Policy Committee‎ > ‎2010 Meetings‎ > ‎

01.25 Approved Minutes

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

COMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

POLICY COMMITTEE

 

*RESCHEDULED MEETING

APPROVED MINUTES

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2010, 5:00 P.M.

CITY HALL, ROOM 421

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

 

 

*The Monday, January 11, 2010, 5:00 p.m. Commission on the Environment Policy Committee meeting was rescheduled to Monday, January 25, 2010 at 5:00 p.m., City Hall, Room 421.

 

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

 
NOTE:  All explanatory documents may be accessed on the bottom of the page.
 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

1.      Call to Order and Roll Call.  The Policy Committee meeting convened at 5:05 p.m.  Present:  Chair Wald, Vice-Chair Gravanis and Commissioner Martin.  Acting Director David Assmann, Commission Secretary Monica Fish, and agenda topic presenters were in attendance for this meeting.

 

2.   Approval of Minutes of the December 14, 2009 Policy Committee Regular Meeting. (Discussion and Action) Upon Motion by Commissioner Gravanis and second by Commissioner Wald, the December 14, 2009 Meeting Minutes were approved without objection (AYES:  Commissioners Wald, Gravanis, and Martin) (Explanatory Document: December 14, 2009 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.   Presentation on Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines and their Future Applicability to San Francisco. Sponsor:  David Assmann, Acting Director; Staff Presenter:  Chris Geiger, Ph.D., City Toxics Reduction Coordinator  and Teresa Eade, StopWaste (30 minutes) (Explanatory Document:  Presentation on Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines) (Informational Presentation and Discussion)

 

Dr. Geiger reported that there had been a re-visioning of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program last fall, and Bay Friendly landscaping certifications were of a particular interest.  It was announced that the Bay Friendly Landscaping Conference is scheduled for September, and there is an opportunity for it to be held in San Francisco.  Ms. Debbie Raphael, Toxics Reduction Program Manager, Ms. Teresa Eade, Senior Program Manager with Bay Friendly, StopWaste.org, and Mr. Ari Harding, Building Systems Manager, California Academy of Sciences were introduced and were in attendance for this meeting.   

 

Reference presentation for additional information (see Explanatory Document at the bottom of the page)

 

Dr. Geiger stated that he is a member of the Bay Friendly Coalition Board, which is the-non profit that has recently been established to help expand Bay Friendly beyond Alameda County.  He explained that Bay Friendly Landscaping and Gardening is a branded program of StopWaste.Org that promotes sustainable landscaping practices.  It is a whole systems approach to design, construction and maintenance of the landscape that is based on seven principles of bay friendly landscaping (slides 3-4).  The program helps support compliance with other federal, state, and local environmental initiatives (slide 5).  There are many environmental benefits of bay friendly landscaping (slide 6), and greenhouse gas reductions have been estimated per acre of Bay Friendly landscaping (slide 7). 

 

The Bay Friendly program has published landscape guidelines that can be found on their website that includes (slide 8): (1) Standards—Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines: Sustainable Practices for the Landscape Professional (PDF) http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay-friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf  and Bay-Friendly Civic and Commercial Landscape Scorecard (PDF) http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=779; (2) Training--existing training program for landscape professionals for both City and private landscapers (see list of “Bay Friendly Qualified Landscape Professionals” http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=1041)

(3) Raters--program is under development to train raters, who are third-party professionals that rate new landscapes as Bay Friendly; (4) Model Policies for civic and private sector; and (5) Regional Implementation--through the Bay Friendly coalition.

 

The Bay Friendly Landscaping program includes a description of principles ( Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines: Sustainable Practices for the Landscape Professional (PDF) http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/bay-friendly_landscape_guidelines_-_all_chapters.pdf), and detailed scorecards http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=779 with a supporting reference manual for rating landscapes ( http://stopwaste.org/docs/bfl_cc_rating_manual_final.pdf) .  Bay Friendly also provides resources for home gardeners and consumers (slide 12), and trainings/certifications for professional landscapers and landscape designers.  The Bay Friendly Coalition has been formed to expand regionally and a list of participants was provided (slides 13-14).

 

Dr. Geiger reported that all cities in Alameda County have adopted civic Green Building policies, and nine member agencies of seventeen have adopted civic Bay-Friendly policies (slide 15).  Future plans include a 2010 Bay Friendly Landscaping Conference in September 2010, researching future policies and ordinances for city landscaping projects, and to possibly integrate with San Francisco Environment’s IPM Program.  Additional possibilities would be discussed once training programs are implemented in San Francisco. 

 

Ms. Eade discussed Bay Friendly projects that include the Pleasanton Fire Station (a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold and Green Building grant recipient); Albany Street median; Sara Connor Affordable Housing Project in Hayward; and the Emeryville Bay Street Plaza (slides 16, 18, 19, and 21).  Additional information and publications can be found at websites www.BayFriendly.org and www.bayfriendlycoalition.org.  

 

Commissioners were asked for their ideas for sponsors, key note speakers, conference locations, and exhibitors for the upcoming conference in September.  Commissioners provided the following comments:

 

Commissioner Gravanis stated that she was in support of the Bay Friendly program and provided the following comments and recommendations (1) supports Bay Friendly’s “critter friendly” approach that she believes that LEED does not address sufficiently; (2) noted that Bay Friendly's materials said that hummingbird feeders change the natural course of bird migration, which she felt would not be a good thing; (3) recommended that more biologists, botanists, ecologists, and avian biologists be consulted; (4) cited that standard gardening practices such as mulching may not always be the best selection for all critters; (5) select plants or tree canopy suitable for location conditions; (6) consider additional programs to orient people who want to do more for ecological restoration and not just traditional gardening; (7) replace the reference to the term “drought tolerant” with “climate adapted”; (8) the reference to “choose native spurs species” for additional points for selection of a California native is not an eco-system approach because California is a big place; and (9) wildlife should be considered in a stronger way.  

 

Commissioner Martin stated that she was in support of the Bay Friendly program and provided the following comments and recommendations (1) provide reference to the specific urban challenges and conditions that San Francisco has in addition to its microclimates, which may be significantly different from other parts of the Bay Area; (2) consider storm water diversion with preference to evergreen versus deciduous trees and how that would be important in San Francisco; (3) consider understory planting and minimizing lawns; (4) not install irrigation, minimize irrigation, and not use whenever possible; (5) adding points for planting during the rainy season to take advantage of natural irrigation (water conservation); (6) adding points for planting edibles; (7) saving existing plants; (8) points for inorganic mulching; and (9) cited the reference to preservation of 80% of the mature existing healthy trees but no acknowledgement to saving grasslands or other native landscapes, especially in San Francisco that does not have a lot of native trees.

 

Ms. Eade stated that points are given for identifying plants, trees, and shrubs that should be protected. It was stated that a reference to edibles was not included because at the time the focus groups were held, the scorecard was focused on civic commercial.  Lately, there is acceptance among professionals who had been contacted previously and had indicated they did not want to see higher maintenance around food crops.  There is more interest now as people are seeing the benefit of planting edibles that would be incorporated.  Ms. Eade explained that points are given for using mulch and that more points are given for recycled mulch that comes from an urban source or terra cotta.  There is preference given to organic mulch because it helps feed the soil; however, there are places around stormwater where inorganic mulch is better. Points are given for conserving greenspace, and additional points could be added for other types of habitat.

 

Ms. Raphael discussed how the Bay Friendly program would interact with San Francisco Environment’s IPM efforts. She stated that the program calls out IPM and Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) standards and inquired whether supporting documents were available to explain what a sufficient IPM standard would be.  Ms. Eade reported that points are added for using IPM practices and additional points are allocated for organically managing pests.  She stated that San Francisco’s guidelines had been consulted in defining IPM standards, and that San Francisco is thought of as a leader in this effort. 

 

Commissioner Wald commended the effort to move to a third-party certification rating system.  She stated that she would be interested in how Bay Friendly compares with and is integrated with LEED.  As was the case with GreenPoint, there is an understanding that there is a need to provide an easier methodology for people, but at the same time not discourage people that may be more aggressive in their efforts.

 

Mr. Ari Harding, Building and Landscaping Systems Manager at the California Academy of Sciences, discussed LEED’s assessment of landscaping practices stating that there are minimal points allocated for new construction and operations and maintenance that the California Academy of Sciences is seeking at this time.  It was explained that LEED does not detail programs that are important to the Academy such as native planting, composting on site, or mulching.  Mr. Harding stated that consideration was given to becoming a pilot program for the Sustainable Sites Initiative, but it was decided that it was not as developed as Bay Friendly and was geared more towards new projects and new construction rather than ongoing operations and maintenance.  Since the Academy had completed their new construction project and currently in the operations and maintenance phase, Bay Friendly was selected in assisting with the development of standards and best practices for ongoing landscaping and maintenance as well as modifications to existing landscape.   Mr. Harding explained that the Academy would be doing several smaller projects in order to restructure their gardens and are working with Bay Friendly standards.  The Academy is also interested in participating as a training site for Bay Friendly and other sustainable practices and has a classroom and other facilities available for this effort.

 

Commissioner Martin inquired whether the irrigation system established at the Academy would be ongoing and asked if there was a goal to wean off water usage.  Mr. Harding reported that the irrigation would be ongoing due to selection of plants from the pilot study.  A discussion was held on selection of a plant “Prunella” that was thought to be drought tolerant, but was causing problems and would be removed in the course of several years, decreasing the amount of water that would be required for the green roof.  It was explained that the strategy is not to look toward a brown roof, but to replace different areas of the roof with plants that are more suited for a rooftop environment.  There are pilot programs on areas of the roof that are not visible to the public.  Water usage would not go down to zero, but there is a sophisticated water system in place and non-potable irrigation water from the Recreation and Parks Department is in use.  

 

Ms. Eade reported that updates are made to the documents every two years, and there would be an update scheduled in the next fiscal year.  She thanked the Commissioners for their feedback and stated that she would report information back to the Coalition to consider when guidelines are updated. 

Dr. Geiger would provide updates to the Committee when documents are being revised so formal recommendations can be made.  All documents distributed in Committee meeting can be accessed at the StopWaste.org website http://stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=994.

 

5.   San Francisco Department of the Environment Toxics Reduction Program - Update on Garment Cleaning Project. Sponsor: Acting Director David Assmann; Staff Speakers:  Sushma Dhulipala, Commercial Toxics Reduction Coordinator (Informational Report and Discussion)

 

Ms. Raphael reported that the Commission at their November 24, 2009 meeting approved sending a letter to the head of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) asking for (1) the support of their agency in partnering with the San Francisco Department of the Environment to promote safer garment cleaning technologies, e.g. wet cleaning, and (2) requesting that the BAAQMD Board adopt regulations that accelerate the phase out of the most toxic dry cleaning solvent, perchloroethylene (“perc”).  Ms. Raphael announced that based on receipt of the Commission’s letter and participation of Supervisor Mar, the BAAQMD notified the Department of the Environment that they would give $20,000 in matching funds for a grant program. 

 

Ms. Dhulipala reported that in November 2009, a discussion was held with the Policy Committee about (1) new legislation introduced by the California Air Resources Board, (2) alternatives to dry cleaners use of perc, and (3) outreach efforts to move the dry cleaning industry to eco-friendly technology or wet cleaning.  In the last two months, an outreach contractor, Community Outreach Group, was hired to train staff who speak in Korean and Cantonese to do door-to-door outreach to dry cleaners.  In the last two months, all cleaners that are still using perc were contacted either by telephone or through door-to-door visits to discuss wet cleaning.  Thirty-three of the 54 cleaners in San Francisco allowed discussions and were willing to consider wet cleaning (Explanatory Document:  map of cleaners considering wet cleaning).  Information is available on contacts made with all 54 cleaners.

 

Ms. Dhulipala reported that three wet cleaning demonstration programs were sponsored in the last two months in San Mateo, San Jose and Petaluma. One large press event was held in December that was organized with the help of the outreach contractor and was primarily targeted to Chinese and Korean speaking communities.  Media coverage included—(1) Press Release “Assessor Recorder urges City Dry Cleaners to embrace new Green Technology”; (2) City Insider Chronicle online article about the press release and blog about wet cleaning; (3) World Journal; (4) Sing Tao; and (5) two television stations KTSF and New Tang Dynasty.  Ms. Dhulipala reported that all media coverage was positive with the exception of Sing Tao. (Explanatory Documents:  Articles and Press Release.)

 

Ms. Dhulipala reported that the Department’s grant program had been launched within the last two months.  The program provides a rebate of $5000 to each of four cleaners to convert from perc to wet cleaning, and three applications had been received to date.  She stated that several of the cleaners have decided and purchased their equipment; however, there are nineteen cleaners that are undecided about which technology to switch to and efforts are being focused to outreach to them (Explanatory Document:  List of undecided cleaners and cleaners who have to switch their machine by the end of June).              

 

Ms. Dhulipala stated that Department of the Environment staff are working with the two wet cleaners in San Francisco on their green business recognition.  As a part of the recognition process, staff has met with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to sample the chemical output from the detergent used in the cleaner who has a machine on site.  Sampling will be done next month, and a report will be provided with additional data.  There are two wet cleaners in San Francisco--one is a drop site that has their wet cleaning machine located in Sausalito, and the other has an on-site machine.  Ms. Dhulipala provided an article that was written (explanatory document) to help spread the word and encourage cleaners to switch.  Commissioners were asked for their recommendations for outreach to these nineteen cleaners.  Commissioner Wald recommended organizing outreach through neighborhood groups who could designate people to personally talk to their cleaners about the benefits. 

 

Ms. Dhulipala stated that future plans include (1) a presence at the Air District hearing; (2) to focus on the 19 cleaners that are unsure of which technology to switch to (Explanatory Document: map and chart of nineteen cleaners); and (3) to work with distributors and manufacturers of eco-friendly wet cleaning equipment to get the word out on the rebate program.

 

Commissioners, Acting Director Assmann, Ms. Raphael and Ms. Dhulipala discussed alternatives to dry cleaners use of hangers and plastic film.  Commissioner Wald stated that dry cleaners often times take the hangers back, but she is unsure whether they use them.  Ms. Dhulipala stated that there was a research project on which type of hangers were the best (cardboard, metal, plastic), and it was determined that metals would be the most easily recyclable.  A recommendation was made to ask the Pacific Heights Cleaners to use hangers that Saxs Fifth Avenue disposes of.

Dry cleaners package clean garments in plastic film. Not using plastic films is not a desirable option because of the expense associated with providing reusable bags. There is a company that accepts recycled plastic film which would be investigated.  Commissioner Wald stated that an option could be for people to state that they don’t want the plastic film and possibly receive a small compensation, since the cleaners have to pay for the film.  Another option would be to buy a garment bag from the cleaner. Commissioner Martin suggested that cleaners provide their own bags to transport cleaning back and forth.  Ms. Dhuilipala stated that the Pacific Heights Cleaners that does not have a machine on site is selling reusable garment bags that can also be used as laundry bags. However, he has reported that few customers actually purchase the bags and/or they don’t bring them back.

 

Commissioner Wald suggested that a wet cleaning machine could be located in San Francisco for all wet cleaners to use.  Ms. Raphael stated that she had a discussion with Ms. Kass of the BC3 program regarding placing a commercial wet cleaning operation in an eco-industrial park that the City could use to clean uniforms, hotel laundry, etc. and green jobs that would result.      

 

6.   Urban Environmental Accords:

(a) Website Update on Accords Status. Sponsor:  Chair Wald; Speakers:  Jennifer Kass, Sustainability Project/BC3 and Lawrence Grodeska, Communications Specialist (5 minutes) (Informational Presentation and Discussion)   Website link:  http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_policies/overview.html?ssi=15

 

Ms. Kass presented on the Accords website that is located in the Department of the Environment’s website listed in the Policies tab.  A discussion was held on website content which includes the Urban Environmental Accords, Accord Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s), a list of cities that signed on to participate, and signatory city sign-on form.  Ms. Kass demonstrated how the website works and discussed its content which displays information about San Francisco’s progress on the accords since its adoption in June 2005.  Website content includes the list of the twenty-one accord actions, a tutorial, accord vision, a legend which indicates the current status of work on the accord (whether complete, in progress, etc.), links to policies, legislation, background, scorecard, and videos.

 

Acting Director Assmann reported that the website also serves as a recruiting mechanism for influencing more cities to sign on to the accords.  Cities that meet all of the criteria and sign on to adopt the accords are eligible for membership to Green Cities California.  Both the city of Hayward and Richmond are now applying for membership in Green Cities California.  Mr. Grodeska stated that the Accords website will have the capability in the next six months of providing statistics on how many people have visited the site and will also start tracking the number of times each accord topic was accessed.

 

Commissioner Martin inquired about the mechanism for feedback.  Ms. Kass reported that feedback is tracked through email received on the Department of the Environment site.  She reported that there would be a number of updates made to the site to include new activity.  Commissioner Wald commended the website and stated that it is a mechanism for encouraging people to think about the accords and help them achieve goals.  She stated that new actions should be thought about after the current accords are complete.  Acting Director Assmann reported that Korea has a strong interest and is having a conference on the accords.  He stated that the Accords were signed in 2005 with a 2012 deadline, so the cities that are signing on now are asking if they have to complete them by 2012.  It was stated that additional signers should have seven years to complete the goals as well. Commissioner Martin indicated that it would be easier for cities currently signing on because they have a precedence set and more information available to work with.

 

(b)   Adoption of Urban Environmental Accords for Calendar Year 2010 for recommendation to the Commission on the Environment. (Explanatory Document:  Urban Environmental Accords Status as of January 2010 https://sites.google.com/a/sfenvironment.org/commission/policy-committee/2010-meetings/2010-01-25-rescheduled-amended/UrbanAccordsStatus2009.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1) Sponsor:  Chair Wald; Speakers:  David Assmann, Acting Director and Jennifer Kass, Sustainability Project/BC3 (5 minutes) (Discussion and Action)

 

Acting Director Assmann reported that the Urban Environmental Accords Status document is a summary of the accords, when they were adopted, and their current status. He explained that all Accords that the Department may have influence or responsibility for have been adopted. Some of the accords that were adopted could be considered complete, but more work can be done. Others may never be complete; e.g., if you have established a policy to achieve zero waste to landfills, it is a policy, but the actual implementation will continue for years.

 

Commissioner Wald recommended more work on the action items shown in green on the status document (Actions 8 Urban Design and 12 Urban Nature).  Acting Director Assmann suggested that the Planning Department present on future activities in these areas.  Commissioner Martin requested that the Planning Department provide an update on the Urban Forest Plan.  Commissioner Gravanis suggested that an update be provided on the Open Space and Recreation Element which the Committee provided input into. She inquired whether passing legislation and developing policies for Actions 8 and 12 would be of assistance.  She stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) doesn’t belong in the Accord Action because its level of protection to habitat other than for endangered species is minimal.  The Commission did endorse the Marine Protection Act, which is related to protecting critical habitat and should be added as an accomplishment, and will be working to incorporate Bay Friendly, which will include water features. 

 

Commissioner Wald recommended working on future steps to take on Accord goals and determining what can be done to help complete the incomplete actions on a priority basis.  She suggested a discussion on whether the Commission and City would want to adopt more aggressive goals on accords as post-accord goals.  These goals could also be added to the website for other jurisdictions to reference. She also recommended referencing the Strategic Plan as a way of working on future Accord Actions.   Acting Director Assmann reported that more aggressive goals have been established for Accords that have been achieved and for ones not achieved, e.g, Accord Action 15, Transportation, reducing single occupancy vehicle trips, which has not been reduced by 10%.

 

Commissioner Martin suggested that there be a mechanism for checking on City Hall events that make single-serve water bottles available.  Acting Director Assmann reported that there are City Hall events that are held by outside organizations.  Commissioner Gravanis recommended a requirement that City Hall events include a commitment not to include single-serve water bottles.  Commissioner Wald recommended more emphasis on the City Hall recycling program, which has improved but needs more attention.  Commissioner Martin stated that many of the Accords may require ongoing work, such as Accord Action 16, Environmental Health.  Ms. Kass requested Commissioner’s input on how to move items that are outside the Department’s jurisdiction forward or to provide any additional updates the Commissioners may be aware of.  

 

Item 9 was reverted to at this time.  Commissioner Wald left the meeting after discussion on Future Agenda Items and before continuation of Item 6.  Agenda Item 6 was discussed again at this time.

 

This agenda item was continued to the Call of the Chair.  Work would continue on Accord Actions until they are complete and would be used as a framework for continued priority setting.

 

7.   Director’s Updates.  Speaker:  David Assmann, Acting Director (Informational Report and Discussion) Acting Director Assmann reported that Director’s updates would be presented at the Commission meeting on January 26, 2010.

 

8.   Announcements. (Discussion) Commissioner Martin reported on her conversation with the Chief Building Inspector about firefighter safety and solar panels, and he confirmed that a conversation was being held internally to address education on this issue.   

 

9.   New Business/Future Agenda Items. (Discussion)  Commissioner Wald reported that the Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point item is scheduled for the February Policy Committee meeting.  Ms. Fish reported that the potential meeting date would be February 22.  The March agenda would include review of responses to the questionnaire sent to environmental organizations and a discussion on green building for existing buildings. Additional topics requested included (1) pharmaceuticals update (April); (2) Strategic Plan; (3) consolidating the Future Agenda Checklist to maintain a separate historical document and preparing a separate list for active items to reference at meetings; (4) Planning Department update on the Urban Forest Plan.  Acting Director Assmann reported on the current budget situation and lack of resources available for the urban forestry program. A discussion was held on Commissioners contacting Planning Department staff on the current status and discussion of a cost benefit analysis of the Department of Public Works or another entity taking over jurisdiction of trees; (5) Treasure Island Environmental Impact Report (April or May); (6) Planning Department staff memo providing an update on the Recreation and Open Space Element; and (7) Wastewater Master Plan—Public Utilities Commission and SWAle update (April). 

 

10.  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.  Mr. Bruce Callander commended the Commission’s work and volunteered his assistance on environmental programs.  He discussed the unavailability of biodegradable car wash soap and indicated he would research balloon releases at the Giants games.  In addition, Mr. Callander offered his assistance in educating the Boys and Girls Club members on environmental programs.  Acting Director Assmann discussed the Department’s programs that Mr. Callander could be involved in and offered to have the Department’s volunteer coordinator contact him about volunteer opportunities.

 

11.  Adjournment.  The Policy Committee meeting adjourned at 7:12 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: February 22, 2010

ċ
012510PolicyCommitteeMeetingAudio.MSV
(5479k)
Unknown user,
Mar 4, 2011, 9:44 AM
ĉ
Unknown user,
May 3, 2010, 5:17 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
May 3, 2010, 5:17 PM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:48 AM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:48 AM
Ĉ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:49 AM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:47 AM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:49 AM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:50 AM
Ċ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:50 AM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:49 AM
ĉ
Unknown user,
Feb 9, 2010, 8:49 AM
Comments