12:45. since we have a long meeting, i expect a short break after that to get to the latter items on the agenda. could you please call item one. >> item 1. ordinance appropriating $2,385,068 of visitacion valley infrastructure fee revenue from the visitacion valley infrastructure fund, including $2,169,200 in the public library for the visitacion valley branch library project and $215,868 in the department of public works, for the planning and design of utility undergrounding on leland avenue for fy2010-2011, and placing $1,156,304 on controller's reserve in the public library pending receipt of visitacion valley infrastructure fee revenue. >> good morning, members of the committee. jon low, office of soapy

maxwell. i wanted to give you the history of this corporation before you. the infrastructure fund was approved by the board in 2005 to support public infrastructure development needed to mitigate the impact of a dramatic increase in residential development projected for the neighborhood at the time. eligible expenditures of fund revenues included the areas of active recreational space, library facilities, community facilities, and streetscape improvement. the ordinance before you has two key projects, among them, the library and the underground of utilities on leland avenue. staff, dpw's street design team is here. i will just say, the city has invested already in these two projects. the supervisor feels it is appropriate to finalize and assert our commitment to this

effort for which this appropriation would accomplish. the library has had to borrow money from their preservation fund, which they need to restore, and a supplemental would make dpw complete. the undergrounding of utilities on a leland would help with leveraging and attracting future dollars. happy to answer any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> i have an overhead that i want to show. good morning, supervisors. i am the chief financial officer of the library. i am here to discuss the public library portion of this request. the total developer contribution of the branch library was deemed to be $2,169,900 as part of the branch

library improvement program, property was acquired, a new branch library was designed for completion in june 2011 the board of supervisors approved in advance $2 million from elaborate preservation fund in anticipation of subsequent receipt of funds from the infrastructure funds. the library is now seeking appropriation of $2,169,000, of which $1,065,000 is currently available. we are requesting the balance of 1,174,000 ballots be placed on controllers reserved for the library pending collection of additional infrastructure fees. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> project manner bear for the

department of public works great streets program. the purpose of utility undergrounding is to eliminate the overhead wires along leland avenue. that is both for ease of maintenance and aesthetics. this was the number one request of the community coming out of the planning process in 2006. the scope of this current request is covered, design work, including utility agencies, on the run in districts, community outreach, and development of a funding plan for the property owner conversion portion of the work. the total request about is $215,000.800 $60. -- $215, 868, 000.

>> thank you. let's hear from the budget director. >> i would note, the public library used to million dollars of the requested infrastructure funds that are being requested to be appropriated under this ordinance. that would be to prepay library preservation fund that had already been advanced and expended for this project. also on page 7 of the report, we point out this infrastructure fund has an available balance of $1.7 million, however, the proposed ordinance would appropriate $2.3 million. so therefore, given there are not sufficient funds currently in the visitacion valley infrastructure fund, the remaining balance of $1.5 million would be placed on

comptroller reserves, and that is included in your legislation. we recommend you approve this ordinance. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, comments, questions? why don't we go on to public comment. we are opening up public comment to item one relating to the visitacion valley library. >> my name is francisco decosta. the explanation given to us is like reading your pg&e bill. every time it changes. there is relevant documentation that goes but this. what you see here is that businesses in executive park, which is not part of visitacion valley, have to pay the visitacion valley infrastructure

fees. so you supervisors, and those of you who do the analysis, have to understand that the developers are held hostage. this is becoming a fashion. in the dire economic times, as you know, and you will be hearing a lot of items tied to the economy, it is very difficult for the developers to pay this money. but because you supervisors, at another time, when the economy was better, got past the visitacion valley infrastructure fees, not paying attention who was contributing to this fund,

now as the budget analyst has revealed to you, there is less than $2 million. i have not heard you supervisors asked the people presenting whatever was being presented in a convoluted matter for line item fees or expenses. some grants were given and wanted to use it but they could not use it because they were for carbon emissions. this 18-page document has it all here. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. let me call a few cards. fran martin. peter orfield. john dogerdoge.

>> i am disappointed to see two minutes on the clock. when the capital planning committee took this up, i was present and asked questions. the controller got confirmation from the library about what was happening with the money. i would say there is a bit of a shell game going on, and the pg&e characterization is an understatement of the complexity here. there were two questions basically. first, the purpose of the visitacion valley community facilities and infrastructure fee and fund was to "mitigate the impact from residential development on public infrastructure in visitacion valley, including libraries, streets, and so on." i would appreciate if the supervisors paid attention. the question is, what, in fact,

is a mitigation of an impact of development? is that a legitimate use to underground existing wires? i do not oppose undergrounding, i think it is great. it should happen everywhere, but is that an appropriate use, especially when the library is hurting for operating funds and cannot provide service in the fifth district while park branch is closed? that deprives the community a years of service. the other issue is what is happening with the money. can the developers pay it? what is happening with page 1-1. the public library is intending to use $2 million in a proposed ordinance to reimburse their preservation fund, which will then be we appropriated to other projects. so, in other words, it looks like a raid on library preservation funds one way or

another to put money that is normally for other operations -- supervisor avalos: thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment? >> my name is fran martin. we are the organization that instituted this fee in the first place. we asked for infrastructure funding in our neighborhood. in termwe really want this to go forward. it is only paying back what has already been borrowed. it is only fair that the developers and the new people moving in participate in making

this a better neighborhood. there is no point to put this housing in if there is no infrastructure. in terms of the location, the boundaries, executive clark, all you have to do is look at the map. visitacion valley, guadalupe watershed. this ieeir was just put out for theupe upc development, but the impact will be in visitacion valley. i cannot think why anyone would be against visitacion valley getting these fees from the impact. supervisor avalos: thank you. any other member of the public

that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a good question. the intimation by some of the concerns from the public with regard to the undergrounding -- i am a big fan of that. in this case, if there is an assignment of dollars, then maybe one to speak to it. i have not heard it done before, using dollars from this type of project law before and undergrounding. remind the if there has been a case. maybe you could make your case stronger about utility undergrounding with the use of these funds? >> to answer your question, no, this type of funding has not been used for this purpose

previously, which puts us in a new process, which is a bit of a learning curve for all of us. a long story short, there are few opportunities for funding for the utility undergrounding. we received a federal grant for the streetscape improvement project, and we were hoping that it was included in that, but it was not an eligible use of those funds. we have researched this and we have found no viable opportunities. so this is the only viable source, at this point in time. supervisor avalossupervisor miri am debating the motivation, but the fact is, you affirmed what i thought, that this is the first time we are using these funds, so of course, this potentially stipulates precedentce. so for future projects, we could perhaps see this happen again,

should the ducks lined up and say we want to do you tilly undergrounding -- utility undergrounding. >> i will say one more thing. in this particular instance, it is important to note, out of the community planning process, utility undergrounding was the number-one priority for improvements. that is the reason we are pursuing it. if it had ranked lower in the prioritization, perhaps we would have looked at using the funds elsewhere. i just want to make sure everyone is aware, that is how this is being prioritized. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it would rank very high in any number of the sectors that we represent. in terms of the sourcing of where the dollars are coming from, that is to the core of what i am driving at. this is an applicable source, one that is appropriate, as it

relates to the restoration of the visitacion valley library. >> the street is, correct. supervisor mirkarimi: if you want to add to that, by all means. >> one thing i wanted to mention is visitacion valley is the first of these public infrastructure funds. this is some of the first man that we are expanding on anything from that money established in 2005. we are now able to appropriate with money that has accrued. to the degree that it is a project that fits specifically within the transportation improvements, identified in the legislation, we felt it was important to complete our commitment to the project. supervisor mirkarimi: i do not deny the reason, nor the need.

mr. rose? sorry for interrupting you. any opinion on the fact that this is the first usage of this funding for this particular purpose? does it strike any concerns or issues? >> unless there is a legal prohibition of using these funds, and i anas i understand it, this is why the fund was set up. i do not see any problems. on page 3 of our report, we stayed on november 18, 2005, sections 319 through 319.7 were

added to the city's planning code to add a new fee on the visitacion valley area to establish an infrastructure fund to mitigate impacts from residential development on public infrastructure in visitacion valley including, libraries, streets, recreation facilities, and community centers. specifically, 319 specifies $2.3 million related to the fees will be used for the construction of the visitacion valley branch library and $608,000 in developer fees accruing in the visitacion valley fun to complete projects such as underground utilities on leland.

supervisor avalos: i am sold. i have been to leland avenue and i have seen a small section that has seen some significant street scape improvements, and it is amazing. especially in a part of the city like visitacion valley that does not have anything like that. we can look at valencia, ocean avenue where we have these types of improvements, but not visitacion valley. i appreciate the work of the committee to bring that forward and to put this as a priority. the library is a special asset in the neighborhood. i appreciate all of your work on it. colleagues -- supervisor mirkarimi: i would agree, motion to except with recommendations. supervisor avalos: we will take that without objection. mr. young, please call -- do we

have the department of real estate here? ok, item #2. >> item 2. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for purchase and sale of real estate to obtain two permanent, exclusive, subsurface easements from cargill, inc., for the purpose of constructing the san francisco public utilities (sf puc) commission water system improvement program-funded project no. cuw36801, bay division pipeline reliability upgrade - bay tunnel, for a purchase price of $650; adopting environmental findings under the california environmental quality act (ceqa), ceqa guidelines, and administrative code chapter 31; adopting findings of consistency with city planning code section 101.1; and authorizing the general manager of sfpuc to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >> good morning, members of the committee. real-estate division. the item before you today is a pc they-division reliability project. in particular, a tunnel facility that will lie within two different easements' acquired from cargill inc.. the length of these tunnels, one

is 2,000 feet long, another is a data 37 feet long. this is a tunnel that will live approximately 80 feet in depth below grade at the bay. i have on the overhead a shot of the area. this is south of the dumbarton bridge. on the east side of the bay. this shows the cargo holdings. their own approximate 8,000 acres of land -. -- cargill holdings. the agreement before you is a simple $650 payment for nearly two acres of rights,

underground, in addition, an ability to pay up to $8,000 additional cost incurred by cargill in processing the transaction. that includes escrow fees, legal fees, and other associated title document that they have to work through so that we do not complicate ownership. happy to answer any questions. we also have the upuc staff her. supervisor avalos: thank you. we can go on to public comment. >> walter paulson. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we need a pipeline. it is going to do some good in a

special way i am so glad we got it underneath the bay good day pipelined it is going to keep on a shining supervisor avalos: if there are no other members of the public that would like to comment -- seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, move forward with recommendations. mr. young, please call item 3. >> item 3. resolution authorizing the master lease of the windsor hotel at 238 eddy street for the department of public health. >> i am back. this particular lease is for the department of public health for their direct access to housing

programs. the property is as 238 eddy street. this is also known as the windsor hotel. it is a 99-unit residential complex, on by a limited liability company. in this particular location, we have 45,800 square feet of residential space for those 91 units, another 5656 square feet of credit space. serving in totality, direct access program. the lease deal points provided for your consideration today are a lease of $45,444 per month for the residential units, $5,181 per month for the clinic. these rates are the same rates as were in effect last year at the property, so there is no increase in the base rates.

the property was under a prior long-term lease. that has been on a month-to- month holdover for much of 2010 as we negotiated certain terms and conditions of this new 10- year initial lease with two 10- year options. the increases in rates are calling within a cpi inflator of no less than 3%, no more than 6%. the reason for the delay in bringing this forward as a new long-term lease, dph and real- estate wanted to see evidence of good faith of making certain improvements to the property. we feel that has moved forward expeditiously we also wanted to guarantee a cap on future expenses that of no more than $5,000 per year, if there are capital needs within the building through the term of the lease and extensions. and we have a secure that in

this agreement. i think the budget analysts report goes into considerable detail on it. we have no problems with that. happy to answer any questions. i believe dph also has a representative here. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose? >> members of the committee, the rental rates would remain the same in fiscal year 10, 11, so no increased cost to the city. i would also point out on page five of our report, tabled to, the proposed rental rate of $5,992 per resident per year at the windsor hotel is about 20% less than the $7,400 average rate per unit currently paid by dph for other similar hotel operations. we recommend you approve this resolution.

supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. if we could open this up for public comment. >> we have had a dream about leasing the land it is time you give us a grand then we could settle down in this city and town i know it is going to be on eddy street you are trying you are trying now i am glad we are going to lease some land. give us a grand and we can settle down in this quiet town give it the best you got i think it is going to be on eddy street

you are trying you are trying, budget committee now supervisor avalos: thank you very much. if there are no other members of the public that would like to comment, we will close public comment. move forward without objection. >> >> item 4. resolution authorizing the director of public works to execute an amendment to a professional construction management services agreement for the san francisco general hospital rebuild program from $8,000,000 to $16,400,000. >> good afternoon. my name is ron alameda, project manager for the seventh is good general hospital rebuild program. i have a short power point and some hard copies to hand out, if he would likyou would like.

we are seeking the approval to increase the construction management project to $16.4 million. supervisor avalos: is that microphone on? >> sorry, i will lead into it. we are seeking to increase the contract in order to continue to support and add additional support to the rebuild program support to the rebuild program that has been advancing nicely