i have forced one lender to continue loss mitigation. that is a lender who had a $200,000 equity cushion, so they would have -- they would have got relief from the automatic stay. i am not going to terminate loss mitigation until you look at this bar where's financial litigation. does this borrower -- until you look at this borrower's financial litigation. that was an exception. most of the time -- and by most of the time, i say 95% of the time -- they want this structure because that is why you do mitigation. you want to keep the parties focused and get the deal done. >> thank you. mr. rao, i have been very concerned with affidavits being signed improperly without having first hand knowledge of the facts of the mortgage. with a loss medications and equity courts have at least mitigated the problem to prevent a similar issue in the future by ensuring that more attention is paid to each individual case? >> i think it definitely could mitigate the problem, primarily because bankruptcy courts have been addressing this issue for some time. i

long beach a while ago there were mitigations. in any case there was a fund created on historic resources. this is slightly different but maybe it is related in the case of the imporium building there is a settlement between the developer and the city to create a fund. i can't see why we can't impose that type of mitigation without doing a nexus study. would you comment on that. >> we don't have to comment on it now. this can be something that we can perhaps get back in memo form at some point and deal with it on a broader basis and use it as a kicking off point for discussing this particular issue. i would like to support commissioner moore. it was a well thought out and well analyzed statement from her standpoint. based on that and my own feelings i would like to make the motion to not certify the environmental impact report. >> second. >> before we go into the motion, i would like to submit my comments to the public record so they are part of what we do here. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to not cer

thermosphere clear connection with mitigation superior -- there must be a clear impact for mitigation. during the public comment meeting today, we heard speakers who raised other concerns. many were expressions of support for the project. public opinion is not a topic of concern for certification of the eir, although you may wish to take them into account. regarding the potential for major earthquake common the criteria is whether it would expose people to a fund to risk. -- to undue risk. new buildings must need of ago codes -- applicable codes. finally, i have been contacted by a contractor who states of the official transcript who saves the the remarks were inaccurate. i've would like to read the following change. the sentence currently states the only a civil alternative is the concern and should be corrected to save the only a civil alternative is the new project -- only a civil alternative is the new project alternative. in -- only acceptable alternative is a new project alternative. i would like to conclude with certification. they found the implementation of a profit would res

the third mitigation that is called out has to do with moving the golden gate transit bus stop.we worked extensively with golden gate transit on that issue. we have a letter in the eir and the files that commit to making those changes with funding from the project sponsor said that we feel we have adequately demonstrated that this mitigation measure could be imposed. point number seven, this appears to be inaccurate but the eir is consistent about the significance of transportation impact. point number 8, which discusses the range of reasonable alternatives, we have to and no project alterative as well as two alternatives to the project. they do address the points that were raised for scoping as well as address the significant impact of the project such that it is feasible to do so. point number 9 that the eir did not raise certain in packs, we disagree with that conclusion. we feel that they were adequately assessed. point number 10, the that theeir -- that the eir does not adequately respond to comment. we feel that we responded to the comments adequately within the context of

even at 4 feet, it mitigates it more than nothing. it does not really satisfy the spirit and i think that there are so many other alternatives and chinatown is worthy of those better alternatives. i am not a designer but i have enough time and experience to know that there are all sorts of different light fixtures and ways in which important buildings, people design those things. that is really the direction the discussion should go. how do we smooth out this over so this work does not impede the restoration and preservation of this structure? i suppose i should give the floor for any questions. >> and do you have a photo showing the height of the ceiling? >> i hope that it comes through on my computer screen. 6shlt>> the front and the bottoe been put on to that so that is the exact location that it is still in. >> are you aware of where the structural framing for that is in relation to the window? >> that is a very thoughtful question. i've not been in there in many years and i was wondering that as one of the possible alternatives.

the mitigation described to compensate for the district is wholly inadequate. while we strongly believe there are alternatives, the plan may be approved very good -- may be approved. there are over 170 slated for demolition. the findings compensate for the near-total loss. this is important when considering the project with an estimated $360 million worth of public benefits. the resources allocated are placed in stark relief compared to the measures to relieve other adverse affects. guidelines require it to be roughly a correspond to the environmental impact. >> thank you. >> i am a member of the board of directors and part of the park merced action coalition. the environmental impact report has a lot of problems. one is betting it does not give anything about real earthquake problems that i submitted already. here is another map that was also considered. there are 30-inch pipes, one down 19th avenue and the other don parker said boulevard. -- and the other on park merced boulevard. these are things that the environmentally impact report has considered. it has

the mitigation for our lost mitigation program has never been challenged though i'm aware for the district of rhode island recently been denied for that. one reason for legislation is to make the court's authority absolutely clear. there's another reason as well however. by passing legislation expressly recognizing home mediation programs. congress would endorse it by encouraging banks to return to being bankers. can i tell you my personal view of legislation is less is best. each if you share that view and perhaps especially if you do, facilitating home lenders of the resolution of their loans is a good idea. thank you again for inviting me to testify on this important topic and i'm happy to try to answer any questions you may have about it. >> thank you, your honor. i'm grateful for you sharing your experience. next witness is an tour with the national law center focusing on consumer credit and bankruptcy issues. served at numerous training and conferences and served as expert witness in court cases and testified in congress on son consumer management. coarthur coauthor and contributing

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 agree

there was recognition of risk, policies were put forth that dampened that use of taser s and that mitigated some of that risk. if tasers were to be brought, we want to prevent that 600% increase in seven deaths and not have that increase. i will point out that after the tasers were used, it did not come back to baseline. it came back to 40% above that baseline. 50 cities provided data for the study. the other question we asked was how about shootings. do they go down? about 20 cities replied. we found about six shootings per 100,000 arrests, which doubled in that first year of taser use. it came back near the baseline after that first year. but shooting stubble. one possibility is that with liberal use of tasers, confrontations escalated until lethal force was necessary. i will be the first to admit that this particular outcome -- we did not have the power to measure this outcome. only four cities provided data on officer injuries. nevertheless, we did not see a decrease in officer injuries. what is the summary of our research? there is a definitive risk for lethal arrhythmias. that rate is

i think if we had a very restrictive policy and we have potential mitigation in place, they probably do serve a useful role. >> one question that helps us evaluate these. could you talk a little bit about the value witting different studies? i have a stack of studies. there are lots of conflicting results. could you tell us really quickly how we figure out if they study is a quality study or a study we should pay less attention to? >> the commonly heard metaphor in academics is "publish or perish." for a study to be published, it has to be peer reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. that is a standard that is the very minimum for to buy russian of the study, whether it has been published by a peer- reviewed journal. president mazzucco: we really have to move forward. >> i understand. i was at a meeting last night and the question came up about delirium. i was looking at the braidwood study, and there were several psychologists saying it was not a valid medical diagnosis and was used more frequently to absolves law enforcement. can you talk a little bit about that? >> unqu

s there must be resources to in effect offset mitigation. there is suff in the e.i.r.'s presently. we have not looked at the alternative sin neros that we have such as limited equity co-op that would have lessened the impact on the developer and the need to mitigate the necessary development that must occur to offset the investments in seismic safety improvements and conservation. that is not sufficient. i have also put down the effect for your immediate attention, two gas lines with unprovable utility to pass parkmerced. i will suggest the developer and the city to in effect deal with the potential disaster impact. this has not been done. in addition, there is -- i would suggest performance problems that regard the developer regard, the development, the agreements that exist between -- or those between the city and developer are not sufficient without a performance bond. if you can find them to offset your risk. there's also an area wide impact which is insufficiently developed. the impact area extend beyond the owners' property. and to the university. e.i.r.'s do have impact stat

i think you research has been thorough, and there is mitigation in place, so i am here today to support the facilitation agreement and the proposal that is in front of you today, and this is not an indefinite contract, of course. i believe it is time to act on it responsibly and quickly and to put things into place and review them over time. i do not think we have to hold recology's feet to the fire. i think they will perform. again, this is not an indefinite contract, and i think that is a mitigating factor that you have to your benefit, so, again, i am here to urge your acceptance of this agreement. thank you. chair chu: 80. >> chairman -- thank you. >> chairman chu, i've seen their operations, and they are remarkable. i am proud to have this in yuba county to offer it to your community. i believe the headline is that a meeting seller needs a willing buyer, citizens that can save $120 million. the co2 emissions reduction of 22 million pounds over tenures, and lower-priced. i mean, the issue today is the landfill, and a very, very substantial savings in tipping fees. i think recology h

i'm sure you heard a lot but the buzz word is mitigation. there is a good reason because it's totally true. every person who has a kit for themselves and family mitigates the impact on themselves and their family and the resources in the neighborhood and the city and subsequent to a disaster it mitigates the impact on the city and how well we recover. it's an important thing that even if you can't get trained with the red cross or nert or other resource make sure you have a kit for yourself and family and a communication plan of how you will get in touch with each other after or days after or whatever. the next thing we did was we had meetings with erica and our local police chief kevin dylan and talked about safety issueses. we said, what are the thipgs we need to know about what not just the fire department needs and doesn't need after a disaster but how to support you what we can rely on you for or not rely on you for. we don't know if we will be there for you. through those discussions we realized that we needed to come up with a decentr

thereby, it is inherently self mitigating. we are learning that the related infrastructure needs and are critical. they are, for the most part, on funded. it means that we should grow more concentrated, and hope that the infrastructure comes. it is a lot easier to spread things around and everybody has to figure out how to make it happen and come up with the infrastructure necessary to do that. the other is this idea of affordability. that by design or compactness, the affordability is going to happen. we have all seen that throughout the region the dramatic underproduction of affordable housing at any level of affordability. it does not just happen, it is always hard work and we are always behind the curve. it is complete neighborhoods, the concept of a complete neighborhoods that is a san francisco planning department's term about the community infrastructure that it takes to be sustainable and livable. we find that that kind of infrastructure is not linked to development. the approvals for housing happened in their own pipe

we believe in giving the officer in an extra tool which will mitigate injury to all. your vote today will dictate our future response to this type of incident. one year ago, we presented medical studies, industry opinions, think tank assessments, and real life incidents. will continue to show best practices of ced uses and how this tool will benefit not only the community we serve, but our officers themselves. it conducted energy device is used tactically to concur -- to gain control of a person whose behavior requires forced to comply with lawful orders from the officer. the use of a fist, flashlight, or baton would result in a high likelihood of trauma. the use of a firearm involves a high probability of death or disability. the conducted energy device may mitigate that result. it can prevent the escalation of force. this is not a replacement of a firearm, but another tool. we in the department represent the competing balance between inshore and safety of our officers and the safety of the individual try to do harm. we believe the ced can do both. we are looking at

. >> if money is an issue, we can develop solutions that will mitigate the impact. that a solution can be eliminating the hill, that can eliminate the problem. or build a structure right into the hill so there is no longer an exposed face or bold enough of iraq together so that it acts as a big buttress to prevent further movement. -- or hold enough of the rock together so that it acts as a big buttress. we are allowing the wall of the building to act as a retaining structure. there was a time when we did not get any. there was an epic one before in 1982. we brought with us and rainfall charge. >> you were saying that this is somehow correlated to rainfall. this goes from 1914 until 2006. it is the red line in the backgrounds which are the annual rainfall from each year is plotted on here. you can see it varies all over the place. if you take an average, the average is a thin gray line. that does not give you a feel for what the rainfall really is. that is an average over four years. you can see that these build up until we had the big events before. >> you expect t

and i asked about noise and -- noise mitigation. and -- the sponsor, mr. kennedy -- he seemed to understand -- to understand the issue and said perhaps he might mitigate that by moving it further away. his point was to speak with his architect. it wasn't a great concern. in the moving of it, he didn't have a problem with it. the noise of that is a huge concern to everybody there. particularly since -- about as far as i am from you. i'll be sleeping there. those were my issues. one further exceptio those were my issues. one further exception. when i looked at the drawings and i contacted mr. kennedy in -- the sponsor's architect. i brought his attention to the deck which i thought was larger than required was also shown sitting -- sitting on the surface of the roof. since this building la a wall around it and it butts under buildings and you'll have to have one hour fire protection against those other buildings, you would have -- and three feet high, you would of course have to do something to support the weight of the deck that is proposed. to support that

that is the way that we can do mitigation. the developer lobbyist was appears and that we are not working in a vacuum. we are working in a vacuum. we are on our own in san francisco. it is up to us to figure out solutions to this. and since the statements have not gotten any affordable housing money, what is the rush to move this forward? this housing element is a death warrant. i take exception with what has happened. the public is all over the place on this. the staff and the developer lobbyists, we are not opposed to growth, but they want to see realistic growth where the numbers balance at the end of the day. they don't want to pay higher taxes just so a bunch of developers can take money and run. i am seeing lobbyist the developers here say that they need to have higher densities in the neighborhood. some of them actually lived in the davidson area in single- family housing and drive here. we can't alivlow that kind of hypocrisy. where our live ability is threatened, our services are threatened just so they can make more

that is the way that we can do mitigation. the developer lobbyist was appears and that we are not working in a vacuum. we are working in a vacuum. we are on our own in san francisco. it is up to us to figure out solutions to this. and since the statements have not gotten any affordable housing money, what is the rush to move this forward? this housing element