approximately 152 acres of land in the southwest portion the existing on-site residents are located in a 172-story building. the proposed project is a long-term mixed use development program to comprehensively replan and redesign the site. the project will increase residential density, provide a neighborhood corridor with retail services, modified transit facilities and improve utilities within the site. a new precan-5 school and a daycare facility, a fitness center and new open space uses including athletic playing fields, walking and biking paths and approximate two-acre farm and community gardens would also be provided. about 1,683 of the existing apartments located in 11 tower building would be retained. over a period of approximate 20 years, the remaining 15, 1,538

existing departments would be demolished in phases and fully replaced, an an additional 5,679 new units would be added to the project site resulting in a total of about 8,900 units on the site. the project also includes construction of or provides financing for construction of a series of transportation improvements which include rerouting the existing muni, metro, and ocean view line from its current alignment along 19th avenue. as currently proposed, the new alignment would leave 19th avenue and holloway and proceed through the neighborhood parkmerced. the m lines would travel alternately along two alignments, transit re-entered 90th avenue south of felix avenue and terminate at the existing balance bow -- balbo park unit or facilities

constructed on the project site. the e.i.r. also utilizes alternatives which maintain the muni service on 90th avenue. other changes are naturalized in the e.i.r. the project includes a series of infrastructure improvements including installation of a combination of renewable energy sources such as wind turbine and photovoltaic cells to meet the energy demand. addition, storm water runoff from buildings and streets would be captured and filtered through a series of ponds and other natural filtration systems. the filtered storm water would percolate into the ground water that feeds the upper west side ground water basin or lake merced or be released directly into lake per said. the board has received four appeal letters before the march 2 deadline from julian lagos on behalf of save parkmerced, alani, from part of the

coalition and bernard showdon, and maria atlanta guerrero engberg, an individual. substantial numbers of the comments in the appeal letters express opposition to the proposed project or critique features of the project and do not raise questions about the accuracy or adequacy of the e.i.r. and would be appropriately considered by the board in its consideration of proposed development agreement and other project approvals but not to remain to the question at hand which is the adequacy of the e.i.r. some comments raise concerned about the planning commission's findings related to its action to approve the proposed project including the separate findings required by ceqa guidelines section 15091. these findings are not the subject of appeal before the board because they are legally required project entitlement findings and not findings related to the adequacy of the environmental review.

an appeal of the planning commission certification is related to issues of the accuracy and objectives of the final e.i.r. objectiveness of the final e.i.r., including but not limited to the sufficiency of the e.i.r. as an informational document and the correctness of the conclusions. the issues raised on the adequacy of the e.i.r. relate primarily to the following, the description of the proposed project, the potential loss of rent-controlled housing, traffic and transit impacts and their mitigation, the adequacy of the e.i.r. alternatives relating to historic resources, the adequacy of mitigation for identified historic resource impacts, the accuracy of the cumulative analysis performed for the e.i.r. or potential seismic hazards or high gas line hazards. the appeal raised issues similar to those addressed in the e.i.r., staff responded to all these issues and submitted

the responses in a memo to the board on march 21. i would like to focus my remarks on the main issues that have been raised. it's been suggested the e.i.r. fails to analyze the development agreement as part of the project description. all components of the proposed e.a. relevant to the physical environmental affects of the project were included in the project description and analyzed in the e.i.r. the specific language of the d.a. does not need to be included in the e.i.r. for the e.i.r. to be accurate and complete and for it to adequately analyze the potential environmental effects of the project, identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts. the d.a. does not include new mitigation methods that are not discussed in the draft e.i.r. or comments and responses and although the d.a. includes additional conditions of approval, including some improvement measures, these

additional requirements are not required as mitigation to address significant impacts under ceqa and thus are more appropriately included as contractual terms in the d.a. with regard to the alternatives and in particular to the no demolition alternative you've heard quite a bit about this evening, the e.i.r. is required for a reasonable range of alternatives to propose projects that could feesibley obtain the objectives and avoid a substantial less than one or more significant environmental effects of the proposed project. an e.i.r. is not required to consider every conceivable alternative into a project but must include a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. this e.i.r. fully analyzes five alternatives which is a large number compared to mountainwest e.i.r.'s that we do. and these were selected because they would reduce the significant impact of the project.

the no project alternative has been pointed out and would involve no demolition on the project site. other alternatives were analyzed that could potentially reduce or eliminate one of the main significant impacts of the project, primarily the impact to historic resources due to demolition of the potential parkmerced historic district. section 7-g of the e.i.r. discusses two alternatives, the infilled development within the historic district alternative and the west side partial historic district alternative that would require less demolition and retain more buildings and landscape features than the proposed project. but as described in the e.i.r. and the comments and responses, these alternatives were considered but rejected. the infill development within the historic district alternative would greatly reduce the need for demolition but was rejected from further

consideration because it would still have significant impact on the historic resource and thus would not fulfill the ceqa requirement to present an alternative that would avoid a significant impact of the proposed project. regarding mitigation for historic resource impact, concerns have been expressed that the mitigation methods proposed in the e.i.r. are inadequate and that much stronger mitigation needs to be imposed, including providing monetary compensation to pay for such items as historic resource surveys or payment to a preservation fund. however, none of these payments would reduce the impacts of demolition of the resource to a less than significant level and would represent a significant departure from past mitigation measures consistently imposed for other projects that include demolition of historic resources. with regard to the project description, it is suggested that the e.i.r. fails to identify how long the project will take and that items in the

e.i.r. -- some items estimate 20 years and at other times the estimate is 30 years. the e.i.r. explains, however, in the first page of the project description, the analysis is based on an assumed buildout period of 20 years though it could take longer. however, for purposes providing an appropriately conservative impact analysis, different buildout periods were selected. for example, in the population and housing section, the e.i.r. identifies the 20-year time frame for replacing the demolished units. in the transportation analysis, the year 2030 is used to access future accumulative transportation alternative and the greenhouse gas analyzes the emission of construction over a 20-year period. it's typical of major redevelopment of a multiacre site such as parkmerced to take approximate 20 or 30 years to build out. the analysis uses a 20-year time frame because population and transportation forecasts

for san francisco and the region that form part of the basis for the analysis are made through the year 2030 and are typically made for a 20-year period and because assuming the site is built out and occupied in 20 years, concentrates the impacts into a shorter period which then provides us with a more conservative analysis of environment affects. representative phasing of demolition and construction activities is described in the e.i.r. with graphics ultimating the representative phases. approximate mitt dates and durations are given for each of the expected four phases and thus the e.i.r. does specifically provide this information. also, i'd like to put in the record the e.i.r. does not state that the condition of the garden apartments is what requires their demolition. rather, the demolition of the apartments is proposed by the project sponsor and this is naturalized as part of our

analysis. another issue being raised is that the e.i.r. contains no time line for the various stages of construction and without those guidelines as to when demolition and rebuilding would occur, the project impacts cannot be sufficiently analyzed. the construction phasing schedule described in the e.i.r. was provided as a representative phasing schedule ultimating -- illustrating how development would occur but not a specific plan. because the project is privately funded on privately owned land, the proposed project is not required to proceed on any particular time line or at all. the city does, however, have an obligation through ceqa to ensure as the project is constructed, applicable mitigation measures are imposed. thus, for example, certain transit and transportation related mitigation measures are triggered by defined levels of project buildout. this and similar triggers are included in the mitigation program and require construction of certain

mitigation measures as levels of project buildout are achieved regardless of the details of the ultimate phasing of the project. another issue being raised is with regard to the cumulative impacts analysis we have conducted. in fact, the cumulative analysis that we used for this e.i.r. was wider than we normally use for active -- accumulative impacts and have considered projects that are entitled projects going through the entitlement projects as well as -- process as well as projects that are perhaps in a longer term may be proposed but aren't proposed at this time. and this does include the san francisco state university campus master plan which includes the art center that has been discussed as well as a waste site.

another issue being raised is that the e.i.r. fails to adequately address the potential displacement of thousands of existing residents. however, pursuant to the terms of the proposed development agreement, all residents existing apartments proposed will continue to be residence at the time demolition is proposed would be provided with the opportunity to move to a new apartment before the unit is demolished. construction demolition would be phased to ensure the residents of the units to be demolished would be required to move only once. under the proposed e.a. these news apartments would be rented at the same rate as the residents' existing apartments prior to demolition and would be covered as the same rent rules as contained in the ordinance. existing residents would not be required to move off-site at any phase of the project. the proposed e.a. which is part of the project sets forth these requirements.

concerns have further been expressed the e.i.r. fails to adequately analyze displacement impacts in the event that such provisions of the d.a. requiring replacement units be subject to the city's rent control requirements are not enforceable. it should be noted the e.i.r. fully analyzed the proposed project which includes these provisions. any changes -- any future changes to the development agreement are speculative at this time, and would be subject to further environmental review as appropriate. however, it's currently proposed the project involves both new housing and replacement housing, thus it is unlikely there would be a significant displacement impact in the event these provisions are changed or removed. because the project, through its proposed development agreement would provide replacement units for existing tenants and because those replacement units would be rented at the same rent

controlled rate as existing, the draft e.i.r. concluded the proposed project would have less than a significant impact on population and housing. >> if i could ask a question to follow up on this. you're essentially making the argument that if there's not going to be a displacement of residence because it assumes tenants will be rehoused and not displaced, then we don't need to consider that as a significant impact. but if that underlined assumption is not true, if we question that, how should we think about the e.i.r.? >> if in the future -- we don't know at this time if that is the case. and therefore, it's consider to be speculative it would be overturned. so if there are a future change that would -- that would remove that, then we would have to consider further environmental review pursuant to ceqa. >> so, in other words, if in

the future there were a court to overturn some of these -- overturn the terms, then at that point you're saying we'd come back for further e.i.r. review. >> we'd need to examine what level of environment review that would require. >> wouldn't it be a little too late at that point? >> that's -- you know, we have to analyze a project based on how it is proposed for us and the proposal includes replacement of the housing and that is what we've analyzed. >> supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i want to follow up on that. look, i'm trying to understand what the analysis from the planning department actually is. you're saying on one hand it's speculative to talk about whether or not there's displacement here but one of the questions i have is whether or not the refitting is also speculative in the sense you're

making an assumption about state law. you are making an assumption that in fact the provisions of the development agreement that provide certain protections are in fact enforceable. and to me, i don't want to delve into the legality or illegality of that, you i think that's still a question mark so i wonder if you can address that issue, because to the extent you're talking about speculation, it seems there is speculation underlying the very analysis that you're relying on. >> phil waco of the planning department. i think all we're assuming is the development agreement is a contract between parties that is binding. in the absence of anybody making a determination that it's not binding, we're treating that as a -- the proposal of the project is embodied in the development

agreement. supervisor campos: there's an assumption there's a legally enforceable binding agreement here? >> there's an assumption there's consideration on both parties which is the basic prerequisite of a contract and contracts in this case are assumed to supersede state law if they don't violate state law. supervisor campos: what happens if there's a reasonable argument that in fact is not the case, what does that do to the analysis? >> i think as mr. cooper said earlier, if in fact it was found that the contract was not binding for whatever reason, then the issue of displacement would be reopened and i don't think, president chiu it is too late because at that point the e.i.r. is no longer valid in terms of the displacement issue so the element of the project would be reopened and wherever the project was at that state, they'd have to address that issue based on changed circumstances. supervisor campos: i think that's the point i'm making here which is that you are --

your analysis is based on this assumption that in fact you have a legally binding agreement, and to the extent that that may not be the case, in my view, you're talking about a speculative analysis because that's the assumption you're making. whether or not that's the case of something remains to be seen. but that's a real concern that i have about the analysis that you're following here. >> to restate, i think it expects a normal contractual range between the city and another party. and i want to further emphasize if it were found not to be valid, restating for the third time, the environmental document itself would need to be reopened, the issue of displacement would be reopened, and whatever was not -- had not proceeded to that point of

determination would have to be revisited. >> and may or may not be the case. supervisor campos: how would you respond -- president chiu: if i could ask members of the public to remain silent during this conversation. supervisor campos: we're being asked not to make judgments on the ceqa findings but rule on the adequacy, the accuracy, and completeness of the ceqa document that's before us. so the question is how accurate, how adequate can a document be if you're talking about the underlying analysis based on this assumption that you in fact have a legally binding agreement? is there a way we can find the threshold of the adequacy of the ceqa findings if you're talking about somewhat of a

leap of faith here? >> i'm not sure i have anything further to add. i guess i don't consider it a leap of faith that a legally executed contract between parties that has all the elements of a contract should be presumed to be invalid. especially if the remedy is that the underlying environment document itself would need to be reopened if it was found to be invalid. supervisor campos: you can proceed. i know there are others who have questions but i just wanted to ask that point. president chiu: i wanted to follow up with one more point. i think what i'm hearing from the appellants is their assumption the underlying agreement may have terms that may not eventually turn out to be enforceable which obviously is a difference of opinion from the project sponsor who believes the contract terms, and i believe -- and i believe the two contracting parties believe that the terms are enforceable. how do we evaluate that difference of perspectives of the agreement in the context of

whether or not we approve an e.i.r.? >> i'm going to defer to the city attorney on this because you're asking a legal question, we're trying to answer in context of what project was presented, what the terms of the agreement were and if there were a legal question, it really shouldn't be to us. president chiu: if i could ask the city attorney's office. >> 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 require we analyze social and economic impacts of a project except insofar as they may lead

to indirectly environmental impacts related to the project. as i understood planning's response, they don't feel that even if that rent control restriction is removed that would necessarily lead to environmental impacts from the project. i'm paraphrasing here what planning has already stated. because the project does include replacement housing. and they've also stated that should that change in the project come to pass in the future, that would be analyzed in a further environmental review, as would any other project changes. we always understand that ceqa requires we analyze the project proposed in front of us at the time it's proposed for approval, and if the e.i.r. is certified, the project is approved, but in the future, changes either from the circumstanceses surrounding the project or in the project itself are created, then that can trigger further environmental review. so i am not sure if that -- president chiu: you're saying

if we find out sometime down the road, let's assume we approve the project, it's being built 10 years down the line, parkmerced, or a future owner of this property were to change the terms or somehow not honor the terms, at that point the e.i.r. would be open, right? >> well, presumably we would need to look at what changes that has created to the agreement as a whole and what further approval actions are before the city. but assuming that that resulted in some significant changes to the project, then it would require -- not necessarily the reopening of this document in front of you, but potentially some kind of further environmental review such as an addendum, a subsequent or supplemental e.i.r., that would be up to m.e.a. and the planning department, potentially in conjunction with the planning commission and the board on appeal to determine what the appropriate levels of environmental review at that point would be based on what the actual changes to the project are. president chiu: i appreciate

that. just as a follow-up comment, obviously if that happened 10 or 15 years down the line, i don't know that would be solace for the folks affected by that we have to go through that process again. but obviously that's something we're going to have to consider. supervisor weiner? supervisor weiner: i have a question, i don't know if it's for planning or the city attorney. but supervisor campos made a reference to the cost of hawkins issues being potentially speculating that we're potentially speculating whether it would be enforceable. and i guess sort of a combination comment and question that there are -- in any major development agreement it seems that there are a lot of aspects of it where you're making predictions that are never 100% certain. so we're making predictions did the transportation aspects of it, and at some point down the line, say, the rerouting of the

m, something could come up that would require a reanalysis or a change to that, and if that happens in the middle of a major development where something unanticipated happens or something you thought wasn't going to happen happens, what do you do. >> it's a good question in terms of it defining the situation more broadly than just the issue of the rent control, think the city attorney spoke that if there's an element of the project that changes in a way that was not covered in the e.i.r., it will need to be reopened. the reopening of the e.i.r. would be on whatever terms changed. so if the transportation infrastructure changed and there's some better idea than what was analyzed here that surfaced, that better idea could not proceed until additional environment orders

review was done and that's made across the board. if there are elements of what the agreement is and they are changed either by the parties or by court action, if there's something that is different than what was analyzed here, it would need to be reanalyzed. >> thank you. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: if i could follow up, going back to staff. earlier if it were noted it were found by a court some of the protections that are accorded to tenants are not enforce annual -- enforceable, that under the e.i.r., you would have to come back and probably do an additional analysis of the environmental impact, is that correct? >> that's -- yeah. supervisor campos: and that assumes that if there is displacement of those tenants because those provisions are not enforceable, that in fact there could be environmental impacts, right? >> yes. i guess the thing to emphasize

here is displacement is in phases. no displacement happens until replacement units are in place. at the point this would become a trigger would be those units are available, somebody is being displaced from their home and the unit is not available according to the terms of the agreement. supervisor campos: this is the sticking point for me is to the extent that's the case, to the extent you have a scenario where if the sections of the agreement that provide those protections are not enforceable, you could have environmental impacts, i'm trying to understand how it is that we can actually find that this e.i.r. is adequate and complete because as you know, ceqa provides that public agency should not approve projects until all feasible means available have been employed to substantially lessen the significant environment effects of such projects. so to the extent there is the possibility that displacement