we would be happy tosupervisor e else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] i have some. there were some considerations raised during the planning commission hearing boat -- hearing on the density, 20,000 more people, and i was is wondering, it is the analysis adequate? i know that is not the purpose of our conversation today, but i think commissioner olague raised some concerns. >> they were fully vented in the eir, and the commission did

certify that eir with a lot of that analysis. the one to one parking, there will be an impact on the bridge. we want to minimize the amount of cartographic, and yet, we believe, to make things a viable project, you have to provide at least a minimum of three to one parking. we think at a minimum, there has got to be one to one parking. market octavia or eastern neighborhood or downtown, where we have got a lower parking ratio. there are obviously other places where people can park beyond a new developments.

other parking, other buildings outside. hear, we have truly got this. people cannot rely to go to the next neighborhood to park a car, but we are looking to maintain that one to one parking. again, it is necessary to attract families and others to the island, and also tried to minimize these. these are the other mechanisms we have talked about. subsidizing the transit service. >> thank you so much. other questions, colleagues? >> i know on may 2, we have a number of items. is it nine different items that

are on our agenda for the next meeting? so, colleagues, can we move this forward, continued to the call of the chair? without objection. [gavel] thank you. ms. somera, is there any other business before us? clerk somera: no. supervisor mar: thank you. then meeting adjourned. [gavel] the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people

cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one... supervisor chu: hello, welcome to the regular meeting of the budget finance subcommittee.

our klerk today is mr. victor young. mr. young, are there any announcements today? >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out and return to myself a public speaker card. items act upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 26, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: before we begin, i'd like to welcome the group that was year earlier. a number of fourth graders from st. and ties school. we wanted to welcome them to city hall and hope that they have a great field trip. please call item no. 1. >> item #one. resolution authorizing the exercise of an option to extend the lease of 3,900 sq. ft. at 1449 webster street for three years for the office of economic and workforce development employment assistance programs.

supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a presentation from the real-estate department. >> good morning. my name is john updike. this is a renewal of an existing lease and 49 webster street. about 3900 square feet of ground floor space within the safe way shopping center located at webster. this serves the office of economic workforce development western addition one-stop career center. providing employment services, job search services, readiness skills, training and education, access to public training funding, as well as coordinating supportive services for family needs. the details of the lease are that it is a rate of $2.18 per square foot.

it has increases over the three year term, bracketed, consumer price index no less than 2% -- 2%, no greater than 5% increase. included within the resolution is the authority that we seek for renewal, should that be the decision that the director of economic development, as well as the director of property, agreed falls within the terms of the lease. the recommendation of the budget analyst is to strike that request for renewal. simply stating that in a case such as this, where there is a fairly rigorous program and a low dollar amount involved, three years for an additional three-year term, in addition this lease has a 180 day prior notice termination clause. a fairly unusual element that the city can trigger

unilaterally without cause. so, it was thought that given the relative minimal financial impact, it might make sense at this time to pre-authorized that renewal, should that become raises -- necessary three years from now. other than that, i believe that we are in agreement with the budget analysts recommendation. supervisor chu: thank you very much, mr. updike. i believe that the sponsor would like to say a few words. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madame chair. before we hear from the budget analyst, i want to say that i am a big fan of moving forward with this lease. this was instigated based on dollars that were procured in 2007. the reason for this, participating the end of the -- the dirt -- the jurisdiction of

the western division in japan town, where workforce centrally surrounded construction jobs and fast-food restaurants was coming to an end. there was really very little vision in helping people in that sector of our city to be able to find other jobs in the industries that they were oriented towards for 40 years. this was the first and is the first one-stop job training center that was co-run by city and goodwill. we put it in the epicenter of the western addition, right on gary and western. the focus, of course, with redevelopment, we did not know it would be eliminated. knowing that this was going to conclude in 2009 in the western addition, we wanted to start getting the people of our city in the western addition on

livability and permanent job tracks in the private sector. not just the government sector. that is exactly what this job training placement center is for. it is nice to see that with good will and their support system, that they are able to collaborate so that the people of this particular area can get the kind of tools that they were deprived of a in the past. i would like to thank the office of economic development, rhonda simmons, and the department of real estate for helping us to get to this point. i think that the analyst report in the moment is accurate and i would agree with and the amendment that they put forth. support for this should be self- evident. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 5 of the report, we point out that the total cost

for the three-year lease extension ranges from $394,000 to $403,000. as the supervisor indicated, we pointed out that in the provision to exercise a second option for the lease for a second three-year period from september 1 of 2014 through august 1 of 2017, without being subject to further approval, would be a departure from policy. as a matter of fact, if you would permit that and the department of real-estate indicates minimal costs, i do not consider $100,000 per year to be minimal. if you were to depart from the policy, it would be an indication for all the apartments do not have to come before the board of supervisors. there are parameters right now for lower levels where the real

estate division can approve leases without admitting them to the board of supervisors. we state that we recommend -- and are fully supportive of this lease, it is just the second three year option. we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to delete the lines on page 2, and lines 1 and 2 on page 3, authorizing the director of real-estate to exercise a second three-year option from the proposed lease of september 1, 2014 through august 31, 2017. authorizing the other option through august 31, 2013 -- 2014. supervisor chu: thank you very much. if there are no immediate questions from the committee, i would like to open this up for public comment.

are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item number one? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: i will motion that we adopt the amendments proposed by the budget analysts, mr. rose. with those, sending a forward with recommendation. supervisor chu: there is a motion to amend the resolution per the budget analysts recommendation. it has a second and we can take that without objection. thank you very much. mr. clark, please call item no. 2. >> item #2, resolution approving a ten-year landfill disposal agreement and facilitation agreement with recology san francisco under charter section 9.118. supervisor chu: thank you very much. this item came before us some time ago. we have the presentation from

the department of environment. and we did have the report provided by our budget analyst, mr. rose, on this item already. if i could direct the department to speak more about the follow- up items from the last committee hearing. my understanding of the conversation in committee was that it circled around agreements on transportation options regarding the port. i know that between then and now there has been a commission agreement between the apartments. if we could hear the conversation towards those new information items, that would be terrific. i would like to record -- recognize the supervisor campos has joined us for the committee. >> thank you for the opportunity to present today on the proposed landfill contract for

san francisco. when we were here two months ago, we had a detailed overview of the selection process for choosing a landfill contract as well as the benefits of the proposed contract. i have a couple of slides as a reminder to a couple of different items. that then we will address the issues that came up in the last committee. the first slide that i wanted to highlight is the slide that goes over the san francisco refuse system and what the elements of the system more. of course, we have collection, governed by the 1932 ordinance, the picking up and hauling of trash recyclables through the streets of san francisco. processing, governed by the written review process. hauling, taking the trash from the transfer station to the

landfill. finally, we have the landfill governed by the contract. today, as you all know, we are addressing portion three and four of our system. speaking of the time line, i just wanted to provide the slide to the committee members, showing where we have been on this land search time line. it started back in 2003, when there was a landfill capacity report provided to the board of supervisors. from 2004 until now, the department of the environment has been engaged in various levels of study and analysis, looking for a new landfill contract for the city and county of san francisco. as you will also see on this slide, it shows where the landfill capacity is expected to expire in 2015. we are right up against a five-

year time line for expiration. again, just to remind committee members, trash would note to the landfill in yuba county once we need the capacity at the alta lot landfill, where the city's trash currently goes. this excess of limit is expected to expire in 2015. following an extensive multi- year invasion and review, the department of environment review panel has concluded that the contract is a good deal for san francisco. i wanted to put up the cost comparisons slide shows that if the contract is approved by the committee and board of supervisors, we stand to save $130 million over the life of the contract. before we get into the port options, here you will see a 10-

year agreement for 5 million tons, whichever comes first. state-of-the-art landfill gas recovery, minimizing impact at the landfill site. also establishing a land -- framework for revenue sharing. which is really a first. at some point we will have to look at the value of trash disposal in landfills. finally offering a solid waste costs. for starting in 2016. the facilitation agreement that governs the transportation of our trash from the station to the landfill is being offered again today to confirm the transportation method and walked in to rail costs.

-- block in real costs. we are proposing an amendment -- locked in rail costs. we are proposing an amendment should the options change for transporting waste to the landfill. to bring us up to today, two months ago we talked a lot about -- there was much interest from the committee about the port of san francisco and whether or not it could take part in our solid- waste infrastructure. what the department of the environment did was embarked upon a process to review the options in the short term and the long-term that the port of san francisco could take part in. so, there are three main elements that we looked at. moving all refuse collection infrastructure. barging of the refuse from port

property. third, recyclables from port property. it seems that the interest of the committee was -- would there be a way to gain funding for the city entity through a solid waste structure and ensure additional revenue for the port? i would like to go over these three options to make sure that committee members are aware of what we discussed with the pore over the >> i'm going to go over the timeline, costs, and considerations. we are moving our entire waste infrastructure. it would need solid waste facilities permit, army corps of engineer approval, among others. both the port and the department of environment concluded this

would take about seven years to 10 years in order to see this type of facility. the cost is projected to be anywhere from $200 million to $400 million. this is from recology and a consultant we looked at. although this is of interest and something we will be looking at long-term, there's no short- term option identified for moving our integrated waste facility to the porct today. another option we reviewed was using the port as a transfer facility for refuse. the facility that would need to be created is only for the transfer of waste. it would not be an integrated facility. the considerations for this option are -- it would require double handling of waste.

it was identified immediately as potentially inefficient. it would also require many of the permits required for the integrated waste facility. those two considerations left the port and department of environment to conclude it's about a five-year to seven year process. it could cost from $100 million to $200 million. it was concluded that this was not a short-term option to be considered as we are considering the landfill contract today. the third option seems like it might be a short-term option. that is, and barging recyclables from the pier 96 facility. this is a pilot that could happen at any time. recology said they are willing and interested to try it when there is interest. we asked one of our consultants, htr, to put together a memo of

the cost of barging from various points in san francisco, the port being one. it was concluded that barging is more than twice as expensive as trucking. the numbers we received was $21 per ton versus $8 per ton for trucking. as an infrastructure perspective, we could consider this in the short term, but the costs and economics are not there. the department did look at other regional barging options, including barging to oakland or sacramento and from there to landfill by rail. according to art consultant, it would add $123 million to $343 million to the price of the contract over 10 years.

additional considerations make it less desirable. no landfill is directly bars accessible today. for environmental reasons, leakage as well as littere -- they are all located away from waterways. it does require double or triple handling of waste, which has a significant impact. the conclusion, following are two months of work, talking to the port, and working with the consultant, no options are cost- efficient and viable. the chairwoman mentioned two of the studies that are in the process. one of them is the lafco study. some of you may have been at the meeting on monday where an initial study was presented regarding waste management systems in the bay area and comparing the san francisco

system to other systems. what the study found was that our system is effective and we have the highest diversion rate of many counties. it is comprehensive. we of many different materials that are handled in our system. it's also cost-effective. for ratepayers, our rates are slightly below or at comparable rates. we did get confirmation from the study that the system that we have now is currently working. what we heard from the meeting on monday is that there is interest in looking at and considering franchise fees, open bidding, and contractual agreements with recology and integrating any of those elements into our current system. the lafco study was continued and the consultant is looking back to look at those elements. this is important for the collection portion of our refuse

system, which relates to the 1932 ordinance. on the first slide, there are four components of our waste system. the department of the environment and the port commission a study that looks at the port as a long-term option for an integrated waste facility. that's the first slide i showed you. this is something that we commissioned. the study is currently in process. we are working closely with the court to make sure we have all the information to determine if it is a long-term option. one thing i did want to mention, from our perspective, neither study directly informs the landfill contract that before you today. we've received a lot of questions. why act now? as you know, the contracts we currently have with waste

management is slated to expire around 2015 with our current rate of disposal. we see that there are four reasons why we think it is important for this committee, as well as the board of supervisors, to consider acting now. the first is that recology has an agreement with union pacific for the rail portion of this. our concern is the cost to rate payers may increase if the agreement is not maintained. the second reason is this city does not currently have landfill capacity to deal with a natural disaster or unforeseen event that produces large amounts of debris. we're in a situation where if one of those events occurs in our city, the current landfill capacity that we have could be quickly filled up in a day. we do not have a contingency plan. we need a long-term plan for our

waste and what it would cost the city in the possibility of an event. the third reason is -- as of november 2010, the city is now out of compliance with the state law that requires a 15-year disposal plan. this is the california public resources code that asks all cities and counties of california to have a 15-year disposal plan for its waste. that's a concern, as well. finally, there's not adequate time to redo the process before we reach a contracted capacity at altamont. when we started this process in 2003, we do not see a way to restart this process and complete it in the next couple of years considering how long it has taken us to execute the process at the department to date. i will touch briefly on this.

the facilitation agreement language that we have drafted and has been approved by the port of san francisco, the city attorney, and recology will do a few different things. the addendum, if it is adopted as part of the facilitation agreement, will commit the city to investigate new port and transportation options, including barges. it would commit to recology. recology it recology and the port to consider development of new port infrastructure and set a time certain to report on these considerations in five years and no later than that. they have all agreed to this language, as i said. the reason we went down this path in the facilitation agreement is we wanted to codify and formalize the discussions we are having with the port and ensure this is