>> hello. welcome to the regular meeting. i am carmen chu. i am joined by kim. we have bill and michael. mr. young, do we have any announcements? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out the speaker card. items at the dupont de will appear before the board of supervisors agenda.

>> will you call in number one? >> resolution for the terms of 2011. airline/airport lease. this is l-182. this is to conduct the international flight operations. >> thank you very much. >> good morning. the airport is requesting your approval of a new lease for approximately nine years and seven months to the airport lease agreement. the terms are identical to the leases that have been approved with the use agreement.

police and use agreement is the mechanism that ensures the annual payment to the city through june of 2021. under the terms of this new lease, we anticipate revenue of $32 million over the term of the lease which would start december 1, 2011. this includes landing fees and terminal rentals, and exclusive rent space to the terminal. the term of this lease is the same as the 38 previously approved leases, and the new airline leases will be brought to the board over the next year as the additional airlines

signed on to this agreement. -- >> thank you, why don't we go to the budget analyst report. -- >> let me just add that swiss air, right now is on a monthly basis so this simply will transfer that least or that permit into along-term lease, nine years and seven months. after that agreement they would pay approximately 25% less for the landing fees. and the airlines would enter into long-term leases, rather than staying on monthly permits. the total estimated revenue over the term of the lease is about

$32.7 million. this is detailed in the attachment on page 5. we recommend that you approved a lot -- the resolution -- >> other members of the public who wish to speak? public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations. item #2? >> this is establishing for the year 2011 and 2012, to the california constitution. -- >> we have the comptroller's office -- >> did morning. every year, the controller has to calculate the city and county appropriation limit as established by the state

constitution. this is based on the change in population and the cost of living. the population change was a little bit under 1%. in doing so, this was 2 billion, $527 million. the actual cost of this is $280 million less. the board of supervisors is required to pass a resolution confirming that this calculation has been performed in the city and county is operating within that limit and this is before you this morning. -- >> let's go to the budget analyst report -- >> we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> and are there any members of

the public who wish to speak on this item? >> i lived in san francisco for 59 years. i come forward right now to oppose this resolution. my opposition is not based on the resolution itself but the subject matter. in my opinion, i feel that district 4 has not been represented and i have been impressed by these people and i am opposing this resolution in the spirit of what has been -- opposing what has been going on in district 4. --

>> seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion to move this item forward without recommendation. will you call items 3 and 4. >> this is to submit an application to the office of housing and redevelopment for $1.50 million, and any such amendments, for any related documents in these programs. item number four, the resolution supporting the community development block grants for the plant goal. -- >> for these items, the mayor's office of housing -- >> let me talk about item number

three. the california department of housing and community development puts out the development for the programs that support home ownership, and the loans for the low-and come families, offering the city the opportunity to receive dollars from the state for mortgage assistance and assistance for home rehab. this year for 2011 the state has offered the chance to request $1.50 million and we are seeking the position to apply for this program and we have been successful applicants each year that the application has been made available. this will serve approximately 19 households, with the individual

can receive $19,000 for mortgage assistance, with 13 families receiving approximately $60,000 towards their home rehab. we should be hearing back at the end of the year and if we are successful we will come back to you for this program. -- >> the $1.50 million is roughly on par with what we have had in the past? >> this is the maximum that you can apply for a period we have received the maximum and we split this, with the mortgage assistance program. -- >> thank you. -- >> item #4 is the resolution --

this is really a resolution to allow you to see the goals that have been proposed, to support -- to plan, letting you know that we do plan to release the requested proposals and -- we have the joint committee, the released their recommendations for next year, and this is not great news for us. this is not supported to the actual request for the proposal. this is administered through the program. one of the primary sources of

funding for new construction and the low-income families. this is targeted for a 38% cut. this will be disastrous for the new construction in that program. the home program has been targeted, not based on any work through our jurisdiction, and there have been some examples where this was not used as effectively. this amount will remain the same as last year. we will see a 15% cut. it will probably be another 15%

cut within the public services grant program. this amounts to $100,000 along this portion -- this will be a struggle when we come to you in the spring for the official acceptance. we don't know the exact dollars. we have the precise amount, we will have a 15% cut. and we will let you to the fact that this is going out. we will let you know about some of the issues that will rise. and we will go to the proposal review process.

when will this be completed, and when will we hear about the specific cuts. and the early indications of where they may be going. >> we will be receiving these proposals back. we did not actually i would anticipate that by the time we come to you with this recommendation, i would have the final numbers.

we would come to the budget and finance committee. we're hoping for april 25. there was the -- there were higher levels than were originally anticipated, being at a lower level. this went through the committee. can you explain a bit about what you want for this to look like. can you talk about where the transparency will come in. >> at the time we were doing the review process, at this time, since the house and committee --

we will be going through this service -- this specific number. this does not mean that there will not be some changes. this was at 32%. we have a lack of clarity from congress. we'll make every attempt and we have a conference -- we should know what to expect to this process. depending on the funding availability, we have done this in the past offer them as much as possible through this process. >> and this is the first year

you will go through this process. >> this is through the feedback that you have received. >> in terms of the three-year timeline, this is the planning process -- and is this the basis that you have come to end the city's budget will be going through a three-year budget. >> it will allow for us to continue with the consolidated plan. >> thank you. these items to not have a budget analysts report with them. we will open these items for public comment. i will speak on item #3 and item number four. public comment is closed.

i have a motion to send item three and four forward with recommendations and we will do this without objection. item #5? >> item #5 -- for the san francisco department of public health, to expand -- retroactively a grant for the city of -- center of disease control in the amount of $167 to fund the assessment for the sustainable development, through august 31, 2012. >> good morning, supervisors. the department of public health is receiving money from the centers for disease control for this practice. we have been practicing the health impact assessment -- we

have done about 18 projects, with the transportation agency. this is similar to the -- the decision makers of the mitigation. this project will support our work, with the planning and development agencies, with the routine planning process. we are going to focus on using these tools for the quality risk reduction plan -- and we're using these tools with the regional transportation agency and the regional transportation plan. i think that over the long run, if this is successful this year, we can expect a few more years of funding at this rate.

the department has decided where this is most useful. we have a lot of community and agency partners right now. we would really like to be making more collected determinations where and how this practice is most useful in solving the board as well. i would appreciate your support. -- how this is most useful in solving the board as well. >> why don't we open this up for public comment? is anyone that like to speak on item number five? >> good morning, i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. i would like to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward. after working for the department of public health, i am a firm

believer that every dollar is necessary to run this department adequately. hopefully, all of this money is not going to be wasted on inefficiencies and other explanations. in my opinion, barbara garcia is doing a good job and in a certain sense, i don't think too many people have missed dr. katz recently. in summary, i think that this is a good resolution. i think that they're doing a good job. thank you. >> thank you. >are there other members of the

public that wish to speak on item number 5? we have a motion to move forward with recommendation and a second and we will do that without objection. item number six please. >> item number six, ordinance approved in the second amendment to the contact between the city and county of san francisco and at the united states, through the department of energy western area power administration, for delivery of low-cost power and scheduling coordinator services to treasure island and the yerba buena island. >> we bring to you today the second amendment to our existing contract with the western area power administration for providing full load services to treasure island.

the treasury currently provide services to treasure island and yerba buena island. the puc entered into an agreement with the department of energy for the delivery of clean low-cost federal power. this provides an allocation of electricity from two federal projects and it provides a clean power to treasure island. in the event that this is not sufficient from these projects come on the puc entered in 2005 into a full load service contract with western area power administration. that contract went through 2010

and it was amended in 2007 to extend it from 2010 until 2015. this would extend the contract from 2015 through october of 2020. >> does that complete your presentation? >> if you would like, i can go over the details in the budget analyst report. >> please. >> so, the time we are looking at is from 2015 through 2020. in order to do that, i looked at

the existing electricity usage and treasurer of lynde which is much less than what was projected in 2015. this existing news goes to about 17,000-18,000 megawatt hours and that is because of the existing residential which is on the island which is about 2000 people and the facilities that are there today. we have taken into account the projected load that has been provided by the community development and the development project that is scheduled to happen. the way we figured it was that it got the total projected load and then subtracted from that the historical amount of based

resourced energy that has been provided by the power administration and we subtract that from the projected load to get to the supplemental power that we would need for this contract. the base contract provides the base resourced energy and a the contract that we are presenting today for amendment provides for the supplemental energy, energy to meet the demand on the island. in the future time frame, we have calculated that there is going to be a need for additional supplemental energy because of the growth that is anticipated and that is what is reflected on the report. we are asking for an increase in the contract amount that is reflected in the report to be

9,643,000 based on the projected energy that will be consumed at that time. the way we got to that number was that we looked at the forward price curbs on the market that would probably be the cost of the power that western would have to procure. >> in terms of base electricity, if the demand exceeds what we have the capacity provides, we

go to another source for additional power. is that the way that this contract works? >> currently, there is no power that is delivered to treasure island through another entity, this is through wapa. >> the budget analyst reports on this but we did not seek a competitive process for the additional power and the reason was -- >> the reason for doing that was that we don't have the infrastructure that goes to treasure island that the city owns. that is the first one. there was an existing contract that we inherited from the navy when they operated at the island. this thirthe third was the low t

existed in 1998. they have it'll it'll get better pricing for the delivery of energy. the power enterprises looking at other ways at this point to possibly deliver had ceci energy to treasure island. >> why don't we go to the budget

analyst report? >> madame chair and members of the committee, in that last point based on our understanding, based on what we're hearing is that this was on a sole source basis which was approved by the board of supervisors and this would continue on a sole source basis. i would add that the cost of this is going up significantly for the supplemental power, about 200% but this is because of the development of treasure