and with a much more comfortable 11-0 vote, we are moving forward with thousands of new units of housing on treasure island. i cannot say how proud we are of our city for coming together. we have been talking about for years how important it is to build new neighborhoods, develop new affordable housing, make sure we have transit-oriented, sustainable, green development that is worthy of the 21st centuries the san francisco. what we are doing today and this year will have impact on the city for decades to come. thank you all for being a part of this. i look forward to the ribbon cutting. [applause] >> any others? ok. chris mini, on the development team, you excited us. one of the greenest developments

that you might see. the city continues to be excited because of the work you are doing, to be environmentally friendly, to have a residence that the city can be ground up route -- proud of. [applause] sf ++ my partners, we want to say thank-you to the city family.

on this happy occasion, i just want to recall how we began so many years ago with the discussion in this building that at treasure island we could not only create a new neighborhood for san francisco that set a national standard in and sustainability, but that we could do it in a new and different way than land use had been practiced in the city, and that we could come together and craft a plan together. the happiest part of the situation today is we stand with a terrific plan that was not our plan. it was a collective plan that was crafted together and in public. that long process, thanks to the leadership of supervisor kim, supervisor chiu, in this 11-0 vote. it think it to the staff and everyone who participated -- thank you to the staff and everyone who participated with us. >> finally but most importantly, you can have the greatest plans, best designs, but if he did not connect with the people who live on the island, the people who need a place to live, a decent place to live, but also be a part of this great city, i want to thank cherie williams of tida. [applause] >> thank you, mayor lee.

i want to thank the mayor. i guess he is the fourth mayor that we have worked on on this project. he pushed us over the finish line and we are grateful for that. the treasure island homeless development initiative started in 1994. this is a major milestone for us. this is really unique in san francisco. it is not just a portable housing, but it is affordable housing for people with the lowest or no income. formerly homeless families and individuals. there is also an enormous amount of opportunity for homeless people to gain jobs and job training opportunities. we wanted to acknowledge the work of supervisor kim. her and her staff worked hard over the past few months to make sure all of the goals and the plan that we have worked hard to achieve are going to be real and meaningful. thank you for the work that you did. [applause]

and over the years, we have had a really great community partnership with the treasure island development authority. the board has been amazing. they have had the vision of including low income and formerly homeless people from the ground up, from the start, so i want to thank the treasure island development authority for all of their leadership over the years. i also want to thank the director of operations. [applause] really, i know supervisor chu said that it takes a village to build a village, but it has really been that kind of story. that is why you had the 11-0 vote. it is not just city government doing something or developers doing something unilaterally, one group be more represented than another. it has been an iterative process where we have all work towards a common vision, one that will serve all san franciscans.

i want to thank the developers, too, for the integrity they brought to the table, the citizens advisory board, and all the members of the tidhi commission, residents of treasure island that have been a part of this. so really from the ground up, everyone has been a part of this to create a new san francisco neighborhood that represents all seven systems. thank you. [applause] >> i want to make sure that you know anybody can come on treasure island. right now, we are about to see that sculpture dance. are we ready to party? let us get this done.

be[applause]

>> sherri, this is for you. [applause]

supervisor chu: welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. supervisors wiener and chiu will be joining us shortly. in the meantime, if we could excuse the of your above are engaged in prior commitments. -- if we could excuse them for a few minutes.

do we have an announcement? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and have them right to myself. if you wish to submit documents, please provide a copy to the clerk. items discussed today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on july 19, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. call item one please. >> would you like item one and two? >> item 1. >> item 1, resolution approving the amendment 1 retroactive to april 14, 2011, to airport spa an amendment to the we'll look to technology stores and accessories with ilj san francisco, llc, and the city and county of sand and cisco, acting by and through its airport commission.

-- city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, members of the committee. the budget analyst report deals with items one and two. do you want me to address them together? supervisor chu: we have not yet called item two. why don't we call item two? >> item two, resolution approving the amendment 1 retroactive to april 14, 2011, to domestic terminal food and beverage with baysubway airport with luna azul corp., with guava and java inc., and with burger joint, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> thank you. the airport is seeking your

approval of two items, both relating to the temporary closure of boarding area e and mitigating the financial effects of this closure on six tenants around the boarding area. the two resolutions before you for consideration would retroactively amend the six existing leases with ilj san francisco doing business as airport wireless, airport spa sf, luna azuul do business as jalapeno grill, guava and java, and subway. we are seeking the ability to amend these leases to partially waive the minimum annual guarantee and other concessions during the renovation of the boarding area. work is expected to be completed in august 2012. the renovation will provide the airport was upgraded facilities and give us an opportunity to seismically retrofitted some of

the existing infrastructure and will also allow us to increase the concessions space throughout the boarding area. unfortunately, most of the pier is closed while we do this. obviously, it results in a pretty significant decrease in passenger traffic. with the exception of mission bar and grill, which cannot continue to operate at all, as their location is behind a construction wall. the remaining leases will continue to operate but with far less passenger traffic. airport revenue developments that as well as the budget analyst estimate that the partial minimum guarantees and fees represents a loss in revenues to the airport of approximately $470,000. airports that does believe, however, that it is likely that this amount, this revenue will be recouped at other locations as we shift passenger traffic throughout the airport.

the budget analyst recommends approval of the amendment, and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. mr. rose. >> as indicated, on page 6 of our report, the airport estimates for boeing about $469,540 in annual revenues if you approve these resolutions. however, as you know, this revenue reduction would not directly impact the airport budget because of the airport's break-even policy. we recommend that you approve both of these resolutions. supervisor chu: thank you. a question -- with regards to the break-even policy, can you explain that a bid and whether it sounds like the rate setting happens at a particular point in time. did they anticipate there would

be these renovations, and were they able to take into account the loss of revenue? >> yes. as you know, the airport budget is set at the beginning of the year with anticipated revenue coming into the airport for the year. any shortfall in the revenue would be made up by increasing rates and charges the following year. because the airport was aware that the work would be done, the loss of the $470,000 would have been contemplated in the budget and would be reflected in the rates and charges of the airport. supervisor chu: thank you. what we open up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items one and it we will? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we send these items forward to the full board with recommendation? we will do that without objection. item three, please.

>> item 3, resolution approving a contract between the department of public health and the san francisco aids foundation for rent subsidies services for people living with hiv/aids. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have some representatives from the department of public health. >> good morning, members of the committee. i am deputy director of housing and urban health, which is a section of the health department. we brought to you today a five- year agreement between dph and the aids foundation for rent subsidies and subsidies related to its subsidies for people living with hiv/aids. this is a five-year contract, therefore, we are going over the $10 million mark, and i leave this item to you. i am year to answer any questions that you have. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget

analyst report? >> madame chair, members of the committee, the existing contractor is the only contractor that responded to the rfp. the authorized amount for this proposed five-year contract -- the existing contract is two years. the average annual amount is $3.9 million, and that is the same amount -- same average annual amount for the new proposed five-year agreement. of the total $19,685,000.2009- 2010 contract, the amount budgeted each year will be $17.5 million. there was also a contingency amount of approximately $2.1 million, but that cannot be expanded unless there is an amendment or modification to the agreement, which must be approved by the board of

supervisors -- of the totaled $19,685,000 2009-2010 contract. supervisor chu: what would we expect in terms of a contingency being tapped into? >> typically what we use the contingency for is if we reallocate funds or get a grant funding. in the past it is usually relatively small amounts. we had a contract that got funding from the mental health services act, so we used the contingency that was in the contract to add additional funds. most likely, the only reason the contingency would be used on this contract is if there was some reason why they were reallocating general funds from one section of the housing and urban health program and giving it to this provider.

typically, that would be if one provider was under delivering units of services, and this provider could deliver more units. supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no further questions, why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send the item for with recommendation and a second, and we will do that without objection. i believe that we have a representative from the mta for item four, but they are on their way, so why don't we call item 5? >> item 5, resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expand so many stabilization fund dollars in the amount of $325,000 to provide housing and job readiness services, low-income residents, and workers in the south of market neighborhood. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. supervisor kim, would you like to say in the opening comments? >> i think the presentation from our staff would be appropriate. supervisor chu: ok. i believe we have claudine from moh. >> good evening. i am with the mayor's office of housing. last year, under resolution 381- 10, the full board approved an agreement between the mayor's office of housing, the community advisory committee, and the developers of 333 harrison to deliver a particular community benefits, including the construction of 49 on-site affordable rental units for households earning more than 30% of median income and supporting local hire for construction and

non-construction jobs. now, the community advisory committee is recommending to commit funds to support housing and work for services to prepare low-income soma residents and workers for the housing and employment opportunities that this would generate. a copy of the recommendations have been filed with the clerk, and there are basically two. the first is a recommendation to expend $250,000 for a grant that will go to the veterans equity center to provide case management services to prepare residents and workers for the housing opportunities that will arise out of this project as well as other affordable housing opportunities throughout the city. the second recommendation is for $75,000 to go to -- actually, the asian neighborhood design through an amendment with the contract that exists already with the office of economic and

workforce development. any questions? supervisor chu: i think that there will be some questions, but why don't we go to the budget analyst report first? >> madame chair and members of the committee, we have a table, table 1, which shows that the amount in this fund or the revenues that have been received to date since the inception -- $9,191,000 -- $1,991,923. expenditures at it from the fund from the inception to date is $4,067,518, so there is a balance in the fund of approximately $5.1 million. if you approve the $325,000, that would leave a remaining balance of nearly $4,800,000.

we point out that the requested $75,000 for the asian neighborhood design is in addition to case management services already being provided by asian neighborhood design, under a separate $50,000 community development block grant managed through the office of economic and workforce development. that contract is on a citywide basis. although the requested $75,000, which specifically targets the area, the $75,000 request for services only in the area is $25,000 more than the existing $50,000 from the community development block grant funds where in asian neighborhood design is providing such services city-wide. we also note that asian neighborhood design has been selected for this proposed $75,000 allocation without using a separate competitive process, but the department points out that a separate rfp

was not utilize for the proposed $75,000 because asian neighborhood design previously went through a process to obtain community development block grant funds, and is currently providing, as i indicated, similar services citywide. our recommendations on page 6 are, one, to approve the portion of resolution to provide $250,000 for the veterans equity center, which did go through a separate rfp process, and we state that since allocation is $75,000 to the asian neighborhood design is being made without utilizing a separate competitive process, we consider that allocation to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i was hoping that you could address one of the issues that had come up in the budget and legislative analyst's report, which is why

the grant to asian neighborhood design is $75,000, given that there are currently contracted to do city-wide work for much less. good to talk about the rationale for that dollar amount and if there is a higher expectation? >> it is up to $75,000. we actually are not committed to accepting all of it, so that is one note. the other thing is that there is a high set out comes. the committee went through a results-based accountability training where we are being very much more specific with our outcomes and what we would like to see happen with the project, so i believe that what we are asking them to do is much more targeted and specific and very case management oriented, so we are asking them to work very closely with the low-income

residents and workers of soma to provide, specifically are around the citybuild academy, to do the recruitment, to do case management throughout the entire duration of the training, which lasts for a semester through city college, and after that, what we are also adding on is to do the retention and follow-up services after they are done. supervisor kim: could you talk about how that differs a little bit from the grant they got to provide the service city-wide? >> i may just ask steve, who is here, to talk. he is more -- he can talk better about the contract than i can. supervisor kim: actually, more than describing the contract, be specific about how the grant is

different. explain why this is $75,000 just to serve one neighborhood instead of serving the city for $50,000. just the explanation for that grand amount. >> our oewd contract is city- wide, but it is vocational training. it is part of our regular 14- week cycle of training programs throughout the year. the differential here -- those services are vocational training, skills, case management, outreach, to the different neighborhoods. this contract is specific to south of market. the level of detail and that we have to go to in order to locate folks to be part of the program is part of one of the differences. we are very deep in south of market. not only are we located it, but we could also under

stabilization fund for the past year, but providing training as part of our outreach. i think the real linkage -- the two main issues is an urgency, timing, and also the linkage with citybuild. our other program for the contract is strictly within our own schedule. this one actually has a linkage with citybuild and's cycles as well as their programs. the linkage is a lot broader in that way. also, it is linked specifically to the job site. the linkage and the thai requires more coordination management. the other is the urgency of