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 whole it would be an adverse effect. and you need to mitigate adverse effects to be a ceqa alternative. so i would say in closing that this e.i.r. is thorough and complete. there are issues that i think have been raced that are genuine issues, that deserve your full consideration. some of those might be what supervisor mar raised about how you feel about this place and whether or not you feel comfortable with this. whether you want to join this issue of whether or not this project is a good idea for the city, the region, for our society and the future, if you think infill development in a sustainable fashion in a city that's close to jobs is the right thing to do, i would urge you to do the right thing under ceqa, the certify these e.i.r.'s, deny the appeals and have a full discussion at the

project. thank you very much. i appreciate your time this evening. >> colleagues, any questions to the representative from the project sponsor? ok, seeing none, at this time, if i could -- i have a lot of speaker cards and i do note there is an overflow crowd. we will be calling folks who have provided cards and if you are in the north court, feel free to make your way up to the board chamber and the sheriff's deputy will let you in. let me call up the following individuals -- [calling names]

[names being called] first speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. jeff fraca. longtime native san franciscan, west san francisco. i spent a lot of time looking and reviewing this project as far as the transportation aspect. i think that's one of the biggest things that's going to impact us in san francisco. i've had meeting with peter albert. we've had serious community leadings where we've had a lot of people come together. as i said at land use yesterday i do have a personal concern. back in 1977 i lost a little brother 7 years old at an intersection adjacent to 19th

avenue that will be impacted by this project. so there are some very human impacts that happen here. and the economic affects to me are somewhat secondary. it's trying to make that the intersections, lake merced boulevard. these are a part of the city with -- where we do have a lot of kids and we need to be protective. if we can move that to m street, we can bring the number down to 8%. that's how many go east. these are pressing issues, things we ask you to look at. yes, i feel for some of these people that are going to have to be he locate -- relocated. we do have to look for

progress. western denied any type of growth. we have the world cup coming. other things are happening on the other side of town. what's going on in west san francisco? our supervisor is here telling you this is our chance. please listen to him and do not uphold this appeal. thank you for your time and have a good evening. >> good evening, jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. business and labor will be before you tonight urging you to reject this appeal and certify this e.i.r. clearly you have been presented a defensible e.i.r. that shows that any substantial impacts or significant impacts from the project will going to be mitigated to the benefit of the community. our children need to live here

and these are the type of projects over the next two decades that much -- will give opportunities to our children to live in this city, to live in a place where there's open stays space to, live in a development where people have the opportunity to have a transit-rich environment. where units are more energy and water efficient than they are today. many of you in this room sit on regional bodies. m.t.c. a-bag, d the airplane board. this type of project is what you -- the air board. this type of projects is what you look for around the region in every other country. an infill project that meets all the tests of environmental review as mentioned and confirmed by your department. we ask me to please reject the appeal, certify the e.i.r.

thank you. >> i'm a three-year resident of parkmerced and there are a lot of nuances of the e.i.r. that are -- i don't understand. i'm going to tell you as a resident what the irmental impacts would be for me. what i'm really excited about is the opportunity to park my car and leave it there and i have seen a few new businesses open in the past month and have not been able to patronize them, but the majority of trips that i take up and down the avenue and lake merced avenue are for dry cleaning or groceries. this could be eliminated by services being available on the site itself. thank you.

>> hello, my name is bill. i work with the plumbers union. i was the plumbing general foreman for 10 years, and for me, before me, my father was a foreman out at lake merced, so we have been out there for 20 years. i am here to tell you that the units are in more trouble. i know the grass looks great, but inside those walls, -- you can walk parker said it -- parkmerced, and yet has run its course. it has seen it is better lives. i will show you the insides of those apartments and showed you the inside of those pipes and show you how it is silly. i love parkmerced, but this

project needs to be done. these need to be rebuilt. i distribute a forward with the project. thank you. >> hi, thanks a lot for making me speak. i just wanted to say a few things. i have been a resident in parkmerced for four years, and the reason i stayed is because it offered me cheap housing. finally, i came to parkmerced, and this is regarding the environment. the only environment that bothers me is the environment of the house, the internal environment of my house. there is some competition in the housing market. so i really appreciate it, and i heard a while back at san

francisco university was going to increase, so all of them are going to go in, and there will be heavy prices for housing. i would walk 5 miles, and have a cheap house. housing comes first. i would have a roof on my head before i get a car to drive. the only thing i want to stress is housing. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is johhny, and i have lived here for years. hot i have a tent -- i have a tin years old daughter. for my daughter, actually, ishiguro -- she grow up in

parkmerced. coffee shop, a movie theater. it is considered our home so she will grow up with parkmerced. thank you. >> byon, a 25-year-old resident -- byron. and like the owners of this project, i love the city. i think what is important to recognize is that this is an opportunity for affordable housing, which is key. but i think when you look at the finer grain of the project, you begin to recognize.

i think we need to find ways to bring families back into the fold, to bring amenities, to make communities, to have an openness and to have a community that really embraces that. i think this project doesn't every general effort create that. in terms of this process, i come up against things. i recommend that you go forward with this. >> supervisor, i with a building council. we support the project. -- we support this.

calvin welch argued about density between east and west sides of town. infill, as described by supervisor kim, the question is whether you are adequately taking care. there was the deal at trinity plaza. i would also point out that they have conflated market rate and luxury. this project is located in a part of town without amenities. the price point will necessarily be lower.