let's say west sunset is feasible. let's assume that west sunset is feasible and less impact full. then they beat l.a. location for this project. if the objectives of our park system of our community points toward beach l.a., are you still arguing that we would be compelled by ceqa to move it to west sunset? >> yes given the state of the information today because the final eir at xo 17 states the playground would attain the project's basic objectives. avoid the impact, and be feasible. those are the three ingredients for an alternative that must be implemented. supervisor wiener: what if the shelle were to achieve those goals from the community's view or rec and park's view in a more appropriate way? i still saying that ceqa would compel going with the other feasible alternative? >> no. the information compels adoption of west sunset. >> there could be disputes about the fact but i wanted to clarify. 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

let's say west sunset is feasible. let's assume that west sunset is feasible and less impact full. then they beat l.a. location for this project. if the objectives of our park system of our community points toward beach l.a., are you still arguing that we would be compelled by ceqa to move it to west sunset

, and we are looking at feasibility, my point is the possibility of expansion, that is still feasible. whether it meets some other objectives, that is something we can decide, but i think it is important for us to make that clarification about the feasibility. >> there is a possibility of expansion, and this alternative is feasible. >> thank you. >> you are on the roster, supervisor wiener. you want to speak? any other questions for our city departments? seeing none, why don't we hear from the project sponsor a? >> president chiu, members of the board of supervisors, i am not to dr. brown ouer. he is in turkey. i am here in his stead. it is my pleasure to speak to you this evening. i want to thank you for holding this hearing, and especially your tenacity to hold it for so long. before my colleagues express our position as to why you should not hold the eir and deny the appeal, let me take a moment to reflect on where we may be or where we are. i know questions have been raised, and it might not be possible to reach a conclusion of holding the eir and denying the appeal tonight. i am

but that might be feasible. it woul huge excavation but i think they're taking up the whole sidewalk anyway so that might be possible. >> thank you. >> i would be curious from the -- from the project sponsor if that's something that you would be open to attempting. with obviously -- in consultation with -- >> i think it's better -- realistically, we would just buy them eight new trees and have them planted. because the work and labor and destruction to go and do what they just suggested is really not worth it. not feasible. but our plan is to again replace the existing tree experience with new ones and more. so our 11 trees should equal what's happening with the eight trees now. and there's no loss of enjoyment now. because there is lots of construction going on there. and by the time we're done, the trees will be up. so to the daily neighborhood pedestrian, there should be no impact at all if we remove these trees right now. >> are you comfortable agreeing to the specifications of the department? >> i believe w

local operating subsidy creates an operationally feasible project that is then able to leverage other state, federal, and private funding. and i think i mentioned that in order for other resources to consider our applications eligible, we have to show that it will cash flow for a time span of 20 years, and that is where the subsidy comes in. it is the city's intent that, to the greatest extent possible, other non-city resources replace lost assistance whenever such resources are available. recipients of losp must agree to work diligently with city staff to identify and obtain other potential operating assistance if and when it becomes available. we just recently had one of our projects, veterans comments, move off the local operating subsidy list, because we were notified that the city and county of san francisco not 200-section 8's, so the project will apply for 60 of the vash section 8's, and it has been awarded 15 mckinny, so all the units will be supported by other federal subsidy. the next slide is going to show your numbers the plan called for the creation of 3000 units. moh has

way to mitigate such an effect, including a feasible alternative. the revised eir does not contain significant new information. therefore, it does not require recirculation. please note that the revised eir that was sent to you on june 14 contains page number references and headers that are inaccurate. these errors do not change the substance of the eir and will be corrected when the final eir is finalized, if it is certified. the eir discloses a number of impacts, including less than significant impacts and impacts that can be mitigated. there is one impact which remains significant and unavoidable. despite implementation of mitigation measures. this is the demolition of the existing church building on the project site, which is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact on historic resources. if you certify the eir and should decide to approve the project, you will need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration that explains how the benefits of the project outplayed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. -- outweighed the u

it is still feasible. superviso

avoid the impact, and be feasible. those are the three ingredients for an alternative that must be implemented. supervisor wiener: what if the shelle were to achieve those goals from the community's view or rec and park's view in a more appropriate way? i still saying that ceqa would compel going with the other feasible alternative? >> no. the information compels adoption of west sunset. >> there could be disputes about the fact but i wanted to clarify. 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:

it is feasible, and it is available to adopt. >> i appreciate your saying that. they do not object the alternatives. and when it may not achieve as well as the proposed project before us. it does not mean the objective as well as the proposed project. >> could you walk me through -- i apologize if the questions seem repetitive. i think it is a complicated statute. could you clarify why it was determined that it would not realize the overarching objectives as much as the proposed project? >> one day is it would not meet the objective of providing continuous care of your good -- providing continuous care. there would be a strong possibility that they would be decommissioned and that it would not be functioning so there would be a provision temporarily. good thought was not one of the objectives we did that was not one of the objectives, so that was one, and there are a few others. good >> are you saying that one of the outcomes is disruption of care, because of disruption of the larger hospital might not meet its time line? a wax the phasing would require the hospi

this is the task of the decision maker based on what it determined to be feasible. we just lay out the analysis and show how the alternative meets the objectives compared to the proposed project but we do not say which alternative for modification should be chosen. >> you talked earlier about how the alternative did not meet some of the objectives. can you talk more about that? >> we discussed some of the objectives that would not be met as well as the proposal. all the main one was the disruption to the continue of care, we tried to say that due to constraints at st. luke's campus, we would have to redesign the program says that there was a possibility that the hospital tower we would like to keep open, keep it open during construction of the basement hospital may have to be shut down because there is not enough room to build all of this stuff. this would be against the recommendation of the panel that emphasized continuous care being provided. that was one of the main objectives that was not being met. there were others as well. supervisor campos: one issue was ab

this case, the conclusion of the dpw director was that it would not be feasible to build this building because of the impact to the trees during the construction, so it was not just convenient to the building, it was impact to the trees. commissioner hillis: and do you share that opinion? >> yes, it the building is billed as proposed, i do. it is likely that they extend well belong -- -- well beyond the drip line of the tree, and i think there would be a very definite impact. president hwang: if i miss characterize this, i am sorry, but might understanding is that you cannot build where there are interesting trees. is that the situation here? not you, but dpw is potentially trying to build where the trees are? i know there is one in a footprint of the building itself, and you cannot get around that, but do you know what i am talking about? as i understand it, based on the limited amount of testimony i heard, when you are designing your building and determine where to place it, this one is obviously going to the property line, so if it is doing that such that it would impact those trade

the first one is to incorporate green infrastructure into the projects where feasible. the second strategy is to develop standards for green infrastructure. we have been talking to you a lot about green infrastructure. later you will hear our approach for how we can jump- start this with a working knowledge and training staff to take these projects on, building them to deliver and meet their performance level of service. >> a couple of things before we move on. back to the design store, and i do not want to start a discussion about the design storm, except as follows. my understanding is that these particular words, while the concept was clear from a technical standpoint, were misleading? as long as we are not changing the concept, if there is a better set of words you would like to put in there? >> the words that most engineers would like to put in there is the five-year storm. my belief is that no one but engineers know what that might mean in san francisco. most people would understand something about the amount of rain over how many hours, but clearly there is not j

decisionmakers can choose to adopt an alternative if they determine that to be feasible. with regard to the eir's discussion of jobs, the appellants in the original appeal challenged the use of 2001-2003 that showed that 49% of the employees live in san francisco. the planning department confirmed the three the cnr supplemental analysis, that the survey data taken at the california pacific campuses remains a valid and in a proper predictor of future conditions because employment numbers at these campuses remained stable. appellants state the department 's reliance on city policies to meet health and demand rather than analyzing the impact of individual projects is inconsistent. the eir quantified the housing demand to be created under the proposed lrdp. it analyzed the impact as an individual project by comparing this demand to the protective health and capacity within the city. this is inappropriate measure for determining the significance of this impact. the eir use the adopting housing element in its analysis. further, the comments and responses document included addit

dubious feasibility to begin with and start to address the range of issues that the united states and nato have with russia about a variety of different security threats which you know are serious and affect the entire world whether we're talking about climate change we're talking about non-state actors and terrorism we're talking about nonpolitical aeration these are serious issues that we have to be sitting down and talking about nato is an institution that has to find some kind of legitimacy twenty years after the end of the cold war it developed a kind of shall we say interim reason for being to go after rogue states so to speak to deal with the crisis in former yugoslavia more recently to deal with libya potentially to deal with syria but that really goes beyond what nato was designed to do which was collective security for europe specifically i personally think that the the recent summit was an attempt again they try to two years ago in lisbon to find some kind of rationale to keep nato going to keep a reason for spending so much money on this alliance and i don't think they fou

commission a case that they need to receive this 20% reduction in order to make their financial feasibility happen. the planning commission can review it. it will open up it for approval. if it is not the purview of the planning commission when they come in for this request, they are not limited to that specific request, but if approved by the planning commission, the project sponsor will have one year to initiate construction. if they fail to initiate construction in that year, they're eligible to receive a one-year extension administratively from the planning department. if they fail to do the construction after that one- year, they would have to return to the planning commission. supervisor campos: which projects would be entitled to this grandfathering? >> the second and the one i have here today is the most generous. it is any project that would be required to be an inclusionary requirement, so of a certain size. when we look at that pipeline, we see 31 projects, a potential 2300 units. that would be in this kind of category of eligibility. now, one thing that is important to note, all

they have to spend money on and to think decades down the line with such a system would be both feasible maybe and usable maybe and useful maybe is a big commitment and sad pathetic all systems russia opposes the system yes russia's been invited to participate if i were russia i would say look i spent my money on this but it that's another question so how do you think this will affect the relations between russia and meet on the future and maybe the u.s. even well i think missile defense is an unnecessary kind of. provocation shall we say for russia as nato expansion has been in the past we've of course reached out nato has reached out to russia to sit down to talk to have agreements but for the most part this has been seen by russia as just kind of superficial what i think russia wants is to be taken seriously in any kind of security discussions you know across your range or of course russia set up its own security discussions with central asian countries with china and so forth. i think that it would be useful for nato and the united states to say look we are now in negotiations with i

and there's no feasible maintenance means that can abate the hazard. so we ask that you grant the removal, conditioned upon we repalatial the eight trees with 11 trees as part of the landscaping plan that are equal or better value than currently existing. thank you. >> i have a question or a couple of questions. if this staging area that you had on the diagram you put on the overhead, can you put that, please, back up. is that -- are you saying that that staging -- can we have the overhead? the staging area, that's the only possible location for purposes of hoisting -- did you say unitized window system? >> that's correct. imagine that this is the building. >> ok. >> in front of you, folsom street. large panels that are shipped from china. typically you put pieces of a wall in the window. these are unitized premanufactured curtain wall systems that are shipped over large -- on large palettes and hoisted up. swinging by crane. and then moved onto the wall and affixed. so they have metal-glass-steel all connected. so they have to be hoisted and applied r

what was added, which is not part of the environmental document, there was a feasibility study that we had as -- during the informational presentation we had a few weeks ago which showed the relative costs to these alternatives. that is not an environmental issue. it substantiates. the other thing that is not an environmental issue, i will comment more during the comment. on the budget -- on the project itself, the regional housing assessment -- but regional housing needs assessment is not an environmental issue. you could bring that up during the comment period on the project itself, but it is not an environmental issue. finally, the issue of overriding considerations. that is something we have to take up after certification. if that occurs, that occurs during the comments. i will bring them up but that time. i think the document is complete, adequate, and accurate. my feeling is that we should certify its. commissioner sugaya: i have a question, but i do not know who to direct it to. the actual motion, i think we all understand it, was for approval, which did not garner enough votes.

project, integrating it into our programs to continue our community incentive grants programs as feasible. this chart shows you the impact of the ordinance and a large environmental protections and savings that we have approved overtime. today we are looking at the top two layers for the recommended layers. as we finish the validation process, staff began the urban water assessment mentioned earlier. this will find a plan for the system with each of eight major watersheds and how to address the challenges. we will be finding the recommended projects that we talk about the day and working with neighbors, communities, in stakeholders for solutions that are best for their neighborhood. first and foremost, we will be looking at performance to optimize the additional benefits that we see. so, green infrastructure has been discussed a lot today, but it may be new interest -- a new idea for many in the audience. we have a booklet for you and i. and it is a packet and a glossary that describes some of the key tools in technology. in essence, it is a set of engineered technologies that is slow to

there is new information the questions whether this proposed project is feasible. the project that was analyzed in the eir was based on operating functions which are false. the most current financial figures makes this project potentially unfeasible and were not able to optimally meat product objectives. i believe that the eir is not adequate, complete, or throw. if i had to vote on the appeal, the most responsible thing to do is to uphold the appeal. i am glad that the project sponsors announced that they would spend the next two weeks coming up with the structure for the board of supervisors. one that i assume would lead us on a project that could fully meet the project objectives. i think that is what the project should be focused on. >> president chiu. >> i want to thank everyone. the city staff, the project sponsor come up all of the members of the public that have come out and the work that everybody has done on this. i think everybody shares the goal of rebuilding these hospitals the right way. the decision we have in front of us is whether to vote on this p

the eir mitigation measures specify the most stringent, feasible mitigation known as tier 4 stan disappeared near term projects specified in detail mitigation measures based on a refined construction plan and an extensive feasibility analysis. near-term pressures require the use of level three does look predicament pelters. these are capable of producing a particular matters by 85%. appellants argue that the final eir cannot rely on the cities recently adopted reduction plan to claim that impacts will be less than significant or to mitigate ghd index because of deficiencies in the cities plan. appellants argued that additional mitigation should be required. the cities qualified ghd reduction strategy for the qualified plan meets the requirement because this plan was reviewed and they concluded that ghg reduction strategy meets the craig terry. iteria. is this my? i'm sorry. >> is your 15 minutes. thank you very much. i am sure there will be questions. i will start the conversation. so in the appellants appeal, they spend a lot of their time talking about transit issues. i wanted to talk abou

in regards to the privacy of public feasibility over that of any private concerns. i have submitted that and it was removed from the contents of the public. secondly, the statements by the member of the board that repeated abuse of eir's approving projects by repetition makes it feasible. i refer to your counsel as to whether this is possible or an abuse of power. secondly, there is a possible gas pipeline which has a urgent exposure and the department of public works and this board has refused to dig the hole to find out whether we are all in danger. third, there are thousands of health workers whose access to the union membership is being violated by a small minority of so-called representatives who have spent union dues to influence your vote. i think that is impossible, exercising culpability and abuse of power. i have more if you would like. i will take questions. president chiu: next speaker. thank you very much. >> my name is mary and i am a 40-year r.n. at saint luke's. if you look at the current plan, st. luke's look like it -- looks like a clinic. it does

space, whether it's feasible to colon colonize it. there are a whole range of experiments and tests we are going to be doing in the first couple of years with the shuttle that i think are going to define just exactly how well we can utilize space. >> she grew up watching the space program and now she is one of the select few destined to live and work in space. hal dale abc news houston. >> so this piece ran before any space shuttle fight had ever flown and the last time i talked to sally was probably about two years ago. we had a conversation about her being part of when i was at cnn the coverage of the very last shuttle mission. >> so when you -- when you did this lo those many years ago, did you have a sense that she was going to make history? >> well i hoped she was. i mean to have a friend a teacher, who could have done that was great. my finger were crossed but there was no guarantee that she was going to be the one but she was really good. she was really smart. >> she was your ta. i can't imagine there were too many women who we