consistency was appropriately discussed in ceqa documents. on may 24, the planning commission certified the eir, approved it, and found it to be consistent with the general plan. the project was found to be consistent with the golden gate park master plan. the appellants states and the r.r.'s analysis is inadequate, acknowledging the uniqueness of the project site and subjective nature of the aesthetics. they prepared nighttime visual simulation and performed an analysis of my time views. it included the project will not have a substantial adverse affect on the scenic vista. it will continue to be screened for most public use in the area. the eir concluded the project will not create a source of goler that would adversely affect views in the area. the nighttime lighting would not result in spillover light thing that would affect homes. the eir does not state the lighting will not be noticeable. the appellate states it miscalculates human health risks. the eir relies on a number of studies to assess potential risks. many of the studies were co

that is eight times above the ceqa significant threshold. if you live next to the chevron refinery you are exposed to a cancer risk of 8.4 in 1 million. about the same as playing soccer on sbr chrome rubber. the eir out to analyze -- ought to analyze alternatives and we have proposed good, safe alternatives. los angeles is using acrylic coated sand. they are still using astroturf but they are using sand as the base and they have had good results. new york is using basically carpet pad. a thick rubber pad under the turf because of health concerns. even piedmont and san carlos have installed cork to underline their astroturf. san francisco which calls itself the greatest city in america should not be falling behind new york to los angeles, san carlos, and piedmont. the eir is inadequate because it refused to consider those alternatives. the eir could look at the alternatives, priced about my determine what is feasible and with the costs and benefits are but to ignore the alternatives renders the document legally inadequate. i would also like t

ceqa does not somehow say that you do not get to choose. if there is something that is less impact will and feasible, ceqa somehow swoops in and forces you to do something that is not appropriate for the community. if we make that assumption which i know you dispute. >> ceqa is a disclosure law. as long as the impacts are disclosed, the city can issue a statement of overriding considerations but not if one of the alternatives is environmentally superior or feasible and uses project objectives which is what the final uighur concludes about west sunset. supervisor wiener: i appreciate the clarification. it is the appellants position it would be appropriate to place artificial turf at west sunset? >> yes. supervisor wiener: that would be replacing green grass space, natural space with artificial turf? >> not really. i do not know if we have a picture we can show. i've played on the field, i have played on most of the fields in the city with my little league teams. it is heavily developed. it is baseball diamonds, softball diamonds, soccer fiel

the planning department sometimes ends up absorbing ceqa litigation costs. we're trying to go through a ceqa reform process at the state level, but i think it is really important for people to understand the cost of this incessant ceqa litigation in cases that are maybe marginal at best. i just wanted to see your perspective. >> yeah, we have seen an increase in its ceqa litigation over the course of the past several years. the planning department has increased its work order for this type of work. it has been difficult with mandatory furloughs and the like over the course of the last several years. i know we have talked about this. i think you will see an improvement in that because of a change in the budget situation. our lawyers will be more available than they have been recently. but the planning department, we have been in consultation with them, and they have recognized this and there's no doubt that we have seen an increase in that type of work. supervisor wiener: and i know that have increased their work order. i think -- i hate the fact that they ha

that is required under ceqa. whether or not you approve fact is a question you would take up at the time of your approval action. not during certification. commissioner sugaya: i am trying to understand project sponsor's objectives. complete the project on schedule and within budget. i mean, really. it makes no sense, how can that be an objective that is used in analyzing alternatives in the project itself? another one is that the design of the project enhances the urban character of the area. what does that mean? what kind of quantitative or factual evidence can there be that can be used to analyze such a thing? it does not seem like the objectives have been created such that it gives the public and the commission an opportunity to say for example, a particular alternative does not meet the project sponsor's objectives. that is my problem with this particular document. commissioner moore: i want to take another tack at this. i am not an eir jockey. it takes me a lot of time. it is you're a difficult and challeng

that is where i see the violation of ceqa. the information presented to the board is not the same information on which you will be moving forward and endorsing this project. turning back to the diagram just for a moment, this revolves around the issue of character. i mean the character of the neighborhood and the character of the new addition to the neighborhood. this is a modern glass and steel structure. adjacent to it is a single-story building. we are talking about a structure in the front. this is a substantial change to the neighborhood that was largely built in the late 1900's. thank you. president chiu: are there any members of the public here to speak on behalf of the appellants. i know it has been a late night. why do we not go to the department called presentations? >> good evening, members of the board. i am the joined by the project planner from the planning department. also the city, county surveyor. as you have heard, this is a tentative parcel map subdivision. you are very familiar what what that means. presidi

ceqa also for have it's altering significant buildings before approval. it is unfortunate it has not been done. going on, 2010, planning commission, commissioners agreed that the eir was not certified any plan for an outside condo building was rejected when the developer failed to consider alternatives to preserve a historic resource. removing a significant resource is prohibited without some effort to identify the options for adaptive reuse or partial preservation. csfm strongly from its efforts to preserve historic buildings and opposes progress of demolition tactics to win project approval. we believe san francisco will greatly benefit only if the store preservation laws and ceqa laws are strictly enforced. thank you. >> good evening. i am representing the middle polk neighborhood association. two years ago, we came before you about this same project and the problems with the eir we discussed over a long hearing, mainly revolving around the failure to consider alternatives. the problem with that was based on a too narrow project description -- excuse m

it is considered a responsible agency under ceqa. supervisor wiener: just a couple of brief questions. it was noted before that there was nobody from the department of public health here. i recall seeing in the eir or in the file that there is documentation from the department of public health. can you comment on that? there is an implication that there was no feedback from the ph. that was not my understanding. >> the department of public health participated on the synthetic turf taskforce. their input was -- the department was primarily in relying on their participation and input that occurred in that context. when we posed further questions about some of the hazardous health risks associated with it, as well as the skin abrasion questions, the responded that they did not have any concerns around any of these various health issues associated with artificial turf fields. supervisor wiener: that is in the file? >> yes. supervisor wiener: you made references to the only significant impact being to the historic resource, because it is

it violates ceqa. let me go into both of those. the san francisco general plan mandates that new construction and is in existing neighborhoods. the tentative map that was approved in this issue is approved under the state map act. that requires consistency with general local plants. there is no consistency with the general character of the neighborhood. what i am specifically talking about is we are talking about inserting an out of scale tall structure. if with a look at the overhead, and this is the existing view from sutter st.. that would be up at the corner. this will be the new addition. this is a modern glass and steel building. supervisor wiener: was this not all covered in the ceqa appeal under the court -- conditional use appeal? we adjudicated the issues that you seem to be raising. how is this different? >> let me explain that to you. the difference is that the state map act does not allow you to exempt yourself from the general plan. in ceqa you are allowed to consider sequencing of the plans. in order to get out of th

that level of analysis is not something we would consider to be required under ceqa. that is a product approval consideration, having to do with the degree to which of alternative does or does not meet the project objectives. >> maybe that is the final question for the city attorney's office, in terms of the level of analysis under ceqa, in terms of alternative like the hybrid alternative. >> deputy city attorney. through the chair. the alternative analysis in an environmental impact reports is required to include the language of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives designed to address through mitigation are reducing the unavoidable impact of the project. hear, the significant impact was the impact to historic resources. all of the alternatives included were designed with the idea of trying to mitigate that impact. a range just needs to be reasonable. it does not have to be exhaustive. it does not have to include every alternative that could possibly be implemented. here, i believe, and this is more a question for planning -- as long as an alternati

i am curious as to what ceqa states as its guidelines about how they get selected. >> according to ceqa, a project objectives are based on the needs of the project sponsor for the proposed development and what is feasible under their plans, and for this particular project, we look at this in consultation with the overarching city goals, but it is true we are looking at project objectives, and why does the project hope to achieve. it is about what is the project trying to achieve, and the guidelines state set the objectives are what they hope to achieve through the proposed project. >> undersea " we analyzed with the project is supposed to achieve, but you are saying about is limited to what the project sponsor would like to achieve and not necessarily with the municipality would like to achieve. >> i am going to take a few minutes to consult with my colleagues. i believe that is case, but i want to make sure. the project objectives is a set of objectives set off alarms what they hope to achieve with the proposed development, and that allows them to look at the alternatives that should b

smith. >> ceqa requires that a project look at the regional settings. that changes for every project. if it is a small project, the regional setting can be very narrow. a large project like this one, the regional setting can be quite large. cpmc talks about how this centerpiece facility at cathedral hill will draw workers and patients and even educators and students from all over the bay area and northern california. when they make that kind of assertion, it begs the question on whether or not it will have impact throughout the bay area. down in the peninsula, they have the facility down there and also in the east bay. we know that would potentially increased traffic, have impact on housing, people coming and going, the regional setting was way too narrow. they just look at san francisco but talked about how it would be a regional facility of excellence. that is the argument. it is a definite flaw in the environmental impact report. president chiu: what is your understanding about what regional process solder is going through at this time? >> it is down

we also need to adopt findings for ceqa, among which are overriding considerations. it seems to me the way the override considerations are drafted, it is as commissioner borden said. the arguments presented to us are that this meets all of the city policies, but, of course, every product like this meets city policies. we have nothing before us in the override the that says the developer is going beyond and giving us some kind of community benefits that justify the demolition of historic resource. let me give you some examples. under policy 2.1, the overriding considerations, use of rapid transit and other transportation improvements in the city and region as the catalyst for desirable development and coordinate new facilities with other private development. the argument is due to the abundant commercial services in the area, residents of the product minimize use of private automobile to commute and meet basic needs. we say that about every project. there is nothing here that says the developer is going to reduce his parking to 75%, 50%, discouraging people from using

supervisor campos: it is not typically a ceqa issue in and of itself. the issue of the affordable housing comes in with all of the discussion we have had in addressing the the affordable housing question but in the eir it is not something we've looked at. supervisor mar: it seems necessary for me looking at our general plan and other policies to have that information as we make decisions. you are saying it is not required in in eir but that seems unnecessary for me to have a thorough analysis so we can mitigate these impacts. but i understand what you are saying. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: a question about traffic impacts. there were a series of questions about the methodology used by the planning department and i want to make sure i get the name right of the adjustment to the peak hour factor? is that what it is called? >> correct. supervisor wiener: there was a debate about whether that is used by any other jurisdiction. my question is, obviously i want to know what other jurisdictions use but what else has san frisket -- sa

nine-d is a request for a conditional use authorization. >> this is a request to adopt ceqa findings, amend the general plan and planning codes, and authorize the conditional use. chinese hospitals as a she -- the 41 chinese hospital parking garage at 835 jackson st.. 110 feet tall, with 500 -- with 54 acute-care beds and a 22 bed skilled nursing facility. the project also includes the renovation of the existing chinese hospital building at 845 jackson st. to serve as an outpatient center. the subject property is located on the south side of jackson street within the chinatown residential neighborhood commercial district. the project is intended to bring the chinese hospital facilities into compliance with state law and improved the hospital's ability to survive a major earthquake. the bulk of the new building are driven by the programmatic needs of the hospital. to provide state-of-the-art patient care and to comply with contemporary space and privacy standards for hospitals and to provide a new 22-bed skilled nursing facility. the proposed general plan amendments will amend the chin

according to sequel law, we only have to -- ceqa law, we do not have to approve the eir if we do not agree -- which we have all been discussing. to that point, i think the eir is very clear on the significant unavoidable impact that this project would cause. we have to decide whether or not we think that unavoidable impact is mitigated will. many of us do not believe that it is. we believe the document, at least, identifies that the impact is significant and there is an environmentally superior alternatives available to us. that is what i would say on this point. it is not about whether or not the project is great or not great. it is whether or not, for the threshold of what ceqa seems to require, i've been trying to find out the project description of should actually say. i will said the project objectives in this eir are very similar to project objectives in many other e i ours -- eirs that we see. we prioritize their objectives -- in the language, i guess that is how the document is supposed to be written. but we have to exercise discretion in choosing the alternatives we might wa

our information is that they have not even completed the ceqa process. this has been a subject of great congressional interest. it would be helpful to get an update on where they are in the ceqa process. here we are in 2012, almost to the end of the contract. it would also be helpful to have a response to the status of how pier 31.5 -- it is mentioned in the staff report that there are limits to the trucks that can go in and out. that is a very serious situation. whether there is any progress with addressing that issue. lastly, we would ask that a status report be provided to the commission about the repairs appear 1.5 -- at pier 1.5. they are supposed to complete repairs by the end of the year in order to receive credits. we want to find out if that project is on track to be completed. obviously, cars are parked their everyday and it is a concern to the public. we wanted to put these questions forward with the hope that the commission could work with staff to get some progress ports. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

in ceqa,

but i want to talk about an important issue, the consideration of a range of alternatives under ceqa. there is a requirement that a reasonable range of project alternatives be taken into account. i want to follow up on the comment that was made about that. under the case law that has interpreted ceqa on this, there has to be a meaningful analysis of alternatives. that does not mean you have to consider all alternatives but you have to consider all reasonable alternatives. i want to know if that happened. >> commissioner campos, supervisor chiu, yes, i believe that we cover a reasonable range of alternatives. we looked at the public meeting for the eir what the public said about the things it wanted to see in terms of different programming and we tried to take those suggestions and come up with alternatives that could be fully analyzed. we also have a number of eir alternatives that were considered but rejected. we even looked at those to see why they did not work and did an analysis there. in ceqa, it does not say we cannot do analysis because it will cost a lot of resources and the p