over the place. >> i only have this one, which i am happy to hand to you is that is constructive for your conversation. commissioner moran: for clarification, up on the tv monitors -- >> mine is not. >> - ok. -- mind is ok. >> we are blessed somehow. commissioner moran: is pedestrian likening -- is pedestrian lighting located in a public right of way? it does not include all the lighting in golden gate park? >> correct. >> it does not include that. it does not include whatever

lighting there may be in dolores park. >> correct. those would stay with their current operators. commissioner moran: if there is a private development that has a wall way that they have chosen to light on their properties, it would not include that as well? >> correct. it would build off of what the city's public works code defines as a street. i will just put that definition up. it is slide 5 in your packet, and it is also inside the agenda item itself, but that is the definition. public areas between property lines. >> what is pushing us in this direction? >> it is really the better streets plan. it clearly says the expectation is when streets will -- when

streets are being improved, they will include a pedestrian lighting component. one of the most efficient ways of implementing that is to incorporate the pedestrian light on existing street light poles. so you are relying on the same circuitry. the difficulties we would have to arrange for compensation under a scenario where someone else is -- some other agency is responsible for pedestrian lighting and we remain responsible for street lights, it would be very complicated to figure out how to arrange for adequate compensation of the use of the street light poles when a pedestrian light is being coal located on it, for example. even if the same poll is not being used, the same circuits will probably be used. we will have a role in this pedestrian lighting program that the city has endorsed in the

better streets program. the question is -- what should that role be? the most efficient approach is to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of pedestrian lighting. >> commissioners, typically for this dollar amount, we probably would not have even bothered you with it, but we did bring this to your attention several months ago. we were talking about the pedestrian lighting at the fillmore jazz area, and we got the indication that maybe you did not want to go down this path. by giving you the information about the fair the minimal amount of money we're talking about and how it fits into the larger picture, we wanted to come back and revisit that. commissioner moran: is that a redevelopment project considered public right of way? >> yes. >> that is one where if we had been more involved in the beginning, we probably would have had them put differently.

>> the redevelopment situation -- is that expanding our potential reach on this? >> i thought that was the context under which we had the conversation before, was the uncertainty. >> there were other items that were not part of redevelopment with it were ready to turn the lights over to us, and we wondered if we should accept them. that was clearly one of the issues. fillmore jazz festival will development issue was going to happen whether or not the entire redevelopment issue in california change because that redevelopment area closed down anyway. >> you indicated that there was a thought about what the alternative was. what is the alternative agency for responsibility of these lights? >> it is not clear.

typically, if it is a redevelopment-sponsored project, redevelopment manages the pedestrian lighting component and looks to hand it to a city agency. they are looking to hand the existing pedestrian let's, as the general manager mentioned, to us, and we have said no because we have not received the guidance we need from you on that question. another potential candidate department would be dpw because they are otherwise responsible for aspects of the street. >> i have read through all these options, and it seems in the interest of efficiency and decision-making and being able

-- consistency of look and feel -- it just makes the most sense for pc to take this on. i mean, the cost is so minimal. with that, i would like to make a motion to approve lighting policy 1. >> second. commissioner moran: i will just add one comment to that, and that is that it does not directly relate, but for years, we have been providing power for free for street lights. as part of our new rate that we adopted, we will be collecting some revenue from that. half a cent. there is a little give and a little take at the same time. motion and a second. >> we have no speaker cards. commissioner moran: any other public comment?

any other commission,? all those in favor? oppose? the motion carries. >> the next item is closed session. if you will make a motion to assert attorney-client privilege and invite public comment on any agenda item, and then i will read them before we retired a closed session, should that be approved. commissioner moran: can i have a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? motion carries. >> we have no speaker cards. let me briefly read the adams pier 14, a threat to public services or facilities, consultation with agency chief of security. conference with legal counsel, existing litigation as defendant, pacific states environmental contractors versus city and county of san francisco. we will now retire into closed session. if people will clear the room please.

commissioner moran: could i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. commissioner moran: moved and seconded not to disclose. any discussion? public comment? all those in favor? the motion carries. >> unless there is any additional new business by any commissioners at this point, i believe there is no other business for the commission. commissioner moran: do we have any new business? >> any word on grant's trial? commissioner moran: no news there yet. ok, then, thank you. this meeting is adjourned.

supervisor chu: good morning

and welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. supervisor mirkarimi, believe, will not be joining us today. i want to wish everyone a new year and hope 2012 is a good one. victor young is our clerk of the day. do we have any announcements? >> [clerk announcements] supervisor chu: thank you. please call item 1. >> item 1. resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to retroactively accept and expend a grant from the u.s. department of housing and urban development for lead-based paint hazard reduction in the amount of $2,500,000 and program income not to exceed $200,000.

supervisor chu: thank you. we have sonya and daniel. >> the mayor's office of housing has been awarded $2.5 million from the hot office of helping homes and lead hazard control. award will provide grants to control of the volumes and homes. this is the fifth type of award in the past years. as part of the award, the mayor's office of housing has collaborated with department of public health to provide $895,000 in matching funds. 57% of those funds are from already appropriated community development block grant funds. the remaining 43% are from dph. this 43% from dph is an in kind

contribution for the award and is funded by local general fund , local revenue fund, and state funding. this contribution support dph's children's environmental health promotion and lead programs existing staff in performing lead property inspections, held investigations, and forth and of the health code, community outreach, lead testing, and public health case management. imagining the the city to compete for a larger lead hazard grant from hud by leveraging existing city funding. the award will not add any new steps to either department during the 36-month performance period. supervisor chu: thank you. you have a question from supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i was curious

about the 125 qualified units. do these units. like, have been tested, and the mediation needs to happen? >> in order to qualify, we do a series of things. most of our properties come to us from direct referral from the the part of public health, where a lead hazard has been identified. or a child with lead blood poisoning has been identified. we take those cases and do a risk assessment and the lead paint inspection. we determine what are the hazards, conditions of the paint, and then we draft a scope of work to address those hazards. we do the work, cleared it, we have to meet certain clearance levels from the department of public health. during which time, we occupied

the -- relocate the occupants, so they are not exposed to additional hazards. supervisor kim: will the grants cover all of the qualified units on the list? >> correct. supervisor kim: is it possible to get a list of where these districts and neighborhoods are located? >> i can certainly forward that to you. a lot of our work is in the 94110, 94114 zip codes. >supervisor chu: is this primarily because we see much more prevalence of lead-based paints in those areas? >> actually, there is a lead- based paint all over the city. it is more deteriorated there, so there is a greater chance of exposure. supervisor chu: thank you. there is no budget analyst

report. let's open up the item for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. may we have a motion to send item for with recommendation? without objection. thank you. item two. >> item 2. ordinance waiving the competitive bid requirements of san francisco administrative code chapter 6, approving a modified indemnification clause pursuant to the requirements of chapter 6, and authorizing the airport commission to award a contract to complete the design of a runway safety area engineered material arresting system. supervisor chu: thank you. we have cathie whitener from sfo. >> good morning. the airport is requesting a waiver of the competitive bid requirements of the sentences

and administrative code chapter 6. the approval of a modified indemnification clause in order to award a contract to complete the federally required design of a runway safety area, also known as the rsa. the board of supervisors approved a feasibility study for this project in may 2010. some brief background on the project. the faa regulates the runways at san francisco international airport and enforces requirements for runway layout, land, and safety. the faa has required commercial airports that receive federal grant funds must come to the extent possible, implement runway safety areas. runway safety area enhancements -- are enhancements of cleared and gray areas at the end of runways, meant to minimize damage to passengers and aircraft in the case that the aircraft travel beyond the

runway service area. in 2005, the faa prepared an improvement plan which mandated all commercial airports that do not have the ability to accommodate the 1,000 feet beyond the end of each run away, install and engineered arresting system by december 31, 2015 of the airport's four runways, the staff was able to look at a variety of options and was able to modify our two longer runways, in order to achieve the 1,000 feet safety distance. however, our two shorter runways, 1l, 19r, are bordered by the 101 and san francisco bay. in this case, we were not able to provide the space required, so now we are using a credible concrete material at the end of each of the shorter runways.

the airport is requesting a waiver of the competitive bid requirements in order to enter into a $420,000 contract with engineered arrested systems corporations to design the material arresting system at the end of the shorter runways. they are the only company that the faa has approved to provide this material. additionally, because the use information provided by airport staff in order to design the system, such as type of aircraft, volume, a number of landings, and are not able to verify this data independently, they have proposed rise indemnification language to limit the responsibility for any problems that result from their design but then can be traced to false information the received. the city attorney's office and city risk manager have both found a modified indemnification language is reasonable, based on the unique situation, and the

fact it is necessary to enter into this agreement in order to comply with federal mandate. the budget analysts office has recommended approval, and i would be happy to answer questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. this is an ability for the department to go forward with a for the $20,000 planning contract. in terms of implementation, we do not know what that costs will be until after the planning process? -- $420,000 planning contract. >> that is included in the capital budget and fiscal feasibility study. this is just asking your approval to enter into an agreement with this particular company, as they are the on the one that can provide material that the faa has required we use, since we cannot accommodate the 1,000 feet at the end of the shorter runways. supervisor chu: in terms of implementation, after the study period, after we decided with

the organization, there is already a budget for that? >> yes. supervisor chu: do you know what that level is? >> not off the top of my head, but i would be happy to get that break down for you. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> good morning, supervisors. happy new year. the cost, as indicated, the faa has only approved the engineering arresting systems corp., which has a proprietary design for use of this material at airports, and because the city attorney has determined it is reasonable to provide this modified indemnification, we are recommending approval of the proposed resolution. i would also note, the $420,000

cost has already been approved in airports budget. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send item for with recommendations. without objection. item three. >> item 3. resolution approving amendment no. 1 to boarding area "f" principal retail concession lease no. 04-0139 between pacific gateway concessions, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you. we also have kathy widener on this report. >> the airport is requesting that this item be tabled. i apologize. the request to withdraw the early termination did not occur

before it appeared on the calendar, due to some timing issues. the contract will expire next month, so we do not need to terminate early. i apologize for the confusion. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to table the item. without objection. item four, please. >> item 4. resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification no. 1 of lease l00-0464 at plot 6 with united air lines, inc., at san francisco international airport to: 1) extend the term; 2) reduce the demised premises; 3) modify the annual rent; 4) provide for a deferred city improvements payment to city; and 5) provide for certain terms of retroactivity relating to the

rent and the deferred city improvements payment. supervisor chu: thank you. this is the last airport item. kathy widener. >> the airport is seeking your approval for modification #one to its ground lease with a united airlines in order to extend the term of the lease and to reduce the premise by approximately 3.5 acres. this current lease between united and the airport consists of 16.04 acres, known as plot six, including building five, 75, and 85 at the airport. it is located on north mcdonnell the road, adjacent to the international terminal on the g side, and is used for various aviation functions. the proposed modification seeks

to amend our existing 12-year lease with united to retroactively extend the term by an additional 10 years, from july 1, 2011, to june 30, 2021, in order to produce the current promises to account for the airport has subleased back from indicted since october 2008. this was necessary in order to accommodate various airport provisions that needed to be relocated as a result of lost space during terminal to construction. modification #one will reduce united's annual rent on this plot from approximately $2 million annually, to $1.6 million annually. based on the reduction of space airport now uses permanently for employee offices. it is known as sfo business center. the airport has been subleasing this approximately 39,000 sq.

ft. in building 575, as well as employee parking spaces back from united, for two years, from july 1, 2009 through june 38, 2011, for $985,000 a year. this two years of payment to united has been put towards the approximately $2.4 million of a remediation of hazardous material that was required in the building before we could move employees in. united is responsible for these costs. when you apply the two years of rent from the airport to the $2.4 million in the remediation that was necessary, that leaves a balance of $696,000 that united will pay to the airport for the removal of this material. the modification allows for an ongoing least for aviation- related services with our largest air carrier, will also accommodate additional space the

airport needed for employee offices. happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> debra newman. as indicated, this is a land lease with united airlines reducing the amount of space they have from 16.04 acres, to 12.55 acres. united airlines currently pays $129,743 per acre now under the proposed lease, united airlines would pay $139,900, about $1,000 more. because of the reduction in acreage, the total will be a reduction of $443,000 in annual revenue to the airport. however, as shown on page five

of our report, although there would be a reduction from the immediate release that is being opposed, because of additional subleases that would be terminated by the airport, where the airport has been paid over $1 million to united airlines to sublease some space, and then a permit that the airport would enter into with united airlines for an additional $550,000 of revenue in building 575, the net affect, if approved, and subsequent subleases and permits are entered into separately, would result in about $1.1 million of additional revenue to the airport. as was also indicated, there is an additional $696,000 of remediation payments still owed by united airlines to the airport, which will likely be paid in monthly installments

over the next five years. we, therefore, recommend approval of the legislation. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: could you describe the retroactive status of the agreement? >> two things going on. the airport was not certain if we would be able to recapture the office space we lost in terminal 2. we are trying to be strategic about the space we needed to take back from united, -- if it was going to be temporary to accommodate construction, or permanent. it turned out to be permanent. the second issue, united and continental emerged during this time. we were dealing with a whole new set of property folks in chicago, who had not dealt with before, and were not part of the