pay the security deposit, first month, last month, this month, and shell out 5 to $8,000 a month for rent. so, i sort of fell asleep through part of the long presentations, but that part caught my ear. so, thank you, sue hester, for speaking up. and i hope you'll look at the plan appropriately. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, a couple of comments in regards to public comment. if, in fact, the sea level rise that is predicted occurs, it will be even more drastic in the south bay because that's -- there's marsh land down there that's also been filled below, or is very low. so, that would be an area of concern. that's not something we're talking about, although it's part of this whole plan. and on some of the other comments that were made about

the waters, conservation, san francisco does the best and i think they should leave san franciscans alone. we're doing a great job, 108 gallons per day and a lot of our areas look pretty par muched because they're under watered and we don't take care of the areas. a few green areas we do have. so, let's get the rest of the bay area to cut their water use and not penalize san franciscans who are already doing a great job on that part of it. then there was this talk about the priority areas in san francisco, obviously is one because you have a lot of very vibrant business center and you have a dense population and you have lots of transit in most of the city. san jose isn't really an urban area. it's really a big suburb and it's very spread out. very few people ride public transit by population. almost everybody drives. in fact, i read last year that

three of our different seven muni metro lines each has more rider ship than the entire santa clara valley transit authority light rail line. those are probably the l, the m, and the j maybe or maybe not j, i don't know which they are, it doesn't matter. it shows how much more we ride public transit than they do. and as far as oakland is concerned for priority, there really is thection ~ isn't a lot of business there. maybe there should be more, but as far as business, it's not there. so, actually if the region is trying to locate people closer to where the jobs are, i'm glad they're planning to create a lot of jobs in san francisco where they think they will be created because -- but you can't house everybody in san francisco. but probably wherever these growth areas for housing should be really close to transit, close to bart, close to areas where people can quickly get to

business centers such as san francisco rather than putting a lot of housing and quasi-suburban areas where everybody is just going to drive anyway. so, i would suggest that you look at that. then i think the other thing that you have to target, i heard about this targeting predicting we're going to have a lot of seniors, we're going to have a lot of people under 35. i'm not so sure that's entirely true because you're predicting 145,000 new jobs and that's a lot and it should be that way. most of those are going to be business professional, educational, cultural, or tech jobs. so, what that's going to convert to is a lot of people with families in the 35 to 65 year old age group. and they're going to want a little bigger space. they're not going to be in cube ex, they're not going to be in micro units. they're going to want multiple bedrooms, they'll want some individual itity.

if we build dense units, high rise units, you're going to reap what you sow. you're only going to get people who will go into those kind of places, but you will have all your work force commuting from someplace else because you're not addressing the housing they need. ~ you need to look at the areas in a western and southern part of the city where there's under utilized open space. i'm not saying we don't need open space, but we've got a lot of area that could be made individualized family homes that would meet the needs of families. and instead of trying to make those areas dense, too, i think they have to be relatively dense, but, you know, they have to be individual homes. then there was the question about displacement -- well, the one thing san francisco has that nobody else has is rent control. and that is keeping a lot of the housing affordable that would normally in most places would be, you know, raising and displacing people. so, that's one thing we have

that is different. and we have by percentage, though, a lot more affordable housing than most of the suburban areas have. so, i think staff was correct in saying we're building -- but we have to really realize that economic factors are going to occur and there is going to be change within cities in areas. it's not always going to be the same socioeconomic demographic. it's going to change. there are going to be situations where you're going to have different people coming in a time goes on. it's always been that way in san francisco and it will continue to be. but i think you better look to address housing for the projected work force as i was talking about earlier. finally, with transportation, i didn't see a lot of things on your transportation study that i think your important 16th street, nobody has talked about that. that's a major transit corridor. we have to build at least light rail there. preferably a subway to connect

mission bay with the bart station. the same is true for van ness, which you're looking at bus rapid transit. but again, it's a -- it's a u.s. highway. i really don't know where you're going to -- those cars aren't going away, they're going to continue there. and i mean, it's going to be a real traffic problem. somebody better look at alternate underground transportation in that corridor. the same, there was some talk about bart to the beach and the richmond district as one of the heaviest traveled transit corridors in the western united states. we need rapid transit in the richmond district. and nobody spoke about a noe valley bart station around 30th street which had been talked about awhile ago. so, those are some of the areas that i think we really have to address, but i appreciate your report. i think a lot of the things that you're pointing to are good, but i think we have to make sure we are strong in our

presentation to get the proper -- particularly with transportation -- the proper emphasis in putting transportation where people actually ride public transit and not having, you know, may be nice to have an irving ton bart station. i don't know if they're going to get the rider ship like we do into san francisco. thank you. >> thanks. commissioner sugaya. >> am i the only commissioner that's confused about this presentation? there's a draft plan out, we don't have a copy of the draft plan. so, and there are supposed to be comments that are supposed to be made. and i don't know if this is the hearing to make comments since it expires next week. so, i'm a little bit confused. i appreciate the presentation overview of what's in the plan and where we stand as a city with respect to the plan and all of that, but i'm still not

-- maybe you could clarify. >> >> commissioner, sarah [speaker not understood]. yes, part of the reason for this presentation is we are very interested in your thoughts on the issues. i apologize we did not put copies of the plan or the e-i-r in your packet because they are enormous and they are online. we didn't expect that you would read it all, although i guess we should have given you that opportunity. i apologize. but we are -- staff's per spec speculative as we represented today, growth numbers, it's supporting what we ~ as a locality planned in terms of transportation, it is relatively supportive and far more supportive than business as usual would have been of san francisco's transportation system. and environmental terms there are a couple areas where we need clarification on. so, we do plan on at least presenting some comments representing what we presented to you today, but we are hoping to hear what you might like to add to that.

>> okay, thank you. i guess without having the whole plan, even big as it may be or not having read it online, at this date it's a little difficult for me to make comments on it. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> a question on funding. i know in any plan, it's important to figure out how to implement it and there's reference to funding for transportation. but funding for affordable housing has tended to come from local sources. you mentioned redevelopment, which is -- was a good local tool for redevelopment funding. has there been any movement on replacing redevelopment with an alternative that could fund local transportation projects and affordable housing or are we still at kind of the same place statewide? >> as far as we know, there has been no movement. there has been definitely interest throughout the region

as abag putting this forward as a platform for how do we advocate for supportive funds, but no action towards what that tool or mechanism might be. >> in this plan, though, is there a reference in the plan? i mean, you mention you know, this being a tool for redevelopment [speaker not understood]. >> two things, the last chapter of the plan is called implementation and advocacy piece and they layout a platform. these are the pieces of legislative change and other types of policies we need to pursue in order to make this plan successful. so, that's where the reference to finding the successor to redevelopment is discussed. the other thing i would mention, this actually came before the current plan bay area, but it receives a funding commitment in the plan. we did something called the transit oriented affordable housing loan fund or toa. and it's revolving loan fund that i think the very first project helps finance

affordable housing development in the tenderloin. so, it's not >> aye. gigantic. it's definitely not going to solve the challenging affordable housing crisis in the region, but it's at least something. pretty much the challenge is the region has two tools at its disposal when it is taxed with this very challenging task of doing transportation plan that has a small set of the transportation funds, the region expects 58 out of that 200 some billion is what they have some control as to where it goes. and then they have the regional has a need allocation where they can tell cities, you're responsible for x amount of housing and affordable housing and you need to zone for it. that doesn't mean it will be produced. and really those are the only tools they have at their disposal. so, considering that, they've done in my opinion pretty well. of course it's not going to solve all of our regional problems that were created over decades, but that's sort of my take on it. >> yeah, so, i hope this could be -- could lead to more advocacy towards reinstating redevelopment. that could be focused in pda's

that are extremely useful and tied directly to development and can fund affordable housing. we see [speaker not understood] stalled i think generally because redevelopment has gone away. so, that's in an area we want to see grow. so, i think that's an important part of this is to figure out. thank you. >> thanks. i would follow-up with commissioner hillis' comments that -- so, i did go down to mtc and get the plan and the e-i-r and it was very heavy to carry back. the e-i-r specifically names the placement as -- forgetting the word -- as an impact. and it says -- i don't know how they measure it. says that the increase is going from 21% possibility of displacement to 36%. so, regardless of how you measure those numbers, it's a greater impact on existing housing. and all the pda's in san francisco or most of the pda is all in areas that seems like it

already has existing neighborhoods in it. so, i think that concentrating all the growth in the -- most of the growth in the region is going to san francisco, oakland, and san jose. and then most of the growth in san francisco is going to the pda's. i really do think this places a lot of strain on the existing housing and it's not coming with any additional money. it's not coming with any mitigation plans. i think we have to ask the mtc to put mitigations into the plan . the only mitigations that i read in there right now are about during construction, that they would somehow mitigate displacement impact during construction, but i really think the impact comes after the housing is built. so, i think that's something that this planning department should look at. another impact that i thought was alarming was that it looks like vehicle miles traveled may increase in already dense areas where there is already level service f. so, i think that means

basically in very congested areas where we already have bad air quality, there is going to be even more congestion. and i assume that is low-income neighborhoods, communities of color. i assume that is areas in san francisco that really don't have any more tools to figure out how to increase the air quality. and, so, i think again that is something we need to ask mtc to help us think about since we're talking most of the growth through this plan. i do have a number of questions about what the c-e-q-a exemptions might mean. so, there's been so much attention put on supervisor wiener's and kim's legislation. i think they both have a hundred times the impact of their legislation in terms of c-e-q-a streamlining. so, i wanted to understand, we already have the community plan exemption and the infill exemption. the community plan exemption is like eastern neighborhoods, western soma that was just passed, but it's in the community plan areas, right? >> that's correct. >> but the possibility of

getting sb 375 exemption, does that happen across the entire san francisco? i saw the map that was called the tpp map and it looked like it was all of san francisco. >> that is our understanding and we'll be seeking more clarify exaction on that, but that is certainly the way we interpreted that. so, that is correct. >> so, then, does that mean that a project in the richmond or the sunset or, you know, name some other area that is not in the community plan, can now go through this very streamline process as opposed to the existing process? >> almost. i just wouldn't call it really streamline because it has certain criteria that had has to meet and some of those criterias for an exemption are exactly the same as it would be under a categorical exemption. it has to meet eight environmental sort of criteria that has to do with impacts due to historic resources, hazardous materials, impacts to biological resources, all the very same things we would be looking at under our normal

categorical exemption procedures. so, i mean, we have yet to explore really truly under that there are ways we can utilize the sb 375 c-e-q-a, you know, benefits of this particular e-i-r once it is certified and once all the litigation frankly is done on it. and so we'll be exploring that further. from reading it, it is quite complex to be honest with you, which is why i shy away from the streamlining portion of it. you know, we're not really sure that it's all that much different in terms of looking at other kinds of c-e-q-a area topics that we typically look at out in the richmond or really any portion of the city. >> there has been a lot of discussion about that, and there is an implication that sb 375 creates a lot of c-e-q-a streamlining. our take on it is that it really doesn't. there are certain changes that allows to happen that victoria mentioned earlier, but what i'm

understanding is that it's not -- that it isn't a whole lot different from what we do today with exemptions. if it doesn't meet those criteria, it can't get an exemption under 375 and therefore would go into a negative declaration like it would be today or a full e-i-r. so, it's -- it is really complicated and it is very nuanced as to what those benefits might be and whether they're really benefits or not is a question in and of itself. >> it does seem very complicated, but i think that -- maybe i can pose an example. if there were a project out in the richmond that required an e-i-r but it met what would be a 3 57 exemption, does it mean it would no longer have to go through an e-i-r and it only has to study additional impacts? >> generally that would be true. if that were the case, my interpretation would be that it would be exempt anyway, that it probably wouldn't require an e-i-r to begin with. >> so, the impacts that the sb

375 or the plan bay area e-i-r covers may not be impacts that we would have had to study otherwise? >> you can look at it that way. the one benefit i would just add to -- you know, piggyback on director ram's point is and it's the ones i outlined in the presentation, is that if we do have to do an e-i-r, there are certain things we won't have to look at. and i think that's one of the benefits of pursuing c-e-q-a review under sb 375, particularly as it relates to impacts cumulative impacts that are acknowledged in the e-i-r, of which there are a lot. you mentioned [speaker not understood] one of them. i'll just say sea level rise, thank you, ms. hester for bricking that up, is felt to be significant in the e-i-r with six pages of adaptation measures trying to deal with that. but one of the benefits i think will be if we pursue environmental review under sb 73 5, we may not have to look at for example cumulative impacts on the regional level,

things like that. but it is complicated and what we'll be doing in the near future as the e-i-r comes to conclusion and is certified, we'll be working more closely with our city attorneys and coming up probably with a matrix -- [speaker not understood], but with a matrix of if the project meets certain criteria, what is the best path and what are the benefits of per suing regular c-e-q-a exemption or regular c-e-q-a review versus under sb 375 versus under sb 2 26 which is another piece of legislation for infill housing, and as i'm sure most of you know other potential legislation making its way through the state legislature currently. >> okay. i think i would just ask that you report back to the commission on -- i understand the e-i-r gets completed maybe will get litigated. i think it is just good for us to continue to know what the process is as you decide if you're going to use sb 375 as a basis and how it gets used.

i think -- i still think there may be major implications for projects, but, you know, i can see that it is very complicated. it's hard to understand. it is very unclear what the reading of it will be in the future. >> we'll have that opportunity and we'll bring the matrix to you once the e-i-r is certified to talk about that. >> thank you. okay. thanks. next item, please. >> commissioners, due to recent additions or modifications to the amendments to the -- excuse me, to the bayview hunters point cac, we're going to be taking item 14 out of order in order to help facilitate the discussion of the bayview hunters point cac. item 14, case no. 2013.0324t - amendments to the planning code, section 313, to require pre-application meetings for certain projects in pdr-1-8 districts [board file no. 13-0180].

>> good afternoon, commissioners. eric starr, department staff. the item before you is an ordinance that would amend the planning code by adding section 313 to require pre-application meetings for certain projects in the production distribution repair 1b zoning district. andrei a bruce from supervisor cohen's office is here to talk about the proposed ordinance and i'll finish my presentation after her remarks. thank you. >> [speaker not understood], from supervisor malia cohen's office. thanks for your patience in hearing this out of order. when we were working through your next item, it actually -- one of these significant areas bears on that one. this legislation came about for us actually due to a little bit of an unfortunate event that involved the demolition of the barkley farms plant lot

indicated in the district 125 oakdale, which involved -- i won't bore you with the details, but involved a long series of notices of violation. and what we discovered through our negotiations with the project sponsor and those d-b-i and planning staff in that incidents was there actually was no neighborhood notification requirement for these types of work in pdr-1-b or in pdr generally. so, as your case report describes, the pdr-1-b district is unlike any other zoning district in the city and in fact, it only exists in bayview. it was created because the department specifically recognized that in this unique area of the bayview, you have heavy industrial uses immediately adjacent to single-family residential uses. many cases right across the street, as we have on oakdale. and it provided for a variety of restrictions for potential uses. and, so, when we took at look at what would have been whether or not the 311, 312 notice would have been required for types of demolition or large

scale alterations on this type of use in the district, we discovered that there really was a notice requirement that was missing. and when we worked with planning staff, mostly scott sanchez, you know, 311 and 312 didn't really make a ton of sense for pdr. 311, 312 is very strict residential guidelines and i think doesn't necessary fit what we're trying to accomplish here. so, we sort of in working with planning staff took the pre-application process that the planning department currently has and to try and adapt it into the pdr-1-b zoning district. the goal to the extent there was going to be work, demolition work, significant modification work that was going to occur on those parcels, at least the neighborhood notification would give some of the neighbors an opportunity to prepare for large-scale construction work. you have a chance to plan for it, prepare for the noise, prepare for the dust and would just give the neighbors an opportunity to know what's happening across the street.

so, i think we've made a great amount of progress on that particular site in terms of its later planned use, but it seems like a renabv level of notice that wasn't going to create a significant problem for planning staff that would both solve the problem of having neighbors have an opportunity to be able to know what's going on and recognizes sort of unique quality of the pdr1b district. ~ reasonable i know aaron starr is going to give you more information, but i'm happy to answer questions why we came to this point and why we think it's a good piece of legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, andrea. so, the proposed ordinance would add a new section to the planning code that would require pre-application meetings for pdo and b districts that are either new construction, demolition or a removal of 5,000 square feet or more. currently there are no specific requirements for projects in pdr 1 districts.

there are areas where pre-application meetings are required but established as a commission policy and not integrated into the planning code. this ordinance would codify the pre-application meeting requirements for pdr1b districts in the planning code. the pre-application pr shes provides a forum for early discussion about development proposals with neighboring property owners, tenants and neighborhood organizations. the intent of the pre-application meeting is to provide an open discourse about the goals of the project and to vet any concerns of the neighbors. unlike the 311 or 312 noticing requirements, the pre-application process is done by the applicant prior to submitting to the department. pdr1b districts are unique in that they provide a buffer between small scale residential districts and industrial districts. ~ and staff finds that the proposed pre-application meeting requirement is an appropriate mechanism to notify adjacent residential properties of upcoming projects while not adding additional time to the permit review process.

therefore, the department is recommending that the commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the board of supervisors. thank you for your time and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? david trip. i'm with the duboce triangle neighborhood association. i hadn't planned to comment on this item, but you're talking about adding the pre-application meeting to a requirement and i think and particularly codifying that, and i think if that's something you're considering, you should consider more strictly defining what is a pre-application meeting and what is expected there, because in item 15 that will come up, there is a situation where the project sponsor really made a mockery of the pre-application meeting, certainly didn't comply with the intent of that.

and, so, to simply ask project sponsors to have a meeting can result in a situation where there is a promotional event with no opportunity for public discourse, no opportunity for vetting of concerns in any way that everyone can hear, participate in. so, that's my comment. good afternoon, commissioners. director ram. my name is dan dote. i'm a bayview resident and [speaker not understood] project monitoring group. as andrea mentioned, the project or this legislation change to the planning code was precipitated by a demolition project in the bayview district. some unfortunate fall out around that project, but what it caused us to realize is really the importance of this preliminary meeting and project review by the community and in

conjunction with a developer. i think that these sorts of projects not only impact obviously potential air quality issues and dust and transportation, but also, you know, traffic mitigation things, issues that the police department need to be involved in around circulation. these are areas, as was mentioned, that are buffers to residential, dense residential areas. so, i think it would be a very useful and not an onerous impact at all on the planning department. in fact, would assist in moving these projects forward in a positive way. so, i urge you to adopt the resolution. >> any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'm quite in support of this. looking at the map, it's quite obvious that the pdr-1-b is a buffer kind of zoning between the other pdr's and the residential districts.

so, i think this kind of advanced requirement would enhance the whole planning process. and i think that perhaps staff could take into consideration the comment from the gentleman from duboce triangle and not codify the purpose of all the stuff that might be associated with the intent of the meeting, but maybe put it out as kind of an administrative bulletin or something saying what the purpose iss of it are and that kind of thing. >> if i may, commissioners. ~ on page 3 of the ordinance it does say what the pre-application -- what should happen there. it says the project sponsor or his or her designee shall describe the proposed project, respond to questions, at the best of the sponsor's ability and solicit comments from the attendees with the goal of addressing to the extent feasible neighbor concerns regarding proposed project prior to filing an application with the planning department. so, it does codify that sort of

give and take at the meeting. >> that's great. maybe you could have an admin bulletin that maybe makes some suggestions as to how that could take place. >> sure. >> like a sign-up sheet, that kind of stuff. >> commissioner antonini. >> i am also supportive. i think it makes perfect sense to have these buffer zones. the only question i have is looking at the map, there are a series of streets that appear to have the housing directly adjacent to pdr-1 zones without a buffer, such as williams, new haul, carol, particularly carol and paul. is there perhaps [speaker not understood] could answer or someone could tell me why there is no buffer along the south side of carol or the