communication system upgrade for 6990, $959. >> this item is before you for the hetch hetchy system. we are putting in place to provide the controls on the system itself and also provide additional communications for our emergency planning of our electrical communications. what it is that we got only one. we predicted four because of the conditions of the deals with the city contacting system regarding one good bid and that's the item before you. >> so just one bid.

>> i would like to move the item. >> second. >> is there any public comment? any further discussion? all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. thank you. item 10. item 10 authorize the general manager to execute on behalf of the city and county of san francisco amendment to the programmatic memorandum of agreement with alameda county. >> this is a minor amendment to an mou done with the projects to allow the town and fire pressure system to go forward. it gives the alameda county authority to attach some of the assets if there is some kind of failure to perform in damage to property as a result of the contract. >> any comments? >> i would like to move the item.

>> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >>o posed, the motion carries. item 11. approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager to execute a five 5-year revocable license to the irvine company to use approximately 34, 96 #00 square feet of sf puc parcel 173 located at tal man or and north mary avenues in sunnyvale. >> good afternoon, real estate services. this is a very straight forward five 5-year for market residential -- rental license between the puc and the irvine company,llc for property we own in sunny

vale. i'm not going to elaborate further on that. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. >> i think it's perfectly clear. any questions? >> move id. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >>o posed. the motion carries. >> item 12. discussing and possibly action to authors the general manager to consent on behalf of the sf puc development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and visitation development. >> this has been in the works for a number of years for the economic and workforce development. it a 20 -acre site that's been abandoned

since 1999. what's going to happen is about 1600 dwelling units and mixed use retail as well. there is going to be infrastructure development. you are approving the development agreement. you are a participant. it a binding framework and we have approval of the plans and specifications as made by the developer in the water system as well as the awss or pws system portable water supply system. there is also a condition in there about a feasibility study that this will cooperate with us. we'll come back for the approval for that as well. this is a one of many steps that in this development process and

approving the development agreement today allows us to go forward in developing a furthermore detailed plan of the specificationed. the developer is here to answer any questions you might have. i'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> commissioners? >> i have a question on the power provision. would that be retail prices? >> it could be retailing and commercial. it's going to be both. >> any other comments or questions? >> thank you very much. i have two speaker cards here. dr. jackson?

>> dr. jackson, bayview hunters point. this particular area when the governor closed down the redevelopment agency that project was over with. no agreement was made by the redevelopment agency. in fact, they stopped a pack committee on bayview hunters point that had been there since the beginning. no fund was given to the packet and the shipyard is still there. here all of a sudden i read in the newspaper about this other area. maybe you are not aware of it but i brought information for you all to read. and not to vote

on this item today. what you need to do is find out from the infrastructure committee of the redevelopment agency about the be funding of that area sometime ago. how is it all of a sudden here they are back again. that area is a toxic site super fund site. that was a developer dealing with the executive part when they first got started. they tested that ground over there because they were going there. but it's too toxic. all of a sudden here we come again. not only did the supervisor of the area district 10 start this madness and here we have the land use committee, the city planning committee all being rubber stamped because of something the supervisor of

district 10 says nothing knowing anything about the district. i have information here and i gave it to the secretary to give you all copies because you see it's ridiculous that we have to file a lawsuit. she has it already. because of the city plan and the board of supervisors approved the aer rea and when you read the judges statements there is a lot of gain going on in the city for the developers. it's unfair you are not aware of. in this lawsuit is 37 pages, but i only put 3 pages here but your secretary can get the whole thing here where it was epa as well as the health

department that was in cahoots together to get this thing passed. and the lawsuit says until there is a circle done, nothing can be built out there at that shipyard. no land or transferred. they build less than right out there. they don't care. people are sick and dying from all the air that's coming into homes there. i just got a call. 15 people have already died in the last two 2 months and i'm asking for the names and addresses so it can be publicized at senior citizen area there on third street. these people are building on toxic sites not knowing it used to be a cokal cola. they need to go to 20 feet because

they go over top of dirt and they are not getting the right reading. please do not pass this until you read this information that i brought to you. put it over until the next meeting, however you want to do it. please, don't continue letting people die because people are are greedy for money. i'm sorry i took too much time. i'm hurting because people are dying in my community and nobody seems to care. the city do not seem to care. thank you very much. >> mr. decosta?

>> when dr. jackson comes here. she's 81 years old. what she's really trying to tell you, commissioners, is that each of you commissioners when the sf puc wants to participate in any type of deliberations which are part of ceqa or anything you all need to carefully evaluate site by site projects. so way back in the year 2000. i brought to the attention of the department of toxic substances control a number of sites that i knew were very toxic. the department offered toxic and substances control

got some money from one of the owners from this site and did some testing. after there there were plans to build a home depot that did not go through because some of the advocates in the visitation did not want a home depot. now we have this site chosen for 1700 -unit building. there have been some meetings. but as dr. jackson stated to you, the redevelopment did not grandfather this project. but a couple weeks ago, maybe i think weeks ago, the supervisor and the mayor and a few others from the planning department were there for a conference show casing these units. bus -- but as michael collins was trying to give some explanation, he mentioned something about a joint powers

and i bet you none of you understood what he was saying. they have a right-of-way there that didn't consult the joint powers. they have son objection. so why should planning go so far into the deliberations when not even all the land issues have been settled. what will we do later on? we can do many things later on. jonathan is here and he's my good friend and i have known him for many years and he's representing the developer and lives in this valley and should know that whatever we build should be built so people have quality of life issues. we have this issue which i presented to you many times. we need to vet the precautionary principle. if we

build anything here it should be to the highest standards. thank you very much. i'm going to write on this later on. i don't think to talk forever but our planning department should speak to the truth. >> okay. i understand that ken rich from the mayor's office would like to speak to this matter. >> good afternoon, i'm from the mayor's office on economic and workforce development. to give you a little bit of background some of the addressing made by the speakers this was a last part of the area of redevelopment areas and the negotiations between the redevelopment agency and the developer were very far advanced when the state is all redevelopment and this project had been and is a high priority for the mayor and we all sort of looked around when redevelopment

went away. so my office took over the project and started a series about two 2 years of intensive negotiations with the developer to try to make the project work financially without the $15 million of investment that would have been in the project if redevelopment didn't go away. as you know it is a 20 -acre brownfield that needed to be remind -- rem deetd for environmental efforts. that kind of project doesn't pencil out and that's why it was for redevelopment to have the city invest back into it. we working very closely with the developer over the last couple of years have figured out a way to get the project to pencil out and be financially feasible. it just barely

works and involves us finding some small series of a way for the city in tools to manage -- to invest for the infrastructure at the end of the day the developer is satisfied that their ability to do 1700 units there will produce enough of a return to make this project work. that's really good news to us. the mayor has been very supportive of this project and been one of his highest priorities mainly because we can produce 1700 units in numbers out there and because of the prevailing market prices out of town, those units will sell without any additional subsidy from the city for middle rate income. you will be able to rent an apartment for probably about half what it would cost to do in this part of town. it's important that we produce

that middle income housing without a lot of subsidy that this has been the highest priority for us and we are very happy that it's finally going through a round of approvals. the projects approved by the commission last week and part of the commission and the park commission and transportation authority in the next few weeks. we will be at the board of supervisors for the final improvement on the entitlement in july to go back and address the ream ationation issue. this project is the former site of the industrial activities for many many decades. the factory was closed in the late 90s if i'm getting my dates right. there was issues with soil and water contamination and they spent

the last 10 years of cleaning this up including the toxic state substance control which signed off on the action plan. i will let the developer give you the details because i don't have the details in my head. the short story is that we are in a position to sfooet see if the development happens on this site. i would be happy to answer questions and interested in hearing from the developer on how to clean up will be helpful but i'm available to answer any questions. >> any questions? no. thank you. >> i would like to hear about some of the clean up. you probably know that the department of toxic substance control head of that division is now our new director of the department of the environment. so i would love to hear about how to experience was working with them and what they signed off on. >> thank you, commissioners.

my name is jonathan sharpton the general manager of the paragon and development. we have been working for a dozen years with the community and the various agencyies with the city on this project up to this point including an investment of over $20 million of private capital into remediation program with the worst economic down turn in 70 years. this is under the supervision of the department of toxic substance control who has the regulatory authority on this site and in consultation simultaneously with various city agencies and with the community developed a remedial action for the site after it was established in 2005. it was in 2006-2008

that that remedial plan was developed and in 20309 -- 2009 when the remedial plan was acted, we were able to proceed with both the demolition of the former factory buildings on that site and also the soil and ground water remediation. there is two legacy issues on the site. one was chlorinated sooner oner or later -- sooner lvents which the the metal and before we had any regulated materials. that did impact the ground water and through the

dtsc remedial action program they chose a remedy called enhanced deductive chlorination which is an injection program at 15 feet intervals inside the plume to create the conditions to reduce those constituents in ground water to the dtsc clean levels which are necessary to achieve before residential development can proceed. so all of the activities that's gone out out there has been under close supervision of the dtsc. the environmental impact report in 2008 and the vitals actions in 2009 document this. on the soil side there is shallow soil

contamination that resulted from the herbicides that were laid down on the former rail yard portion of in of that site that are not unlike the conditions that you had at mission bay before the redevelopment of mission bay. there are no similar issues that they are that one of the previous speakers brought up like are encountered at the hunters point shipyard. this is not a supper fun site. there has not been to my knowledge any recent lawsuits regarding the clean up of the site. i believe the one that was referred to earlier was a lawsuit around clean up at the shipyard. so there is soil treatments that have occurred and the dtsc is in there

certification process. they have signed off the finding of suit ability for development for the majority of the site and they have mitigations for every use that is contemplated for this site. they are laid out in the environmental impact reports and and we would not be able to proceed from the developmental site without the approval from the remedial action plan and their responsibility to protect both worker health and safety during the construction period and occupant health and safety over the appeared that people are living, working and playing there. if there is anymore specific questions that you have, i'm happy to

answer. thank you. >> do you have further questions? >> maybe one last question on the ground water. that was all tested too, right? >> yeah. the ground water remediation program that dtsc required on the site it was result of years of testing on the ground water and also some testing of various remediation techniques to find the one they believe would be most effective and that's the one they directed us in the -- reimmediatial action plan

and the intervals and has the impact of creating the conditions where by the constituents underground are neutralized by the anaerobic activity of the lack aid on the ground water. >> is that a biological process or chemical reaction. >> it's a biological process. yes. >> on the site specific mitigations that are being required are you saying that requires the sign off of dtsc, is that part of the development agreement that they have former sign off for authority?

>> i was just going to point out in your packet in the mitigation measures part of what the commission is praufd -- approving is a commitment on the developer complying with the mitigations specifically required for ground water as well as soil contamination sign off not just by dtsc but the regional quality control board and the city's department of public health which enforces our interest in hazmat remediation. that will be part of what you would be relying on in approving the development agreement. >> on the objection program

what's that -- wurns once that biological process is complete, i'm assuming it's no longer contaminated. >> the restrictions under the dtsc prohibits that ground water for in the potable source at all. so their concern primarily of constituents in ground water is really around the production of gases that would off gas through the soils. >> how does that fit in with -- is that ground water based on the link -- i'm wondering in the ground water exchange program that we are working

with daley city and others on the west side water programs is there any linkage on the ground water basis. >> steve ritchie, there is no connection with this water and the west side ak if de -- aquifer. >> just to follow up where is the aquifer for this ground water? what is it connected to? >> this area wouldn't be called an ak if you are -- aquifer. there is ground water in parts of the city that doesn't produce a high enough quality. the west side basin, that's a separate ground water unit. >> the use of that ground

water is prohibited for any use, irrigation? >> absolutely. the concern again of the dtsc is strictly about that ground water as a potential source of contamination through the soil, through off gassing or through intrusion into the ak if -- ak if quifer underneath and that area is obtained by several orders of magnitude which i described and the website, you can look at any of the documents that would be of interest to you to demonstrate that. so the

ground water is a pretty contaminated level for any uses. what about the soil? it sounds like there is still an on going concern about the ground water contamination of the soil. is the soil, what level has that been remediated to? >> the dtsc established specific levels for chemical constituents and ground water and in soil over which they require certain mitigations. for the area where there was is surface oil contamination through herbicide application and the like, those areas simply need to