program for newcomers in san francisco, and we will call him bill, a ride in san francisco from ohio to pursue a new life -- arrive in san francisco from ohio. we got him tested, and he tested negative, thank you. he met someone he really liked, and that person turned out to be hiv-positive. he had never encountered this before in dating, and he was not sure what steps to take. we helped him to have safe sex with his partner. they are still together, and bill is still tested hiv negative. so, in short, the center has helped community members with a broader array of services in the bay area, with an ever-growing reform program we have there. we are sustaining our historical legacy, mourning losses and celebrating victories. we would not be able to do this if there is not an opportunity

to bring in long-term commercial tenants. thank you. chair maxwell: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, then public comment is closed. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, then without objection, we will move this forward. madam clerk, would you read items two and three together, and, item two will go out as a committee report, which we will hear tomorrow as a full board. clerk somera: item number two, the rehabilitation and maintenance of transfer lots after sale of transferable development rights, an item number three, the preservation and rehabilitation of transfer lots after sale of transferable development rights at 680 california st.. chair maxwell: supervisor chiu?

supervisor chiu: this deals with st. mary's, an important part in my district. this has been an important part in chinatown, and as we have discussed in prior meetings, it is an institution that is in danger of collapsing in the event of an earthquake. there is a severe need for additional seismic work. this legislation conversation started many, many months ago as a way to figure out how to direct the proceeds from the sale of old st. mary's transferrable rights, tdr rights, to preserve this important building. i want to thank the commission for the work they did over many months to bring forth this legislation, which would strengthen the connection between the sales and the preservation of historic properties. what i would like to ask the committee to do today, colleagues, is to move item two

to the full board tomorrow, the report, and and to amend item three and then continue it for a week, because -- and then to amend item. and continue it for a week because what we are doing with it is significant. -- and then to amend item 3 and continue it. we want to make sure we need all of the deadlines required to preserve that building, but item three, which i will be amending based on conversations korea had with owners of various preservation lots to really accomplish.-- note which i will be -- which i will be amending based on conversations i have had with owners of various preservation lots. this is to make sure this is dealt with early in the process. so with that, unless there any comments with the planning staff, let me ask if there are any members of the public who wish to speak of public comment on this issue. i should have acknowledged clint

from old st. mary's. clint, where are you? he is in the other room. can we asking to come in from old st. mary's? chair maxwell: this is the second time we have heard this, so this has been vetted. supervisor chiu: that is the only speaker card i have, so if you could talk about the urgency and why it is important to move forward on item two. >> thank you, supervisor. old st. mary's and i appreciate this opportunity. you have been very flexible with respect to this whole process. the sense of urgency, we started this project 3.5 years ago, is that it is a contract to sell tdr's.

the contract has been amended seven times, and we have been pulling at it like it is a piece of taffy. there is a deadline of november 15, because we now have an identified and development lot that we are selling the tdr's too, so, really, in a nutshell, we will lose real dollars if we do not need that contractual obligation. with respect to the proposal to duplicate and to move item two forward, we fully support that and appreciate the flexibility with respect to planning staff with the board of supervisors and this committee to accommodate old st. mary's and the urgency. supervisor chiu: thank you. chair maxwell: next speaker, please. >> i am gigi platt. i support what you're doing, but i do not support the language of

item two, which i know has been put over. supervisor chiu: you mean item three which is going to be put over. >> right, but i heard supervisor maxwell that it was totally vantage, but i have not had a chance. haute -- it has been totally vetedvette -- it has been totally vetted. thanks very much. chair maxwell: all right, any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: so, again, to make the motion, it is to move item two for tomorrow's full board of supervisors and that will also adopt the amendments that i have circulated today to clarify the tdr rules to make sure these are dealt with earlier in the process. chair maxwell: item number two

as amended will go out. supervisor chiu: actually, item two will not be amended but will just go out. chair maxwell: all right, item two as a community report. supervisor chiu: item 3 is to be continued for next week. [gavel] thank you, colleagues. chair maxwell: all right, madam clerk, would you read item number four, please? clerk somera: item number four, it. plan impact fee in jobs housing program modifications. -- item number 4, the area plan impact fee. >> the action before the committee today is an amendment

of the planning code. these are all related to impact fees. the majority of the legislation involves will be considered to be good government amendments with technical corrections and clarifications of code language which does not amount to substantial changes of the code. this includes in proving planning code readability and ease of application with regard to impact fees, creating consistent definitions and applications across the area plan fees, which include rincon hill, balboa, and others. these proposed changes were developed in close collaboration between the planning department team and its implementation team to ensure that they met objectives of improve readability and ease of application. in addition to the technical corrections, the ordinance also includes several changes and impact fees. this is to make sure the we're fairly and consistently charging developers for the impact of

their proposed development. as you know, the city has a practice of charging impact fees to developers to the mitigate the impact of new development with such infrastructure as affordable housing, transportation, parks, and centro brigitte quinn parks, etc.. -- cote transportation, parks, etc. chair maxwell: excuse me. if you could keep the noise down, please? >> and more recently, fees for specific areas, such as market octavia, eastern neighborhoods, balboa, and rincon hill. there is the demand for and cost of new things. they help mitigate the effects -- and we limit these fees in

this way foremost because of state law but also of a basic standard to not charge developers for something they did not create. in calculating the impact fees, there are two kinds of development. those that add to the total city develop and those of r.e. conversion of one land use to another. -- and those that are really a conversion of one land use to another. there is not clear guidelines on how to calculate the impact. this lack of clear to lead to inconsistent application of fees, which in turn undermines the city's ability to collect these appropriately and increases the risk for certain domestic, and then there are fees that exceed the actual impact. currently, the developer feels they are being overcharged. this can be time-consuming and have uncertainty. what this ordinance does is provide clarity on how to do the

impact fees in the conversion of one lane used to another. korean won land use to another -- one land use to another. the rationale is that the city policy supports such uses whenever it can. however, just because we do not charge impact fees, it does not mean that there is not an impact. what our proposed legislation does is to deal with the inconsistency in the process to mention the their properly assessed and to make sure that the city collects the appropriateness of impact fees. these of the spouse of the

changes being proposed this is a reflection of different studies conducted. -- changes being proposed. this is a reflection of different studies conducted. development will be credited for institutions on-site at over $19 per square foot. another change proposed is to close the loophole by which uses such as wholesaling, and autorepair and others -- and automotive repair and others are considered. in rincon hill, other residential uses a of a $3 per square foot. in market octavia, they would be credited at $1.70 per square foot. in balboa park, it is 75 cents

per square foot. we are promoting the adaptive re-use. as you may remember, we established fee tiers. each parcel in the eastern neighborhood was assigned to one of three tiers. these apply to any develop and on a given parcel -- these have applied to any development on a given parcel. it creates a disincentive to use existing buildings. the policy was to support adaptive re-use, and it is obviously greener to use an existing building. for all of these reasons, we are doing this. price chicks in the lowest --

projects in the lowest fee tier would have no changes. in 3, there would be a reduction for both residential and nonresidential use. that concludes my presentation on the proposed ordinances. i am happy to answer any questions. chair maxwell: thank you. colleagues, any comments or questions? why do we not open it up for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for your work. it has been a long time coming. you have done some good come in debt to work on this, so this will make it easier. -- you have done some good, hard work on this. colleagues, we will continue this item until next week. without objection?

so moved. madam clerk, item number 5, please. clerk somera: item number five, the california environmental quality act procedures, appeals, and public notice. >> supervisor alioto-pier will not be here today because she is attending a funeral, so we will ask for a continuance. i just wanted to talk about why this is before you. in 2002, california passed a law. in the last years, we have not enacted permanent procedures to deal with this.

we introduced this legislation back in april, and it went to the planning commission, which recommended its approval 6-1. in san diego, there was a 10-day deadline. what we have done is try to take into account our existing planning code. pitt -- chair maxwell: all right, again, we will hear this item, and you will be able to comment, and you will be able to, the following week, as well. planning? >> thank you, chair maxwell,

supervisors. this was reviewed by the historic commission and the planning commission, in both recommended approval with some modifications. the planning commission listed 11 modifications, -- and both recommended approval with some modifications. the department wishes to remain our gratitude to supervisor alioto-pier for incorporating the vast majority of the recommendations. i have the complete list, and i will spare you from that. chair maxwell: i think we should hear all of the recommendations, yes. >> ok, these are all from the planning commission. the first one was they wanted to add in the community planning exemption as an exemption. it was not listed in the same with the others are in the statutes, and that has been done. the second one is we requested more preparation time, and this

has been accommodative, so there will be more time to prepare for the hearings compare to currently. we also requested the environment -- there be a certain number of copies to the board, which is to be at the discretion that may be e-copies. we requested an adjustment to the response deadline. currently, they have to have the responses in in advance of the hearing, and some pilots do this up until the day of the hearing, and is very hard for the department and project sponsors to prepare a response to that, so the supervisor has put in staggered deadlines, where appellants have to have all of theirs in 15 days prior to the hearing, and others need to have their information in 10 days prior to the hearing, and then that is the cut off for

submitting. we will not see what we have seen in the past. the planning commission also requested a change in the requirement for board action within 45 days of filing, and this has been changed generally to know within 30 days of filing, unless the board is not meeting three times that month, and they could be extended 40 days, or if the full board is not there, similar to the way that you'd do ceqa appeals, it would be pretty much the standard way we do things. we also note requesting clarification on remanded decisions, so when the board overturns, it is unclear what would happen to further subsequent appeals. if you overturn this decision and send it back for more work, now it is clear.

only the matter that you were concerned about in your appeal could be subsequently appealed, and things that were not appealed would not be subject to the subsequent appeal. that has been incorporated. the planning commission requested clarification that would require objection in order to maintain appeal rights. this is no longer relevant, and the requirement that you have to have a prior has been deleted, so that is no longer relevant. the supervisor can specify what kind of demolition would be applicable to this, in section

317 of the planning code, as well as alterations to buildings of a surge in your or older. -- of a surge in year or older -- a certain year or older. and we requested an additional note, -- an additional item. this was actually not incorporated. this is something that we can do to further provide clarity. i guess there are some things in the ordinance before you that describe what sort of notice is required, but we do many additional notices before you get to that step of the eir, such as the notice of preparation, and that it be

codified in specified in the law, we can post the information online and make that part of the previous notice requirements more publicly known. and then there was the recommendation of the city attorney. that has inc. -- has been incorporated. they want fairness in any potential limiting of appellants, and the was a requirement for prior participation. -- there was a requirement. they also wanted specificity in their required role in the process, and they wanted notice for categorical exemption, and

they also asked about limiting future actions in that there was simultaneous approvals. this could happen with the potential historic district, and if there was a ceqa appeal, they wanted to make sure that their potential for action was not limited. so that is line by line what those commissions wanted. supervisor alioto-pier responded to the vast majority of these recommendations. i guess i could say the examples of how she you responded, which of summarize unless you want them all in detail, is that they were setting reasonable timelines for the hearings so that all parties have time to prepare, while allowing for the additional time in case the board is on recess during that time, providing for staggered and deadlines -- standard deadlines -- staggered

deadlines. other recommendations also incorporated clarify what may be subject to appeal after a decision has been remanded, as i discussed, and then there were some minor -- minor technical issues. the supervisor did eliminate prior participation for an appeal. they expanded notice of exemption, and they included the historic preservation commission in the process. as well as the determinations of historic districts would not be interrupted by a potential ceqa appeal, so our department wants to think the supervisor for addressing this. it has long lain but we do long

language. -- it has long language. i think it is a good thing to get the requirements into law so it is better for everyone. that concludes my presentation. also, the chief of environmental review officer, bill, is here. if you have any questions, he could probably best answer them. chair maxwell: i believe, we will, and i mentioned one week, but it will probably be more like one month, because we do not have a meeting on october 11, so it will probably be beyond that. there is a lot of large pieces of legislation, and supervisor chiu will discuss that, but i think we will need more time for people to digest the changes. supervisor chiu, would you like

a question, or would you like the gentleman to come up first? supervisor chiu: he can come up. chair maxwell: i saw him here. >> a very good summary of the suggestions we made as well as the many revisions that were made, both in terms of both commissions and other members of the public both here and at the planning commission. supervisor chiu: all right, i will start with a few brief comments, and that we will obviously hear from the public. i think these changes concerning the ceqa law makes sense. i know there is a lot of legislation that clarifies things from the developer's perspective. i am just starting to hear, because this is from a lot of maybin association leaders which

of not been fully answered -- this is from a lot of neighborhood association leaders. one thing i would like to suggest that would be helpful note is for my staff to potentially convene with planning or with supervisor alioto-pier's office. they're always continues to be a lot of concerns around the lack of consistency and the lack of uniformity around public notices and environmental decisions, and i know there had been some discussion about requiring the environmental review officer, yourself, i am wondering if you could talk about the consideration around that. >> there were five specific requirements in the code.

in summary, whether they are designated or potential, the planning department code, instead of the building department, so it has always been a little bit ambiguous, so i think the notice has been addressed. i think the remaining areas of ambiguity and the lack of closure is on some exemptions which do not have a hearing before the planning commission or some kind of discretionary action, and the next step is a

building permit. that remains a challenge in terms of what would be noticed that would let people know about " -- what would be noticed -- notice. a building permit for which there is not a lot of its potential documents -- a lot of extensive documents. tying it to the section 311, 312 notices. the problems that i have understood from our neighborhood planners is that those notices have been on a different timeline -- have been on a different timeline. -- happened noon a different timeline. we do