>> turn off all mobile devices that may sound you have during the proceedings, and when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. at this time we would like to

take role. [ roll call ] >> first up for consideration are items proposed for continuance, item 1, case 23010.0054u, personal wireless service facility site permits ordinance proposed until september 16th, 2010, item 2, case 2007.1457e, for 1050 valencia city, an appeal of a preliminary declaration. under calendar, 2010.0459c for 130 turk street proposed for continuance until october 7th of 2010. also under the regular calendar,

item 11, case 2010, .0126 e for 60 normandy terrance, a question for discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have no speaker cards. vice president olague: any public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: there's a motion to continue item 1 and 2 as proposed and item 4 to october 7th, and acknowledging that 60 normandy has been resolved. >> staff? >> on that motion and second,. [ roll call ] clerk: so moved commissioners.

that places you on the consent calendar, all matters here under, are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission, there will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a member of the commission, the pun, or staff so requested, in which event the matter shall be removed and considered at this or a future hearing. 2010.0521c for 402234th treat, request for conditional use authorization. vice president olague: public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed, is there a motion? commissioner moore: move to approve. >> second clerk clerk on that motion to approve -- [ roll call ]

clerk: so moved commissioners, that motion passed 4-0, which puts us on commissioners questions and matters, item 5, consideration of adoption, draft minutes of regular meetings of may 13, 2010, may 20th, 2010, june 24th, 2010, july 1st 2010, july 15, 2010, august 5th 2010, and special meeting of august 122010, as well as the regular meeting of august 12, 2010. vice president olague: any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: move to approve the minutes before us. >> second. clerk: on the motion to approve the minutes --

[ roll call ] clerk: so moved commissioners, that motion passed 4-0, we are now on item 6, commissions comments and questions. commissio ner antonini? commissioner antonini: a couple of things from over the high ate tugs. the first was an article in the chronicle, i believe yesterday by john king, and it dealt with an elementary school that had recently been built in piedmont that replaced the school there built in the 50's and probably was a pretty funky looking structure that had a lot of sides mick problems. they were actually able to build something con techs wall and shows that can be done and john king a strong advocate for contemporary architecture, aappreciates this and it maybes it fit in and belongs in the

area. it's sort of a spanish revival architecture that is popular in piedmont. the second thing was that regrettably over the break, had to attend two or three funerals for people who passed away, all of which are members of what's known as the greatest generation and they deserve that title. that's people of my parents clerk furuzawa generation in their late 80's and 90's, and many are passing away. what's sad is when you talk to their children who are there, while the decedent and all siblings lived this san francisco, a high percentage don't live in san francisco. many work here and live in outlying areas. once in a while you question why do you live elsewhere. cost is almost never a factor. while it is a factor, they pay almost as much for their residences or properties in

pinole or mill peta, aplomb where they has been to be living, but they comment a lot about the school situation and talk about housing stock to some degree and some of the controls that exist and the theories they have of the process here. it's very interesting are when you ask why aren't you here? we maybe have better luck with the next generation which would be our children's generation and retaining them in san francisco, because they are the core of the city and this crosses all economic levels, and all ethnic levels. it's kind of a uniform reresponsible of that generation of mine. that was about it. except i noticed an article in the chronicle, they talked about what's being done with the parks and thought it was very, very promising that these parks had been fixed up and activated that

heretofore were inabilititive, such as crocker amazon. there's a whole bunch throughout the city that are being activated. regrettably a high percentage of their budget is cleaning up graffiti, trash, vandalism and somehow we have to figure out a way. if there's a way we can have any fluff in making that less of an impact, but the moneys go for what they should be going from having to cleanup from those who don't belong there and probably don't even belong this san francisco if that's their behavior. thanks. clerk: that puts us and the directors report, item 67, director's announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners, just a couple of announcements.

i wanted to let you know about a community meeting in the glen park neighborhood regarding the glen park community plan. taking place tuesday the 14th at st. john's elementary school, 925chenary street, 6:30 p.m. again, tuesday the 14th, 6:30 p.m. i just wanted to mention to you that i will be out next week on vacation. the commission is not meeting next week. i will be talking the week to visit family. i also wanted to mention that there was no board report this week, because the board is still on break. the historic press preservation did meet yesterday. they proposed landmarking of the north beach library, that vote, 4-3, and there was also another

discussion on the article 10 changes as part of the legislation that you had fish eighted. they did not complete their discussion on article 10. they did continue that to their next meeting on september 15th. and i think that's it. >> just for the record, that was item 8, review of past week's events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation. >> you didn't call that i rambled. >> that's ok. commissio ner moore? commissioner moore: a notification to the commission regarding the grand park meeting, that is something we requested. i want to encourage that that we done and i very much appreciate it. >> yes, great. clerk: commissioners that puts us on general public comment not to exceed 15 minutes, at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within

the subject matter jurisdiction of the economics, except for agenda items. for those your opportunity london breed afforded when the item is reached in the minute. each member hey address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> good afternoon commissioners, i am representing the owners of 1813 cherry street who are the subject of a denied variance. originally -- and as a matter of fact i want to express i don't know if we are going to the right venue here. i have some documents to share with you, regarding the actions that have been taken by the department initiated by a variance in 2008, which was denied, then appealed. then we proceeded to implement the accommodations, so the department through the denial, the department, we went true all

the notifications, and consequently the department was approved by the planning department as well as by the building department. the permit was issued. the permit began to be implemented and then through a dispute with the neighbor, that neighbor filed a complaint and then the department produced a work order. since then i have been in talks with quadrant leader. we were originally told that given the fact that it was an error by the planning department in the issuance of this, because a variance should have been required, also, again, a second time, then we will be made to wait. the point i am making, the only word would have received from the department is that the plan starts all over again, and i would like to point out my

client has spent over $25,000 in permit fees and signed a contract with a general contractor assuming that was a bona fide permit. now she finds herself without a permit, and the last conversation i had with a of it being approved now is very limited. so, again, i don't know if i am using the right venue, but we tried to approach the zoning administrator, the planner, the quadrant leader. verbally we received one answer. so we need an apt dr. the department that the error was caused by the department. vice president olague: thank you. >> man welcome florez, followed by zach stewart. >> thank you vice president, and

commissioners. i am here to report finally, after a long, long, hard-fought battle, b.a.r.t. has finally broken ground on one of the projects on 178 townsend street. they are in gear and have some of my carpenters on board. we will have a ground breaking and you will be invited but i wanted to let you know it's finally broken ground after sometime and i thank you for your support. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. >> my name is zach stewart and i wanted to talk about the hpc. the word is out that there are a bunch of weanany is that are trying to preserve san francisco in amber. my opinion of the hpc is somewhat different. i think it was supported by the

voters. mandated by the voters, and established as a separate commission equal to the other commissions of this city. and i think the people that are serving are brave because no matter what they do, the maddening throng is going to attack them for doing the wrong thing. the hpc probably needs staff. all the history people are still in the planning department. maybe they should be moved over to hpc, because i think the voters decided that the planning department was not doing its history job. so i feel very good about the hpc, and i think my own personal experience is darren houghsman, robert monthsen, and the freeway

guys in san francisco, even the big, black, 40 story building by nathaniel owens are all products of the demolition people. and the demolition people often times do great things for cities, but occasionally, they overbuild or try to say run a freeway through the pan handle. so there are also the restoration people like sue beerman, the ladies who saved the bay, and others, who have to stand up without pay and stand up for things like a whole $100,000 worth of drawings showing how great a freeway would be through the pan handle and then say, well, no, that's not right. and win by one vote. so i like the hpc. i don't think they are a bunch

of weananies, and i don't think they are trying to pre serve san francisco in amber. vice president olague: any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. clerk: this puts us on the regular calendar, item 9, bay area, air quality management district, ceqa air quality guidelines update. >> good afternoon vice president oh log go and members of the commission, i am jessica rang of the planning department. i came to you last december and came to you on the update process, knew that the air

district has considered this significant, this is to inform the impact. there's also additional copies over on the table over there, and this presentation is also posted on the website. and will be available at the end of the presentation. today's presentation will provide you with an overview of the bay area water quality management district in ceqa review, it focuses on the air threshold of significance adopted this june of this year, although the thresholds have been adopted, there is an interim period here where the methodology for air quality anall size will be refined. today i am going to touch on the

three most notable changes, and those are new threshold of significance for greenhouse gas, threshold for community health risk ex, as well as threshold for criteria, and ozone precursors. i will explain how the significant thresholds relate toed ceqa checklist questions and how hey may differ from the old guidelines, and discuss the city's approach from addressing air pollutants. and some of our remaining concerns. so the bay area air quality management district is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulation in the bay area. as part of their roll, the district has developed air quality guidelines, setting the criteria for determining whether an environmental impact from air quality is significant under

seek would. as such, these guidelines are very important to the environmental review process. the air quality was last updated 1999 and this is necessary to address new air quality concerns over the last ten years, as you have noticed, a number of ceqa documents have passed through what we call a dual analysis, meaning an analysis affecting air quality using old guidelines, as well as using the new 2010 guidelines. overall, you will notice that more projects using the 2010 significant thresholds will show significant air quality impact and you will also notice there will be more instances where this impact is significant and unavoidable, mostly due to mitigation strategies.

there is some concern that the new threshold could have unintended consequences, and that otherwise desirable in-fill project could become more challenging with some projects being pushed outside of the city. this will also address how the planning department intends to meet the environmental goals through a systemic city wide approach that addresses our air quality concerns and doesn't display in fill development. i will begin with greenhouse gas emissions. this is something we have been doing in the planning department since 2007, so conducting greenhouse gas analyses is not knew for us. what is new is that the air district has determined a level by which a project's emissions would be considered significant. they are intended to answer the

answer whether the project would emit greenhouse gases with an impact on the environment and whether the project would conflict with the plan. the air district has adopted three sets of thresholds, one qualitative, and two can'ttative thresholds, so for knew you can continue to assess your ceqa documents to include a calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, but you might find there are instances where we determine this impact to be significant. one concern where the county's methodology on a project by project basis is that it doesn't actually account for factors such as project location near transit, or providing reduced parking. the other thing, it specifically relies oh a new study that was due out the end of august. this study is expected to

provide a comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas reduction. i hope this allows us to take quantitative reductions from the greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. the threshold is compliant with a greenhouse strategy. the concept is if the city or county has prepared a greenhouse reduction strategy and a development comes along, then that project impact would be less than significant. the planning didn't was instrumental in shaping the final requirements of the greenhouse gas strategy, not only if we adopted an action plan, but many of the gases in that strategy have already been implemented and produced real reduction. i have just received our latest inventory, showing the city has

reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8% below 1990 levels, we have met our goals and well on our way to meeting the city's more aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. part of the reason for our success is san francisco has implemented a broad set of policies and programs, spanning everything from our municipal operations, to requirements for private development projects. as such, we feel that greenhouse gas emissions, are most appropriately addressed in everything in the city is doing to reduce greenhouse gases. and we have pursued the greenhouse gas option under the 2010 significant thresholds. on august 12 we submitted a draft of our strategy to the air district and we are currently awaiting for the response due out sometime at the exhibit end

of this month. this document presents a comprehensive compendium of everything the city is doing to reduce greenhouse gases, and it's intended to serve as our greenhouse gas reduction strategy until the city updates are final action plan, so projects that are consistent with this strategy would be able to have a lessened green house gas impact. there are many benefits. for one, it removed the project by project greenhouse gas accounting that doesn't adequately account for the benefits of in fill development and second it looks at the issue of greenhouse gases from a larger lens, focusing on what the city is doing overall, as well as things under a developer's control. the greenhouse gas reduction strategy will also ease the concern that we have that otherwise dish shall in feel

projects might be displaced. projects consistent with that strategy would have a less than significant impact. so the second area where the air district has made considerable changes is in the area of community health risks, the community health risk thresholds are intended to address a question of whether or not a project will expose to substantial pollutants. the 1999 guidelines, cite new sources and cite new receptors near existing sources. the 2010 thresholds have expanded on the health risk analysis in a number of ways. for one they have added additional health risk thresholds, they now consider mobil source emission in addition to stationary sources, and also applies the threshold

to construction projects. as a result you will see a great deal more emphasis on health risk impact. san francisco has made a lot of headway in protecting our residential uses in passage of article 38 of the health code. article 38 goes as far back as 2008. this is a map showing the areas of the city that are incident to article 38. and if that air quality analysis finds that the roadway pollutants are elevated in those areas, the project must implement mitigation measures, such as infiltration. planning believes that this article adequately addresses roadway pollutants, but does not address stationary sources so a

separate analysis would be required. >> a health risk analysis relies on air base data pace of permitted sources this presents a conservative estimate of health risks and the air district is currently undating which will be available in the next three to six months. with respect to construction health risks, the air district is anticipated to release a new health risk calculator, due out by mid-september. this health risk calculator will present a conservative estimate of construction health risks with more defined analysis require fed projects exceed the threshold. the main way to mitigate emissions is to specify cleaner equipment. at this point it remains unclear how quickly clean technology will become available and be able to be utilized.

what you can expect is more of the ceqa documents will include an analysis of health risks. the methodology for health risk analysis is a development in process and will rely on the materials still forthcoming from the air district. we are also concerned about the availability of feasible mitigation members. and there's a potential that because of these concerned, these thresholds could push development to suburban locations, or outside the city unintentionally. as i have noted here, the thresholds for health risks for new receptors are not anticipated to be implemented until january 2011 and the reasons for the delayed implementation is so that the air district can develop a more accurate data base of the stationary sources and so that cities and counties can development a community risk reduction plan. the concept of a community risk