Policy Committee‎ > ‎2008 Meetings‎ > ‎

10.20 Approved Minutes

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

POLICY COMMITTEE

 

*RESCHEDULED MEETING

APPROVED MINUTES

 
Monday, October 20, 2008, 5:00 P.M.

City Hall, Room 421

One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

*The Monday, October 27, 2008, 5:00 p.m. Policy Committee Regularly Scheduled Meeting was RESCHEDULED to Monday, October 20, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:  Commissioners Johanna Wald (Chair), Ruth Gravanis (Vice-Chair), Jane MarieFrancis Martin

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Public comment will be taken before the Committee takes action on any item.

 

1.      Call to Order and Roll Call. The Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 5:09 p.m.  Present:  Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis, Commissioner Martin

 

2.   Approval of Minutes of the September 8, 2008 Policy Committee Regular Meeting. (Discussion and Action) Upon Motion by Vice-Chair Gravanis and second by Commissioner Martin without objection, the September 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes were approved (AYES:  Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis and Commissioner Martin) (Explanatory Document: September 8, 2008 Draft and Approved Minutes)

 

3.   Public Comments:  Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.  There was no public comment at this time.

 

4.   Urban Environmental Accord Action 15. Transportation. Carbon Credit Program. Current Status on the Development of the Carbon Offset Program. (Informational Report and Discussion) Speakers:  Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager and Paul Joyce, Carbon Offsets Program Manager, Energy Section.  (Explanatory Document:  Outline of SF Carbon Fund Status Update)

 

Mr. Joyce presented an overview of the San Francisco Local Carbon Offset Program that was created as a result of the Mayor’s Executive Directive dated December 18, 2007.  The objectives of the Executive Directive are to (1) develop and pilot a local carbon offset program; (2) to fund carbon-offset activities exclusively within San Francisco’s boundaries; (3) in the pilot phase, City departments would purchase carbon offsets when employees travel by airplanes, and (4) the pilot phase would subsidize a limited set of projects because of its limited scope and funds.  Mr. Joyce described the three project types that include (1) biodiesel refueling station per gallon subsidy; (2) contributions to the Enterprise Green Communities Offset Fund; and (3) “geriatric boiler” replacement.  Next steps would include finalizing the San Francisco Carbon Fund Offset definition and project protocols, finalizing biodiesel project details, finalizing the Green Communities agreement, and developing a City employee travel offset process.  Additional information on this program can be accessed in the Outline of San Francisco Carbon Fund Status Update explanatory document.

 

Commissioner Martin inquired whether a calculation exists for how many air-travel miles are being flown by City employees.  Mr. Joyce reported that there is not a good measure available; but there is a calculation based on the total City travel budget that he had engineered a ball-park figure from.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that he is working with the Controller’s Office to determine whether air travel can be separated from the rest of travel for next year’s budget. 

 

Vice-Chair Gravanis inquired if there is a mechanism for reviewing all City employee travel requests in order to determine which travel requests are necessary.  Mr. Joyce stated that because the carbon offset program would be expensive, it would create a deterrent by the fact that there would be additional money coming out of the travel budget.  As a result, there would be less money for travel and more scrutiny by department heads when approving travel.

 

Commissioner Martin asked if there is an estimated carbon offset amount that would be spent for any kind of trip.  Mr. Joyce reported that for example, a trip from San Francisco to New York is a total of a ton of carbon offset each way commercial, so at our prices we are looking at $40 to $50 a ton each way, so the total would be $80 to $100 additional.  It would be a significant deterrent.

 

Chair Wald inquired why the focus is on City employee airline travel only.  Mr. Broomhead explained that because air travel is not yet accounted for in our carbon footprint, it is a good way of bringing it into the fold and would be easier to account for than auto travel.  Chair Wald inquired whether there are project goals that have been set in order to measure success of projects, e.g. the biodiesel project or purchasing carbon offsets for City employee airline travel. Mr. Joyce explained that a measure of success for the biodiesel subsidy program would be if it would help ensure that a biodiesel station stay open for business.  Additional biodiesel stations would provide easier access to customers and would lead to more interest by consumers.

 

Commissioner Martin discussed the idea of additionality for the biodiesel project.  Mr. Joyce explained that there is a significant chance that because biodiesel refueling that is going on now is a money loser, the station could fail even with the subsidy, and then would result in a significant case for additionality. The subsidy would provide a better but not guaranteed chance for the station’s success.  Commissioner Martin inquired why a private auto supplement is at the top of the list when getting people out of their cars by supporting bicycling or walking should be a higher priority. Mr. Joyce reported that he consulted with Climate Trust in Oregon who reviewed a bicycling project and it is believed that the metrics are immeasurable—there is no mechanism for measuring how many people replace their auto travel for bicycle travel and miles measured from bicycling versus driving. The measurement would be based on word of mouth which is not always accurate.

 

Commissioner Martin suggested providing a subsidy to outfits that support bicyclists instead of bicyclists themselves.  Mr. Joyce reported that those programs would be best run by the Department of the Environment as separate programs as he does not know of a way to administer it as a carbon purchase.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that there are two issues with bicycle programs that are somewhat problematic. One is the injunction that is in place that makes it hard to set up programs.  The second is that there is the issue of additionality as there are already a number of programs that are available at this time.  There was just an approved pre-tax benefit for bicycles that will be heavily promoted.  A project would have to be identified that would be independent of those projects that could show additionality and could be measured.  It is easy to measure gallons of biodiesel sold, and much harder to measure miles traveled by bicycles. 

 

Deputy Director Assmann reported that this program is just the beginning and there are going to be many of these projects.  It was explained that if this pilot program is successful, the intent is to expand it in a way to not only offset City travel but to ultimately have an offset program for the community to buy into as well.  Mr. Broomhead discussed the Bay Area Air Quality District’s interest in a partnership to buy into the City’s carbon fund.  

 

Chair Wald inquired how long the pilot program is and whether there is a process to work on additional projects after the pilot.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that there is no set limit and would want it up and running long enough to be evaluated, to see if it works, and then move forward.  It has been eight months since the Executive Order was issued.  Chair Wald asked if it would be a year or more.  Mr.  Broomhead said it is possible or it could be sooner.  Problems if any would have to be resolved and then there would be a time period once the program is running to evaluate its success.  Chair Wald encouraged staff to think about how to identify additional projects before too long assuming it will be a successful project and there will be additional funding.  Mr. Broomhead reported that after the program is running for several months, a Request for Proposal(s) could be worked on.  Mr. Joyce explained that the boiler replacement project would have great benefits for reducing our carbon footprint and could be expanded on as more funding becomes available.

 

Commissioner Martin discussed a potential project for targeting low income or seniors for installation of Energy Star appliances. Mr. Broomhead explained that this project would be expensive because you are creating a whole delivery system and you are not leveraging anything existing.  Commissioner Martin inquired whether city-owned or administered housing is already all Energy Star.  Mr. Broomhead explained that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission did some installation work on these types of units about four or five years ago and that it may be time for them to work on this project again. Commissioner Martin recommended that solar installations also be given consideration.  Mr. Broomhead reported that solar is very expensive.  Mr. Joyce reported that he had held discussions with Grid Alternatives who does solar installations on low-income housing and it was explained that the hardest part is not financing the solar, but getting the property owner to approve the installation because people do not want to deal with two bills.  Commissioner Martin inquired about the Housing Authority.  Mr. Broomhead reported that the Housing Authority is served by Hetch Hetchy power. Mr. Joyce explained that installing solar on low-income housing would make sense on a larger scale.

 

Commissioner Martin recommended offering low-flow toilets and Energy Star appliances that can be picked up or packaged somehow so it would make sense in terms of logistics.  Mr. Broomhead stated that the low-income program efficiency field is a very complicated area and is in the Strategic Plan to work on in the next year or two because more funding would be available in the next cycle.  Mr. Joyce explained that is the kind of project that once you get to scale you could make an additionality argument for.  If the PUC says they are going to buy another 3000 Energy Star refrigerators and we can provide carbon money to make it accessible through either delivery or another means, and a case could be made that delivery would be the only way people would agree, it could be written off as a carbon project. 

 

Commissioner Martin inquired about planting trees or other sequestration plants. Mr. Broomhead explained that trees are approximately $3000 a ton for a project. It was stated that temperate zone trees don’t generate a lot of tons and there are other issues with urban trees.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that it is very expensive per tree, so the offsets would never be enough to cover the cost.  It is an incremental benefit, but not enough to run a program.      

 

Vice-Chair Gravanis stated that she thinks these are excellent pilot projects and would like to see the data once it comes in to see how we are doing.  Vice Chair Gravanis concurred with the suggestion to study projects that can reduce vehicle miles traveled whether it is bicycle related, a grocery delivery project that prevents people from driving to a store, or any other relevant project.  It was explained that there is a large carbon footprint in so many of the goods that are delivered and that there should be a way to provide incentives for more local production, manufacturing, processing, and distribution of these products. 

 

Vice-Chair Gravanis inquired about the timeline for the next steps.  Mr. Joyce reported that the carbon fund offset definition and project protocols have been a work in progress all year.  The Department of the Environment has hired a new Climate Coordinator who would be working on this program and it is hoped that it would be finalized soon after she gets on board. The biodiesel project is going on right now–-Deputy Director Assmann is working on the payment mechanism, contracts, and agreements and it would be forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office for review.  The verification process has been mapped out and the collection data has been identified. Mr. Joyce reported that there is a Memorandum of Understanding that has been drafted for the green communities program, and it is now a matter of finalizing the language and selecting a project.  There may be a project that is slated to start in December or another one in January or February.   Deputy Director Assmann is working with the Controller’s Office and City Attorney’s Office on the offset process.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that he is expected to receive funding this year and would be able to write it into the next fiscal year’s budget process.  It was explained that funding would be identified for the projects that are ready to go now and early in the winter and spring. 

 

Chair Wald inquired whether there is any way to subsidize the use of bike messengers.  Mr. Joyce stated that this would be a good project to discuss with law firms because they deal with documents that have to be signed and delivered on a daily basis, but does not know if it can be a carbon project. Mr. Broomhead explained that the reason the bike messengers are hurting is because documents can now be filed and signed on the Internet.   With this type of program, internet and not auto traffic would be displaced, so would be counterproductive as a result.   Deputy Director Assmann suggested consolidating delivery vehicles because there are so many delivery vehicles going to the same routes. 

 

Commissioners requested additional information on the programs once implementation begins.

 

5.   Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures List for Rent Capital Cost Pass Through—Approval of Amendments to the Measures List. (Explanatory Document: Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy Improvements List) (Discussion and Action) SPEAKER:  Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager

 

Mr. Broomhead reported that the Commission in 2003 had already approved an amortization period for the items that are categorized in the Qualified Improvements column and described in greater detail in the Additional Terms of Pass-through column.  Mr. Broomhead reported that the Department is requesting another approval because this list was never forwarded to the Board of Supervisors because of Rent Board issues. The Rent Board is now ready to bring the list to the Board of Supervisors for approval and they had inquired whether any amendments should be made to the list. Mr. Broomhead reported that the Amortization Period column on the far right reflects what is now being recommended and the Amortization Period column to the left of the far right column reflects what was recommended in 2003.  It was explained that the City Attorney’s office stated that the Department would need Department and Commission approval in order to bring this new set of amortization periods to the Board.

 

Mr. Broomhead discussed the benefits of solar installations in multi-tenant buildings to landlords in that instead of having tenants pay $100 directly to PG&E, that amount could go directly to paying for a capital improvement to a building and make it more valuable. In order for the solar installation to meet the requirements of what is being proposed, it has to benefit the tenant’s unit which is more likely to be through solar water heating to the boiler. 

 

Commissioner Martin inquired whether it is legal for a landlord to charge a tenant for electricity use directly.  Mr. Broomhead stated they could not unless the unit was individually metered.  In order to do so, the landlord would have to install a photovoltaic system that would go to the tenant’s meter, and the landlord could then bill them for capital cost pass-through.  Commissioner Martin stated that she would not like to penalize someone that is conservative in their energy use as it would not incentivize conservation.  It was explained that tenants can go to the Rent Board to contest a pass-through if they feel it is not worth it to them. 

 

Chair Wald inquired about allowing for tankless water heaters. Mr. Broomhead reported that tankless water heater efficiency is dependent on building particulars and is not cost effective in all cases.  If you have high usage and the building has a tight plumbing tree, the savings is going to be small; if you have low usage it could work depending on the cost of installation. It was explained that tanks really work when the water heater is next to an exterior wall.

 

Chair Wald recommended reviewing new items that could be added to the list.  Commissioner Martin asked whether it would be possible to include a wild card category so that landlords could present an option that would make sense for their specific building.  Mr. Broomhead stated that he does not know whether it is allowed by the Rent Board laws or not.  There were a number of items that were so inexpensive to install that the Rent Board did not want them on the list because it did not make sense.

 

Mr. Broomhead reported that generally landlords do not like this process at the Rent Board and explained barriers they face when making improvements to occupied units, e.g. tenants unhappy with improvements that were made.  Chair Wald recommended finding a way to encourage the landlords to do more of these items when their apartments are vacant so that it could go into the apartment offset.  Mr. Broomhead stated that there is a multi-family incentive program being offered to do many of these projects and more.  Chair Wald recommended adding a carbon calculator to the Department’s website showing what the Department is doing to offset carbon and adding a way for people to calculate their carbon savings. 

 

Commissioner Martin inquired whether there was a way that renters can participate in this process so they can initiate changes that can stay with the building, e.g., change out the refrigerator to a smaller, more efficient one.  Commissioner Martin stated that there are renters that would like to utilize more conservation methods but feel powerless.  Mr. Broomhead explained that if it is the renter’s refrigerator and not the landlords, it can be done; otherwise, they would have to talk to the landlord. Commissioner Martin suggested developing a system for renters to participate in.  Mr. Broomhead explained that this program has not been set up in that way.

 

Chair Wald recommended issuing local certificates for apartments where these improvements have been made so that it can be used as an advertising tool in renting apartments.  Mr. Broomhead reported that an effort is being made to upgrade the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance. Commissioner Martin recommended that a freezer be an optional item for an apartment since it is a huge energy consumer.  It was explained that some apartments are equipped with a large refrigerator and very few people are residing in the apartment, so smaller appliances should be offered for those types of units.  So if the appliance is not an Energy Star appliance, it should be appropriately sized. Mr. Broomhead explained that a change of occupancy would change requirements, but would look into standard refrigerator sizes for apartment units. 

 

Vice-Chair Gravanis asked if newly constructed apartment buildings must have separate meters for gas and electricity.  Mr. Broomhead explained that electricity is individually metered.  Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended studying what can be done for future projects, especially large-scale projects.  Chair Wald recommended adding extra LEED points to incentivize.  Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended separate metering and separate billing for every utility for every unit to give an incentive that is more meaningful for conservation than many of these other efficiency technologies that people have ways to go around.

 

Upon Motion by Commissioner Martin and second by Chair Wald, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures List was approved for recommendation to the Commission without objection (AYES:  Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis, and Commissioner Martin). Mr. Broomhead reported that he would research the previous list for items that may have dropped off or to see if anything had been missed and would present it to the full Commission for approval at their October 30th meeting.

 

6.  Update on Synthetic Playfields Task Force Findings. (Explanatory Document: Recreation and Park Department Synthetic Playfields Taskforce Findings and Department Recommendations) (Informational Report and Discussion) SPEAKER:  Chris Geiger, Ph.D., Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Purchasing Program Manager

 

Dr. Geiger reported that there had been public concern and uproar about synthetic playfield installations that had been voiced during Integrated Pest Management conferences, and there had also been strong neighborhood support. The Recreation and Park Department, who is the lead on this project, had created a Task Force that included representatives from different interests to review public concerns and provide findings to the department. The Task Force held well attended meetings from January – May 2008 and prepared a document of recommendations for the Recreation and Park Department.  The Recreation and Park Commission has approved the Task Force’s findings and recommendations that can be accessed in the Explanatory Document: Recreation and Park Department Synthetic Playfields Taskforce Findings and Department Recommendations and has approved the draft criteria.  The timeline is that they have until the end of November to finalize the criteria and the work plan for new installations. 

 

Dr. Geiger explained that the Recreation and Park Department is receiving funding from the Fields Foundation to install the turf in playfields which is an added benefit for the department.  There is a huge demand for recreational fields in San Francisco and some teams have to play in Marin and the East Bay because of a lack of availability.  Dr. Geiger stated that because of a lack of long-term life cycle data it was difficult to make an educated decision on this product. 

 

Dr. Geiger stated that one of the concerns was the possibility of the product containing toxics.  Stakeholders from the Department of Public Health and the Department of the Environment concluded that there was no toxics “smoking gun” that was serious enough to require a moratorium on all installations.  Lead was detected in one of the products tested, and the Center for Environmental Health found it in considerably higher levels in residential synthetic turf.  However, the good news was that it was found in only one of the products, was used as a color fixative embedded in the plastic so exposure was not likely, and most importantly the City can simply avoid buying products that contain lead. 

 

Dr. Geiger explained that the Department became interested in the subject because an intern had found that this is a huge and expanding industry, yet it is difficult to compare its long-term costs and benefits with natural turf.  The industry is booming because school districts and local programs are finding they can save on maintenance dollars by installing synthetic playfields.  There is also a new generation of the product that is much more realistic than the carpet astro turf and is nice to run on.  Potential benefits of artificial turf include savings in maintenance, water, petroleum for mowing, and pesticide use, although it is not pesticide free.  Dr. Geiger stated strict criteria need to be in place for artificial turf installations--we would not want to cover the entire City’s grass with plastic simply because it is cheaper for maintenance.  Mr. Broomhead stated that there are also savings on injuries.  Dr. Geiger explained that there is controversy on this issue because the friction is different on artificial turf so there are increases in some kind of injuries, e.g. twisting.  

 

Mr. Broomhead reported that he had attended West Coast Green where someone had presented his green house and showed an installation of artificial turf as a water saving technique.  Dr. Geiger stated that the Santa Clara Water District is telling residents to install artificial turf as a water--saving technique also–-an example of not thinking about the big picture.  Commissioner Martin discussed the idea of replacing what was generic habitat with real plants around the perimeter or to one side, which was addressed as part of the report’s recommendations. 

 

Dr. Geiger discussed long-term questions considered such as (1) lack of recyclability—which relates to the climate footprint; and (2) its potential for toxic leaching.  Synthetic playfields would be a great example of something that needs a life cycle analysis, but resources are not yet available. It was explained that a life cycle analysis could cost approximately $100,000.00.  The analysis would include comparing this product with different available products and regional turf systems.   A consultant had reviewed the toxic elements to see if there are brominated flame retardants in these products, which have the potential of becoming a hazardous waste in a couple of years.  These chemicals were not found in significant quantities. Dr. Geiger stated that he would be keeping track of results from studies that are underway that could provide additional information. 

 

Deputy Director Assmann stated that it might make sense to do a life cycle analysis even after installation for future consideration.  Dr. Geiger asked who would provide the funding for the analysis.   Deputy Director Assmann stated that the manufacturer should pay for it but should not control it.  Commissioner Martin suggested that City Fields could promote a life cycle analysis.  Dr. Geiger stated there was a discussion on this possibility, but no conclusion.  Chair Wald recommended that after a set date, to say that we are not buying any turf without a life cycle analysis done by an independent third party and paid for by the manufacturer.

 

Chair Wald recommended thinking about how to amend the Precautionary Principle in order to require life cycle analyses under certain circumstances.  It would ensure that when similar products are being bought, used, or installed, there would be an enforcement mechanism that would require that certain information be made available before moving forward.  Dr. Geiger explained that a life cycle analysis is one of the principles already, but that the problem is that there is no boundary between the kinds of products where they can be used and be feasible and those where they can’t.  There are a lot of products where one tiny part changes, which would change the life cycle analysis, and an alternative analysis would have to be done.

 

Chair Wald recommended identifying a way to recycle the product into the same product.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that historically, plastic recycling has not been economical and a system has not been set up, which is why there was such a problem with plastic bags. Dr. Geiger reported that two manufacturers were interested in recycling and one was taking steps in that direction, and that dialogue has been started with the industry.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that the product could end up in the landfill.  Dr. Geiger reported that an effort is being made to develop contract language that would encourage or require the producer to take it back at the end of its useful life, but the problem is that it would be in approximately 15 years, and the industry is changing so quickly.  Chair Wald recommended adopting a policy to not allow this product to go into the San Francisco landfill.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that if an extended producer responsibility bill is passed in California, this would be one of the issues that could be addressed.   It was explained that work is being done to introduce a framework bill in the next legislative session in California. 

 

Chair Wald inquired about preparing local producer responsibility legislation.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that you could have local legislation, but that it would have more impact at the state level.  Deputy Director Assmann reported that he is working on a landfill extension agreement now and that there are certain things that they want to keep out of the landfill, which this item could be part of.  Dr. Geiger stated that in order to reach the zero waste goal by 2020, a proposal could be made that there would be no additional installations after 2009 without recyclability.  Chair Wald stated that we should think about going out to other counties as this is not a problem unique to San Francisco.  It was also recommended that purchasers organize together to deliver the same message to manufacturers.  Dr. Geiger reported that he is a member of the Responsible Purchasing Network, a national network, and had proposed this as one of the projects to work on.      

 

Dr. Geiger reported that conclusions that had been made were that there was nothing serious enough to place a moratorium on this product as a product category because there are clearly defined quantified benefits and there was also a lot of neighborhood support.  The question is what level of un-quantified risk should there be to offset a well quantified benefit when you are dealing with the Precautionary Principle.  Dr. Geiger reported that one of the Task Force’s recommendations includes the need for monitoring.  Chair Wald stated that monitoring is not enough, and that a criterion has to be set for when it is necessary to take it out or not install it.  It was recommended that this product be monitored based on various conditions, e.g. hot weather.  Dr. Geiger explained that the purpose of monitoring would be to shape future purchases and not so much for ones that are already installed.  

 

Commissioner Martin stated that part of the site selection process is in maximizing environmental benefits and asked how that would be reconciled with maximizing recreational benefits.  Dr. Geiger explained that the report is a final product, and that there was limited opportunity to make revisions once it was finalized as this was not controlled by the Department of the Environment. Commissioner Martin inquired about the lifespan of the product.  Dr. Geiger reported that the manufacturer’s life span of the product is 12 years; but that the typical life span is 15 years.  Commissioner Martin stated that new material was being tested, and that an evaluation should be done on material that has been in use for a longer time period as it is likely it may degrade inherently and change in its behavior.  Dr. Geiger stated that it would depend on the leachate and that with most of the products, it may become less toxic as time goes on because in the surface of the particles the hazardous chemicals may already be gone. 

 

Dr. Geiger reported that shining of playfield lights caused opposition to the installations as well.  Commissioner Martin inquired whether the lighting issue could be addressed as a lighting ordinance that comes out of the Dark Skies research.  Deputy Director Assmann stated that the lighting could be set up as directional.  Commissioner Martin concurred that directional lighting would have a limited scope, be inexpensive, and would have a wide effect.  Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended involving the Dark Skies representatives to draft an ordinance if they haven’t done so already or to consult with other cities on their efforts.   Deputy Director Assmann reported that the Dark Skies Association could give a presentation on light pollution from streetlights to the Committee.  Chair Wald recommended that the Department of Public Health do a study on light pollution and health issues.

 

Dr. Geiger was thanked for his hard work on this issue and for his presentation.    

 

7.  Announcements. (Discussion)  There were no announcements made at this time.

 

8.  New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Discussion)  Deputy Director Assmann reported that he would present an update on extended producer responsibility at the November 7 Commission retreat.  Vice-Chair Gravanis suggested that the Committee hold a discussion at their November meeting on the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Candlestick Point agenda item because she had heard that the Draft Final Sustainability Plan is scheduled to be presented to the Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee in December.  Vice-Chair Gravanis recommended inviting a representative from the Municipal Transportation Authority to talk about the status of transportation planning and for ARUP to present a status report on the biodiversity section. Chair Wald requested a discussion on (1) the Sustainability Plan with a focus on biodiversity and transportation and (2) the Environmental Impact Report.  Commissioners agreed to reschedule the November 10 meeting to the following week based on Commissioners’ and meeting room availability.  

 

9.  Public Comments:  Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda.  There was no public comment at this time.

 

10.  Adjournment.  The Policy Committee meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

 

Monica Fish, Commission Secretary

TEL:  (415) 355-3709; FAX: (415) 554-6393

 

** Copies of explanatory documents are available at (1) the Commission’s office, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., (2) on the Committee meeting website https://sites.google.com/a/sfenvironment.org/commission/policy-committee with each agenda or meeting minutes, or (3) upon request to the Commission Secretary, at telephone number 415-355-3709 or via e-mail at Monica.Fish@sfgov.org.

 

*Approved:  November 18, 2008

ĉ
Unknown user,
May 6, 2010, 4:35 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
May 6, 2010, 4:34 PM
Ċ
Unknown user,
May 6, 2010, 4:35 PM
Ċ
Unknown user,
May 6, 2010, 4:34 PM
Comments