before the rebuild i'm concerned of the air quality and noise it is located in an air pollutant and negative declaration states a ventilation is appropriate how it is not mitigated on the air quality once considering the noise on the i'd the enclosure of the outdoor generated in the project a.m. fizz the noise noise is proven to be an added stresser and my clients can't afford primarily black and people of correspond in the jail system we're talking about a vulnerable population it is 4 percent and the population in the jail 56 black the report stated that black people are 7 times more and more likely to be

jailed in sf consequently county transgender are also vulnerable my clients deals with a significant amateur of stress i urge you to consider conducting a few eir for alternatives to be considered while the impact may not state of california significant at a glance i assure it will be on the lives of my clients is there any additional public comment. >> thank you commissioners how are you cindy my name is rudy i actually live in the south of market bloird the only i didn't know they were going going to build a new jailhouse not told and i heard also angelina speaking it go going to a shadow over the park

this shouldn't happen i've been locked up in there a couple of minds sometimes you need the jailhouse to be the way it is not for people to go back to the jail it is important to to the people i lived there and not heard nothing about p that thank you for your time. >> thank you is there any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. commissioner richards >> i guess friday morning i applaud everyone that came out and allowed the participation in the process absolutely i respect you and sympathize with the coalition racism and justice and fairness displacement among the several we've heard i'm a member of the lgbtq community i

semiit's especially in the community i come into this on the fence we've heard a lot of testimony heard more facts from staff and a little bit more digging i'm wondering whether or not we're confusing the public policy goals with ceqa i need to make my decision based on what we're supposed to be looking at justified or not based on all the events we have the social policy goals need to be addressed with the supervisors, the mayor the police commission and the da and probably many more people i'm hoping you'll work with those folks i see the fact on the pg&e page a urgency of the $8 million that needs to be brought forth to make that project viable in the next if i weeks i see the issues

and the option brought up are guess the question for staff the employment around the number of employees for the office viruses the magnitude of 4 to 1 plus an off is one thousand people talk about the employment center and what the depiction is. >> there's not a systemic thefrld thefrld of how many new employees will be qualified for the employment center basically pretty much where there's is a project that employees people we and they follow all the criteria for transit but no specific number which point it qualifies. >> so do we have any other negative declaration terms that

have more employees i'm trying to put it into context is this the formal thing that 4 hundred and 50 employees will consider an employment center does this set a president. >> your definition anything zoned for commercial uses any number of zoning types of specifically anything that is non-residential and within .74 of the transit corridor so the number of employees actually employed is not part of the serve. >> thank you arrest on the shadow impact another issue i see that given the size of the park there is allowed to be a one percent increase in shadow activities during the year i looked at on page 15 of the shadow study the cumulative is .09 is that project.

>> that is with this project and other similar projects ultimately this is the significant impacts because the shadows that will consider with occur with the project on occur like 756 to 8:50 a.m. and no other shadow maybe shadows from other adjacent building. >> so if it wasn't on the list before how would we handle that. >> we'll take into account being so the cumulative impact analysis and see what the other projects. >> the sro's are not part of this project i understand we're the project will come back to be heard a; is that correct any issue the daytime of tenants will be addressed with the project itself and that's

correct we look at the sro's lost worse case scenario in terms of the transportation and i may have my facts wrong we approved a little with modification with the ventilation that is part of this building? and yes article 38 applies to this building with robust ventilation for the interior as well as title 24. >> i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i agree that is we're analyzing the accuracy completeness and accuracy of this environmental document not talking about the project, however, i have a few questions just in general we're of having a facility that is much smaller than the one that exists now how

is that possible when there's been the realignment the state prisons out in the city and counties to house them within their own facilities. >> that's a question for dpw. >> so based on the controller accomplishes a forecast and used the data from the state and the prosecutor cases so fremont is here he can answer that so every year the forecast of what the jail needs in the city last year, we needed when we submitted in application we needed 640 beds within the range and the following year it dropped down to 4 tech sf on the now between hundred and 20 beds and 393 beds so we picked the

384 that's in alignment with the sheriff's department needs that's how the beds are determined. >> yeah. but the only concern this facility is built and last for many decades but attitudes towards law enforcement change and we're in a period when a lot of crimes are being declassified for misdemeanors and people are not doing time that could change in the future there could be more demand it is better to have more than less. >> it is city is sufficient now. >> it has nothing to do with to do the adequacy of the document thank you for your answers yes. i have the document is very adequate it talked about all the different issues we're building

some things smaller than the impacts of one will have with 3 hundred sells ass as opposed to to 9 hundred by it's nature a lot less so it seems like a lot of the things concerned we ask the question about shadows was answered very well and that's isn't an issue for me other question although not necessarily about the document by the experience base there's been comments about experience space whether you have to have space inside or outdoors yes good afternoon matthew chief deputy sheriff i'm the division commander and i've heard discussion about title 24 i'm not aware of the requirements for outdoor recreation space and title 24 that's been referenced i can

tell you about the exit county jail system san francisco county jail 5 the housing facilities in sdooun and 4257th street and counsel u county jail on bryant street all the housing facilities have entire in the recreation we're inspected by the board of corrections and as a matter of fact we have one in the matter of weeks we say passed the minimum jail requirement for creation with flying colors every inspection so i believe that hundred percent we're meeting the requirement. >> you're saying that is true for sdrooun. >> thank you very much that answers the question don't transcript saw no interruptions.

>> thank you that answers all my questions i'm in favor of this document and not the appeal. >> commissioner hillis. >> so just want agree with commissioner richards but perhaps not ceqa issues the question on the project approvals i'm assuming this didn't take into account the demolition of thehousing units did that coming come back as a ccii what would that require additional approval. >> it the proposal to demolish the sro building we'll have to do a new environmental document. >> not clear in this document. >> correct. >> and that requires additional

actions on our part not just the approval. >> can i ask a following question from the building were demolished and not for some reason not wanting to be entry /* empty land. >> as an sro building it has to be replaced. >> i think the admin list - >> yeah. >> i want to make sure it will be done to cover. >> deputy city attorney kate is here and she'll address that question and stacey from the city attorney's office you're asking about the requirements from the sro was diminished by not reconstructed i don't know

the answer is whether or not it is significant that is one of the properties subject to fyi but any residential unit requires a one to one replacement the question whether this is subject to chapter fyi i don't know that answer we'll have to get the answer from the lours inspection division and we did do research and determined that this particular project is not under the residential hotel list i believe under a 41 so we treated it as ceqa only as a residential unit lot. >> if it was a residential unit the commission has to approve the loss of units. >> correct. >> we'll come to you in some

form. >> furthermore advertised not part of the description to demolish this building if this building has at demolition of this building hat had significant impact with the historical resources for example given it is age eligible then the environmental impact report will be required to demolish the building. >> okay. then a followup to the sheriff's department is interest a public - so you you've heard the issues of the folks i don't believe their necessarily ceqa issues but policy issues oneself the sheriff doesn't - he's an elected official is there a way to engage the public in the design and implementation of the building of this facility where some of the issues are addressed so i don't do obviously the

board andmayor but hold the meeting with the stakeholders. >> the sheriff has been a participant participant we went with the capital plan and with the department of public works and the controller's office the mayor's office and the crime critical justifies and the prosecutor's office and da and the sheriff has a website has a newsletter out every month i'm aware the sheriff attends the meetings and addresses the members of the community about a whole host of issues we've been actively engaged with the greater city family and certainly never shied away from an opportunity to address the issues of the day.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. >> so just a question i want to agree that i appreciate all of you who coming out came out i commend anyone with the public process i know that someone said it may account for someone who couldn't wait for 453 hours i do agree many of them are not ceqa related issues but hopefully a forum for the project to work closely unlike most projects that one impacts the commission so someone describes the approval outside of the environmental impact report. >> go john planning department staff i believe there's a lace

of paralyze that have to come before the commission we have the recommendation from the board of supervisors to rezone the property from sally to p and the height and bulk district from thirty x to j and approve a referral is in xhofrpgs i believe there is a large project confirmation that has to go before you we'll be coming back to you later on. >> great i appreciate the sheriff's department making comments their collaboration with the greater city family and the positions they collaborate with doesn't have a forum for a

project like this may be the police commission and couple of others i appreciate we're going to have more meetings preliminary negative declaration i see people want an eir but they're a robust review that goes into the determination that you have mitigated impacts so i think i'm a little bit on i'll say there's a full eir or nothing there's a lot of information and a lot of analysis here that would have become an eir gone that direction so give me a couple of things on the housing issues because it is 14 units and likely the replacement a couple of things first of all the projects is going to come back

to us from the project does include relocation of the residents whether or not they'll be demolishing the building that has a relocation plan we'll have to see that there are other opportunity to look at what exactly will be the deposition of people currently in the building that is something i don't believe is a ceqa issue for the 4 for the mitigated negative declaration replacing those will not have aeir there is an opportunity to talk about what will happen to the residents and building to hit on the issue of the rezoning parking and transit we have had

a lot of changes with ceqa over the years that tried to take out some of the impacts or lessen our attention on the impacts for example, level of services parking and other transit related impacts and i believe that this mitigated negative declaration does an adequate analysis where they're required to i understand we've are public commentors pointing out the definition of on employment center but it is broad it includes the deprivations commercial use is not selling is a but almost anything that is not office space so i appreciate everyone that came out there

will be further opportunities to have conversations i support the environmental work. >> i would agree with the sentiment a lot of important policy and project issues that were raised but they don't seem to be ceqa issues i would ask that the sheriff's department and dph jointly hold a public meeting to get input on the project without that there's no forum bows neither the departments has a commission me for the project the sro's is a big concern shadows is a concern but we don't have the project in front of us the p m and the commissioner antonini and move to uphold the preliminary

negative declaration. >> second. >> commissioner richards and one question for staff someone referred in testimony there was an eir done in part of eir i forgot who it was for talked about the daytime of 20 people that is the sro is not on the table on that project i'm assume the eir was for a much larger project. >> cal pacific a and we started with an eir and then we avoided the eir by preserving the sro building. >> okay. thank you. >> just to clarify the eir that was referred was for the california medical center yes. it was a sizeable project and many environmental issues beyond the housing one.

>> i know help me here when a project comes before us a construction plan generally. >> generally yes and the size. >> yes and yes and that would be. >> project approval. >> okay. so we can't talk about the transportation and the inconveniences and all that okay. thank you. >> councilmember glover. >> this commission encourages the follow-up meeting are dph and i suggest that the planning participates because this project falls and he think in the central selma plan and it plains that any discussions about the dimension outlet of the building itself and open space we should participate. >> commissioners just to clarify the motion is to uphold the mitigated preliminary

negative declaration by staff. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> the commission b will take a break will take a breakwill take a break break. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco police commission regular hearing for

thursday, june 25, 2015, i'd like to disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under our regular calendar on item 14 at market street this is the certification of the final environmental impact report please note to the public comment is closed. on the draft eir is closed the period ends on february 23rd the commission does not review this i'm sorry this is wrong we'll accept public comment on this matter laughter. >> so good afternoon commissioner wu and members of the commission

i'm bret with the environmental planning the certification of a final irrelevant or eir for the proposed market street project when proposes demolition of a hundred and 20 foot tall with a hundred and 90 dwelling units with gross sprays for ground floor garage of 28 vehicle parking spaces and hundred and 10 bikes mr. star's and the information is before you the draft eir was published in 2015 the peanut butters was held and the peanut butters close on march second there was distributed the

evaluation of the eir found the commendation will relate in projects significant it demolished two historic resources and will not have a sixth cumulative impact on the environment we will request the commission adopt the motion that sound-proofed the contents of the report are adequate and accurate and the procedures through the eir was prepared comply with the precisions of ceqa and the guidelines of chapter 31 that concludes my presentation. on this matter unless the commission has any questions. >> thank you any public comment okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards

>> move to approve. >> second. >> second. >> anyone that motion to certify commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places under on items 15 abc and d case market street you will consider adaptation of finding under the environmental quality act and the conditional use authorization good afternoon mark with the planning department the item 15 market street and before we did

project sponsor comes up and presents i want to go over some of the entitlements of the project requiring commission must adopt the second finding for the do you want authorization code section allows the project to have an exception provided the commission makes specific finding and the project requests expectations for the rear yard ground level and oath street loading the exception is in our packet in short the department buildings the exceptions are warden and meets the code the project requires the following variance section 14 to allow 40 units to exposure on the