the e.i.r. need to address this if this were a possibility? >> deputy city attorney merletta burn through the. . they don't require you analyze the direct effects of social security -- socioeconomic changes but require you to analyze the environmental impacts that result from those changes. so if the change in the rent of the housing actually leads to some kind of physical effect on the environment due to displacement then we'd need to analyze those effects. it's an indirect effects question. supervisor kim: i would disagree with the planning department that if we were to find this were not enforceable, we then would have to go through another e.i.r. because it could be potentially that a developer could decide much later after the units had even been built they no longer had to comply with the d.a., right? isn't that possible that it could happen much after the units are built and residents have moved in that either this current developer or a new developer could sue and say this isn't enforcea

an e.i.r. is not required to consider every conceivable alternative into a project but must include a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. this e.i.r. fully analyzes five alternatives which is a large number compared to mountainwest e.i.r.'s that we do. and these were selected because they would reduce the significant impact of the project. the no project alternative has been pointed out and would involve no demolition on the project site. other alternatives were analyzed that could potentially reduce or eliminate one of the main significant impacts of the project, primarily the impact to historic resources due to demolition of the potential parkmerced historic district. section 7-g of the e.i.r. discusses two alternatives, the infilled development within the historic district alternative and the west side partial historic district alternative that would require less demolition and retain more buildings and landscape features than the proposed project. but as described in the

the e.i.r. fails to adequately address the potential displacement of thousands of existing residents. however, pursuant to the terms of the proposed development agreement, all residents existing apartments proposed will continue to be residence at the time demolition is proposed would be provided with the opportunity to move to a new apartment before the unit is demolished. construction demolition would be phased to ensure the residents of the units to be demolished would be required to move only once. under the proposed e.a. these news apartments would be rented at the same rate as the residents' existing apartments prior to demolition and would be covered as the same rent rules as contained in the ordinance. existing residents would not be required to move off-site at any phase of the project. the proposed e.a. which is part of the project sets forth these requirements. concerns have further been expressed the e.i.r. fails to adequately analyze displacement impacts in the event that such provi

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

and an e.i.r. was done. the question then is whether the alternatives or the analysis that was provided in the e.i.r. acts as a -- as a recipe then for what goes into it in the future. in terms of what that development should look like. it is interesting because as i walk through the zellman's main building it is clear that their approach to the preservation of that existing building, the main building, is quite different than what architects would do. and i don't know their background, perhaps they are architects but compared to most architects, it is different. in the following way. architects have a tendency to develop designs that are -- the term that occurred to me as i was thinking about this case and visiting their site was similar to what was stated by one of the earlier speakers. it is quite fanciful. you could see that in the interiors of their existing build and the design of what they proposed for the carriage house. the question then for us is whether the development of historically reflective t

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 wi

therefore, e.i.r. is not -- an amendment, a new one is not triggered and we could go forward as if one is not required. on that basis, mr. zellman and his consultants can look into the possibility of creating a version of what they want while still doing a retab tation that doesn't -- rehabilitation that doesn't pass that fine line into a defacto demolition and if that is what is being discussed, i think it is worth a continueance to do that. i particularly am disappointed but it is natural that we lose a commissioner from time. there isn't a fourth commissioner and i hope we can agree that it is traditional for this board, not always but to keep in mind that the absence of one commissioner, while it doesn't necessarily mean a vote would have changed, does mean that someone, that the discussion wasn't complete and all commissioners can lead to -- can express conditions that can change all other commissioners and we don't have one commissioner to express their sentiment and have an opportunity. >> it go

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

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

>> referring to these drawings that were submitted with the e.i.r.? >> an e.i.r. is an exercise. it is identified an impact and as pa part of that then an e.i.r. has to be completed. >> right. what did that cost the zellman's? i don't have that information in hand now. >> so all of those hours planning to come up with drawings that seems as though h.b.c. basically said whatever has been -- it almost as though they overturned the e.i.r. as well as the -- of approval? the certificate of approval? >> they do not have the authority to overturn the e.i.r. >> seems as though they did. i didn't say they did. the reason seems as though they did is because they didn't consider any of the proposals or make proposals of their own as to what would be acceptable alternatives. putting them in a position where were we to not overturn their -- >> that is correct. they would have to propose a new design. the zell mans, that is. >> thank you. >> is the burden on the department to produce a drawing for an applicant?

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

in the past, when we've had joint -- not joint meetings but when the e.i.r. and the plan has all been scheduled together, i've recused myself on the e.i.r. votes but have been able to come back to vote on the community plan itself. and i feel in this case that as an informational item i can stay and participate. president olague: thank you. and with that, i'll actually call the item to the record. it's item two, case 20005 .1004, the glen park community planning presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the plan manager for the glen park community plan. and i'm joined by john billet and we are the john and john show for glen park. here for you this morning and we're very excited to be here and present to some of the work we've been doing with the community over the last year and a half. as you're probably aware this project goes a little farther back. so if i could have the overhead. so just an agenda for what we'll be talking about today i want to give you guys some history and context into the planning work and the neighborhood itself. then we'll pr

second type of appeal is the e.i.r., environmental impact reports. major public or private development proposals are planned that could potentially have a significant impact on the physical environment. who may file these appeals are any person or entity that has submitted comments on a draft e.i.r. in writing during the public review period or orally or in writing on a public hearing. the final deadline, they would be filed within 20 days of the certification of the e.i.r. the c.m.d.'s are also $500, payable to the planning department. we schedule these within 30 days of it being -- it's actually promptly scheduled, but we tickically give about 30 days to ensure all the materials can be part of the packet, so when they do come before the board, enough time for the board of supervisors to actually have enough information to be able to make those informed decisions once they come before the board. but typically, within the 30-day review period. that also requires six votes to overturn the planning department's decision. second type of appeal is the co

initiated this process or the project sponsor initiated the project in 2005 with applications and the e.i.r. has been underway for several years. it was published in october and you had a public hearing on it in november. we're, again, planning a couple of informational hearings to re-orient you to executive park. next on april 7 you are scheduled to hear informational hearing along with initiating the amendments and then we're hoping to be back before you in early may for approvals to the e.i.r. certification. for the informational presentation, we're going to focus on what you are scheduled to take action on and are just the planning code and the general plan framework for the development. today we're going to focus our informational presentation on an overview of the history of executive park, issues that face executive park, and this southern area. the next informal hearing will get into the specifics of zoning and design guidelines. just to give you a quick history of this, this is an aerial from the 1960's and with the existing form and the war time housing and the dicht road configur

we will be considering the accuracy and completeness of the final e.i.r. of which you all have copies. we will hear from the appellant to describe the grounds for the appeal. we'll take public comments from individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. we will hear from the planning department who will describe the grounds of the d.i.r. we'll hear from individuals from the public who will speak on behalf of the public interest. any objections in proceeding in this way? if not, why don't we open up the hearing. let me ask if there is a representative from the appellant. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the board. i'm ted for the park district appearing for my board today. very briefly you know that the east bay district is the park district for these counties representing over 25 million people. we have 65 parks, over 1,000 trails. we are the oldest and largest park district in the united states. the park district operates tens of thousands of people use the park each year. we have a large sea youth education program. we began working wit

the amendments and then we're hoping to be back before you in early may for approvals to the e.i.r. certification. for the informational presentation, we're going to focus on what you are scheduled to take action on and are just the planning code and the general plan framework for the development. today we're going to focus our informational presentation on an overview of the history of executive park, issues that face executive park, and this southern area. the next informal hearing will get into the specifics of zoning and design guidelines. just to give you a quick history of this, this is an aerial from the 1960's and with the existing form and the war time housing and the dicht road configuration -- and a different road conf configurati configuration. candlestick park is largely not there yet and the part sthas there is being -- that is there is being used for parking for the stadium. in the mid 70's they began to envision the land as an office park and start to be called executive park in 76 as an office park and 800,000 square feet. through the years and is established as par

so there are a myriad of issues related to muni, which is what everyone brought about in the e.i.r. document that are bigger than san francisco. bigger than the state. bigger than government. it is a big issue that we had to deal with it and i think yes, we need to make decisions about prioritizeation about transportation but a lot of that needs to happen at the m.t.a. and board of supervisors because they have the ability to make some decisions and the truth is

initiated this process or the project sponsor initiated the project in 2005 with applications and the e.i.r. has been underway for several years. it was published in october and you had a public hearing on it in november. we're, again, planning a couple of informational hearings to re-orient you to executive park. next on april 7 you are scheduled to hear informational hear

it contains my six pages of comments to the e.i.r. it also contains important notes about tsunami danger. the tsunami that happened in japan is a perfect way to describe what have i been trying to explain about this plodge for two years that will happen in slow motion with the water going up. well, it didn't happen in slow motion in japan. it happened in a flash. and hours away in alaska we could have a similar earthquake. we could have a similar tsunami hitting the bay and it would raise the bay by at least eight feet in that tsunami and probably more on the san francisco end but in the e-mail, i was conservative about that. with the thousands of residents that this project seeks to put on that island, there is no way that you're going to be able to get that many people off of that island in a few hours. it just won't happen. we're talking about a japan-style disaster if we proceed with this project as it is. and i get back to what i said a couple years ago about this, you need to reel this back, make this a wet wind restoration proj