successors are agreeing to. supervisor chu: thank you. >> supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i didn't know i was on the stack, but just to follow up on -- to the chair to supervisor elsbernd. i do appreciate that level of analysis and i also appreciate your -- the work you've done on 19th avenue and looking at this project as well. but i do feel that there could be ways to pull down federal funding, state funding, t.i.f. fund through a different kind of project that doesn't have the same density of parking that could contribute to increased traffic as well. there is -- we're not rejecting a project here.

potentially it's there's a project going forward but one that's not going to have such a severe impact that could still have the beneficial impact. >> supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, president and planning staff. just to the thread of discussion between supervisor and you and supervisor avalos. i need to understand about traffic mitigation better and impacts of mitigation. right now the current infrastructure of parkmerced is one parking unit per unit of housing is that correct? >> roughly. i don't know if it's one to one to one. supervisor mirkarimi: maybe a little bit more. so it designed in the project that it's one to one for the proposed project that's before us? >> essentially it retains at

one to one so the increase in parking is reflective of the increase in units. supervisor mirkarimi: so, just in terms of forecasting models, doesn't it seem to be more in trend that we would be reducing the parking ratio per housing units? even though on the west side i think it is immensely underserved by practice, but on the east side of the city that is more of our practice in. a more densely populated area, we're moving with ratios and forecasting ahead 20, 30 years in a different american -- manner that's being modeled in this sector of the city. it's difficult to see how the ratios arelessened somehow when we're keeping the parking ratios the same, essentially. >> the changes to the zoning code they've development

adopted have tended to provide for greater flexibility in the amount of parking. they have tended to set parking max mums, set standards that are often less than one to one. there is not, however, frequent trect -- direct correlation between the amount of parking provided and the analysis in terms of how many cars are actually used. it is a mixed bag although it may seem that you have reduced parking requirements, therefore people will drive less. probably generically true, empirically difficult to common strait. -- deminstroilt. -- administrate. supervisor mirkarimi: but proponents are suggesting that would belessened impacts by the way it is designed per auto trip generation in the way that's been counted here and

yet the e.i.r. stops short, in my opinion of what those look like. >> i guess i would make a distinction of what you and others may have heard from project sponsors. they've indicated they're trying to create a transit-oriented project. i think they may characterize the amount of auto use as being reduced. in fact, the e.i.r. does not follow those assumptions. so they're two different things here. supervisor mirkarimi: so it's correct to say this is not a transit-oriented project and that's no indication to say this would por tend to be one. >> that's not what i said. i said the extent to which people may not use cars and may use transit may not be in accord with all the recommendations. in fact, they're not the assumptions we used in the e.i.r.

the e.i.r. looks at transit and auto use in terms of where people are going. to the extent that there will be more people going downtown, we expect more -- we assumed a lot more people would commute to the south bay, we assumed greater auto use for those types of trips. the analysis is very variegated and sophisticated in not just how many sparking -- parking spaces but actually where people are going and what kinds of real options they have for travel. supervisor mirkarimi: does anybody else on the board want to answer this, respond to that? if not, it's ok. thank you. >> supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i just wanted to follow up on the issue of traffic and congestion. i wanted to get some clarity on what the testimony was.

currently, how many parking spaces are there at parkmerced? >> the general representation is roughly one to one and people are frantically paging through documents if you want the exact number. >> from my notes that i saw that there were 3,19 cars -- i'm sorry, with so about 3,2 nch 00 >> 2,3 -- 3,20000 paces and maybe 1,-- 3,200 paces and maybe 1,600 park. does that sound correct? >> that sounds right. >> and once the mark massachusetts parking is

completed -- how many spaces would there be? >> i don't know if we can find the exact number >> can you speak into the mike? >> and i was ask members to have public to just let staff respond. >> i appreciate everyone's patience and everyone's silent during this discussion. >> in terms of offstreet parking it's roughly one to one. in terms of on-street park it's relatively the same. in certain circumstances it's less because there's a lot more treatment of the streets to not have on-street parking, to have a number of other features in. rough terms it's comparable but in real terms, a little bit less onstreet proportionately. supervisor campos: i'm trying to understand the points that supervisor elsbernd was making

and how it would be beneficial around larger issues of traffic and congestion and i appreciate the work that he has done around 19th avenue, but from my notes and reading the e.i.r., you're talking about currently about 3,000 -- 3,198 parking spaces plus 1,591 street parking so total spaces of about 4,7 9. that's currently 4,7889 under the proposed project. once it's all completed you're talking about 9,450 parking spaces plus 1,672 street parking space. so total number of spaces of 11,131. so you're talking look an increase of parking spailingses of 6,342.

that's a pretty significant increase in terms of parking spaces, so i'm trying to understand how such a significant increase would actually help congestion, which is what was said earlier. this is a pretty large increase. how is that something that will actually make things better, not worse? >> i understand supervisor elsbernd would like to answer that question? supervisor elsbernd: i'm going to try to answer this one because if there is one piece of this project that i am 100% sold on, it is the impact on transportation. let me give it a shot, you guys fill in the blanks. this is is really the lone piece of this project that i'm passion nats about. first, you need to remember one of the points that bill said in response of the 19th avenue corridor study. what happens on 19th avenue over the next 30 years and the

impacts we'll see in and around there is not limited to our little world. what happens in marin, san mateo. 19th avenue is california highway 1, so even without these projects, traffic in the area is going to get significantly, significantly worse. so yes, will there be more parking spaces and cars? yes, two to three times more based on the numbers you've illustrated, but the benefit on the project on transportation is the following -- without the project, there is no tax increment financing. respectfully, supervisor avalos, you're not going to see an increase in the property value without the project. you only get tax increment financing with the project. without the project, with a smaller project, however you want to define is -- its, there

will be a lot less money. and the second piece, the federal money and the state money. all due respect with those who have said we could get it. there have been people who have sat in this room that said i'm going to get state and federal money for 19th avenue. how much money has come? nothing. we all know what our priorities in san francisco are. bay drive, central subway. i am under no illusions that is going to fund those projects. let's be real. it's not going to happen. the only way we get those dollars, if a project like this happens. that's why you need to think of it in a 30-year horizon. and it's one stem backward to take two steps forward, because without the project, the traffic out there is going to get significantly worse. the only way the west side of

san francisco improves its traffic situation and as supervisor mirkarimi just said and as he said this morning at the transportation authority, the west side is dramatically underserved when it comes to public transit. nobody can debate that point. the only way that changes is with significant development like this. smaller scale project doesn't cut it. only a project like this benefits the west side when it comes to transportation. >> supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i just wanted to -- >> again, if i could ask members of the public, in order for us to facilitate a good flow of conversation, if you could refrain from applause or stating your opposition. supervisor? supervisor campos: on the numbers it does seem counter intuitive but i do understand what supervisor elsbernd is saying.

by the way, i want to thank the proponents of the this project for making themselves scrablet to anyone who wants to talk to them. i appreciate that opportunity. >> thank you, supervisor, and of course, this office ask open to anybody who wants to sit down and discuss any of those complex issues. we work for the city, after all. an important point of clarification. first, the one to one is a maximum, not a requirement. second, i think the question was raised. how does this compare tots city's current approach? it's consistent with most recently balboa park in supervisor avalos's district. very similar outlying neighborhood.

so the planning department looked carefully at similar neighborhoods and arrived at the one to one neighborhood. on the east side of the project site, immediately adjacent to the highest transit frequency, the m line extension, it drops down to 5. -- .5 spaces per unit and graduates to the west side. i am to emphasize that the planning department did an extraordinary job, an unbelievable amount of detail. the vast majority of this parking is in fact underground, which has been a policy goal of many members of this board and

probably represents best practices. i think the most important point is this e.i.r. does not present the best-case scenario. we're not wearing rose-colored glasses. we're assuming that people don't ride transit the way we'd like. we're taking a pessimistic view, which is what we should be doing if we want to make sure we're capturing all the potential impacts. so just because we assume a lot of people are commuting by car to the south bay does not mean that will happen. in fact, there's a lot of research that would suggest that a fine-grained mixed use high density accessible neighborhood that has bike sharing, bike paths, walking paths, car sharing, a

transportation demand mlingt system, monthly trn sit subsidies per unit and a direct rail connection would in fact see higher transit, walking and bike mode share. however, or conservative and not understate the impacts, this takes a more conservative view. i think, in anything, supervisor mirkarimi, we've understated what is the potential. what we don't want to do is present a rosie picture. i don't know of any portion of the city where you're adding density that you don't have congestion. we've heard repeatedly that the washington, d.c. is not accommodating its share of growth.

the inevitable outcome of such a policy is thereby will be increased trip generation. there will be no auto trips. that is absolutely correct. just is there are more auto trips when we had -- add housing anywhere in san francisco. it is our aspiration and great hope that this design will experience less auto trips as a total share of that trip generation. but supervisor avalos, that's correct, there will be more auto trips out here. >> i want to thank supervisor for raising the last point. i just want to make clure that despite the caricature of what

happens in politics, and that i think are happening here tonight. i personally take the i personally take the demolition of hawkins in this project extremely seriously. i want to make that very, very clear. but i ant to folks on traffic and parking and density and congestion issues that were raised, because representing an east side district that has the market octavia plan, where we are going to be adding thousands and thousands of new units, of new residents and even with a .5 or .75 parking ratio, when you look at what market octavia will create in terms of new autos being brought in, i'm going to bet that it completes with what would be added in parkmerced, and what you add in eastern

neighborhoods, it eclipses it. the fact is that from what i'm aware of, in terms of significant opportunities for housing additions on the west sired, this is pretty much it. we see these maps of where the development opportunities are in san francisco, and other than park merced and somewhat around balboa park, there's really almost nothing on the west side. our population in this city is going to grow. it grew in the last kecked -- decade. it added like 10%. it's going to continue to grow as the bay area zpwrose and the question are we going to have all of that increase in population and all of those extra auto trims and all of those extra cars on the east side of town absorbed by one section of town without making every effort to try to in a reasonable way with well-designed projects to spread that to other parts of the tounl. i think that's really important

to keep that in mind when we're talking about i would not be considering support this project if it weren't for trying to improve conditions on the west side of town. but we have to look at the entire city and what impact not developing in certain areas are going to have in other parts of town. >> colleagues, any additional discussion? ok. thank you to city staff. why don't we now proceed to a presentation by the project sponsor. you have up to 20 minutes, >> good evening. project to the counsel sponsor and real park merced investors l.l.c. we're here to question they you

hold the park merced project. we concur to all the statements made today by the planning department and those submitted in the written record. i'd like to pick up on a point that self-of you and made here this evening and following up on what's been said on this lively debate. i know you know this but it bears repeating that the only thing that is before this board today is the adequacy and sufficient si of the environmental report, not the project itself. not the environmental agreement or the zoning. this project rests completely in the hands of this board because its approval requires your approval of two ordinances. many of the subjects that have been raised here today, not only by people whooch testified but here today by the supervisors i would respectfully note are really

about the project itself and if you are to actually act on the merits about this effort i.r. tonight and uphold its certification, these issues will be fully vetted by the committee and this full board in subsequent hearings. i raise that point because i'm tempted to go into the details, for example some of the details that have just been discussed to be parking and how it's only .5 by the transit and graduates out towards the west part to have siggete site. i'm temperatured -- temperatured to discuss that in detail. but there's a certain manner of discipline we need to bring to this discussion and focus on the accuracy of the e.i.r. that's before you. on that point i would respectfully submit to this board this is an excellent

e.i.r. it is complete and comprehensive. you have heard a number of questions answered tonight that really well-demonstrate that point. you need to discuss this is and consider this on the merits. when you do it deserves your unanimous support. and i would hope that you will find your way to making that decision tonight and then join the issues they think do deserve a full vetting with this board at a later hearing, about the development agreement, about the protections for the tenants and about some of the details of the actual s.u.d. i want to talk a little bit about the issues that you've heard today from system of -- some of the speakers and that some of you have raised today to is the question of wlornts the development agreement is an ens -- enforce able agreement.

the project proferses to enter into an agreement that imposes obligations to protect the tenants from displacement, obligations to build new replacement tenants before those tenants are moved at the same rent-controlled rent that they pay today. obligations to maintain the stock of rent control united states by constructing new replacement homes on a one for one basis before an existing unit can be demolished. residents much the ability to move in and occupy a new replacement home before a demo permit can be issued for their existing unit. this is a fundamental part of the project and it is enporsed with the agreement with penalty. the e.i.r. discusses and analyzes it correctly. however, some people are concerned that the e.i.r. is flawed because it did not analyze the remote possibility that the development agreements obligations to private --

provide the tenants replacement units at rent controled rates should somehow be held unforcible by a court of law. the obligation is not a mitigation measure. it is actually embedded in the project itself. it is the project itself. it's a requirement of the development agreement, and thus, if such an event would occur, it would arguably invalidate the e.i.r., which would reopen it to further consideration. so the obligation to provide the replacement units, if it's not enforced by a court of law would clang the circumstances of the project. i do want to know that the supreme court of this state as oponied on this issue in the concerned citizens of c.e.o.'sa meca case. in that, the court held that if someone were to build a project different from that in the

e.e.i.r., the statute of limitations is open for 120 days. so in answer to your question, during the term of the development agreement in the unlikely devpbt event the remote and splatlative possibilities that a court would say this is enforceable, the development agreement, depending on how you decide to deal with this in a hearing about the agreement itself, it could terminate and the right could terminate. but if it were to happen after the development were finished, the costa mesa case stands for the proposition that anyone could bring a challenge within 180 days to have facts of the project not being as they were originally adgesed by the city. as you've heard here today there are many interested people who will be following this project very closely.

i might also add, that as mr. sullivan mentioned earlier, the development agreement arequires that are there be recontribute -- restrictive covenant. even after the replacement units are built and after the development is completely built out, those obligations will be recorded against the title and the city will be afforded the opportunity to enforce those as a third-party peffry. -- beneficiary. again, i'm previewing things they hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in length but be -- because i understand how sincere the concerns are of this board. we think these are the proper topic for discussion at the substantive hearing on the merits about the project approval itself and the development agreement itself. i do want to go to one other point having to do with the discussion about some of the

alternatives to the project and i would respectfully submit to you i think there's been a con plating of the ceqa analysis and some of the concerns about displacement. the analysis, as mr. cooper said, the analysis in this e.i.r. as a very extensive range of alternatives. i would argue that it's far more extensive than you would typically see in an e.i.r. document there are five amount analyst, including a no-project alternative, a preservation alternatives, when maintenance a lot of the -- maintains a lot of the central part of the document. there's a partial preservation alternative that was also fully analyzed. all three of those were fully analyzed. nice, there were two other alternatives considered but rejected, including an infiltration alternative, which

intersperses spaces and a partial west side preservation alternative that pushes all of the development to the west side. the document both in the e.i.r. itself and in the response to comments and in the technical memory randa goes to extensive analysis as to why those were not considered. as mr. cooper stated, ceqa requires a reasonable range of alternatives and those alternatives need to address a substantial number of the front's objectives and also met gate adverse effects. with respect to the infill preservation alternative, one of the reasons which was rejected is that when you intersprers a bunch of building into a especially historic resource, which is important -- important because of its curl churl aspect and resource as a