will do nothing to mitigate the tremendous noise that was just spoken of. what's happened is 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning on the weekends, busloads of people are showing up and lining up out in front of the brickyard so they can come in and once those doors are open, all that noise will be projected out into the street. you will hear the planning department say the proposed conditions are not mitigation measures under ceqa. and yet the identified noise impacts are not ceqa impacts. i'm here to tell you that no court is going to believe that argument. permitting agencies don't talk about environmental impacts and mitigation measures in both ceqa context and in a nonceqa ways. these words do not have different meanings at different times. it doesn't pass a straight test that they are engaged in ceqa talk at one time and nonceqa talk at another. in an exemption case in marin county the county found adverse impacts for a construction of a new home near a stream. but the county said it eliminated those mitigation -- those impacts by adopting conditions of appro

process and once you get that information and information about mitigation, then you're in a position to decide how these boxes should or this technology should go forward. but to say we're not going to do an environmental review because we think they already have a right to be there, i've seen that also with cell towers and i had a case in southern california where there was a question about placement of a cell tower and even though there was federal reemmings argued, the city had the power to apply its zoning ordinances and other land use preferences to something that they knew they couldn't say no to completely. supervisor wiener: so it's your position then that after an e.i.r., the city would have a right to place conditions on the project but not maybe or maybe not actually kill the project. >> i have no idea. i was talking -- tauk taking your hypothetical. i don't know that to be true or false. but when you have an application, you follow ceqa which gives you the obligation to apply feasible mitigation and alternatives. now, if something's legally infeasible because you don't ha

ncaa may not work and if the mitigation fails you have an environmental impact.the board to have the board even consider approving a -- there's been no approval of this project, number one. that needs to happen

we are honored and delighted to be able to sponsor this 6 seismic mitigation event. we also want to thank our partners and the insurance institute for home safety. this is our first forum and are pleased to be joined in our current efforts by our colleagues and co-sponsors, the engineering earthquake institute and the pacific engineering research center. i will try to be briefed today because we have two important people to speak, but i wanted to talk about the work of this forum and reflect on what we can achieve together in the next two days drawing on the disbursed knowledge base provided by each of you today. participating in this form are representatives and leaders of many disciplines within the field of earthquake mitigation. we hope there will be focusing on creating linkages between researchers and practitioners which will ultimately benefit policymakers, who will encourage safer communities in the face of catastrophic events. as with all forms of a sponsor, we do not charge anyone to attend or pay any of the speakers. all of the in speakers -- all of the sp

they did mention mitigation issues there would like to have. the organization actually states that we should make sure during the implementation on the bay bridge to make sure there are adequate signs so that motorists approaching the ramparts can follow those guidelines. i want to ask the staff. it is this the same types of thing that you find on the bay bridge currently, where motorists are required to stop and on the light proceed? anyone that does not abide by those rules would be in violation of traffic laws. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner richardson: here we are again, to mitigate what we know has already worked in the bay area. so to me that is not an issue. i was very impressed to read a comment of the san francisco bicycle coalition, a membership 12,000 strong. they have come forward to support the eir. to me, that is very significant. that shows that the users in san francisco took the time to read the eir and are in favor. they look forward to development of this precious property in san francisco. i also read the co

[laughter] so in counter to their argument that mitigations were mitigations under ceqa, the department said the commission was applying conditions above and beyond ceqa to address these concerns that were sound. the board agreed and up held the action unanimously. so the hearing request from supervisor wiener was the only new introduction that i wanted to share, and that concludes the board report. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. scott sanchez with your board of appeals report. the board heard two items that night. the first is a notice of violation and penalty for 3506 16th street. this is ike's place. so the board heard the item just to consider a reduction in the penalty amount. they had accrued 48 days worth of penalties at $250 a day for $12,000 total. the board ultimately reduced that, finding that it would have been a hardship for them to close because of the number of people which they employed. they reduced it to $150 a day for $7,200 total. the second tight elm is 161-165 newman street. a variance decision for a property in r.h.q. a variance req

first, we may not all agree with the mitigation measures. this document goes through significant unavoidable impact and the mitigation measures taken. we may not agree on what those are. we may not think they go far enough, but amounted to highlight some areas. there was a reference to a 2006 plan, and the project description in the most recent plan has 8000 housing units. so the project description -- people mentioned there was a discrepancy. but the project description in my document represents the product we are discussing. i do not see consistency there. in terms of the changes mentioned, all of the changes reduce the impact. there are less tall buildings and less parking spaces. that is a reduction in the impact. that is exactly what ceqa is trying to achieve. the whole purpose is to mitigate impacts. but i wanted to point out a few things. public resources code section 2109 2.1 -- -- 2109.21 says that significant new information is what determines whether an eir needs to be recirculated. in a supreme court decision related to laurel he

>> you are nonitem 13 and the hearing is over an appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration. >> i am jeremy bauer from the planning commission situation and the item before you is the preliminary appeal mitigated negative declaration for case number 200.0891e. the proposed project would replace a perimeter gasoline service station currently in use as a surface parking lot with a five-story, 52 1/3 foot high, approximately 50,000 square foot building with 18 residential unit and over 7100 square feet of ground-floor retail use, and a below grade 18-car parking garage. the existing service station building, a one-story, 1,800 square foot structure constructed in 1970 is presentfully use as a parking garage. the existing building is considered a category c for purposes of ceqa review and is not a historic resource if 10,925 square foot corner parcel site is outside of but across the street from the liberty hill historic district which extends north to 20th street. the project site is within the intermission cultural resource survey area, the mission reconstruction historic dist

not only are the mitigation measures not adequate to mitigate the most significant impacts listed as 40 to 42 in your yellow pages, the e.i.r. says that the mitigation measures as to increased bus and ferry service will depend on identifying funding, approvals by other agencies and additional environmental review. this is not acceptable under ceqa. this is hypocritical and misleading. [bell] >> it's a great project and we hope you pass it and make it happen. thank you so much. president cheng: thank you. >> i would just like to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues and others and want to emphasize our concern about the exemption of the project from future regulation. we feel this is inappropriate strategy for securing the project and we leave it at that. thank you very much. president cheng: any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: ceqa asks us, have the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts of the project. i leave that hanging and i'm going to quote from livable cities, letter on the governa

we have also provided mitigation measures in the e.i.r. that bolster that program so that any materials that are found would be dealt with propetsly. -- appropriately. if you'll refer to the mitigation measure in the document, there is an extensive measure that requires consultation with a wildlife biologist as to when buildings are proposed and also allows for changes in the way that bird strikes with dealt with over time as the technology and understanding of bird strikes evolves and we believe this measure is very robust and would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. the evaluation of issues in the e.i.r., the implementation of the project would result in unavoidable environmental immacts that could not be mitigated to a significant level in transportation, noise, air quality, wind and biological resources. in conclusion, we suggest it is accurate and adequate and the procedure for it, the final e.i.r. complies with the ceqa, the ceqa findings. this concludes my presentation. at this time, i would like to introduc

he also used as is a mitigation aspect. it showed people different projects that they could to protect themselves in the wake of disasters. and then after the severe storms, the tornadoes that came through the month we had this for netizen february. and we dealt with a lot of flooding in may and march and april and then december again. and then we had more tornadoes and we saw were there was a need for us to transition from the prepared this and mitigation side over to response and recovery on the social science. socially we began putting out messages on facebook and twitter talking about the specific areas need to take cover. the national weather service were not on any sites at that time. the information we receive from them, we would pass it on. in the state of arkansas, the way that the locals can get the sirens governed by the local individual jurisdictions. some jurisdictions use tornado sirens. some news reversed 911 and things of that nature. we wanted to make sure that people had an ability to give him permission f

mitigation strategy -- there are no specific mitigation policies for earthquakes that are in place. there was one policy that was in place in san francisco and los angeles to identify allun reinforced structures and to upgrade and replicate those structures and we have succeeded in that effort. to upgrade all the remaining structures and the infrastructure out there -- >> i am talking about houses in the midwest that are just moved. >> i'm sorry i don't have experience with that. >> these are maybe $100,000 homes that are moved to a different part of town and it is cheaper. it is expected to flood on those parks and instead of losing these homes, it helps these kind of things. towns on the river need to look at this more across the country. >> in both cases, it is a matter of culture and values. if we want a big house and once a showcase and we like some of the jazzy features, we go for that or maybe we are thinking of the safety of the kids and whether we are putting our kids to bed in the flood plain at night. that is not so good but we can change the culture. i was encouraged on

it has played an important role in mitigation activities. i happen to be involved in a study in 2005 where we looked at the effect of mitigation and how our -- each dollar that we spend is paying off. the study was conducted of the institute of building sciences. there were several conclusions but the key one, probably the most important one was that for every dollar spent in litigation we are saving $4 in loss in future loss. with recent budget cuts and states getting deeper in debt we have seen major reduction and settling up in many places, i out right elimination of mitigation programs. the result will be devastating. if future -- if we reduce our research mitigation budget, we will not be benefiting from the current advances and we will be putting our communities at even greater risk. moreover, we need to invest funds specifically to study the great earthquake of march 11th. this is the first time that a magnitude 9 earthquake has hit a country that has a building and infrastructure that's very similar to ours, that has design practices

that is perhaps a different impact as to whether or not it mitigates the impact. the tower height of the most prominent building, block c-1, has been proposed to be lowered to 450 feet, a net reduction of 200 feet. but in addition, now this particular c-1 block will be shared with the historic naval chapel. the original plans had proposed abolishing the historic building. the tower height in the three other buildings it is proposed to be lowered from 450 to 350 feet. this is showing the most recent version in the april 5 plan. that reductions in historic building preservation are just a reasonable response to the many particular plants. the fact they constitute a major change looking at the impact of the eir. in addition, the newly proposed retention of the historic navy chapel has impact on tall buildings in the immediate vicinity of the historic resources and have not been considered tand the impact as previously described is not accurate. i'd like to mention a couple other things. while there are reductions in height, there are subtle increases in the proposed

mechanism to ensure mitigation of sea level rise, if frankly we don't get a better mitigation for tsunami that's not even in the plan yet . also, i have also heard from bright line defense project that the local hiring guarantees in this project are also threatened by the unstable situation with regard to the funding mechanisms of this project. i heard from independent parties that they were going to file an appeal today, so the city attorney should check and see if they have filed that appeal, whether you can vote. but the nailed-down funding to make sure these mitigations happen is not necessarily there. and i believe there is going to be an appeal. and i strongly urge you to wait until that appeal is completed and then make these decisions before you commit your enterprise agencies to something that could ends up costing you a lot of money, no matter who's liable. because if you get hit with a flood it doesn't matter whether somebody else is liable. if your infrastructure goes down in a big way, it's on the agency. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm karen knowles pierce

so the assumption would be there must be times when the consider mitigating factors. >> sure, yes. another example would be an individual, the gentleman came in a wheelchair, elderly person who is hard of hearing. he could not stand up from the wheelchair. his wife took a break at the time. the officers were there. we knew for sure, deep in all of our hearts, there's person -- this person did not have the capability of checking the identities of the person purchasing the cigarettes. at that time, the department did reduced the amount. vice president garcia: thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, sir, you have three minutes of rebuttal if you have anything more to say. did you have more to setno? ? ok. dr. ocho, i assume you have nothing more? ok. then, commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner hwang: my inclination is to uphold the department, especially in light of the fact the school is across the street. it is not relevant to me whether or not the person who sold the cigarettes, a true statement or not, was not an employee at the time. p

look at these all together, think about the criteria, adopt mitigation measures whambings needs to be done to -- measures, whatever needs to be done. look at it all at once and then of course everyone supports the upgrade of this utility and the service that is being proposed. but it can't be done on a categorical exemption. thank you, unless there are questions. president chiu: thank you. supervisor wiener: hi. so, there are a couple of things that have been a real concern and question for me and i haven't gotten a lot of -- as much certainty as i would like about them. and what i want to ask you is, and these are all things that at&t states, and i want to ask you if we aassume for the sake of argument that they are true, if e.i.r. would still be required and they have to do with the location, where they put the boxes, and also whether any other carriers are going to enter the market and put additional boxes afterwards which is a concern that has been raised. so if we, at&t, states that it is physical yim possible to truly underground these boxes in a way that doesn't cause a protrut

thank you. -- on less this mitigation is here -- unless this mitigation is heavier debt to. crossers greater -- thank you. >> what are the hours of operation dominant -- operation? a >> 7:00 until 10:00. >> did i read in your breeze that -- your brief that the employee was fired? is that right? >> i do not recall, but i think a more adequate description that he is not an employee. he is the son of one of the owners. he is not an employee. it is an extended family -- yemenis, and they operate these convenience stores gregor often, they have family members pitching in. >> thank you. >> i actually have a question. you said this is a tourist- heavy population. are there other stores in the vicinity? is the primary clientele tourists? is that the reason it was inserted in the breeze. >> to point out is a rather impressive record to not be cited before, because the id you typically get -- this is posted in liquor stores. people turn up with a dutch license, a passport from bolivia. it is sometimes difficult to look at a month and the date -- it is not to make was a thing about it.

there are green screen walls to mitigate against the walls of the actual hospital. if -- in the middle of this be drawing is the automobile drop-off. now about 18 feet down from the left hand side of this drawing. this will be an environment that will take care of all car access to the site and provide relief for our loading and provide garage access so this drop-off is extensive and really becomes the main lobby for the building at this level 78 in all cases loading on the sites has been completely internalized. same is the case here. et -- our loading docks on frank lynch -- franklin are head in and head out and the same is true on st. luke's. at the right, you see the main abscess point off van ness, which extends the street scape into the building and the quality and scale of the linear park. there are now a couple of renderings there -- that are a walking tour of the proposal on vanness. if you tur

there are green screen walls to mitigate against the walls of the actual hospital. if -- in the middle of this be drawing is the automobile drop-off. now about 18 feet down from the left hand side of this drawing. this will be an environment that will take care of all car access to the site and provide relief for our loading and provide garage access so this drop-off is extensive and really becomes the main lobby for the building at this level 78 in all cases loading on the sites has been completely internalized. same is the case here. et -- our loading docks on frank lynch -- franklin are head in and head out and e

does that rest period, is that something you feel would be the most effective in mitigating fatigue? >> one of the 12 recommendations was the nine-hour break between the evening shift and the quick turn to day shift. that was backed with science and said that would give us an extra hour of sleep in our sleep bank as we were rotating through our shifts. that was backed with science and that was one that we recommended. the extra hour between -- i refer to the scientists here. the extra hour between the day shift and midnight shift because you're starting your shift later in that deprivation period of midnight to 6:00 in the morning when your sir cadeyan rhythms are expecting you to sleep, that we don't support it. we're working with the administration to show if science supports mitigating the fatigue we're 100% on board. if 10 hours is better than 9, it shows that 9 hours has the most benefit between shifts than 10 hours. and if there is 9 hours are supported from a day shift to midnight shift we will be 100% behind that. right now it shows opposite because you're starting your midni

ceqa does not allow mitigation and measures to be applied. this was meant to indicate that the commission has the ability to apply conditions of approval above and beyond levels necessary. the transcripts indicate that it was responsive to community concerns and required that some of them to close. they require the conditions that the patio doors are closed after 10:00 tonight. although the terms impact and mitigation our terms under -- with specific meetings, they are used in general and planning and are not limited to use only in the ceqa context. additional conditions of approval go above and beyond what was required. the department conducted a thorough analysis of the project under the guidelines. it is importance to keep in mind that this is located in a neighborhood commercial zoning district. this is located along a street with existing high ambient noise levels. the entertainment commission has conducted readings and concluded that the project is operating with a noise ordinance levels. although the noise impact determined was less th