commercial certificates of participation. we are also asking that you approve the form of documents as it relates to the reimbursement agreement as well as letters of agreement and we are asking that you allow the city agencies to access the program as an example, the port of san francisco, is a smaller agency and does not have the resources to implement their own program. also, we would also ask that as you know the program is set up such that the board has to approve the long-term financing to set up the program. we ask that you allow the use of the program in the event of emergency on the section 3.100 for the city to access that program for the capital needs

for a disaster. by way of background, the city's existing program was $100 million. we utilized about $80 million. the board has 80 million cop and we have saved about $4.2 million in a few years since the program is up and running. we have $760 million that we would use this program for. it is 45 basis point. and it's very low and attractive compared to the fire program when we started which was about 125 basis point. the cost of issuance is

approximately $450,000. the fee of $620 million. the program is working as we anticipated. we would like to increase it as we are moving along. because it's a lease back to back transaction. we have to have an equivalent value to procedure cure this program. we need to get the lowest cost. that's it. i will be happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions. i know this is something that i have sponsored. this is going to have a significant impact to the tune of millions of dollars a year for the city's general fund. thank you. no questions. can we go to your report for 9 and 10? >> yes. i show in table 2,

estimating the cost $362,000 resultings in the cost of a million 990. we recommend this resolution. we strongly support this legislation where you can use commercial paper at a lower interest rate than long-term bonds. regarding item 10, on page 55 of our report which is shown in table 4, the annual fees for the additional service is resulting in a total cost in

subsequent years. based on analysis which was prepared by miss say, as shown in table 5, this refers to what you were just speaking to. if $160 million were utilized for paper over the next few years, the city would an a savings. we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? let's open to public comment. no public comment. public comment is closed. relatively dry topic compared to before. can we have a motion to approve items 9 and 10. item passes. mr. clerk, please call item no.

11. >> the clerk: item no. 11. multifamily housing revenue bonds 1100 ocean avenue apartments. not to exceed $19, million. >> good afternoon, i'm filling in for the project manager kevin who was called away. so before you is an issuance resolution to issue $19 1/2 million in bonds for a project that is between mercy housing

corporation. the project consist of 70 units of affordable housing for families and transition age youth. all units will serve households. 25 units will have transition age use, who are transitioning from foster care or are at risk to not making transition to adulthood. the process consist of -- the mayor's house is approving of this project and the community supports. we anticipate closing the bond transaction at the end of august and the project is

slated to begin construction. we are available to answer any questions if you have any. that ends staff presentation. >> okay. colleagues any questions. okay. we do not have a budget analyst report. we go to public comment. any public member wish to comment? >> i have a request to amend legislation to remove -- before the boards signature. mention the clerk of the board. a >> okay. what would the amendment be? >> generalally she does not wish to have the department use the fax for signature. she wishes her signature to be wet

signatures. i can make that amendment. >> okay. i assume that is acceptable . >> i thought we had caught that. we were notified of that change. we usually always get wet signatures anyway. >> okay. then colleagues can i have a motion to amend our clerks comments and the underlying item sent to the board with no opposition. please call item no. 12. >> the clerk: accept and spend grants state reoccurring grant funds department of public health 2013-2014. >> good afternoon. this pertains to $20 million worth of grants as well as contracted

services. these grants were already included in the budget you considered last month. these particular grants require explicit resolution from the board for acceptance and expenditure. therefore we are bringing this resolution forward for your consideration. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. all the information is provided. >> thank you, colleagues, any questions. seeing none. public comment? seeing none. public comment is close. >> please call item no. 13. >> the clerk: item 136789 accept and expend grant pedestrian and bicycle projects

>> thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors, transportation finance analyst from dpw, the proposed would authorize dpw to expend grant funds for pedestrian and bicycle project for 2013-2014. each county receives those funds. each county's local transportation fund. article 3 of tda of portion 2 percent of that quarter percent tax for bicycle and as well as pedestrian street and road development projects. those funds are allocated and under article 3 to the non-bay area counties. as done in the past,

they are joint with the county wide applications. mta process using these funds to repair the city streets and the remaining for preliminary and various sites throughout the city that have been selected in conjunction with the mayor's office. no matching funds are required. i'm here to answer questions. >> any questions from my colleagues? >> supervisor mar, looks like bicycle coalition have a say in what types of capital projects are going to be chosen by the

mta and looks like the dpw is self explanatory. but i wonder how the projects are chosen? >> my understanding is that the project selected for the tda article 3 grouping is basically from our capital investment program. when we developed the cip we sought help from the coalition from the bicycles coalition and they have the idea of the projects in the cip and we did get a resolution support in bic in may. do you have any further questions? >> i guess it would be great to see a list of the proposed projects suggested by those

community and advocacy groups. i don't know if those materials were in our packet unless they are still being developed. >> there is a list of the projects that we intend to go forward with. >> i see regional bicycle sharing pilot, bicycle parking, bicycle parking coordination and 4 and 5. if i can get more details on that it would be helpful. >> okay. if you can get a list of that? >> yes. thank you. >> okay. any further questions, comments. no budget analyst report. public comment. no public comment. >> supervisor mar, do you want to pass this out. we'll move it without further opposition. >> mr. clerk, any other items?

>> the clerk: the committees the items. >> thank you, we are adjourned.

>> 2013 meeting, the time is now 5:40 p.m., and the meeting is being called to order. first item is roll call. >> before we call order, would i like ask members of the public to turn off all cell phones and pagers. and please sign in at the front

table if you would like to be added to the mailing list. public comment will be taken on each item and speaker cards are available at the front table. if you fill out a card and you can leave it at the front and i will retrieve them. we would like to thank sfgov tv and city hall media services for the constant support of our meetings. >> adams? >> here. >> dooley? >> here. >> commissioner dwight? >> here. >> commissioner o'brien. >> here. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> here. >> commissioner cartagena? >> here. >> commissioner riley? >> here. >> commissioners that brings you to item number two, public comment? >> do we have any members of the public who would like to make comment on any item that is not on today's agenda? >> seeing none, public comment is closed, next item.

>> the general public comment, sir? >> okay. >> general public comment will be limited to three minutes. >> if you can please state your name clearly. >> sure. >> good afternoon, my name is (inaudible), and i'm the resident of (inaudible) association. and i was hoping that when i come back to your meeting, that it would be for the purpose of (inaudible) lombard street, (inaudible) and i have to speak on behalf of (inaudible) about the confusion, the confusion of the published agenda item number two and three. it is totally confusing whether the commission is discussing whether or not to continue item number three, or whether we take action today? >> sir? >> i have to interrupt you. that is item number three and this is on public comment on any items that are not on today's agenda. >> so it will have to wait

until three is called. >> okay. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public that would like to make comment on any item that is not on tonight's agenda? >> okay, public comment is closed. next item three? >> commissioners, the next item is proposed for continuance, the commissioner will continue a request for a continuance to a later date, the commission may choose to continue the item to the date below and to continue it to another date or hear the item on this calendar. item three, presentation and possible action regarding the potential impact of the proposed pet food express store at 2460 lombard street on small business pet store retailers, this is a discussion and possible action. and it is proposed for continuance to july 22, 2013. >> and commissioners as stated on the introduction remarks you may choose to continue this item to the date proposed or

continue it to another chair or to the call of the chair. >> okay. >> commissioners? >> i would recommend that you take the public comment before taking action. >> okay. >> commissioner white? >> i would like to request that we have a continuance date outside of july 22nd. >> okay. >> commissioners i would recommend taking public comment, first and then having a discussion. >> and so we have public comment on item number three. for the continuance of the pet food express. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is (inaudible) and i'm the president of the lombard merchant association i was hoping that it would be for the purpose of explaining the status of the street and supplying the neighborhood corridor and unfortunately like the last meeting, i have to speak about the confusion, and once again the confusion of the

published agenda two and three it is confusing whether the commission is discussing whether or not to continue item three or whether it to take action today. it sounds like any action is possible. and please don't forget that i am a small business owner too and the same is true for many of the members of the (inaudible) and i have to come here again for i don't know what the reason. and also, it is not possible for me to notify the lombard street merchant to come on short notice and whether it is unclear and lastly, it is very important to us that the hearing to be continued to allow us an opportunity to give input and in this situation and to question the same impact on small business, if you could please come to lombard street. >> thank you. >> and okay, commissioner, dwight? ? i mean, commissioner white? >> yes, i was just recommending for staff