post cards and e-mails and door-to-door contact. and i want to mention about the north panhandle neighborhood group. with they took a survey of the residents, 80% of the people supported. >> elias sumari. the last person that submitted a card. >> i am elias and i bike on masonic going to trader joes and places north of presidio. it's crazy and scary and i try to avoid it. but most of the time i try to avoid it. sometimes i ride on the sidewalk because i am afraid. someone said she is scared to death to lose the parking.

and i am scared to ride on it, anyone with a parking as a fundamental right, shouldn't be living in san francisco. i am excited to see the changes after all of these years. i guess that's it. >> thank you. >> any other member of the public wishes to address the board that has not spoken? >> i am going to close the public hearing. >> aye.

>> this passines. >> i want to say i thank you for all of your work on this. i know that you were personally involved with mill's vigil and reaching out to the family. i hope they aware of this. >> a motion and second. any further discussion? >> first to those who have come down to say they are concerned about parking or driving and all of this. we welcome your voices here. you shouldn't feel shame of voicing your views about what you want for your neighborhood. i hope that is some response to you and comments made. that said i favor this program. i think it will enhance safety. i ha i have voiced my one concern. we need to look at ways to be

sure that traffic flows evenly. and there is confusion when the director and i spoke, and the offers. i hope you look at no turn restriction on the northbound masonic at feld. i think that will cause congestion. i want to address that and note that. >> we have a motion and second to approve the resolution as amended. >> aye. >> ayes have it. thank you. >> item 13, approving proposed policies. >> there are no speakering cards.

whereas clause the word proposed has removed from the fifth, sixth, seventh language whereas clauses. inserting language for policy. the whereas clause would read, the management of policies that affirm existing parking management practices and continues as is. and deleting the word "proposed" out of sixth whereas. and on the eighth whereas and the language inserting: as a separate policy proposal. and the language is the same. mta will consider reform to better reflect the needs. and then with read to the result

clause. deleting the words "approved the proposed" and inserting the affirmed parking policy for approving for parking management. >> deal with the amendment first. does a member of the board. >> motion to approve. >> second. >> so we have that. on the item itself, members want to discuss. we have a written report. >> we had this at policy and governance and we had a discussion about it. and i believe we were all pretty much on the same page in improving it. >> i was surprised, did i read this correctly, no other city in the country has done this. putting these together, as far as we know? >> as far as we know, these are

policies and practices that have been in place for years that reflect the engineering judgment of our transportation professionals. they have not for us been documented and codified in one place. and the clarifying amendment to the resolution was to clear up confusion among the public. whether we were implementing something new than documenting the existing practices. and any changes that we make in traffic will always come to you. we are starting practices, and anything that we contemplate there, we will take through an exhaustive public process. this item is articulating and documenting existing policy. >> we have not done that and this is fine. members of the public didn't understand this.

there were a number of things. >> i wanted to commend the staff for putting together such a great report. i thought it was fascinating. learned a lot. the parking program was brilliant and helped me to inform this decision. >> okay, we have -- >> not specific to this item, but i expected this to be in the policy breakdown. we hear a lot from the public on the meters on holidays. and i realize that's a separate item, and one that i shouldn't

bring up at this hour of day. but i would like to find out more about that at another board meeting. and since we put that in place, and how it's been working out. and has it been effective and promote what we want, parking turn over and what is it costing us per what we are getting from it. that's separate but related. >> you are right, we get a lot of comments about fourth of july and labor day. >> part of that is selfish, i want to have an intelligent answer to respond. >> anything else? so the amendment first. we have a motion and second on the amendment, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> ayes have it. and on the amended resolution. >> motion.

>> second. >> all in favor? >> ayes. >> ayes have it. and no closed legal session. >> no closed legal session. >> that's a shame. >> thank you, mrs. morley. thank you everyone. we are adjourning in memory of mr. baker. >> thank you. [gavel] welcome to the regular

board of supervisors meeting. i'm supervisor chu, avalos, our clerk and we have jennifer low and scott wiseman. madam clerk, any announcements? >> yes, please silence cell phones, electronic devices. complete cards and copies of documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. item acted upon will be on the october 23rd, 2010 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call items one and two. >> resolution approving issuance of -- up to 502 million of the san francisco plan bonds. * item 2, ordinance appropriating 543,200,0030 of proceeds for sale of bonds to the airport commission for fiscal year 2012 * 2013. >> thank you. for this item we have kathy

weiner from the airport. these came before the budget and finance last week. we made a change to the dollar amount. for that reason we had to continue these to allow for public comment. to ms. weisner to items one and two, resolution approving issuance is 502,200,000 versus appropriation at 543,200,000. so i'm wondering if you can explain the difference. >> yes, chair chu, supervisor kim. kathy weisner. * it is my understanding the airport has prior approval on a previous sup taition that would provide the difference. i'm joined by the business finance manager at the airport. if you have specific questions about that. i also understand it is addressed in this difference and the previous approval is addressed in the budget analyst report. >> we want to make sure that is the correct amount for appropriation or

issuance versus appropriation. >> it is. >> thank you. to the budget analyst s there anything else you would add to this? * >> thank you. madam chair, supervisor kim, only that we recommend approval. >> thank you. why don't we open these up for public comment? are there members wishing to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send these forward with recommendation. we will do that without objection. thank you very much. item 3, please. >>the clerk: resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into fifth amendment between the city and san francisco and en pointe technology sales. >> thank you. would you call items four and five. >> item four, resolution authorizing office of contract administration to enter into fifth amendment between city and county of san francisco and xtech to

67,890,000. item five, resolution authorizing city office of contract administration to enter into third amendment between city and cct technologies contract limits to $34,460,000. >> thank you. for these three we have bill jones. >> good morning, supervisors. bill jones, office of contract administration purchasing. today i'm here to request your approval of these three resolutions for amendments to the technology store products contracts with computer land, en pointe and xtech. with your approval these will increase contract not to exceed limits, extend term by one year to december 31st, 2013 and update standard contractual clauses.

the requested increases are for computer will have an, 9,970,000 to 4,463,000. to en pointe, 15,660,000 to not to exceed new amount of $54,150,000. for extech, 16,400,000, not to exceed 67,890,000. oca calculated these requested increases based on average expenditures from january 2, 09 to july 2012 and extrapolated the end of the new contract term as december 31st, 2013. we included a two-month contingency. short background of the technology store, it is a program that provides

departments with prequalified vendors which provide a wide range and variety of i.t. products and services at competitive prices and in a timely manner. the vendors were selected through a competitive process. the original contracts were approved by the board of supervisors by resolution in december 2008. the contract terms starting january 1st, 2009 was for three years with two one-year options to extend. one option to extend has been exercise and current term ends this december 31st 2012. this is made up of amendments before you and a micro setaside program. vendors compete within the technology store. these are requirements contracts, meaning they are available to city departments on an as-needed basis. the contract value is an administrative cap, not a

commitment by the city to spend that amount. rather departments may order from any of the vendors using departmental funds that have been improved by the board of supervisors in the budgetary process and certified by the controller. oca intends to conduct a new competitive process for the technology store in 2013 and to develop new contracts to replace the expiring contracts prior to the december 31st, 2013 term. given the estimated values, oca would be returning to the board of supervisors after that process with resolutions to seek its approval for new contracts over $10 million. i'm available for your questions, supervisors. >> thank you. just as you mentioned, the contract has two abilities or two times we can actually extend the contract. this will be the last of the two. >> this will be the last of the two. >> was oca planning to do and will plan a new rfp

process? >> definitely. we plan that for 2013 so new contracts would be in place. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> thanks. madam chair and supervisor kim, as you know, all of these increased expenditures are subject to board of supervisors appropriation approval. we have reviewed the calculations of the oca. we concur for increased amounts and recommend you approve resolutions. >> thank you. why don't we open these for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 3, item 4 or item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send item 3, 4, 5 forward with recommendations? >> yes. >> we have a motion to do that. we can do that without objection. item 6, please. >> item number 6. resolution approving and authorizing an amendment to the lease of the union square garage.

>> thank you very much. we have both from mta on this item. >> thank you, supervisors, for hearing this item. what is before you is an amendment to the lease of the union square garage or uptown corporation between recreation park department and the uptown parking corporation. it is required because, as you know, the mta redeemed the outstanding revenue bonds on four of our nonprofits. and as part of that redeeming that the prior leases were no longer effective. so we have to enter into a new lease or as two of the garages have chosen is enter into an advisory capacity, not a lease. out of the four nonprofits, two of the nonprofits will no longer continue to have a lease structure but uptown, which includes center stockton managed by

the mta and union square will continue to have a lease. japan center, which did not have outstanding debt also wanted to continue a lease. so this amendment before you gives us 180-day window to come back to you with a new negotiated lease without the bond debt service but bond issues associated with that new lease. we be back before you along with recreation park department in 180 days from the board of supervisors approval for you to approve a new lease with uptown corporation as well as japan center. so i will be happy to answer questions. i think the budget analyst did a good job about summarizing. we agree with the recommendation and have sent you revisions to both resolution and the loose to have a termination -- 180-day termination rather than a month-to-month provision, so we are okay with that. >> okay. >> last, i want to say there is somebody from uptown, if you have questions for the uptown

corporation. >> thank you. i see we have representatives from reck park here. >> katy is here too. >> additional comments from either department? why don't we go to the budget analyst report on this. >> madam chair and supervisor kim, the uptown parking corporation is reimbursed for actually cost to manage the union square garage and is shown in table three on page six of our report. the corporation management cross of 135,600 in fiscal year 11-12. that is included in the 2.6 million worth of operating and management costs as shown in attachment one on page ten of our report. on page seven of our report we point out that on june 9th, 2011 the controller issued a report which found that leasing garages to nonprofit corporations is unnecessarily costly to the

city. that is further exexplained on page 7 of our report. page nine our conclusion is given controller's june 9th, 2011 report finding that uptown corporation -- uptown pamper incorporation would be the only nonprofit corporation whose bonds were redeemed, which would continue in its current role of managing city-owned garages and that the mta and rpd have decided to move forward to negotiate a new lease with uptown park corporation for the union square garage and that the estimates of annual savings are 102,600, if the mta managed the union square instead of uptown parking corporation. for all those reasons we consider approval of this legislation to be a policy matter for the board. we do recommend that you amend the resolution to

impose that 180-daytime limit as ms. sinali has indicated. >> thank you very much. i believe the 180 days is 180 days counting down from the time when the board passes the resolution is that correct? >> yes, supervisor. that is correct. >> why don't we open this up for public comment, if there are no questions. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item, number six? seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have an amendment that would impose the 180 days. the amendments are before us. basically in the front it talks about that the uptown parking corporation to continue lease for period not to exceed 180 days. and of course that is also reflected in the text of the legislation on page two, lines 8 and 9. also to add, not to exceed

180 days. on page two, line 22, to also insert the same language, for a period not to exceed 180 days. let's see. finally on page three there is language on line three and four so it reeds lease and create new advisory body to replace corporation within 180 days from the date the board of supervisors approves the proposed lease amendment. finally, just to read into the record on page four, lines seven through nine will have an additional further resolve that reads further resolve the board of supervisors authorizes an amendment to term of lease amendment for period not more than 180 days from the date lease amendment is approved by the board of supervisors. okay. do we have a motion to accept those? we have a motion to accept those. we can do that without objection. to the item as amended. do we have a motion? okay. we have a motion to forward

the item as amended to the board with recommendation. we can do that without objection. thank you. item seven. >> item number seven, resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public help to accept expended grant in the amount of $747,833. >> thank you. i believe we have nicholas moss. >> good morning, supervisors. i am nicholas moss, the director of clinical prevention at the h.i.v. prevention section of the san francisco department of public health. we are requesting an approval of accept and expend of cdc funding for year three of the stop study, a three-site research study in new york, north, san francisco, comparing two laboratories for detecting acute h.i.v. infection in community-based h.i.v. testing programs. * >> thank you. can you speak a little about what the required

matching funds would be, if any. >> no required matching funds. >> you are not hiring additional staff from this. >> all staff that are working on the project have already been hired. >> does this have a budget analyst report? it does not. why don't we open this for public comments. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> motion. >> we have a motion to send the item forward, we will do that without objection. thank you. >> madam clerk, are there any other items before us? >> there are no further items before you. >> thank you. then we are adjourned.