going to use to cite. >> i agree. good call. any further public comment? hearing none, public comment is closed and call the next line item. >> clerk: vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session, including a vote on whether to assert the attorney/client privilege with items 8, b and c, san francisco administrative section code 63.10 action. >> vice-president mazzucco: we have a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> vice-president mazzucco: all in favor. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen and we're n fitzgerald.d we're n f >> okay. commissioners, we're back in open session right now. item line 9, vote to whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session, san francisco administrative code section 67.12 a, action, and i'll make a motion not to disclose.

>> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> the motion passes unanimously. >> can you call the next item? >> yes. line 10, adjourn, action. >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor to adjourn?

>> president cohen: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome you to another edition of budget and finance committee, our fall edition. welcome you back to the chamber and back in the legislative break and back and ready to get into action. a great agenda prepared for

everyone today. announcements? >> silence all cell phones, completed speaker cards and copies of documents to be included in the files submitted to the clerk. items acted on will be in the september 25th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> president cohen: great. the voice of linda wong, and recognize our friends at sfgovtv, and item 1 please. >> clerk: resolution approving a general agreement between the port and the national park service for 30-year term with two ten-year options allowing ferry concessions to alcatraz island and oat golden gate national recreation area sites

and lease agreement to develop visitor amenities to commence upon approval of the board of supervisors. >> president cohen: the port has a long deep bench of supporters and friends, elaine and then rebecca as well, and jay edwards possibly also on deck to present. again, just an item, long-term 30-year lease for the embarkation area out to alcatraz. and hear after the port's presentation, hear from the budget legislative analyst and their thoughts. i understand they may have a couple of amendments. thank you. elaine, welcome. >> good morning, chair cohen, welcome, and members of the committee. elaine forbes, port director, pleased to be here today to recommend an agreement to you that really secures the embarkation sites of alcatraz into the future, 30 years, up to 50 years. >> president cohen: for those of

us who don't know, what does embarkation actually mean. those of you watching at home. >> using a port word. embarkation where passengers board vessels. alcatraz has, we have had an embarkation site for the alcatraz island since 1972 at the board of san francisco. it is an incredibly popular place to go for visitors to the city. it's a wonderful national park, and we have worked very closely with our partners to develop an agreement that really is going to improve the visitor experience on the embarkation site, provide more retail, interpretation, get us a lot of investment into our pier, and the concessioner and the retail operator. this agreement is going to transform this embarkation site.

i am here today not only with my team, rebecca and jay, but also with our partners, laura from the national park service, greg moore from the park's conservancy, and i see mark buell is here and sonny from supervisor peskin's office has been helping a great deal as well. we also have provided to you letters of support from the inland boats union, pier 39, blue and gold, spur, sf travel and all the partners that share an interest here en the alcatraz experience. so, right now passengers board vessels to get to alcatraz from this area between 31 and 33. it's mostly unimproved, some substructure problems and we have recognized we can provide a much better visitor experience. the agreement before you would provide for $33 million of

investment to transform what is today to the rendering you see before you. this has 43,000 square feet of outdoor space, and it's converted to pedestrian only. 25,000 square feet of historic rehabilitation, and as you can see, just a much finer visitor experience. we would also improve substantially the circulation to get on to the vessels. we would have a new public plaza, visitor interpretation exhibits, pier 33 canopy and a new cafe. and we have an additional berth coming to the site to allow us to more easily get the passengers to and from the island. there is a business framework that is included in this general agreement, and to recognize the

national park service cannot invest directly in land they do not own. so the agreement before you is the framework between the port and the golden gate national recreation area at that provides for all the terms and conditions. we will then enter into a lease with the concessioner that the national park service will select and the conservancy. -- provide a way in which we can all ensure the quality visitor experience is achieved for this long-term period of time. and this slide goes over the agreements and transaction documents that will underline

this agreement. i don't know if i mentioned to you that this is the highest volume maritime operation on port property with one. million passengers a year. when we came to you with the term sheet, we thought we would earn annual base rent of 1.2 million. i'm happy to report that has gone up a bit to 1.2 million, and this slide goes over the various areas in this footprint and where our base rent is coming from. this is the overall projected rent to the port, minus a rent credit we will be participating in the $33 million investment through a rent credit. and here is an outline of who will make investments in the site. the ferry concessioner will invest $30 million of which the port will run a rent credit of 2.5. parks conservancy, 3.7 million, less a rent credit for the total

investment of $33.7 million. the port is also investing now 5 million in the substructure to prepare the site for the agreement and new project. as i said, my staff can provide you much more information if you have questions about the framework. we do agree with the budget analyst and my staff can also go over that as well the budget analyst, but if you would allow me, i would like for our partners at the table with us since 2014 to say a couple words why it's good for their organization. laura, the superintendent from the national parks service. >> thank you, elaine. good morning, chair cohen and members of the board of supervisors budget and finance committee. laura joss. i thank you for the opportunity to speak and appreciate your

thoughtful attention to this important project to establish a long-term embarkation location for ferry service to one of the golden gate's most popular sites, alcatraz island. for over five years, they have been collaborating to identify the site location, develop the vision and solidify the business terms that will enable this long-term alcatraz island ferry embarkation to remain at pier 31.5 the next 50 years. benefits for all stakeholders and 1.7 million visitors. the next ferry concessioner and the conservancy together will invest in a $33 million port improvement project which will provide a new welcoming gateway to alcatraz island, on piers 31 and 33, in the 'em --

embarcadero district. completed an environmental statement, e.i.s., studied six other locations, piers in san francisco before selecting pier 31.5, which was supported by the port of san francisco and local stakeholders. the planning process took public input at several stages and included agency consultation about protecting endangered species, consistency with the san francisco bay plan and preserving historic resources. the economic benefits of establishing a long-term home for alcatraz embarkation is also significant, in addition to the direct return of rent to the port, visitors bring nearly $200 million to the city, in total annual spending power.

almost half of which is estimated to be spent in the vicinity of the embarkation site on meals, shopping and other attractions. the nature and structure of the alcatraz embarkation partnership with the city of san francisco and the conservancy is unprecedented in the many ways. and genuinely enthusiastic about what the future holds. we are very excited to see this project move forward and know that it will be a lasting legacy enjoyed by millions of visitors. thank you for considering this opportunity. >> president cohen: thank you for your presentation. >> and greg moore from the conservancy say a couple words. >> good morning. i'm very grateful for your review of this significant project today. the golden gate national parks conservancy, we are one of the three partners in the project to

create a permanent and improved gateway to alcatraz island. this landmark site serves 1.7 million visitors a year, allowing them to enjoy the island's beauty, nature and history. and alcatraz won trip advisor's national award as the number one landmark in all of america. quite a landmark site. but not only do visitors from around the world visit alcatraz, but good to the local community. rangers provide programs for schools throughout san francisco as a regular part of their activity, and alcatraz has a community access program for the low cost visits to alcatraz, bringing thousands of people from san francisco neighborhoods and community organizations to the island each year. the national parks site as i said deserves an enhanced gateway and the plans as the port is presented improve views, improve public access, improve

interpretation, and really revitalize this incredible gateway to a national landmark. and not only do the three partners endorse this project, but many people throughout the city, many organizations have endorsed it. civic organizations like spur, san francisco travel, the san francisco chamber of commerce, waterfront businesses, waterfront workers, waterfront tenants endorse the project, preservation and historic, and community-based organizations. we believe the time has come to make this way into reality to benefit from your approval if you agree with us and the benefits of this project and we encourage you to give it your approval so that we can have a revitalized gateway, provide economic benefit to the city of san francisco and contribute to the travel and tourism industry of this great city. thank you.

>> thank you. elaine, come on up. i have a couple questions. i know a lot of people are involved in supporting this, budget and finance committee, get into the agreement, and nuts and bolts of the contract. yesterday i'll hear from you in a second. yesterday a similar item related to this one was heard in the rules committee, and i was wondering if you could summarize for us the labor harmony agreement between the ferry operators. >> so that is subject to a separate ordinance, and that ordinance would provide labor harmony requirements on excursions and operators that offer excursions from the port of san francisco and any waterfront location. we understand that is moving through the process. we have a similar labor harmony agreement as relates to hotel workers from my understanding, and we had our staff testify in

the hearing yesterday. we do not find it to be an i impediment to the port. it's in everyone's interest for labor harmony and have spoken to that ordinance. >> president cohen: thank you very much. pivot to the budget and legislative analyst and hear their thoughts and comments as it results to this lease agreement. >> good morning, chair cohen, members of the committee. this board would be approving two things in this legislation. one, approving the agreement between the port and the national park service that sets the conditions for the ferry operations and the lease that would be entered into between the port and the ferry operator. and the second would be to actually approve the lease between the port and the conservancy. the two things before you today. general agreement that's before

you, the board approved the terms, the term sheet for that in 2016. what you are looking at today is consistent with that term sheet. but we do have a couple of questions that we want to discuss. now, miss forbes did go over with the slides in terms of the fiscal impact, went over the same numbers and can answer any questions. but i think the issue raised in the report is the actual expected terms of the leases are different than what's in the general agreement and are different than what's en the term sheet. from our understanding this has more to do with the configuration of the space thank the actual, any difference in terms of the price per square foot, so not an actual reduction in rent, simply reckon -- reconfigu reconfigure of the space.

we thought they needed to be brought together and the same. we did make a recommendation to that effect and since our report came out, we have talked to the port, submitted language that incorporates the recommendations that we made. there's one change, but we are comfortable with the change, which is we said that the agreement should basically be consistent with the national park service rules that leases for ten years, in fact, there are some other caveats to that, initial lease with the ferry operator for 15 years, consistent with all the information we have been provided. so, instead of actually recommending that you amend the resolution, we maintain our recommendations that you request the port to do these things, and also draft language that incorporates language and we recommend approval. >> miss forbes an opportunity to comment on the recommendations from the b.l.a. >> we concur with what the budget analyst said and rebecca

will walk you through the language changes we recommend. >> thank you. >> thank you, elaine. red lines we provided to the budget analyst this morning do confirm what miss campbell was describing. ten-year term mandated under federal rules unless there are extenuating circumstances, the first contract for 15 years, what it's been advertised for, and clear, that's the first contract. subsequent contracts, the ten-year term unless m.p.s. determines other circumstances require a longer term. other edits confirming the total base rent in the g.a. to the leases. >> thank you. thank you. colleagues, do you have any questions from either the b.l.a. or any member of the port team? no, all right. what we are going to do is take public comment and then take action on the item. ladies and gentlemen, as a

reminder, two minutes to speak, a soft chime indicating 30 minutes remaining on the balance of the time. if you would like to speak on item 1, come up to the podium right now. perfect. commissioner, good to see you. good morning. >> thank you, very much nice to be here. my name is mark buell, and for 15 years i had the pleasure of being on the board of the golden gate national park conservancy and served as the chair of that board for eight years. so i'm familiar with the organization. over the 25 years they have raised as a partner with the national park, over $400 million in charitable money to support activities in the park and improvements. some of those you are very familiar with. the visitor center at land's end, visitor center at the golden gate bridge, muir woods visitor center and the warming hut at chrissy field.

the level and quality of the work of the conservancy is second to none and these, all these projects have received local, state and national attention for the quality and i think this opportunity at the port represents the same kind of project that will make all of san francisco very proud of the facilities. so i come today to highly recommend your approval and thank you for your courtesy. >> president cohen: thank you. any other members of the public to speak on this item, come. >> good morning. supervisors, thank you. my name is adam pulitzer, city manager for the city of sausalito. and on behalf of the sausalito mayor, mayor joan cox, happens to be at the annual league of california cities conference,

she asked me to come and read her letter to the record. dear members of the san francisco budget and finance committee. as you take the final steps towards approval of this important project, city of sausalito would like to take this opportunity to thank you and acknowledge a number of regional leaders who collaborated together to produce a positive result. san francisco supervisor aaron peskin, the port of san francisco, port commissioner and director elaine forbes who listened carefully and worked very hard behind the scenes to ensure the final project description addressed sausalito concerns. acting mayor mark farrell, jenny kaloway, marin county supervisor office, among others, and of course, laura joss. together we demonstrated the

power of regional collaboration as all of us invested our best efforts to ensure the best possible future for incredible natural resources. san francisco bay, fort baker and the golden gate recreational area for our resident and visitors. we are confident not only have we created a mutually beneficial solution for this current challenge, but we have also established a framework for collaboration, cooperation, between regional partners for the years to come. we sincerely thank you, joan cox, mayor of the city of sausalito. >> extend our gratefulness to the mayor, and also nice when our neighbors come and say nice things. welcome, please come back. all right. any member of the public that would like to speak on item 1, public comment is closed, thank you very much. ok. i want to ask a question to the b.l.a. the amendments that you spoke of, could you just recap them one more time?

>> clarify, challenging our recommendation so you don't, not to revise the, amend the resolution but simply to request the port. >> agreed to do so and submitted the red line. here it is in front of me. >> amendments are basically, read them. basically to request executive director to revise the general agreement to, a, specify the term of the initial ferry concession lease ten years or less unless the director of the national park service determines a longer term is warranted in accordance with code, and initial term of the ferry concession, 15 years, that's in the revised language. and b, make the terms consistent

between the proposed port and ferry concessioner. >> colleagues, you have heard the amendments, we will accept the amendments, thank you very much for being agreeable to the port and we can take that without objection, ladies, all right. without objection, accept the amendments and approve with a positive recommendation to the full board. thank you. >> president cohen: item 2, please. >> clerk: ordinance delegating authority to the public utilities commission to enter into binding arbitration for the purchase of electricity and related products in certain parameters and authorizing agreements for clean power s.f. with binding arbitration. >> president cohen: retroactive ordinance for binding arbitration between the p.g. and

e. and the p.u.c., to support the, of course, infamous cleanpower cleanpower cleanpowersf program that grows and is more popular. >> supervisors, good morning. michael hymns, director of the cleanpowersf program for the san francisco public utilities commission. before you is an action requesting the board to retroactively approve three resource adequacy contracts, executed by the general manager of the public utilities commission with pacific gas and electric company. critical to the planned growth of the clean powpowersf program. two years and five months from august 2018 through december 2020. the combined total cost of the three contracts is 13.7 million. through previous actions, the board of supervisors, to support

the expansion of cleanpowersf. and limited delegation authority of the p.u.c. to enter into contracts featuring binding arbitration without going back to the board, subject to a very limited set of conditions. resource adequacy is a state requirement applicable to all entities that provide electric service to customers. and hetch hetchy power. to ensure sufficient electric generation available to the state's power grid when unusually high levels of customer demand occur. resource adequacy requirements are based on demand forecast and methodology through state law. to seek the supply it needed to meet its resource adequacyable gaugeses through 2018 through 2020, conducted or participated

in a number of competitive solicitations for these products. including solicitations in september 2017 as well as march, april and may of 2018. the p.u.c. is seeking retroactive approval from the board to enter into the three contracts, to purchase capacity, support cleanpowersf compliance over that period of time. these contracts were essential for cleanpowersf to avoid noncompliance, and penalties, the p.u.c. staff estimates might have been as high as $14 million. while the contracts amount, contract amounts and terms individually do not require the board of supervisors approval, each of the three negotiated contracts includes binding arbitration for settlement of disputes as reared by p.g. and e. and require approval by the

board of supervisors. contracts meet all other conditions established by the board. p.g. and e. would only hold the quantities if the contracts were executed earlier this year. to secure the needed resource quantities and meet the california p.u.c. compliance schedule, the contracts were executed by the general manager and therefore, we are now requesting retroactive approval. in addition to authorizing the agreements, the ordinance would delegate authority to the general manager of the public utilities commission to enter into agreements requiring binding arbitration for the pch of electricity and products, with very specific parameters and only when necessary with legal requirements. authorized to enter into such an agreement if the agreement is to purchase electricity for electricity-related product, such as resource adequacy, and

the purchase is necessary to meet a legal requirement, and no other purchase that would meet the legal requirement and does not require binding arbitration is available, and finally, the agreement with not otherwise require the board's approval. so, this of course includes term and expenditure amounts. we believe it's reasonable and in the public interest to grant the general manager the limited delegated authority for power supply contracts, featuring binding arbitration, without further approval. that concludes my presentation of this item. happy to take any questions you might have. >> president cohen: thank you, appreciate that. any questions? see if the b.l.a. has any questions. i have a few that i'll ask after the budget legislative analyst makes the report. >> chair cohen, members of the committee, the actual legislation before you that you are being asked to approve has two components to it. one is to retroactively approve

three lease, excuse me, agreements with p.g. and e. and p.u.c. for resource adequacy, summarized these three agreements on page 12. as we say in our report, these are short-term fixed price contracts, but they do require binding arbitration, and they delegate the authority, the board's authority in that circumstance. the second piece of the ordinance is to delegate authority to the p.u.c. general manager to enter into future agreements for both cleanpowersf and hetch hetchy that could require binding arbitration. and he set out the conditions which that would be allowed, page 11 of the report, because this legislation does delegate authorities otherwise sit with the board of supervisors, we consider it to be a policy

matter. >> president cohen: thank you. questions -- question for the deputy city attorney. legislation lays out the circumstances under which the p.u.c. would have the authority to apply for this, apply to this, apply to this authority. how should we be thinking about this delegated power? how, and how broad or how narrow should the application actually be? >> deputy city attorney, that's really the policy question before this committee. generally you would have, the board would have authority to approve all the contracts if you didn't adopt the ordinance because this is an exercise of authority that requires board approval. so, it's a question of how much

authority you want to give to the p.u.c. the proposed ordinance includes several parameters that narrow the number of contracts they can enter into under this ordinance. >> ok. thank you. let's go to public comment. thank you very much for your presentation. any member of the public on item two, come on up. >> based on when i just seen brings in the question, p.g. and e. is trying to corner the market in the production and use of electricity, i believe it should be open and free enterprise, if the city can go to another source of electricity instead of spending this $13,762,490,000 and cut the expenses in half in order for electrical use to power the city, i believe that option should be open. trying to corner the market.

for example, the bad faith dealing and the fires that the electrical lines is causing, trying to pass the costs on to the consumer, when the consumer has nothing to do with it. they claim they can go bankrupt, a bold face pathological lie, on the ground that p.g. and e. has insurance. if there's a better way the city can get electricity other than going to p.g. and e., do it and keep the option open and don't find yourself to them when you are obligated to purchase electricity from them, when there are other sources with a lower rate and save money on the budget. >> president cohen: any other members of the public? thank you very much. i appreciate the history of the item and why it's timely and essential. however, i trust that our p.u.c. general manager, however, while

i trust the p.u.c. general manager, i am uncomfortable with the potential of a long-term authority for p.g. and e., as cleanpowersf gains capacity and matures and other potential sources for reserve capacity companion line, i would like the board of supervisors to retain some of its oversight and hear what alternatives to p.g. and e. might be available. introducing to you, should have them before you, some amendments. i have circulated the amendments, and sunset date of the authority, five years from the effective date of the ordinance, approximately october of 2023. this will give the general manager, this will give general manager kelly the space to conduct his business in good faith, but will also give us more insight and the opportunity to review as programs continue to progress.

i just want to also acknowledge john scarpula, not here, ok. p.u.c. is in agreement with the amendments, we worked with them on getting them crafted. so, this is no surprise to them. i don't know if you have any other questions or need clarification. if not, a motion -- >> i was going to make a motion to accept the amendments. >> president cohen: thank you. motion by supervisor fewer, take that without objection, thank you. ok. item 3, please. >> like to send this item to the full board as committee report as amended? >> committee report and as amended, thank you. >> clerk: ordinance amending the business and tax regulation code to add provisions to administer the early care and education commercial rents tax. >> president cohen: all right. so an item dealing with the

business and tax regulation code. we have noel from supervisor kim's office to make opening remarks. >> thank you for the kind introduction, chair cohen. on behalf of supervisor kim, thank you to the entire budget and finance committee for your careful consideration of this ordinance, which defines the process for the tax collector's office to collect and administer the early care and education commercial rents tax. that would allow for the city to follow the standard process, to implement the new tax, and it is no way related to the spending plan or the pending litigation. our office would like to acknowledge and thank the office of early child care and education, the city attorney's office, controllers office, the tax collector's office, and supervisor norman yee and his staff are coordinating with us to draft this legislation. thank for your time and we hope we have this committee's support on this item.

>> president cohen: thank you. colleagues, reminder, this sets the tax collection code for the early child care and rents. nod going to interfere with pending litigation. i would like to hear from the controllers office and hear their thoughts. i have a couple questions as well. you have any thoughts? ok. that's ok. i'll go? my questions, thank you. my first one, how will the city go about establishing and ultimately dispensing the tax revenue, given the associated legal risk? you have to turn your mic on. >> from the controllers office. at this time what we can say about that is that while the litigation is pendings, funds on reserve, impounded. >> president cohen: so we are not going to spend the money as

it's collected into the fund or are we? >> no, it would be not available to be allocated or appropriated. >> president cohen: at what point for allocation, after the litigation? >> when the litigation is resolved. >> president cohen: any idea how long that would be? >> do not know. >> president cohen: will you be increasing the funding in these areas as there is a voter mandate to do so from the general fund? the fund is going to be on reserve, increasing or going into the general fund? >> the funds would not be part of the general fund in terms of being available the way the general fund is. >> all right, thank you. thank you. colleagues, i don't know if you have any other questions. all right. open to public comment. public comment is open. >> another example of conflict and tax regulations where you want to tax businesses and by

the same response, you got other businesses that's not being taxed at all. demonstrated well over several times that twitter and five other high-tech companies has gotten away with a minimum of $217 billi $217 billion worth of tax free money from the city and county of san francisco. it's not fair. you turn around and want to tax other businesses that are nowhere near as the income revenue that twitter and the other high-tech companies is making while being a resident here in the city of san francisco. multi-quadruple, trillion, billion dollar organization and you give them a break. they don't need a break. the people who need childcare help and the people who are economically disadvantaged on the street, and the people with disabilities and aging and senior citizen programs, those

are the people that need a break. so, the amount of free money that you are giving twitter, i believe is tax evasion, money laundering and bank fraud, half of that money would take care of the program for this early childcare for the mothers who need help making this proposal that's coming out of kim's office. it's unethical and brings in question violation of the business and professional code pertaining to ethics and professional responsibility. you have a situation enjoyed by one company, but not enjoyed by another. in fact, each and every one of the departments in the city of san francisco is paying payroll taxes but twitter and the high-tech companies. that's called professional stupidity and i know none of you is stupid. i'm calling it to your attention. i believe it's an oversight. >> president cohen: public comment is closed.

pivot back to the mayor's budget office and the risks that we are under taking or maybe not taking any risk at all. share your thoughts. >> deputy city attorney. i think discussion of the legal risk is more appropriate for a closed session. we did have a closed session at the board on these questions and could have another one and probably will have another one at the board's request or working with the controller and the mayor's office. this, i can say this ordinance does not impact the legal risk regarding the pending litigation. but if you would like an update on the pending litigation, we should do that in a privileged setting. >> president cohen: thank you very much. off the hook, kelly. we have taken public comment. colleagues, i don't know if you have any questions for the controller. city attorney or the budget office, seeing none, i'll make a motion to approve with a

positive recommendation sent to the full board. thank you, without objection. item 4 and 5 together. >> ordinance waiving the fee required by public works code in connection with the tree maintenance by the greater rincon hill, known as the east cut community benefits district. item 5, waiving up to 100 banners placed on city owned utility poles by the filipino american arts exposition. >> president cohen: thank you very much. supervisor kim is a sponsor of this. i think we have noel here to speak on her behalf, and i think also andrew robinson, and sabrina. great. thank you. >> good morning, thank you again to the introduction, thank you for your review of this legislation put forward by our office on behalf of these

community organizations. these ordinances offer fee waiver for the east cut community benefit district to maintain trees and the filipino american arts exposition to display banners raising awareness of the pistahan parade. it promotes their efforts to enhance the look and feel of the district six neighborhoods, promoting a welcoming and lively community identity. thank you so much to andrew robinson, here on behalf of the east cut c.b.d. and to sabrina, who is here on behalf of the filipino american art exposition. we very much appreciate their coordination with our office, not only on fees, ordinances, but on a variety of community events and benefits that they have offered. >> thank you very much. i think this is a pretty straightforward item. let's take public comment on items 4 and 5.

>> i think these proposals should be waived, very much so, just like additional fees and penalties are waived for people caught up in the criminal justice, 850 bryant street when they serve their time, additional fees that were applied that just got ended and unnecessary in order for people to establish themselves in the city. just like those fees were gotten rid of to inmates who were starting their life over and trying to get themselves situated, and those fees were waived and penalties were waived, i believe this should be waived as well. >> president cohen: public comment is closed, thank you very much. i'll make a motion to approve with a positive recommendation to the full board, without objection. thank you.

items, please call items 6 -- item 6. >> resolution approving and authorizing the sale to alameda county of an easement on city property under the jurisdiction of the san francisco public utilities commission, consistent of one approximately 5,000 square foot area, road area and approximately 22,000 square foot slope area on and above calaveras road. >> replace a new word replacing one damaged by the storm. >> before you is a resolution approving and authorizing the sale of an easement to alameda county for the fair market value of $2,457 for a realigned portion of calaveras road in the sunol watershed.

>> president cohen: $2,000, that's it? >> that's it, discounted for the easement. >> president cohen: i thought it was missing some 0, like 200,000. or 2 million. >> no, that's the going rate out there. it's a very remote location, very little utility for the area. >> all the more reason why it should be more expensive. >> we maybe agree on that. the resolution also grants a limited delegated authority to the general manager and the city's director of property to execute documents, make certain modification, and take certain actions to further the resolution that do not materially increase our obligations or liabilities. so -- ok. in 2011, the sfpuc began construction on the dam replacement project with the purpose of safeguarding critical facilities and public safety against earthquake and flood.

in january of 2017 during a large storm event, a landslide occurred on a section of calaveras road. it made the road impassable to the dam replacement project contractor and to the public. as you can see, calaveras road is the main access road for the project contractor to transport large equipment and materials to and from the project site, and the road closure put the project schedule at risk. though alameda county operates and owns calaveras roads, a minimum of six months before they would be able to design and begin construction of the necessary road repair. on april 4, 2017, san francisco board of supervisors approved an sfpuc emergency declaration authorizing to construct a bypass road up slope and

adjacent to the landslide area so the project could continue without further delay. >> president cohen: i remember that. >> though our contractor was able to resume work on the dam by using the new road alignment, the road is closed to the public until alameda county can actually take ownership of the new road alignment. 50-foot wide easement and part of the alignment and the slope area are outside of that existing easement. alameda county seeks to purchase an easement for the new roadway and slope area, as a condition of the purchase and sale of the easement, alameda county agrees to accept ownership constructed as is without warranties. we'll take questions. >> president cohen: a couple questions. so, alameda county owns the road but san francisco county owns the easement. >> no, we own -- we own the

property. it's a bundle of rights we own. alameda county owns the easement, very specific rights and in this case, the right to maintain a road and to maintain that, that slope improvement. >> i think n your presentation, alameda county, they have to go through their own internal process -- >> that's correct. going to the boards in parallel. we would like to get the road open to the public as soon as possible, so that's why we are asking for that delegation of, that limited delegation of authority to continue formalizing the form of purchase and sale agreement and the easement agreement. >> thank you very much. colleagues, i don't have any other questions. do you? no, ok, public comment. please -- any member of the public that would like to comment on this item, please come up. seeing none, public comment is closed, thank you. all right. motion to approve with positive recommendation, send as a committee, and take that without

objection. thank you. item 7. >> clerk: resolution retroactively approving emergency contract for general airport security services between covenant aviation security and the city 1.7 million from april 9, 2018, through october 8, 2018. >> kathy wideman, an item, resolution to approve an emergency contract for security staffing with covenant aviation after a previous contractor failed to provide sufficient staffing levels. so i guess my first with question is, how did the original contractor even get the contract when they have insufficient staffing levels? >> good morning, chair cohen, kathy widener with the san francisco airport. the original company got the contract as part of a competitive process where they

did submit and met qualifications that included the appropriate staffing levels. over the course of the contract, it's my understanding -- >> how long is the contract? >> i believe it was five years, i need to double check that. >> did they begin the engagement of the contract? >> yes, in the middle of a contract. >> there were some changes to their business plan, i don't know if it was financial or change of ownership, but we noticed a steady decline in the services that they provided. they, they were found to not have provided adequate staffing on at least 19 occasions, they failed three t.s.a. inspections, we found posts unattended. they generally violated the terms of their contract as well as the t.s.a. requirements that are put on the airport to enforce. which is why we needed to engage covenant on an energy basis at that time. >> president cohen: got it, understood.

airport staff has issued a new request for proposals to provide the services. services include screening airport employees, badged employees, screening deliveries that vendors bring through, chekts into the sterile area and the terminals and providing gate access and monitoring of checkpoints on the air field. so, they are fairly critical responsibilities that need to be staffed full-time. we are almost finished with the request for proposals process and it will go to the commission for award in, at a meeting next month. >> that simple, huh? wonderful. thank you for the presentation. >> supervisor fewer: yes, i just have a question, you know, june 2017 covenant employees were, which were t.s.a. agents pled guilty to taking bribes and letting 50 pounds of cocaine go

through security. so, therefore, abetting smuggling. how have the hiring practices changed? >> i just want to be clear, i can address that. but that contract with those employees, that's the t.s.a. contract with covenant, that is not this contract. that is not our -- the contract before you does not provide any passenger screening at all, where those incidents took place at the t.s.a. checkpoints. so, since that time i can say that i have seen and we have heard from t.s.a. that they have changed their training requirements, their staffing models. they now have more than one person at each point so random checks, but that is not at all the contract that's before you. that is the federal government's contract with covenant. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.

you said the r.f.p. is issued and the decision made next month. >> our plan is to go to the airport commission in october to award a new contract for these services. >> supervisor fewer: ok. thank you very much. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst on item 7. >> legislation before you is actually retroactive approval of the emergency contract. we do want to say and we did put in our report the airport did submit the legislation to the board in the time frame reared by the admin code. miss widener has summarized the contract, $1.7 million emergency contract through october 5th. our understanding, and they have been in the process of selecting a new contractor and recommend approval. >> president cohen: we'll take that recommendation. public comment on item 7, closed. a motion to approval and send to the full board with positive

recommendation. take that without objection, thank you. items 8 and 9 together. >> clerk: resolution approving modification number eight to airport contract, terminal one center renovation project, between acjv and the city, not to exceed 28.3 million. item 9, resolution authorizing further modification to an airport contract, project management support services near boarding area b project, between t1 cubed fot to exceed 38.5 million. >> kathy widener. the items before you requests are two amendments to project management support services contracts for the airport's terminal one renovation project, with acjv and t1 cubed.

ac jshlgs v manages the renovation work and t1 cubed support services for the boarding area b portion of the terminal renovation project. scope of services for both services includes preconstruction and designing management services, project controls, and cost and scheduling management. the airport issued a single request for proposals for the selection of both of these contracts, which came to the board, both came together to the board for approval in 2015. the proposed amendments of the contracts would allow for the extension of the terminal center contract for a term of seven months, through april 30, 2019, and increase the contract amount by 5.25 million. the boarding area b contract item that is before you is essentially its own request for

future modification. i will, based on the budget analyst recommendation, be asked you to table that item. our four project management service services contracts were all submitted to the board at the same time. you approved two of them prior to your recess, at which point we have the discussion about if it was the board's preference to approve all future modifications. the legislation was amended at that time to return to the board for future modifications and i will do the same thing to the terminal one center renovation legislation with acjv and ask you to table t1 cubed, we will come back to you when we are in need of future funding authorization. this is in support of the budget analyst's recommendations. we are currently in the process of working with the budget analysts in the city attorney's office to bring these contracts to you in a