the people who determine that. >> maybe a slight alternative on that is to have the air quality district do that. there is a notice required from the air quality district because it is close to a school. there will have to be a process anyway. the suggestion would be to ask of the project sponsor make physical changes consistent with direction from the air quality district to minimize the fumes. >> i think that works. motion? >> second. >> those about work in terms of the -- does that make sense to you? >> they are going to have to go through a permiting process for air quality. >> if a commissioner calls you up, you certainly can.

>> you need to talk into the microphone. >> if you are going to make that condition, could you also include -- what this really constitutes -- we had a person come out envelope at of venice, and they indicated in his view known, it was cleare that if thy were close to the home they would invade the home. there is a nuisance code, which we reference, which prohibits anyone from coming into an area and imposing a noxious fume.

i would appreciate it if you would take that into consideration. there is no speculation as to whether or not it came from the painting booth. >> that may not be the case. there is a lot of industrial going on. remember the chicken place on mission street? i think there is that kind of technology. that is not something we can impose, but it is out there.

i will mention a restriction, the definition of hours that painting occurs, but i think we are ok the way we are. >> i do not see anything wrong with imposing some hours. >> if we could talk to a project sponsor and just ask them. >> when you are painting. >> we use it once a day, because we are a small business. good >> during that time, a 30- minute window appear eager -- 30-minute window.

>> monday through friday. >> i do not snow. the maker of the motion would have to be ok with it. >> as long as it has to do with the booze. -- booth. >> our project sponsor is ok with that? >> how critical is it to have that open and close? >> it is too long to have. we have not put any cars in at

all. >> i would like to have some situation where d r requester is are involved, rather than somebody coming out from the air quality district working with the project sponsor and saying, it is going to be raised 2 feet. >> we have no way to enforce that. we do not. >> you can enforce it by having the the are requester president, and then see what the recommended -- >> i trust the project sponsor will do the right thing. >> i am not saying i am not going to do the right thing.

why can they be there and say wouldn't it be better if it went to 5 feet or 10 feet or whatever? >> they are going to be experts about air quality, so i do not know. >> commissioner moore was aiming at something about how the air and works. goo>> they are asking for guida. that is what they do across the board. >> i feel like you are second- guessing the bay area quality

control management. >> they do not necessarily know any better than this guy. >> i want to say as far as leaving the door open, you see that on all buildings. it is actually more difficult for the buildings to watch out that no one steals them. >> they will obviously have some report. >> that would be public, right? >> what the public sponsor will have to do is once they obtain their permit, they will have to

do reporting on a regular basis end of tin of record on how many remissions and when volume -- obtain the record of how many admissions. >> they would know also. the d r requester. >> use second the motion. >> what are the steps?

>> maybe the best thing to do is talk to him directly. that is what we usually recommend, that people continue to engage. you seem like a reasonable person to me. you both do. >> i think of the heart is that we are heading into unknown territory, in proximity with noxious fumes, and it is our interest to figure out a solution that works for everyone. >> is basically sound like they are favorable to this, so we are not opposed to it.

we will continue to work with our staff. >> i was aware of the planning process and the districts coming into -- >> these guys are operating on the rules but currently exist. >> i could go with the. it is proposed, but it is likely to be adopted. >> i do not know. the concept is one that has caught our interest, but these are the kinds of things that caught arms interest.

-- caught our interests. >> our original plan was zero issue this. >> there are a couple of different kinds stereo -- different kinds. i think it issue is we live in mixed use districts. they do not look at the zoning lines. >> it state certain structural requirements of auto body shops.

>> they have the final say in terms of how to deal with that. i will let you continue to engage in dialogue with the project sponsor. comissioner sugaya: they do not think air quality is going to address that issue. this will not block voters but will emanate in their apartments common region -- will not block odors that will emanate in their apartments.

>> i would like to have the owners come in, because i would like to see how they give to potential buyers the information, because this is coming out of lot, not just industrial but in neighborhood commercial districts, anytime anyone wants and entertainment permit in terms of noise, so i think the coexisting of uses is something i would like to understand a little better by people moving into these areas. i am getting low. >> my understanding of the motion is to approve this project for the recommendations of the management district for

whatever the recommendations are, but the hours will be paid until 6. -- 8:00 until 6:00, and the project sponsor will continue working with staff. is there anything in addition to that? on that motion -- [calling votes. comissioner sugaya: no. that motion passed 5-1. commissioners, you are now at general public comment, where members of the public may address you on issues. members of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes. they may not address you on any

item that has appeared on his calendar. >> is there any general public comments herrman? good luck with this. >> did you close the meeting? >> there is a general public comment coming. >> hello, can you hear me ok? >> weekend. >> we send this to you. -- we carry on. >> we sent this to you. i am tim. >> only one microphone works at a time. >> you can take three minutes each. >> we wrote it carefully to adhere to 3 minutes. in august, 2003, you or whoever

was in the commission has motion 16636, which authorized the mixed use condominium project on 24 street, and it consists of two commercial units and six residential units. all of the units have been sold to individual owners, but the problem is they have become worse. this is despite decisions and you took with subsequent cases presented to you by the developer in 2005 and in 2007. >> the residential units were intended for seniors 62 and older who intended to live there as primary residences, and we

are the only to people who actually live in the building. goothing the commission and intd -- did the commission intends to create vacation homes for out of state residents to visit their friends and family? i see you nodding no, but we have been trying to work with the planning department on this, and as of today common they are saying they cannot resolve their restriction. they say they cannot for said. -- forfeit.

>> that motion also stated it would be regenerated and this includes dust and odors. if the planning department is trying to legalize a turning -- a tanning salon, there are odours affecting our house, and they finally installed a ventilation system has an affect. >> your time is up. >> they can combine its. >> you are to take another three minutes? can we do that? >> now in addition to the fumes,

and we are wondering is a nail salon that produces cancer- causing fumes appropriate? >> i think you both have three minutes. i do not know if we should be doing this. >> we will find out. there was one instance where our project was approved for a senior housing, and they came back trying to reverse the approval so it was not senior

housing, but usually there were certain incentives, exceptions that come with senior housing developments, and one has to do with parking and density, so i want to know if there are requirements over who has to be living there were some of the rules that govern it. i am not familiar with it, but it would be good to find out. thank you for bringing this to our attention. >> thank you for your time. >> we will get more information to determine whether or not this is the right one. is there additional public comment on items that are not on today's calendar?

seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned. >> in memory of steve jobs. >> howard graves and the senior housing advocate who passed away last week, and he was very active in the lgbt community. >> objection. >> with one objection. >> not to howard grace. >> with that, the meeting is adjourned.

>> despite efforts street violence continues to effect san franciscans and it is not just important to be part of the gang prevention network we want to learn the best practices that you have to offer. we are going to be very active especially when we're experience the realignment. i know the chief is here to

share with you what we are doing already. we won't be victims of our own decisions. we have to do better and we have to encourage everyone to do better with less. so, we are already launching our city's realignment plan and through her leadership although probation is collaborating with the multiple city agencies we are creating new assessment centers as a result of welcoming in our additional prisoners. we are increasing health and service agencies and also providing analytical support to manage and monitor that program. we are not going to be victims of realignment. we have to be ahead of it and i look forward to the recommendations that all of you will share with us and you will definitely have a mayor who will join the other mayors in leadership and we will do our best. thank you very much.

>> very quickly, to reflect on which each of the mayors has said, after the whereases in the call it action the points are state and federal government to support policy preference for comprehensive action planning to prevent and reduce gang violence. in order to create community well-being. second, state and counties to involve city governments as full partners in the current realignment efforts particularly with respect to county functions as probation, parole, public health and child welfare that all have a effect. the state and other stake holders to join the network in creating valuation methodology which will inform local, state and nationwide comprehensive practice. finally, this is something i have been working on a great deal as all of you have, as you all are bringing in many funding

sources and streams in our comprehensive effort you are hampered by federal policy. so the last recommendation state and federal tkpwofrpts to continue to step up efforts to distribute funding that is flexible, adequate and coordinated so as to support comprehensive, balanced, violence reduction approaches including multi-agency and long-term funding. that is the core of the clause. we have a few minutes and we are fortunate to have two other mayors. you have two pop-up mayors to endorse this. tom, why don't you come and then [inaudible]. >> organgood morning. i would like it thank you for your gracious hospitality. we did some time