goal is to not have as much going on in the urgent care sector because we really want those people have longitudinal care, and we hope to be able to engage them and do a better job in referring them to primary care, not necessarily all at this clinic, but in our whole network of primary clinics. >> your staffing levels are different for urgent care compared primary, correct? >> yes. >> thank you. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item four? >> thank you. i am here with the senior project manager, who has been overseeing the project since 2007. i just wanted to add a couple of quick comments. first, i really wanted to thank the department of public health and department of real estate for all their work putting this together over the past year, or depending on how you look at it, five years. second, i wanted to bring to your attention we are really

pleased in a joint application between tndc and the department of public health we won a very prestigious and very competitive national award for the project from the corporation for supportive housing for money that originated with the federal government that will bring at least $800,000 over the next two years. in a demonstration project, this will help us pay for services there, and virtually all of the money will accrue to the part of public health in terms of reducing their contribution to the ongoing operations of the facility, and it is essentially a renewal for another three years. overall, the project really represents just this wonderful partnership with a vision that honestly originated in marks mind more than five years ago that has come to fruition.

this is the single biggest rehab that the office of housing as ever undertaken. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker. no other speaker? if there are no other members of public who wish to speak on the atom, i'll close public comment. supervisor kim: i just wanted to say i'm really excited to see this item come before us. it is something i've been hearing about, and i just wanted to say, having visited the center, it is really amazing to see how committed our staff and doctors are to our homeless and formerly homeless clientele, and some of our most difficult constituents love that clinic and sit on the advisory board. it is really amazing to see the relationship that has been built in that community. so i'm excited to see some of the service's move into the tenderloin directly and also very excited about the rehab of the former central ymca and the housing that will be built there

as well. and happy birthday to tndc. supervisor chu: thank you. i think the public speaker just spoke about a competitive grant that was awarded to this partnership. will that help to differ in operational costs at this new site? will it help defray any of these because we're talking about, or just operational components? >> he was referring to a grant going to the housing portion, and it will defray -- it has defrayed, actually, the budget ask we would have had for the support services within the building. so it was really great to get that. it would have been bundled as our so-called housing pipeline asked that the department has with a new project comes on board. this is at least giving us three years of those costs, and hopefully, 5. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we've heard public comment and staff information on this item. do we have a motion? supervisor kim: motion to

approve. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send the item forward as a committee report to the meeting of may 15, and we will do that without objection. thank you. item five. >> item 5, resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to negotiate and execute wastewater enterprise sewer system improvement program funded agreement no. cs-169 central bayside improvements to provide planning and engineering services for an amount not to exceed $30 million with the duration of 108 months. >> thank you very supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a representative from the puc on this item. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing this item today. i am the pc project manager. the resolution before you for approval is an agreement between

the city and the joint venture as a team to provide engineering and planning services for the source system improvement project in an amount not to exceed $30 million. it is a nine-year contract. this project is of critical importance and must move forward quickly because currently the pop station and maine are the only convey its infrastructure to transport almost 2/3 of our waste water flow from the northeast and central bayside system to the southeast plant for treatment. if we could go ahead and show you the map on the screen please. i just wanted to point out that this is what we call a channel pump station, located at the end of mission creek, right within

the mission bay development. you see this black line here? that is what we call the channel for its main, a pressure pipe -- 66-inch pressure pipe built in the early 1980's, and it has failed three times due to seismic and other reasons. all that flow comes to the southeast plant. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: on that one main, what was the life expectancy of it? built in 1981 failed three times, is that consistent with what was expected? whether other problems noticed

afterwards? >> it was built to standards at the time, and the challenge is that it goes through various different type of ground conditions. there is some solid ground. it depends on basically the line being a fairly long run, and as far as expected life, we typically expect our mechanical systems to last somewhere around 20 years for the mechanical systems. we would expect it to last more in order of 100 years. it just depends on the type of sewer system components we are talking about. it is a critical component of our system. we believe there is definitely a

vulnerability to the system, and we want to address that. these are reasons why the puc commission has endorsed the project. it is a very long project because it requires substantial time for planning and engineering before we get any kind of construction, so that is why it is a nine-year duration contract. i guess there is always a question of what happens when we have a failure. the worst-case scenario is we would have wastewater build up in the system along the shoreline, but it will overflow if we do not get the name to be operational in a very quick time frame, which usually is within

-- we're looking at probably about 12 to 18 hours for us to be able to handle any kind of rupture. supervisor chu: just to clarify, if there is a rupture, you have about 12 hours or so roughly to fix it? otherwise, the backup or the storage capacity you have along the waterfront there would not be able to handle it? you would start to see spillage into the bay? >> a depends on the system capacity at the time of the failure. if we have what we call it the embarcadero road way, we have boxes, big boxes under there. i of those boxes are relatively and become a we have more storage capacity that will give us a little more time -- if those boxes are relatively and the -- i of those boxes are relatively -- if those boxes are relatively empty, we have more

storage capacity. as with the board that there will be additional benefits we hope to address from flooding in low-lying areas in the south of market area, and we believe that that is going to be benefiting our entire system for the channel and click basis, which pretty much cover all the way down to the county line, so i just wanted to point that out. it is a very large area we want to address with this project. all the waste water flows pretty much flow down into the system where we collect and capture that. supervisor chu: from the budget analyst report, i just wanted to understand -- the current system is a pumping system, is that correct? the change would be to a gravity-led system? >> that is one of the alternatives we are looking at, not relying on another

mechanical pumping system, but instead a deep gravity tunnel, gravity system from the location of the channel called station all the way to the southeast plant. supervisor chu: that is not something that has been determined yet, but it is an option? >> this is something we want to go through the engineering and planning to make sure it is the right alternative for us. we do not want for you to decide any options right now. all options are on the table. we are really excited as part of this project that we would be able to provide some community benefits. that includes almost $1 million of funding for cash contributions to the community based on non-profits and also $850 worth of volunteer labor hours. that was proposed by the

consulting team. it was not required. we ask the consulting team for what they could do as part of the community benefits policy to provide a benefit to us as part of performing work on this contract, and that was what they propose. it is not a cost we would pick for our other contract. it is not a cost that we would pay the consulting team. with that, i hope that we covered the most important items here, and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: thank you. i do have just a few questions with regards to the impact to ratepayers. can you speak generally to what the $30 million would cost to people's store bills on an average basis. >> for the $30 million contract amount, so we finance the cost

over 30 years, and that is how will will be funding this work, it will be paid for by bond. assuming a borrowing cost of 5% over 30 years, we expect that the average san francisco ratepayer would have to pay about 34 cents more per month over 30 years. these amounts have already been included in the approved wastewater rates. that is in place through fiscal year 2013-2014. supervisor chu: currently, are you folks generally seen in bonds issued at a more preferable rate than 5%? >> the commercial paper, the bonds we have gotten much more favorable rates previously in the past year, but we do not know what the future will hold. right now, we are projecting five%. supervisor chu: with regard to

the community benefit component, i wanted to spend a little more time on that piece of it. many of us would agree that having community benefits from a contractor is good, a very positive thing. one of the things that i'm concerned about in this, and perhaps you could explain this, is that you are using a bond in order to pay for this project, so to the extent that you have a bond paying for a community benefit, that would not technically be legal. i think you started to mention that the costs are not borne by this contract. it is something the contractors are doing above and beyond. can you explain this a little bit better? and i guess, this is not a cost -- >> yes, this is not a cost we would pay for the contractor. it is purely for contributions and volunteer hours that they would do outside of the invoicing for payment of the contract, so it is not addressed in the 30-million-dollar contract amount -- $30 million contract amount at all. as far as the legality of the

community benefits program, we have had discussions with the city attorney's office that have been reviewed by the city attorney's office carefully, and i believe that it was perfectly for us to incorporate this requirement in our contract, for the proposal to provide community benefits that would be of benefit to the entire city. supervisor chu: i see that mr. kelly would like to add a few words. i even speak to the general request. how is it we have gone forward with requesting or asking different contractors about what their community contributions are? >> assistant general manager for the san francisco public utilities. one of the things that as part of our community benefits that we wanted to look at that we have all these consultants and

contractors doing work for the puc. what we wanted to do was ask every consultant that worked with us what they can do to help the community that is no cost to the project or to the puc. we are finding a lot of consultants will donate time and donate proceeds because they typically give money away for different causes, and they will get it and participate with the puc. this is the second time we have included it into our contract theory the first time was on the store system improvement program, program management contract, which was $150 million, and they came up with a three-prong approach. they said they would hire 15 students the day -- i mean, a summer, for the summer, and work on various parts of their consulting contracts.

the second thing they will say -- they were willing to do is teach hours in our contract assistance center on the cost of putting the proposal together, doing cost estimating. they will fall into those hours. the third was to help build capacity of the lbe's on their team. this is really no cost to the contractor or the puc. we felt that if you do not ask, you shall not receive, and all this is good work that they are willing to do, and it would probably give it to someone else, so we are asking what they can do as part of helping us get back to the citizens that we serve. supervisor chu: how are you able to determine that there is no cost to the puc on these community items? >> another component of our selection process is that we do overhead and profit. basically, they propose what their overhead rates, which will include services that they

cannot directly charged to the project. this team and other teams, we have what the rates should be, and if you are below a certain rate, you get certain points. as long as most of the vendors -- this matter gave us a very favorable overhead rate, which was lower than any other contract we had received. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? them the proposed resolution would approve a nine-year contract for professional services engineering services with a joint venture of and not to exceed amount of $30 million. the contractor was selected our rfp process. we recommended amending the proposed resolution, following up on the discussion you just

had with mr. kelly, to require puc to submit a written report at least annually to the board of supervisors on the community benefit program, starting in 2014 once the community benefit program is up and running, basically to really spell out who the cash contribution is going to, how much has gone to them, and what it is for pure also, giving 850,000 hours in a volunteer labor, and again to spell out what the program is, who is providing these hours, with the hours are being contributed to, what it is that they are doing so that the board gets, you know, satisfactory information on this program. we recommend approving the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you very much for that. are there any other members of the public wish to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, to the item.

supervisor avalos: motion to accept. supervisor chu: ok, we have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation to move the item forward as an end to the may 15 meeting as a committee report, and we can do that without objection. thank you very much. if you could, with the amended language, said that new legislation reflective of the reporting requirement to our car, i think by noon tomorrow -- monday, sorry. -- reflective of the reporting requirement to our clerk. ok, final item, 6. >> item 6, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code to set a threshold of $100,000 or more for board of supervisors approval of the acceptance and expenditure of grants or increases in grants. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm with the officer's supervisor wiener, who was unable to attend this afternoon. legislation allows the province to accept and amend grants legislatively when they are less than $100,000. last week at the budget committee hearing, amendments were considered to the legislation that would also allow departments to accept increases to grants as long as cumulatively the grant amount did not exceed $100,000. additionally, any increase to a grant that has been previously accepted by the board of supervisors could also be excepted administratively controller guidelines as long as the increase was less than $50,000. that was discussed at the last committee hearing. we are not offering additional amendments. on behalf of the supervisor, i ask that the legislation be forwarded to the full board as a committee report with a positive recommendation. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. again, the item was continued from a previous meeting where we

did take an amendment. i did not believe there is any budget analyst report on this item. if there are no questions, i will open up for public comment period are the members of the public who wish to speak on item 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, to the item. supervisor kim: motion to approve the committee report. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send the item forward. we can do that without objection. thank you. we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

>> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the

city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big,

community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org. >> welcome to the meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is michael garcia. joining him is -- to my left is the deputy city attorney. she will provide the board with any legal advice this evening.

i am the board's executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from the city departments to have cases before us. they are here representing the environmental help regulatory program of the department of public health. at this time, if you would please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all cell phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these

parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. the number of bottles. to assist the board any accurate preparations of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak our past, but not required, to submit a speaker cards when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. the board of this is located at 1650 mission st., room 0304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco and government television.

dvd's are available directly from sfgtv. we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board did your testimony evidence here wait, please stand and raise your right hand. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath. thank you. do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. we have one housekeeping item that has to do with item number seven.

that appeal has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. we will take public comments from anyone who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar. please step forward. >> good evening, members of the board. i stood in front of you on january 18 when a neighbor appealed the construction project begun at our building. that night, we were all told that the back sunroom porches would not be reconstructed or remodeled. the staircase would be carried out swiftly. plans were unfurled at this very podium that had highlighted remarks stating that no wo