that e.i.r. adequately and accurately describes the proposed project? >> let me try to answer the and

emphasize the world illustrative. it's clear in the document and everywhere we've mentioned it that these are demonstrations of what we reasonably predict would occur but as has been emphasized before, this is an entirely private development, and just like a neighborhood plan, market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, we're i'm

hearing that we do have clearly -- fairly clear construction phases with protections for enforceability that are described in the e.i.r. this would then accurately describe this project, but i'm also hearing that there isn't a lot of clarity around the phases, that things could happen in different records because it's a privet development and we can't in many ways dined -- kind of dictate the private development.

>> there's a tremendous amount of clarity about the rules. in fact, i think we've gone into extraordinary detail as to when all of the improvements are required. if you open the detail agreement there's a detailed list. so actually the rules are very clear. what is open is the exact timing and implementation, but i think it's important to again emphasize what rick cooper earlier said is we undergo a similar approach with all of our neighborhood area plans. we don't say exactly we know when these will build out. instead, we make a reasonable projection and we base the e.i.r. analysis on that. supervisor kim: is this considered an infield development? this is my final question. the proposed project as is?

>> i don't think there's a definiteive definition of infill and i think that, you know, so there's no -- i assume there might be a webster's dictionary definition, but i think that many people, and i know this office believes this is an excellent example of an infill development, but it is a subjective term. i think it's fair -- some people have differing opinions but there is no deferentive explanation of what is an infell development. i can say for sure test nona green fill development. supervisor kim: in our housing plan it states that -- and this may be kind of how we prefer infill housing to when. but locating it on appropriate sites in established residential neighborhood, no infill housing should be located on vacant sites that are not designated for open

space, where non-conforming uses have been terminated. that's just more in terms of how we like to view infile development. it's not necessary a definition. >> if i 345eu amplyify in the last set of questions, i would like to point out that the identification measures in the e.i.r. are triggered in varies phases -- serious face and/or levels of development -- various phases and/or levels of development. >> so far avalos? supervisor avalos: just a few questions about traffic and parking. according to -- just reading

commissioner moore's statement, it talks about an increase of 3,642 new parking spaces and how that's been measured in the e.i. sklmplet how do you relate to such an increase in parking spaces with -- how's that tally with our goals around reducing greenhouse gas emissions and what's the e.i.r. statement on that issue? >> i think you're asking two aspect. how did the parking affect the transportation analysis and the greenhouse gases. i think you're asking two aspects of the question. how does the parking affect the transportation analysis as well as the greenhouse gases. of z supervisor avalos: these are two separate questions. >> an analysis is all aspects of greenhouse gas -- forgetting

which speaker had the graphic. it's accurate to say that greenhouse gases from construction would be most the storyline in the early phases. the operational stages. cars are a primary part of greenhouse gases to the extent there's parking this people use their cars, they will contribute to greenhouse gases. supervisor avalos: how's that been measured in terms of met gation measures? we're putting in an increase of 6,000-plus parking spaces, what are the mitigating measures that the e.i.r. calls for? >> there wasn't identified a total quantify occasion. there isn't a mitigation measure. supervisor avalos: and then, measuring what the impact of traffic and transportation that it increased a number of parking spaces and cars would

have, what has the department measured on that? what are the responses around met gating measures? >> again, it identifies impacts in fairly obvious places like 19th avenue, sunset boulevard. there are some mitigations and reconfigurations of 19th avenue, which i think in fairness cannot be considered as solving a problem. it's already a problem. what it at best does is not make things significantly worse, but they are significant impacts. the balance on 19th avenue or unmitigated traffic -- traffic impacts. in some of the other locations that are not as congested now, there would be an indication of more auto trips, talking lake merced in particular. and in some cases there are

significant impacts that are identified and mitigated. in other cases there are significant impacts not mitigated because of unfeasibility or uncertainty of the mitigation measure. supervisor avalos: so it's quite likely we go forward with a project like this, 20, 30 years from now we'll have the kind of congestion that we've been wanting to avoid in san francisco for many, many years. >> um, i don't think there's -- that's a farrakhan conclusion. i think 19th avenue will be no better than it is now and possibly worse. sunset and lack merced will be more congestioned -- congested. supervisor avalos: our obligations around greenhouse gas emissions, traffic increases creating more greenhouse gas emissions don't matter because we'll move this project forward regardless of

what the law would be in the state of california. >> that's not true at all. the impacts are full li --fully identified and qualified. supervisor avalos: but it could get worse? >> greenhouse gases, in balance, no. traffic, yes. supervisor avalos: greenhouse measurements during construction -- what are mitigating measures around reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase? >> measures are following the guidance of the fair air quality management district. they primarily have to do with dust containment, with the types of vehicles that are used, the primary source of construction emissions, contrary to popular perception are the vehicles that are used. supervisor avalos: are commutes into the area also what of what

you want to insure >> they're an area of the collation. supervisor avalos: is there any amount of using local hires to be part of projects? >> it could be something that was required. it's not assumed here. supervisor avalos: a mitigating measure that was prosed and the e.i.r. -- >> not assumed here, no. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: yes. a couple of things. from what i'm hearing it's fair to say that there are variables in the future in this project, is that right? >> yes. supervisor wiener: is there any significant or large project that you can think of where at the time of the e.i.r. there were absolutely no variables? >> no.

supervisor wiener: and the ceqa require that there be no variables in the future? >> ceqa requires the best phase effort that you can make in terms of making assumptions based on the facts and the projections that are available. it doesn't require that you have perfect foreknowledge. supervisor wiener: in terms of a number of issues relating to demolition, relating to some of the traffic impacts that were considered, regarding the cost of hawkins, will we be able to consider those in terms of exercising our own political judgment in approving or disapproving the development agreement? >> you definitely can exercise your independent judgment around those issues. supervisor wiener: ok. we have in san francisco certain responsibilities in terms of production of housing of a city, in terms of what the

region needs in tears terms of future housing, is that right? >> we have regulations. supervisor wiener: are we meeting that? >> we are meeting that in quantitative terms. -- in terms of the affordable component. supervisor wiener: and what percentage of the housing here will be affordable? >> the project must comply with the existing city inclusionary ordinance. so approximately 15% of all the housing would be required to be affordable, permanently affordable. the agreement goes further than the existing law and mandates that 1/3 of that requirement be on site so there would be approximately 271 net new b.m.r. affordable housing units

added to the front, in addition to any rent control or project units. we estimate that in the project sponsor pays the remaining 2/3 of that obligation, that would amount to approximately $221 million to be paid to the mayor's affordable housing trust fund. >> thank you. >> supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i'd like to follow up with planning. and i'm seeing mr. albert out there too. on supervisor avalos's comments, because i don't think you've given a full response on the traffic avenue. let's talk about the 19th avenue corridor study, which was a document that was a foundational piece of this e. implet r. the 19th avenue corridor study analyzed what would happen along 19th avenue with all of

these projects that are a part of your cumulative impact, parkmerced and all those projects, but also analyzed what 19th avenue would look like 30 years from now if nothing happened, correct? >> yes, correct. it's a very important correction. supervisor elsbernd: in the analysis if nothing happens -- none of these developments happen -- 19th avenue, what happens to it? >> it would become more congested and this is consistent with the patterns of recent decades. most of the both grow of traffic on 19th avenue has to do with through traffic. all that would happen irrespective. supervisor elsbernd: mr. albert, would the other -- what the other piece to have 19th avenue study does is looks and kind of sets up the various

mitigation measures in a tiered fashion. tier three, tier four, tier five. tier four is the extent to which we have -- maybe in my head the way i think of it, the total extent of all the mitigation measures proposed in this e.i.r. and what the city is planning to do. and then tier five is that last piece that is unfunded at the moment. is that a fair description? >> peter albert from m.t.a. what i would actually -- i'd like to reinforce that important description of what we've done with the analysis. the m.t.a., having the opportunity to look at the area of the project, if there were no development, helped us virbleize the potential minutes if we had to develop and had to provide the service as we do. i do want to emphasize how

important the congestion is on the reeblet of our service. tiers one through four looked at what what would happen with successive layers of development. looked at the development over the span of 20 years. tiers two and three said let's look at the numbers that the projects -- some of them aren't entitled. we looked at 800 brotherhood way. the numbers of those units and jobs, what that would mean in terms of traffic generation. tier three layered on top of that. all the public improvements, not just m.t.a. cal tran and bart has improvements for the region. and tier four layers on top of those the specific transportation improvements that come along with the project proposals. in the case of this one that would include, for instance, the ability to turn a disabled streetcar around with the tail track, something we don't have the ability to do right now,

which gives increased reeblet to give more capacity to the system. m.t.a. is not just concerned with transit. we're looking at the bicycle and pedestrian network. we saw what the benefits would be with the projects and that helped shaped our recommendations that ended up being analyzed in the e.i.r. we led in the definition of the project in order for the environmental remove review to make a better assessment of what an improvement could be. supervisor elsbernd: before we get to tier five, there are some traffic and public transit situation -- situations the so the tier four project, with the mitigations, the situation is better than it would be if there were no project 30 years from now. >> i believe there were five intersections that improved between tears one and four. supervisor elsbernd: and then we get to tier five, that unknown right now.

if we were to achieve some tier five benefits, it would significantly improve the situation over 19th avenue 30 years from now with none of these properties. but the problem with tier five and the reason we can't specifically identify them is because we don't have the funding yet, is that a fair scenario? >> actually, it's a little better than what you've described. we've gotten already a lot of feedback from agencies into what should be in fair tier five. we ourselves recommend thedges i things we haven't funded yet. for instance, the west side alignment that's part of the master plan. those tremendously help pedestrian safety. the development greet -- agreement says that we have up to seven years to take the tier five project, wrestle it down, define it along the lines with the community input and then

the financial contributions can then be applied to as a local match. so we got a pretty good head start on what we can actually fund in tier five with this agreement. supervisor elsbernd: and maybe a little bigger picture on funding that is available for transit. what this project could do is make available two additional pots that right now are unavailable, and the two pots i'm thinking of, state transportation money and federal transportation money in, your experience generally is sacramento or is washington, d.c. going to give any transportation money to an area that looks the twact -- exact same as it did 230 years ago? >> what we look for is a good state transit and development effort. they reward that. they ask the federal -- the federal government usually asks for a 20% local match with the

fund we've lined up already, we've already exceeded that 20%, which puts news a faverbl money. supervisor elsbernd: that's a pot of money not accessible to us if we don't do this and two, tif funding. there were a couple of comments about the wbre economic analysis of this project. one of the pieces of that report show that on an ongoing basis if the project went forward, i think the number is net $17 million anly to the city? >> -- annually to the city? >> yes, that is correct. the fiscal impact study that was reviewed by the bunt and controller's office, shows a buildout to approximately $17.5 million annually. supervisor elsbernd: and what tax increment would allow us to do potentially is dedicate a

portion of that to transit improvements and potentially bond against that amount, correct? >> that is correct, supervisor. in fact, the policy that this board adopted -- i think it's approximately two months ago related to infrastructure financing districts, suggesting that programs this project would be eligible. >> if i could i'd like to add one more part of the financial. this project is unlike a lot of the developments until recently that we have money which ends up going to the revenue stream. i think that matters to the federal government to look and see the stream associated with the development. supervisor elsbernd: just to wrap up then, in response to the questioning that supervisor avalos laid out to the planning department and the answers they

provided. i'm hoping that what this dialogue just presented is that, in fact, only with a project like this is there any chance at improving 19th avenue 30 years from now. without a project like this, what the 19th avenue study -- >> if i could ask people to please stay silent. supervisor elsbernd: what the study makes clear 30 years from now, 19th avenue will be a mess. we need to consider projects like this if the southwest corner of the city is ever going to see pedestrian and public safety improvements. >> so far carl enchew? supervisor chiu: thank you, president chiu. primarily the purpose of the environmental document is to give policyy makers the

information we need to determine whether some of the policies are acceptable. song as it lays out the at nivets, the information we need to judge that project at a future date, then we could say it's a complete document. i want to be clear on a couple of issues that have come up a bit. with rampeds to the issue of rent control units being demolished and suppose spro -- supposedly throughout development agreement provided again, in terms of a developmental document and whether the completeness is there, the criteria that we should be using is to say does the loss of rent control units potentially lead to a approximately or environmental impact. is that right? as opposed to a human impact because this is sort of the conversation that we're hearing here.

>> city attorney. i do want to make it leer that the -- clear that the eir before you assumed as part of the project description that the demolishing would be replaced on site and the exithing -- existing tenants at rent controlled rates. it's not offered as a measure in this e.i.r. and in the analysis of the impacts, which i believe planning should address instead of your office. they can order thousand that was analyzed then in a specific impact south carolina. >> deputy city attorney. again, we've made the assumption that the project would not have such displacement impacts?

supervisor chu: that's because primarily in the development agreement there is consideration for the replacement units, right? >> right. supervisor chu: i know there has been an extensive study with regards tots traffic impact. whether the board agrees or disagrees that the mitigations work or don't work. that's not necessarily the point of the e.i.r. it's whether or not we've analyzed the impacts on traffic. so we could say we expect certain intersections to be at a certain level, parking to be in a situation and we've analyzed all that. that's really the subject of our conversation today. not whether we agree that the mitigations will work or not, right? >> it's primarily the impacts but to the extent that we each mitigation measure that we have incorporated as mitt gathing an impact, you are making an

evaluation based on the information before you that is a credible working solution, similarly to we identify a mitigation measure that we think is feasible technically but which there's uncertainty to, you're taking that in as well. the primary thing is the assessment of the impact and that we're not missing something on the impact side. supervisor chu: and just a final question. with regards to financial feasibility. this is a comment that's come up there out different appellant's arguments about the feasibility of the project and mitigation measures, how should we really evaluate and judge that in terms of the accuracy, completeness and objectiveness of the e.i.r.? >> i think the only thing i can really say here is that through the development agreement, through the entitlement