we had originally not intended on making a presentation, but we thought maybe a status of the program would help give perspective to the item before you today. under the leadership of our general manager, mr. harlan kelly and the implementation of staff led by program detector julie la bon tee, the program today is 72% complete with 61 of 82 specific projects completed with construction. we are six months past our overall peak anticipated person hours of 206,000 per year, and we only have three projects left in pre-construction. so, we are definitely at the tail end of the project, having made major progress on our system wide plan. we have had major scope changes on two projects, the calaveras dam replacement project and the alameda creek recapture project. our revised program completion as a result of these changes have increased the schedule by 8 months to april 11 of 2019,

and it has increased the budget by $55.1 million to $4.64 billion. sorry for the error there. and none of these changes change the level of service that was set by the commission as a goal for the overall project. the two projects that are changing are calaveras dam and alameda creek. calaveras dam, even after doing a thorough pre-design site investigation which had an array of boring test [speaker not understood] conditions, in construction we found an underground land slide of an historic land slide that happened and not been charted in any of our historic information. as a result, that land slide created an unsafe excavation for the construction as it was designed. we have redesigned the project to excavate under the land slide, therefore necessitating an additional 3 million cubic yards of soil movement. we successfully completed negotiations with the contractor for that change order and thus have seen an

increase in both schedule and cost. the alameda creek project comes after, it's downstream from the calaveras project. the delay there is associated with the delay in calaveras, but we are replanning that project and actually finding ways to save money on alameda creek itself. overall our regional projects as a result of the calaveras dam have gone up by 76.3 million dollars, but we have been able to implement all of our local projects at a savings of $21.4 million. assessing our savings to our overrun, we are program wide looking at an overrun of $55.1 million or 1.2% of the overall program cost. given the volume of underground work that we have endeavored, the tunneling as well as the excavation for the dam, we believe this is a very good number in the history of underground construction. this slide simply shows you our progress on our main part of

the work which is our transmission. again, creating seismic reliability in our water supply from hetch hetchy to san francisco. and you can see all the projects in blue are completed. the projects in green for the most part are nearing completion. consistent with the march 2013 revised water system improvement program budget which was adopted by the public utilities commission, we're asking that you appropriate $55.1 million water revenue bond proceeds to fund the calaveras dam replacement project and shift appropriate funds within the program in order to balance the program as we have presented it today. so you under, we propose to make the $55.1 million adjustment by adjusting our 10 year capital improvement program for those known net additional funds necessary and there's no impact to the rate payers. that is all i have for you today. >> great. colleagues, do we have any questions?

supervisor avalos. >> i'm just trying to recall, maybe if i can get a budget analyst report, i can wait till then. i'm trying to recall what was the earlier action we took this year on calaveras dam. >> there was an earlier action in which we identified the -- we identified the problem and identified a range of the impact. and, so, we did increase the budget prior to negotiating the final contractor negotiation on the change order. now we have actually finalized the change order. we have all of the costs associated -- [speaker not understood], and this is for appropriation of that change. >> any other questions, colleagues? okay, thank you very much. we have a budget analyst report from mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 13 of our report, we state that as shown in table 4, and that's on page

14, puc has reallocated funds within the [speaker not understood] water system improvement budget to offset some of the increased costs of the calaveras dam project and this proposed ordinance appropriates $74,353,6 87 to fund the balance of the calaveras dam project budget increase. ~ and as i say, that's shown in table 4. we also note that the proposed ordinance would approve the release of $50,314,35 2 object reserve for the alameda county creek fishery enhancement project. ~ on that's no longer needed for that project. and the puc will reallocate that 15.3 million within the sunol valley improvements project offset by other expenditures resulting in a net

$14,444,332 reallocated within the sunol valley water system improvement project to be used for the calaveras dam project. and finally, the requested supplemental would also approve funding of $57,677,85 1 for various other water system improvement projects and they are described and shown on pages 14 through 18 of our report. and we do recommend that you approve this proposed ordinance. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. rose. colleagues, do we have any questions for the budget analyst? okay, thank you very much. any other questions for staff right now? okay, seeing none, we are going to open up to public comment. if there's anybody who wishes to publicly comment on item number 3, please step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos.

okay. we have a motion to approve item number 3. we can do so without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> thank you, committee, thank you to the budget analyst as well. >> thank you. mr. clerk, you can please call item number 4. >> item number 4, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute agreements with cdm smith/ats, a joint venture (cs-211a); icf + avila, a joint venture (cs-211b); shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc. (cs-211c); and urs corporation (cs-211d) for specialized and technical services for natural resources and watershed management and monitoring, each with an agreement amount not to exceed $5,000,000 and each with a term not to exceed 14 years pursuant to charter, section 9.118 (b). >> okay, thank you. we also have the puc here to present on this item. hold on one second. >> good afternoon, chair

farrell, supervisors. my name is greg limon. i work for tim ramirez in the natural resources and land management division of the water enterprise. i have been working with our contracts administration bureau to manage the selection of the consultants to supplement city staff and provide specialized and technical services to monitor and manage our watersheds. the natural resource he and land management division is responsible for monitoring water quality in our reservoirs, monitoring the ecological health of our water sheds and monitoring the habitat mitigation for the wisip of our water system improvement programs like the calaveras dam. the scope of the requested services is not new to the water enterprise. what's new is the magnitude of the work that needs to be done. in large part due to the commitments we have made to state and federal environmental compliance permits in the duration of these commitments. under these per conmitt conditions, we have to monitor

and maintain water improvement milt gas sites after 10 years at the completion of the projects ~ and in some cases perpetuity. the majority of the services will be to conduct performance period monitoring, reinquiredth by these permit conditions. these are new requirements that last between 5 and 10 years, depending on the type of mitigation. with the last 10 year monitoring increment starting in the year 2017. ~ it is the length of these permit required monitoring period that prompted us to request a 14-year contract. the contracts do not bind the sfpuc to use these consultants, to use consultants that are performing poorly and we can terminate the contracts at any time. we appreciate the efforts made by the budget and legislative analyst staff to succinctly and accurately summarize the contracting process. mr. ramirez and i are here for your questions. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions right now for puc staff? thanks for presenting.

we have a budget analyst report, mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 22 of our report, we note that the puc is requesting to enter into four separate agreements, each for a not to exceed $5 million total of up to $20 million. currently the puc is expending approximately $500,000 annually for professional services to assist in the monitoring and managing the necessary environmental work as described. the average hourly rates currently range from $85, $465. with the completion of the water system improvement program, such monitoring and management requirements are proposed to increase to approximately 1.5 million to 1.8 million annually for the first seven years to approximately 2013 to 2020 for a total cost of approximately $10.5 million to 12.6 million through 2020. i would note that the total not

to exceed 20 million for the four contracts over a 14-year period is an estimate and cannot be specifically calculated per year or contract. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution. >> thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, do we have any questions for the our budget analyst? okay, seeing none, let's open this up to public comment. anybody wish to publicly comment on item number 4? okay, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> we colleagues, any comments or can i have a motion to approve item number 4? okay, we can do that without opposition. [gavel] >> so moved. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 5? >> item number 5, resolution authorizing a potential five-year lease of up to 20,000 square feet at 1145 market street for space for the san francisco law library from 1145 market street lp, a california limited partnership, at an initial monthly cost of $42,753.75 for the period of july 1, 2013, through june 30, 2014.

>> okay, thank you very much. we have mr. updike back again. welcome back, mr. updike. >> thank you, chair farrell, members of the committee. good afternoon. john updike, director real estate. so, previously the board approved a 20,000 square foot lease at 1200 van ness for this item or to negotiate other suitable space if that did not come to fruition. obviously it did not or i would not be in front of you today. at that time we detailed the state law and charter provisions that guide our actions in this matter so i'm not going to reiterate all of those. i think those are all on record. and in the budget analyst report. since the board approval in april, the city was successful in its argument to the court as to the suitable and unsufficient size of our law library. when we learned that ownership of 1200 van ness had decided to sign a lease with a tenant who

offered frankly a better deal with conditions that the city was not able to compete with, we began a search for an interim location. concurrently, war memorial veterans building development staff modified their construction project. so as to maintain their july 1 start date. ~ but also permit the law library to remain open for business during that construction until such time as the interim location was ready for their occupancy. today we bring you an agreement for that interim space. it is at 1145 market street. and this will facilitate the interim occupancy. i want to stress that. the lease is structured in a way that allows us to expand the premises, however, consistent with state law and charter guidance and the recent court direction on a suitable and sufficient size of a law library. so, we'll be doing so in terms of space planning and in a

collaborative fashion with the law library staff. the lease places the law library on the fourth floor of 1145 market street. it is in 13,155 square feet and allows for an expansion to the second floor, a portion of the second floor. that would be subsequent to the health services system relocation from that floor, the next item for discussion. and that would be 6,845 additional square feet which would take us to the magic number of 20,000 square feet which you might recall from our previous discussion. the expansion is compact or high density shelving that allows the law library to increase their volumes that are readily accessible to their patrons. this interim space afford nearly 5,000 linear feet of shelf space that could accommodate somewhere upwards of 30,000 volumes.

it provides reception and reserve desks and [speaker not understood], reserve book room, kitchen, 10 computer seats, 32 tabled seats, and staff accommodations for 17. i do have a space plan. this is still undergoing discussions. i'll turn it so it fits here. so, you see the stacks in the center of the facility all on one floor. you see the [speaker not understood] room, reserve book location, staff offices on one end, reception to greet folks as they come in off the elevator bay. and the other items. this is still being negotiated between my team and the law library team that we think we're on a very good path to successful interim space plan for this floor. when compared to the disparate suites within the veterans

building on the fourth floor, we think this was actually a much more efficient design than what they have today, although admittedly smaller, hopefully they will use some efficiencies from this design all in one location. keeping staff and patrons and activities all together. so, the term of the lease take us from occupancy until june 30th of 2018. it also includes a one five-year option that would be reset at 95% of fair market rent to be determined at that time. the base rent is $39 per square foot. that is net of electricity. there are 4% annual increases. we think that's reflective of market. in fact, probably a little bit below market. you might recall the prior lease agreement that we brought to you for 1200 van ness was $36 a square foot, but that excluded janitorial service.

so, these are roughly equivalent rates that you saw the last time this item moved to the board. the big difference, however, is the tenant improvement allowance. you may recall at 1200 van ness, we had no allowance provided by ownership. in this case we have is he kao a $500,000 tenant improvement allowance. so, those are improvements the landlord will make on our behalf toward our space plan at their cost. ~ we've also reduced the city's anticipated capital contribution. you may recall we estimated that initially at $1 million. we have brought that down now to a projected $5 20,000. as soon as we have the exact numbers for you ~ we will submit a letter requesting the release of reserve from this committee for that funding amount. if there are necessary additional improvements required, owner will amortize those at 7%. there is an early termination clause in this lease. that is with 180 days notice.

should some event occur, such as a permanent location determined to be not at this location or other events that require us to look at other locations, we've built in a safety valve for us to be able to terminate this lease with fully modest payments for unamortized value of improvements made by the owner. the other item in the lease agreement is a right of first offer to purchase. we feel that's important that we secure some sort of ownership potential in any building we lease if we feel there is a chance we could be leasing up a substantial portion of that building. so, it's just smart business on behalf of the city. it is not an option, and you are not really being asked to make any decision relative to a purchase this time. also want to note that you are in receipt of a letter from the counsel to the law library wherein they do accept this interim space with certain conditions. so, i want to touch on those

condition and the city's position relative to those. the space plan will be developed collaboratively. we certainly agree with that and that has been the case for the last several weeks. but given the time and fiscal constraints that we have to remove this operation from the veterans building, the city really needs to be the final arbeter of the space plan. i feel confident we will have a plan that both parties are happy with as well as the owner, of course. ~ they are a party at the table as well. but nonetheless we wanted to make it clear that at the end of the day, the city needs to move this project forward in a timely fashion. we will effect a transition to permanent corridors within one year. that is the deadline that is sought by the law library counsel. we agree to that condition. the owner has also demanded expanded hours of operation as part of this move. the city has denied that request and respectfully the city's position at this point at my recommendation is na we

really don't have evidence to suggest there is a need for expanded hours upon the move to an interim location. we're only talking about a couple of hours, but they're key expensive hours into the evening on weekdays that require the entire building systems to be on. and that's a cost that would be borne by the city as tenant. so, we believe it's prudent to maintain the hours that they have currently at the veterans building, but not expand them upon the move. we can revisit this at a later date, but we think for the interim occasion that is an important issue for us. lastly there is a request to use brooks hall as a staging as an off-site shelving location from which they can page so we can create an ability to have them have access to additional materials given the limited amount of space at 1145 market street. we agree with this condition, and we have every intention of creating that shelving system promptly within brooks hall and

that is still over to the law library at no additional cost to the law library. so, once the library is [speaker not understood] permanently, we would want to make progress in removing the materials from brooks hall to a reading process, a thoughtful effort to migrate as much as we can to the permanent location and perhaps move elsewhere the other materials in brooks hall so that we can better utilize that space under the civic center plaza. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have about this item. >> [speaker not understood]. so, you're viewing this as a temporary space? >> that is correct. >> okay. do you have -- does that mean you're going to continue actively looking for additional space or is this kind of temporary for a number of years and therefore you're going to put it on hold for a while? >> the temporary space is the single floor in which we will relocate them, the fourth floor. the issue is the expansion of

premises onto the second floor. we believe if we effect that and work collaboratively with law library staff, i think we'll find jointly that that's an excellent permanent solution delivering 20,000 square foot of space to them. so, my hope would be that this agreement before you takes us to that point of a permanent solution. >> you know, i received the legal brief from one of their attorneys talking about they will accept this is a temporary location if and only if hours are met and so forth. did they communicate to you what they're going to do if they don't? i mean, they've already sued us which i find pretty egregious and offensive that we're increasing their square footage and they're suing us at the same time. but we've kind of went down that road a few months ago, but there are some relatively threatening comments. i'm trying to get an understanding from your

perspective if they communicated what they will do if not. >> perhaps the city attorney givner can help elaborate on. this i think the communications between our litigator on this matter [speaker not understood] and their counsel have been very positive. and the sense i have with respect to hours, while i can understand the ask, there really hasn't been any metrics provided to us that substantiate the request. and i'm not sure that is a true deal-breaking issue with respect to the interim space. i think this is an opportunity for them to ask staff. if i were representing them, i probably would ask as well. >> okay. this is a good opportunity, mr. givner, just to really, since our last budget meeting and when we heard this item, i believe the mandate was denied by the courts. they filed preliminary injunction. can you give us a status where we are with the courts? >> sure, deputy city attorney jon givner.

after the board approved their initial resolution, the court denied the writ. the action is still pending. the law library filed a preliminary injunction that was set to be heard this month. and as of earlier this week, maybe it was late last week, the law library's counsel took that motion off calendar. so, they're not currently seeking to preliminarily enjoin the city from removing them from [speaker not understood], that doesn't mean that the litigation is over and there may be additional motions in the future. but for now there is no -- no motion pending trying to stop us from moving them to 1145 market and no -- and we don't anticipate in the immediate future that that's going to be an issue. >> thank you. thanks, mr. updike. colleagues, any questions for mr. updike?

okay. seeing none, we have a budget analyst report, mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 29 of our report, we report that as shown in table 4, the total estimated lease and related costs for the nibble five-year term of the lease would be $4,6 30,0 06 which would all be general fund v tours subject to appropriation approval by the board of supervisors. ~ the law library's rent utilities costs are 5 77,3 72 and 13-14 of the proposed lease are $386,94 1 or approximately 203% more than the 13 occupancy fee paid by the law library to the war memorial of [speaker not understood]. on page 30 of our report we

note that the 20,000 square footage is an increase of approximately 7,000 [speaker not understood] net square feet of 56% more than the law library's existing space of 12,8 16 square feet. and, mr. chairman, with respect to your increase, our report states based on information provided that the law library outlined several conditions, including that the city complete layout designs and plans for tenant improvements at 1145 market. the lease period 1145 market street is no more than one year. this lease is five years, before the city identifies a permanent space for the law library and lose the law library into that permanent space. and the library's hours of operation extended ha been stated [speaker not understood]. so, for those reasons we consider, among others, we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a

policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose? okay, seeing none, we'll open this up to public comment. if there is anybody who would like to publicly comment on item number 5, please step forward. [gavel] >> i can't believe we asked for mr. paulson and here he is. >> good afternoon, budget and finance. ~ ♪ i'm wild about [speaker not understood] can't get my fill and the lawyers cost you're gonna get your bill placing public [speaker not understood] like the picture show and ferry basin you know may not be new and you're gonna lace the i'd like to lease it why not you i'm wild about law books i know you can't get your fill and the lawyers' bill

you're gonna get it filled the public stand like the picture show and perry mason, you know may not be new and i'd like to lisa it ~ lease it why not you and the sign says you got to have a library card to get inside sign, sign everywhere a sign locking up a library chasing my mind do this, don't do that can't you read the library sign and the sign says you got to have some money, too, to get inside thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. paulson. any other members of the public who wish to comment? all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. chairman, i would like to make the recommendation that we add language concerning the department providing a copy of the executed contract for the

file when it is available. >> we should be doing that as well. so, colleagues, we include an amendment here to make sure that that once this contract is signed we submit it to the clerk of the committee. can we take that amendment? without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> the underlying item as amended can we take that without opposition as well? supervisor breed? >> could you explain that, please? >> the amendment? >> what amendment? >> we just made an amendment to make sure that once the final contract is signed that -- >> i thought we just approved that. >> we just made that amendment and we have to approve the underlying item as amended. >> oh, got it, i'm not ready to do that just yet. >> supervisor breed, then. >> you're going kind of fast for me. did i miss something here? i just had a question, because it was my understanding that the reason why we are actually, i guess, in some instances

required to do this is because it's in the city charter. am i correct? >> mr. updike? >> yes, supervisor breed, the mandate here is actually found in both the city's charter as well as in the state law. this is the first county library in the state of california. so, we have an underlying 18 70 statute which drives this mandate ~ and then that's further, really, copied in the charter language. >> and can i get clarity as to why it's not included in the resolution or did i miss that part? >> that's a very good point. the reference is made to the buyer resolution adopted in april on this matter which included a fairly robust outline of the legal mandates. so, we felt rather than just repeating that, we have made a reference in the resolution