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

the ordinance that passed amended the building code and added section code b which is the language of this ordinance. all of this information can be found on our website. there is a link to the ordinance and the documents. we are working in conjunction with the department of inspection to handle the procedural elements of this ordinance and the technical stands of this ordinance. we have a bench mark study using five different standards that we use and trying to develop a consistency among them to any standards used would use any of these standards. any of these that are being developed now oftentimes when we hear from people about the building process is they have an administration beard -- board. we've been reaching all the departments and also working with dpw, san francisco fire department, basically anyone who is going to have a say in this permit process. we invitation this administrative bulletin to have appendices from all the organizations. when they walk in the door they know exactly what is expected of them. director has very adamant that we can develop a program to issue t

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

and anyway, i think about leave the folks we helped to get the sprinkle ordinance that was the best achievements working with the community to get that done. the lady in the back is helpful to try to make thing work and we always cooperated with the c schedules sometimes, the scheduled with change its table and he'd be behind the times on that. but i enjoyed working with all of you and my lieutenant my associates we're working on the fire code changes and that's another huge job that comes quickly. i know that director huey is going to have his hands full. we're very close to getting things done and we're trying to get it all done once it starts it's process the board of supervisors has a thirty day wait and, of course, it's always over the holidays. i really enjoyed working with the whole department and commission >> really congratulations. there any further public comment? seeing none did you want - >> if i may commissioner we're against the clock and if it's okay if we go to director's report number a, b, c, and d and take them off the cleaned and get an update and if we could move item 7 swo

the addendum was based on the ordinance and moving - the movement of the easements or the vacation of certainty easements and on the roadway changes to washington street. and okay >> that was what the addendum was on and speculating about something that hadn't been formerly been brought to the planning department. it's not something i would have done >> so it sounds like our operating on a narrow definition of the easement and it was my understanding that the ordinance was to be on the things proposed in the ordinance. >> and if getting a letter from the director saying we can move the project we can do this and that. >> did you bring it to the higher-ups. >> i think he retired. >> i'm not he took a vacation. >> we can't call him or ask him questions. >> the refuse officer is someone else. >> when was the addendum signed? >> february 25th. >> and this report was signed but you didn't get it until march 11th. >> do you think that this report was something that should have been afforded to planning before the director signed the addendum. >> it would have been helpful to have a better c

the ordinance will update the department of health procedures to recognize what's happening that there are health levels that are determined by the state. and it also recognized that was health department test the ground water in some situations. it is more likely that the health and safety is protected and provided better service to the public. and the department of health involvement will be tied i directly to issuance and we'll become more certain and provided better services to the public it could be identified at the outset and it would be more transz parent and the public would have access to this information >> the update would eliminate the need to have measures to deal with the procedures in this city. with that summary we're asking the board of supervisors adopt this owners and the owners was refused and it was recommended by the committee and we also have staff here from the health department if you have questions more specific to them. >> thank you commissioner walker. >> you said it eliminating the need for mitigation can you explain. >> those areas in orange where there's

rec park will maintain the uses on both parcels and also in front of you is the ordinance, and this is needed to provide clear authority to the rec parks department to enforce the code on each of the park areas, this amendment is necessary because the parcels must be leased and cannot be purchased from cal transand effective through and including rec park ownership of the space and however in other aspects these spaces will look and feel like a public park, the ordinance is needed to create a uniform set of expectations. and from the rec recreation and parks department is here and can answer the questions that you have about the ordinance i want to highlight the sources of funds used for not only leasing the parcels but the funds will be used for capitol improvement and maintenance all of which come from the sale of the central freeway parcels and the octavia boulevard fund. >> and just to give you the highlights of what we can expect moving forward t will start in july and it will be open in the pring of 2014. thank you. is that it, i am sorry. this is such a big project for us i am e

it's a little hard to read but the existing ordinance applies along the eastern shore of the city the area in blue. that's an area of historic fill it was known to be contaminated and the process was established when someone was applying for a building permit if they have 50 cub it parts of soil before the building permit can be issued the applicant is required to investigate if the soils at the site are contaminated and if so how to handle the soil and what level of clean up. this is handled under the department of supervision. and it only happens at this zone. and in the orange there are other areas of the city that have a high lick will i hallowed and we have public health and safety in x portion to the soldiers. and it's in the area of the marine and all those represent storage tanks that could be leaking if the soil is contaminated and also elevated freeways up to the golden gate bridge. elevated freeways are the tamed soil. there's no codify process how to determine the process of disturbing soils. so the department of health and the planning department we have a process through

the ordinance the supervisor kim's ordinance provides in section 31.1 that a negative declaration be filed anytime it's issued by the planning department and no longer than the 30 days avenue it's adopted after the city approves the promise >> let's say if the park project in the case of a categorical exception? >> it's anything up so long as there is still a discretionary approval action. so it would be the final discretionary principle of law >> so if you have a park renovation so the two categorical exemption the deadline to appeal would be the final discretionary act? >> so long as it's thirty days. >> that could be within the thirty days? >> it still has to be a discretionary. >> so in san francisco it's still thirty days. >> generally they would still be discretion for the city to act on with sequa. whether you could still implement changes to the project >> so what if another building permit is pulled could that trigger a sequa appeal? >> yes, but if it was a negative declaration the two ordinances your ordinance and supervisor kim's ordinance i think have pretty sure the same

this ordinance is finally passed. next item. the clerk: sfitem 130364: commission for overtime - fy2012-2013] sponsor: mayor ordinance de-appropriating $71,016 in salaries in the public utilities commission, hetch hetchy department, operating budget and re-appropriating $71,016 to overtime in the public utilities commission, hetch hetchy department operating budget in order to support the department's projected increases in overtime as required per ordinance no. 194-11, and requiring a two-thirds vote of all members of the board of supervisors for approval. 05/14/2013; passed on first reading. question: shall this ordinance be finally passed. >> same house, same call. this ordinance is finally passed. >> item 10. item 130366: [de-appropriation and re-appropriation - $250,000 to public utilities commission for overtime - fy2012-2013] sponsor: mayor ordinance de-appropriating $250,000 in debt service in the public utilities commission, water enterprise department, operating budget, and re-appropriating $250,000 to overtime in the publ

that's clearly not true if you look at the language of the ordinance. it makes clear that the increase of formula retail businesses in the city of commercial areas if not monitored will hamper the goals and will eliminate businesses establishment opportunities for small or medium size businesses which tend to be non-traditional or unique. seems to me the questions you are asking tonight get to some of the reality of what this ordinance was passed to do. it was intended to stop the proliferation of chain stores in our neighborhoods. the way it's being applied, if there is any possible way that we can pretend this is not a chain store, then that's the result that we reach. it's turning the ordinance on its head to what it was intended to accomplish. under the ordinance and common sense, os ska is a chain. it has currently 18 stores in the united states and six pending if you would include the online stores. even if you don't include the online stores, it's got nine now operating, three additional spaces leased and a pop up that may exist. that is not to me

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

there's about 27 cranes in the san francisco area and those are subject to the ordinance. so that will be about 56 acres managed. it will remove 7.6 million gallons. we expect many benefits where we're permit compliant. particle when the redevelopment areas go under construction all those areas are under construction. we want to list some of the quality active benefits. clearly the main benefit is that the private session projects are contributing to our performance without adding costs. we have a maintenance agreement they reported at the recorded office. and then the outreach and education through the product review process has brought the private sector up to speed so we hope those benefits will become manifest. i won't go through the green policies that we've built up through the storm water ordinance prelims that we will be able to use for the ssi p projects as well. and then to end the summary i wanted tow let you know the challenges and things clearly the economical procedures we've got staffing challenges. we're also seeing in the largest areas it's a coordination p

the ordinance is finally passed. madame clerk, could you call -- if you could call all right 12. >> item 12 is an ordinance recognizing small business month in may 2013, amending the planning and building codes to retroactively waive fees for the certain facade. >> s same house, same call. >> item 13 item 13 ordinance appropriating overtime. >> same house, same call. supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president, i do want to make a point. one of the reasons that we're able to have these discussions here at the board of supervisors is because of the introduction of an ordinance that supervisor farrell and i introduced a few months back that no longer allows a department to spend or certain departments to spend above the budgeted amount for overtime without actually coming to the board for board approval. i think it's important to go through this process, so we can first know that, in fact, they are going above the budgeted amount, and more importantly, for the public to know that. one thing that i hope happens with

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 k

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

i file the building permit when i file for mitigation; is that correct? it this ordinance were adopted this map would become available to the public. and we intend to set up if you put a cursor over our parcel it will show you the prospective applicant people would be notified through the permit tracking system whether they would be subject to this requirement >> yeah, but did you understand my question with regards if you pull up a 12 month building permit and i know in one case it took two years how are we helping people? that you i guess i feel like my point is d b i is too late. why do we have to have is a building permit could that not be triggered off a building process. at the end say to a building permit person it's up to you to make sure you do it >> anytime a project is not exempt from environmental review the categorical exemption but anything larger than that comes into our office even the small projects our staff would review the project site grins the map and at that time, identify to them there's a requirement that they to go to the health department and inv

it's not specifically written in the ordinance but that regulatory process through sequa essentially assures that an applicant in those areas that's disturbing soil that find out through the sequa process through this ordinance if they didn't know about it >> i'm not an expert in soil but the general certain is the amount of soil that's being disturbed is very small. 50 cub it yards is small. if you go 25 feet deep you would see that. 0 so even if someone is grading the area their disturbing the soil that's impractical. i wonder if we can modify this if the certain is if the soil below this property is contaminated can we add if you're disturbing soil below a level would be more appropriate? >> and that leads into envy department of health question people have no idea how long it takes the department of health to deal with those situations. it's more on the lengthy process than a very fast process. and it talks to pretty much any project would fall into this category because 50 cub it yards is little. and this parallel existence that i talk about is not reality >> i do want to point o

both of the wiener ordinance and the kim ordinance provide an appeal for eir after both certification and approval. i don't think i have to go into detail about that, but this does not provide for that. it simply provides for appeal after certification. >> okay. thank you. let me ask also the planning department i know we had a brief conversation around whether there were other issues raised in this version that i have circulated to you around when appeals could happen and sort of the timing and when the closure would happen and i wonder if you had any additional thoughts on that. >> my first thought is what she said. in a nutshell i'm concerned about the clarity around this issue. my concern is the potential for multiple appeals and the timeliness for these appeals. if there is only one appeal process when it happens in the process, we are less concerned about. if it's less confusing as what just has been stated i'm very concerned about the language that it's an endless appeals process and it might open the possibility for multiple appeals. >> if i can bring up a different sections r