i invite the supervisors to visit that street and witness firsthand the number of cars, the congestion, the pollution, the number of parcels that are being proposed for a single-home use development, but that will not be the case. most homes along that corridor are occupied by two and three families. there is not adequate parking. the 42 additional -- allegedly off-site parking will not fully represent the numbers of cars. every night there are cars parked on swalks. i have to back into my driveway every evening because there is no parking available to me as a person who would be living across the street, and sometimes

i have also had to call police to be able to obtain access to my own parking space. so i strongly oppose this legislation, and the fact that a community group was able to obtain 50 signatures overnight speaks to the level of opposition to this proposal. thank you. [bell] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is helen dilbert and my family has owned property for over 50 years on that street. could i see that map again? could you get that up again? i want to show you my house. chair maxwell: why don't you continue. >> well, my house is right on the corn he, and it is the place i might be residing after retirement. i'm not really sure.

as several speakers have indicated, when you go there, there is no parking. even though if you count on that block there were only 15 houses on that block and they are planning to put 24 behind it. if you can't park there already and you put 24 in the back, it really impacts the traffic patterns, not 0 mention the fact of access, if that is a oneway -- one-way street, and the fact there is a fire department within 500 yards of where they would be entering. i think this would impact our safety issues. i am speaking in opposition to this zoning amendment. i thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is danny sepperer. the history is my father bought

the lot in 1959 with the origin tent of building homes and passed away before that could come to fruition. during that time, while my mother was raising us, it stayed vacant. once we were old enough and she had the time to start the process of looking into building homes, she passed away. so now it is under my hands to do something and complete what the family mission was, which was to build homes. the site originally had homes on it. there were homes on the site, but cal-trans bought the site for freeway use. 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. ] >> good morning, welcome to the

budget and finance subcommittee. do we have any announcements? >> all persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off their cell phones and pagers. if you have a speaker part, please place them to the box to your left. items taken of the full board will be taken next week unless otherwise indicated. >> thank you. please call items 1 and 2. >> hearing to consider release of reserved funds, san francisco public utilities commission (file no. 081453, ordinance no. 311-08), in the amount of $170,549,282, to fund the construction for the water system improvement program (wsip) project cuw37101 - crystal springs/san andreas transmission system upgrade.

item 2. resolution adopting findings under the california environmental quality act, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations related to the crystal springs/san andreas transmission upgrade project, part of the water system improvement program for the improvements to the regional water supply system, otherwise known as project no. cuw37101, including the mitigation habitat actions at two sites in san mateo county; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to notify the controller of this action. >> good morning. i am a project manager with the assets puc. i will give you a brief presentation on items one and of the vote. the project we are talking about is the san andreas transmission system upgrade. this is part of the program.

the main objective is to increase and improve the seismic and deliverability of the facilities. the crystal springs and san andreas system provides for emergency and supplementary water supply for the san francisco peninsula by moving water from the various reservoirs and feeding into other locations which would then be traded through distribution systems. the system consists of three primary reservoirs, the upper and lower crystal springs reservoir, the san andreas reservoir. there is a major pump station -- thank you. pump station, pipe line, and

various other facilities. this map out lines the system. san bruno is over here. the full extent of the math is about 10 miles. the shaded green area is the watershed we are managing. the project consists of three major components. one is the replacement of the existing pumping station. the second one is various improvements in seismic and various facilities. a third component is a substation from pg&e. this is the status of the

environmental review. we have released the eir back in november, and we closed the bid. eir was considered by the planning commission and certified. sfpuc adopted it on may 11. budget and funding. the total project cost estimate is $192 million. certain cost is estimated at $147 million. we are in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations. for corporations. major milestones of the project.

we total lies the construction bid last june. we expect it due on august 12. we extended the bid psycho because of the complexity of the projects. we hope we can achieve the award in september and begin in october. in total, this will be about 36 months at a totatotal construct. construction would be finished a bit earlier in october 2013. >> how many proposals have you received so far? >> we have not closed the bid to get, so we do not know. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. let's hear from the budget

analyst report >>. >> inadvertently, the commission requested a release of the fund unreserve for construction costs. normally, as the department indicated, construction bids are just around the corner. normally, i would have recommended to continue this item until you get the construction did, however, the department pointed out that that would delay the process. our recommendation is on page 6 of the report. we recommend you put this on controllers reserve and any difference between the construction bid amount and the estimated cost of the project would then revert to budget and

finance committee reserve. of course, we recommend that you reduce the requested release by $22 million for the reasons that i mentioned. that was just an error. we also recommend you adopt the seqa findings. >> thank you for the report and for your presentation. we can open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is osed. i am told that there is some concern about the water quality as an effect of this. q you have any information? >> i do not. i understand the water quality

bureau will be looking into it. i do not have any specific information. >> assistant general manager, cfo. the water supply is completely safe. we have been working with the scientific community to review accumulation of mercury in fish. there is some natural levels of consumption, in lower levels species, bottom feeders. our water, however, has no signs of measurable or jury. >> do we know where the source of the mercury is? >> it could be naturally occurring. it could come from particular matter selling into the stream bed and then into the soils. as fish feed on the bottom and

consumes soil, lower level plankton, matter, they could accumulate in the fish. as far as the water goes, while the fish swim in the water, it is not a function of the water. it is safe and we are not reporting immeasurable level of any concern. >> thank you. motion to except the budget analyst recommendation. moved with recommendations. without objection. madam clerk, -- thank you for your presentation. we look forward to hearing from you again. madam clerk, item 3. >> resolution authorizing and

directing the port executive director to execute the third amendment to the maintenance and management agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco for the maintenance and management of rincon park by the port, extending the term of the agreement from june 30, 2010, to june 30, 2013. >> thank you, terry avalos. --chair avalos. the proposed resolution looks at need agreement between the port and redevelopment agency. this is to extend the term from july 1, 2010 to july 30, 2013. this agreement was first executed in 2003 to accomplish the park improvements in the ring, park development plans. under the existing agreement, the port is maintained with maintaining the park.

the four phones and the land. the cost is approximately $219,000 annually. we are here because this third amendment extends the terms more than 10 years. we agree with the it budget analyst recommendations to provide for retroactive approval and to change the date of the extension. i am here with david to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. rose, if you could share the report. >> the only thing that i would add, as ms. forms indicated, the estimated cost under this amendment are about $190,000 annually. that is the money that would be reimbursed by the lead development agency, together