big thing. people would not leave their homes if there animals could not come with them. also learning more about the communications, how we are incorporating things like social media. i think the app is a great start. for a lot of people who are not familiar with it, it looks like a game. it is great for gamers, but for regular people, it would be a little bit daunting. president fong: i have spent a lot of time with emergency preparedness and started a committee at the fisherman's wharf, which has actually grown. we have certified close to 1000 people along the waterfront, from hotel workers to restaurateur's, to private residence. -- to private residents.

it has been very successful. it needs continuous training and retraining. i hope the plan, once adopted, gets out to other means of adoption. maybe something that should not the top of mind, but accessible and on the refrigerator door. those are my comments. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i am totally unprepared, so -- i have one question on policy 2.17, to ensure the medical response is coordinated with the hospitals. other than the policy statement in the paragraph, can you explain how that might work and if there are, you know, if there is a disaster, how are the

hospitals coordinated at that point? or are they left on their own to deal with the situation, so to speak? and are there any -- anything in here that can be used to direct new construction of medical facilities? >> that is a good point. i am jumping in because lily has been -- lily has brought this plan to the point you have it today. i began this back in 2007, when we first drafted this policy. the department of public health has been the overseer and the link to the public and private hospitals. it is pretty good for us to get back in touch with them. there was a good effort in 2008 where they were having a biannual roundtable. i do not know if that is still going on.

that policy was not intended for direct instruction. it was more actions and how we deal with the response. that is another very good thing for us to consider. commissioner sugaya: thank you. i have a question on the table that is the target states of recovery for san francisco buildings and infrastructure. i just have a question on -- i understand the blue squares, the various shades of blue squares on page 7. >> do you want me to put it up on the overhead? would that be easier for people? commissioner sugaya: sure. for example, when you go from hospitals to police, emergency,

the light blue says everything will work after the event. the light blue squares indicate that facilities associated with police, fire, and hospitals will be in operation right after the event. can you explain the x that is way over in the 36-month box? >> that is what the current status is. that is where things are today. it would take 36 months to get back up and running rather than the target blue state. commissioner sugaya: thank you. vice president wu: i also have a question for staff. i want to thank them for their presentation today. i was wondering about public outreach on this element or this part of the element. what has happened today and what you anticipate will be going

forward. >> this process started in 2007, led by the mayor's directives. there was a lot of work that was done then. we have been working closely with our partner agencies and we released a draft on april 18. it was available for the public. we think that this document is in coordination with a number of other plans and programs at other city agencies are implementing an additional outreach that is happening through those plans and programs. it is a culmination of all of those pieces. commissioner moore: -- commissioner miguel: i am glad to see this is being updated. 15 years is a long time on something like this. the outreach has been going out to the neighborhoods. i have worked with the neighborhood network for some

time. it is often emphasized. just an observation on that same chart. the only thing i see that is currently, or at least this, which is dated 2008, is the airport. that part is good. but that is 2008. this is 2012. how can we in for that there has been movement in the last four years and what do we anticipate bringing the colored squares and the x's closer together? what is the timeline on some of that?

>> i am not sure as -- i am not sure if i can speak to a specific time line. the goal is the recovery from work that we would begin working on following the adoption, these targets would be something we would look at. commissioner antonini: a very informative report. i am particularly happy to see the emphasis on seismic upgrades of buildings in san francisco, including those with non- reinforced masonry and hopefully strategies are being arrived at to make it economically feasible for these things to happen. thank you for a good report. i moved to initiate the approval, or adoption, rather. initiate the adoption.

and we are also scheduling and adoption hearing for june 14. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for initiation. and announced to the general plan and scheduling a public hearing for june 14. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. you are now on item number 10, case number 2008.0762e. this is a hearing on the 835-845 jackson st. chinese hostile replacement project draft eir -- chinese hospital replacement

project draft eir. >> i with the planning staff. the item before you today is a public hearing on the draft environmental impact for 835-845 jackson st. hospital replacement project. i'm joined by the specialist for this project for it is is the hospital built in 1979 on jackson street. it iginal chinese hospital built in 1924. and the chinese hospital parking garage located behind it. the proposed project includes demolition of the 1924

building, construction of a 48- bed replacement hospital building with a new 22-bed nursing building. it also includes renovation of the existing 1979 hospital building to serve as an outpatient center and a proposal to create a special sud to support the expansion of medical services on the project site. the proposed replacement building would be designed and constructed to fully comply with the requirements of senate bill 1953 for seismic safety. the existing 1979 building would remain in operation until the proposed replacement hospital was fully functional. the proposed project would be completed in 2 development phases over a four-year period.

in addition to the project, two gradients are being considered, the first being a parking gradient. it would include all street parking and an expanded engineering shop and space for the chinese hospital between washington and jackson streets to the west of the site. the secondary and is the hospital facade designed very, which would have a different design. this variant would be identical in terms of design to the proposed project. the proposed project would require denver -- general plan amendments, planning code text, and zoning map amendments, to reclassify height limits.

the planning department published a notice of the eir and an initial study on may 18, 2012. the draft eir was released on april 16, 2012. the draft eir for this project found that implementation of the proposed project would result in the following project level and cumulative significance unavoidable environmental impact. demolition of the hospital building at 835 jackson st. would result in significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact. and on the national register of historic places in the chinatown historic district. both of which were identified as historic resources under the

environmental quality act of ceqa. it would result in a significant unavoidable architect for resource impact on the national register of historic places, the california resource of historic eligible. the construction of the replacement hospital under the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant adverse historical resource impacts on the same chinatown historic district. fourth, we have an air quality significant impact, which is construction of the proposed project would raise substantial levels of a toxic health contaminant that would substantially affect receptors. this would be a significant and

unavoidable health impact. the historic preservation commission held a hearing on may 2. comments related mainly to historic resources, specifically the proposed project significant impact on the individual historic resource that is the 1924 mab. on the national register of historic places, the chinatown historic district, and the cumulative impact on chinese historic resources, particularly concurrent area projects. they also spoke on the design, recommending design alternatives and additional historic mitigation measures. i have copies of the eir receive from the hbc, which i have already received -- i have already shared with the commissioners and i have put a

copy on your desks. please note that staff is not here to answer questions or comments on the draft eir today. all comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing. in the comments and responses document, which will respond to all questions received and make revisions to the draft eir as for writ. i would like to remind all speakers that this is not a hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the project. approval hearings will follow the final eir certification. we are here to hear comments from the public regarding the draft eir as far as the -- as part of the ceqa. we are focused on the adequacy and accuracy of information in the draft eir. i would request that you speak as slowly and clearly as possible so that the court reporter can produce an accurate

transcript. commager's should state their name and address so they can be properly identified and sent a copy when it is completed. after hearing comments from the public, we will also receive any comments on the draft eir by members of the commission. i would like to remind the public and commissioners that public comment for this draft eir began on april 16 and extends until 5:00 p.m. on may 31, 2012. this concludes my presentation on this matter. unless the commissioners have any clarifications or questions, we can open a public hearing. thank you. president fong: is there any public comment? you can leave it on the bench. >> good afternoon. i am with abct, a better chinatown tomorrow.

an organization which has brought cultural, music, and arts events to chinatown. this project is one of the projects that we all, as a community, need to look at very carefully. i think all of the professional staff, planning department, commissioners, historic preservation commission, the community and neighborhood groups, the people of chinatown really need to look at this project in its -- and its holistic impact on chinatown way into the future. we can ill afford to continue to lose building by building, for saw by facade, -- facade by facade, sign by sign, restaurant or restaurant, all of the things that make up chinatown. chinatown has survived, by

happenstance, 1800's anti- chinese riots, the plan to move chinatown to the southern part of the city, the post-1906 earthquake and fire. a very aggressive plan to move chinatown to the bayview. and the continuing encroachment of large developments, gentrification. the very reason why many chinatowns in the united states have disappeared, like washington d.c.'s subway construction. chinatown has eroded drastically. we see chinatown, perhaps, many people as old. many of us see chinatown as a living treasure, a history of chinese in america. from chinese hospitals from

1925, particularly after the world war two baby boom, much of the chinese in america emanated from that one energy source. it was an incredible cultural ripple effect from the chinese hospital. we need to look at this project and engage everybody, all of the professional people that we have at our disposal and look at this project in a holistic way. the planning department and planning staff, over the decades, have saved many of our great buildings through their sheer will against very strong opposition. the citicorp building on sansome, for instance. the developers were so upset at the planning department that they left the planning department's name off. \ there are many instances like that throughout the financial

district. let's do our best to save the old chinese hospital. thank you. president fong: is there additional public comment? commissioners? i am sorry. the public hearing is close on this matter. commissioners? vice president wu: i will try to keep my comments focused on the eir, although i have many thoughts about chinatown itself. i am curious -- i read the letter from the commission and i think that there are a lot of considerations around the historic nature of the building that needs to be demolished or is being proposed to be demolished.

i want to highlight the importance of keeping people in the neighborhood and not just buildings. the importance of having these medical services in the neighborhood really is outstanding. i said i was not going to talk too much about chinatown -- as there are more satellite chinatowns in the region, health services is what draws a lot of people back to this chinatown. with regards to the eir, i had some very specific questions. one is around trafficked and traffic during construction, whether there will be coordination with other major construction projects happening. i am speaking specifically about the central subway. i think there will be major construction for both of these products in the same year. it is already a very heavy pedestrian corridor.

there should be real consideration with that. on pedestrian safety, i have a question about whether there will be the construction walkway right in front of the hospital itself. recently, on the city college campus in chinatown, there actually was no walkway in front of the building itself. i think that created a great hazard for the people in the neighborhood. i wanted to point out that on gentrification, i liked seeing that there was someone dedicated post-construction for what they call transportation demand management. i think that that kind of, providing that technical assistance to employees that work on the hospital or people who are patrons of the hospital,

are very helpful to get people in the habit of using transit if they were not previously. i think that will be important for the success of this project. that is my question for now. commissioner antonini: i too read the letter from the hpc. i am in agreement with a lot of what is stated in there. the design concerns they have with the replacement structure in no way has any impact on the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the eir, which is, of course, all of those things. they make some points the we have to look at as we go forward. of course, we do have all of the necessary alternatives, including the parcel preservation project, the preferred project. we have a lot of things to choose from.

of course, that will move forward at a later time. as far as the report itself, it seems to be quite thorough. commissioner miguel: to follow up on commissioner wu's comments, particularly on page s-21 of the tdm comments, i think there were very well thought out. much more detail than we usually see in an eir. i was pleased to see that. on the variant, when you get in, i think it is a roman numeral ii -- the off-street parking i would fully agree with. i think it is a good use of the space, it can work, and it should definitely be included in

the final consideration. when we get down to the hpc co mments, there is the hospital facade side variant on 2.45. hopefully that is sufficient to allow for additional design consideration for the future, even though it is a little bit specific. to me, the actual design of the building is something that, as long as it is covered sufficiently in the eir, can be discussed later on when we get to the actual project. i think this eir, as such, has been thoroughly put together. >> commissioners, if that

concludes the comments for the commission, we will state that the public comment period extends to the close of business on may 31, 2012. thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 11, case 2011.0532t, uses, signs, building features, floor area ratio, parking, and compliance in specified use districts. this is phase three. president fong: i want to clarify that i recused myself from phase two. i want to say that this phase 3 does not include any piece of property i might have an interest in. >> this is phase three. at the last hearing, i stopped and took questions from the

commission. i thought i would repeat that unless there was an objection from the commission. with that, we will just get started. the first section deals with floor area ratio and grow calculations. the first item includes all street parking and loading and the definition of growth square area. it provides access parking in the downtown and parking located underground will still be excluded from gross area calculations. item two excludes gross area calculations in all districts. this was included in phase one and was repeated in the report. you can disregard that. you have already voted on it and approved it. item three would include short- term parking in a gross floor area calculations and floor area ratio constellations. finally, ityem four -- item four

was changed so that density is controlled by height and bulk restrictions as well as open space and exposure. that is all for that section. are there questions on it? president fong: no one has chimed in. public comment? >> we will do that at the end. the next session deals with open space. there is only one part of this. the proposed change is to require buildings in the c-3 district that are primarily retail to provide open space. the proposed change is consistent with the recent planning code decisions that require public open space for retail and institutional uses. the department determined that all significant generators of jobs, visitors and shoppers,

should be required to provide open space, just like office buildings, especially in areas that are deficient in existing open space. we are recommending approval on this one. any questions? commissioner antonini: so the office would be required, presidential would be required. what we are doing is adding retail to all of the other uses that already have the open space requirements. >> that is correct. 80% of the building is used as retail. a high percentage. in the last 10 years, only to projects -- only two projects [inaudible]. the next section deals with parking. currently, parking for dwelling units in the rc-4