>> >> >> the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence any cell phones. when speaking to the commission if you care to do state your name for the record. >> wou, moore, richards, fong. we do expect commissioner

johnson. >> the first item item one case 1 case 1423 ocean avenue is proposed for continuance to november 20, 2014. further commissioners on your agenda under your consent calendar for item three, 14-027c at 22 polk streak. we received a report from board president vice-president chiu's office to continue the matter one 1 week to september 18, 2014. i have no other proposed continuances and no speaker cards. >> any public comment on the continuance calendar? seeing none. the calendar is moved.

>> commissioner? >> moving to item 3 as mentioned. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue? >> commissioner -- i have a question. the question is in regards to the item that is item no. 1 that's being continued i was recluse when the item was heard, but as far as the continuance i can vote on that? >> that's correct. commissioner antony as a

procedure item. item 1 and 3. commissioner hillis, commissioner moore, commissioners richards and commissioner president wou. that places you under your consent calendar. all matters are considered to be routine bind the planning and maybe act by a single roll call. there will be no discussion of these items unless a member of the public or staff request and at that point it will be pulled. case 20000c 766 vallejo street for conditional use permit and 613q 1955 beach street request for condominium conversion.

>> any comment on the items? public comment is closed. commissioner antony? >> move to approve items 2 and 4. >> commissioner antony, commissioner hillis, johnson, moore, richards, fong and president wu. that passes 7-0 and places you under commission matters under 5, commission comments and questions? >> commissioner antony? >> yeah, i noticed in yesterday's examiner the state or federal government had released the latest population figures and revealed that san francisco had grown into it's highest number 837,000 which

was an increase from 11-12,000 which represents 1.4 percent from last year. as we move to build more housing, i think that's a good thing. however the one part of it that was a little bit alarming and would be good for us to try to delve deeper while we had a net increase in terms of area counties if you join them altogether aggregately, most people came from those counties. there were counties that were the other way around but aggregately there were more. there is no real way to find out but it would be very instructional if we had a way to find people who left san francisco for housing a n and the adjoining housing is not across the country, it's a move that other factors are

involved. many are economic, of course, but there probably are a lot of them that have to do with quality of life, perceived issues around crime or the quality of schools or traffic or other things that people may object to and also one thing that we are short on is units that have three or more bedrooms. i think we have only 20 percent of our housing stock and obviously there are cases that are hybrids where someone could probably afford a one bedroom but the couple has two children and unrealistic to stay in san francisco and of to buy or rent a one bedroom apartment. anyway, it would be very instructive if there is a way to find out what the breakdown of number of bedrooms per unit is in the other large cities in america. i would expect since they have a lot more single family

homes in other cities, probably a lot more than 20 percent three bedroom units and it's something we seriously have to look at if we can increase the number relative to our housing stock. >> commissioner richards? >> a couple of things. last week i was struck by folks coming up during public comment especially at the property on south van ness, you don't understand there is a project in the neighborhood and cumulative effect happening. please understand this. i served on octavia cac and found maps that staff had presented because we had the same questions and maybe on the large projects a lexus was able to prove that. it puts the project in

context rather than we're dealing with the project but to see contextually what we are doing. i guess the second one came up last week. i asked the question around what was the current ownership rate and it was the clemente project. nobody knew. i actually went back and asked director ram and he pointed me to olson. was able to go institute community -- to the community census. to commissioner antony's point, not only talks about percent of renters, percent of owners with cars and number of bedrooms and how people commute to work, incredibly contextual where we are asking for increaseden entitlement.

i want to know if you are pass out the report to the commissioners, that would be great. those are a couple things that helped me make better decision because there is more data. i like to get the context in what we are approving these projects in. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, department matters. item no. 6. >> if i may respond to richards we would be happy to provide that. the american is survey is what they conduct in lou of the long form. remember there was a shorm -- short form and they replaced that with this is survey which is not directly a census itself but based on other

factors like moving advance and other information they collect. the only word of caution is that accuracy is not the best. >> what's interesting is i actually filled out the is survey this year. my lot address was picked, finally a census working knocked on my door and said you have to fill this out. it was 30 pages, it had a lot of information. it asked how many cars i owned and did i commute to work. if people answered honestly, it helps. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, item 7, review of past vnts -- events of the board of supervisors. there is no historic commission meeting. >> good afternoon. i will present the report

activities for september 8th. the board of supervisors passed the public use open spas space for the plaza. by supervisor kim requesting information from the san francisco unified school district and projection enrollnt projections and related information needed to accommodate enrollment due to development. and the other question by supervisors wiener about density limits. this ordinance will amend the planning code to permit exceptions of the dwellings when adding dwelling units. it would be deleting requirement that new in law unit constructed in and near the castro street be limited

and will be correcting cross-referencing and code language and the last by supervisor kim, avalos, chiu and mar about distribution in the conversion in the proposed central market plan area. this is approving in interim moratorium to conducting repair uses in the central south of market plan area which is bound by the market streets on the north town and streets and sixth street to the west. i also have a memo regarding the short-term rentals ordinance -- for your review. that concludes this presentation. thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last nighttime. the first was an appeal for

123 koshd avenue to build at the rear of the lot. appeal was from a neighboring property. the board upheld the variance granted. no building permit has been filed but once the neighborhood notification comes out, that will be before you for discretionary review. the next item a roof deck that had existing since 1988 but removed for roof repairs. there were complaints on this property between the adjacent property and complaints made by one neighbor against the other and the other neighbor against the other. there have been 26 complaints about 200 hours of dbi staff

staff about the legalization of windows placed over 20 years. also the replacing of the roof and a complaint about the board foundation had not been removed from one building when the property owner try the to go get access. the board expressed some frustration and concern about the staff resources spent over the years on a case like this. i think the commission may share those concerns. i don't think it's before this commission but it had before the hpc in the appeal of the cfa. hopefully there is not further issues with this property. i'm available for questions. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further we can move

to public comment. members of the public may address this commission on items , except the items listed. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three 3 minutes. i do have one speaker card. >> dino adelfio. >> good afternoon, members of the public, staff and sponsors, mr. president, mr. vice-president, commissioners, mr. director. are there similarities or understanding between mr. schneider's writing in what we conversed. could we different our own catabolic energy levels and if we could would it alter our approach, professional activities and undertakeings

or what mr. schneider would describe as opportunity. the main points to pick up on schneider's writing and book and energy and different energy levels as well as the four big energy blocks. to look at a specific example of what mr. schneider is teaching and writing about approximately 90 days ago on june 12, 2014, we came across vision zero policy and case no. 2014-0556u. on the tape minutes 113-151. taking the time to review and recall this tape maybe helpful yet brief to future conversations and our own understanding of energy levels specifically anabolic and catabolic energy forms. it's interesting form of

municipal policy because it incorporated the protection of lives. complicated time ordinances, enter departmental relations proximity of infrastructure. it's a policy conversations that we host in the room. using this policy and comments from public and commissioners could we identify forms of anabolic and catabolic energy. i would like to close with two questions, of the nine speakers could we identify the one with the highest level of anabolic energy and an organization of minds were able to shift energy levels would raise the evolution and purpose. thank you. >> any additional comment? no? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> that will place you under

your regular calendar item 8. for 800 indiana street, the public hearing on the draft of the environmental report. the public comment will be taken on monday, september 9, 2014. >> good afternoon, president wu, members of the commission. i'm rachel, planning department staff. the item before you is a public hearing to receive comments on the draft environmental report on draft eir on the project case no. 20 # 11374e. i'm joined by my colleagues, rick, the technical specialist and current planner for the proposed project, jane, senior environmental planner and members of the sponsor team are present. the project is located at 800

indiana street on the west side of interest in a street of 20th and 22nd street. the side adjacent to the freeway. the project currently developed in approximately 78,000 square foot industrial warehouse used for storage and costume design. the proposed project would include demolition of the warehouse, construction of the 5 story multi-residential development comprised to different buildings by separate architectural firm. building is approximately 58 feet. the proposed project would include 338 residential units and one level subterrain an

parking garage and the ir includes two variances along indiana street and a dog park. the existing warehouse was identified as a potential historic resource as a water front historical is survey. the response concluded the warehouse is individually eligible for listing in the california register of historic places. it is significant as a large warehouse with an aesthetically designed office. it's demolition would be considered a significant impact. the project site is located in enclose proximity to but not within both the dog patch landmark district and the central water front third street industrial historic district. however, the historic

resource evaluation in response for the project also found that even though the proposed project would result in an significant unvoidable impact to historic resources to the on-site warehouse; the proposed project would not affect the integrity of the district and assigned to address the massing of the skills and the contract and the street scape and dog parks variance would not impact any nearby historic resources. the following historic resource measures were included in the draft ir. the first complete building is survey or documentation prior to demolition, a salvage program and installation of a permanent on-site interpretive exhibit. these mitigation measures would not reduce the impact of historic resources to a less significant level. that's the i am mpact on

historic resources would remain unvoidable. no others were identified tht draft ir. a community plan exemption or cpe from the neighborhoods speaker ir was prepared for the project. the cpe identified four significant impact to accidental discovery of archeological resources. interior and exterior noise levels, construction noise and vibration and handling of building materials. mitigations were identified to reduce these potential significant impact to less than significant levels. a hearing to receive the comments on the draft ir was held on august 20, 2014, at the hearing the hpc stated they appreciated the thorough analysis of the preservation and partial preservation alternatives contained in the draft ir and have not

provided any additional comments on the draft ire. i would like to remind all speakers this is not a hearing approve the proposal of the project. your comments today should be confined to the adequacy and information contained in the knowledge of the draft ir. the comments will be transcribed by the court reporter and will respond to this document. this document will respond to all verbal comments received on the draft ir and make revisions to the draftier if appropriate. i will remind speakers to speak fully and clearly so the court reporter can produce an adequate transcript of the hearing. they should state your name for the record to respond to

the comments documented after completed. after the publics we will take comments from the draft ir from the commission. this gaj ga are -- began -- on august 13th. comments not made should be written to the planning department. this concludes my presentation on this matter. i would suggest that public hearing on this item be opened. >> no questions, thank you. okay. let's open for public comment. i have one speaker cart. -- card. sue mortinsos. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is sue motor ton, i'm

a member of the board of directors and community liaison, our building contains 148 homes and approximately 300 residents. we have a raised no objection to this development to date. however i am here to address environmental issues anticipated in the construction of the project that are not specifically mentioned in the ir. that is the impacts of this construction on our home owners on this construction sight specifically due to traffic control. we have on the building that sits midway to the construction site. we could not have this entrance blocked at anytime. we are seeking an insurances that this will not happen. secondly noise, i know this

is a common concern. we seek insurance that the work will be limited to a five-day schedule. dirt and dust also i'm sure a typical complaint, it is a real problem for our hormones -- home owners on the side. we need to anticipate an increase in that because of the construction. i'm a dog owner and walk passed this site on a regular bases. my next issue is pets. this side is home to a population of vermin. they are going to look for a home and we would like a containment program for this issue. last but not least, a

compliment is due, i have contacted joe sharriff of avalon and he has agreed to speak to our home owners this month and we would like to have a commission in place with the developers once this begins. thank you very much. >> is there additional public comment? okay. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. i just have a couple questions about the ir, the first one is about air quality control. so the ir states that the site is not within an air pollute

ant exposure zone but it's right next to the highway and if you look at the map from dph, the air pollution exposure zone is blue which indicates it is a zone along the freeways in san francisco. can you explain how that assessment was made? >> so, that's actually a comment that we responded to in writing. >> yes. explain. that would be one and i will go through the other ones for public comment. the other one is for the consumption of non-renewable resources. this program for the development in any of the alternatives includes alternative energy such as solar and other water efficiency methods. it would be great to see not only what the usage of that non-resource is but the production of the water

system and the off set of and that would be great to see part of the draft ire assessment. the mitigation measure the program would like to see some alternatives there for placement. it's currently anticipated to be placed in the lobby of the building and all three construction alternatives, but as a mitigation measure for historical resource, i don't feel that the lobby of residential building is truly a public space. if you don't live there, who is going to go into a lobby of some building they don't live in. i would like to see that placed in some of the open space. i think there might be opportunities in all three of the open space variance for some sort of interpretive program. then the final one going back to air quality, i believe