1,200 feet auditorium and a lot of other improvements that san francisco state is planning. i know you said they're not set in stone, but it's definitely something that san francisco state is planning to move towards as i talk to robert corrigan and leroy morista, different officials of f.s. state but my sense is the e.i.r. should look carefully at the analysis of a neighboring institution like f.s. state with a very ambitious master plan that's going to increase expansion significantly and i think make the traffic analysis even more complex than it is. and the environmental illustrate pictures as well but i'll just ask that question to respond, mr. cooper. >> my response simply would be that we've incorporated all the growth that's projected under the master plan into our analysis of the traffic impact. president chiu: and knowing first hand how the traffic throw is from holloway as we circle to find parking, i know

that will be significantly increased. i don't think the e.i.r. has that human and environmental impact as i read through it. i would say i was influenced by my visit with a number of the residents of parkmerced last week in the rain but we walked through a couple of the garden apartments and also the towers, and i don't see a blighted, aging number of units -- >> thank you. applause. president chiu: i also have this question katherine moore and other, the 4-3 vote at the planning commission, why is demolition of sound housing of beautiful homes with shared garden backwards and a sense of community, why is it necessary to demolish those and that's why reasonable alternative of no demolition to me makes a lot of sense and why the e.i.r. to me, i have a lot of questions about it. that's my perspective. [applause.

>> to me what you're responding to are the merits of the project rather than the environmental impact of the project as proposed which is what we analyzed. the e.i.r. does not make any claims about the condition of the existing housing that's proposed for demolition, rather, it takes a description of the project which is the demolition and then analyzes the physical and environmental effects of that demolition. supervisor mar: i still feel the human element of generations of families that have been borne and raised in the area and -- think there rotham showed the shared space of the 1,538 units of the man people that live there and i see a human element and environmental element when you demolish those units and build high-rises which you're giving them options to move but there is a loss of community and loss

of shared space that's there as well so i don't necessarily see that as a benefit sometimes to people, though i know that the project vision is saying that's a benefit for a more urban community. but i see something that's being lost and that's an environmental impact and a human element as well. but thank you, mr. cooper. [applause] president chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: to the planning department, one piece you haven't discussed that came up in a lot of the appellant's arguments and if you could elaborate further on what the e.i.r. does is that the environmental impact of living in a construction zone for 20 to 30 years. what protections are in place? we have the very -- you know, the very touching testimony about the children, both at the month tore sorry -- the montessori school but the babies that live at parkmerced. what is in place? what is analyzed about living

in a construction zone for the next 30 years? >> as a general statement and as a e.i.r. details, there are a lot of existing regulations in place and city ordinances that will significantly reduce those potential impacts. i would also suggest that over a 20-year construction period on the 152-acre site, those impacts would not occur in one place, rather, they would be moving from location to location as the phases develop throughout the project. so while we beautifully report all of the potential affects of the project and construction, those affects do not occur at one time or one location. as they do throughout the city whenever there are construction

projects from place to place. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: a couple quick questions. what's the lemmingt of the project analyzed by the e.i.r.? >> as i stated previously, it's considered to be a 20-year project. however, that is not set in stone. and that could change significantly over time. supervisor campos: and so the reason i ask that question is that from reading the materials, it's also clear that there is this caveat in the executive summary it could be as much as 30 years? and so in trying to understand the completeness of the e.i.r., is there a difference in terms of environmental impacts between the length being 20 years versus 30 years? >> again, we don't know the length of time it would take to

carry out the project, just in the same way we don't know how long it takes for a total buildout under any area plan the city may consider. so under the -- in the e.i.r., we analyze what is the most reasonable projection for how long a project would take, but do try to take into account it could occur over a different period of time. supervisor campos: i think that's part of the problem i have in understanding how complete this analysis is, because to the extent you're saying there's a possibility the length of the project could be 30 years, but the e.i.r. only analyzes up to 20 years, then how complete is the analysis? that's the question. >> again, the length of time we have chosen depends on the topic area, and some of them are shorter and some of them are longer depending on the requirements on the analysis and also our desire to present the most conservative analysis

for the impacts that might occur under each topic. supervisor campos: i know my colleagues -- >> i want to repeat something mr. cooper said in his original presentation. by analyzing primarily a 20-year period, if you concentrate construction impacts, whether it's dust or whether it's whatever in a more limited period, you're essentially focusing the impacts in a more concentrated way. if we did 30 years, we'd say, there's a little bit here and it's spread over 30 years and we do 20 years, we're basically saying on all the aspects of construction, this is the worst it could get and that's basically the approach that's been taken here to the extent the construction takes longer, the severity of the impacts will be less because it will be less concentrated. so that's the basic approach taken here and it's reflecting we're not -- this is not a city project. this is being built over time

as part of a private development and not in a position to say with certainty it will 20b years, it will 30b years. we're saying because of that uncertainty, we're going to look at the impacts in their most concentrated, most acute way on each topic so that we're not understanding the impacts. to the extent we've exaggerated that, the impacts would be less. supervisor campos: the problem with that is there's no way for us to know if indeed the impacts are the most severe within the first 20 years relative to the last 10 years because you haven't looked at the last 10 years. that's the issue. just a final question and i know my colleagues have other questions to ask. just trying to understand from -- in terms of your analysis, you have undered -- under the general plan there is a predisposition to disapprove the demolition applications of any sound buildings. so i'm trying to understand how

that general section of the general plan was looked at and given that we are talking about demolition of, you know, a large number of units here. >> you're asking a general plan question, this is an e.i.r. hearing. to the extent the general plan raises a physical impact it was analyzed, to the extent you're asking a general planned consistency question and would really be a question -- supervisor chiu: could you repeat the last question, it was hard to hear you. >> sorry. to the extent any kind of general plan consistency question raised issues of physical impacts, we addressed it in the e.i.r. i mean, there's a whole section of the e.i.r. that addresses that. to the extent you're asking how

did we make a determination that a city policy against demolition of existing housing is arguably inconsistent with the housing element, among other city policies, that would be a finding you would make in conjunction with the entitlement action. so we deal with in this -- and this hearing deals with properly physical impacts associated with the general planning and consistency, but the question of inconsistency per se. supervisor campos: i don't know i fully understand or agree with the point. but i get it. thank you. president chiu: i have one follow-up on that and want to recognize supervisor mirkarimi. there's been discussion whether the planning considered nondemolition alternatives and in section g of section 4, you talk about a couple alternatives that you considered and rejected, one of them being the infill development within the historic district which would have

retained the majority of the existing buildings, and what you state is that you didn't evaluate this because it would have required the demolition of carports within the garden apartment courtyards and the construction of new residential structures within the courtyards so you didn't evaluate that because it would require the demolition of car ports but you obviously evaluated alternatives that would have required the demolition of a lot of other housing. so how do you evaluate that? how do you reconcile that? >> as i was stating, alternatives are developed as part of an e.i.r. in order to address significant impacts that we have found. in this case we found the demolition as proposed under the project would have a significant impact on historic resource. the alternative you're speaking of was rejected for further consideration because it would still have the significant impact on that resource and therefore would not be a valid alternative to consider under

the ceqa for the purposes of the alternatives analysis. president chiu: obviously what we're looking at as far as the preferred project involves significant demolition as well. >> correct. and that demolition would have significant impacts. that's the alternatives we rejected would not ameliorate. president chiu. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: ceqa does not tell accumulative impact, does it? >> it does. supervisor myrrh keermy: -- supervisor mirkarimi: with a look at the impacts, that's being gauged at what level, a 20-year level? >> as i was stating earlier, normally accumulative impact analysis includes projects either already entitled or are in the pipeline, formally in the process of being considered

for approval, in this case we went beyond that and included several projects that are perhaps a glimmer on someone's eyes on sites we know may be developed in the future. therefore we conduct administrator conservative impact analysis than normally done. supervisor mirkarimi: you had the description to insist upon that particular analysis that goes beyond the standard requirement that ceqa compels, correct? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: could you not use that same discretion to extend it further apart from the discussion that's taking place. >> i don't understand the question. supervisor mirkarimi: you've preclued a certain yardstick about its accumulative impact, could you not continue that by using the same discretion to extend that assessment? >> we could, though the farther out you go in time the less you know about what might occur in the future so it would be extremely speculative to figure out what's accumulative

analysis is 25 years down the line, for example. supervisor mirkarimi: relative to discussion the concentration has been impacted into a four-phase project within a 20-year period, that also is speculative with regard to our ability to capture those accumulative impacts in that 20-year assessment. >> again, yes, we're trying to concentrate the impacts, that's correct. supervisor mirkarimi: but decision is at the planning department and city to extend that beyond that particular period, yes or no? yes. how, so, i think we would need to make a consideration about whether this project is being held to a different standard under our review of other projects. that's not normally how we review our projects under ceqa and san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. president chiu: supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: hi, ok. since a large part of the conversation that we're engaging in right now deals with general issues around

housing and population, specifically displacement, i was curious to know if the analysis -- did the analysis find that any significant environmental impacts might arise due to socioeconomic changes brought on by the proposed project? did the analysis find any significant environmental illustrate pictures that might arise due to the social and economic changes? >> the environmental analysis was on the physical and environmental impacts of the project. and we did not go from the other direction and try to figure out what the socioeconomic impacts would be that related to those effects. supervisor cohen: is that a normal -- >> yes. supervisor cohen: thank you.

president chiu: supervisor kim [supervisor kim: thank you. i had some questions about the phasing -- or the construction phases. just to clarify, is part of the purpose of an e.i.r. to adequately and accurately describe the proposed project? >> the e.i.r. requires an accurate description of the project in order to conduct a thorough analysis, correct analysis. supervisor kim: could you talk about the construction phases and how you feel that there's clarity in terms of what's going to happen? i understand that we can't talk about a certain time line because construction, there's always delays and unexpected issues and obstacles that come up, so i'm not asking about 20 years, 30 years, that's not one of my concerns but i'm wondering if you could describe a little bit about why you think the construction phases are clear in terms of what happens and in what order.

>> i don't really think we have that information. that's something that would occurs a the project was being implemented. supervisor kim: without that information, how do you feel 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