the affordability, it touches on a lot in the city and county of san francisco. i am having trouble reconciling how we award this, knowing that we have an audit that says they are not performing at a level that we expect them to. >> okay. for whatever reasons. >> for me, i don't know if we can continue it for a week for more information where we can sit down and have more in-depth meetings about not just this program, and how we are putting out the r.f.p., especially with mental health, is one of the main thing is that people are talking about in the city and county of san francisco. when i am looking at the contract in front of me, with this information, and to approve it at $23 million, i feel like i would like, if it is not going

to delay services to anybody, i actually would like to continue it for one week and see if we can have more in-depth information and meetings about this one-on-one. >> okay. there is a motion to continue this item for one week. can we take that without objection? >> excuse me, for clarification, the department cemented proposed amendments to this legislation. >> yes. there is a proposed amendment on the title change, i believe, can we take that without objection? great. as amended, let's continue this item until the next budget and finance meeting. thank you very much. madam clerk, thank you. please call hm his two, three, and four together. >> to his resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse an expenditure for proceeds of future bond dominance and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an application for the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 160 million for 185 maryland

street. item three is declaring the intent of the city to reimburse or expenditures of future bonds and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an application to commit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $40 million. item number 4 is a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse an expenditure for proceeds of future bonds and authorizing the mayor touch office of housing and community development to submit an application to permit the issuance of residential mortgage bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 40 million. >> thank you very much. i believe we have omar cortez from the mayor touch office of housing and community development here today. hello. >> yes. good morning. community just good morning commit -- committee members. i am the senior project manager with the mayor touch office of

housing and community development, and i'm here to present items two, three, and four. these items relate to resolutions for proposed bond issuances for three projects. 185 maryland street, ocean beach apartments, and the south park scatter side projects. the purpose of a resolution before you is to approve the hearings that the city conducted on different dates in order to comply with the federal tax equity and financial responsibility act for the three projects, and to make -- to ratify and approve several other actions necessary to later make the bond possible. including the submittal of applications to the california debt limit allocation committee to secure an allocation of bonds i'm sorry. the proposed issuance will be

conduit financing, which means that they will not require the city to pledge any of its funds to the repayment of the bonds. i will give a brief description on each project. the 185 maryland apartments is located on parcel a two, on pier 70, and will be at 275 unit to mixed income, mixed use multifamily housing project. fifty-five units equaling 20% of the total residential units will be affordable to households earning less than 50% of the a.m.i., while the rest of the units will be rented to market rate, no residents will be displaced, because the site is currently undeveloped. the ocean beach apartments project entails the rehabilitation of an existing 85

unit mixed use affordable housing development located at 760 playa street. 100% of the apartments will be affordable to housing earning less than 60% of a.m.i., however because the property has assistant payments, residents currently pay 30% of their income towards rent. and the south park project has three existing affordable single room occupancy buildings, located within a block of each other at 22102, and 106 south park street. the project his total 107 and 100% to households earning less than 60% of a.m.i. residents of both the ocean beach apartments will be

temporarily relocated during the project's rehabilitation. they will be able to follow completion. most of them were returned to bond issuance approvals for each project at different times later this year. here with me today is kelly pressler, representative from brookfield properties, the project sponsor for the 185 maryland street apartments, also here are representatives of the project sponsor for ocean beach apartments. and gail mcguire, a representative and mission house representative corporation is present for the south part scatter side projects. finally, my colleagues viviana and carolyn are here to answer any questions that you may have.

before that, on behalf of mo c.d. and the project sponsors, we would like to thank you for your consideration here today, and look forward to your support for this project. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions for mr cortes? i have a few. the first project is 20% affordable, and that is a 20% that will be affordable is 50% of a.m.i. is that correct? >> yes. >> why is it only 20% affordable units? the project is part of a d.d.a. and part of a larger development , for this specific project, it is 20%, but the overall affordability requirement will be met with 30%. >> thank you very much. i want to comment on item numbe. that is in my district. i have heard complaints, i was out there doing a workshop on

emergency preparedness, almost all entirely russian speaking and low income, and i heard complaints of the elevators being broken, in them not being able to use it. many of them in walker's, a lot of them physically impaired, so i am glad that is getting done. i am just wondering what will happen about the relocation. this is an entirely -- this building is almost entirely a russian speaking population, and as you know, in my neighborhood, they are very comfortable there because they are our russian speaking amenities there. i am wondering where you will relocate them. >> i will let the project sponsor speak a little bit to that, but there is a relocation plan as an introduction. it is expected that a relocation would last no more than two weeks for this specific project. >> two weeks for this project? >> yes. >> that would be great spirit who is that person?

>> good morning, i am the project manager with bayside communities. relocation, we will work with a third party relocation consultant who is very familiar with doing rehab projects, not only in the state of california, but with bayside communities. each unit should take no more than three weeks, typically a project this size we would tackle maybe five to eight units at a time. each of these units would be vacated for about two's three weeks, and we will work with each household to establish what their needs are. in some cases, some households will express their interest in staying with friends or family, it could be friends within the complex that they stay with during that time period, but as previously mentioned, we have an h.u.d. contract, and we absolutely don't want to do anything to jeopardize that contract. residents will never stay more

than 30 days outside of their unit, like i said, it should take two, maybe three weeks to do their unit. >> okay. please take into consideration that this particular building holds a lot of russian speakers, very limited english speaking, and most of them rely 100% on public transportation. when we are considering relocation, i think that those are some of the factors that i would like you to consider around this particular building. >> yes. it will be helpful to understand that our relocation consultant, when we get started, months before we actually start the rehab project, the relocation consultant and there team will meet with each individual in their households to understand what their family dynamics are, to understand what their needs are, and if translators are needed at that time, translators will be provided by's owners. again, 30 days prior to actually needing to vacate the unit to,

again, we will touch base with those residents and their unit, or in the community room, wherever they feel most comfortable, with a translator if required to understand where they should be best placed. >> thank you. i think a russian translator will be needed in that facility. thank you very much. colleagues, any other questions? seeing then, i think we do not have a b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up to public comment period are there any members of the public would like to comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. make a motion to move these three items to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please read item number 5. >> five as resolution authorizing the office of cannabis on behalf of the city to apply for state grant funding under california cannabis equity act of 2018. >> okay. thank you very much. i believe we have eugene hills men, the deputy director of the

office of cannabis. >> good morning. i'm the deputy director of the office of cannabis. today we are seeking authorization to apply for state funding through the california cannabis equity act of 2018 to support the san francisco cannabis equity program and equity program participants. the state has authorized the bureau of cannabis control, upon request by a local jurisdiction, in this case, san francisco, to provide technical assistance to a local program that helps local equity applicants. it would require the bcc to review and application, and to grant funding to an eligible local jurisdiction based on specified factors. the state will require an eligible local jurisdiction that receives grant bonds, pursuant to these provisions do use the grant funds to assist local equity licensees in that local jurisdiction to gain entry to and to successfully operate in the state touch are regulated cannabis marketplace. the bureau of cannabis control

has had $10 million allocated to it for this grant program. the bcc could allocate this funding now, however, they have not yet. they have indicated they will issue the r.f.p. soon, and we have a strong interest in seeing this funding allocated to verify equity applicants as quickly as possible. after the award of any grant funding, we shall return to the board of supervisors to seek approval by further resolution to formally accept -- accept and expand grant funds. i will be happy to take any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? seeing none, i don't think we have a b.l.a. presentation. let's open this up for public comment. would any members of the public like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. without objection? thank you very much. >> please call item number 6. >> resolution authorizing the city to submit applications for payment programs and related authorizations by the california

department of resources, recycling, and recovery for the purpose of safely managing and reducing household hazardous waste and used motor oil, and providing opportunities or beverage containers recycling and litter cleanup. >> okay. i think we have charles see and hear from the department of environment. >> thank you, chair if you are, thank you supervisors. and with the san francisco department of the environment. before you today is a basic apply for authorization resolution for two payment programs in the california department of resource and recovery, more commonly known as the cycle. it is used oil payment program, and the beverage container recycling payment program. the oil payment program helps to promote used oil and oil filter recycling to public education, and collection opportunities for those who change their own motor oil. we collected over the 43 gallons of used oil in 2017, in over 25,000 oil filters. were established 25 certified

collection centres, representing all major san francisco neighborhoods. we submitted an application once a year, and through that we -- they pay cities like ours to for our efforts to support the collection and recycling of used oil. for the payment program, the process is very similar. we submit an application once a year, and through that process, week they pay the city to support bottle and can recycling and redemption. the container recycling payment program has seven certified redemption centres in operation in san francisco, and over 100 beverage dealers who are paying their businesses. this apply for authorization is essentially a renewal, because the previous one had expired, i am happy to take any questions. >> okay. any questions? seeing none, we do also not have a b.l.a. report to. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is

closed. i can make a positive recommendation to the full board. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item number 7. >> item seven as resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expand a grant in the amount of $800,000 from the united states department of justice to help improve the collection, management, and analysis of crime gun evidence for the project -- projected period of october first, 2018, through september 20th, 2021. >> i believe we have patrick. he is here, a grants manager from the san francisco police department. >> good morning. i am the current chief financial officer for the san francisco police department. this morning, we are requesting 20 recommendation for the retroactive -- for a resolution retroactively authorizing police

department to accept and expand grant in the amount of $800,000 from the u.s. department of justice, office of justice programs, bureau of justice assistance to help with the collection, management, and analysis of crime gun evidence for the project period of october first, 2018, through september 30th, 2021. i do want to make a comment on the actual resolution. there is -- i noticed an error in the language. it does refer to the bureau of justice statistics where it should show the bureau of justice assistance. we will make that change. >> what line is that? >> line five, at least on my copy. >> so you are referring to the office of justice program, bureau of justice statistics

class. >> that should say assistance. >> bureau of justice assistance? >> yes. it also repeats on line ten, 12, they -- basically anywhere where it says bureau of justice statistics, it should say bureau of justice assistance. >> would you like to make those amendments now? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> are you through with your presentation? >> know, i'm trying to put in the slides. okay. thank you. bear with me. the san francisco police

department, we submitted proposals for grant funding, and we received an award in the amount of $800,000. the grant period is from october 1st, 2018, to september 30th, 2021. the reason that the resolution is retroactive is because of the grant start date. it is october 1st, 2018. we did not receive notice of the award until october 1st, so we are requesting a retroactive resolution because by the time this resolution gets adopted to, it will be after that date. we have not expended any funds with this grant. it is retroactive, mainly because of the actual start date for the grant. this grant program is a collaboration between the san

francisco police department, the san francisco district attorney's office, the bureau of justice assistance, and the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms and explosives. it is a collaboration between local agencies and the a.t.f. to leverage resources to swiftly identify firearms used unlawfully, and their sources, and to effectively prosecute perpetrators engaged in violent crime. the crime gun investigation center in san francisco was originally a pilot project that we began planning and implementing back in 2007, and continued into 2008. this strategic model is -- has currently been implemented in 11 other cities throughout the united states. the cities include los angeles, detroit, and washington, d.c. the a.t.f. is administering

federal agencies that are responsible for the betrays program. it stands for national integrated ballistics information network. it is the system that is used for comparison analysis of recovered ballistic evidence. each race is a program that is used to provide information on a firearm origin from the manufacturer, to the first purchaser of a gun. just a little bit of information on what our shootings and -- shooting incidents in san

francisco, from 2014, 22016, there was an increase in the number of shooting incidents, size increased from 30 in 2014, 22016, up to 40 homicides by firearm in 2016. there was a slight decrease in 2017. i do not have the full statistics for 2018, however, i do have the deputy chief here who can actually share some of the statistics for 2018 and part of 2019. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, patrick. good morning, supervisors. brief anecdotal information about the program. it is a collaborative effort. it is reducing crime and gun violence. with me i have a lieutenant to is the officer in charge of the crime investigation center.

the telling story here is that at a year-to-date basis, homicides are down 33%. this time a year ago, we were 33% out. we are 33% reduction in homicides, and in gun violence or shootings. we have a 60 4% decrease. his so the strategy is working, and your consideration is requested in accepting and expanding these funds. i can relate any -- i can answer any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? there is no report on this. let's open this up for public comment. are there any money or just members of the public could wish to comment on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have one question. i understand that this, you are notified october 1st that you were granted to this grant. is that correct? >> correct. >> why is it brought back to us in february?

>> we did have to prepare the resolution, and we do have to have their resolution presented before the police commission, before it gets calendared to the budget and finance committee, and also to the board of supervisors. i do have some of the dates. >> supervisors, there was a number of dark days with the commission, and there were some agenda item issues. that was part of the issue with the commission. >> we received notice of the award on october 1st. there were some concerns with some of the language within the agreement. we submitted the document to a city attorney after some review. they gave us permission to accept their word on november 8th.

the police department submitted the acceptance to the bureau of justice assistance on november 9th. we submitted documents to have the accept and expend resolution to submit to the police commission in late november. the police commission approved the accept and expend on december 5th, after the police commission approval, we submitted the accept and expend documents to the mayor's office, to have it introduced in front of the board and have it calendared for the budget and finance committee. >> okay. supervisor stefani? >> i feel pretty satisfied with that explanation. icefield they proceeded in a timely manner. with regard to the amendment, i just want to make the amendment that we change it from bureau of justice and statistics to bureau

of justice assistance, that occurs on lines one, five, ten, 12, and 20 and the resolution. >> thank you very much. let's make a motion to accept those amendments without objection. and then would you like to make a motion to accept this item? >> i would like to move this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you very much. i think we can take that. thank you. item number 8, please. >> resolution retroactively authorizing the police department to accept and expend an increase to the 2018 capacity enhancement and backlog reduction program grant funds in the amount of 61,000 from the united states department of justice to be used to upgrade software, purchase lab equipment, and provide continuing education training for d.n.a. analysts during their projected period of generally first, 2019, through december 31st, 2020. >> thank you.

>> thank you. the police department is requesting that community --dash the committee's recommendation for this resolution to accept the increase in the amount of -- the increase and the award the amount of $61,170. the police department did have this grant included within the department's budget for fiscal year 2018 and 2019. there is a san francisco admin code, section 10.17, and the controller's policy is that any increase in grant awards a $50,000 or greater, the departments are required to submit for an expanded resolution, so this is why we are submitting this resolution

for you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any questions or comments? seeing none, let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public would like to speak on item number 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item number 9. >> item nine is resolution approving the emergency declaration of the director of public works to repair the damage sewer system located between perry street and third street bridge for a cost not to exceed $700,000. >> mr john thomas is here, city engineer and deputy director of infrastructure for a san francisco public works. another emergency, mr thomas. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. as you said, with public works. i'm here to present before you the emergency declaration for repairs to the damaged storm sewer just north of the third street bridge.

in the late fall, it was discovered that there was damage to the outfall structure from the main sewer that is on king street just of the north. the outpost structure had been -- had essentially crumbled in certain locations and allowed the title action, as well as a sewer outfall flows to take water and soil from the ground below third street in the area and out into the bay. over time, it created an emergency situation where there was a large avoid below the third street right of way, and immediate repair. our teams visited the site shortly after the inspection by the p.u.c., and determine what the best course of action was. we presented this to our director, mohammed nuru, and requested an emergency declaration be issued so that we can proceed with the work

immediately. that was done, and we have selected a contractor in november and mobilize them as quickly as possible so that we could complete the work before the rains hit this winter. so the work was estimated at the time to be about $700,000. at this time, we are working out final closeout details with the contractor, of the cost is around $660,000 or so. i think the work was completed successfully. as you know, we are doing critical work on the third street bridge, which we need to complete prior to the end of this year, and so we wanted to make sure that this was also coordinated with that effort, and we were able to do that as well. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments for mr thomas? this was actually discovered through an inspection. is that correct? >> that is really different then the last two emergency decorations we have had here

before this committee. let's pivot to the b.l.a. the report, please. >> yes, the board is asking to approve the emergency declaration, which would authorize the department of public works to solicit an agreement with a contractor to do the work without going through a competitive bid process. i believe the department has presented the process. i do want to say that an emergency was declared on november 2nd, reported to the board to, the, on the controller on november 3rd. the resolution was submitted on december 7th. it is within the guidelines, or the timeline set by the administrative code, and as chair fewer mentioned, was discovered through an inspection, which does make it different from the prior two resolutions that were brought forward, and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. let's open us up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number 9? seeing none, public comment is

closed. i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please read item number 10. >> item ten is resolution authorizing the director of public works to execute agreements with the california department of transportation pertaining to the justice street improvement phase to project for the amount of $60 million. >> i see we have elizabeth raymo his, transportation finance analysts in san francisco public works. >> thank you. i am went san francisco public works. before you today is a proposed resolution that will authorize the director of public works to execute an agreement with the california department of transportation for the jefferson street project for phase two in the amount of $6,000,000.782000. these finds are from the road repair and accountability act of 2017, otherwise known as senate bill one. san francisco public works is authorized to expend these funds

due to city and county san francisco 2019, 2020 budget and appropriation ordinance on file with the board under number 180574. they do require that san francisco public works governing body, and in this case, the board of supervisors, passed a resolution which identifies the person or the position that can execute the agreement for this project with caltrain. with that said, public works respectfully request their committee to approve the resolution in order to execute the agreement. i am joined by the public works public manager, and we would be happy to answer any questions from the committee. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, there was no b.l.a. report on this. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number 10? public comment is closed.

i would like to make a positive recommendation to the full board, and i hope we can take that without objection. thank you very much. can you please read item number 11? >> eleven is resolution approving modification of reports to a contract for the trent -- expansion improvement program with a long engineering to extend the term by 555 calendar days and to increase a contract amount by six my $3 million for a total not to exceed an amount of $16.3 million. >> thank you very much. i believe we have deanna here from the san francisco international airport. >> good morning, good to see you. thank you. the airport is approving just thinking your approval before the publication to an existing contract for the eritrean extension and improvement program. modifications forward would extend the contract to october 31st, 2020, and increase a contract with six my $3 million for a new not to exceed amount

of 16.3 million. the eritrean extension and improvement program includes the construction of an elevated guideway extension, and two new air train stations to serve long term parking dd, and the new airport hotel. the scope of work includes project controls, contract administration, cost estimating, and field inspection. the contract was a result of a 2015 request for qualification process, with pgh wong being the highest ranked of two respondents. as with previous contracts considered by the board, this multiyear approval aligns the contract duration with the determined amount approved by the airport commission for a more consistent process. the budget analyst recommends approval of the proposed modification and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. any questions? seeing none, let's pivot to the b.l.a. >> the board is being asked to approve the fourth amendment to

the contract between pgh wong and the airport for the eritrean extension project. the original contract amount -- this is the first time the board has seen this contract. the original contract budget when the program was first set up was for $13 million. it has been increased to $16 million. that is what the board is being asked to approve. the full contract, there have been delays in the project, we summarize them on page 12 of the report. our understanding from the airport is a contract with himself was not responsible for any of these delays, but actually has to extend their work because of the delays, and as she said, the approval of this contract at $16 million is to bring a consistent approach to contract approval to the board for airport capital -related contracts so that the board is approving the contract

as a whole. we summarize the budget on table one of our report. we did review it and found it to be reasonable, given the delays that were reported to us in this project, and we are recommending approval. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public would wish to comment on item number 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a recommendation here, yes, supervisor mandelman? >> just a comment or concern, which is i think this contract was originally entered into as a one-year agreement for $4 million, something like that, and ultimately,, we are approving this as, how many years, four or five years, and $16 million. that doesn't seem like a great way to be contracting. i understand the airport is going to be changing how it does this in the future, but i am just registering that.

it does not feel great. >> yes, supervisor fewer, supervisor stefani, supervisor cohen, they made that very clear last year, in the next contract, we will talk about how there is also discontinuity between the process, and we are making sure that going forward it is consistent, and you see the long term contract upfront. >> thank you very much. so let's make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item 12. >> item 12 is resolution approving modification number nine for the air right contract for the terminal one center renovation project to extend the term by four years and eight months and to extend the contract. >> thank you very much. we have deanna from the san francisco international airport. >> good morning, again.

the airport to seeking your approval for the ninth modification to an existing contract with a.c. jv, a joint venture for construction management services for the airport's terminal one center renovation project. one -- it would extend the contract through december 31st, 2023, and increase a contract by $33 million for he knew not to exceed amount of $6,123,000,000. the terminal one center renovation project will create a new and called just consolidated passenger screening checkpoint, priest -- three security ticket counters at, and concession in terminal one. it also includes a new baggage handling system, and checked baggage screening system. it was a result of a 2015 request for qualification. the board approve the original contract to provide the services for an initial term of one year with for four one-year options to extend, and also saw that last year 2018. as with previous, the contracts considered by the board, this multiyear approval aligns a

contract duration with the term and amount approved by the airport commission for a more consistent process. the budget analyst recommends approval of the proposed modifications, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? i just think the same issue that we just spoke about. but let's hear from the b.l.a. >> the board is being asked to approve the increase in this contract from the current amount of $28 million, to the proposed new amount of $61 million, and extend the term through december 20th, 2023. this was a contract which is a joint venture. i never know how to pronounce it this is for the terminal one renovation project. as we point out on page 17, table two of the reports, this

project has been increased in scope and cost from $400 million, to $1.4 billion. i want to go back into the history a bit of the board's approval. the board did approve the original contract in its entirety for $23 million when the project was at $400 million, so that was in 2015. the board didn't approve the modification number 8 to the contract last fall in september, to increase it to $28 million with a request that the airport come back with a full contract for approval. so the airport is now giving us a budget for the contract through 2023 appear to date, they've spent about 24.8 million on this contract. we do outline the budget going forward. we did review the budget and considered it to be reasonable and we are recommending it for approval. >> okay.

let's open this up for public comment period are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor stefani? >> yes, thank you, one question. what level of scope change and passenger growth occurred to triple the projected budget? >> we have increased, since 2015, we have seen an increase in passenger rates that have asked us to -- some of the projects that we were going to put in phase two are now increased to phase one, so that is outlined in the budget and legislative analyst report on page 16. things like terminal one south, terminal one north, we -- they were moved to -- which were included in phase two to terminal one, because airports across the country, including san francisco, are seeing a rapid growth in flights and passenger increases. so to make sure that we are a

company --dash accommodating all of that increase. if you see in terminal one, it is sorely underdeveloped and needs to be provided to the public, so we are increasing that, which increased the scope of the project management services. >> thank you. >> i think that going from $400 million, to $124 billion, this is one of these examples where it is really extreme, you just mentioned that supervisor cohen has had conversations with the airport before about this. okay. yes, supervisor mandelman? >> it does make you wonder what -- this seems like a reasonable reason to have a larger project. at one point for billion-dollar project makes sense, but what was happening in 2015 that the

folks at the airport couldn't anticipate that? >> for this specific contract for the project management scope , we were foreseeing a longer-term development of the project, and because of that rapid increase in growth, i think with the increase of economic stability, the increase in travelling, people are more -- we just did not foresee this increase in passenger usage of the terminals and the increase in flights. that has been seen across airports across the country. >> over the last three years. >> over the last few years, yes. we can definitely provide information about the increase of flights at s.f.o. for this specific project, i apologize i don't have those numbers since it was on the project management side, but we can show the increase over time,

and what we were projecting, and how high above that it has grown in the last few years. >> okay. is there anyone who wants to make a motion on this? >> i definitely would love to get that information. with that, considering we've made it clear what we would like to see in the future, i would move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> okay. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madame clark, please read item number 13. >> item 13 -- a public auction, surgeon parcels of property. >> thank you very much. i believe we have amanda from the san francisco treasurer and tax collector. >> good morning, supervisors paragraph from the asset of the treasurer and tax collector.

i'm here to present for your approval 296 parcels that we are seeking to offer for auction in april. you have all been provided copies of an updated parcel list. if i can request that the new parcel list that has been provided replace the original that was provided with the resolution. the only change is the removal of one parcel that has been fully paid for. property becomes eligible for auctions when an owner fails to pay taxes for five years, and we are required to offer properties for auction that have remained delinquent for nine years. the parcels i am bringing to you today are a tiny percentage of the 209,000 total parcels in the city. we collect over $3 billion in property tax payments annually, and over 99% of owners pay their property tax bills on time and in full. before you, for consideration today, are 233 timeshares, 33 vacant lots, ten underwater lots, and ten properties with

dwellings. i want to assure you that over the past six months, we have poured over each and every parcel here before you, and as stated in the resolution, reresearch the physical characteristics and ownership history for each parcel on the list using property information available from the assessor and the planning department. every supervisor was provided with the list of parcels, along with a one page cheater that includes a parcel map and other identifying information about the owner of record. we also expanded the research to identify as many parties of interest as possible. we used our debt collection expert to search publicly available and proprietary databases, city and county and other governmental records, as well as social media and internet searches. in some cases, the three search results and parcels being removed from the list due to title issues are ownership changes. in other cases, our frequent mailings leading up to the auction have resulted in people paying their taxes. yet we understand that it is not enough to simply mail -- go to

these addresses and hope for the best. we have been tracking our return mail and taking additional steps to make sure we reach any affected party. for each vacant parcel, we will mail to all continuous parcels to let them know if the upcoming auction and wherever feasible, we will also be physically posting on the vacant parcels this month. we've taken additional steps for any property where there could be an individual at risk of losing their home. the sheriff's deputies have visited each occupied property to provide in person notification, and in partnership with the mayor's office of housing and community development and adult protective services, we have additional resources to assist those individuals so they can pay their taxes, and remain housed. once approved by the board to, the list will also be published

in the newspaper of record, and will be available on our website. thank you for your consideration, and i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. any questions? i have one question. so i see on this list that there is property owner associations on this list. considering before we've had an issue with one property owner association, i am wondering, are we doing due diligence with this particular group? >> whenever you see an association up for advanced research, we are kind of searching every available resource to try and find out who the members are, with the directors are, who their accountants are, we are mailing to multiple locations for each of those, and we don't stop the research until we have confirmation that someone has received the notice and that they are aware and have an interest in the property. we are definitely doing an expanded amount of research for

associations. >> thank you very much. i am also noticing that there are many, many, many timeshares on here. what is happening with that market in san francisco? >> is an interesting question. i think as we have seen a new parcel taxes be approved by the voters, the cost of owning timeshares has increased significantly, and so in the past, maybe owed a couple hundred bucks on your timeshare for property taxes per year, and now it is up to about $900 because each timeshare is usually assessed to the city college and san francisco universal parcel taxes. that is leading into it. we are actively working with companies. there are four companies that own all the timeshares buildings in san francisco to find a resolution, and we are learning from other counties, different ways that they can reoffer timeshares outside of the auction process.

>> that's great. let's see. i don't think we have a b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up for public comments. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item 13? saying none, comment is closed. colleagues, can i make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation? can i take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item number 14. >> resolution approving and authorizing a second amendment to the existing permit with another -- to extend a term ten additional years to modify provisions of the permits related to the permit fee and rent payment, and outreach and similar matters. >> i would like to note that we are joined by supervisor mar, and we have today someone here

from a recreation and parks. >> good morning, supervisors. i am the director of property and permits, it i'm here to ask your approval for the second amendment to the outside lands contract to extend it and make a few other modifications. just a little bit of background, in 2009, the department entered into the first contract for an annual festival with another planet entertainment going through 2013. it was following an r.f.p. at that time. in 2012, after a few years under our belts, the board unanimously approved an extension to the contract until 2021. today, we are requesting an amendment to extend it for an

on top of that, it has become part of the cultural fabric of this city. it is not just music. it is music, art, culinary, in 2017, elected the top music festival. it is not just about people coming to the city. twenty-five% of the attendees are san francisco residents. there is also some other initiatives they do that benefit the city. under the existing contract, there was $10,000 initiatives. this outside lands work which is a charitable fund which provides grants to arts programs, and its environmental impact has become a standard bearer for other festivals for the country. we are one of the best with a 90 2% waste diversion. and approved by 1% last year. but the event does have an

impact, and we know that. we spent a lot of time planning and trying to help mitigate the impact on the neighbours in the community for the time during the setup. in advance, we have three event meetings with members of the community. we need extensively with our other city agencies to plan for safety and impact and transportation plans and security. mailers are sent to notify all the people in advance around the park. we also put it on our website a year in advance of people can plan. we put advertisements in the local newspaper, we provide big do not block -- it should say sidewalk, but it should say driveway signs so that neighbours can put it up on the driveway so that people don't block it. there is a community hotline

that is available to address complaints during the festival, on a realtime and immediate basis, and we also keep adapting. we build one of the concerns is that during the build, the impact on bikers. we now have dedicated bike lanes and pathways for bikers during the events. entering the load in