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 -- along paul, the south side of paul. >> i hadn't noticed that, but i don't know the thinking behind when they did the zoning for that area. but we can look into it. >> yeah, i would check that. the other areas i noticed at a quick glance, there were a couple areas along williams, not a long area, and also along newhall where you had the blue areas directly across the street ~ from the yellow area. so, i'm not sure if that's an oversight or there's something there. i know paul has a railroad track there that the caltrain comes through. so, maybe that's part of what's there. >> so, i think that you're getting at, commissioner, this pda1b was added a number of

years ago. doesn't mean maybe it should have been applied a little more liberally. i would say in particular reference to carol, the south side of carol there is actually a new development with the 800 3rd street. at one time it was a vacant m-1 zoned industrial. the neighborhood has been changing and that's kind of probably a little bit of the confluence you're seeing. >> okay, thank you. >> we're not -- we maybe weren't very clear on this in the presentation. we're not proposing to change the boundary of the pdr-1-b district. we're just proposing to change the -- to require a pre-app meeting within the existing boundary. >> i realized what the motion is for, but i just was looking at the map and saying, well, if you're trying to provide the buffer, maybe you should relook at the map and see if it should be rezoned in some other parts of that area. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i'll make a motion to recommend approval. >> second.

>> would the suggestion that planning staff look at an admin bulletin or some mechanism addressing more details about the pre-app meeting. >> is that acceptable to the seconder? >> yes. that's a good idea. >> commissioners, nothing else, then we'll call the question. on the motion to adopt the recommendation for approval directing staff to consider administrative bulletin, commaedthctionv? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and places you on item 13 for case no. 2013.0402u - bayview hunters point citizens advisory committee. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

[speaker not understood], department staff. the item before you today is an ordinance proposed by supervisor kim and this proposed ordinance would amend administrative code to establish a bayview hunters point cac. this cac would perform as an advisory body for zone 2 of the bayview hunters point area development area and it would replace the previous project area committee at a time of the redevelopment agency. before i start my presentation, i would like to introduce andrea [speaker not understood] from [speaker not understood] office to talk about this ordinance. >> hi, thank you, commissioners. i know many of you here are familiar or were very familiar with the former bayview project area committee and i was before you a number of times and certainly submitted ample correspondence for your consideration. and the p-a-c was previously a requirement under california redevelopment law.

as you know, the bulk of the southern part of district 10* are a series of redevelopment areas, the hunters point shipyard, and visitacion valley. the p-a-c was managed by the redevelopment agency and really worked hand in hand with the redevelopment commission in terms of providing direction on the use of tax increment as well as being the stewards and guardians of land use controls that were facilitated as part of that. and i think very importantly, the p-a-c also provided an important community forum for where different development projects in the project area were vetted. they had lots of committees and meetings and really served, i think, although not at all times perfectly, but it really was an important vehicle for the community to be able to express their specific views on the different development projects and change that was happening in their neighborhood. when the redevelopment plan was initially adopted for bayview in 2006, the planning

department entered into a delegation agreement with the redevelopment agency that spelled out in great detail the roles of planning staff and redevelopment agency staff in terms of notifying the project area committee of any zoning proposals, conditional use, or other types of proposal that were going to need planning action. at that time the delegation agreement which was later amended in 2010 when we did the adoption of the phase ii project for the hunters point shipyard in scandal stick point required that the p-a-c consider item before the planning commission did and also consider them before the redevelopment commission did. and the planning department's key function in that respect was really notice and providing sort of question and staff support to the extent that there were questions at the project area committee about a particular type of permit. they were also required to report on the p-a-c signing or determinations in their case reports, which was why you did from time to time see them. so, i know that the commission

has spent an ample amount of time talking about the impacts of the dissolution of the redevelopment agency. and so have we. it has been a difficult process and one of the many things that went away with redevelopment was not only millions of dollars of tax increment, but also our project area committee. so, right now for projects that happen in the bayview there isn't a citizens led group that i can send developers to when they come to my office and ask how to do community outreach in the bayview. and the bayview is challenging in terms of capacity of neighborhood groups, neighborhood organizations, and at the same time it is experiencing a significant amount of change. and, so, community involvement and land use decisions, and land use approvals is really quite critical. so, we took the dissolution of the redevelopment agency as an opportunity to look at how we can actually improve the project area committee. under crl it was extremely limited in terms of qualifications and who could sit on the body. so, we've done our best to kind

of broaden i think as much technical expertise as we can on the body. and we've also sort of narrowed its focus a little bit at this point. we have tried to keep it as consistent as possible with what the obligations of the planning department were in its previous agreement, which is providing notice to the entity of conditional use applications , zoning changes as well as anything that would technically qualify under our ppa application. the city administrator's office who is facilitating many of the new roles and responsibilities of the former redevelopment agency will be providing the staff support for this entity along with the mid-market cac. so, planning staff will not be overly burdened in that particular way. as you can see in the case report, we have been working with staff on some refinements to this legislation. there were some things in the old delegation agreement that, you know, just given that it

was executed in 2006 are not the most consistent with the existing planning code. so, we've really tried to make it as consistent as possible with the ppa application. i think one of the other staff recommendations is also to set a timeline for the p-a-c or for the cac to be able to review projects so that it's not stalled necessarily for a lack of planning -- stalled at the planning commission process for a lack of community review. which i think is something that we can be fully supportive of. the one note that is in there at the end of your case report is about the pdr being noticed. we would like, since you supported that piece of legislation, to include notifications encompassed in the pdr-1-b district. and, so, i generally -- i think that hopefully this is a reasonable reconstitution of a community body that i think was really important to our neighborhood and hopefully will be important to you and to the

supervisors as far as decision makers on land use projects. so, i can answer more questions about the history of the p-a-c or the delegation agreement or the redevelopment plan, but i'll now give it back to kim. >> thanks, andrea, for the background. i'll just get the background part of my presentation. i'll talk more about our recommendations. so, the proposed ordinance as was proposed by supervisor are replicated exactly what the delegation agreement between the redevelopment agency and the planning department required for the project area committee. and we consulted with the staff who worked with the p-a-c at the time and we identified some areas of improvement for the requirements. and though areas of improvement primarily around the [speaker

not understood] projects that go to the cac and also the notification process. so, as was introduced, the ordinance required projects to the cac that include a significant project which is any residential project of 10 units or more and any commercial project that is adding more than 25,000 square feet. also all conditional use permits in this project area, approval of any new construction or substantially habitation [speaker not understood] or any neighborhood commercial zoning district, and approval of significant land use proposals like zoning amendments and also any planning commission hearing and other projects if requested by the project area committee. so, some of these like substantial habitation was with a little vague. it wasn't defined and we don't

really have a definition in the planning code to identify projects that qualify as substantial habitation. and also somebody said to change that and propose changing that and also -- we also recommend that we can use existing thresholds that are in the planning code already to help identify the projects that have to go to the cac and also streamline the notification process. so, our proposal is to use the newly established project preliminary project review threshold for the projects that have to go to the cac, and that is residential projects that are six units or more and nonresidential projects that are -- that are 10,000 square feet or more. so, that already includes everything that was in the

delegation agreement and even more. u already have this process established, once the planner issues a letter of ppa, they can use that letter to notify the cac. and for substantial habitation, we propose to use existing definitions in section 311 and for vertical additions of 7 feet -- 7 feet or more and horizon' of 10 feet or more for residential projects. and then the projects that recommend change of use establish -- as defined in section 312 and also projects that propose demolition of residential uses and define section 317. so, in that way we're using existing definitions of new

projects or alteration projects that are already in the planning code. and then still we recommend to keep our conditional use permits, all zoning amendments and also recommending to add planning department [speaker not understood] and plan projects that cac can be a forum for community input for longer term planning as well. and then the second area that we are proposing amendments is the notification process. the way it's proposed right now, it doesn't really layout the detailed process for notification, and staff thought that it would be -- both the cac and the planners and the community would benefit from a more detailed requirement in terms of notification. so, we are recommending to add timelines for a review for when

the project sponsor -- how much time they have to schedule a hearing before the cac and how much the cac has time to provide their input and that way it's more clear and the expectations are more clear in that way. and the timeline is detailed in the case report if there's any questions i can delve more into it. so, we propose that the commission recommends approval of this ordinance and the recommendation -- the recommended modifications of staff. and since this ordinance is not amending the planning code, no action is required. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment? thank you, president fong, commissioners. director ram. dan dote again. i'm a decades long bayview

resident business owner and as mentioned earlier run a little outfit called the office for community planning and we work on project review. i was a member of the p-a-c from 1996 when the concept plan was written through adoption in 2006. so, i have quite a bit of information and institutional memory about all that. it should be pointed out that the relationship with planning was a good one during those years. we had some problems with the way projects may have been reviewed in a timely manner, but i think we had some good relationships there we want to build on. things weren't perfect obviously and i think part of that was due to the number of committees and the committee structure on the p-a-c. what is important to understand about this ordinance is that it really is focused on land use and project appropriateness in the bayview district. and i think for that -- for those subjects, this body will

be composed of people who have the capacity to look at land use projects, perhaps have background in construction, architecture, new jersey nichetion, historic preservation, et cetera, and can really speak to those issues that can help inform the neighborhood on a much more comprehensive level. there really is no mechanism in place at this point and as you can see what's happening in the bayview today is that there is significant private investment going in, but there is also a significant public investment. we have a $15 million san francisco public library. we have some public/private partnerships that are happening. so, there is a vibrancy in the corridor. there is a lot of emphasis for compliance with a-d-a and mod requirements and i think that those things would also be looked at when new projects come online. so it is important that a mechanism be put in place and the cac would do that. the cac would also add a level

of consistency with your requirements at the planning level or the planning department level for project review and the timeline for project review. and that's a very positive development. and as was mentioned by kimeo, we've been working with staff on the threshold notification requirements and so on and those things that trigger potentially cac review and we applaud the work of supervisor cohen's office, particularly andrea bruss on bringing this to your attention and we urge you to adopt this resolution. thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i apologize, but for not knowing this, but there was a zone 1 redevelopment area, is that correct? was there a cac for that particular area also? >> yes. so, there's two different relo