that will be making available so it's tremendously success, excited that the policy will scale that kind of work and i think you received communication about this but our citizen's advisory committee support this is ordinance as well. >> thank you ms. fox and i neglected to mention as was mentioned the fact is we already have drink tap stations right now in a number of our highly trafficked parks. if you go to terminal three at sfo and the international terminal you will find taps there. if you go to the swrool, the academy of the sciences and a number of our cutting edge schools these drink taps exist. we're asking as new buildings are created we will put these into those buildings and i would like to acknowledge mr. rodriquez from the department of the environment to provide any comments from your

perspective. >> supervisors, mr. rodriquez with the department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to support this ordinance much the findings really speak to the environmental impacts of bottled water and our concerns but more important wanted to comment about the popularity and use of bottle filling stations are growing. you see them in places as mentioned by president chiu but also in private buildings. you can see there are a lot of places like gyms are using these and when you have water like hetch hetchy we just need the filling stations to provide the public with a high level of convenience and easy way to fill up reusable bottles and not use plastic bottles so we encourage the

support of this measure. >> thank you. president chiu anything else? >> i would like to thank building inspection for their support of the legislation and i have a couple of technical amendments and include them. the first in the definition drink tap station in section a4. it means a bottle filling unit that complies with the standards of the ada and assisted by the under writers laboratory. i would like to amend it makes the same reference to the ada but approved by an approved agency. the next one is 24-04 and one or more drinking fountains shall have a station in lieu of a

separate fountain and clean up the language and for one or more drinking fountains there should be one with each fixture installation and the third technical amendment which was brought to my attention by the city attorney and given that the legislation took a while to get here and the date would come before the effective date and that we strike the references to the operative date and specifically on page four lines 20 and 31 and there is the standard effective date for which the ordinance will be effective 30 days from the date of passage so those are simple technical amendments to adopt but mr. chair if we could go to public comment. >> thank you. do we have any public comment? there are no public comment cards. any member of the public would like to comment? seeing none public comment is closed. so i guess

you moved several technical amendments. can we take those without objection? so ordered. and president chiu is there a motion to forward to the board with recommendations. >> i would like to make that motion as i said before there will be additional legislation, hopefully we're introducing in the next few weeks and limit seals of water bottleos city facilities and on city property but we wanted to move forward this piece because i think it's really important for all of us to be thinking how we could be increasing access to our hetch hetchy drinking water with this being an important part of that strategy and ask mr. chair if we could move this out of committee with recommendation. >> that is as amended. >> as amended. >> okay. can we take that without objection? that is the ord. can you call item three. >> item three is an ordinance

and pre-application meetings for the production/distribution/repair light industrial buffer district. >> and supervisor cohen is the author and she is here. >> thank you colleagues. i will keep item four short becausein you have a busy agenda today. this came because of the demolition of the flant plant and working with the department of building inspection and the neighbors to u understand how this could have occurred we discovered unlike residential property there is are no neighborhood notification requirements that takes place on this type of zoned property. now for those not familiar with this coding classification it's unique to the bay view and it was created in this area -- created in this area where there are single family homes

directly across from heavy industrial uses. as a result any significant alteration or demolition work on these buildings has noise, traffic, dust impacts on the adjacent residential neighbors. in light of this incident we worked with the planning department and specific neighborhood notification done on these parcels. in addition that these standards don't need to be stringent on these parcelsace residential parcels this legislation requires that before applying for permits to construct altero demolish 5,000 square feet or more on one of these parcels a contractor must conduct a neighborhood meeting and provide notice to owners and occupants of within 300 feet of the proposed project site. this would give the neighbors an

opportunity to know about work in the community before it begins and it's too onus of a requirement of owners of these older industrial parcels. i would like to bring up erin star from the planning department to provide you more technical detail of the legislation. thank you. >> thank you supervisor cohen and good afternoon supervisor wiener and president david chiu. you did an excellent summary of the ordinance. not much to add to it other than the pre-applications are currently required in these zones districts but only through commission policy. this ordinance would koif it. it was heard may 19, 2013 and voted 6-0 that the board of supervisors approve the proposed ordinance and you summarized it very well so i will leave that and if you

have any questions please let me know. thank you. >> thank you. >> anything else supervisor cohen? >> i believe this legislation strikes the balance of providing the right notice for the neighbors and the work occurring in the community. while not creating too much much a burden on the planning notification requirements for the planning department or the owners of the parcels. i would ask for your support on this measure. >> thank you. madam clerk is there any public comment cards? any member of the public would like to comment? yes, sir. please come forward welcome. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is dick molet and i want to thank supervisor cohen for this ordinance. our approximation is notification, notification, notification. even with notification we

overlook things that are happening all the time so it's very important that any notification that comes up is approved. i support it. thank you very much. >> great. thank you very much. is there any public comment on item three? seeing none public comment is closed. president chiu could i have a motion to forward item three with recommendation. >> so moved. >> positive recommendation. >> with positive recommendation so moved. >> okay. and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. madam clerk please call four - if. >> item four for the special use district for the continuing operation of the college of the arts. >> supervisor cohen is the author of this as well. supervisor. >> thank you very much supervisor wiener. this item i have been working on a little

over a year. the special use district would help the city's most educational institution also known as the california college of the arts. the california college of the arts has been an institution in potrero hill for decades and they offer 33 graduate and under grad programs for nearly 2,000 students. the college has received recognition for the programs and architecture, design and photographer and painting and more. the college was looking to expand in san francisco. they purchased additional lots adjacent to their current campus and while the college participated extensively in the eastern neighborhood planning process the resulting 20,000 square foot size limitation on post secondary educational institution does not allow them to expand under the existing code. an effort to support the

college's effort to expand and stay in san francisco we have worked with the college and planning staff on the special use district. in conjunction with this the college prepared a master plan which was accepted by the planning commission and it would remove the size limitations on secondary educational institutions and with parcels that they own. it includes using them for temporary uses and annual fashion show and graduations. with the recent student legislation the board passed this would allow the college to construct up to 750 beds of student housing. before i bring up the planning department to provide additional information about the legislation we have noticed an error in one of the

listings in the assessors block number. on page three the reservation to assessor block 3192 should be block number 3913. i would like to motion that we amend this section to read the assessors number as listed and i have it listed in writing. thank you. >> okay. thank you supervisor. do we have any public comment cards -- were you going to bring the department up? >> i would like to amend this. >> okay. after public comment. >> okay. you're going to do it after? okay. the city attorney has been advised that the change and recommend that we make this amendment verbally and they can provide the clerk with an updated ordinance shortly so without further adieu i would like to bring up deeggo san

sanchez from the planning department. >> good afternoon and recommending the recommendation regarding the proposed art and design educational district. supervisors there was a meeting held and the commission heard public testimony and it was well received by members of the public and the neighbors in the immediate area. the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion of the proposed amendment and with minor corrections to reflect in the ordinance reflect the block on page three as was noted and also on page two on a line 12 there is a reference to block 3912. should be 3913. so that's what they move to make those two corrections. they voted unanimously and well received. that concludes my

presentation. thank you. >> one more presentation i would like to offer an opportunity for david megel from the cca and talk about the college's planned expansion. >> thank you supervisors. david megel director of planning for california college of the arts. we are a school that was founded -- in the aftermath of the earthquake and fire of 1906 and 1907 were nonprofit. just over 1900 students which makes us 700 smaller than lowl high school. 45% are from california. 35% from the rest of the u.s. and 20% international students. we have been in the neighborhood since 1985 and have carefully assembled contiguous parcels to make a urban campus and as

supervisor cohen noted in 2011 we bought a large adjoining parcel, two and a half acres. as you know the eastern neighborhoods rezoning introduced the pdr1d zoning in our area because of the design district which we feel we're consistent with but we need the use meanted to allow us to move forward. there were letters in the packet to the planning commission supporting this. we did about a three month outreach working with supervisor cohen's staff to talk to all the major stakeholder groups in the neighborhood, and had unanimous support. so we have no immediate plans. we will be plaque to you in the future after we raise a lot of money i imagine. we barely finished paying off the land so we did hold -- last week we held our

fashion show in the street and i promised the chair of the program it would be on the lot next year so we hope you will come to that. thank you and if you have any questions i am happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. okay. we will now open it up and public comment. i have two cards. dick miller and korean woods. you can come up and if anyone else wants to talk on this item you can line up and fill out a card. mr. miller. >> i have some paperwork. i am dick miller, neighborhood association vice president. we support this change. we remember very much when ccac first came to potrero hill. they were outreaching. they invited us to all of the activities and share their facilities at the old original

location and the new one. they have done a beautiful design job on the greyhound station and a school and nicest architecture in the show place sc -- square and they wanted to be our neighbor and they have been and shared the plans with the planning department and they should have told you that, so we support the very much. we love ccac. if you haven't been to their fashion show go. it's great. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. miller. ms. woods. >> good afternoon. my name is corine woods. i'm a neighbor of ccac. they're two blocks from

me and i am chair of the mission bay ccac which unanimously endorses the support for the sud. we have worked with ccac for many years. they were active when we were going through the eastern neighborhood rezoning. they let us use their facilities for meetings. they were very involved in a lot of the issues that we're talking about including channel street and hooper street changes. in fact the 100 hoover street project which is across the street from them is going to be coordinating with them for a green street project so they're great neighbors much we are looking forward to the expansion and i hope you will support it. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item four? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor cohen you provided

several technical amendments. >> actually just one. >> just the one. okay. >> one so i would like to motion that we amend the ordinance and strike the assessor block number 3912 to reflect and replace with it with block 3913. >> president chiewt can we have that motion. >> i am happy to. >> okay. we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> and president chiu can we have a motion to forward with positive recommendation. >> happy to move this with positive recommendation. >> great thank you. >> without objection. thank you. let's see madam clerk can you please call items five, six and seven together. >> yes. item numbers five, six, and seven on ordinances amending the administrative code revisions to the affordable care act procedures, appeal processes and notice requirements for

environmental impact reports and notice of declaration. >> thank you very much. i am the author of item five and supervisor kim is author of six and seven and all by the commissions and the historic preservation commission and speaking to item five which is the legislation i offered, both the historic preservation commission and planning commission recommended it. it is supported by nearly 30 transit neighborhood affordable housing and park groups. it will create a predictable and transparent procedure for handling ceqa appeals to the board of supervisors. this is now the tenth public hearing on my legislation including five at the land use committee, three at the historic preservation commission and two at the

planning commission, and supervisor kim you are the author of items six and seven. would you like to make any opening remarks? >> i do want to introduce a couple of amendments today to our legislation, so we have one proposed amendment which i will hand out, and this is just putting into the local ordinance what is already in state law which is that by law the city is allowed 30 days to review of for completeness of permits and other entitlements for use and as provided for in ceqa sections as listed in a case of a project that involves an application for a permit or entitlement for use they will determine within 30 days when it's complete whether a environmental report or mitigated one is required for

the project. the determination shall be final and concluive on all persons including responsible agencies and this is a continuation of some of the conversations we had about helping out the timeline on the front end kind of stemming from the conversation of some of our affordable housing groups providing some form of expedited review for them in the process. and the process of doing that we learned under state law that we do have 30 days to -- once an application is complete to make a decision on the environmental report, so we are just putting that into the local ordinance. the second amendment -- the second series of amendments i believe the clerk's office will come and present to you us and i am happy sept amendments into our legislation. >> >> the legislation went to the historic preservation commission last wednesday and it did come out unanimously with the

recommendations of the planning department, but also asking the planning department to further study two issues. one is kind of the distinctions between first and final approval and the second was actually reconsidering bringing back landmarking as one of the approvals that is allowed while an appeal is pending, so that was something that we actually took out in our substitute legislation. the hpc asked us to reconsider that issue and they did also mention if there were a discrete of controls -- i'm sorry, approvals that planning felt kind of had a policy need to continue on while the appeal is pending that they would consider that as well. >> thank you supervisor kim and also for clarification the clerk's proposed amendments are to both pieces of legislation and are they to both supervisor kim's legislation or just one

of the two? mr. cal dera. >> good afternoon supervisors. it's international nuts and bolts we would like on both part was legislation. because you included the reservation of sending to the planning department and making the determination within three working days and add a provision by any other department making determinations just to clarify the planning departments but not just for their determinations or other departments that are makingditions and ties up with page nine of the legislation and any departments are provide them with the ordinance -- >> thank you and i am supportive of the clerk's recommended amendments. my question now is supervisor kim has two pieces of legislation, items six and

seven, and the questions are these amendments for both of supervisor kims or just one? >> just for six. >> just for six. okay. it's for items five and my legislation then and supervisor kim's six. >> we have nothing for seven, no. >> i forgot to speak about item seven. i apologize just for the sake of the public. item number seven we did split the file on this piece because this came out of conversations how the public can contest or have a discussion about modifications of projects when they get exemption determinations so we did introduced separate piece of legislation regarding whether how those appeals would be taken and we had written into the legislation that the appeals would go to the planning commission. if members of the public would like to appeal the modification of the ero. again we are very open in the conversations around that. we

split the file because the item is required to go back to the planning commission, so that's why we made that separation, but again i think we really want to figure out how we deal with modifications and for a way for the public to understand when a modification occurs or not so if it's outlined in a way that everyone understands that is one way to deal with it. we haven't come up with that language so far and we have a way for members of the public to appeal that. >> so there are potentially multiple appeals of modifications but go to the planning commission instead of the board of supervisors? >> it would go to the planning commission and this is when a department actually refers something to planning. it's not that members of the public get to decide but if it's referred to the planning department this is done by other departments

when they feel that is the case and the ero makes a determination whether the previous exemption covers this modification or whether he or she needs to issue a new exemption determination. if he or she does not members of the public would have a right to appeal, just that decision, not the ceqa, but whether the modification occurred if that makes sense. >> so if there were -- for clarification if there were five such modifications that the ero determined within the original one each of the modifications are appealable to the planning commission? >> that would be the case but i'm not sure awe often departments do that and of course that is a discussion our departments can have them with each other when they think that a modification is substantive enough for the ero to look at it and i assume they don't frivolous send them if they don't have to.

>> okay thank you. i have a very different perspective on that. i think whether you're appealing to the planning commission or the board of supervisors this would still potentially allow multiple or numerous, depending on the project, appeals in the middle of construction, but i understand your perspective and i think it's an on going dialogue that we have on that particular subject, so the planning department staff is here, and we did receive memos from the department relating to the planning commission and the historic preservation commission recommendations on supervisor kim's legislation. can you explain that? >> that's correct. i have additional copies for the public if you anyone would like to see. there are two memos. the first -- actually one was -- the first is a memo from our department

to this body in response to the planning commission when they reviewed supervisor kim's ordinance they ask we look into four additional items and notification and feasibility thereof. they want to know if it's difficult or possible to do these determinations. they wanted more information about this idea of allows or not ax allowing project approval while pending and discussion on affordable housing. this memo i think covers all those topics and i think this committee might find on pages two-three and the timeline for additional notifications with both of the proposals before you today, and then the second item is the historic preservation commission's resolution after reviewing supervisor kim's

ordinance last week. like she said they recommended approval of certain portions and disapproval of other portions and this goes through the specifics and includes the executive summary which the commission supported and you will find a point by point approval or disapproval and they supported these recommendations and asked for three additional topics to be explored. one, they asked for the planning staff to provide analysis that further clarifies the differences between the two proposals as they have currently and up-to-date in the future as amended, and number two, they asked that the legislation should allow this landmark decision to move forward while appeal is pending and finally they thought it needed further clarification about the hpc's role during appeals, so that's