and the presidents of the two commissions have been informed, and they will have to take action to schedule a hearing for the two commissionses to independently vote to accept or reject our recommendations. so, it's been a long process, and i'm happy that it appears that it's headed towards its finish. and i will tell you in more detail about all the things that this subcommittee did over the year plus that we worked on this particular thing and we continue to do more. thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> so, two things. i don't know that anyone saw in the paper today, san jose mercury news there is an article that the california supreme court is going to rehear the case that was filed against the city of san jose inclusionary housing ordinance. and i would just like to ask the director, you know, if the city is going to be doing an

ami cuss brief or anything to get involved in that case because obviously we have a vested interest in the outcome of it. so, maybe we can look into that. and if the city isn't going to take a position, maybe this commission could send a letter ~ [speaker not understood] to the case. the other thing is last week i got to go along -- i actually saw director ram from planning staff neil hashowi, and i went to a launch of [speaker not understood] zone which is a new project [speaker not understood] create kind of the innovation in the public space and looking at market street, in particular the site kind of in between yerba buena alley, market, between fourth and sixth -- fourth and third actually. and it's actually really interesting, the exploratorium is there, looking at all the different kinds of unique kind of interactive experiences and activities that we could create and many people may not be

aware they actually launched a campaign [speaker not understood] for the renovation zone so it wouldn't cost the city any money to put some fun, innovative interactive activities in the public space. but i do encourage people who are interested in that to learn more about what's called live, or living innovation zone. and i think it's livsf.org if i'm not mistaken. i thought it was really fascinating and it's a great way to kind of activate public space. it's a really kind of brings the fore, kind of innovation we talk about the city is known for, make it part of the experience that everyday citizens and tourists will embrace. >> commissioner moore. >> it was on the back pages of the chronicle, but a few days ago i read that fresh and easy has been bought by the yukaipa company, which is one of the supermarket chains in california and i was very unhappy to hear that the 3rd

street, bayview hunters point food store will be closed. i find that a very unfortunate move. all others, except a few stores in sacramento, [speaker not understood] will be retained, but it's just for this city very difficult to see that store be closed. and i'm not sure what recourse we have. i don't have any idea, but it is of great concern to me that the neighborhood which really needs this type of store is the first one to be affected. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, a couple things. first, on the secretary search, are we -- president, are we thinking of having a joint hearing or no? >> likely to be a joint hearing. >> okay. i think that would be important to hear comments back and forth from the other commissioners.

secondly, a new exhibit has opened up at the california historical society spur, the san francisco public library, the college of environmental design archives in berkeley, maybe one other venue. it's called unbuilt san francisco and it's an exhibit of those kinds of visionary or maybe not so visionary projects that have been proposed for san francisco and the bay area. there is a really interesting and gorgeous model at california historical society of a project that was proposed in marin called the marin cello and it was -- if you're driving to marin from the city and you go through the tunnel, if you can vision everything from that hillside over to the ocean was proposed for development. and i don't know how long -- i don't know who kept the model.

it's at least 8 by 8 or some huge dimension like that. but it's been kept all these years since i guess the '50s is maybe when it was proposed, in the '60s. and i think it's now in the possession of ggnra, but i'm not sure. there wasn't a label on it that said who was in possession of it, but it's really interesting to see. there are other visions for the ferry building area. of course, models of the jewish museum that's part of the jesse street substation, a ballet building that was proposed for where the four seasons is now. and over at spur, there are more planning oriented exhibits. so, it's well worth going and it's free, so, that's all i have. >> okay, thank you. i think that's it. >> commissioners, that will place you under department

matters, item 10, director's announcements. >> thank you, joan austria. nas. an ~ jonas. commissioners, welcome back from break, busy fall. just want to let you know pleased to let you know corey teague is the new assistant. he will be working directly under scott sanchez as the za and will fill in for scott as scott is away or as other needs arise. and as you know dan sider has accepted a different position in the department as well. so, cory fills in for dan or takes over the position that dan sider had in that role. secondly, i think you all got a memo from me yesterday, copy of a memo i sent to the board regarding some new public outreach we're doing related to development projects. we're happy to talk about that in more detail, but i did want to let you know that -- and i will give you more details as we -- as they are developed. but on october 2nd and october 5th we will be having a series

of meetings in the potrero hill and dogpatch neighborhoods in the development on that part of time. supervisor cohen is sponsoring those meetings. that's a wednesday evening and saturday morning. we will be talking about development in that area and talking kind of a refresher, if you will, about eastern neighborhoods, which is now five years since it's been adopted. and talking about that plan and how these projects are or are not consistent with that plan and giving more information to the community about how they can get involved in the process. so, those are coming up on the second and the fifth of october. and that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, item 11, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. well, there was no historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ann marie rodgers planning department staff. this is the first week the board is back with their full schedule of hearings so i'm here to report on those that pertain to planning and land use. at monday's land use committee,

the committee heard supervisor cohen's ordinance which would create a formula retail restricted use district for 3rd street. this commission considered that ordinance on july 25th and unanimously voted for approval with certain modifications. you'll be pleased to know that supervisor cohen incorporated all of the commission's policy recommendations. she did not, however, expand the rud to include a few properties along main street. on this matter the commission merely requested that the supervisor consider this change. and because some of these substantive amendments were made at the committee this week, they amended it and continued it so it's expected to be heard again and recommended for approval next week. also the land use committee, they considered the planning commission initiated ordinance for hotels in certain soma districts. this ordinance would amend the planning code to allow a [speaker not understood] hotel

of any size on muo parcels if they have a height district designation of 105 or higher, but only via conditional use authorization. under the existing controls, this sort of cu approval can only occur for hotel with fewer than 75 units. after a brief presentation by the attorney representing the project that is proposed for 144 king street, the committee forwarded this item with the recommendation of approval. this week at the full board, there were three pieces of legislation introduced and i'd like to share with you the first is a resolution that would recognize the devastating effect of the foreclosure crisis on local communities. it would also support the city of richmond strategy to assist homeowners at risk of foreclosure and remain in their homes and declare san francisco's intention to study whether it should embark on a

similar strategy. this included supervisor campos, mar, and cohen. secondly, supervisor yee introduced an ordinance [speaker not understood] proposed child care facility oversight from the department of children and youth and their families to the office of early education and care. and strangely, it is the planning code that kind of talks about that sort of monitoring and facility oversight requirement. and lastly, supervisor campos introduced an ordinance that would amend the planning code to allow a choice hotel to rent rooms to the homeless veterans for a period of time without abandoning a designated tourist hotel use clarification. so, those last two ordinances will be scheduled for you before you for hearings in the next three months. and that concludes my report this week unless there are any questions. >> commissioner sugaya.

>> yes, one comment on the eminent domain in the city of richmond. it's been reported that actually the city council doesn't have a super majority to actually pass that legislation. so, at the moment i think it's in limbo, so to speak. so, it may not actually move forward. >> thank you for the update. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on -- >> excuse me, the board of appeals did meet last night. they had two hearings since the commission went on recess and last night they met. nothing of interest, nothing to report, but at the hearing on august 21st there were two items. the first being 86 5 el camino del mar also known as 132nd avenue and it was the d-r that the planning commission has heard several times over the course of the years. this was -- this item had been heard previously but continued to allow additional time to have compliance with the

height. the board on that item unanimously upheld the issuance of the permit and the hearing the planning commission did not take d-r on this item. the second item, 31 66 16th street, which is a building permit application to establish a retail use known as shack spade. this item had lengthy hearing. it was a jurisdiction request on a letter of determination. the previous week which the board had denied on this one, the board voted 3 to 2 to overturn the permit, to deny the permit. however, four votes are required super majority to overturn a permit so the permit was in effect granted. there has been a rehearing request filed on this permit and i believe that's scheduled for hearing on october 9th. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, just procedural question. when you talk about a rehearing, i wasn't aware that the board of appeals people can have it heard a second time. >> yes, there is a process, any

appeal that is heard by the board within 10 days you can file a rehearing request. and if you can show that there is either new information that was not available at the time of the previous hearing or manifest injustice, the board can vote to allow a new hearing on the item and it will be scheduled for a brand-new hearing with new briefing and that is a possibility. >> okay, thank you for that information. >> commissioner antonini. >> i already asked. >> thank you. >> there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i do have a couple of speaker cards. >> jeremy whitaker and linda

chapman. good afternoon supervisors -- commissioner. my name is jamie whitaker and i live in the rincon hill neighborhood. i have some public comment about the warrior's arena. i sit on piers 30-32 advisory committee under the port. on january 7th, 2013, we had a meeting at the cac to discuss scoping for the e-i-r. piers 30-32 arena and the very first item that i mentioned in minutes is that the department of public health's sustainable community index should be used to assess the community health impacts of the proposed project. as you probably know, article 38 is written and helps to protect new buildings with ventilation and filters from air quality issues. but thousands of residents already live in the area and have no such protection.

this week on monday, the south beach rincon mission neighborhood association was very happy to host jessica range and [speaker not understood] from the planning department. karen cohen who manages the group that does the healthy development measurement tool. at that time i took the opportunity to ask karen, has your department been contacted about analyzing the air quality and other health impacts on the community by the proposed warriors arena. the answer was no. so, i'm very concerned that the health impacts are not being evaluated for the warrior's arena. and i have a map that i received monday on the overhead. in blue shows the air pollution problematic areas that i believe the planning department is trying to help protect even more and pay attention to the

sensitive use of the area. this is a chart -- this is a graph from sustainable sf.org. it's basically the healthy development measurement tool data available for folks to look at. and you can see the yellow indicates much worse concentrations of particulate matter. and just last year the world health organization began recognizing particular matter as a carcinogen. in other words, like cigarette smoke, there's no additional amount that's not impactful, doesn't reduce a person's life-span. on june 5th, the budget committee of the board of supervisors -- another overhead, please. harvey rose, john avalos, socioeconomic equity showed that the pediatric hospitalization rate for rincon

hill and other neighborhoods around highways is 26.7, 12.2 is the average for other areas. and the sfcpa is showing us 35,000 new pm peak auto trips already [speaker not understood] in the area. so, please have the department of public health get engaged. thank you. linda chapman for knob hill neighbors. i'm going to bring up the fact there seem to be quite a few people concerned in the neighborhood about not even just 1601 larkin that you heard from me about, but about the slicing and dicing of knob hill in general by these little groups of people who probably are not registered as lobbyists and probably are not registered as permit expediters, but are doing some of those kinds of functions and, in fact, some of them are registered as nonprofits which essentially precludes doing that kind of thing. there is a meeting at the library that i didn't organize. i was there and a few other

people from our area. there were also some people who applied for permits. and, yeah, they're quite disgusted. they say here are these groups that come in and say, we're going to place conditions on the permit like at abc hearings -- pardon me, at the board of supervisors hearings, which cannot be enforced in the first place. or we're going to impose that bmr should be on-site in car share, and then somebody responds like in the blog and said, they didn't negotiate anything. they got exactly the minimum that's required by the city planning code anyhow, you know. and yet the neighborhood gets maybe a big ugly building. it is mentioned in this meeting that, you know, people are complaining that the members often don't know anything about this. they have no idea that, you know, the leaders of one or another group are in there. i think there is either favor or money -- you know, it may be just a party, i don't know. it's memberships like local neighbors, if you join us, we'll help you get permits. we know how to get you the permits in the city. they get 2.46 million for a cbd, they said.

does anybody in the neighborhood actually know anything about this? i would see two people in the meeting down below the church and then we're being told, those are the public meetings about the cbd. that 2.46 million was for supporting the large version of cpmc that ultimately didn't pass. the contract was signed, it involved city officials also. you know, there is a sunshine act and a brown act. you're going to be hearing more about some c-e-q-a -- i probably won't get to stay for it, but we have three e-i-rs on three's projects there in which the developers can find some little group, you know, four people who are leaders of one group or say so, one or two in another. four people in another who, you know, nobody even knew who they were. the knob hill coalition, confirmed to me over and over four people. they will say we represent the neighborhood. we will, you know, take this [speaker not understood]. we want these conditions and so on and be down with c-e-q-a, be down with getting rid of the impacts analyzing the e-i-r, so forth.

it's destroying the neighborhood. we have polk street, somebody said the architect has now turned it all into a whole area of drunks and bars and nothing else and now he's going to leave, except, of course, for the cbd. the $60,000 was mentioned again today at another meeting for not having seenier housing and the architectural treasure. somebody laughed and said it's humiliating somebody would even consider such a thing for so little money. anyway. >> is there any additional general public comment? okay, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> commissioners, it will place you under your regular calendar, items 12 a and b for the administrative code, chapter 31, c-e-q-a legislation, an informational presentation first and then your consideration for that c-e-q-a exemption determination.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. sarah jones, environmental review officer from the planning department. i'm here today really as the culmination of the lengthy process to adopt administrative appeals and other improvements for ceqa procedures under chapter 31 of the administrative code. as you know, from holding several hearings on this topic over the last year, in july the board of supervisors approved changes to chapter 31 of the administrative code. and the overall concept of these changes was that with a set and defined window for administrative appeals of c-e-q-a documents, the planning department should institute new procedures for informing people of environmental actions as well as approvals of projects so that the public can be aware

of their appeal opportunities and rights. so, the presentation today is on the steps that the planning department is taking to implement our side of the bargain essentially and meet our responsibilities under this chapter of the administrative code. so, today -- jonas, can you put the -- laptop -- thank you. so, today i'm going to be covering, in general, the types of new requirements that the planning department is going to be carrying out. we're going to highlight certain steps of that. specifically, what the legislation requires in order to become effective is that we demonstrate our new approach toward posting on our website of cad ex's through a map. and also i will touch briefly on the training of other departments that we'll be doing.

so, great. so, new areas of requirement under chapter 31, we have several topic areas that i'm going to go through. we'll start with the exemption map and posting and laura lynch, planner on my staff who has had a huge part in making this map happen which is such a key part of this legislation, is going to present to you and give you demonstration of how somebody can find cad exs that have been issued. >> good afternoon. i will start by demonstrating how to navigate to our new page. simply go to the environmental planning home page and at the right of the screen you will see exemption. once you click on exemptionses, it will take you to our new exemption posting page. a little background information about our new page. we have been posting exemptions

since january of 2012, and we have received feedback that the previous manner that we posted the exemptions was not considered to be user friendly. the new page which was published on july 1st, 2013 is the department's attempt at improving the public's experience. there are three ways of finding exemptions on this page, two of which are found through the map. the first way is you can search by address. you can type a specific project or your own property and the map will zoom directly to the property and all exemptions in the area will appear. the second way is by panning through the map. so, you can zoom in to a specific district or neighborhood and see all exemptions in this area. once you find a specific exemption, this box will appear with limited information similar to the property

address, and two links will also appear. one will take you directly to the permit specific information on the department of building inspection's website. and the other will take you directly to the exemption. the exemptions were posted in two manners, one is a certificate and the other as a checklist. the certificate will address specific topics and the checklist is mainly used as a property -- the planning information center and for smaller projects. the third way of finding exemptions is through the table located below the map. this table demonstrates all publicly sponsored projects. if the project is associated with the specific block and lot it will appear on the map and on this table. if it is specifically associated with a larger geographic area, then it will only appear within the table. once you find an exemption you're interested in, click on the row and the exemption will appear. and here is an example of our

cad ex checklist. and thank you for your time and i'll send the presentation back over to sarah. >> thank you. >> thanks, laura. i'm going to start going through some of the other major areas of changes that the planning department is in the process of implementing or has already implemented. on the first is we are identifying the approval action for projects and this is something that was -- that is now defined in chapter 31, what constitutes the approval action. it's very critical for the entire ordinance because the approval action -- the occurrence of the approval action is the beginning of the window for ceqa appeals, but it is my belief also that this is in general an improvement in the clarity of our planning process to really have a good definition and understanding of when the city has, in fact,

taken the step to allow or commit to a project occurring. so, it's defined -- [speaker not understood] defined for both public and private projects and that approval action is defined on the -- on each c-e-q-a determination that we make. next area is the content of our exemption determinations. this was not something that was described particularly in chapter 31 previously and now chapter 31 sets out clear expectations for what all of our exemption determinations have to include. either the checklist or certificate or something else that's produced by a department under a delegation agreement. so, we put in the project description, type of exemption because there are many types. as i said, we have to identify the approval action and provide whatever information is needed to support the determination.

the next area that is now in chapter 31 is project prioritization. the department actually has a much broader nonlegislative list of the types of projects that are given priority through the department's development review process. but the chapter 31 legislation specifically defines 100% affordable housing projects and bicycle and pedestrian safety projects as those that are now required by ordinance to receive priority in the environmental review process. the fourth area is electronic notification, and this refers to the subscription-based e-mail system for people who are interested in receiving information to have information essentially pushed to them. there will be several types of subscription categories as to find out. we're putting this system into place as part of our

department's larger permit tracking system and also other, other notification systems. so, this piece of the legislation is not ready to be implemented at this time, but we are taking the steps to work towards it. there are also a variety of requirements in the legislation for the clarity and in some cases visibility of posted and mailed notices. again, so, this is consistent with -- this overall premise of providing the public with clear information on actions, determinations, and appeal rights. and then the final big area of change is in the issue of substantial modification. this is some safeguards within the ordinance to make sure that projects that are determined to be exempt, in fact, remain exempt and that exempt remains valid as a project goes through its development and --

development process and changes subsequent to approval. so, this legislation now clarifies when a new exemption is needed. it also provides the public with an opportunity to ask for reconsideration of whether a project has indeed been changed substantially. so, you may in the future hear some reports back at your planning commission hearings about those reconsideration hearings that would be undertaken by the ero. just moving on to training which i'll touch on really briefly, obviously all of these new requirements are going to involve some training. we want to make sure the entire department staff is involved in this work is up to speed and doing it. we also do environmental work on projects undertaken by several other departments or in the case of the county clerk they interact heavily with us around c-e-q-a appeals. so, we're going to do individual