open space. we did see the organic farm, which is a good concept. we saw playing fields and other types of native plants. but i think we have to have flexibility. i am aware of the fog and the wind. you are not going to grow a lot of things there. you will have to go easy on the farming concept. it is a good idea. i would not overdo it. i think we should have the flexibility in the plan to use our open space in the method that is best suited. there is nothing wrong with restoring some of the lawns there. you would be using recycled water. one of the things residents like is getting up in the morning and looking out on green grass. it is a nice, fresh feeling, and i do not have to do anything on it. this is the advantage they would have if it is maintained by the owners there. i think they enjoy that now.

they should continue to enjoy that. also, it is going to allow the west side of san francisco to do its share. we have not been the source of much new housing. we have a lot of resources for our children who might want to relocate to san francisco. this is going to give us the opportunity to add to the housing stock. there are not many sites for this is possible in western san francisco, but this is one. this housing development of 1939, whenever it was started, was always a complex of apartments, multi-family housing. but it brings diversity into western san francisco. most of the rest of the area is single-family homes. i think that is important. we are not changing anything there. we are just adding more

opportunities. the concerns of the renters are legitimate, but i think they are safer with the development agreement than without. the development agreement supersedes law change, as far as i am concerned. what i am hearing is that if the law were to change in the future and rent control provisions were not as inclusive as they are now, and there were fewer protections, the development agreement in place would be a protection. that is basically what you have indefinitely. the units continue indefinitely. that was not brought up. i was happy to see a lot of people i knew were testifying. some people spoke about the fact it would not be affordable. i think with that many units being built in different configurations, both for rental

and ownership, they are going to be at much more affordable prices and we have seen in the past. i have also noticed that one of the things that is part of our motion that we will hopefully approve tonight gives the supervisors and others in the planning department the process to continue to work with the project sponsor to make changes that do not significantly lower the benefits of the project or increase any cost that might be incurred. that is really important. it is also important that we have the flexibility to tailor this plan. there were concerns about impacts and other things. we will work with the project sponsor to minimize that as we go along. those are some of the reasons i favor this plan. i know we have a lot of other comments by other commissioners, but it was made very clear from the beginning that this is going

to be a phased development. we are approving the entire development tonight, but it will be faced. each phase goes through with the commensurate public amenities. that is important to me. commissioner sugaya: a couple of things. first, i would like to acknowledge that the planning commission has received correspondence from assemblyman almiano, dated february 10. he writes to urge us to deny approval for the redevelopment of parkmerced before us today. he goes on and cites his reasons. i just wanted to put that in the public record, the written letter. i am sure it is with our secretary. we also received a bunch of

materials as we came back from our short break, and i do not know what all the changes are. i am a little concerned that we are going to be voting on something that we are not quite pretty to at this point. this is going to take about 45 minutes, so we are going to be here a long time unless i cut it short. but i have about 30 tabs in here that i need to go to the development agreement on. unless the can do it in a different way. president olague: we will take a 15 minute break and come back. >> we are about to go into commission deliberation on item 2f. commissioner sugaya: i have

shortened my presentation. [laughter] i had a discussion with a deputy city attorney. this is related mainly to the development agreement. i will mention some concerns i have about it, and then i will submit everything else in more detail in writing. that way, everyone can have that. i assume that will be part of the public record and we can go on to whoever else can look at this thing. i do have some other questions. commissioner moore: i would very much appreciate if i could hear an elaboration on those points. commissioner sugaya speaks with an expertise that few of us have.

president olague: you did mention you would try to highlight those points. if you could leverage for the commission? -- elaborate for the commission? commissioner sugaya: before i get to that, with the ceqa findings, i have one question for staff. these are the old findings, so i do not know if the page numbers are correct. on page 7, you are listing the army corps of engineers. is that going to require a section 106 evaluation?

>> i think that is in reference to the storm water commission. it may be just that permit. 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