mmissioner kathrin moore: is the commissioner allowed to ask a follow up request to a public comment which has been made? >> it's really not intended as a question and answer period, but we can go back to the commission comments and questions period and we can reopen that and you can pose a question. >> would you be inclined president wu with regard to a question. i would like a question regarding to the continuing of the project that ms. hester made and i would like to ask the city attorney if the commission for all the correct reasons requested a continuance is entitled with more motions made than anything else and the eir to look at it careful

ly and is mandatory for us that is overloads -- over ruled and that we are not notified in a timely manner. would you please comment on that? >president cindy wu: i do think we should not take comments at this time because it was not agendaized i think we are treading on a certain line. i will follow up with secretary and the attorney to get an answer. >> okay. >> can i also relating to the same thing. >commissioner michael j. antonini: i don't expect an answer now but it's for staff to look into. i believe we have voted for january 15th if i'm not mistaken what the time was and i asked within the hearing as to any limit on

the amount of time that could be allowed and i don't know whether it had anything to do with the truncate of the period. >> my recollection from that hearing and this goes more generally to how we handle things at the commission level was that i don't remember actually having a vote on that date. it was the commission deciding that we should extend the period and sort of giving the direction that the date should be january 15th. so my question is one, what's the date for the eir and two, what should be our general policy as maybe for other commissions or how we handle issues like that. i think a lot of times when we make more informal statements of direction to staff and i feel like if this is a problem for this particular issue, we might think about just being

more careful about actually taking motions when we want to take direction from staff. questions, what is to happen and the date. >president cindy wu: if we can get a response in writing that will be appreciated. city clerk: commissioners, that will put you on the regular calendar. 1321 mission street - informational presentation of the 1, >> the item before you is a presentation. i will provide you with a brief overview of the approved project as well as the planning code requirement for public art. then ken coleman will provide you an

overview of the proposed art. in early -- they proposed the project at 1321 mission street with retail of the ground floor. of the 160 dwelling units, 40 are suites. i did dshg -- 80 of the propose units are for student housing. it amounts to the one 1 percent of the cost of the development. the project sponsor a local sculpture to satisfy this requirement. the planning department assigns this artwork complies with section 429. the cost of the proposed art exceeds 100 percent. this will be visible from the public right-of-way and not considered a component of the

building. the project approval also requires the concept and location be submitted for reviewed by the planning director and staff is seeking comments as to the content and location as to the proposed art location. that concludes my presentation and i will turn it over to ken coleman. thank you. >> hello, i'm the artist. ken kellman. i'm going to just talk a little bit about my concept and vision that has to do with this sculpture. this piece involves the constantly of wind and ever changing light. the work will be attached to the exterior of the building in relief,

it's entirely made of aluminum and will create a shadow on the surface depending on the time of day. the overall intent is to create an experience that will enhance and advance the forward concepts in contemporary design of this extraordinary building. this sculpture is organized vertically which allows the stable and architectural lines of the building. this vertical visual movement is created using aluminum bars and repeated pattern from top to bottom over laid on this structure is wave elements smooth and flowing. the visual experiences of this overlapping curve is both calming and smooth, the waves are reminiscent of sound wave patterns and the movement of water seen from above. it's a deep

blue reminiscent of blue water. these shapes blow in the wind when the wind blows. these spinning shapes will not overwhelm and move in different rates. as well as the sculpture going on the south side of the building i designed awnings that i'm constructing i feel they are part of this piece.

this is no spinning kinetic elements. like in the film industry there is something called cookies and there will be a dopelling effect that will create patterns on the sidewalk and it should compliment the south wall very nicely. so that's another element of this project that i will be fabricating. i'm doing all the work myself. i don't know if you have any questions. let me show you this.

they'll all have these little pieces. >president cindy wu: wonderful. we'll open up for public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank you for the presentation. really looking forward to the piece of art. city clerk: thank you, commissioners, if there is nothing further we'll move to item 8. this is the environmental impact report. please note the draft eir is closed. it closed on september 29, 2014. public comment will be heard however comments submitted may not be included in the final

eir. >> thank you commissioners, second and commissioners, rachel planning department staff. i'm joined by my colleagues and senior environmental planner and preservation technical specialist. members of the project sponsors are also present. the item before you is a certificate fiction of the final impact reportish for the proposed indiana street project. the project side is located on the west side of indiana streets, assess oris block 4105, lot no. 009 certification. it's by a steel frame

industrial warehouse. the proposed project the demolition of an industrial warehouse for housing development. it comprises three buildings for residential uses. the project will include 330 residential units, ground floor amenities and one level underground parking garage. the project site is in the zoning district within the central water front subarea of the eastern neighborhoods zoning area plan. a copy of the draft eir certification motion and there is responses to comments document is before you. the draft eir was published august 13, 2014. a public hearing on the draft eir was held before the planning commission on september 11, 2014, and the public comment period closed on september 29,

2014. the response to comments documented and published to you on november 14, 2014. also the response constitute the final eir. the evaluation of the issues contained in the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact to an historic resource to a level. it would occur as a result of the democracy higgs of the industrial warehouse building since this building has been identified as individually eligible for listing in the california register of the historical resources and considered a historic architectural resource for the purpose of ceqa evaluation. this impact is detailed in the draft

notification motion and draft eir. as a result the commission would need to adopt the consideration pursuant to the environmental quality act should the commission decide to approve the project. at this time i would like to note we have endeavored to provide meaningful response to planning commissioners and members of the public. specifically the planning commissioners requested the on-site displays be on the lobby. the response has been to place the displays in the outdoor area and has been revised to interpret the displays in a publically accessible outdoor locations along indiana street as well as the open space area of the

variance ". the planning commission also comments on the air quality analysis as well as the issue of consumption of natural resources. and we very much appreciate these comments. the response to these comments provide further areas around these issues but does not change the original document. public comment were also made about the air quality and traffic impact during the construction period. again, the responses to these comments provided additional clarification on these topics but did not result in any changes. all the comments including comments from the historic preservation commission express support for the analysis contained within the eir including the alternative analysis and no responses were required. in summary, the minor revisions in addition to the draft eir do not identify any

significant adverse environmental impact resulting from the project or any new mitigation measures and do not identify alternative new mitigation measures or alternative for an identified impact. nor would any revisions provide any new information provided presented in the draft eir subsequently do not require the need to redraft the eir of the ceqa guidelines. we believe therefore that the eir is adequate and proficiency decision makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the pursuant impact of the proposed project. on this basis we request the commission adopt this before you with the context that the report are adequate and the procedures for which the eir was prepared comply with provisions of ceqa and

guidelines and chapter one of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation object this matter unless commissioners have any questions. >president cindy wu: thank you. okay. we will take public comment. dan' campbell and rob pool. >> good afternoon, commissioners, danny campbell, sheet metalworkers, i'm here on behalf of employees who support the sheet metalworkers and we support the eir and move this project forward. thank you have a nice day. >president cindy wu: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, rob pool housing coalition speaking on behalf of our 150 members.

thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today. we believe the eir is adequate and thur -- oh and completed and breaks up to large 3 distinct buildings and opens a lot of public open space and proposes numerous streetscape improvements with sidewalk and landscaping and will enhance the experience. most importantly it brings the residents to the mission bay area and dog patch. this is an excellent project and we hope you move it forward. thanks for your time. >president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon commissioners, joe coppell, electrical worker san francisco. i brought a prop today. not only am i excited to speak in favor of the project, but we

have five members live nearby. the black x is the project site 800 indiana street and we have members living on illinois, vermont, kansas and wisconsin. luckily they were all working today and they could not be here. we would like to voice our strong support for the eir that is adequate and complete. thank you very much. >president cindy wu: thank you. >> tim allen. i live on minnesota. generally in support of it. one concern that i have is the environmental impact report lends to the project itself. what's really happening in this neighborhood is there is 8-12 construction projects plus the hospital coming online with as many as 5,000 people out a

day and thousands of new people and housing units being added to that neighborhood is having a much bigger impact than this project is understood. one specific action item is the number of carshare spaces. in this particular units you have 1220 units and they increase the requirement from 2-4. so if you think of what kind of impact in reducing the total number of cars of this neighborhood and the eight other properties being built is really creating a significant hazard by having so many cars in the neighborhood. it's putting a lot of pressure and there are three preschools and all the parents are trying to get out of their cars and walking children and there is a huge impact here and i would like to see consideration for a stronger

consideration for carsharing that are doing an excellent job for bicycles but carsharing for the long-term private cars in the neighborhood. thank you. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner johnson? >> >commissioner christine johnson: thanks very much. just to the public comment we had, i think project eir does a good job of looking at cumulative impacts and what environmental issue does that site that represents itself to the entire area. definitely i hear your point there and to some extent with carsharing i'm with you. we'll look at that on a project by project basis. i would like to thank staff for going

through the transcript and in particular for responding to many of my questions and concerns. i appreciate the thoroughness of the responses. i think the eir generally speaking is adequate. i just have a question for staff. so in the response to my question about the project being in an air quality exposure zone was answered adequately and the part of it was that the project sponsor voluntarily agreed to a project improvement measure, but this wasn't listed as a change and edit to the text of the eir and i would like to know why that's not the case and if it's not necessary can i get a copy of what it actually says before we get the approval. >> absolutely. the reason it wasn't added to the change of the

eir was that the measure was already in there. it was part of the d eir. you just asked for specific language for the improvement measure? >> yes. the project enhancement system that was in there, okay, i'm sorry. my interpretation of this was that the improvement measure was improved because based on the facts that we are assuming that the article 38 changes would be implemented and therefore, the project sponsor agreed to look at the project improvement measure that was there for enhanced ventilation system through lens that what the new article will say. so it wasn't clear what that new perspective is, what additional to that enhanced ventilation system other than what was already there. i got the

impression that there was improvement to the improvement measure that should be in there that's not. so my question is, what does the project sponsor additionally agree to? >> that's a fair question. let me provide further clarification when we asked for this improvement measure we were asking for the best improvement measure that we could and in prediction or in hopes that article 38 changes would go through. there is not an improvement to that improvement measure which is in fact the one we want. for the purposes of ceqa and legislatively we can't require that. if we could require something we would require the same measure, but we could not so we asked the project sponsor to agree to it and he did. there will not be any change to that improvement measure, that's what we would ask for or require if we could. >> so they agreed to it before my comment and the answer was to

agree to it. >> that's correct. sometimes the legislative changes take some time and in the interim we are writing a ceqa document which also takes some time. it's sort of timing issue. if we were to request or require mitigation or improvement measure today it would not differ from the one we requested back then. >> okay, thank you. i understand. we are the only two people who understand this, but i get it, thank you. >president cindy wu: commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: >> i think the eir is adequate and complies with ceqa so i would move to certify. >> second. city clerk: we hear a motion and second to certify the eir on indiana street. commissioner

>commissioner michael j. antonini: >commissioner rich hillis: >commissioner christine johnson: >>commissioner kathrin moore: >commissioner dennis richards: >commission vice-president rodney fong: >president cindy wu: that passes 7-0 and puts you on item 9 the san francisco bicycle plan and improvement on, eir. this is informational only.

>> good afternoon, president wu and commissioners. i'm debra dwyer, planning commission staff. i'm for the improvement project at san francisco public works as well as mike rigor and allen robinson from the san francisco municipal transportation agency in addition senior and environmental planner is also here. i'm here to provide the background and and update on the status for the environmental review for this project. it's case 2007-0347. it's an update to the project and turn it over to public works for an overview

in the project outreach effort. the second street improvement project is one that was finalize in the bicycle plan eir by the planning commission in june of 2009. the environmental scope addressed an update to the bicycle plan as well as minor long-term and near term improvement projects to the city's bicycle network including project 2-1 options for bicycle facilities along second street. three options for second street were analyzed through the eir process and could have been approved however no plan of action was heard by the board of directors. the

neighborhood association a neighborhood group interested on the project street. the interest was upheld but the project was not approved and selected by mta for further community outreach and mta has since partnered with public works. the planning department is preparing a supplement to the bicycle plan eir for the project and this draft supplemental eir will be issued in early 2015 will undergo a standard eir process and will hear a public hearing with and will hear comments prior to certification and will address project approval. with that i would like to turn it over to christina laya from public works and i

will be available to address questions afterwards. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is christina lay i -- for the department of public works. this project is an effort including the public works and municipal transportation agency. we shared project goals for the community and project team. they are to improve safety along the corridor for all people whether walking, biking, driving or taking transit. to provide a more attractive pedestrian environment, to provide a dedicated bicycle facility and to facilitate muni operations. the community has been very involved in developing the proposed project. many of

the specific improvements came from the project meetings. we held four public meetings on or near second street. we conducted door to door outreach from market to king street and we have invited and attended over 20 meetings within the community with different neighborhood groups, merchant groups, residents. in general, the project is for new marking and bicycle community and landscaping and streetscape amenities. the best way to talk about the project is to look at example blocks. i picked one 1 block on the northern end of the corridor, you can see it includes one lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in both directions, transit boarding islands, in fi