to market demands, and when there is an opportunity to build, they can build in a set of rules. as i mentioned before, they must get development phase approval. that is up to a minimum of 500 units and a maximum of 2500 units. so put it another way, if the fewest is 3, and the most is, i think, about 12, so the project will be broken up into larger small pieces, and each development phase approval has to specify specific development, block by block, and then, finally, and most importantly, the delivery of the public benefits must conform to the development phase in plan, which is in the agreement, and there are triggers for thresholds. that is specific intersections,

public improvements. they must be implemented. no further permits can be initiated until the specific thrust roles are met. the specific -- >> -- no further permits can be initiated until the thresholds are met. there is a very detailed urban design criteria as set forth in the design standards document. that summarizes phasing. we're now going to talk about the replacement unit program. when control is prohibited in new housing. specifically, units occupied after 1985.

it is important to note though that this law has an expressed exception. this is not something that is implied. it is not a waiver. it is an expressed exception in the law that allows new units to be regulated using rent- controlled. -- rent control. this is in 4.3 of the government code. i want to emphasize, this does not mean that a project has to apply for a density bonus. it means that those forms of assistance that one may receive are specified in that statute. what do those include? they include things like density bonuses, so increases in housing density, and a whole range of concessions. the benefits in the agreement

and the special use districts provide such. these forms of assistance are outlined in section 4.1, for those of you who are interested. i have listed some of them on the sly. there are more than what is listed here. these are the highlights, the elimination of maximum density requirements. setback. increased height envelops. elimination " requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet. more commercial in misuse, conveyance of some city property in the forms of street that are abandoned to create new streets or to create parks, and finally, substantial benefits, all of which are land use benefits that are alluded to in the section in the density bonus law. chapter 4.3.

a couple other important details, and is probably bears repeating. no existing rent-controlled units will be demolished under this agreement until a corresponding replacement unit is ready for occupancy, so this is an extremely important point. there has been unfortunate in the public some misinformation. if -- they cannot demolished a spot without having it please ready for occupancy. what does this mean? we do not ask for any existing tenants to move off of the site, to leave the site, to be relocated. tenants are allowed to move into a new replacement unit before their unit can be vacated and demolished. that unit, under the development agreement, they have to be

provided with the exact same bedroom and bathroom count, a similar size for a. to storage area. exact terms, including rent, new and old pastors purgative, so this point bears repeating. there are no new passthroughs allowed for the new project. new amenities are added to the units, including washers, dryers, dishwashers. there are the same parking rights and went afforded to those existing tenants who have parking rights in iran. they are afforded the same parking rights and went. it is not the same, but they are allowed to petition the rent board if they feel about the location of their partrepresents in it -- represents a reduction in housing services, so that is an important point. the units are allocated based on seniority or rather length of tenure at the project, some

tenants are allowed to pick up their own unit, although it is based on how long they have been in their unit. finally, patio's and balconies are not guaranteed, but a tenant may also petitioned the rent board for a reduction in services if they feel this represents a reduction in housing services. this next section goes over the noticing process. supervisor mar: ;mr. yarne, can you explain this? >> yes, and a lot is what not to

do. i think an important theme is, we have heard in public comment, that the embassy suites opened the city up to risk, and we feel is the opposite. they let us know what not to do, and what not to do is to not clarified in the agreement you have with the developer, so in this case, like i said, we are offering specific concessions, the density bonuses, the height and bulk changes, and so it is a contract between the city and the developer for mutual benefit, in what palmer pointed out is it was not clear in that case what the developer was getting for those restrictions on their inclusionary rent control units, so we essentially learned from that. it is the same strategy we're

using, by the way, for all of our inclusionary rental units in the city of san francisco today. we're using the development agreement process, and we are offering a specific exceptions or incentives, so again, i think the polymer case is important to emphasize. it points out what not to do. in a way, it was actually very helpful for allowing us to design something that will withstand legal challenge. i mentioned to embassy suites. again, the city attorney is not here today. at teacher hearings, perhaps they can comment on least some of this. embassy suites was another case where a local jurisdiction, i think santa monica, where light on a general waver. and i want to emphasize the korea also not relying on a general waiver here.

we are relying specifically on the exception that is expressed. i think that is an important point. that case gave us a sort of road map on how to create a more sensible agreement. so there is a multi faced process, and i apologize if it takes a long time to go through, but i think it is important. at the top of the slide, at a minimum two year notice, and this is a shortlist period of time that a tenant would have under this agreement before they're required to either take relocation benefits or to accept a replacement unit and moved out. and it begins with the approval of the development phase. this agreement requires the developer to make a public presentation to all tenants when

the development phase is approved. remember, what that is is a road map, literally showing which blocks will be redeveloped, the order of development, and so every tenant durable development will know which blocks are slated to be incrementally be developed first in which will come last. that is the first step in the process, and based on the length of time for approvals, it is hard to imagine a tenant would have less than two years. in many cases, they will have two, three, four, maybe five years. secondly, a tenant relocation plan also has to be approved by the planning director and the executive director of the rent board. that will specify which existing housing units are affected and which replacement units will be offered, and as a said, it will include a site plan, floor plan, the names, addresses, of

additional occupancy, and an estimated schedule for relocation. this happens again at the beginning of the process coat before that is even under construction. next, an existing tender notice. this is after the first notices. and existing tenant notice is delivered to any occupant within 60 days of start of construction of any replacement building. fourth, within six months of completion of the replacement building, so now, remember, we have the development phase. korea but the relocation plan notice. we have had a notice that you're a potential tenant before construction starts, and finally, while the construction is proceeding, the developer is required to give all tenants notice that there are

replacement is available, and by the way, all copies of these notices are also required to go to the rent board. essentially, what that notice says is, hey, you have the right to relocate into a replacement unit. they give an anticipated relocation date, the numerical seniority of the tenants, so they know how they rank and how long. for plans and an opportunity to visit sample units, and i want to emphasize that if at some point, and existing tenant decide they do not want an existing unit, they have the right to take full relocation benefits under the ordinance and essentially take that-benefit and move somewhere else that they wish. finally, the senate must respond after they have toward the units and seen the four plan. they are required to list their preferences to the developer. the developer then goes through

a lottery essentially based on seniority and assigns the replacement units, and then they will sign a note -- send a notice to each tenant telling them which unit based on the lottery they have been allocated, and if the tenant accepts that unit. by the way, at the time, the tenant can still say they do not wanted in can take leave. finally, when the unit is ready, and they agree to occupy, there is a notice that the unit is ready, and then the tenant is required to move within 30 to 60 days from the date of that notice. the developer is required to pay all the costs of that move. next, tenants may stay in their existing units after the replacement unit availability notice under the original lease terms and subject to rent control for as long as that building is worked. if they say they do not like the

replacement unit, but i would like to stay for as long as possible, this agreement gives them the right to stay as long as possible until they voluntarily leave and take their relocation benefits, or the developer stops leasing all of the other leases in the building and it is time to demolish the building. the developer may leaseback units that have been relocated. they are allowed to lease back those limit -- those tenants. these are not deregulated up until that building is ultimately demolished. so just to emphasize, what that means, at any given time, there can never be less than the existing number of rent- controlled units there are today, over 3000 units. there may impracticality be more than the 3002 under and 21 at any given point in buildout in case you have to build the

replacement unit for the replacement buildings before you can remove tenants from the existing buildings, so in all likelihood, there will be more rental control units on park merced then there exists today -- than there exist today. and a tenant can apply for a rent reduction. this is due to construction. if they feel that it is excessive that represents a diminution of housing services, they can petition the rent board and seek either a reduction in rent, or other remedies. finally, and i think this is my last slide, and, again, i appreciate your patience, supervisors. i want to speak -- speak briefly on it. city attorney charles sullivan is the primary director, he is

actually at jury duty, and the other attorney who has been primarily guiding this effort is also unavailable, but they will hopefully be available at future hearings. it is the city attorney's opinion that the state relocation law does not apply to the parker said projects. we have obviously looked at this issue extensively, and we believe based on the state relocation law that because this is a private project that the state law would not apply. however or regardless, we have gone ahead in the development agreement and made it abundantly clear in section 2.7 that we require the developer to comply with any fate -- any state or federal law that would otherwise apply, and we require the developer to change things if we are mistaken in our judgment. we cannot be more expressive than that. we have been looking into state

relocation law and have been consulting with a state relocation law specialist the manages projects all over the state, and it is interesting to note that on the whole, this agreement provides better protections for tenants that are globally would be provided under state relocation law. -- that arguably would be provided. there are things not offered under state law. this is a permanent rate controls subsidy that we are offering, not as relocating tenants, and all of the replacement units. this is not something the relocation law would require. in fact, all it would require is a rent subsidy lasting approximately four years, and then when you are done with those of 41 years, the unit that attended goes into is effectively allowed to go back

to market rent, so in many respects, guaranteeing rent- controlled is a much better provision for the tenants, and then finally, and i have gone over this, and there are many more amenities than would be required under state relocation law. i am more than happy with the city attorney is available, as well, to brief all of you further on this subject and it these are just the very high level observations we have made on this issue. i am available for comment. i would prefer that we also talk about it when the city attorney is also available, and that is it for my presentation. supervisor mar: colleagues, any questions? supervisor wiener?

supervisor wiener: let's say a subsequent owner does not want to honor the rent-controlled, that this is not valid under costa hawkins. what happens? >> right now, if the court invalidated the brand control provisions, this agreement would be in jeopardy, because if you're required under the agreement to provide rent- controlled buildings before you can do other. so this agreement would not be effectuated. supervisor wiener: is that made clear? >> we're trying to work with how the city would like to approach the problem, and there are a variety of options.

supervisor wiener: would those include penalties? >> there are many options, including terminating the agreement. the sec would be to not allow further demolition of existing units, and, for example, we would not want to necessarily terminate building the light rail line, so we do not want that to terminate, said there could be more surgical approaches than stopping the rent-controlled units, and then there are provisions will weaken essentially guarantee financial benefit for having the cash up provision, for example, and then putting that money into a fund to support it. it is the equivalent of a voucher program, so there is a range of options. supervisor wiener: i think that is an important one to confront

head on. >> we strongly agree, although we would like to emphasize that from the city attorney's point of view, this agreement is fully enforceable. it is a tricky situation, because any new agreement, you can never say with 100% certainty that this is going to work. i think that is just the nature, and the trinity development agreement, a big everyone agrees that has worked quite well. supervisor mar: cohen has mentioned that there are many legal questions that would be good for the attorney. mr. yarne, palmer is relatively

new, and i like to hear more about a weekend protect the units. it seems the development agreements run with the land, and how they can supersede it challenged in court? >> no one is suggesting that this supersedes state law. you cannot contract around state law. we have never represented the. what we believe is that we are complying with state law. and i do want to say again, i apologize that we have the bad luck of having the to build your primary attorneys who have worked on this not available. i have requested that cheryl adams be present, but i know that susan in charles sullivan have been the advising attorneys on this. >> and hopefully mr. sullivan

gets out of jury duty rather quickly. thank you. any other questions, colleagues? then i think we should open this up for public comment. thank you, mr. yarne. we have a number of speakers, so we are going to limit them for two minutes. [reading names and organizations] >> hello, my name is a million. i am at the international high school. i think that if you're thinking about restoring a neighborhood,

you should get to know in first. my dad's friend robert pander lives there. ♪ >> ♪ i see trees of green i see the blue form -- from me to you and i think to myself, what a wonderful world ♪ >> ok. >> ♪ i see skies of blue and i think to myself, what a

wonderful world ♪ ♪ the colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky ♪ [bell] i see friends shaking hands i love you ♪ ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ [bell]

supervisor mar: thank you, a media, for the creative use of your time and for dedicating it to mr. pander. >> i had planned to talk about some of the environmental impacts, but since that will be on the jury tomorrow, will put that aside, and i will talk instead about the issue of the development agreement validity in terms of getting around costa hawkins. i think what i want to emphasize is this is an untried attempt. this is not something that has been done before. it is a question. there is a good likelihood that it will fail. and if it fails, and people of already basically moved in to

the units, had units demolished, and the court and of will and that the development agreement is not good as far as this particular provision, those people are going to be s.o.l, and that is unfortunate. in fact, it would be more than an unfortunate. it would be tragic. to approve the developing agreement before you let them go ahead, with conditional approval, singing we need to go to the court and get the relief as to provision is valid or not, because there are hundreds of people's lives that depend on whether this is going to work, and do not want to love that for about six years down the road. we really need to find that it -- at the start, so that is my suggestion, that you agree, maybe find a test tenant who is willing to serve as a plaintiff

and have it litigated and determined before this project. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> thousands of tenants have apartments that will be destroyed. i want to point out that the continued use of the phrase bourbon in fill is really a hero aeneas and not supported. as was pointed out in the substantive comments on the inadequacy in in accuracy of the environmental impact report, urban infill does not comprised of destroying one additional unit and replacing it with two or three. it is not urban and fell. urban infill is not about destroying open space. that is not urban infill. so i would just like to remind you all to be scrutinized -- to

really scrutinize the comments were she said land use, open space, the sponsor appears to have made objectives to justify the high ramallah is live and the store property there is no blighted space there. -- to justify destroying historic property. i also want to talk about now that they are 75% of the developers. these guarantees are being made by fortress. the ceo a fortress, daniel, was the ceo of fannie mae, which she ran into the ground. he may