the building as it is proposed, and we might all have other ideas of what it should be, is fully compliant, correct? >> correct. commissioner moore: that spirit is somewhat not in our purview to discuss how someone wants to lay out his interiors and get in and out of his building. what we should be concerned about is how this building presents itself to the outside, given that we have the normal dimensions of a lot. the expansion goes to the rear. the only thing, although that is not the purview of this commission either, i would encourage the owner why he built -- while he built the addition to find a better way to have the building meet the side street. since it is a corner lot and at this moment it is basically a

rutted, and landscaped -- un- landscaped space, and it is illegal to park a car on unimproved property -- >> may i interrupt? commissioner moore: i am not asking you to. in a minute, i may choose to. perhaps that might have been an explanation for the adjoining neighbor to make it a more inviting treatment of the corner. some green, some plants inside the set back. make it a softer thing. i can get into whether i like the elevation with the way the windows run. i would have other design ideas, but i am not asking for that now. right now, if you would not mind stepping up to the deck -- the electorate. -- lectern. would you listen to what i am

asking, please? do you have any sketch ideas of how you want to treat the side? is there an idea of a fence? is there an idea of a garden? you cannot parking car on there. -- park a car on there. >> officially, that is part of the street. nobody should part here. i do not know where that car comes from. commissioner moore: indeed, i think you might have to ask as the owner that that be taken care of by someone. i am glad you are explaining that. i think it would be helpful for you to have a better building the would not look that way. perhaps there needs to be some grass or bushes in there to help you. i would strongly support that. i greatly appreciate you explain

that to me. -- explaining that to me. we will try to find somebody to attend to that anyway. i am in support of this building expansion. i suggest we do not take d.r. and approve it as is. that is a motion. commissioner borden: second. commissioner moore: i just made a motion that we approved as is, advising the department to help this no man's land. >> we can bring that up with the department of public works. commissioner borden: i seconded it. commissioner antonini: you know, we don't necessarily have to comment on an existing structure when an addition is being made. our review is on the addition.

however, we look at the general neighborhood context and make suggestions as to what would be possible to make this fit a little bit better into their. -- into there. although it is not what the d.r. was filed on, neighborhood context is always important, and maybe we could do things to make it a little bit pleasant. commissioner moore: if i am correct, i think the applicant was describing that the shingles would be redone, which i think would really upgrade the overall impression of the building. old and new would not look in stark contrast. that is my hope, that that is properly done. i do not think there will be shingles anywhere. commissioner moore: that -- commissioner antonini: that is what i heard, that there would

be stucco. comissiomer sugaya: will the architect comment on the siding? you are indicating redwood siding on the facility. have you priced it lately? >> um -- i think that is -- no, we haven't. comissiomer sugaya: thank you. commissioner moore: if we are approving in building with redwood siding and that has not been priced, we are talking about very expensive material. in the event we are approving something which because of cost

would not be achievable, what guarantees do we have but we do not find some other material which is really not in the spirit of what we are approving? >> we are looking to take a step back. if the commission went so far as to bring it back to the commission before we were to take a drastic step -- if they were to change from redwood siding to something comparable, perhaps pressed a little bit more reasonable -- i cannot think of a typical material right now. if there was a change, it would most likely make the entire building stucco, as opposed to having sighting on the upper

floor -- siding on the upper floor, rather than to come in with another material. commissioner moore: i know you do not design many residential buildings, but i am put on notice with commissioner sugaya asking a very reasonable question because of the high cost of redwood. it is an endangered species and hardly in stock anymore. the designer might put the owner himself in a difficult position, not being able to deliver this material. >> that is a possibility. you could take that into consideration as you design the structure, so you do not have to come back with changes midway and when you are in the middle of construction. the approval is for this

structure, which will approve plans with redwood siding. it could be returned to the commission. commissioner moore: the approval contains that obligation, based on the discussion this commission is having. there has to be an equal understanding of what the conditions are. >> to understand that if there are changes, it is possible you would have to return to the commission. commissioner moore: and it is not just the side. it is the entire building.

comissiomer sugaya: commissioner moore: is there any additional comment? that is what we are asking you. >> the commission would like to specify that the entire building be clad in redwood as opposed to partially stucco. >> the plans that we have that we are approving show the material. that is what the material -- that is what is being approved. down the line, there is a change, it is possible that it

would have to come back to the commission. >> [speaking foreign language] commissioner moore: could you come to the microphone and said that into the microphone? -- say that into the microphone? i think it would help us to repeat that as part of the motion. we're operating between two languages. there has been a commitment of the interpretation that building will be delivered entirely clad in redwood.

>> the upper floor. according to this design. the upper floor is redwood, the stucco. commissioner moore: not just abortion. -- a portion. >> as depicted on these plans. >> the motion on the floor is four to not take any approved project as approved with the upper portion clad in redwood. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye. commissioner borden, aye. commissioner moore, aye. sequoyah -- commissioner sugaya, no. you are at general public

comment. members of the public may address you to -- up to three minutes? >> is there any public comment? seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.

supervisor chiu: good morning and welcome to the budget and finance committee meeting of

january 11. supervisor campbell joined us shortly. our court today is mr. victor young. we had jennifer low. do we have any announcements today? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and turn them into myself. i also ask there will be a board of supervisor agenda -- items today will appear on january 12, 2012 unless otherwise stated. >> item 1, resolution to authorize public facilities commission to accept it expand the california department of public help administer grant in the amount of $1,098,202 for the sentences go public utilities commission share of an san francisco public utilities commission/east bay utility district project.

>> good morning, supervisors a. bart brew. the san francisco public utilities commission and he spake utility district are major suppliers of water in the area. the facility provides right built -- reliability of the regional drinking water system in the event of an emergency or shut down. the east bay mud in cooperation with the city of hayward agreed to connect our respective water supply systems by jointly contracting -- constructing and operating a pumping system and lrelated water pipelines. the project was completed in 2007. after the commencement of construction, they applied for and won a grant in the amount of

$2.5 million. the share of the 2.5 million was received in 2011, and is 1.1 million. this resolution retroactively authorizes the spfpcu to except and authorize the money from the san francisco department of public health from the east bay intertype project. the resolution also wait the requirement of indirect costs, because the grant requirements do not permit it. finally, the grant required matching funds, which came up from the water system improvement program. the work done in the project was weak reconstructed the

station in the city of hayward. installed pipelines to connect the station to east bay mud and installed other pipeline improvements. the reason why this item is retroactive is because the grant was applied for and accepted and funded after the construction was approved. supervisor chiu: just to clarify, there are no new positions being created and the 1 million matching amount is in the fiscal year 2012 budget? >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: we do not have a budget analyst comment. i want to open this up for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos to send a recommendation forward with recommendations. item two. >> resolution authorizing the

recreation and parks department to retroactively except and extend a gift in place valued at up to $480,250 from the trust for public land for the glen canyon park improvement plan and other related art reached process. in good morning, supervisor my name is karen at their recreation and parks department. today before you is a grant that you'd add over $480,000 from trust for public land, which assisted in the glen park improvement plan. i think it was a really strong process and another example of the leveraging the plan was able to provide. a representative for trust for publicly and is here as well. they have generally provided assistance so we could have a

larger, more robust conversation as we talk about the specific improvements that would be funded through the parks plan in a much larger part. ark. i have a presentation to go into more detail. it is up to you. power point. kugreat, so basically we worked with the trust for public land trust for the community to come up with the long-range goal for the park and work to identify the top priorities for improvement so we can move forward with the clean and safe park bond fund and to collaborate with other agencies and other potential funding partners in order to leverage additional future funds from the park. and just to tell you a little bit about the park, it is

located in glen canyon at the center of the canyon along the creek. it has doubled immensities. that has a playground, recreation center, tennis courts, ball fields. it has these different components, and it was important to talk about these different needs and how to balance that. here are images of those features. we work with walt robinson todd and engineering team. through the assistance of supervisor wiener is office, we were also able to engage in a lot of departments to make sure the public utilities commission, mta and others could help assist and provide guidance on areas like the streets around the park, which some are very difficult and high speed. we had a community workshops, a

trail walks, focus groups, on- line surveys to try to reach all of the different stakeholders that are very interested in this park. we also had a blog where we could notify people of progress. we're still using that as we go to the implementation of the progress. here is the pictures of the workshop. very hands-on. here is a picture of the crow waltrail walks. we have identified improvements for the park -- term, many of which are not yet funded, and improvements for the lower part. right now we're moving forward with the most important improvements identified by the community through the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund. here is more examples of the type of options we consider. right now we're moving forward

with the improvements outlined in red, which are funded through the $5.8 million clean and safe parks' fund project. by bringing in these funds, we were able to preserve more of those funds to go into the physical improvements to the site, instead of putting a lot of funds on the outreach, which is really important, but let us do more with our dollars. we're going to be putting an end to playground that is much larger. it has pressure-treated lumber, which means it has substances in the wood that are not good and we will be removing the playground and putting in a much bigger one. relocating the tennis courts providing new access, open and clear access. let me show you a picture of that. this will be the new expanded interest -- entrance. there is a photograph later on where you can see how restricted

it is to enter. we have $5.8 million from the clean and safe neighborhood for the playground, tennis courts, and providing a respite -- restroom when the gym is closed. that is a major priority for the community. the trails funding separate in the bond also provide trills fund for the park and innovation. and now with this process completed, we have had specific meanings for specific designs for the playground. should i go faster? supervisor avalos: i was going to wait until you were done, because my questions may sound a little bit frivolous. what will you do with the cool slide? >> our new design will have a really cool metal slide, which will also be steepened fund and have all of those elements and

the correct state code. supervisor avalos: it is a really cool slide. it's a really great park, but it isn't pretty old condition and was excited to see we're going to be working on that. question about silver street site and glen ridge. >> i know the building is old and needs improvement as well. >> there are improvements needed as well. i have a letter of support from jane pack who is a parent or runs the cooperative preschool. they have been very involved in the process. they agreed the first priority was the playground and the parts of the park. we did talk about long-term we would want to see a silver tree, because there is a desire to have not just summer camps but

weekend opportunities there to work more cooperatively with the tenants to share the space and provide better storage. there is a lot of needs for silver tree. it was included in the overall improvement plan, but this bond is focused on the front portion of the park and real improvements. supervisor chiu: would you like to finish your presentation? >> the last slide is think yoan. also, a letter of support from the glen park association board and others that have been very engaged in the process and really appreciate not only the gift, but also the time that many community members came to eight or more meetings about a

very complicated project, evenings and weekends. it was great. supervisor chiu: thank you. of what to offer the opportunity for trust for public land if there's anything you wanted to add to the presentation. >> i would like to add that i would like to think recreation and park for being such a great partner. we are very proud of the outcome. >> thank you. there is no budget analyst report on this item, so if there are no committee questions at this time, i would like to open this item up for public comment. cnn, public comment is closed. we have a motion to move forward with recommendations. -- seeing none, , public comment

is closed. item three, please. >> ordinance amending the administrative code by adding the section 10.100-190 to create a public guardian/public administrator gift fund to support the operations of the public guardian's office. supervisor chiu: we have a speaker on this item rumba human services department. >> good morning. kathleen mcfadden. this would create a gift fund. as you know, the public guardian is the official under california probate court -- court when no one else is willing or able to act.

before the public guardian office can petition, our office has to conduct an investigation to find out whether the person has capacity or not. we also look into what kind of care plan the person would need an need to know assets to determine what benefits they would be eligible for, whether they have a house of that sort of thing. that process can be very time consuming. one of the issues we have had is we have not have the capacity to do this quickly. the house -- for the hospitals, this is a real problem, because that means they cannot move patients out of hospital care when what they need is long-term care. what we are proposing to do is create this gift fund. we have a tentative agreement with the hospital council of northern and central