consideration of the transportation impact from varying amounts of parking. you have received an hour appeal response and we have heard from the appellants. i would just to briefly summarize what our responses are. with respect to historic resources, existing structures on the project site were properly evaluated by this proposal. therefore, it is not the historic resources consistent with ceqa. there are other individual resources. this was described and included in the eir.

response documents. the appellant has asserted that this is flawed because basing this on square footage of the land use and not on supply, the potential trips generator not accurately calculated. the methodology is a nationally recognized standard. this would result in the same

sized structure and the same number of trips realized in the transportation analysis but this is not the same analysis for all of the alternatives. this is based on likely visitor and patient choices given the availability of transit choices in the area. the appellants assert that we did not adequately address pedestrian bicycle safety. these issues were responded to it in the comments. this includes pedestrian and bicycle council. in addition, the perspective

protect tenants are supposed to be value-based retailer's. of the general plan objectives and policies, in general we discourage the placement of parking in the downtown core. the documents acknowledge certain circumstances for which the parking might be warranted. for example, the policy of the transportation element says that the automobiles should be accommodated for those where transit is not well suited to. the downtown plan calls for limitations to downtown parking which does not prohibit the provision of parking. with respect to short-term parking, for some shoppers

transit is not a realistic alternative and some level of parking recently closed may be provided. the parking provided would not meet the demand anticipated for the project nor would it be provided free of charge. the project would be consistent with some policies and inconsistent with others. the plans and policies were considered as part of the deliberations on whether to approve or disapprove the project. the environmental impact report is not designed to preempt the decision of the commission or an appeal for entitlement action.

in summary, the question in hand is the accuracy of the documents according to ceqa. we believe that the eor -- eir fully discloses the impact as well as the no grudge alternative. the commission and the public have the information needed to make an informed decision. this identifies appropriate information and the potential impact. there is no claims regarding the significance of impact. this concludes my presentation, as the board members have questions. -- unless the board members have questions. >> colleagues. >> can you quickly summarize what the significant

transportation impact is? >> the project as proposed would have a significant traffic impact. we had a loading impact that was mitigating the voting plan. >> you talk about your trip generation methodology that you are using as a nationally excepted methodology. when you talk to the appellants, they make a pretty convincing argument that while this methodology might be national

accepted, this might not be the most accurate told that we could come up with. is there any work happening to take a look at this tool? i am wondering if we can do better than adequate and actually see if we can come up with a better way. there will be more trips certainly to and from that spot

that is a novelist. it might need more troops and generally speaking which is not what this produces as a result. >> i think the distinction is not so much stripped generation but auto trips. >> these are based on some kind of space. that is what we use. this is not just based on national information, this is based on surveys in downtown. the surveys for downtown for making judgments as to how many of the strips are based but automobile are based on different retail sites, many of which do not have parking.

macy's does not have on-site parking, these are two public garages on either side. if you're asking people if they parked on site, they would say no. this area is surrounded by 4500 spaces that the public has billed at the public's expense that is within ready walking distance. our feeling is aside from a few days and a few hours in the holiday season which the sponsor believes is critical, there is a lot of parking. if someone would like to drive, they can find parking. the way that we deal with this is not on the generation side but what is the impact.

the project does what you would expect when you build a garage, this concentrates the impact. the project has impacted fifth and mission. you don't concentrate cars at the site. this might be easier to manage in that location which is fifth and mission. the areas that have one level of parking is somewhere in between.

>> i in your example, i think that this is intuitive and not based on data collection. if he would like to talk about the impact adjacent to this project. if you want to talk about where the impact is, clearly if there is parking on the site, they will drive there. these are for the conclusion of the parking spaces in the project. they're likely to drive the park. more probable -- more people would probably be in the garage.

we come up with the limitation of the current methodology that we used. there seems to be a convenient factor that would mean more trips on site rather than less convenient parking a block away. it would be great if the modeling can get you to the point where it that is factored in. it is more likely that that would drive to or the parking is convenient as opposed to what you have. i don't think it always works like that. >> i guess we are not saying that it would always work like that but in this area there is an abundance of parking.

the decision on whether to drive or not is whether or not you can find parking. there was a memorandum that was prepared on the subject on how this parking influenced trip making that was included in the package. in one sense, the memo was not completely on point. this was focused on essentially work trips which was focused on what research exists. intuitive or not but when we talk about substantial evidence, that is what we have to rely on and we have to look at that memo carefully. what this looks at is a half dozen studies where there is better information on these. the conclusion really was that intuitive or not, the relationship between supply and

parking and how people travel, this is not as obvious as you would think. we can all have punches or intuitions. >> if i have access to car and a bicycle, then i can carry one i'm going to have if i'm making a trip from here or my house.

this will be a factor in determining whether i take my bicycle or whether i grabbed the car. this is another hypothetical. as you see san francisco choosing alternatives, the way that we build, this will affect what kind of for a term made. -- what kind of trips are made. >> supervisor mirkarimi has been very instrumental in trying to take a different approach. one of the things that we have been urging is that there needs to be a follow-up. one reason there's not data because there has not been an

assessment of the different things that would beat the resulting behavior pattern. in terms of your second observation, in terms of what is the environment you are referring to, we might disagree on whether pedestrians and bicycle impacts are significant, we don't disagree that the conflicts are meaningful and need to be dealt with. those are perhaps the most meaningful aspects of the negotiations today. there is a commitment of dollars, there is a commitment of resources to try to come up with solutions that will make that environment safer. >> any additional questions.

>> we respectfully request that the board denied the appeal and of old the-- and uphold the permits. we feel that this is without merit. we have analyzed all parts of the project. there is a wide range of alternatives. this identifies different significant impact. this also engages in a comprehensive analysis of the potential historic resources on site. there is a potential impact

which are adjacent to the site. all of the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. the appellants have offered no evidence to substantiate their claims other than their verbal statements. i would respectfully submit that the real point is not the environmental impact but the appellants objection to the amount of parking approved by the planning commission. the planning commission voted 6-1 to approve parking as proposed. the planning code offers the appellant the ability to appeal the conditional use authorization. i will keep my remarks short. we have asked some of our

speakers to for gorham making their comments. thank you. -- we have vast sum of our speakers to forgo making their comments. >> at this time, if i can hear from members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the project. each speaker shall have to two minutes. >> good evening. i work for richard hutcheson who is the ceo. he could not be here today but he wanted me to come here and voice our support. >> good evening, supervisors. i am with smith kreme finance

in san francisco. a couple of years ago, some friends of mine came to visit me from germany and they brought with them an extended family so there was six or 8 of them. they took the door to door jamb service into the city. i met with them later for dinner. on one of the people that was in the bus or in their group was a 19-year-old brother of one of the people visiting. in the course of our conversation, i said, what do you think of san francisco? he said it was the worst city that he had seen in the united states. this astounded me.

mine used to teach hearing people say this is a great city. i asked what happened. -- i am used to hearing people say that this is a great city. he said that he had never seen poverty and homelessness like he saw. he said we don't have this in germany. i have been to several other cities in the u.s. and they were not like this at all. i think that this project is capable of improving the traffic in this area and increasing our image which is something that we need to do. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i live in the east bay and i work in san francisco. i will comments on what the

previous speakers said. i remember long ago when the project tore up market street and the promise of what it was going to look like when the project was completed. all of all zero of sidewalks, the brick. the area really looked good. a lot of the project has been offered up and frankly this is one of the last and possibly best hopes. i also have in-laws and family who have come from other parts of the country. when we walk around this part of san francisco, we are careful and we realize that the area is really noted for blight and crime. if the board backs, that could be changed into opportunity or tax revenue. this is a good project.

i think that the developer has spent over backwards. this is something that should be approved. >> good evening, supervisors. >> we are satisfied with the report and we urge you to except the plan in commission's decision. >> good evening, supervisors. i am here to express our support of the project. thank you. >> hello, i live 1/2 rincon hill. this project is necessary to revitalize the mid market. thank you. >> good afternoon.

i am located on market street. the proposed parking garage provides convenient and safe parking. i look forward to the day when customers don't have to park on stevens' high street. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here representing the union square business improvement district. we support this project, we believe that it will provide jobs and tax revenue for this city. with regards to the architecture, i would just comment that to the open facades will bring light to the street

much like macy's does sense it has been renovated. i think that this is a nice improvement. we urge you to support this project. thank you. >> i am the chief executive officer of -- and we own or lease the golden gate. we more than anyone are aware of how challenging it is to do business in the mid market neighborhood. safety improved with the renovation over 10 years ago and attracted more visitors and locals to the area. the construction will continue what unfortunately has become a

stall the trend in the area and it will attract more customers. this development will bring much-needed foot traffic west of fifth street and will help to revitalize the area and the increase safety. existing businesses will benefit from the increased parking. our theater doors have limited access to the surface lots and these additional spaces would be meaningful this evening. the parking will also attract more positive activity to the area. as it stands today, the city place is one of the most promising proposals we have same. i urge you to approve the project as proposed without delays. thank you. >> i am a native of san

francisco. we have a building about a block away from this project. this has been a trouble street for a long time and now we have an opportunity to really approve the neighborhood both for the property owners and the people live there. >> i have been involved for a number of years. i've done a number of developments. i am a member of the tenderloin economic development project. i am here to support the denial of the appeal. i believe that this building would be extremely helpful to the residents of the tenderloin in the coming years. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i am the director of central market arts. we feel that this will be a significant step towards revitalization of the cultural district. thank you. >> i am the proprietor of show dogs down at six and market. we are right in the middle of our happy area -- happy hour. i am a strong supporter of city place. as i live and work in the neighborhood today, when i have to go get diapers for my daughter, we actually generated trip. we would like to walk across the street. as a business owner, we would like to see some additional

traffic. we could probably use more pedestrians, frankly even some more bars. in terms of the architectural look and feel of the building, the attorney who is showing a picture of what the building looks like, i'm pretty sure that was taken from my office. since i'm the one looking out of the window, i would like to see that nice building. we hope you will support the project. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 41-year member of local carpenters union. i want to speak in favor of this project. many of the dangerous conditions that exist there, the developer did not create and is not responsible for. they are doing their