this is really the best means for us to keep up with the rising costs of doing business in the city while also keeping travelers in san francisco. san francisco is a world class city that welcomes all people regardless of their ability to spend money. so youth hostels play a vital role in allowing budget travelers to have accommodations within the city itself so we really urge you to support this measure and thank you so much for your time and we really do hope to have your support on this. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hello, my name is eric and i'm the operations manager for blazing saddles. we are a tourism company here in san francisco and by supporting this you will be helping the company i work for as well as many, many other companies in san francisco and the bay area. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else wish to comment on item no. 7? all right, seeing none, public

comment is closed. i know supervisor avalos had some comments. supervisor mar. >> i just wanted to thank the quote, unquote, community of hostels and i think you are a great example of a real sharing economy and the green businesses that you run, the employees, and how you help promote san francisco's benefits to young people that will bring it back all over the world. but i just wanted to thank you. i did see on the web sites that it looks like some of the rooms cost significantly more than $40 but it sounds like this exemption is going up to an amount that i guess has been worked out so it's really in support of you but i know that some of the hostel rooms are more than $40 a night. is that right, miss pagan >> that's correct. and any room above the exemption rate would have to pay hotel tax according to our current --.

>> but i'm very supportive and have been educated here today, but especially the great presentations of people who have come before us today. thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> i am actually fine. motion to approve. >> okay, motion to approve this item, we can take that without objection. >> excuse me, mr. chair, i believe miss pagan submitted technical amendments for this item. >> motion to rescind that vote on item 7. >> motion to approve the amendment of the whole and to accept the amendment of the whole and to approve the underlying ordinance. >> we have a motion by supervisor avalos. the second can take that without objection. okay, item 8. >> eye tell 8 is a resolution declaring the sbebt of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bond indebtedness, authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community develop. to submit an

application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to submit a mortgage revenue bond in an aggregate revenue bond not to exceed $65 million for 588 mission street north. >> we have the mayor's office of housing to speak on this item. (brief pause in captioning).

phase i will be a 93 unit

family project and phase ii will be a 91 unit family project, each including roughly 60 percent public housing replacement units and 40 percent additional affordable housing units. units will be targeted to households easterning no more than 50 percent area median income which translates to $50,600 a year for a family of four under the current area median income levels. phase i and 2 each include a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units.

phase i is between donner and eggbert and phase ii is between eggbert and fitzgerald. no demolition of existing units is expected prior to 2017 at the earliest. double rock ventures is the development entity mbs for the redevelopment, ambs is partnered with the san francisco housing corporation or sfhdc to be the nonprofit partner for phase i and tab err knack he will community development or tcdc to be the nonprofit for phase ii. they will act as the nonprofit general partners in conformance with tax credit requirements. as you know, the lenair is the

master development for candlestick point. in june of 2010 the former san francisco redevelopment agency, now ocii, executed a development execution agreement, required to provide $90,000 and 70,000 per new replacement unit toward the development of alice griffith in august 2011 mbs and (inaudible) a cni grant in the amount of 30 1/2 million dollars of which 1.3 million is to be used for the housing development at alice griffith

it comes with a variety of deadlines, the most of which is that the grant funds be delivered by september of 2016 for development of phasing 1 and 2. the bond issuances before you today will allow the mayor's office of housing and community development along with the other funding i described to start construction on time to meet these critical hud deadlines. these bond deadlines are conduit financing which do not require the city to repay the bonds. the projects are slated to begin construction in january of next year and be complete by july 2016. here with me today is daniella graville and this concludes my report. i am available to answer any questions you may have. >> i just had a quick one. what's the projected completion date of phase i housing and

phase ii housing? >> july 2017 ?oo -- 2016, i'm sorry. >> 2016 for phase i and phase ii? >> for phase i and 2, they are under the same schedule, they are being constructed concurrently. >> you mentioned no one is being displaced, unlike past hope 6 projects of the city every single resident of alice griffith has been relocated into another unit until they can move into the new unit. >> we likely don't even need to do the temporary relocation. we are doing the construction on adjacent parcels so folks can stay in their current units until new units are built, then move into the new units, which is a real benefit to the site that we have and the parcels that we have. >> excellent. thank you. any other comments? then let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone that

would like to speak from the public? seeing none, public comment is closed and we have an amendment for item no. 12. is that right? so there's a small minor nonsensitive amendment for item 12. is that right? >> correct, the correction to the address and to the date of the sid block application. >> can we approve the amendments without objection? >> so moved. >> thank you. >> now on amended item no. 12 and item 11, can we support these without objection? thank you. next item, miss wong >> item no. 13, resolution approving an agreement with new flier of america for the purchase of 61 60 foot low high

diesel busses and spare parts in an amount not to exceed approximately 68 million and for a term not to exceed 6 years in a term following board approval. >> we have mr. elton howell from mta >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is elton howell, i'd like to thank supervisor cohen for sponsoring this resolution and her support of our transit-related initiatives. the resolution before you is to request approval to enter into a contract with new flyer

for the purchase of busses. the contract is for 6 years and consists of one base contract, base order, and 5 options over the next 5 years. the reason we're purchasing these busses is to be able to reduce the age of the fleet and allow us to extend the maintenance on these busses several years and smooth out our maintenance expenses. also we're keeping the age of the busses low, about 6 years, so that the reliability of these busses will be to our advantage. the base contract is to purchase 61 60-foot articulated busses and the contract amount is $68 million dollars. the total project cost is 78 million dollars for the base contract. the options will be executed through amendments to the base contract and staff will seek mta board approval and board of supervisors approval to implement each amendment. that's the end of my report and i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. howell, i see no questions, let's go to the budget analyst for the report. >> mr. chairman and supervisor

avalos, on page 32 of our report we report table 3-d tails the cost to procure the 61 60-foot long busses and the total cost including the warranty support, the project support, the sales tax, is 78,885,665. we also note the mta provided two recent procurements from springfield, illinois, where the price for new flyer 60 foot long bus was similar in price to the price per bus that the mta procurement contract and table 4 on page 33 of our report shows this comparison and that's important from the standpoint that new flyer was the only der business bidder

on this contract. >> i think this is an important procurement for mta i see from the budget analyst's report about two-thirds of our existing 447 busses are projected to reach the end of their useful life this coming year or next year and though i wish we could purchase more more quickly, i think this is a wise procurement over the next 6 years and the 60 foot busses i know are desperately needed. many of them will serve the 38 geary line which runs through many of our districts but especially the richmond district and that line carries a comparable number as the caltrain whole system that was just discussed a few moments ago. and again the 38 geary is the heaviest used bus line west of the mississippi, west of chicago and i think we have to keep reminding ourselves of how

the northwest quadrant of the city doesn't have any access to rail like all the other quadrants of the city. so this is really important. it also will improve morale for riders in the whole system with more reliable service, faster boarding and especially easier access for seniors and people with disabilities so i really applaud the mta for moving this forward. i want to be added as a cosponsor with supervisor cohen as well. let's open this up now for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? i see supervisor avalos and farrell are nodding in approval. >> 14, resolution authorizing the issuance of one or more city of san francisco general obligation refunding bonds in an aeplt not to exceed $430 million. >> can you also call item 17 as well? >> item no. 17 is an ordinance

appropriating 430 million of one or more series of general obligation refunding bond proceeds and placing all these funds on controller reserve placing the general refunding bonds in one or more series. >> can we have a presentation. >> my name is anthony anthony arabon from the office of public finance. this is an resolution to authorize the issuance of one or more bonds for the city. the board authorized an issuance not to exceed in the city and county bonds. the refunding bonds must achieve 3 percent net present value savings and the cost of such bonds must not

exceed 12 percent. based on market conditions the city could issue $361,530,000 refunding bonds to refund approximately $400 million in outstanding geobonds. based on market conditions it is estimated it will result in gross savings of approximately $36 million or approximately 11 percent of the refunding bonds, meeting the 2011 resolution terms and conditions. the item before you also approves certify napbsing documents including the official statement and appendix a the official statement (inaudible) describes sources and uses, risk factors and tax and other legal matters. it also includes the city's appendix a that describes our finances and our organization and allows for the recently

audit edify napx papers of the city. i'm happy to answer any questions should you have them. >> i wanted to thank nadia essa as well. now we have the onlyist's report from harvey rose. >> yes, mr. chairman, supervisor avalos, on page 38 of our report and as the department has just testified as shown in table 2 on page 39 of our report, the office of public finance currently estimates a savings of 56,234,000 as a result of servicing the refunding of geobonds and the average interest rate of the bonds expected to be refunded is 4.835 percent and the anticipated true interest cost is 2.59 percent, representing a 2.26 percent average interest rate savings. so that's where the savings is achieved from. we recommend that you approve

the proposed resolution that is file 141213. we recommend you

amend the proposed ordinance that's file 141214 on page 2 of line 2 of page 3 to state 4 thurt million rather than 430,080,000 specified in procurement ordinance. that is simply a typographical error and we recommend you approve the proposed ordinance as amended. >> let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public that would like to speak in public comment is closed. colleagues, can we approve the resolution of the budget analyst to amend item 14 to correct that typo? >> mr. chair, i believe that's item no. 17. >> okay, for item no. 17. so can we approve that amendment without objection? thank you. and now on items 14 and 17 as mended can we approve that without objection? thank you. miss wong, can you now call 15 and 16 together. >> item 15, ordinance deappropriating 1.4 million in existing watt or system improvement program for regional ground water and re-appropriating the funds to water system improvement bond commercial paper expense. item 16, resolution authorizing the sfpu cu. to accept and expend a grant of 1.4 million from the california department of water resources for regional ground water storage and recovery project phase i a. >> it's steve richie from the puc, followed by the budget analyst. >> thank you, chairman mar and the committee, i'm steve richie, general manager for water for the public utilities

commission. today we're asking the committee to recommend two actions to the board. one is to accept and expend a 1.4 million proposition 84 grant for the project from the department of water resources which would actually be administered by abag. at the same time approving apring de-appropriating 1.4 million in ground water funds and reappropriating those funds to the water system bonds commercial paper expense. that way it can be used for other needs so it's a good offset of funds already available. one thing i would note is i will probably be back next week and a couple additional times in 2015 for additional grants for water conservation purposes and for the lower cherry aquaduct as well so we're doing well on the grant front under proposition 84. >> thank you, mr. richie. i see no questions, go to mr.

rose, the budget analyst. >> yes, mr. chairman, supervisor avalos. on page 4 of our report we note the regional ground storage project overall is $113,500,000 and that's shown on the table on page 42. we also report the proposed 1.4 million in state department of of water resources grant will free up, as the department indicated, existing water bond proceeds previously approved by the board of supervisors for the ground water recovery and storage project which will be reappropriated to the commercial expense account. before those reappropriated funds can be expended on another fund the board of supervisors would need to approve a supplemental resolution. we recommend you do approve the resolution and ordinance. >> let's open this up for public comment. anyone from the public like some speak in seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this 40 woud objection?

miss wong, please call the next item. i believe it's item 19. >> item no. 19, ordinance authorizing the levy and collection of special taxes within city and county of san francisco community facility district no. 2014-1. do i need to call item 20 as well? >> yes, please. >> item 20, resolution authorizing the issuance and sale not to exceed 1.4 million for san francisco community facility district 2014-1 and determining other matters in connection therewith. >> thank you and the presentation is from adam vera from planning, but we also have nadia esse >> i'm here to talk about the

transbay district. today's hearing beginning the process for the third and final legislative action required for the formation of this district. as you recall, the transbay and new projects, new develop. projects that come forward within that district will be required as part of their conditions of entitlement to join the district and this would be a special tax on new development. so the actions that you have previously heard include resolving to form the district and calling for a special election. that was at your september 23rd hearing. today's resolutions before you are resolution authorizing the issuance of special tax bonds