okay, seeing none, we'll open this up to public comment. if anybody wishes to publicly comment on this item, please step forward. i do have one speaker card. zachary malet. and if interester any other members of the public, please line up on the side over there. mr. malheth? good afternoon, committee members. ~ and members of the public. my name is sack ra malet. i'm the direct 7 director of the bay area rapid district. we represent visitacion valley, bayview hunters point, silver terrace, dogpatch, mission bay, and more. i'm basically here to comment to what's the budget and legislative committee or chairperson mentioned, not committee chairperson, sorry, analyst mentioned. and i believe it is bad policy cross subsidies. as ed reiskin pointed out the beneficiaries of this program i think i mentioned districts 9 and 11 in san francisco. only those who live and work or

play within the bart corridor of san francisco. but 61% of the costs are generated from other muni riders. it creates this cross subsidy where a select few transit users benefit at the expense of so many more. and i'm not a fan of cross subsidies. and for that reason i'm inviting you to not approve this and to join me in what i'm doing with the bart board of re-looking at this. this is a program that has -- it's just a tradition. it's been a tradition since '83 and we've never taken a second look at whether or not this instrument is being used as it is intended to be used and designed to be used and who is subsidizing who. i strongly disagree that if people don't use this pass they're going to stop using bart and would suddenly cram muni services. in fact, an analysis that i did reveals otherwise.

so, i respectfully suggest that due to the efficiencies, cross subsidies and the ongoing expense that you do not approve this and give direction to the mta to work with bart at reconsidering it. >> okay, thank you very much. are there any other memorandum biz wire of the public who wish to comment on this item? ~ members okay, seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. reiskin, just out of curiosity from your conversations, i know you've been working closely with bart. maybe you could talk a little about your conversations with them on this item, taking -- we do have a bart director here who just commented on it. >> yeah, i can just -- i can restate as recently as this morning i spoke with the bart general manager and she remains fully 100% supportive of this agreement. my understanding is that the president of the bart board who represents a good chunk of san francisco is fully supportive of these agreements. my understanding is i expect that the

bart board as a body, notwithstanding individual different opinions, will also be supportive. as to the issue of, you know, who is subsidizing whom, or what the value of the agreement is or alternatives, we did do some looking at that with the bart staff. what would happen if we didn't have this agreement in place, what would the impacts be. there are different assumptions one could make about what would those people do and we looked at different scenarios, some would probably continue on bart as the director said. some would affect muni. some may leave transit, but those latter two would be bad for the city and for us, the people who are staying with bart would be paying a lot more to make their trip in from balboa and inward, which we also saw as not a good thing for transit generally. to put more strain on the muni system would have an impact to all

muni riders, not just those in that area. so, likewise, i would argue that the beneficiaries of this agreement are all the users of the muni system. really, all san franciscans because these agreements are encouraging more people to use transit, to take advantage of the multiple transit systems to make the best choice for them, but to get them on transit, off the roads, which benefits everybody. >> okay, thank you. supervisor avalos? >> thank you. and i appreciate your work on -- your patience and getting our support and bringing in the budget analyst recommendation around the floor of the feeder agreement. the relationship between muni and bart is particularly important in my district and i would say in district 10 as well, visitacion valley. there are many people from the southern part of san francisco who are combined muni and bart users and really it's the fastest way to get to where most of the

jobs are in san francisco, downtown, is to take bart. and, so, that agreement is really essential to make sure it's affordable for a lot of residents who are -- choose to be on our transit system and also who don't have much choices about it as well. and i think if we were to have a system that didn't quite work economically, it would have a major impact on a lot of low-income residents and these neighborhoods. so, i appreciate the work of negotiating and bringing something that i would be supportive of. >> supervisor wiener? >> i think i'll be supporting both items. and in terms of the fast pass agreement with bart, i think it's absolutely critical and, of course, you can always argue there will be a slightly better deal, but i think this is a pretty good deal for the city and for muni/bart riders.

and it would be -- not to have that agreement i think would be just awful for transit riders in the city. and in addition, to supervisor avalos' district, the agreement is critical. in my district, both the residents in glenn park and residents of noe valley, particularly since the performance of the j [speaker not understood] is beyond acceptable. a lot of people who live beyond the jay-church line in noe valley would rather walk 3, 4, 5 blocks to 24th street or glenn park bart station where they can actually get reliable service. so, it's important to a lot of different parts of the city. >> okay, thank you. if there are no other comments, colleagues, mr. reiskin, thank you for being here again and walking that through with us. colleagues, we have for item number 1, let's take them one at a time.

we have some proposed amendments from mr. rose's office that mr. reiskin is in agreement with. can i have a motion to accept those amendments? so moved. we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> the underlying item number 1 as amended, can we accept that without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> as for item number 2, is there a motion to accept? item number 2? we can do so without opposition. [gavel] >> okay. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, ordinance appropriating $55,064,799 of proceeds from san francisco public utilities commission water revenue bonds to fund the water system improvement program calaveras dam project and re-appropriating $77,271,241 of wsip project appropriations to various wsip projects consistent with the revised april 2013 wsip program budget adopted by the sfpuc. a okay, thank you very much. we have puc here to speak on thev item. >> my neighborv is emilio cusp,

infrastructure for the public utilities commission. i'm also here with our chief financial officer, todd [speaker not understood]. 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 are missing mr. paulson here. 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