within the exposure zone, the blue zone to install enhance ventilation system. the proposed amendments to the ordinances would provide more certainty to the review process because they will look at the map and identify whether they will build that cost upfront and create more certainty and through ceqa, these mitigation measures would no longer be required. the planning department has cohosted with the planning department with several people from the media and public regarding the criteria used for the air pollutant zone and propose amendments to the ordinances. this outreach includes community organizations, contractors, developer, mechanical engineers and staff from department of public works and department of building inspection. we work with their staff

loontd -- a lot and they helped us understand the mechanical system as well as for 38 and implementing the review process under existing law than we were two 2 years ago. our staff and department of public health have intended to incorporate comments received as well as the ordinances. some continue to have concerns about the cost of ventilation system pursuant to their article 38. however as these developments would still be required to incorporate enhanced ventilation through ceqa. in addition dotdz -- department of public health has documented ceqa and continues to work on development committee on more examples of innovative solutions. lastly responsible adult ensure that protections are provided for

the public health and safety and welfare which these ordinances came to achieve. therefore the department recommend that the board of supervisors adopt the proposed ordinances as -- described in the resolution. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: yeah, a couple of questions. i'm looking at the blue map that it's pretty obvious that there are a couple areas that i don't understand where right as you enter the presidio on the lombard gate there where presidio goes to buy lake street and california, i

don't understand why there is more pollution there all the way to 19th avenue to lombardy where there is heavy traffic. >> there was a three step process and a lot of it was due to public feedback. the first step was we used the modeling that we did from the air district and we established health base criteria. under that, the map maasai ss -- was a little smaller and then what is established by air pollution in the past such as the bayview were not showing up on the map. using some health data from the air districts based on hospitalization due to air pollution, is that generally correct, we identified zip

codes in the city for the bay area for health vulnerabilities. we lowered the criteria in those zip codes. the marina don't follow in that. the third step was that due to the modeling there was sort of a, they modeled everything as if the roadways were at the ground. there is guidance from the state that says you shouldn't be located sensitive uses within 500 feet of freeways. obviously the purpose of article 38 is to protect people from freeways. we created a buffer aroundel elevated roadways. as you see lombardy, the roadway starts to elevate and it's capturing parcels. >> it used to.

>> two 2 years ago it did. >> yes. i understand why that's the way it is. it obviously sounds like good legislation. it's very health oriented. i want to make sure that we are accurately assessing the areas that have the impacts and we also have to differentiate where people may have a lot of respiratory problems and this is the causes with the very air around them and we want to make clear that it is from the elements in the air that everybody breathes. the other thing i wanted to ask is there a basis of other jurisdictions similar to this? >> as far as we know, one exist article 38 that was adopted we were the first as far as we know anywhere to do this. oakland sort of requires a similar

mitigation. our conditional of approval actually and the air district is looking to our example to put this in other jurisdictions in the bay area. >> that's fine and i think you said this is particularly for other projects. >> for construction? >> would there be any requirement for private developers to do the same thing? >> for ceqa, private developers as shown on the example on the last item of the agenda would be for mitigate , but given that we have an existing ordinance that deals with public, we wanted to pursue that first before we came back to the development side. we are thinking about that. >> yeah, i think this maybe a good step because then you can

definitely demonstrate the cost of stricter requirements added to the cost of projects and you can use that as something you can bring to the developers to show them what it's going to cost when they have to do this. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, commissioner johnson? >> thank you very much. i certainly echo commissioner antd antonini talking about this development. the ceqa project works but having it codified for an ordinance makes it lighter for everyone. we try to be consistent but over the courses, years of decades of looking at projects, sometimes we are not and an ordinance would make things easier. i have a question. the first one is, there are a couple of instances where a waiver could be granted from the clean

construction requirements and some last couple questions. the first one is being cost prohibited. it's a little vague to me what that means, and i was wondering if you can -- i don't know your name. if you can clarify what is meant by cost prohibitive or where it might be defined. >> the cost prohibitive language was included in the existing ordinance. we were not proposed changing it. in this ordinance we talked to various city agencies and city attorneys office and no one knows of an example under an existing ordinance where anyone sought that waiver. itd could be something that we clarified through the legislative process. i don't think i have a good

answer to how i would define that. >> some of the questions i did ask and i wanted to get your answer and i wanted the public to hear this too. the second one, in terms of another type of waiver, it says actually that's not a waiver. it's something else. related to cost prohibition, due to my time on the success or agencies commission we talked about the businesses being involved in construction particularly in projects in the southeast where there have been historically have been those businesses have been disadvantaged in that area. so, this sort of ties to me question about what is cost prohibited. in section 67 it stated that department heads could

institute clean construction comparative bidding where you state in an advertisement forbids that bids will be compared based on how much they will apply the clean construction mandate. so you can actually score them based on who is going to be cleaner. , but although state law will make all construction companies have to make they are equipment comply over time, it's not the case yet. i kind of feel like local especially minority businesses that are located in district 10 could potentially be disadvantaged in a short-term if there is now a rule that says they may go to the back of the line if they can't comply with this from day one and other people can put in that additional cost to upgrade

their equipment faster with regard to what state law and state guidelines say. my question to you is one, can you go into what types of state local and federal assistants are available for mbe; lb;e, businesses comply with the law. i know the environmental department has some guidelines for assisting these businesses for getting the funds and help with their infrastructure an equipment. can you talk about what some of those are? >> yes. >> the second part of that is v have you gotten necessity -- any

ideas how to manage local minority businesses to see if they have some sort of score for benefits, i'm throwing things out there. i'm not sure if that's the best way to do it, not just for small businesses that may want to participate in development. >> good question. i'm writing this down here. >> the first question regarding types of federal funding assistance. there is, on the existing ordinance, there was a fact sheet that the department of environment put out and it identified some potential lending sources for local and minority businesses. one particular source is the carl moyer fund. it's passed down from the state to the

air district and the air district provides that funding. i'm happy to share with you that fact sheet. i have somewhere buried in my list of resources here. regarding the second question have we heard of the way some of these businesses are not at a disadvantage as far as bidding or some sort of issue? i wouldn't say this is necessarily an issue or therefore have i not heard a solution. the comparative mentioning in the ordinance was we found out that no one is aware of that use in comparative bidding in their approval of

contracts. i think we are open to ideas if you have ideas about how we may assist those businesses. it's probably speaking for supervisor cohen's office. andrea a? >> it's something we thought about and not feedback that we have received as part of this legislation because it's limited to public projects and they have very strong lbe, m be, wb goals related to this one aspect. our focus has been really on making sure that both are construction and other types of projects that the public projects have a really strong local hires in lbe goals. in addition we are having a separate coverage about 14b at the moment in terms of updating that section in our

purchasing process because frankly some of it is a little bit out of date in terms of where we place preferences for lbe participation. i think it's something we are continually open to discussing. it doesn't necessarily mean, the ordinance doesn't require that they consider this type of at least it wasn't my impression it didn't require it be a consideration in the scoring or bidding process. it could be something they put out in the rfp process and say we want to know when is your ability to meet this and other processes. it's something we continue to be open to and maybe that we try and address it in a different way. or that we try and deal with it maybe not by a point system, but by making it clear in language in the rvm that if our goal is to get leb

participation. >> first, in all of these questions, i'm channeling mark gonzalez and she would be all over this, there is supporting leb that this eventually applies to all projects the easiest thing to apply the with a way we want it to work in the real world and delete city projects and put all. that would be the easiest way to do that rather than having regulations that is put all over the place. again, i don't have any good answers fwor that now. maybe that's my fault as a commissioner for not doing

enough brainstorming. but i wanted to bring this up. i will call commissioner gonzalez. >> it's something i thought about and something that warrants between the administrators office as far as how they do the bidding for the public project. in addition to commissioner we look at how to strengthen relationships with local and small businesses and women and minority businesses. there is an argument on the other side and the city should be using it's purchasing four get it's best clean construction providers that we can. it's the constant balance between the two. i think we xiaer the desire to make sure that it isn't just necessarily positive or discounting someone who would otherwise get a good preference

for lbe status. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: i want to make sure i understand the comments. you are addressing the equipment side on services something that could be solved in the library of equipment which could be used by others. that has been done for other elements buchlt i want to make sure about the discussion about cost prohibitive looks at the cost of health and lack of health. that's the provision of ducting and filter replacement. i want to make sure i understand that distinction properly because there is two parts to this particular legislation. >> yes, i'm sorry. >> did i hear you say that because cost prohibitive is not the entire thing but the aspect of delivery of services and equipment necessary to meet this new requirement? >> yes. >> thank you.

>> having said that, i think we could not be clearly enough to understand the cost of impact of ill health in terms of lost wages and in terms of untimely death and that is what drives this thing and i would support your thoughts that this definitely extends to all construction with respect of who does it, where and how. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i want to make a motion to approve both and in keeping with my earlier remarks to keep proper research goes in to making the maps so fact the areas that are designated tools to manage -- the areas that have these restrictions that can be demonstrated as

consistently correct and they are also up to date and takes into account changes and roadways that have occurred. but i would move to approve. >> second. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: on the powerpoint in very very small print there is a clarification of size and actual ly the process affected. it's hard to read because it's very small but that is an additional explanation somewhat relative to the question you were making. >> i see that. city clerk: commissioners there is a motion and second to adopt recommendations for approval on the motion, commissioner antonini, hillis, johnson, moore, richards, fong, wu. so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0.

places you on item 14. item 14: 4155 575-90500 ucsf long range development plan - informational presentation - on the university of california, san francisco ucsff 2014 long range development plan 2014 lrdpp. ucsf's 2014 lrdp will guide physical development at its campus sites through the year 2035. ucsf previously provided the planning commission with an overview of plans under consideration for the 2014 lrdp on april 18, 2013. in may 2014, ucsf published the draft 2014 lrdp for public review, available at www.ucsf.edu/lrdp. ucsf will provide an overview of the draft 2014 lrdp as published, along with the anticipated schedule for finalization and adoption of the plan. 1234 >> hello again commissioners. wade whack a from

departmental staff. the agency has been working with uc sf on environmental impact report which we are currently reviewing the eir draft on the long-term plan. uc sf has prepared the draft eir. the public review of that draft is from august 14th, october 2014. the purpose of this hearing is to have a presentation about the plan itself. this is not a hearing on the draft eir and public comments at this hearing will not be responded to in the finalish. eir. if members of the public would like to comment, they can attend the conference center or submit their comments in writing to eir at

planning dot ucf dot edu. therefore without further a do i will turn it to the planner lorie yauchey. >> associate advice chancellor for uc sf. this you for allowing us to present this plan or lrdp. i last appeared before this commission in april of 2013 which i presented our lrd proposals and today's presentation summarizes the draft plan.

>> okay. i will keep moving. the next slide shows the planning framework and development of over 15-20 years. the current plan has a planning horizon of 2012 and this new one has a new one of 35. it's important from strategic and academic planning as well as an accompanied by anish eir which wade referred to. uc sf campus is shown on this site and other locations around san francisco. we have experienced significant growth about 80 percent increase in our space

in the last 17 years. due in large part to growth in our research and clinical programs. as you can see we have been very successful and fortunate to receive much of a lot of national student health grant and funding and we received more in nih funding. our critical volume has increased somewhat in patient since 1997 and significantly in our outpatient volumes. we anticipate this new lrdp will result in slower growth between 235. as you know uc sf is comprised of four professional schools and medical center with hospitals and clinics. this slide talks about our medical

center plans in this lrdp which upon opening our specialty hospitals of mission bay in february of this year, we will close inpatient sz services at mount scion and build new hospitals and for non-inpatient uses. you may have heard that we were recently affiliated with children's hospital in oakland. we do not control their facilities. we have a contractual relationship with them. uc sf consist of a broad and robust community outreach which this slide describes and i won't go into detail which is to say that we will continue to have community input in

our plans. the objectives are five fold. they include responding to our community and city context through sensitive design of our buildings and responding to local zoning as well as consulting with our neighbors. we are anticipating our ability to accommodate our growth and needs through 235 by use in our research clinical and teaching programs as well as in housing and support needs. we want to shirn -- ensure that some of our facilities are seismically safe and in correspondence with policy and we want to minimize facility cost by addressed in our facilities as well as consolidating remote

sites. so our existing and proposed space we anticipate that will grow by 26 percent over the years. from 9.1 million square feet to 11.5 million square feet. most of that growth will occur in mission bay but does not include parking. our population is anticipated to grow by 30 percent and that will not only include or patients and employees but student to 54,000. half of our employees live in

san francisco. okay. so, we also anticipate and plan to increase our housing on campus from approximately 653 units at parness and mission bay to 135 which is a hundred percent increase in our housing and similar increase in our beds. our clinical capacity is also anticipated to grow motion destly in our inpatient bed frame from 658 bed side to 628 beds mostly at mission bay and 200 exam roops.

so since i was here before you in april of 2013, the following change and events have occurred. i want to call your attention to that. we acquired a block to mission 34 and mission bay and affordable housing and infrastructure since we are tax exempt. we also are proposing to update the 1976 region resolution. we have identified the developer with which we are negotiating a ground lease for our lower campus site. the golden state warriors announced they are proposing a complex in the arena directly across third street from our campus. we have published our draft