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 process, this development and 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.