>> this was dlifrtd to you and staff is not here to respond to comments. such comments will be transcribed and responded to the document which will respond to all documents received during public comment and may include revisions. following certification of the final eir therefore the comments should be considered for the adequacy and the court reporter

has to produce an adequate transcript so the commenters should state their name. after the public comments we'll take - the public comment will extend actually test may 20, 2013. one of the drafts was handled on may 14th unless the commissioner have any questions i recommend the public hearing be opened >> is there imply public comment? seeing none it is closed >> thank you. i read the draft report and i have a couple of comments on the entire picture.

i guess we've been talking a long time. the way you're making our formula work is there's various supplies coming from different sources and as you point out here 7 point i forgot the number 7.6 gallons per day; is that correct? >> 7.2. i think this is extremely important and looking at the ability to store even more and cut down on the conservation. >> you know san francisco is the lowest per capita in the

united states and we can't be expected to be much lower. we should emphasis the possibility of increasing the amount of stored water stored within the lands south of san francisco and also in the east bay that's a subject for another day but whether or not there's a capability of storing more than 7.2 million gallons per day in the aqua space that exists. it exists mostly in the southern region it's safe and don't store in the northern part because of the issues e.

there capacity to store ever more. and i read the additional would be there's constantly a problem keeping the water level high enough and pumping from the northern stations would further restrain them. so we should look at those in terms of choosing this most advantageous. those are my main comments in regards to the report. thank you >> commissioners any further comment

comment? >> it will place you to the amendments to the water soil and grounded testing. >> good afternoon members of the commission. aaron from the legislative team. that's an ordinance that would effective extended the boundary to cover all areas of the city where there's hazardous material. the ordinance would establish interdependent procedures before the department of health and it would still have the testing of grounded water before it amends

the building code and the public works code. the planning commission is not required to take action on this item. however, the proposed item is before the board of supervisors. the planning department staff has worked closely with the dbt and the public utilities commission and, of course, the mayor's office. staffs remedies is that the commission recommend approval to the board of supervisors. kelly is here from the mayor's office to say a few words and afterwards we have another colleague to finish the presentation >> thank you. >> good afternoon president fong and members of the public. i'm kelly and i'm pleased to be

here and to express our support for this legislation. simply put this will help the protection for the city. before i hand the bulk of the presentation to my colleague i want to thank the planning staff. i notice the live department of public health is here >> i'm paul with the planning staff. and to give you a presentation. this is to amend the health codes that was originally

adopted in 1986 that's a public health and safety ordinance. it set up for handling tamed soils during construction activity. it applies along the eastern part of the city. this is where it applies. it's a little hard to see but there's a blue zone the ordinance applies along the blue place it was was known to be contaminated. when someone applies for a permit in that blue zone and

their disturbing 50 yards or so of soil before the permit can be issued the department is required to see if the land is tamed and what level of clean up maybe required before the intended use can be permitted. it only applies in the blue zones. outside of those blue zones there, there are other areas of the soils where it could be contaminated. and the city has the concerns about the worker health and safety when exposed to those soils. those are in the orange zones. in the zones east of marketing and the bay view. the dots are underground storage

places where it could be leaking. and along the freeway corridors the golden gate bridge. those areas also have a high likelihood of being contaminated but they're not there the ordinance. so for all those project areas the planning department and health department of public health over the years our review has resulted in a process through our environmental review and our sequa documentation the sequa contains mitigation measures that effectively require the same steps that the ordinance requires in the blue zones. that reliance is lengthier when attached to the process.

it also means we have two separate processes in the city for dealing with the same issue. in would area it's codified and for the rest of the city it's through our sequa review. the only difference really is it depends upon where the project is located. so the departments are now in the process of updating the ordinance. so, now that's accomplished primarily through updating the areas in the blue and erroneously zones. those are areas where the soils are higher in transaction. and we are updating our healthy

levels for the use and the health department may have so look at grounded water. this will provide better services service to the public and the health department can tie directly into the ordinance making it more standard. it would be more transparent this map will become available to the public. it will eliminate the need for litigation measures in some

sequa measures. bus i've mentioned this will all the time the planning code but not the health code there's no formal need to be recommended but that ends my presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> i have two comments i couldn't be more delighted seeing this happen because we have projects coming up in areas where the environmental status off how we go about it is in

question so this sold fizz. i'm in strong support of how your flagging areas that are known of potential grounded water issues so i'm in support of the ordinance >> commissioner. >> good to see you. this addresses the issue of the areas outside of the jurisdiction and will include that as part of the process. >> actually, the rock is addressed through another article dealing with dust control. this is not recognized by the state but when it becomes

airborne there's an issue of - rewant to have the reduction of dust and that's addressed >> i guess i ask that because we were working on a project that ran into this issue of whether we needed to go through an entire sequa he process and it was around the rock. i don't know if the health code was recently amended or not but this has been going on for at least a year and a half. >> the one thing this proposed ordinance does have is a provision to provide notice to the public that there - the

health code article exists in controlled dust and there's state regulations dealing with dust control. we believe there is no further mitigation required >> and what's the timeframe of the other commissioners on this issue. >> the building inspection commission wants to hold another hearing to have a meeting with the health department how to implement this. but your timetable would have this at the board of supervisors land committee at the end of june for adoption of this in july and it will take effect a

month later and i have a question on the map. i understand one of the crazy for the extensions is it because of the volume of auto traffic or the construction process of building on the freeways. there's areas where it used to have skyways >> the volume is part of it but the need of traffic on the freeways. freeways are of copper and led and the speed on the freeways they have the potential of being moved off the freeways so it's the speed that has greater

potential to spread the metals >> i understand that sometimes, people aren't able to move very fast but on some freeways yes. >> do i see half of al trace being painted? >> yes, this is an older map al traces is not covered and it recognized those are under federal specification so the city's process wouldn't expend out to the island or treasure island either. >> as we're take on the two projects this adds more questions. >> as they're currently federal

properties should in the future this ordinance is written in such a way that the ordinance would apply. >> it makes sense if we're building to city code i'm glad you clarified that. thank you >> commissioner. >> one other question in terms of best practices is this sort of thing done in other cities where they have greater grounded water testing around freeways and other places? are we making it more expensive to do business in san francisco. >> i do not know if other jurisdictions are doing this. i know that the health

department has studies that are in the findings here that talk about the elevated risk of this in the soil but i don't know about other jurisdictions >> that might be good i'm supportive if someone finds out about this. assumely a project would have to be done. >> and there 0 through the state department and the water quality control board theirs established rules and so i believe that other jurisdictions have to comply as well. >> thank you. >> just to get a sense of the

scale of the projects. have 2 h yard and if somebody had 0 replace the foundations >> 50 cubit yards is standard haul truck as i understand it's 12 cubits - you're talking about more than 4 truck loads of dirts we're talking about. if you have a large construction site and you're doing foundation work there's going to be more than 50 yards if you're a residential property owner less than that >> yeah. i make a motion to

the commission to recommend it to the board of supervisors to recommend this ordinances. >> second it. >> on that motion to adopt a recommendation for approval (calling names) that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. >> commissioners there's a request to call items he 11 and 12 together. item 11 and item 12. consideration of adopting amendments to the general plan relating to the bicycle plan and the bicycle parking ordinance itself amendment certain sections of the code >> good afternoon.

commissioners i'm joined here by my colleagues. we'll all worked on this project. we'll present two for your approval. i'll just provided a brief discussion of the context and the premise behind this change and then my colleagues will elaborate on the process which was done. first a couple of words about the importance of bike parking in terms of facility bicycling for transportation. a lack of secure easy bike parking is a major obstacle why people don't use this process.

everyone has had a bike stolen and it's important to protect those bikes against weather and thieves. and street furniture is undesirable for a variety of reasons. we require folks to stuff their bikes under balance i don't think so and such. and just an overall relegates bikes as a form of transportation. a history of bike parking.

our parking history is added over the last 127 years. bike requirement were first established in 1996 and that only requirement was for public buildings arrest now in 2001 they were adopted for commercial and industrial used and a a new code as added. it resulted in a number of insxhvbt. national standards and even more so in cities that have adopted the growth in cycling over the

next decade. so last summer we adopted more coincides. since 1996 biking has increased and as a result any factors has been an investment effort to include cycling. >> when the first code standards were adopted it's a different world now. as of 20103 of the trips are taken by bikes. and in some neighborhoods there's higher figures. this that map shows it's not

just the corridor that has the hive biking. this is based - the easier outlined in black are above the afternoon of biking. those areas are equally above the normal transportation. so the annual account has shown that biking has doubled since 1996. there are over 7 thousand folks who bicycle daily. and the data we have is not for shopping but for commuting. with all this bicycling in san

francisco we have not enough racking. the codes adopted have proved inadequate in reaching city objectives. we want to have a goal of getting more phone calls by 20 percent in 20/20. now the lead standards establish the benchmark have sewer passed their own. now the development pressure as you know the major buildings that are proposed in the upcoming few years certainly with the ma cranes on the sky lane we believe that the buildings have insufficient bike

parking. and now getting ahead of the pipeline we'll not just look back and wonder why there's insufficient bike parking. so we need a holistic update. we are consistent with national proposes. and now i'll turn it over to my colleague. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'll first discuss the issues behind the bike plan then i'll focus the rest of my presentation on the new bicycling requirements. first, the process that brought

us here today starting with the issues today and i'll discuss the details and how we refined our proposal based on the concerns we heard from the community. i also want to acknowledge our colleague if you have any questio questions. so first, the general plans. it was adopted in 2009. this related to the bike plan was prauft in 2009. to the downtown area plan as well as the land use index. on january 14, 2003, the