minutes. >> good morning supervisors. i am douglas yep and i did survive working 20 years at san francisco general hospital. i would like to first thank supervisor avalos for past questioning. i think they're relevant questions that we need to put on the record and obviously we will see what happens when it's officially opened, and also i would like to note for the record whether the new general hospital would include any facilities for the dialysis unit which had recent hearing here at city hall? i think that needs to be put on the record and we will see how that turns out. now, let's put it this way. i am looking at the agenda -- i notice there is only one sponsor. if i was going to nearly spend $210 million the main question is do i trust the sponsor?

it's pretty obvious a certain person trust the sponsor and we saw what happened to him, and then one of his best friends is about to lose one of her crown jewels, and i'm asking do you trust the sponsor? and for the record i don't see any supervisor listed as a sponsor for either items one or two. if it was such a good deal i should at least see one name and seeing no names i have a feeling it's not that good of a deal, so to summarize san francisco general hospital needs a new hospital, but let's put it this way. no matter how good the facilities it's always comes down to how well it's used and without a proper audit of general hospital, without a proper audit of the department of public health, there's always going to be instances like the

current fiasco at general hospital. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment on these items? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues we have a recommendation from the budget analyst to approve the items. can i have a motion to move it forward without opposition. madam clerk can you call item three. >> item three is an ordinance authorizing the office of workforce development to accept a grant for $500,000 for the first source hiring program. >> okay. thank you. i believe we have oewd here to speak on this item. >> thank you supervisor. >> thanks for being here. >> so as of july 1 of 2013 oewd took over the responsibilities

for work force -- work force component associated with mission bay including both job placement as well as compliance. part of the terms that were in place starting back in 1998 that there were financial -- there were resources coming from the development group in three installments. there is the first of those installments. triggered for each million square feet of commercial of leesable space in mission bay, so apparently at the time we were unaware of these resources but we did find out shortly after that first threshold had been triggered which comes with $500,000. we received the check two months ago and are now before you to give me the opportunity. these resources would go to support two new

importantly aceons positions and one compliant officer 2292. >> colleagues, any questions? okay. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> we don't have a budget analyst report on this item so i will move to public comment. anyone wish to comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. thank you for being here. could i have a motion to move this forward with recommendation? shcial moved. madam clerk can you call item four. >> item four say resolution approving a waiver of the payment in lieu of taxes through 1991-1992 to 2013-2014 from the housing authority from the city and county of san francisco. >> [inaudible] >> okay. go ahead. >> good afternoon supervisors. mr. chair, i am barbara smith, acting executive director of the san francisco housing authority

and i am here to request a waiver of the pilot payments from the san francisco housing authority from 1991-1992 to 2013-2014 in the amount of $12 million which is approximately $550,000 a year for the past 22 years. pilot is payment in lieu of taxes and established in 1965 under an agreement between the housing authority and the city and county of san francisco. it was established in lieu of paying real and personal property taxes and special assessments. as 10% of rent payments charged to the housing authority's low income residents. it has previously been weighed by the board from

these years listed and requested waivers but those requests weren't acted on. since that time the housing authority has not requested additional waivers and as i understand it the city has not included revenues for those payments in the annual budgets. in its may 2013 performance audit of the san francisco housing authority the san francisco budget and legislative analyst recommended that the housing authority submit to the board of supervisors a request of waiver in lieu of taxes from 1991 through 2013. waiver of these payments does provide the housing authority with additional resources to address our enormous challenging needs to maintain our properties and provide services to our low income residents. i am happy

to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay. mr. rose can we go to the budget analyst report please. >> yes mr. chairman. members of the committee on page 10 of the report which was indicated by the department the proposed payment in lieu of taxes to the san francisco housing authority for the period listed totals about 12.1 million that is shown in table one of page of our report. under the cooperative agreement outstanding payments are not subject to interest or penalties. we point out on page 11 of the report out of 10 housing authority surveyed throughout the country four obtained waiveers for payments to remove taxes and others made payments to local government entities. just to clarify our recommendation in the management

audit report the housing authority indicated they wanted a waiver and we said it has to be brought before the board of supervisors for approval. we made no recommendation for the approval but we did make a recommendation that this issue come before the board of supervisors, so we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions? mr. avalos. >> in your opinion do you think it would be wise for the government to move $80 million into the defense budget from the human and health budgets and for hud to build houses around the country. in your opinion do you think that is a wise move? >> mr. chairman, supervisor in my opinion there are a lot of things in the federal government i would like to look at but i don't want to make a decision at this point. >> it's a small part of the

federal budget and we can request that. >> mr. rose are you saying it's a matter for that? >> maybe the federal government needs a budget analyst. >> i don't disagree. colleagues any other questions? at this point we will open it up for public comment. anyone wish to comment on item four? >> supervisors my name is douglas schaaf and i noted for the record the amount is listed and as i say what's a million here and a million there? it only matters if you're an actual taxpayer. it was noted it was previously granted through years 81 through 90. i notice nobody said how much money is involved there so i think that should be clarified. let's put it this way. if we grant them a waiver in a certain sense you are

awarding incompetency. now we know there is a lot of incompetency within the city and county of san francisco, but i think we shouldn't reward further incompetency by granting waivers. if you're going to do this it's only logical that you should allow individual taxpayers the same right, so why can't all the poor people that own property in san francisco apply for the exact same waiver and it start waiving taxes for everybody under the sun and then we will gladly see whether this is a true rational decision or not, so if i say if you're going to do it now i say open it up to every poor homeowner in san francisco and the mayor's office, and the individual supervisors to come out against that idea because if you're going to reward incompetence why can't you reward people who are

trying to best save their homes and yet you won't publicize this sort of activity. just by the fact there is no other speakers here is an indictment of how things are done -- how things are done at city hall. i was expecting plenty of people to speak out but i guess it's supposed to be a done deal. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to send this item forward to the full board with recommendation? and we can do so without opposition. madam clerk can you call item five. >> item five is a resolution declare the intent of the city to reimburse expenditures of indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's office of community document submit documents to the california debt limit allocation committee in the bonds in aggregated amount

not to exceed [inaudible] for 280 beale street. >> thank you very much. we have the mayor's office office to speak on this item. >> elizabeth with the mayor's office on community development. the resolution before you will authorize the application for bond proceeds to pay for construction and development cost for affordable housing which is located at 280 beale street. mercy housing of california is the sponsor. when completed this affordable housing will be a 70 year small family project and 142 bedroom units and one bedroom units and one manager's unit. units are targeted to households not earning more than 50% of the total required or $50,000 for a family of four and share a podium with a market rate

residential tower developed by a developeris bad in chicago illinois. block six is on folsom and beale streets the development term was selected pursuant to request of proposals for trans bay blocks six and seven and issued by the former redevelopment agency now the office of community infrastructure and investment. block seven will be an affordable family development that is currently anticipated to begin contribution in late 2015. these transactions do not require repayment of the bonds and anticipate submitting to the california debt limit allocation committee in january 2014. if awarded an allocation we will return to the board of supervisors for approval to issue in april or may in 2014 and slated to begin construction in may 2014 and complete by july 2015. today is the

sponsor representative from mercy housing california. we appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you at the groundbreaking events. this concludes staff report and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? very much a appreciated. we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this forward and we can do so without opposition. madam clerk can you call item six. >> item six is the issuance of tax-exempt obligations - pacific primary for nonprofit corporations and aggregate not to exceed $4,500,000 to finance krears facilities owned pacific primary. >> okay. thank you very much. this item is sponsored by supervisor breed. i believe the legislative aide will speak on

this item. >> yes briefly. i think we have more qualified people than i to speak. this is in district five and supervisor breed is happy to support the refinancing and i will let them speak to it specifically. >> thanks. >> good morning. i am executive director of pacific primary. pacific primary is a nonprofit full day year round school that is at grove and baker since 1974. in 2008 we opened a brand-new school so that we have a total of 155 children and we did that only to keep families in the city and to offer the type of education that we give children two and a half to six, and we very much appreciate the supervisor's attention with this request and i hope that we can get your support. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay.

similarly we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this forward with recommendation and do that without opposition as well. madam clerk can you call item seven. >> item seven is retroactively approving the modification between the city and guardsmark to provide security services for the human services agency to extend the term by one month for period of december 1, 2008, through december 31, 2013 in the modified amount of $21,226,260. >> thank you. we have someone to speak on this item. welcome. >> good morning. i am from the human services eajz. we would like to request an amendment of this resolution to extend to january 31 for the full 1.9 million. the reason is that we have the successor contract to this contract. it's been out for bid. the bids have been

evaluated. we went out for supplemental questions and evaluating those and we hope to make a tentative award next week but as you remember this is a highly competitive contract and in the last go around in 2008 there were several protests, one lawsuit and appeal of a lawsuit that we ultimately prevailed upon so we want to make sure we have enough time to get the new contract back in front of you in december, but realizing december will be a short month for hearings, probably be the first of january when we get the new contract in front of you. >> okay. quick question to the city attorney's office. by extending it by a month and i want to ask mr. rose about it can we amend it and approve it today or do we have kick it a week. >> city attorney. you have to kick it for one week and consider it next week. >> okay. anything else you want to comment about? >> no. except i would like to thank the budget analyst report

for rex piindicting the report on this and apologize for the tardiness bringing this to you on a contract that expires in december and we take full responsibility for that. we have been monitoring expenses against budget and should have been against budget and board authority and we ran out of board authority by the end of september which is why we're here. >> much appreciated. thank you. colleagues any questions at this point? mr. rose maybe we can go through your report and also if you have comments about the extension for a month. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee as i understand the department there is delay in the competitive process that seems reasonable to me that it could be extended for two months instead of one month. that would not change our recommendations whatsoever. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> and mr. chairman, members of

the committee on page 15 we show the departments and analyze the departments projected need for the increase in security services that. is shown in table one on page 15 report and contingency in that projection to get to the 1.9 million. we believe that a 10% contingency instead of 26.4 contingency is justified and would result in needed increase amount of numbers requested and our recommendation on page of the report we recommend that you recommend the proposed resolution to reduce the increase in the not to exceed amount by $276,000 and for the total listed to reflect a 10%

contingency or $168,000 in lieu of 24-point 4% contingency or $440,000 and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> okay. thank you mr. rose so with the one month -- now does that change things here? >> yes it does. we concur with the report for that end date but by pushing it to january 31 i would like the opportunity to revisit the numbers. we believe this amount is sufficient but i don't want to come back and short change us again. >> let me suggest this. we will talk public comment but i want suggest that we continue the items and not take amendments -- hold on. we need to do the extension amendment now and do the numbers amendment next week if we can advise you to work on it together. okay. >> and if i could make one other comment? i am sure i would appreciate and my colleagues at

the other departments would appreciate if maybe we could have a small working group in next fiscal year to see ways that we can expedite the contract approvals for the board. right now they average six and eight weeks and mr. rose is accommodating but everyone needs time to do their due diligence before we bring it here and we find ourselves short in the process of getting in front of the board so the departments can do a better job of starting the process earlier but maybe we can look at the process and see some streamlining to benefit us and make it so we're not bringing these last minute contract modifications before the board. >> i don't disagree with that comment but in my experience it's going to be incumbent upon the departments to think well in advance because i will tell you departments and i appreciate the comments earlier and jam this body and not intentionally but they do it and it's something we don't appreciate so you will

find resistance on departments that come late and criticize the process for not being quick enough for them and i appreciate the comments and we can always do it better but it will come down on the departments to think ahead in the future. >> that's fine. we're willing willing to do that. >> okay. okay. so why don't we take public comment on this item? anyone wish to comment on this item? okay seeing none public comment is closed. okay. so we have a requested amendment to extend the term until from now -- instead of december 31, 2013 to january 31, 2014. could i have a motion to accept that amendment? okay. mr. city attorney just to double check we have done the amendment to extend to january 31 and if we continue the entire item to next week we can work on the

financialimplications. >> that's right and as long as they're doing that and i believe that's what they're requesting. >> we just want to check the items one more time. >> we will continue this item and to the december 4 budget and finance committee. all right. motion to continue this item as amended. so moved. thank you. >> thanks. >> madam clerk do we have any other business before us? >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you. we are adjourned.

>> >> the meeting will now come to order. welcome to the meeting. my name is malia cohen. to my left is supervisor tang and campos. i would like to thank sfgtv for broadcasting this meeting. >> madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> the clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to

the clerk. items will be appear on the board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> very good. please call item no. 1. >> the clerk: item 1: 131008:hearing - eastern neighborhoods plan infrastructure improvements]1310081.sponsor: cohenhearing on the city's strategy for funding and implementing the estimated $250,000,000-$390,000,000 of infrastructure improvements that have been identified to support new development in the eastern neighborhoods plan. 10/8/13; received and assigned to the government audit and oversight committee. >> the clerk: item 1: 131008:hearing - eastern neighborhoods plan infrastructure improvements]1310081.sponsor: cohenhearing on the city's strategy for funding and implementing the estimated $250,000,000-$390,000,000 of infrastructure improvements that have been identified to support new development in the eastern neighborhoods plan. 10/8/13; received and assigned to the government audit and oversight >> the clerk: item 1: 131008:hearing - eastern neighborhoods plan infrastructure improvements]1310081.sponsor: cohenhearing on the city's strategy for funding and implementing the estimated $250,000,000-$390,000,000 of infrastructure improvements that have been identified to support new development in the eastern neighborhoods plan. 10/8/13; received and assigned to the government audit and oversight committee. >> 1234 this is an item i introduced a few weeks ago to discuss the status. the key component of the planning process was a development of open space and transportation plans that identify key projects that are semi to supporting neighborhood growth. when the plan was adopted, it was actually estimated over the 20-year build out of the

eastern neighborhood that we would need approximately $250-390 million to fund these improvements. these were estimated only at the time and now we find we'll receive only $116 million for these and that is a funding gap in improvement. we have not seen many of the infrastructure projects the plan has implemented. in some cases the key transit improvements are under review. we have all agreed that most of the development is needed and appreciated. at the city we must live up to our end of the bargain and provide infrastructure to support those that are living here as well as

the future for those that will live here. last month we were at the meeting for the eastern neighborhood plan and the questions i heard were the promised benefits for streetscape and infrastructure improvement. we knew there was a funding gap. we hope to begin to develop a multi-agency strategy to address the funding gaps and some of these projects implemented before we entitle hundreds of more units in the neighborhood. we have done a good job in the development community has been successful in moving the projects forward. i think we as a city have done a good enough job finding and implementing the infrastructure needed to insure these neighborhoods stay walkable and livable and transit first. i

don't expect we'll have all the answers today but i think we need to have a conversations and this is a first step in that conversation. we have a series of departments here today who are going to assist us in understanding the pipeline. in some ways the city is thinking that we maybe able to close the funding gap. we are going to hear from jon ram -- john graham of the planning department. thank you. >> thank you, good morning, supervisors. i want to thank supervisor cohen for calling this hearing. this is an issue that has come up for several years now and now more acutely felt this is happening all over the city and this is an issue we need to address and an issue that the planning department cares very deeply about. i'm

one of several speakers today, we have various people here today to talk about this. we have a presentation that we'll try to get through quickly but there is a lot of information we would like to share with you. i will start by saying the story is perhaps a little bit better than the perception. certainly there is a lack of funding primarily because of the lack of development activity. with the development activity that is coming we feel fairly confident that some components of the proposed plan, the amenities that are proposed in the plan particularly on the open space and public facility side can be addressed. the other aspect of the improvements particularly around transportation and streetscape improvement you have a very high price tag. we think we have some very good information for you coming out of the mayor's task force and

we can address those issues as well. i think it's important to point out the improvements were not all addressed through impact fees. the impact fees are only part of the sources for those improvements. what it has done is allowed dollars for some of those spaces and we are able to leverage dollars from other sources whether it be state grant monies or other developments doing those kinds of improvements. there is a number of ways the impact fees help us address these issues. having said that, i would like to move forward quickly and discuss what we have for you today and set some contacts. we are going to talk about the contacts and pipeline and the information we set out to make some of these improvements, the funding strategy and how we propose to deliver the