june 2015 the real estate division conducted an independent appraisal of the 490 south van ness property and determined the fair marshal value as of -- fair market value is listed and as the department indicated we report on page 28 of the report that the purchase sale certifies that the purchase price will be reduced by a credit of 462500 the amount of the real estate transfer tax that would otherwise be due on the transaction and pursuant to the city's business and tax regulations code. that section specifically exempts payment of the transfer tax for the purchase of property property of the city and as a result the

general fund will not receive the transfer tax revenues for this transaction so our recommendation on page 29 is we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to specify the purchase price with a credit as listed to reflect the city's exemption of paying the city's real estate property transfer tax and result in adjusted city cost as listed and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions for mr. rose or our team? okay. we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item 11? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues do we have the budget analyst recommendations in front of us and under line item. >> through the chair i make a motion to amend the purchase price reflecting what the budget analyst said for the transfer tax that the city is exempt from and move forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang and take that without

objection. madam clerk can you call item 12. >> item 12 resolution approving and authorizing the sale of easement on the city's property at corner of 23rd street and potrero avenue to the pacific gas and electric for the price of approximately 11,000. >> okay. welcome back mr. updike. >> thank you sir. john up dike director of director of real estate and this is to sale of easement at corner of 23rd street and potrero avenue and i was going to bring in something the size of the property but i decided not to. this is by the hospital and with adjustments serving the infrastructure adjustments that are made and this facilitates location of an electrical distribution pole. it's an area of over hang of wireos the city's property extending 5 feet on either side

of the wires so that's the subject of the easement before you. the purchase price pursuant to an appraisal which i approved. because this is a sale of a permanent property right board approval is required and i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you mr. mr. updike. any questions? we will move on to public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> i move that we approve this item. >> motion by supervisor mar. take that without objection. madam clerk can you call item 13. >> item 13 is contract contracts with cotton, shires and associates with arup north america limited and geostabilization international for the telegraph hill rock slope improvement project for stabilization and inn

constitution of the northwest face of telegraph hill and not not to exceed the amount listed. >> okay. >> this is a project stabilized telegraph hill. it's an emergency project. there are three contractors involved in this project. two of the contractors are engineering consultant. initially we declare emergencies in july 2014 for the project for all three contracts, but it had to go through a negotiation process. for the construction contract we solicited nine contractors to look at the project. four of them provided a proposal. we negotiated with the contractor that had the lowest cost and also had 2lbe components to their construction contract. one of the construction consulting engineering contract as a result of an agreement

with block 60 lot five and the property that stipulated we were to retain them for engineering support during construction. we notified the board of supervisors in march of 2015 initially and the reason was for that we had to make sure that the scope of the work because it's a telegraph hill rock slope improvement project a lot of the work was behind vej taifive areas that we are to remove to finalize the scope and then we submitted the documentation in june of 2015 towards the end of the project so i will take any questions. >> okay. colleagues any questions? okay. thank you very much. mr. rose can we go to your report? >> yes mr. chairman and members of committee. on page 33 of our report we have a table one

which shows the three original contracts total listed. however all three contractors submitted change orders which were approved by dpw for the revised amount as listed on the actual expenditures that you see in that table are through june 30, 2015. on page 34 of our report we note that the director of public works declared an emergency in 2014 but the resolution approving the emergency determination was want submitted to the board of supervisors until one year later or specifically 346 days after the emergency was declared, and we note on page 35 that although a board of supervisors recently approved ordinances not yet effective it's significant to note that the proposed

resolution was submitted 286 days in sceses excess of the 60 day limit pending before the board of supervisors. our recommendation is on page 35 and amend the proposed resolution to delete the incorrect contract amount as listed with cotton, shires and associates and add the correct amount as listed. we recommend that you delete the incorrect amount as listed with geostabilization international and add the correct amount as listed. we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to delete the innot to exceed amount as listed with and add the not to exceed amount as listed and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> okay. thank you

mr. roases. i appreciate that. colleagues any questions for mr. rose? okay we will move on to public comment. anyone wishing to comment? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . colleagues we have a number of recommendations from the budget analyst and the underlying item. can i have a motion to approve the items? >> i move that we approve the amendments and move it forward with a positive recommendation as amended. >> thank you very much supervisor mar. we have a motion and take that without objection. madam clerk can you call item 14. >> item 14 is approximately 4.2 million from permanent salaries and premium pay in the fridge departments in the sheriff's department and police department and public utilities commission and for the projected increases in overtime. >> thank you very much. we have ms. howard to speak on this item.

>> good morning chair farrell and members of the committee. this item appropriates 4.2 dollars to over time and the same amount from premium and fringe benefits for the departments for 2014. i believe the clerk has provided to you an amended version of this legislation for 5.$03 million which is based on final fiscal year 14-15 costs. i believe that the budget analyst report reflects the amended version of this item. the three departments included in the supplemental appropriation and deappropriation need to shift straight time salaries to over time for a variety of reasons and including law enforcement presences required at events this year, over time for deputy

sheriffs to complete training requirements and vacancies in the public utilities commission. the action is required as a result of the city's over time ordinance and requires eight departments including these three come before you to request the supplemental appropriation should over time spending in their departments exceed the budget. there is no general fund impact to this request because departments have sufficient salary premium pay and fringe benefit authorities in the budget. i am happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you ms. howard. colleagues any questions? mr. rose if we can go to your report. >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee. on page 40 we have a chart and shows the funds and the department to be appropriated and use of funds to be reappropriated under the ordinance as listed for the amounts and we recommend that

you approve this ordinance. >> okay thank you mr. rose. if no other questions or comments we will go to public comment. anyone wishing to comment on item 14? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] so colleagues could i have a motion to accept these amendments and then accept the underlying item as amended? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor mar. we can take that without objection. [gavel] okay. thank you everybody. we have gotten to the two final items and the two hearings and madam clerk call item 15 first. >> item 15 is hearing between the department of the environment's landfill disposal agreement with recology san francisco for the board resolution no. 171-05 and including discussion of the terms of the agreement and support the zero waste goal and time line and request the department of the environment to report. >> okay thank you madam clerk so i know i see mr. rodriquez

here and our director of the department of the environment to speak so this hearing. if there are any members of the public that wish to comment please fill out speaker cards. if not we will open it up when the hearing is concluded.

>> good morning supervisors and we have copies of the powerpoint and the new agreement for your reference. first i would like to thank you supervisor farrell for scheduling this hearing at our request. we wanted to make sure that we're clear and up front with the board about the change we are making in our contract language for this landfill agreement. i'm going to be speaking at a very high level but i have with me two of my colleagues, so if there's more specific questions if people want to dive in deeper we can certainly do that so i think it's important, and i don't know why there is -- [inaudible] okay. i'm sorry. i think it's important for you to understand when we as a department look at a landfill contract there are three standards that we're

looking at no matter who we're awarding the contract to. number one the contract needs to be legally defensible and stand up in court and follow the rules and regulations of the city and seconds must be project of the environment and supportive of the zero waste goal. incredibly important to us as a department and as a city and thirdly the contract has to be cost effective. we need to protect the ratepayers to make sure they're getting the lowest cost and the best service. looking at the current landfill agreement why are we here today? we are here today because we're notifying you of a small contract change but there's a much larger issue going on. in 1987 the city entered into a contract with waste management to dispose of our solid waste and at the landfill in alameda county. the contract for was for 15 million tons or 65 years

whichever came sooner. we are expected to reach that amount by the end of the calendar year, the beginning of 2016. it's important to note that the cost of a landfill agreement isn't strictly off to the rate payers. we have in san francisco another process which is the rate process and that landfill amount is build into the overall garbage bill that the residents and businesses in san francisco pay. the important point is there lots of public interaction and public comment and time to weigh in as we look at our zero waste programs so just tracking the history of this landfill agreement. it started in neefn 87 and we started the process in 2007. in 2007 we held five public hearings to determine the guidelines for the process

would be. in 2008 we did a competitive rfq process to look for qualified respondents. in 2009 we did a public rfp and got two bids and one from recology and one from waste management. we looked at other environmental factors which came out fairly evenly but the thing that was very striking was the difference in cost which would translate to over $100 million for ratepayers over the lifetime of this contract. so recology was selected by the panel. lawsuits were filed. lawsuits were dismissed and over the course of the next four years the board repeatedly took a look at this contract. you held four hearings, two votes and after the hearings and the votes the board unanimously approve the process and said in fact recology was the qualified bidder for the contract.

>> supervisor mar. >> i just wanted to ask you to slow down a minute and on the environmental benefits of the recology contract my recollection is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of the green rail but with more miles trucking from tunnel road to oakland and then rail all the way to yuba county but that's changed and i know the sierra club raised some concerns about increase increased greenhouse gas emissions and the department of the environment said they're negligible but the contract was based on greener way of transporting the trucking and then the rail, and that's changed significantly and that is an environmental impact so i would like to know about the analysis but i know it may come up with the report later, but i

wanted to say the price was a key thing with the points on the panel as i recall way back then, and the points because of the much lower pricing for the recology contract put the bid of recology way above waste management. >> correct. >> but there were still environmental benefits of the green rail proposal which has changed now though. >> so in a way when you look back at that original contract they were half the price and they a appeared to have a transportation option that was greener and either way you look at it recology was the best practice. >> i am saying i don't want to gloss over the environmental benefits of the original contract. >> exactly, yes. >> because the pricing was critical in the points but proposed as a green rail project that was much superior to the other one. >> right. and that was

incredibly exciting to us to think about the green rail and the contract was we would love to do that and if something happens we have a backup plan and go to a different landfill so any way you cut it it looked like the most protective of the environment and for ratepayers. the green rail option turned out to be still of interest to us but it's a very long protracted process. it does need more environmental review and agreed with that and yuba county said we need a deeper look at the rail and as that became longer and longer we fell back to the backup landfill which is hey road. and i want you to know that melanie nutter and john avalos and i visited yuba county and livermore as well and the environmental benefits were critical in addition to the pricing you mentioned earlier. >> yeah, fair enough. thank

you for bringing that up. this is high level and anything i am glossing over please stop and let's go into detail on, so you bring up the environmental review and the department feels like this new landfill going to hey road is not of significant environmental impact so that word "significant" is a legal term and the determination of whether a environmental impact is significant takes place with the planning department through the ceqa process and transition to my next slide so what happened under the environmental review so the agreement with hay road versus althat month and the planning department looked at that and transportation and there is a 40-mile difference between taking the waste from our city to hay road for

recology versus waste management so the question that needs to be answered from a legal perspective is that significant? does that trigger a full eir? that's the question that the planning department struggled with so we asked them to evaluate it and after nine months they came back and did all of the calculations and assumed a 50 truck per day and looked at the 40-mile difference and was below the threshold of ceqa and i will come back to that and it's important as the environment doesn't that we understand a legal obligation and moral obligation so that determination was appealed. the planning department unanimously agreed with their staff -- i'm sorry the planning commission agreed with the planning department that negative declaration, the impact of the 40 miles of insignificant and a full eir didn't have to happen. now that's not the end of that

discussion. that discussion and decision will come back to you in some time -- i expect in september, to redo and reevaluate so that you can feel comfortable that the city is in fact meeting the legal obligations to project the environment in terms of emissions. that's not what today's hearing is about, and it's not the end of the story so i want to make that point. >> supervisor tang. >> just a question. i know this is again not the full purpose of the hearing but you or planning staff if you would like to answer this. we did receive some comments from i guess the opposing party there is no ceqa threshold at this time based on the number of vehicle miles traveled and therefore ceqa thresholds are met based on air quality, greenhouse gas or noise impacts resulting from vehicles miles traveled so i am wondering if you or the planning department can respond to that quickly?

>> i cannot. >> erin [inaudible] from the department. i'm sorry. i am not prepared to talk about the environmental deration for that. >> okay. perhaps we can follow up when it comes back to the board. >> absolutely. we will make note of that and that is important point is that this is coming back before the board to take a look at those issues in more detail so the new agreement, the agreement that was being negotiated was of course the hay road landfill and looking thea a term of 5 million-tons and take about 15 years for us to reach given our efforts of zero waste and given the city's commitment to reducing what allly goes to landfill and our progress.

this agreement that is now in your hands is actually reducing the term of the contract down to nine years and 3.4 million tons but allowing an extention and that permission would be heard by you at the time we're approaching the end of the contract so the reason we shortened the term of the contract we want to honor the competitive bid process for all of the years and meetings and process that is legally defensible. it ensures rate stability because the department has the authority to sign the contract and ensure that a contract is in place before the existing contract ends at the end of the calendar year and honors public review and allows public review because the contract is shortened and allows the board to revisit it at the time of renewal and rather than wait 15 years the board can look at it in nine years. the other

change to the contract was seeking about the whole ceqa issue and the environmental issue and the discussion that came up from people that had concerns over the 40-mile difference and what we put into the contract we capped the number of trucks that recology could send to landfill at 50 per day. the reason we did that was the assumptions in ceqa made a 50 truck assumption but that wasn't set in stone so by doing that we're ensuring that the environmental impacts remain below the threshold and making a statement about the commitment to zero waste that no matter if the population increases, no matter what we will not send more trucks on the road than that number so the two changes to the contract were the term and the trucks. those were the two things that were changed so next steps. the department has the authority to sign such an agreement, and once it is signed

that triggers an action that then allows another appeal of ceqa which may come before you. we expect when you come back in september, and then if you're comfortable with that analysis and then we will have this contract in place by january, and all of the benefits that are part of that contract will be felt by the people of san francisco, so in closing i want to say again as i did in the opening that the contract process has been done with the utmost integrity with the weight of the law and the rules every step of the way front and center. it is protective of the environment. it is very much a strong contract to move us towards zero waste and the most cost effective one we can offer ratepayers at this time and again i have another colleagues here if you would like more detail so thank you very much again for forking us the

opportunity to have this discussion yet again. >> okay. colleagues any further comments or questions? okay. could you just real quick i think -- we have been getting a lot of questions and from different people inquiry about 10 years versus -- >> 15 years versus nine years. >> right. could you talk about that more? >> the original contract had an amount and 5 million tons no how long it took and our calculation said it would take 15 years given the rate of disposal and a 15 year contract. shortening the contract does two things. it allows the department to sign and get the contract moving so we can make the deadline of end of the year and ensure rate stability because we're not hanging out there with not a full contract, and it allows the board to come back and weigh in sooner, so in a 15 year term

it's gone. the last one was since 1987 so this way we get before you again after eight years to take a look how are we doing? are we meeting our goals? are we protective of the environment? and any changes we want to make to the term of the contract so that was the thinking. >> okay. colleagues questions right now? okay. why don't we go to public comment and then we can go to follow up questions. i have a few speaker cards here if people are filling out other ones. [calling speaker names] mr. lazarus was on 16. we have two speaker cards. anyone else wishing to comment please line up against the side of the wall and everyone has two minutes and we can move from here. >> i am kevin carol and

director of the [inaudible] hotel san francisco and work in an industry that welcomes people to san francisco and employs 24,000 people the majority that live and work in san francisco. i am in support of recology for the contract. they have been a long-term partner of our industry and hotels. we work with them daily and part of the sustainability committee and a committee of hotels that work together to share best practices in partnership with the department of the environment and recology and many organizations in the space. that committee is one of the most active committee and recology and their employees are active participants as well. they have hosted us to share best practices and educate our members and their employees on best practices for achieving their zero waste goals. their employees as i mentioned continue to work with us and our teams as well. recology is

fully committed collaborative and they partner with the hotels virtually everyday to reach our goals and i just wanted to remind you that we fully support their fulfillment of this agreement that is before you today and i appreciate your time as well. thank you. >> thank you. before the next speaker comes actually i want to recognize we have the president of the environment commission here. you're welcome to come up and say a few words if you like. >> thank you chair farrell. is it morning still? i am speaking as president of the san francisco commission on the environment and thank you for the opportunity to speak and i wanted to speak in support of the department of the environment, our staff. we had a hearing about this conversation at our last meeting and asked a series of questions and comfortable with the fare and bidding process that resulted in the