we are asking to seek rezoning of p to rh-1, which is similar to the neighborhood. we are proposing 28 homes. our site would mimic -- would abutt about 20 homes, so it is still very consistent to what we have now. we are providing family housing, affordable housing, two to three bedrooms, with parking, but two-car parking in the two to three bedrooms, and that was part of the process that we did when we were speaking to the community to make sure we had enough parking. as i stated before, we have talked to the planning commission, and this p.u.d. was approved by the planning commission. throughout the process, which i started in 2009, i had three widely noted neighborhood meetings. i had two presentations that

were n.i.a. i had a presentation to the san francisco housing action coalition. i sent numerous letters to each neighbor abutting the site providing updates which provided my phone number and e-mail address to make sure if there was information they wanted i could address them personally, and once i took all the public comments together and finalized the new plans, i went door to door to all the abutting homes i have to say, for the vast majority the comments were very positive. it removes a nuisance from the site. we have been victims of illegal dm dumping. it was stated by another neighbor in may, the planning commission, that he's observed many criminal activity over the course of 30 years. so the homes would add more to the site. i also have endorsements -- when i went door-to-door i got

signatures from abutting sites, i'm not sure where these petitions came from, where they are located, but my endorsements are from abutting home owners, and that was presented to the planning commission as well in may. [bell] chair maxwell: why don't you finish. >> i think the neighbors understand i'm providing increased safety, new housing stock to the neighborhood, and lastly, in that video, my home will act as a sound barrier to the homes on sagimore street, permanently blocking noise for them. chair plax we will: i guess the whole idea is who is blocking the noise for those other folks? thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. i want to respond to a couple issues that were raised at the hearing today.

first of all, i want to put on the overhead the zoning map of the area. you can feel everything in yellow is rh-1, so rh-1 is the predominant zoning in this area. it is the lowest density zoning that we have in san francisco. that's what's been approved and what the planning staff is recommending. i also have copies of the letters from my neighbors, which is a large neighborhood organization in the area that endorsed the project back in october of 2009. i'll pass a copy of that up for you. the issue of sound and health and welfare, it is true these homes will be right adjacent to the freeway. they have been designed with that issue in mind. you will recall a few years ago the supervisors sponsored legislation to require ventilation of homes adjacent to freeways and other traffic barriers so the air inside the homeds is pure -- inside the

homes is pure identified -- purified before it goes into the homes. the negative electric legislation to this project that was approved and an appealed discusses in a fair amount of detail that the interior air quality in these homes will be safe because of the ventilation system that would be built into the homes. what's on the overhead now is a cross-section of the project. this is the freeway to the left. the new homes in the middle, which was what we built, with inoperable windows along the back. openings would be in the front, so the fresh air will be from the front as well as from the ventilation system to pure identify the air that does come in. on the far right, are the existing homes on sagimore street. so these existing homes will serve as a sound barrier, and

the indications are that the noise level on sagimore street will be reduced about 10 decibels because of these buildings serving as a sound wall between the new homes and the elevated wall. this also shows the berm that separates the freeways. that berm remains in cal-trans ownership and remains in the p zone. this was approved in may. it was a negative declaration that was not opposed that found there are no unmit indicated significant impacts from the -- um -- unmitigated significant impacts from the project. it is my understanding that supervisor mar approved this as well. chair maxwell: any other public comments? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm speaking on behalf of

o.m.i., which -- neighbors in action. which has over 200 members. we have been talking to owners. they have been diligent in coming to every one of our meetings in explaining what's going on and how designs have changed. i think our members agree that this is an ingenious piece of urban in-fill that addresses problems of vacant, unmanaged, and therefore dangerous land. it does so by first dealing with the sound issues, as was explained. it blocks substantial sound or noise from the freeway to the existing houses. because these new houses are built to a higher standard with insulation and double-glazed windows and so forth, as you heard, they themselves would be better protected than most of the existing houses along the freeway route r.

so we think it makes sense. we have endorsed the project, and it's a good thing that we should add some new infill housing. probably the most important reason to add housing in san francisco is because people need it. i think this is an appropriate reason to approve this rezoning. thank you. chair maxwell: any other public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. i would like planning to come back. we have heard comments and concerns. could you address some of those comments and concerns? i don't know that they were heard at planning or not. if they were, what whether some of the comments and how are you then feeling that this would be ok? >> thank you, chair maxwell. i am from the planning

department. i am not the planner who was in charge of this case and i was not at the planning commission hearing. oufer i can address some of the comments made today. this whole process of map rezoning as well as the plan unit development requires extensive notification. both mailed note fantastic to subjects within 300 feet and in terms of the map rezoning, intersection postings for every intersection 300 feet from the subject property as well as multiple postings on the site. so there was opportunity and there was clear notice of this project going to the planning commission on may 13. from my discussions with the planner, there was not a lot of opposition presented to the planning commission. at that hearing, a mitigated negative declaration was approved. it was aursed by the planning commission as well as the

recommendation of the zoning map change. a lot of the issues in temples -- terms of to the project site itself were taken care of in the mitigated negative declaration was -- as was discussed. that was thoroughly vetted out at the planning commission and, like i said, it was not appealed. in terms of traffic, that again would have been in the mitigated negative declaration, and i don't really know what to say about that in terms of the neighbors' concerns. there was opportunity for testing at the planning commission. the planning commission did aurs -- authorize that map prior to being presented to the board. chair maxwell: in -- there are 28 houses and 42 parking spaces. >> yes.

chair maxwell: what are the extra parking spaces for? >> they are for the units on site. most of these will be two-bedroom units, which is something that the planning commission prefers. every unit will be single family and they are generously proportioned. the meeting of the parking requirements, the two family car hustled, so a lot of them will have more than one parking spot in the garage. >> in the arge? chair maxwell: in the garage? >> yes. chair maxwell: is this near public transit? >> no. there are buses, but this is almost at the edge of the city and the county of san francisco, so it is definitely much more of a car culture. it doesn't butt up to the freeway there, so mainly buses.

chair maxwell: supervisor chiu, do you have any other comments? we have into other comments, so there will be no further public comments at this point. understanding what we have heard today, there are concerns. i think these concerns are concerns we all have. we have put on any number of things in place so that when housing comes close to freeways and other properties that might bring out noise and pollution, that we do have things in place to take care of that. one you heard walls the -- was the ventilation. it is not easy. it is expensive. but we thought it was an extra cost that was important. one of the first questions i asked about was a buffer for the noise. the berm is the buffer. parking, wl when there are two

or three bedrooms -- this is a lot of parking for most places in our city. we would not require this kind of parking, but because of the community and the neighborhood, we are requiring extra parking : -- parking. so i think in that, a lot of the extra concerns and questions that you have, have been thought about and considered. we also prir a lot more notification, because we want people, and especially when there is in-fill, that means when people are already around, that they are aware of what's going on. i think to that end we have heard that there has -- there was a lot more notification than on some parcels when there is no neighborhood or no people to have to deal with. so with that, i am going to vote in favor of this. supervisor chiu, do you have any comments? supervisor chiu: no, i agree

with that. i appreciate the concerns raised by the neighborhood, but i feel at this point that this project ought to move forward. obviously that we will continue to discuss these matters with the neighbors as we move forward, but they have addressed a lot of these concerns. chair maxwell: without objection, we will move this forward. are there any further meet asms -- items, madam clerk? the clerk: no, there is not. chair maxwell: then this meeting is adjourned. [at 2:43 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. ]

commissioner fong: let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. >> roll call. commissioner fong. commissioner fong: here. commissioner brandon. commissioner brandon: here. commissioner lazarus. commissioner lazarus:. approval of the meetings in june 10, 2010. commissioner fong: approve. >> public comment on executive session. executive session. commissioner fong: all those in favor?

commissioner fong: good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i move that we reconvene in open session. >> second. commissioner fong: any discussion? all those in favor? >> i move that we not discuss anything discussed in executive session. >> -- commissioner fong: any discussion? all those in favor? >> aye. >> please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones and pagers and it similar electronic sound producing devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that a chairman or the removal from a meeting room of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound producing device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three

minutes to make appurtenant public comment for each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. item seven a -- a city -- i'm sorry, election of port commission vice-president. resolution 10-53 -- were arrested port commission's rules of order, article one, section 2, states that among the commissioners, a president and vice president will be elected. they will serve a one-year term or until a successor is elected. the elections will be held every year of the first calendar meeting in january and whereas the term of the court commissioner elected vice president has expired july 1, 2010, leaving a vacancy in the position of vice president, now, therefore be it resolved, that as port commission hereby approves, the holding of a

special election for a new vice president at its regularly scheduled meeting of july 13, 2010. >> mr. president, before you set the motion on the resolution, i just wanted to explain that the resolution is necessary because the rules for the board calls for the election in january, but under these circumstances, the commission now needs to lead -- the commission vice- president and president can effectively amend the rules of order. >> seeking a motion for resolution 10. >> mr. president, if i may explain for the benefit of the public and anyone watching on tv, for those of you in the room, you will notice there are only three of five commissioners sitting at the dais today, and that is because two of the commissioners' terms expired and there 60-day holdover has also expired, so we are waiting for the seats to go through the

process. one of the seats was the commission vice-president, and as a result, we need to replace that officer position. hopefully, that has clarity. commissioner fong: thank you very much. there is a motion and a second. any other discussion? any other public comment on this resolution? ok, calling for the question then. all those in favor? any opposed? ok, resolution 10-53 is approved. ok, so then we are able now to actually have an officer election. >> i would like to nominate commissioner brandon as vice president. do you want to second that? [laughter] >> i second that nomination, and i believe i have to ask three times. is that correct? let's do that.

let me clarify, is there any other nomination for vice president role of the then commissioner brandon? -- other than commissioner brandon? ok, then, colleagues, for the question. any opposed? ok, congratulations. [applause] commissioner brandon: thank you. i look forward to working with president fong and commissioner lazarus and our new commissioners whenever they arrive. >> greater than7b, executive directors report -- item 7b. >> welcome to the public and all the staff here today. i do have a fairly long list of items on the executive director's report.

i would like to congratulate commission of branded for helping us how. thanks for your willingness to do that and not allow the nomination to go forward. i would also like to introduce our new deputy director for administration. elaine is a longtime member of the city and county of san francisco. the department of finance and administration is the second- largest division out of six at the port. it oversees the regular finance functions, which john and i cannot wait to pass back. tina olson left in november 2009, and in the interim nine months, we have a five-year

financial forecasts, our first- ever two-year budget, our 10- year capital plan, etc., etc. thank you so much for coming back and joining us. elaine has worked for many different from a tiny city, including the san francisco airport finance division, the board of supervisors has a legislative and budget analyst, and most recently, she was the chief financial officer for the department of city planning, so we are extraordinarily lucky to have recruited her to the port, and i wish you a tremendous term, and there's plenty of work still to do, so i did not want to think we did adopt want you to think we did it all in your absence -- i did not want you to think we did it all in your absence. please welcome elaine. next, the project manager in the mayor's office was hoping to be here today to talk about the port of san francisco being able to be the only city in defense

of the america's cup, but she is out wooing potential suitors to enhance our bid, so i am going to do my best to give that report. there is not really much to add other than what has already been in the press, but after quite a few weeks and months of careful consideration, the bmw/oracle team, which is based here in san francisco out of the golden gate yacht club, determined there's only going to be one candidate for the america's cup in the united states, and that would be san francisco. [applause] thank you. we are up against, we believe, three other locations. we are not quite sure who they are. they have not been named publicly, but we know that they are countries, so this is going to be a very interesting process. it is a somewhat informal process, as best we can tell, and i can assure you that the bmw/oracle team has committed a

lot of resources to studying the opportunity to be here in the san francisco bay. for those of you who know racing well, america's cup is governed by a two-page deed of trust dating back to the 1830's, which says quite clearly that it will be erased in open waters without headlines, which makes you wonder how come san francisco is being considered, but the challenger, which is a club out of italy, has agreed to do a race that is not under the terms of the deed of trust precisely, and therefore, san francisco is a great opportunity. it will be, shall i say, a novel approach to house that race, and to that end, most of the property of the port that is under consideration would be our larger facilities going south. i did not know this, so i do not

know how many of you know this, but the america's cup is the third-grossing economic event behind the olympics and the world cup, so it would obviously be a huge coup to the san francisco region if it would be here as well as to the united states as a whole. the bmw/oracle team has stated that they hope to make a selection on the location by the end of this calendar year, 2010, and from there on, they can move forward with when the race would be held, and they are considering 2013 or 2014, in their ideal world, they would pigeonhole it between the 2012 olympics and the 2014 world cup, so we are keeping our fingers crossed. the court and the city have been generously assisted -- the port in the city have been generously assisted by numerous individuals and companies who have been working tirelessly on

this. the team has done an amazing amount of due diligence. as i mentioned, they brought in a renowned group of professionals from all around the world, and we hope to make a very competitive offer. i just think having been port director for several weeks now, as well as the visits by the queen mary and queen victoria, this is a region that is a team they receptive to sailing. will come out and populate all around the bay, including bridges, and it would just be a tremendously great place to showcase what is the world's oldest port, so unless you have questions, i will move on. thank you. i would also like to report on an event that happened a couple weeks ago on june 21, 2010. the san francisco convention and visitors bureau has been hosting events that they coined as tourism matters -- everybody okay? what they do there is to connect with different businesses and

industries within san francisco who are affiliated with and/or profit from the tourism business here in san francisco and in the region. as part of that, they make a very special experience by bringing members of different groups to see an aspect of the tourist business, so on june 21, they brought a group of people on board since this cruises a ship that is in port. the audience, which included members from the marina merchants association, the mission merchants association, the outer sunset merchants association, san francisco african-american chamber of commerce, small business network, the university of san from cisco, san francisco business times, and seven by seven magazines were treated to lunch, and some speeches, not least of which were by our own peter bailey, who i cannot find in the crowd. well, no wonder. he talked quite a bit about what

cruising means to san francisco in particular and how it can work now and in the future at the port of san francisco, and then, they got a behind-the- scenes tour of the ship. so it was a great experience. this said that there were really like to do it again, and, of course, one of the ongoing elements of the san francisco convention and visitors plan for enhancing tourism here in santa disco, and we're very grateful for all of the help and support. -- here in san francisco, and we are grateful for the help and support. next, i would like to report what is happening at once -- wharfs j8 and j7. the four has recently had to barricade areas around them. it is comprised of a central rock hl