so i think that they gave us approval of this recommendation.and i would like to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair cohen: we'll take it -- >> (indiscernible). >> chair cohen: yes as a committee report, items 3 and four together. >> clerk: resolution thursdaying the department of public health to retroactively enter into an amendmented agreement with the kam department of health care services to change the end date from april 30, 2018 to june 30, 2017. resolution number four, resolution retroactively approving the agreement between the department of public health and the california department of health care services to the san francisco mental health plan for a five-year term of july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2022. >> chair cohen: regarding the regulation of mental health care in our city. marlo simmons is here to present from the department of public health. good morning. >> good morning, i am marl low simmons with behavioral health services within the department of public health and we function as a managed healt

we recommend approval of amendment number 4, we consider approval of amendment number 1 to be policy matter because it is retroactive. >> supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we'll open up public comment for items 9 and 10, seeing none, we're closing public comment. colleagues, can we move forward items 9 and 10 with recommendations. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and can do this without objection. please call item number 11. >>> resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute professional services agreement number pro, 0068, biosolids commission digesters facilities construction management, for augmentation services for an amount fiat knot to exceed $42 million, for a term of seven years to commence following board approval through july 2025. >> supervisor kim: i see the biosolids project manager is here to present and alan johnson is also here to answer questions. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm caroline chiu. so this biosolids project is the has largest project in the sewer syste

and then file 18-046, this is a retroactive approval of the amendment number 1 and approval of amendment number 4 to the contract with central subway design group. the original contract was approved in 2010 for $40 million. there have been three prior amendments and amendment number 1 did exceed the $500,000 threshold set by the charter. amendment number 4 is pending before the board now. it's $6.3 million increase in the contract. we do give the budget details on page 33 of this report. we recommend approval of amendment number 4, we consider approval of amendment number 1 to be policy matter because it is retroactive. >> supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, we'll open up public comment for items 9 and 10, seeing none, we're closing public comment. colleagues, can we move forward items 9 and 10 with recommendations. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and can do this without objection. please call item number 11. >>> resolution authorizing the general manage other of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute professional services agreem

with that authority staff recommends approve of the sequa findings and we would seek to approve with tie. upon approval of the lease, the lease will be taken to the board of supervisors for their approval and authority of staff will continue to work with the department of real estate to assure project financial and viability as well as to address concerns raised by the budget. lastly, tie will then need to present the project to bcdc for further review including addressing dredging and any other potential environmental impacts as part of the permitting process. we don't believe that the marina design will exacerbate the existing sal nation patterns that exist on the cove and with that we ask you to approve the project. >> president tsen: i will take comments from the public first. if there is anybody that would like to address the board come up now. >> my name is sunny allen and i want to say that i appreciate your time and i know all of this is very nuanced but i have prepared a short thing to read. i am speaking on behalf of pay area boaters and people who love votes who regularly

i would like it make a motion to approve and send to the full board, approve the lease and use agreement to the full board. any other discussion? >> supervisor fewer: roll call vote, please. no. >> supervisor stefani: yes. >> president cohen: yes. motion passes. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, item 11. >> clerk: resolution approving professional services contract for management and operation of airports public and employee parking facilities between south parking and city 1 and amount not to exceed $125 million over a five-year term july 1, 2018, june 30, 2023. >> president cohen: thank you. we have cathy weidner on behalf of the international airport. please. >> thank you very much, chair cohen, members of the committee. kathy weidner with the san francisco international airport. item before you requests approval to enter into a new contract for south parking for the management and operation of the public and employee parking facilities. the proposed contract is a result of a competitive request for proposal process with south parking being the highest ranked responsive, responsible pr

commission in august and seem their approval as well. and then the developer will have all the agreements they need in place in order to apply for low-income housing tax credit and tax exempt bonds in september. if they receive those allocations, we will come back to you at the board for the bond issuance approval. that would be early next year. we have submitted to the clerk and i have some copies about the updated supporting documents that will go along with the resolutions. we are submitting them to conform with what the port commission passed on tuesday for you. we're also requesting a few amendments, which are outlined in the documents. i think that's it for you today. we're really excited about this project. it's going to be 178 total affordable housing units. we're really excited to be here at this milestone. >> president cohen: thank you very much. we'll pivot and hear from the b.l.a. to hear her thoughts on these items. >> we reported specifically on ground lease and m.o.u. within moecd for 88 broadway and ground lease in the ju

and we recommend approval of the modification and we consider the approval of future modifications toa policy matter of the board. >> supervisor cohen: great. colleagues, if there's no other discussion? >> you know, i think that we should accept the recommendation and fund these two item two and flythree, however, i think thate airport should come back and the charter says anything over $10 million in expenditures should come back for board approval and i think that is good fiscal practice. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. all right. let's take public comment on items 2 and 3, public comment is closed. a motion? >> yes, i make a motion -- items 2 and 3 to send to the board with positive recommendation that requires that the airport comes back with further expenditures. >> supervisor cohen: yes, i agree with that. miss widener. >> i will amend the resolutions to reflect that we'll be back for current modifications and to accept the rejection of the $888,000 on item number 3. i'll get that to the clerk. >> supervisor cohen: so madam clerk do we need to take a motion to amend item three?

approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on may 16th, 2018. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the abatement appeals board minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d. new appeal, order of abatement, case 6846. 2459 32nd avenue, san francisco. owner on record appellant samuel kwong, benny kwong, revoke the order of abatement due by delay caused by the planning department. the department has 7 minutes to present its case and the appellant as 7 minutes to present their case. if there is public comment for each person and 3 minutes for rebuttal. is there someone from the department presenting on behalf of d.b.i. just a moment. you could have a seat. >> good morning, all. a complaint was investigated on may 5th regarding an illegal addition of the back. when we got access to the

approved. >> clerk: item 12, public hearing, adopt rules for billing property owners in san francisco without water or wastewater service accounts. a portion of the monthly p.u.c. sewer charges is attributable to stormwater runoff from their property. >> good afternoon, commissioners. charles poole, here with erin franks to present this item to you. it's a rules change to our wastewater service to apply our existing rates and charges as well as creating a billing system for property owners that don't have a water meter. as a reminder, we have a combined wastewater system that creates storm and sanitary flows and recover the costs of operating that system through our rates and charges. we have 500 property owners that are not currently an sfpuc customer. we're looking at rates and charges that incentivize property owners to control stormwater flees from their properties. we've begun with a grant program and we'll work towards modifying our rates and charges in the upcoming years to further incen

we recommend the contract to approve the lower amount and otherwise we recommend to approve the contract note to sfmta, i appreciate that the credit card online service has improved and it's without a fee. that's important to provide to the residents. what is a lock box service? >> the lock box, you pay for citation with a check and they will process the payment. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. at this time, we're going to open for public comment on item 7. if members of the public would like to speak on the item, step up. seeing no public comment, i'll be closing public comment on item number 7. >> supervisor peskin: i would move to amend the resolution to reduce the contract not to exceed amount by 2.208838 from 77.2 million to $74 million. >> supervisor kim: thank you, we have amendment, without objection. do we have a emotion. >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: this item moves forward with positive recommendation to the full board. >> item 8 is resolution approving amendment number 4 to contract number cpt 713, procurement of 40-foot and 60 foot low floor diesel

to approve 7 and 8 -- [roll call vote] so moved. that passes 6-0 and places item 9 under commission matters. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards: i wanted to mention something i read in "the new york times," looking at driverless cars. autonomous will cost less than uber and travel faster than cars stuck in traffic are years away. they talk about the driverless cars and indianapolis, detroit and nashville, opponents say that buses and trains will seem antiquated. it turned t.o.d. on its head, because we had a zoning proposal based on transit order development. someone said, don't go to lightrail system. a partner with venture firm says, we don't understand the economics of self-driving cars because we haven't experienced them. i get nervous when city planners are making technology bets because none of us know where this is going. and someone from cato said, i expect by 2030 most transit agencies will be zombie agencies that exist to collect taxes from people to pay down their debt. lastly, a voice of reason,

and approve as proposed. this concludes my presentation. >> vice president melgar: we will now hear from the d.r. requestor. >> good afternoon. my name is emily tan. the project sponsors of 3 300 darien way held a preapplication meeting. they were supposed to notify 22 households, but only notified 5 neighbors. they revised their plans with the city and refused to show their plans to any neighbors and refused to hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss. i live next door and they've never contacted me about the revisions of their project. in january, the project was not approved. they're proposing dormers, trying to squeeze in a second floor, to add 1,000 square feet of living space and drastically changing the roof line. one of the dormers is 30 feet by 7 feet and sticks out about 10 feet or more. they're opening four large windows and they will be able to look directly into my bedroom. >> sfgov tv? >> this is the first exhibit, where they're adding a 30x7-foot, huge, massive dormer to the back of the home. thi

to approve in the future. other key terms of the agreement are the developer will pay our transactional costs, like appraisal costs, attorney fees, closing costs. the developer will pay to move the power enterprise to 2000 marin. the developer will move the hydrogen peroxide tank to our site. the developer will construct a temporary facility on 2000 marin for the power enterprise subject to our reimbursement. how will we reimburse the developer? the developer plans to lease a portion of 2000 marin for a short-term, maybe four years, to the flower mart. the flower mart is temporarily being displaced and needs a place to go during construction of its new facility. that income stream or an alternative funding source will help the p.u.c. reimburse the developer for the cost of the replacement facilities. we're hoping it will cover it. because this is a -- again, an important decision point, we will ask the commission to approve any short-term lease or the alternative funding source. eventually, the short-term leas

not ready to go ahead and make an approval. in closing, summarize briefly in my letters, the reason it was not looked at is because it's a single bore, 44-foot wide, with two tracks, it was not going to happen because it's 30 feet wide. if you go back to twin bore, the last thing that needs to be resolved is whether we need three tracks into the transbay center and absolutely guarantee you and prove it to you you do not. the reason they ended up with this, road at 90° that basically clogs up the entire system. thank you. >> all right. that concludes 1 and 2 comment under that item w. that, move into the can sent calendar. all matters listed are considered to be routine, single vote, no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the board or the public requests to have an item severed. at this time i have not received any indication a member of the board or the public wishes to have it severed. 10.1, meeting, 10.2, wireless voice and data, two-way radio system services and item 10.3, authorizing the executive director t

[roll call vote taken] six aye, 11-14 are approved. with that, item 15. >> presentation of status schedule and cost estimate and funding plan for phase two of the transbay program. >> i'll provide this presentation. almost a couple years since we presented you with a comprehensive update of the phase two. last time we did that in the middle of 2016. so, i thought we would put you in time, and funding picture is looking brighter that we provide you with a presentation. starting with the scope, looking from your right to your left, scope of phase two includes underground pedestrian connector from the east end of the transit center into the embarcadero bart station. phase two also includes thinning out of the train box we built right now with vertical transportation platforms, mechanical and electrical equipment, ceilings and other elements. and then we will tunnel between the west end of the station along second street into a new station underneath at townsend streets. so tunnelling will be a combination of tunnelling, and also looking a

is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> approved. >> is there a second? >> aye. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> [off mic] >> yes. >> good afternoon, president mccarthy and commissioners. my name is mary, my brother and i grew up at 651 alvarado street, home adjacent to 655. i'm concerned about the repair of my damaged foundation and missing property line. sunshine has agreed to repair but only after i sign a release of liability for all involved in the project. this is no way of knowing what could happen in the future with the extensive excavation and removal of so much earth. i'm asking for the building department to assist in resolving this problem to move forward in a positive direction. how could the building department protect the property owners of san francisco. do you have any kind of suggestions you could offer for me? >> unfortunately, mary, we can't comment because it's not calendared but if you make your comments it will be duly noted. >> okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? okay,

it just says we will work towards more approval or additional approval in the future. >> clearly, i am very supportive of this. clearly c.c.a. has been kind of at the forefront of good design in many places that we have compared to other things we see. i think we should obviously -- they are trying to do the right thing. and if they are okay with the vinyl windows, certainly look at it, but it seems okay. and i want to thank c.c.a. and not only is it a great school, but we never get any issues with the neighbors. you are a great neighbor. both to the adjacent neighbor and broader area. we look forward to seeing it built. >> is there modification? >> we modified -- a modification, commissioner moore, wants to modify -- >> talk out the hours on the plaque. >> correct. >> that is okay -- >> strike the hours of operation on the informational plaque. >> very good. >> commissioner, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as have been amended, striking the hours from the plaque. on that motion, commissioner fong. >> aye. >> a commissioner johnson. >> a

those groups need to approve it. i did put it in as part of our budget when i present it to you last week. if you have concerns about it, i'd be happy to answer any questions, but what i'm concerned is getting the money as quickly out the door as we can. we can start preparing for that if we can move forward with it. >> supervisor cohen: i think the way i understand the way the reserve works is you would come back to this body and you would say this is where and exactly how much we're going to be spending this, and then, the allocation is immediately relinquished. i don't really feel like a gap of time. this is something we can start as soon as next week or in a few weeks, up coming weeks. i don't -- >> okay. i just -- because i came and present it had in april, and then came and presented it again last week, it just seems like it's not necessary to present it again. i'm happy to do that if that's the process. >> supervisor cohen: so you're saying that there are no changes. >> there are no changes. it's exactly what

we recommend approving the proposed resolution. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and at this time we will open up for public comment on this item. >> and we have a major shortage of housing for low-income and very low-income bracket people. so for you to order a transfer of funds that is targeted for that class of people and move it to another area of the city which is not as vulnerable and doesn't have the type of emergency of homelessness and people with mental and physical disabilities and people in wheelchairs and our veterans, that is an insult and disingenuous, scandalous, and in my view seriously professional misconduct. it's showing a total disregard for the people who are in most need and you have been neglecting them. then you turn around during the campaign season after you make an announcement on the offices that you're running for and the first word out of your mouth is that you want to keep your promise to take care of the homeless people. it's disgusting. this is another example of it. how could you even propose a measure in that manner where you ar

board approved the project in september, 2016. the key developments were improving safety for people on trains, transit stop changes to improve transit-only lanes that allow left turns and taxis and a number of safety features that address zero vision concerns. as parts of the project, we have an extensive plan to manage the project to make sure that businesses remain accessible. so in early 2017, we began implementing some of the project elements that don't require heavy duty capital infrastructure and deliver immediate safety benefits. this includes where borden will be built and transit lanes that allow left turns. we have a six-month pilot. as we reported to you, this pilot did not reach our goals, so it will be in stalled at pilot stops at well. we installed most of the parking management including meters and time limits to ensure that customer parking is available. we recommended removal to include transit reliability. as you recall, we heard extensive feedback near the safeway. you encouraged it removed on a trial basis. we

the lease that was approved before needs to be updated. and when we had conversations, we fully intend, we still have to get permits through joint aquatic permitting agency and host of other agencies, it's that point in time, my understanding we will be doing the further environmental review. tida, of course, doesn't do that work. that work is left for the appropriate regulatory bodies and we will, of course, as hunter said, be addressing the dredging issue and other environmental review issues in front of the appropriate governmental bodies. but all in all, we are excited. we want to thank hunter who worked tireless in his efforts and behalf of all the organizations he is representing, we will have a marina. smaller. not quite as large and robust as we had hoped but it will still be an important part of the future of treasure island and thank you very much, and we look forward to building a marina treasure island. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. >> president fei tsen: thank you. i have a question of mr. beck. what next are

request, you have the ability to approve the project or approve the alternatives. >> president hillis: as long as it does come back here's p8 i think no matter what happens, it will be back. i cannot push this project into a d.r. all i am saying is the prep question before you is that is the document sufficient under state law? that is a question. >> vice-president melgar: i wanted to ask commissioner richards, since you had the conversation with the supervis supervisor, p8. >> commissioner richards: they called me. i did not call them. >> vice-president melgar: what is it that you would rather have today? is it a continuance of this item so that we have more conversation and also to have to rest staff? >> commissioner richards: to look at the alternatives with higher densification should the supervisor be able to fast-track that. when we spot those parcels almost weekly here. this whole thing about, you know, w we had one from supervir tang just now, that because of environmental, it fell from the sky. it was six big parcels. so this whole idea, this mystification around we don't spo

and approve the project. >> commissioner moore: oh, okay.that's what i meant to say. >> president hillis: i'll second that. >> commissioner moore: there is just a cautionary note that we're acknowledging having heard about this tree issue, but we are approving the project as is. >> right. i think you would -- >> president hillis: you would need to take d.r. to do something like that. >> yeah. i think it would be best to not take d.r., but the comment is in the record. >> commissioner moore: particularly, the comment in the record is it's not -- it's outside the guidelines that we normally approve a finding. >> you could acknowledge that in the discretionary review memo, simply acknowledge the tree finding. >> commissioner moore: i find that. >> commissioner richards: it's interesting enough in the four years i've been on the commission, i think we've dealt with one, besides the landmark tree on polk street, one property, it was 323 cumberland, and we did a condition, when we made the approval positive the conditional use -- we made the appro