consistent sets being submitted to us, relative to what is depicted and how it is depicted. i would probably call these two drawings remotely sophomoric. perhaps my first year of architecture school, that's about where this is. for this commission that is not consistent or appropriate to render the type of decisions we need to make and i want to help and empower the department that generally we are raising the bar of what is being expected as a minimum for visual depiction in these applications. sometimes we see window sill details and foundation details which don't really matter. but what we really want to see is how does it fit the context of the neighborhood, to how does it meet the department's guidelines to determine them. three dimensional or whatever,

but these sets are way short of what the department should be able to expect. just want to put that into the discussion and see if we can help, perhaps, develop a set of criteria to help the department. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: and like all of us thrilled with the giants world series victory, particularly it happened on monday so we aren't sitting here biting our nails for the possible seventh game today. i might have been there, but in any case, it was a thrill to walk up the same steps today that the giants walked down on the entrance to city hall and this does rekindle our image as a city which we used to be known as 80 years ago. that has fallen by the wayside recently, but the way it was handled yesterday, between the city, the giants, and the project sponsors, how well it was done.

on a smaller stage, but also i think of equal importance, today was the first round of golf tournament out at harding park, which was the champions, and some of the names that my age is more familiar with, tom watson and fred couples are among the participants out there. it's the second major tournament in two years there will be another, and i would like to acknowledge the former and present supervisor who were instrumental in refurbishing harding park and making it great for local golfers and world champions alike. i am optimistic we can do the same thing in the future with our other capitol assets, and improve them and bring them back to their former greatness. so a good step in the right direction, thank you.

president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i am going to wear former commissioner bill lee's hat for a moment. the traveler magazine has named san francisco the most favorite city for travel in the u.s., so -- and i just wanted to comment on commissioner moore's candlestick park. i am sure they are going to have a lot of time to come to a meeting of the minds given the state budget and the failure of prop 21. clerk: commissioners if we can move forward to director's report. >> thank you, commissioners, i actually don't have any special announcements today so ill defer to ann marie for her report. >> good afternoon commissioners, ann marie rogers here to give you a report on the activities of the board of supervisors as they pertain to planning and land use. this week there were a couple of

libraries that were up for landmark designation. the first, marina branch library, constructed in 1954 by appleton and woolford, and the hpc designation on october 7th 2009, and they recommended approval on june 16th of this year. north beach was constructed by the same architects, and the hpc designation on october 7th of last year and they recommended aapproval of this one on september 1st. the hpc found both were eligible for individual landmarks, based on events related to the national exes spawnion of the public library system and to architecture specific to this moment. the hpc moved to recognize both as a landmark under article 10, and on monday, land use volted

3-0 to recommend approval for landmarking the marina branch, while voting 3-0, for the north beach library, both items should be heard next tuesday at the board hearing. also before land use committee, 222 second street. on august 12th, this commission recommended approval of both the zoning ordinance and the map and general plan amendment. it would relass identify a portion of this parcel from 150s, to 350s and make conforming amendments to the general plan. this was proposed in conjunction with the 26-story, 350 foot office tower in the c30 office district. also before the land use committee was the health care service master plan which was an item the director spoke at.

you heard this last week at which point you recommended six modifications, increasing the threshold, including a cost recovery mechanism for the updated plan, simplify the content of the plan, if possible making the department of public health the lead agency for specific determine theyions. you asked they consider regional health care needs and add cross-references to help with the implementation of the ordinance. in response, at this week's land use hearing, supervisor campos, moved the plan through the normal budgetary process and also chained the questioned threshold. while he did not change the content, he did add a qualifier where possible to give flexibility to the plan's content. he reported that due to legal considerations, department of health could not be the lead

agency for consistency determinations. he pointed out there was existing texts they would consider regional issues. he did commit to put in all the class references we requested. so this week the committee heard over and hour of testimony and decided to continue the proposed ordinance for at least two weeks and it be be heard on or after november 15th. the full board, you will remember, this was the ordinance introduced by mayor new some and president chu, it would also respond to the palmer court decision. you heard this item on march 25th of this year. at that time you recommended approval of modifications. your five modifications were largely incorporated into the ordinance, except the name of the program changed to the

inclusionary affordable housing program. since you heard the legislation the mayor's office recommended additional changes to help the owners during these difficult economic times. i have described these to you last week and would be happy to go over them again if you like. these changes were largely incorporated into the ordinance. this week both the department and the city attorney's office identified another section of the planning code that should be modified in response to the court decision. this would be the market and van ness special use district. it triggered the ordinance would be sent back to land use after the required notice is completed. also the car share ordinance is before the full board this week. this was initiated at your request and the final step of a three-part response to update our car share requests. including adoption of your

commission policy and the draft ordinance. i am pleased to inform that the full board did unanimously adopt the car share ordinance and there were no land use or planning ordinances introduced that i noticed. that concludes my report unless you have questions. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: , miss rogers, thank you, again, a couple of questions and i don't need an answer but i would be interested hearing what the legal issues that were raised by supervisor campos in regards to the city-wide needs health assessment that would preclude public health from being the lead agency. maybe i can find out in the future about that. number two in regard to landmarking the applegate libraries and others, i know merced has had significant renovation a few years back, and i know merced is not before

them, yet, but that has had an addition made to it. so i guess how much change can occur to a structure and still be eligible for landmarking? i know it's a subjective thing, but it just seems i thought they did quite a bit to marina. it was a great improvement in my opinion but it still was of the basic style of the original library. >> we can look into those questions. commissioner antonini: ok, sure, thank you. clerk: commissioners, i am not sure if there was a board of appeals meeting, but the historic preservation did meet and i have to admit that i do not have a report for you. i can only tell you that they did continue their discussions on article 11. they actually completed their discussion of article 11 or their proposed amendments, but they did not take action.

they would like staff to take those to the city attorney's office and make sure they are true to form. and they started their discussion on 309 modifications. and director rahaim was there and might want to elaborate. >> that summarizes it very well. thanks very much. clerk: ok, with that, we can go to item 3 under director's report. this would be the environmental -- the ero's response, environmental review officer's response, raised to the final environmental impact certification hearing. it's an informational item. >> big riker, department planning staff. the memo i prepared was

distributed last week. there's also copies on the table. as you can see in the memo, what i tried to focus on was the questions, not of the substance of what we would do, but of the procedural appropriateness or scope of the inquiry. and as i understood the questions, or at least as i tried to phrase it in responding, i heard three basic types of questions. one was what kind of further investigations are appropriate, especially in relation to project sponsor's objectives. the answer to that, i think, is pretty straight forward. if the questions are asking for further investigation in relation to a potential ceqa impact, either for more information to be more comfortable with the conclusion or even potentially changing that conclusion, in essence, i

don't think the project sponsor's objectives have any bearing on that inquiry. the inquiry could basically affect your conclusions in terms of ceqa findings. the second question was of a more general information request and that, i think, was of a much more ambiguous -- as i phrased it, to some people's chagrin, question. anything that has a potential link back to a ceqa conclusion, i think, is totally in order. obviously their's lots of information that is included for better or worse in the eir that is not strictly in the ceqa conclusion realm. and to the extent these questions are raised in eir hearings, we try to respond to the extent factual information is brought to our attention,

that we conclude was inaccurate. we correct it but also be clear we are correcting it not because it changes the conclusion, but just to have as complete information as we can. i think the area that i spoke to this the memo, in terms of alternatives, is a little -- i am not sure that i have expressed myself as well as i might have. i guess what i wanted to make sure was alternatives under ceqa are defined strictly in terms of speaking, addressing, and identifying the significant impact. and the only significant impact was structured as they were. however, what i attempted to articulate and at least feel is personally appropriate, even if there is an alternative that is not strictly speaking inspired

by a significant impact and that alternative were -- needed to be investigated in order to move forward with a version of the project that the commission felt was not encompassed in the alternatives, including the project in the eir, to me, that would be appropriate to add independent of the significance issue, just so you have ceqa clearance for whatever it is before you. what i was trying to emphasize in the memo is that particularly as you move into that realm, and not strictly in this is an area of potential impact that we have questions, i hi it becomes very important that you articulate so we can know how to respond and so that the record is clear as to what the basis is for asking for an additional alternative is. so, for example, if the basis is, we think the impacts were greater in this area, or even if

not greater, we feel there should be some version of the project that we want to actively consider, that's not within the range covered in the e.i.r., i think it's important that that be articulated, so we know what to do and the record don't look like it's an arbitrary request. the third area that i understood to be a question was once we come back with these materials, how are they distributed and circulated. and i -- my understanding of that is that obviously if we do this investigation and we find there are either new significant impacts, or new feasible mitigation measures, or new feasible alternatives related to significant impacts, that triggers recirculation of the eir. the second scenario is we do

this investigation and we don't change our ceqa conclusions, there is no prescriptive direction as to how that would be distributed. i suggest we basically would do what we do with publication of the c & r documents, we would do the 10 to 14 days so there's a reasonable opportunity to review the materials. rather than being without an opportunity to digest. since the hearing, we have tried to look into some of the specific substantive questions, commissioner sugaya committed two of the letters that were read into the letter as articulation of the concerns he was addressing. susan brand holly distributed a letter yesterday which you received, which commented not too favorably on my interpretation of things, and her own interpretations of the proceedings two weeks ago, those

are the only formal communications we have had since two week ago and there has been dialogue within the department as to how we would respond. clarifications on what i didn't communicate well either in the memo or here, or, you know, if we want to get into further clarifications as to the substance of the issues. president miguel: thank you. i have some public comment cards. susan brand holly, m.e.o. lawrence. >> good afternoon president miguel and members of the commission, i am susan brand holly representing historic knob hill. i appreciate the further explanation about his memo which

i did respond to yesterday and i hope you had a chance to receive it. as i understand it and the tape shows from the last hearing, the commission declined to certify the fairmont eir and then gave direction to staff what to do to fix it. i think where the disconnect is possibly between what the commission required, and as i understand the memo, his staff is indicating it's unclear whether project alternatives need to be analyzed. in fact, historic knob hill through myself and a lot of speakers clearly addressed why alternatives were needed, specifically because there may be significant environmental impacts that weren't adequately identified and the conclusions have not been adopted at this point by this commission, so there's a dispute and a lot of evidence that there are other significant impacts.

the eir identifies a potential significant impact in terms of 9 project's impact on the residential historic district and the mitigation required is future environmental review that should mitigate it. one thing that was raised, i recall commissioner sugaya commented on the draft eir and others did, too, you can't assume it's mitigated as significant. there's also analysis of the impact of the new tower on the current landmark. that's another area in which there's question. so what was requested by this commission is alternatives be considered including rehabilitation of the tower as opposed to the demolition and reconstruction. we also have presented as concerns that the project objective, in calling for demolition as an objective when really, it's a means to an end, not a proper ceqa objective and

there's case law to support that. and the description that doesn't really show you what the project will look like is inadequate. so fundamental problems. it should be clear from the action the commission already took that there's fundamental revisions that the eir needed, including additional alternatives. no question these all relate to environmental issues [buzzer] >> they are not beyond the scope of ceqa and you are not allowed to do more than the law requires. but all of these things relate to environmental issues, the historic resources, traffic and noise issues, as well. there were a lot of things raised. and as i understand what the commission did and a transcript of your hearing will she, there wag a lot of direction given to staff and that should be clarified busker.

president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. miguel, did you call emil lawrence? president miguel: emil lawrence. >> my name is emil lawrence. good afternoon. i've been a resident in san francisco county for 41 years now. two and a half years ago, i had a problem with a tenant or landlord that did 15 abatements on asbestos without filing any proper permits. president miguel: excuse me, sir, are you commenting on this agenda item? >> am i what, sir? president miguel: we are on a particular agenda item. >> this is connected with the fairmont is what i understand. president miguel: is it. >> yes, sir, i will bring it in line. on 52-unit building i understood you could do asbestos abasements

without any proper permits and violation of federal laws under osha, asbestos is a deadly, deadly flake that you can't see, you can't taste, but you can breathe and once it gets into your lungs, it stays there until you die. if you look at the fairmont in terms of the tons of asbestos, i have seen no environmental report how that would be contained when san francisco has only one air quality man for the whole city. it's a major problem. i am a taxi driver in the city and county of san francisco. i go over that hill 15 times a day. in terms of the wind bursts and air quality, asbestos would be floating all over the city from that construction project because there is no system in place, in this county to comply with osha laws, in terms of placing signs in every room of the hotel, telling them there's

as best boss work going on, and also block by block, notifying them asbestos work is taking mace, also notifying every tourist that asbestos work is taking place r. any project that goes over the hill with the fairmont would be in violation of federal laws. not just one, but a multitude and based on the federal guidelines in which there would be no or total accountability on medical problems until the day that person died if he was afflicted with asbestos problems. if you breathe asbestos today, you don't come down with a problem for 10 or 15 years. and then everybody says you didn't breathe it at my place. [buzzer] i lived at 1650 octavia, owned by gerald dowd,

where he did knowingly, asbestos abasement and had the people living in the unit without proper personals and without notifying the city that asbestos work was taking place. i believe that's going to take place here at the fairmont if they attempt to demolish those two buildings in the back without federal controls [buzzer. >> i thank you for your time. one last thing is i submitted -- president miguel: thank you, leave them there. the secretary will take care of them. >> i have three left. >> thank you. president miguel: additional public comment on this item? >> sue hester, i want to supplement comments made by susan brand holly. i am the attorney for local 2. i have questions about the

directions that mr. wyco successes on page two. i do not think it appropriate for the commission to give direction on the alternatives at this point under any circumstances. the eir record was closed. it was not a certification of the eir. this commission may not discuss alternatives to the project as he seems to indicate. he -- i mean, i am reading what this paragraph that starts out, on the other hand, as questioning the commission for direction on what alternatives you want to be really actively considering. i don't think you can do that. what you said in your comments when you voted was what the deficiencies were, and there were clearly questions raised by the public about the inadequacies of the analysis on

a re-use alternative. that was picked up in the summary that commissioner sugaya did, and perhaps one of the other commissioners. i don't have the transcript in front of me. but that is a huge issue. the re-use of that facility was disregarded because, as mr. wyco basically applied, it didn't affect the tonga room. there's more than the tonga room at stake in this eir. the commissioners comments and public comments dealt with alternatives. i do not believe trolling for additional information from the commissioners is proper under ceqa. perhaps this was reviewed by the city attorney before this was sent out. i would actually be a little shocked if it had been. but i do not believe it is anywhere near acceptable for the

commission to be saying how you want to be dealing with alternatives, when the hearing is closed, thank you. president miguel: thank you. additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed, commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: , mr. wyco thank you for your comments. a couple of questions, i guess, but i just had some observations, i guess, i certainly think we all know how the ceqa process can be very long and expensive. but that's not the point. the point is to make sure we completely analyze the impacts from ceqa of a proposed project. and i guess my question is, obviously, the no project alternative makes total sense, or variants of the project that are, perhaps, somewhat smaller, code compliant, etc. but i don't quite see why you

would have to analyze an entirely different project in this case being the restoration, because, if, in fact, we went through the analysis, and we certified a particular report, this one or any other one, and then the project was approved, then it could come back and go through its own ceqa hearing at that time. maybe i don't follow what you are saying on that. maybe i can get a clarification on that. >> i think what you said is correct, and combining your question and miss hester's comment. the reason i thought that besides several commissioners articulated they wanted to see other alternatives, why i thought it was out of order because you are not only deadlocked in a 3-3 vote, but you also continued the matter. i am not the expert on