this is a collaborative effort with various city county act sis such as a ta, and tpw and

the department is playing a leading role. we did request funding from the capital planning committee during last fiscal year's budget process, we did receive funding and we are asking for some additional funding for our continued work on that project, similar to the payment to parks program, this will allow for the department to retain and formalize the program, conducting a program evaluation and analysis, again, last year, we requested fund, we received some and we are requesting some additional funding to continue our efforts in that project. with the street tree inventory, the city did submit an application for a grant in december which will lead an interagency effort that would fund an intensive public engagement and education program, and for the first

time to have a park and first trees, it will be the capital allocation. and then lastly, as i mentioned, the department anticipates requesting from the preservation fund commission 250 thousand dollars to fund the work on the local interpretation to have secretary to have interior guide book, this guide book, it's not specific to local conditions, regarding the infill development in historic districts this accidenter will appropriate staff to develop [inaudible] resulting in a clear guiding document for the application of these standards citywide. so, here's an update on the budget calendar, we've come to you with a draft work program, budget application like we did

with the historic preservation, today i'm presenting a draft. next wednesday, i will be going before the historic preservation commission asking for their recommendation of approval and in two weeks from today, i will be coming to this body asking for your approval of the department's budget before we submit it to the mayor on february 21. na concludes my presentation, i would be happy to answer any questions we have. >> thank you. any general public comment on this item? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioner borden? >> i think this is a great plan, it has a lot of interesting projects you're working on, can you talk about the food clusters work that you are getting grant funding for? i'm curious about it, does that include the food trucks, is that specific for food production? >> it's looking in general at

the whole kind of food policy issues and we have a couple of grants, we have staff that is spending a quarter of her time to look at establishing a food policy for the city, so we're getting off the ground and defining it, but it's meant to be at the starting point a comprehensive point of how food is provided and grown and food deserts and all those issues in the city. >> i would like to have that brought to the commission, the same for the urban forest public education campaign, that sounds interesting. all of these are really interesting. i mean, i know we heard about some of the various programs, but to have an opportunity to hear a little bit about the work and how it's being scoped, i think that would be worthwhile. another item that's kind of random and i don't mean this to disparage my historic preservation commissioners but

i'm just wondering in here, there's a mention of a stipend and i was wondering what the rational was behind that. >> the idea was similar to the planning commission, there would be a stipend given to the commissioners on a per meeting basis. >> the same way you receive a stipend for -- >> maybe i was wrong because most commissions, there's some like the airport and redevelopment to have some degree of funding but i always assumed it's because we had the crazy long hour that is we get stipend, i was surprised because there are professional requirements for the historic preservation, some of them had to be experts in the field, that's why i was wondering -- >> na's a proposal on the table, it's your final call. >> i just, you know, was wondering if that was something the board of supervisors, i

know ours was set by the board i think. >> well, i believe it's in the -- planning commissioners? >> actually, the way the commissions work, it's a job class within the annual salary ordinance, so depending on what commission you're on, there's different groups. about 4 or 5 years ago, the planning department proposed through the budget process to change the planning commission to a group 5 which is 200 dollars a meeting, we're proposing group 3 for historic preservation which is 50 dollars a meeting, it has to do with the appointment to a job class within the city's -- >> i wanted to know it's not a standard policy, you know, and i just assumed, there was so much involved, that that was the reason and the other reason, i thought it was somewhat different because

there is professional -- some degree of professional requirements related to that commission that are related to the work that the commission does, one could argue that people who have these expertise and are appointed to this commission may benefit financially already from that appointment as opposed to people on the planning commission. >> as the director on the case, just a proposal to recognize them for the time they commit, there's nothing in the charter or an ordinance, it's a job class appointment. >> i just didn't really know that all the different commissioners had a job classification. >> commissioner moore? >> we understand that the implementation of the street tree program and the fact that the city can't maintain the trees but put the responsibility back on the home owners or adjoining property owners is still an issue, do

we move forward? >> this line item is inventory of the trees and developing a plan for their further retention and growth so the maintenance question, you're right is an important question, it's not completely resolved yet, it's important to have this work done as a background for that. >> thank you for clarifying that. another question perhaps for mr. demartini, is there another place where we could see a little more detail on how the commission itself is budgeted as there are a number of line items which come together when you bring that figure forward, that includes an addition to the stipend, obviously the cost for broadcasting, cost for deliver services, meals for late meetings that all might be -- could we perhaps, the president and the vice-president take a glimpse at it so we know it's properly

projected for the two years to come? >> sure, we could do that >> commissioner sugaya. >> in previous years, we've had a much more detailed budget to look at in materials of line items, and i don't know if you've seen those, but we used to have them that were pages long and it was rather interesting to see by line item what the expenditures were for staff and other things. >> are you referring to the work program with like the fte counts? >> yes. >> and i think that addresses commissioner moore's question also, in two weeks, your memo will have that level of detail where it shows the proposed fte count widths the initiatives, if you want the actual dollar amounts, i can provide you with what you need. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to add a comment that in the past year, since this is not our standard

everyday literature, just reading it, it is more difficult to understand and then having to vote on it after you make a presentation sometimes raises more questions than answers so i'm wondering if we could spread that with the presentation and then vote in on it a week later or something like that. i always feel a little bit overwhelmed because it's so hard to understand. >> if i may, today is just an informational hearing for what we're proposing at this time and in two weeks, we will be coming and asking for you to vote on the budget and we've also already made a presentation on the preliminary cut of the department's work program a few weeks ago, so we will be coming a total of three time tos the planning commission with budget information, hopefully that's a sufficient amount of time that has elapsed during presentations and if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them.

>> any additional comments? >> that would place you under item 10 for case number 2000.61be, bren nan street/1 henry adams street project, the proposed project has two sites. >> commissioner hillis? >> commissioners, as i did last time, i need to ask for a recusal as well as items 11a and 11b for the same reasons, i work for fort mason center. >> commissioner antonini, moved to recuse him? >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i have a question for mr. hillis, in past situations, i've had conflicts because i've worked on portions of environmental impact reports,

in that case t city attorney's office ruled that i should recuse myself aon the eir portion but i was eligible and they felt comfortable in my participating and voting on the actual project. in this case, it would -- i don't know, i'm not the attorney, but did you ask whether or not you could participate in the eir portion versus the project portion? because it would seem your conflict relates more to the actual approval of the projects rather than the technicalities and the contents of the environmental impact report. >> we did talk about this, okay, do you want to mention it? >> i mean, if they've already said -- >> yeah, it's one project, the advice was to recuse myself from both. >> alright, thank you. >> we have a motion and a second. >> commissioners, on the motion to recuse commissioner hillis

from items 10 and 11a and b. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and commissioner hillis is hereby reused. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm debra dwire, planning department staff, the item before you is the certification of an eir for the proposed 801 gran nan street and 1 henry adams street, it would include demolition to have concourse exhibition hall and demolition of three existing commercial industrial building on the 1 henry adams site, there would be two mixed use and residential use alt the

1 henry adams site, they would be 68 feet tall, the eastern most portion would be a partial fulfillment of the inclusionary housing requirements. up to 150 units of affordable housing would be constructed on that portion of the 801 brannan site, there are three project variance proposed, variant 1 would include new construction of two mixed use and retail building on the 801 brannan site which variance 3 would also include two buildings on the 801 brannan site, but variance 1 and 2 would not change development on the 1 henry adams site from what is proposed on the project but would not include land dedication to the city.

total development would include 1 million 187 thousand 943 gross square feet with up to 824 residential units, approximately 54 thousand 600 retail space and 866 parking spaces, since publication of the draft eir, variance three is the proposed project, a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you, the public hearing on the draft eir was held on july 28, 2011. the public comment period closed. it was published and distributed on january 10, 2013. subsequent to publication of the responses to comments document, a correction has been

identified. on page 120 of the responses to comments, there is a typographical error, in the response aq1, the phrase no more than 5 thousand vehicle trips per day should be changed to no more than 6 thousand vehicle trips per day in both the first paragraph and last paragraph, these text changes do not represent any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir according to the bay area air quality management district emissions sources such as the vehicle trips from the project that are less than 10 thousand vehicle trips per day are considered minor sources. consequently, they do not trigger the need to recirculate the draft eir pursuant to the environmental quality act. i also received a couple of petitions within the last three weeks which i will hand to the

commission's secretary, these are regarding save the concourse and would apply to the next items on the agenda, however, i provide them here for your information. during the public comment portion of this meeting, we heard speakers who raised issues concerning the project. many of the comments do not address environmental issues but were expressions of support or opposition to the project, you may wish to take some comments into account during your consideration of the project entitlements. some of the comments raised did address environmental issues or the environmental review process, and with respect to consideration of demolition of iq280 and changes to circulation in the project vicinity, this is a conceptual idea that is being studied but it is not advanced to a specific proposal and is not

curtly undergoing environmental review. so, once a plan has been developed, it would undergo its own environmental review and that view would consider conditions in the project vicinity such as this project. having addressed these other matters, i would like to conclude my presentation regarding the certification of the eir, the evaluation of issues contained in the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would roult in project specific significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to transportation at two intersections and the air quality both operational quality pollutants and construction and operational health risks that could not be mitigated to below a significant level. in addition, the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative land

use impact identified in the eastern neighborhoods's eir with respect to pvr land supply, it would result in a cumulatively considerable to significant and cumulative transportation at five intersections, and health risk related to toxic air contaminants. therefore, the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act, we could request the commission adopt the project before you, and to which the final eir was prepared, it's with the ceqa guidelines. this concludes my presentation on the matter unless the

commission members have any comments? >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you for your comments and particular reference and i was going to make the same comment in regards to responses to public comment and as i understand it and you pointed out under ceqa, you can't take into consideration the impact that something that is conceptual has not been funded or analyzed, it's the other way around, when that particular project would come up and you would have to look at this and there's no way of knowing what impacks that would bring, it might improve traffic flow as i think has been the case with the freeway not being there, i think we had more congestion when that was being presented. the other question i have and

typically the period of time between the end of the draft eir comment period and the final eir certification is much shorter than is the case here and i think i understand that because a selection was made of a particular variant and it needed -- while there weren't any changes, everything was analyzed already, but there was time to actually put this into -- frame it into a content that was particularly with response to the project itself and if you can give me another reason why there was such a long period of time. >> well, supplemental analysis was conducted for variant 3 so it was looked at including the transportation impacts particularly because there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the project, we wanted to see what the variation would be with variant 3. >> and that would be what i would expect or a supplemental

eir certainly can be included in comments and responses and that's what's happened here. >> supplemental analysis. >> analysis, yeah. okay, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, could you remind me, on past agendas when we've had final certifications of the final environmental impact report and project approvals which follow for the two separate sites, we've also had an agenda item on ceqa findings? >> the ceqa findings are part of the next item. we have a draft motion for certification of the eir which includes findings within that motion, but the ceqa finagled themselves would be part of the next item. >> and why isn't it advertised that way?

>> it's part of one of motions you have with the project approvals. >> but in past agendas, we've had a separate item on ceqa findings because i specifically remember reusing myself on the eir portions and, you know, considering that as a separate item and i was wondering why it's just included and not noticed to the public? >> i can't speak to that because i'm not usually part of that. >> my understanding, commissioner is since we started wrapping them into the motion themselves, city attorney's determined we didn't need a separate item for them because they're wrapped into the c motion and so there is sufficient notice in that respect. >> okay. >> commissioner antonini? >> one other thing that i will

bring up more when the projects are before us but i do make reference to it now, it's on rtc91 which is a rendering of 801 brannan in the comments and responses and the design is quite a bit different than what is going to be before us, however, i have reason to believe that the massing is the same and that's what really we are considering when we're considering impacts under eir, but i will bring that up because the design that's before us in the final project appears different than at least the facades are considerably different than what is present on what is in rc91 of comments and responses and i don't see any problem with that as long as there is no change in massing. >> yes, that's correct, although this was updated in

november, 2012. there may have been some design refinements but they don't affect -- >> yeah, that's what i'm expecting. i prefer the earlier one, but that's a design issue which we will take up at the time of the item itself, but i see no change in the massing and the impact that is being analyzed, so with that in mind, i would move to certify the final environmental impact report. i feel it's complete, accurate and adequate. >> second. >> on that motion to certify commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes ewe nan nosily, 6-0, and places you under items 11a and b for cases 2012 .0700x

at 801 brannan street and case number 2012 .0701x at 1 henry adams street for large project authorization. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners, ben fu, planning staff, the project proposes two developments, number one, additional structures at 801 brannan to allow the construction of a new six storey 68 foot tall building consisting of up to 432 dwelling units, parking for up to 432 spaces and planning code exceptions [inaudible] off street loading reduction, the second development is also requesting for a large project authorization pursuant to the same code section 329 to allow the construction of two new six storey 68 foot tall buildings at 1 henry adams street,