to other areas south and north and whatever. in terms of the tier 5 improvements, were those being worked on before this project proposal came fourth? how dependent are the improvements on this particular project? >> the study looked at four tiers which allows us to take the step back from the information that we learned.

that is probably the answer to your question. >> ok, thank you. >> the development agreement works at the key ways. the commissioner made a good point that under the development, if there are future changes to the requirements for affordable housing, they would still be protected. if the city goes the other direction and increases the amount of affordable housing, this project would not be subject to that so it cuts both the directions. there appears to be some proposals that were distributed to to the tennis and that is

curious to me. a lot of this stuff leaves me wondering about the project itself and there are many questions that come up because of things like this. i'm not opposed to increasing density in this area. i am quite happy to increase the density in this area. i am quite happy to have a few taller towers, for example. but by i cannot articulate

exactly what that vision would be from my standpoint. i think that this is not so much a matter of the number of units, this is just out impacts the committee and existing buildings and a loss of affordable housing even though we have been assured that that housing would be replaced. this could be done in another way where there is not much impact on the the existing community. i think presentations by some of the members of the audience at how some of that might be accomplished i think should have been taken into more consideration. in terms of the agreement itself, one of the concerns i have apart from being visible to residents, there are a number of

areas that relate to two house certain phases and certain actions, the resolution is left up to the planning director. i think fat in certain areas which i will not go into specifically, there could be either a decision that is made by the planning commission which comes back to the commission and a there are probably other decisions that the director makes that are then mandated to come to the planning commission said the commission states informed as to what is done at parker said through the whole process of the development. -- park merced through the whole

process of the development. but there are other areas that are difficult. there are concerns which will not be resolved sense this bill is an open-ended question. there is the question about the benefits that will be provided which will be actually looked upon as benefits by any kind of court. i'm not saying the developer will take us to court. on the other hand, we still have a question and i understand the level of benefits we are giving.

where i am having difficulty is whether these are considered to be benefits or looked at as part of the development process and did these things are normally granted or whatever. how much coercion, that is another term that was tossed around in some of the discussion. how much course and there is to get the developers to say yes. those are questions that i cannot answer and probably no one can answer i do have some problems in that regard. this is kind of bigger than me. those are some of my concerns. maybe i will have some comments

that i can make. >> one question was i feel like in a previous hearing, there was a discussion of a staging area. people would not get a you -- a new unit and in no units would be demolished until new units were built. where would that be in relation to the people who would be moved? >> quite don't have a detailed map but i can tell you that the terms of the agreement which are worth repeating, no unit can be

demolished until a replacement unit is available with a certificate of occupancy. the terms of the agreement, in no event can any be demolished and the tenet forced to relocate. that has been the principal on the project site. in the only physical areas where there is room to build without demolishing, you are correct. you need to build space for the first few buildings. there is the phasing plan that

begins in the west corner of the site. buildings could be constructed without demolishing existing units. >> i think you said there could be three stages or 15 smaller stages. can you talk about the length of term? the reason i gave those extremes because i thought it would be helpful that the developments would play out there are over

7002 units -- 7200 units. and i don't have the precise number but this was provided by 500. the largest side was 2500 new units. this scenario that i gave one is that if you had a developer that one in three large phases, they could accomplish the 7200 units in phases. >> this is like 10 years each. >> the developer has approached the proposed all of the.

-- all of the seven agreements. even with a large phase, they require a developer to provide the city with a -- of construction. they are subject to excusable delays. you can have some small development phases which gives up 14 or 15 total phases. an order of construction is mandated. the developer must tell the city the proposed order of construction. >> when would the developer --

this process right now, when are we making the public aware of the phasing? will there be a time in the future before they start their first shovel? >> that is a great question and there are a couple of ways that it will become public. there is a public presentation of any development phase approval. the city has reviewed it and all relevant agencies, certainly the plan department and others have signed off. there is a process as well. when that is complete and the approval is issued, -- are required to give any tenants that are affected. the plan, how it affects them at

all the information in the approval. that is the first that will be heard in the development site. subsequent to that, every single building proposed in the face has its own application process modeled after the process that we have in the eastern neighborhoods. some of them require commission review. if any major modifications are proposed, that would require approval. >> can you talk about the projects that would come back to the commission.

>> as a general guide, there are a significant quantity of permitted uses. within certain threshold, they require discretionary review by the commission. there are so blinded uses i want to get that out there. >> if we were to approve the project, we would see some of these buildings over this time. we are proving something and we will never see it again. that is correct.

>> this is a design review process. it is all of the materials and the italian the articulation is detailing. the density, the unit accounts, the use. for example, if there is a small commercial use, how it is designed and created is what the department, the director, or the commission has discretionary review over. >> which are some examples that would be conditional uses under the current plan? >> any use in excess of the maximum occupied square footage permitted as a maximum use. if one of the parcel exceeds,

the amount of floor area allowed. there are some rules around the school. if the school is undersized, it would require your conditional approval. >> maybe for the public record, and maybe there is a lack of knowledge. >> what i am reading is in the special use district. that is part of the package.

they have the advantage is of more oversight and frankly more benefits. >> this is deconstruction. can you talk about the process for the deconstruction? many of the materials will be reused. >> all will let rick cooper who was closer to the center matter -- >> essentially, and there are

ordinances and place required the it reconstructed and materials and reused. the idea of a wrecking ball and -- to the landfills which is not really occurs these days. >> how does that impact the noise and the the debris and particles in the air? >> there are other ordinances. >> are there those that are different than other ordinances? >> there are differences then we

would normally think of. >> that was another one. >> all of those things were accounted for. >> in terms of the construction noise, long-term construction noise, is there any allowance for a tenant to move to a place that is less noisy. >> currently, there is no temporary of relocation provision. the city is all ears.

if any of the tenant activists or representatives wanted to discuss the idea, i know that we would be open to listening. >> the issue was brought up a people wanting to vacate their homes because of the process and in looking at improvements in the development agreement and figuring out a way for people, particularly seniors with construction noise, a way to relocate that away from the noise. >> the one thing that differs is that we have a much stronger district attorney. i did not -- did not provide the relocation benefits.

your idea is actually not novel in the sense that this has been done. >> i did not want to raise the specter of being relocated. i would really like to hear it. >> some might lose their ability to reclaim the unit as the issue. and number of issues that were brought up is that the tenant protection under the current law. we don't list it out and we make reference to it. what is the material difference between what the development agreement saysv