measures. -- environmental and tax and mitigation measures. -- impacts and mitigation measures. we suggest that the commission adopt the measure before you. this concludes my presentation on this matter. thank you for your consideration. vice president wu: commissioner comments? commissioner antonini: i think the eir is complete, adequate, and accurate. as was mentioned by the staff report, the new comments are dressed in neat document and do not require any further -- are addressed in the document and not require any further response. i move to certify. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for certification of the environmental review document. on that motion, that motion passes unanimously. commissioners, we will go back into our public hearing and consider item 9a, b, c, d. 9a is adoption of ceqa findings. 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 ja

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

does this go towards mitigation? how should it be used? how should this information be used to? i use it to dole out treatment. that is how i thought we would kick start this seminar. i am happy to answer any other questions. i did not do this all by myself. i had a lot of individuals who helped me with this data. this research is all funded by the national research of health, your tax dollars. thank you for your attention. i will turn over to our moderator. thank you. [applause] >> actually, i would like to, i'm going to ask a few questions, but i was hoping we could get a debate going here rather than with me trying to ask intelligent questions and just have the very smart people just talking amongst themselves to educate us. so one of the questions that we're wanting to talk about today was the idea of free will in terms of the criminal justice system. and i would like to ask each of you, is there a definition of free will in the context of your individual work? we'll start with you, doctor. >> i would punt that one right over to david who is the expert in free will, and then

my view is that this evidence has not been particularly useful either as aggravation or as mitigation. so i have been doing an empirical study over the past six years now to look at, introduction in criminal cases. it's equivocal at best. it sometimes ends up being aggravating, but so far it hasn't panned out. why hasn't it panned out? in part because science isn't quite there yet in that we're able to see some things at a group level, but being able to talk bay single individual to look at their brain and to understand the extent to which their brain differences contribute to their behavior is very challenging. there just isn't enough data for that yet. you can say things at a groupwide level, though. and so kent mentioned earlier the case out of florida in the sue presume court graham in which the court said the juvenile should be treated differently with respect to life without the possibility of parole. the same happened in simmons where the court has treated juveniles differently. it may be the case we can start to do that. we can start to categorize people. we categorized a grou

we contacted the planning staff and others, to begin mitigating -- with all parties concerned. because there were concerns. after holding several stakeholder meetings, to mitigate -- and gather further information, we co-sponsored a community meeting on june 12 to allow everyone interested to find out more information about mark in their operations. -- monarch and their operations. we had a video for those not able to attend the meeting to be able to hear about their plans. open government, like you do here. so, the executive committee mediated with stakeholders, and binding settlement on june 20, to move forward an agreement that works for all parties, which you have in your packet. we're happy to see that they have complied with our concerns, and have improved their community relations, in this process. we asked the commissioners to review the minutes, that are enclosed in your consider it -- executive summary. we wish to commend everyone involved, especially the monarch's owners. if you have any questions i will be happy to talk. >> is there additional public comment? the pu

i want to move to the mitigation part of the project. that is going to be very, very important, particularly down towards market street and van ness. the neighborhood association provided the mta and relevant supervisors with a letter with keep medications we urge you to look at, particularly the intersection of page, franklin, and market, where you're going to see essentially, hopefully, a bicycle boulevard on page street and on franklin, not the one way -- on franklin, the one way is in dire need of improvements. we agree with the mta's conclusion in the document that in the long term, the traffic congestion in that corridor does not warrant accommodating more cars, but warrants by transit first -- a transit first approached. i also urge you to make sure the transit trains are not impacted. as the medications are not liberated, -- medications are not liberated, we need to take a good close look to preserve a cycle track. there are a lot of moving parts here. commissioner campos: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> at the last plan

second, under the second environmental principle, it would include the mitigation and mitigation of and adaptation to. it would be great to have that in there. also, on the use of -- you say limited resources. i would like to scratch ltd. and just say resources. we are really trying to conserve all resources, whether they are limited or not. and then the fourth comment i had was around the community benefits from the second section on social principles. to say something like a further contribution, to scratch to the promotion of, and just say evaluate alternatives for their contribution to our community benefits policy. not as much the promotion as much of the implementation, right? it is the first one under social principle. and it wo

it is a mitigation measure for the impact on the transit lines.tle bit different from having that payment be tied to a particular performance goal. in our eir analysis, we did not consider, we did not give them credit for their proposed program because it is uncertain to say whether it is going to work or not. what the eir it does do analysis on it is without credit for the program, but we do believe that it will work. it is an interesting concept to have it tied to a performance measure. >> if it turns out there is significant congestion, i would think that point, the hospital finances would be able to help supports additional mitigation. i do not think either cpmc or our city wants to see massive ingestion -- cut ingestion -- congestion in that are. i and a stand that doctors do not want to ride muni -- -i can imagine doctors would be happy to get on a cpmc shuttle that takes them to different campuses. could you talk about what specific commitments are here with regards to shuttles and other coordination services? >> yes. they are proposing to

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 unavoidable adverse environmental effects. that item is not before you now, but it is next on the agenda tonight. the document is adequate, objective, and accurate. this concludes my presentation on the matter and i'm available for any questions. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. commissioners, i have been asked if we could take a five-minute break so staff can do little bit more research. i would ask that we take a quick break, if that is all right. thank you. >> welcome back to the planning commission regular meeting for june 28. commissioner fong: thank you to everyone for

so how is this going to be mitigated? [bell rings] it is clear that there was no community outreach. the mitigations seem to be somewhat inadequate. there should be at least sign niche, because they will also sell cigarettes. how are they going to address the cigarette smoking nearby? we would like to see them get a license, but we would like to see it better mitigated for the community thank. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. next speaker, please. >> if there are any other speakers, lined up along the wall. >> good morning, supervisors. i have another map here. you can see the open spaces. within two blocks of this area, you have plazas, parking lots, parks. again, somebody could go into target, by a six-pack, and then drink it anywhere they want. clearly. and we have people coming from all over the world to our city, and this is what we do. and they come for the restaurants that are being put in the area and other things, and we have a theater, too. so literally, you can go to target and then walked in with you

they provided a memo a round traffic mitigation, and if i could quote a couple of aspects, it says under the planning department's impact, we are expecting a number of them to degrade to e or f, and in 20 plus years, 14 intersections will hit that, and they are stating five of the 14 intersections will be in the cathedral hill campus very good, -- cathedral hill campus area, and the final eir recognizes the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the anticipated traffic impacts to a lessened level either by 2013 or the year 2035, so their recommendation is that they need to have a traffic mitigation fund to ensure we will be able to get to the place. they use the model of the treasure island project, which set aside $5 million to support alternative modes of traffic if we do not reach 50% by the year when the 35, and i want to mention that, because that is just add additional information i have requested as well. >> just to address, if you would not mind sharing that, and i appreciate you would like answers to some of the questions, and i want to give my assurance i will assure they

2011 newsletter, so this is a resolution on cpmc, and it talks about what is proposed will cause on mitigated gentrification and a loss of currently affordable housing in the tenderloin area. now, in hearing some of the testimony from speakers before me, i feel that some may be speaking for the last time here. they will be greatly affected by this project and all the new employee is,4)÷ and i just know that something terrible is going to happen in regards to gentrification, but i would like to go on and make some comments about the hearvsou campos earlier expressed uncertainty and not confidence about this project. the report given by the transportation agency in relation to the traffic increase appears to be unbelievable, and i think everyone agrees that they were unbelievable. now, since i do not have much time, i would like to go on and say that cpmc's actions in the bay area and elsewhere riklis by speaks volumes, and what they say, what they promise is one dx but actions g than words. thank you. chair mar: thank you. i am going to call a few more names. sam, paul, monica, mike, merlina,

an issue we will deal with is whether the proposed mitigation that have been provided are enough, and frankly, there are two very different pictures of what could happen with the project when its online. one perspective is the trips will not amount to any additional congestion. there is a democrdifferent perspective that can lead to gridlock. wondering if you have any thoughts or comments on that. >> thank you for the very thoughtful comment and question. first of all, we have had some involvement cpmc proposal or initiative rather. i think it is terrific it falls of a location where both of the brt project will insi intersect. obviously the importance was look at. the van ness corridor has a concentration of senior housing that is happening every day, so this is really an ideal way to gauge -- location to talk about introducing high-quality transit. as the discussions continue, i am sure we will be available to provide for their clarity on what could be done in addition to what was already discussed as far as dealing with mitigation. i think that both, the persons of the project ther

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 about that for a few minutes. there are 4 categories of transit issues. we know this is a quarter that is already significantly congested. every day you can go down during rush hour -- some of the contract. we know that with this cathedral project, we are expected to see 20,000 person trips per day which are 20,000 net new wtrips. the appellants to raise the fact that your traffic analysis shows that you will have higher traffic volumes but less delay. i am trying to understand that. if you look at intersections like kate and market, franklin and sutter,

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 alternative is proposed within the range that has been analyzed, and you can essentially take pieces from the different alternatives that are analyzed, and combine it to create this other alternative -- that would fall within the range that has already been analyzed in the document. supervisor campos: in terms of the specificity of the level of the analysis, what is your view, in terms of the level of detail? >> ceqa does require that the alternatives presented in the eir meet most of the project sponsor's objectives, but they do not have to meet all of them. i think there are two parts to this answer. that is what the eir is required to include. when the decision makers are deciding whether or not to approve the project -- the city decision makers were planni