that the net present value of the current lease that is being proposed is comparable, if not less than what we may see in the open market today. because of these reasons for the operational needs of the mta, i would be supportive of this item going forward. thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you. thank you, mr. president and good afternoon colleagues. i just wanted to bring to your attention i have received a couple of questions from residents that live in visitation valley and the little hollywood neighborhoods. i would like to call up sfmta cristen, if she here to answer a couple of questions that i will put forward. thank you. it's good to see you. so i was just going to give you three questions that summarizes some of the concerns that i have heard since our meeting. how will this use be compatible

with the adjacent neighborhoods? what is the schedule and the nature of the tow operations? what will it be? what are the traffic impacts and what role will our neighbors have addressing the site or access employment opportunities on the site? >> thank you, cristen mcgeary. we received the questions from your constituent and i'm happy to answer them. the impact on the adjacent neighborhood is that it's just over the border in daly city. daly city went through an extensive planning department and council review through ceqa and there was a traffic study done. so all of those documents are on file with the city of daly city. so the traffic impacts were studied in comparison, for instance to the

former post office facility that was there. and found that the uses which are planned to be the towed cars, and other mta uses. for instance our training facility, possibly enforcement and other vehicles to be stored there. were actually similar impacts and spread over time. for instance the tow-trucks -- the towing facility starts behind the hall of justice. so that tow customers are able to pick up their cars there within the first 24 hours. then they are towed to -- at this current time -- to pier 70. they would, if this lease were approved be towed to 2650 bay shore, which is accessible by the t line and the 9 and 8 ax muni routes. while they operate 24 hours a day, they receive only 25

vehicles a day that would be put into long-term storage at the facility both inside and out. they will have weekly auctions, which they currently have at pier 70 and it's approximately anticipated 300 people would attend, but the cars, approximately 100 sold each wednesday 8:30 to 2:00 p.m. would be picked up at alternative times. if it's enforcement, those are the people who give the parking tickets, they would be moving there and operate 4 hours a day, 7 days a week with 9 different shifts. but it's unclear at this point if they will be relocating there. the new operator training and maintenance training and refresher courses would occur in offices and training rooms on a routine basis with

approximately 300 to 350 employees spread out on rotating shifts for training on vehicles and maintaining them. so the traffic analysis was done as part of the ceqa process and that is available online, if you would like. i could read you some statistics and information, but otherwise, that is all available through the city of daly city. >> i'm sorry, which statistics did you say you have? >> the traffic analysis that was done. there was a special traffic report done for the ceqa analysis. >> if you could please read it into the record. that would be create. >> the warehouse area is 250,000 square feet approximately and the uses would employ both the in-house in the building parking, as

well as outside the building parking for the tow vehicles and other mta uses. the office area is approximately 38,000 square feet and that would have the enforcement officers, as well as for auto return. the enforcement office is for mta. the training and administrative officers and in addition, we would probably have a simulators that would help our new operators learn how to train on vehicles without actually being in the vehicles, but it would be a mockup of the front of the vehicle, so they could learn how to drive. the parking area exceeds 1030 parking spaces including parking both in the build ing and outside of the building. we would utilize three driveway encroachments and one existing

driveway encroachment. that would generate approximately 1546 daily trips. the previous use, u.s. post office was estimated to have generated 1245 daily trips. therefore other than on wednesdays, the total daily trips generated is 40% less than the previous use of the u.s. post office. >> thank you. >> that is good on traffic? okay. the operations again would be auto return and as i said they would be operating 24/7, but approximately 25 vehicles wore towed there on a daily basis and they have a 24-hour hotline that neighbors

can call 415 -865-8200. and if there were issues for the city of san francisco that is the 311 number. >> perfect, thank you very much to the answers to the questions. i will be supporting this legislation, colleagues. and i just wanted to make sure that we have a structure in place that the neighbors and residents of san francisco would have a place to call and make these complaints so we can make changes. thank you very much, mr. chair. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much, mr. president and i will be just very brief. i want to thank the mta for their presentation and the work they have done around this matter. i also want to say that i thank supervisor cohen for her

questions. she rightly raised a couple of issues that i hadn't thought about, which are important. the impact that this kind of operation could have on the surrounding neighborhoods, even though it's technically in daly city. and i appreciate that there was an environmental review. the thing about it though is at least as presented the focus seemed to be on what happens in daly city, and the more i think about it, i think it would have been helpful to maybe do outreach in some of the surrounding neighbors that are actually in san francisco. whether it's vernal heights and other parts around bayshore boulevard area. so i think that raises another set of concerns that i hadn't really thought about. let me say that i want to thank the chair of the budget

committee for the fact that there was a very, i think, substantive discussion of this item. and i know that a lot of work went into it and i understand why some of my colleagues will be supporting this lease. i just want to briefly note that i will not be supporting the lease. for a number of reasons and i make my comments with the caveat that i recognize that a lot of work has gone into this. and i appreciate the work that the mta staff has done. i personally just think that there is still a possibility that this city and maybe not just a possibility, but more than that that the city could actually get a better deal. what we're talking about is a property that at some point was bought for about $21 million. if the city had bought the property, even if you finance the purchase, you are talking about spending about $35

million to do that. and yet, what we're being asked to do is to make an invest for a 20-year lease of $70 million, which means that we will be spending more than double what we would have spent if we had purchased it for a 20-year lease and at the end of that lease, we will not have ownership of the property. and while i recognize that the available of these properties is limited, i just feel that there is a good chance that we might actually get a better deal for $70 million. and i also have concerns about the way in which the lease is structured. the lease guarantees that you will not -- we as a city will not be able to terminate for at least ten years. and while i understand why that

would be a good deal for the company here, i don't know that it's necessarily the best way for us to approach it. so again, i understand why my colleagues, some of my colleagues will be supporting this. i just feel that it's possible for us to do better. and i would say that with all due respect to mr. ruskin and his staff. my hope is that in future matters of this nature of this type, that we will be able to increase the level of our proactivity, if you will, in terms of how we approach these kinds of matters. so i will respectfully be voting against this item today. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you. i will be supporting the item today. i will be honest, when this first came forward and i first looked at it, i wasn't so sure.

and i wasn't sure if i was going to support it. and when i took a much more careful look and got all of the background on this, although i can't say i'm thrilled with this lease. i do think that it is from everything i can tell the best that mta is going to get. so the only thing that is going to be accomplished by rejecting this is that mta will continue to be at a situation at the port that they will be losing their lease at some point and won't have an alternative space. there are very, very few transit-accessible, conveniently located spaces of this size that can accommodate this kind of use in terms of the whole mix of residential and commercial, et cetera. so although i would love for this rent to be significantly lower, i do believe that this is the best deal that mta is going to get.

and so i think we should approve this. i just want to note that i know there has been a lot made of the lower purchase price is that the other purchaser made. and i just want to reiterate what supervisor chu said before and there has been no response to this and if supervisor campos has a response, i would very much like to hear it. the city and government entitis are not in a position to swoop in and cut a check for cash and just buy up a property quickly. i wish we could do that. we can't. and we were able to do it it would be because of a fundamental change in the public process around the process of public monies and there would be cries, including from some members of board that it would be awful to spend public money to buy land without extensive public process. so i know mta did want to buy this property.

it wasn't for sale at the time and some sort -- i think it was a reit, came in and cut a check for cash and mta couldn't have done that. they would have had to finance it anyway. and if you are selling property and you can sell it to someone for cash, that is often as a seller the better and more desirable way to go. so i think that mta did the best that they could do here. i think this is a good location for this facility. and although again i wish the rent were lower, i have not seen anything indicating to me that mta, if we reject this lease is going to go out and find anything better or certainly significantly better than this lease. >> supervisor chu? >> thank you. i want to thank supervisor wiener for emphasizing that point. but the other piece i did want to make sure that was talked about, supervisor campos mentioned a comparison between the $21 million purchase price compared to $70 million plus in rents that we would pay.

indicating that this is several fold in what with we would have paid and in actuality, if we're paying $10020 years from now, versus 100 now, there is a time value of money that you have calculanto it. so the comparison that the mta presented to us really shows if you look at the net present value of the lease for the entire lease payment including the escalators and building expenses, et cetera, if we go for 20 years is actually worth about $21 million. so i wanted to clarify that point, because you can say we're paying $70 million over a 20-year period of time, but the value of money is different given had a we're paying it over a 20-year period of time. so the comparison is not a fair one to say $21 million we could have bought the property and i have a dispute if we could have moved that quickly because of the public process. and there is a time value of

man money that we have to factor in that i want to make sure is on the record. >> any further discussion? madame clerk roll call vote. supervisor elsbernd? elsbernd aye, supervisor farrell? >> aye >> supervisor kim? >> kim aye. >> supervisor mar aye. >> supervisor olague? >> no >> supervisor campos? >> no. >> campos no, president chiu? >> aye. >> supervisor chu? >> chu aye. supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> there are eight ayes and three nos. this resolution is adopted-game item 11 is a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a conservation grant in amount of $131,000 from the california department ever parks and recreation for the

twin peaks. >> roll call vote. (roll call vote ) there are eleven ayes. >> this resolution is adopt [ gavel ] . >> item 124 21 authorization the director of public works to execute an amendment to the construction management services agreement for the laguna honda hospital replacement program. >> same house, same call. this ordinance is adopted [ gavel ] . >> item 13, resolution authorizing the department of public works to accept and expend a federal grant in the amount of $1,381,000 from the metropolitan transportation commission. >> same house, same call.

this ordinance is adopted [ gavel ] . item 14, resolution approving contract neoplan rehabilitation between the city and county of san francisco, et cetera. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. item 15. >> item 15, resolution authorizing the department of public health to submit an annual application to receive approximately $9.5 million in funding for comprehensive hiv prevention programs from the centers for disease control. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted [ gavel ] . >> item 16, resolution atrophying an option for the lease of 9,000 square feet at 555-575 polk street with the matison family frustrate trust. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. next item. >> item 17 resolution authorizing the san francisco department of public health to

receipt yo actively accept and extend a grant. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted. [ gavel ] . >> item 18 resolution authorizing the department of [stro-eurplt/] retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $[#1r5-6/],000 from the california public utilities commission. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted [ gavel ] . >> item 19. >> item 19, resolution authorizing the public utilities commission general manager to enter into a long-term interconnection agreement with pacific gas & electric company for a solar power project at the alvarado elementary school. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. this is part 2 of the pilot of putting solar panels on top of alvarado elementary school. now this will allow for the

interconnection agreement. this we believe will be the first example of what will hopefully be a trend of placing solar panels on public schools. in addition to promoting clean energy, there will be an educational component for children to learn about solar energy. so i'm proud to be sponsoring this resolution and i'm proud that the first school will be at alvarado in mill valley. thank you, colleagues. same hughes, same call. this resolution is adopted [ gavel ] . >> item 120 [#20*-/], authorizing the mayor's office of house doing to accept and expend fy2011 kal home grant to assist first-time homebuyers and heroins. >> same house, same call this

resolution is adopted. >> item 21 authorizing the san francisco department of public health to submit an application to continue to receive funding for ryan white act. >> same house, same call. this resolution is adopted [ gavel ] >> item 22, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code section. >> supervisor chu. >> colleagues i hope you support this legislationings that continues to remove hardships for the small businesses that do business with the city. as many of us have heard, currently our city's law requires that we hold 10% in retention for every single progress payment made on public works contracts and we're withholding a large amount of

payment to contractor [ho-z/] are completing work on time and in good condition. what this proposal would do would be to decrease the required retense from a rate of 10% to 5% for all contracts moving forward. for those contracts that are already in place begining from january 12th through the effective day the retention can be step down to 5% if the contractor requests it and the approval -- the department approves it. the legislation also preserves the flexibility for complex projects, so the city can do that so long as it's no more than 10%. so colleagues i think this is logical and makes sense and really helps the smaller businesses who can't afford to really carry the cost of retention. thank you. >> colleagues can we take this item same house, same call without objection this ordinance is passed on first reading item 23. >> item 23 is a resolution responding to the presiding judge of superior court on the

findings and recommendations contained in the 2011-2012 civil grand jury report entitled "surcharge and healthy san francisco, healthy for whom?" >> supervisor campos? >> thank you very much. mr. president, colleagues, i'm not going to belabor points that have been made about this as you know, not too long ago we had a policy debate here at the board of supervisors on how to close a loophole in the health care security ordinance. and the legislation that i originally introduced in which this board approved, which legislation was vetoed by mayor lee. the civil grand jury report that is before you is a report that essentially revisits the issues that were raised at that time. and it's a report that we had a hearing at the government

auditors and oversight committee on along with a hearing that included a discussion of a recent report by the office of labor standards and enforcement. and as i noted during that hearing, and as the civil grand jury noted, no withstanding efforts on the part of my colleagues to close that loophole, the information that has been collected by the civil grand jury and that has been collected and reported upon by the office of labor standards and enforcement demonstrates that, in fact, the loophole that we were focusing on has not been closed. and the information specifically points to two troubling trends. one that you still have to this day a number of employers and, in fact, a majority of businesses that use the

accounts at issue that are placing restrictions on how workers can use those accounts. and the legislation that was introduced in our estimation does not address that very fact. restrictions, like a worker cannot use health care accounts for dental insurance. they cannot use it to purchase insurance to pay for insurance premiums. they cannot use it to enroll healthy san francisco. other troubling trend is the fact that more money is being collected by many of these businesses than is actually being spent on health care. and it is precisely the fear that we had when the watered-down version of the legislation to close the loophole was eventually passed. the last point that i would say

is that something else that the civil grand jury also points out is the fact that the use of these health care accounts is actually increasing. and so in some ironic way the amendment that was passed may have ended up exacerbating the problem and in the process increased their use. so based on those comments, i will be voting against this resolution, because the resolution as currently written does not really, in my view, address the concerns that have been raised by the civil grand jury. and the last point i will make is simply that i want to thank the members of civil grand jury for all of the work that they have done. they are doing their work on a volunteer basis. and we appreciate the service that they have provided to the

city and county san francisco. thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you very much. i had the honor of sitting in on gio for this item and congratulations to supervisor farrell for his new addition. i was happy for you that day. it was a really interesting hearing, because i have a lot of respect for the civil grand jury as volunteers who do a lot of work and whenever citizens gets involved i respect that. i respectfully as i expressed at the hearing do not agree with some of the aspects of this report and i support the response that we put out of committee. i want to say that i do disagree with supervisor campos that what we passed was watered down.

but there were two significant issues with the civil grand jury report. the first and this one was somewhat extraordinary to me that the civil grand jury relied on data from before the legislation went into effect. so it's unclear to me how you can draw any relevant conclusions about the present day based on data from before the legislation went into effect. and i believe the civil grand jury should have deferred consideration for a year, which would go to the next civil grand jury to do this work once we had the actual post legislation data to take a look at. so we could draw relevant conclusions. the second is that the civil grand jury and i completely respect this. they simply had policy disagreements with the legislation that we passed that was sponsored by president chiu and supervisor cohen. i respect their right to have the policy disagreement, but i

respectfully disagree. i think we put out a good piece of legislation that i and others stand behind. so for those reasons i will be supporting the response and the resolution. >> supervisor cohen. i want to attach myself to supervisor wiener's comments and remind some of my colleagues here -- and disagree that the legislation wasn't necessarily watered-down. i wouldn't use those adjectives to describe it, but remind colleagues it was actually after the legislation was passed we were able to close the loophole and settle a multi-million dollar settlement where there were workers who were not receiving the back pay monies due to them. thank you very much, mr. chair. >> supervisor elsbernd? >> thank you, mr. president. i just want to