have been robust and they should accommodate places like this and yeah. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i'm looking section 11610 and those related that deal with no private right or action against the city. >> uh-huh and what raises only through the planning department will there be any oversight on the part of the city in this process is that how we plug in as a city and then dbi how do we do we have regulatory oversight of this or just all personal initiative private initiative. >> there are a variety of steps in the process commissioner, i think that one of the ways that dbi will be involved early 0 open you'll be receiving represents after they hold their hearing to remedies a thicker

window or ventilation so this committee will review those specifically address any issues that are relevant to the project in terms of down the line when the notification process takes place that's a public document that the owner or the landowner has to sign an affidavit and at any time the venue or entertainment commission w can request one, if not an enforcement process for that. >> i was thinking down the road at this point everyone is on board and understands 10 years down the road enforcement becomes an issue. >> which element of the enforcement. >> making sure the the existing entertainment is still within the guidelines that the nogs

notice of special restrictions are in place and understood by the community that's down the road who keeps working on and assuring harmony. >> you'll notice the lovely jocelyn cane has been working with us from day one ultimately your question is spot on and the onerous is on here it's an opportunity this really helps them to exercise in their mandate to oversee it and see that remains as strong as it is mr. johnson thank you, again, for the presentation this morning so in the spirit of what you're doing dbi has not objection but as the commission here the unat the end consequences trying to get to the bottom of and i know as a bar owner once upon a time, i

ever had one in the city i enjoyed that business at this time we had an entertainment license it was a consist going on basis people move forward in and out of the neighborhood your revisiting and someone who new to your point earlier has moved in and has an objection this legislation captures that it is the second piece of the legislation that captures that lets talk about the sound i know i have not immediately talked about that i understand your restricted not in the business of trying to figure out what the sound is if you have a builder and neighborhood working together and no consensus on the

achievement what happens in this case is that used as for lack of a better term to appeal the project to slow down the project there can't be coincidence on the sound protection in the immediate area. >> that's a good question there are legal standards in place already to the state code and now if this passes the local code says that the local resident a can't average above so many d b only 8 decimals above about ambient that guides the conversation and where the entertainment commission compressors they oversight in the nuance of how do we deal with patrons that are leaving the venue this is something we can't codify this is a function of a regulatory body like the entertainment commission to exercise this consideration on a case by case basis. >> right more to the point if

you have a development who are pretty much you know they do like assigned reports and the fcc rating is not good enough it you'll depends on who you're talking about when it comes to sound some people are sensitive and some people can live near the freeway if i'm a buildinger developer you said okay. the windows need to be thicker those are all really added costs that have no really measure as to how we do this how we get driver's license i'm a little bit concerned about the for a second that okay. you've got to sound proof our building and if you don't meet that criteria to accept this project we're going to uphold this you're not making an effort to sound proof the

building i'm a little bit gray you say statewide those manufacturer are in place but i am trying to fought is there a mechanism in gear that says you can't appeal a project if you meet all the boxes as far as entertainment and who's the you in that scenario. >> let's say the builder. >> the builder wants to starter his project but the neighborhood is not happy they don't do a good job sound proofing they're building. >> that's a right eir periodic of whether or not this passes the entertainment commission hearing like i mentioned is not an official approval it is only communication when the sound like map shows over 60 decimals

anyone else what appeal like our appeals in san francisco i don't know if you're legislation impacts that but i hope that prevents that from happening to start on the front end to prevent it but not changing the possibility of an appeal per say. >> i agree with you this is - it has to meet the criteria of the neighborhood regarding the sound like levels. >> they'll have to meet the standards either way. >> i agree but the legislation cements this as a box it needs to be ticked off i don't recall ever a project being appealed because you know they're not happy with the sound like report

you know you understand what i'm saying if i'm a neighbor i think 60 is not good enough i'll appeal the project because i think we can do better this legislation is a possible tool that will used against the building basis they're not doing a good enough job to meet the requirements. >> yeah. commissioner walker. >> i think that's the point. >> yeah. >> when this is being put in a neighborhood there where there's this kind of activity yes. >> i'm probably making the argument the only consequences i want to vest before we approve anything as commissioner walker and i someone in the neighborhood it was a notice of special restriction and in the - the project was finished you know the project was built you know and in your way you have no

restriction you wrote it into the hoa restriction i know recommended that should be done as well that's good but you could not appeal the project i'm taking a talking about as a starting. >> well, you could the question whether anyone licenses on the planning commission but why this is important and necessary is that it does to get ignored unless it's spelled out and specific and that's the point when residential goes into those areas it's established entertainment venues that's a appropriate it's right so it's not onerous or unreasonable to make that a point that's appealable it is always appealable but whether or not it rose to that i think that the

supervisor is responding to the public and the concern about those venues being harassed especially they're there and new residential comes in and so-called they're a nuisance when we've asked those business this industry we want to support it so, i mean this is a good thing everybody knows the rules and there's opportunity to figure out. >> i know i support it to our point commissioner walker in the entertainment commission doesn't support the development does that have any impact in terms of not to support it that goes to planning - i see another hurdle had a needed to be matched i get

it and support it but at the end of the day i really want to see and hear once you meet a certain s t c rating that's acceptable to everybody regardless of how you feel about it and the sound test and report is done then really the project can't really be held up based on that and unfortunately didn't clearly point out that here it says you have to meet the standards city standards right and so why didn't you put that in there when you meet the city standards it's fine. >> we don't have the authority to recycle someone's right to appeal and essentially this exists i think to our previous question what's that. >> codify.

>> notoriety when you codify. >> to your previous question we're not changing the legal rights of restriction either the community or developer those are essentially staying the same we're restraining order trying to approach that on the front end if people are more cognizant of whether or not this is appropriate for the neighborhood frankly so be it that's the objective to make sure we're having this communication so the venues and people are with your of it and that is hard to agree with commissioner melgar. >> so you have questions. >> well done. >> commissioners i was going to as interject this thing about putting more restrictions on the developers to you know deal with the sound

like proofing in the past a lot of the venues were impacted because the onerous was put on them i don't know the exact history of the independents but going back to night clubs like slimdz they took over a warehouse that was brick there was a lot of clubs in those industrial areas and the onerous was put on them so to me if i'm going to be bias it is fair to put it on a brand new developer he's putting up a new building it is easier to improve because the codes have that be improved to work and a brand new building then someone that occupies a warehouse for 20 years and try to you know sound proof his

warehouses now so the complaints come in i know a lot of venues a lot of money on sound proofing their venues. >> to the commissioner, i was one of the people that spent a lot of money sound proofing any business and it was impossible in many cases different levels of what is sound proofing and what isn't mr. johnson this is a good piece of legislation would it be possible that somehow later on down the road to see how the process is working really seeing if it is working in terms of the communication pays off we need to hear back an unusual we hear from the staff

that people are exclaiming about this piece of legislation you guys tabbed two years ago we'll getting push back on certain legislation we passed that but your intent not to make it a hard process those are the types of things that concern me what you're trying to do here i get it and to this town is the backbone the entertainment it is important probation officer to protect those businesses thank you for coming this morning mr. johnson. >> thank you. >> to our director any staff response to this? >> i don't think we have is are service here they already go through the you know co-advisory

committee to discuss this issue. >> but we don't see any problems. >> no i don't think especially for new building for existing building we may have big problems due to sound proofing the new building you see from the registration we're complying with the state law and everything. >> commissioner walker please. >> one more question an existing buildings we have usually if there are already in one of the entertainment zones they've been in especially the law projects but is there a way - it is difficult to sound proof existing buildings but is there a part of that that that is a if you live near and venue you can't complain (laughter) your we're going to start this

whole debate all over again. >> there were protections offered to venues for older buildings that are there or no do we just - >> are they're currently or under the legislation. >> curling are there protected zones around entertainment venues. >> i'll defer to director kane. >> good morning jocelyn cane entertainment commission your. >> (repeated.) >> the constitution of the united states. job to deal with the conflicts i'm hopeful this legislation will cut that down substantially i lost my mind when i look ated the pipeline and the city across the board mayor's office and everyone says we need new housing we have a problem and no one is anti development but we've never had the opportunity to have those

communications this legislation is at the very early early start of that as far as like are there protected no that's going to remain our job conflicts will come and complaints will come at least the early communications noted across the board will help to reduce that because i always say this will be people that want to be right and people that want to be happy in san francisco we mostly want to be happy and if they're right they may not be happy and welcome to my world and yourselves too but ideally we'll create more people happy and remarkably in their exceptions don't that make sense. >> i know you all sort of

determine the priorities around those complaints and stuff like that so it seems like those code defying, if you will priorities in supporting entertainment venues that help across the board as you hear those cases. >> i understand how groundbreaking this is i don't believe this prevention is frankly in north america i communicate with people all over the place and this is developed and so lord help us we know know what we don't know but south america coming back to you and hopefully, this will get done and signed by the summer we'll start to do those areas my intention is obviously to have the conversation and our commission will never out right say we don't support i mean, i

was very surprised this is not the point the point is i believe that vendors will come and have their eyes on and generally supportive of the things recommended but to be clear it is recommendations only the law is the law and the planning department and your commission have all the rights and responsibilities and powers that you will continue to have and it explicit change anything it allows us to have a new set of people in front of our commission that sleep through everyone weekend and it's probable a good radiation as you see the new technology that is available for sound proofing we had a fact sheet to hand out to people. >> around those areas. >> one or two people on the commission are experts of sound

but, yeah anymore information certainly technical information from your department would be fantastic and particle projects to commissioner walker projects that kind of get it right so standards could be set based on around that. >> exactly. >> as a builder i want to do the right thing but. >> the gold standards for sound progressively entertainment. >> yeah. yeah, and we really, really enjoyed our apology. >> thank you you can use that. >> great thank you, mr. mr. johnson. >> do we have any public comment on item this item. >> seeing none, may i have. >> motion. >> motion from the commission. >> i make a motion that we

recommend this. >> second. >> okay. >> okay president mccarthy commissioner vice president mar commissioner mccray commissioner melgar and commissioner walker yes, we'll move that on tuesday. >> our next item. >> if i may madam secretary there are people that want to move to item 8 take it out of order so if there's no objection supervisors i mean commissioners i'd like to do that okay. any objections? seeing none, we'll now hear item 8 discussion regarding the concerns with the removal of debris from candle stick park

and i believe there's a presentation >> good morning. i'm sherryly with the clean air initiative at candle stick and dr. thompson will make the case regarding the dust and the asbestos concerned and the dust and as much as we have at the candle stick stadium issues that dr. tompkins will be reporting on today, the location of the dust monitor and the effectiveness of the dust monitors and the number of monitors installed and if their installed correctly and the proper reading of the monitors so we also have mr. andrew graft from the golden gate law school

to speak to you regarding the statistics so far that have been gathered from the monitor and the community has not had access to that information except to the public information act that is requested through the law school we're concerned that with the high reach etc. vacation of the park at the same level as the community we're concerned about this asbestos and the dust that will travel into the neighborhood and we do not have a asbestos monitor or a dust monitor that place in the neighborhood as a buffer to give us the reading hass as to the amount and the focus of the

neighborhood is being had from the demolition and the dust so i'm going to - we also have ms. marilyn from the visitacion valley and also another colleague we'll be speaking to convey you you our concerns about the effectiveness of the monitor and that's required we continually to come before you to address those issues and hopefully by now if we can get this right to protect the community while this demolition is going on it will be a great thing to do because to get this wrong is consistent but if we get it right we'll protect the community that will be the right thing to do i'll bring andrew

graft from the golden state law school to come and let you know what he found and have other speakers and dr. tompkins kins for our final presentation. >> just so you know everyone will be allowed 3 minutes. >> good morning, commissioners i'm andrew graft with the golden state law school clinic at the university i work closely with the community members on the dust issues with the candle stick demolition so we submitted public record for the department of public health i know that many of you have received the letter regarding the enforcement of the dust control plan that is so on and so forth the requirement that the demolition control dust and under the dust

control plan they have an independent elevating evaluate our that talks about what is going on regarding the dust emissions and some of the materials we've been ref under the public record act requests the independent evaluate our says we've received so far none of them are signed we're pretty concerned about what is glen eagle being down regarding enforcement we want to ask the commission to use its authority as for the permit which has the dust control plan to enforce the provisions beginning evaluate and monitor the thanks or things that are going on other candle stick park. >> so a lot of the problems we have with the community is that

this is not just a justice issue and dr. tompkins will address some of the concerns because this is a large project that emits a lot of dust we're pretty concerned with the enforcement of that dust control plan i'm going to turn it over to dr. tompkins who will talk about some of the concerns. >> just before i go i have one question you said that the report were given to you not signed by the independent person; right? is there a reason why they're not signed. >> we've been working with the department of public health on those issues we're not just coming to you guys with our protons they've brought our concerns and done a record request to ask to see if they're changing their practices we're concerned those those things

eyes on the project we're enforcing who's already in place although there are problems with which is in place one of the things we want to address using our authority to monitor the oversight and the different control. >> the reason so - so when the reports is are done they're done on a weekly basis they should come to you for review and signed; right? so their completed; right? >> the way it works they inspect on a daily basis and weekly they're to submittal to dph we've reviewed those to the public records assess and got about two weeks' worth of requests and none of the check lists were signed they didn't have enough information and seemed like they were not up to standards probation officer that would be like an independent

evaluation we're working with dph but again concerns to make sure it is being properly watched and all the dust rules are enforced. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners i'm dr. is there any public comment? kins it was my last time i had the privilege of speaking before you that the city was supposed to prepare a presentation to the commissioners therefore if the city has presented a presentation i'll defer my presentation to you so that i don't waste the commissioners time open regurt issues on the report so up defer that the city is property presented my fellow city colleague have app