. >> deputy city attorney malinna burn through the president. president chiu, i'm not sure i fully understand your question so if you could please restate it. president chiu: the e.i.r. assumes we have a validly bound contract between two parties. and obviously the appellants are raising arguments some of the contract terms may not be valid. so if that is the case, depending on where -- how we view that, how should we think about whether or not to approve the e.i.r.? >> i think that the only item -- the only contract provision that's at issue here is the question of whether the rent control restrictions that are included in the proposed development agreement would in fact be binding on the project. if i understand correctly. the replacement housing requirement is not at issue so the fact that the project proposes to provide replacement housing, we don't believe, is being raised as an issue here. it's a question of whether rent control would be applied to that replacement housing. so to kind of take it from the ceqa perspective, ceqa doesn't requ