Board continues Park Merced EIR appeal after hours of testimony; hearing reset for May 24

The Board of Supervisors continued the appeal of the Park Merced final environmental impact report (EIR) to May 24, 2011, after more than three hours of testimony from appellants, residents and planning staff and a lengthy presentation by the project sponsor.

Why it matters: The appeal centers on the EIR’s handling of the project sponsor’s proposal to demolish about 1,538 garden‑style units and replace them with roughly 5,679 net new units (8,900 total on site at build‑out). Appellants say the EIR understates environmental and human impacts — particularly the risk of tenant displacement if contractual protections in the proposed development agreement are later found unenforceable — while the planning department and the sponsor maintain the document is complete under CEQA and analyzes feasible mitigation.

The planning department framed the legal issue for the board. “The question at hand is the adequacy of the environmental document according to CEQA and not the merits of the project itself,” Planning Department environmental analyst Rick Cooper told the board. Cooper and other staff said the EIR analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives and that the project description (including the proposed development agreement provisions to replace demolished units before demolition) was the basis for the environmental analysis.

Appellants and many residents disputed that approach. Julian Lagos, representing the Coalition to Save Park Merced, and other appellants pressed that the EIR lacks a credible “no‑demolition” alternative and that demolition would cause cumulative impacts when combined with nearby, planned projects including the San Francisco State University master plan and the 800 Brotherhood Way site. Mitchell Omerberg, of the Park Merced Action Coalition, told the board that the EIR “confuses having a relocation plan with a lack of displacement” and that many long‑term tenants will effectively be displaced even if replacement units are promised.

The enforceability of the development agreement’s tenant protections became a focal point. Planning staff and the city attorney’s office said the EIR properly analyzed the project as proposed — including contractual commitments to replacement housing — and that, if in the future a court were to overturn the relevant contractual protections, that change would be a new circumstance requiring additional environmental review. The city attorney’s office noted that recorded assignment/assumption agreements and recorded covenants would be required of any successor owner as part of the DA approval process.

The project sponsor’s counsel urged the board to separate CEQA review from the later land‑use approvals. Mary Murphy, counsel to the real party in interest, told the board, “I would respectfully submit to this board that this is an excellent EIR. It is complete.” The sponsor reiterated that replacement housing obligations are integral to the project and that the EIR uses conservative assumptions for transportation and greenhouse gas impacts.

Transportation and seismic risk: The EIR and public testimony also focused on transit and seismic issues. The project would realign the M Ocean View line through the site in one proposed configuration, a change planners and the MTA say is integral to a long‑term transportation strategy for the west side; MTA planner Peter Albert said the project’s transit improvements were expressly shaped by the corridor study and could unlock later state and federal funding. Opponents and several residents raised seismic‑liquefaction concerns because portions of the site lie over historic fill and past seismic reports, and they asked for additional study.

Greenhouse gases and demolition impacts: Appellants pressed that the EIR does not adequately quantify greenhouse‑gas releases tied to demolition and landscape disturbance and that a nondemolition retrofit approach — rather than wholesale replacement — was not analyzed in sufficient depth. Planning staff said the EIR examined reasonable alternatives and applied conservative, project‑level carbon accounting; appellants said that more specific, non‑demolition alternatives should be recirculated for public comment.

Board action and next steps: Supervisor Campos moved to continue the appeal to May 24 to allow time for legal follow‑up and for staff and interested parties to provide additional analyses; Supervisor Ellsberg seconded. The board continued items 27–29 to May 24 without objection. President Chiu also said he will schedule a closed‑session discussion with the city attorney’s office on legal issues raised about the DA and the limits of local authority.

What remains open: The board will consider the EIR adequacy now; separate land‑use votes on the development agreement, rezoning and other entitlements (if the EIR stands) will come in later hearings. Appellants asked the board to find that the EIR’s treatment of displacement and the DA’s tenant protections is insufficient and to require a recirculated EIR with a true nondemolition alternative. The sponsor maintains the document meets CEQA requirements. The May 24 continuation will give the board and staff time to digest legal and technical follow‑up requested during tonight’s hearing.

Ending note: The June‑to‑May calendar change means neighbors and agencies will have time for additional reports and for the city attorney to brief supervisors on potential legal vulnerabilities connected to the DA’s tenant remedies and state statutes cited by opponents.