supervisor chu: thank you very supervisor chu: thank you very much

supervisor chu: just a clarification in the language? >> correct. supervisor chu: ok. colleagues, why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item, number 11? >> good morning, supervisors because attorney for local 350. i just wanted to emphasize, in response to the question that keeps coming up, and that is the difficulty of having independent contractors and having the prevailing wage ordinance. the problem, as pointed out, it is and possible -- it is not only an impossibility that this city that has dealt with, but the state has dealt with it, to apply a prevailing wage ordinance to persons or not employees. there is no level playing field. there's no place there. the way an independent contractor is compensated has no relationship to wages. an independent contractor is compensated with a contract price for doing the job plus the additional costs. in regard to one contract that has done a lot of attention, the costs and all were the costs of the truck, cost of insurance, cost of licensing, and all the

supervisor chu: thank you. this is an ability for the department to go forward with a for the $20,000 planning contract. in terms of implementation, we do not know what that costs will be until after the planning process? -- $420,000 planning contract. >> that is included in the capital budget and fiscal feasibility study. this is just asking your approval to enter into an agreement with this particular company, as they are the on the one that can provide material that the faa has required we use, since we cannot accommodate the 1,000 feet at the end of the shorter runways. supervisor chu: in terms of implementation, after the study period, after we decided with the organization, there is already a budget for that? >> yes. supervisor chu: do you know what that level is? >> not off the top of my head, but i would be happy to get that break down for you. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> good morning, supervisors. happy new year. the cost, as indicated, the faa has only approved

supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no questions from the committee, why don't we go to the budget analyst's report. >> on page 4 of our report, we report the phase one budget of the pier 27 cruise terminal project is $62 million. that is shown in the attachment on page 7 of our report. table to on page five of our report provides details of the funding sources for this phase one, including the subject requested $8,450,000, which was previously placed on reserve by the board of supervisors. on page five, we point out, as shown in table 2, if the board doesn't approve 9,000,500 to $4,457, that would include the release of reserve of $8 million as well as $603,000 in interest earnings. i believe that was approved by the board yesterday. then the board of supervisors would have appropriated $33 million. that is about 53.1% of the phase one budget of $62.3 million for the pier 27 cruise terminal project. we recommend you approve the request and release of the $8 million. the reserve by the board of supervisors.

supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this up to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to send item forward with recommendations. without objection. item five, please. >> item 5. resolution: 1) authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute a 20 year lease for an approximately 11.73 acre pipeline right-of- way near the san antonio reservoir in alameda county to chevron pipe line company at an initial rent of $12,500 per year; 2) adopting environmental findings; and 3) authorizing other actions in furtherance of this resolution. supervisor chu: ken thank you. john updike from real estate. >> good morning. acting director of real-estate. happy new year. this item before to is a 20-year lease between the sfpuc and chevron for an existing pipeline. location is on the overhead near the san antonio reservoir with an alameda county. it is 5

supervisor chu: thank you. please call item 1. >> item 1. resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to retroactively accept and expend a grant from the u.s. department of housing and urban development for lead-based paint hazard reduction in the amount of $2,500,000 and program income not to exceed $200,000. supervisor chu: thank you. we have sonya and daniel. >> the mayor's office of housing has been awarded $2.5 million from the hot office of helping homes and lead hazard control. award will provide grants to control of the volumes and homes. this is the fifth type of award in the past years. as part of the award, the mayor's office of housing has collaborated with department of public health to provide $895,000 in matching funds. 57% of those funds are from already appropriated community development block grant funds. the remaining 43% are from dph. this 43% from dph is an in kind contribution for the award and is funded by local general fund , local revenue fund, and state funding. this contribut

supervisor chu: thank you. we have been joined by supervisor wiener, the sponsor of this legislation, a key sponsor. so i would like to offer the supervisor in the opening comments. supervisor wiener: thank you, and happy new year, everyone. so this item was in before the committee in in december. briefly, as a reminder, these are amendments to the prevailing wage ordinance. the few things brought in the types of contracts that are covered. it does a fair amount of cleanup and consolidation for consistency with in the ordinance. it creates a six-month transition period when the city changes contractors, and it requires that certain contracts that the vendors have employees and not in the pettitte contractors, because defining an employee as an end and the contractor can be a way to get around prevailing wage requirements. at the last hearing, i made a number of amendments to the legislation which it then requires a continuance. that is why we're here today. over the last few weeks, we have been in discussion in

supervisor chu: thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst report. if there are no questions from the committee, let's open up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos: motion to approve with recommendation. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send item forward with recommendations. without objection. item 3. >> item.3. hearing to consider release of reserved funds, port commission, (file no. 031229, ordinance no. 202-03) in the amount of $8,450,894 to fund the pier 27 mixed use cruise terminal project. supervisor chu: thank you. we have elaine forbes from the port on this item. >> good morning, members of the committee. the item before you is a release of reserves from a 2003 watermark planned sale proceeds. the total amount of the reserve is $8,450,494. as you know last night, the board of supervisors of how the planning commission certification of the eir. now this committee can move on the re

supervisor chu: great. >> thank you. supervisor chu: this is a question perhaps to olsc. so the legislation does a number of different things. it does make sure that we eliminate any exclusions that deal with conflicts when there is prevailing wage versus underlining negotiated contracts. there is, again, the elimination of the nonprofit exemption, except that we have clarified language for dph and hsa were leading the attack will be much more far-reaching. the component about the small business exception. a retention policy that goes for 90 days to 180 days. and there is also changes in consolidation of general standards and enforcement, which makes sense to me. and setting of the prevailing wage. in terms of the employee requirement, this is a question that i had, because i think the intention of this legislation is to make sure that we are closing in the loopholes with regards to what the worker, whether you are a janitor or whether you are a hauler, ultimately gets paid. we want them to get paid the prevailing wage, because that was the intent of the prevailing wage l

supervisor chu: thank you. we have elaine forbes from the port on this item. >> good morning, members of the committee. the item before you is a release of reserves from a 2003 watermark planned sale proceeds. the total amount of the reserve is $8,450,494. as you know last night, the board of supervisors of how the planning commission certification of the eir. now this committee can move on the release of this research. given that there are several items come before you in the near term related to this project, i wanted to give you an update on the project, sources and uses, what you can expect before the end of this fiscal year. if i could go to the overhead. i know in the eir and conversation last night, from fiscal feasibility, you are aware of the project, but just to go over, this is the existing site condition. pier 27 serves as a secondary cruise terminal no amenities for the public. pier 29 has several storage space tenants and some office space uses. the proposed project is not only a cruise terminal,

supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number nine? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> excuse me, i do have a statement we would like to read to the resolution, if possible. i would like to revise the clerk. may i read it with your permission? supervisor chu: yes, do have a copy for the committee members, and what is the nature of this? >> it is to add to the resolution on the environmental impact report, having to do with the appeal. supervisor chu: ok. read it into the record. >> thank you. this is on page two of the 12th whereas, where it defines the least bit of the language would read as follows -- whereas the environmental impact of actions contemplated in the lease or analyzed and the final environmental impact report, final eir for rent, which the planning commission certified on december 15, 2011 by its motion number 18514, which certification is now on appeal for the board of supervisors, and a copy of the final eir is contained in the board file nu

supervisor chu: thank you. we also have kathy widener on this report. >> the airport is requesting that this item be tabled. i apologize. the request to withdraw the early termination did not occur before it appeared on the calendar, due to some timing issues. the contract will expire next month, so we do not need to terminate early. i apologize for the confusion. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to table the item. without objection. item four, please. >> item 4. resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification no. 1 of lease l00-0464 at plot 6 with united air lines, inc., at san francisco international airport to: 1) extend the term; 2) reduce the demised premises; 3) modify the annual rent; 4) provide for a deferred city improvements payment to city; and 5) provide for certain terms of retroactivity relating to the rent and the deferred

supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to supervisor kim. supervisor kim: thank you. i was wondering if you could explain the rationale behind the port's policy on rent abatement and credits only apply to leases five years and under. why was it specifically articulated for short-term leases? >> that would allow us -- on a lease of five years or under, we can go to the port commission for approval on a parameter, with up to three months of rent abatement. otherwise, we have to seek board approval. supervisor kim: in general, the ports policy is silent on whether it can apply to long- term leases. >> that is my understanding. supervisor kim: have we applied it to leases that are 10 years or older? >> have there been rent credits? yes, there have been. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor kim. let's go the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, supervisor, i am from the budget and legislative analyst office. under the proposed new lease, the total net revenues to the port over the 10-year term would be about

supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> yes. my name is mark, and i represent craft, the new mission -- business being billed as 440 mission street in 1930-historic building directly across the street from a new transbay transit center, which is going to be ready in about 2017 and is now a big hole in the ground. however, we have applied -- my client has applied for a type 40 abc license, which authorizes the sale of beer only. note wine or spirits music -- may be served on the premises. and light meals must be served. our business plan calls for the craft to serve craft beer from small independent breweries, using traditional ingredients. specifically, this location will have 40 tap beers and 40 bottled beers available to the public. this craft beer movement is strong in cities such as portland and san diego, and it is becoming larger and the rest of the country. san francisco is in a region surrounded by small cr

supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> jane, and jane, jane i found our budget time to job training train, train, train time to do some job training first of all we need some money change new 9 chain, a chain, and chang, i found the budget i am just the money linking chain we need some money change change and we need some job change training. supervisor chu: is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to set with recommendations. supervisor chu: we can do that without objection. thank you. item 3. >> item 3. resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fy2009 buffer zone protection program grant in the amount of $199,820 from the u.s. department of homeland security, through the california emergency management agency, to fund critical infrastructure protection needs. supervisor chu: thank you. >> ami

supervisor chu: thank you. a question for our folks. is there a condition that we might be able to add on to the list that would be able to accommodate this? i do now see any problems with what you're describing, but i would hate to see people be able to bring a beer and perhaps open and across the street at the park. if that becomes a problem, given the fact we have limited resources, is there something we can say about the size of the containers that are permissible for off-sale or that we would not permit the provision of cups with ice, those kinds of things, to make sure we do not have a problem? >> we could eliminate their privilege to do off-sale if that is something you want to consider, or we could limit the size of the container to so many ounces, whatever ounces, 22 ounces or whatever size we feel is appropriate. we could certainly do that. supervisor chu: i would actually prefer that we do not necessarily eliminate the option for you to sell, but i would like to have restrictions that would give us s

>supervisor chu: thank you. i will ask the department to respond to this question. >> i will start with your question, and i would like to meet two other points. in terms of the appropriate amount of funds to place on reserve, i, myself, am unclear about that at this moment. while i know it will take about $700,000 to complete the environmental review process, we're not sure yet what the split between philanthropic partners and ourselves would be in the funding design and the advent -- even for construction work. to place a reserve, i think at this point in time, i think it will impact those conversations and in a potentially negative way to the passage of project. and we need to be able to freely decide what information we do not have at this moment on how much money we will need to put on the city side into the completion of the design of these products, assuming that environmental review goes forward. because we do need to spend some of that money to complete and refighting, i think, the projects. supervisor

supervisor chu: ok, thank you. next speaker. >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council, representing 150 different unions in town, and i do a lot of work on labor law enforcement. thank you, budget share chu and supervisor kim, and a supervisor weaner for sponsoring this legislation. and supervisor mirkarimi -- and supervisor wiener, some as a mirkarimi, good to see. we want to move this forward with recommendations. i know that all of you, as supervisors, as well as the mayor's office and the compliance office and everybody in san francisco has scratched their heads over some of the contracts they have had to get out where, ultimately, you have found out that workers are being exploited after these contracts are out because of loopholes. in particular, industries that we're talking about right now, the building construction trades, prevailing wages are firmly embedded in the city charter. that has been the model that these other industries have been trying to replicate as they move forward.

supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i just want to reiterate some of the point you made. i understand where this is coming from. i have begun to talk to the other entities that will be affected by this, including the school district. i know everyone in acknowledges the need to potentially raise rates but has concerns about being able to absorb this in their budget. i would want to look for ways that we can look with the work with everyone to make this happen, even if it meant having smaller increases over time. january, i think, is early. i know you want to be able to take this into account when you present the budget for us. i would rather see the overall budgeting and see how these increases will impact your budget. preferably, i would rather see this in march or april. i think i would be more ready to make a decision at that time. january might be fast because of the holidays. everyone from the school district and city college will have a hard time try to grasp what this means for the budget and how t

supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask wreck park -- rec park to come up and speak about the reserves? sorry, the port. >> good morning. item 13 -- 14111364 is $130,000 request for a release of reserves for the bailey waterfront project. this project will restore public access of over 550 linear feet of long neglected waterfront in the heart of fisherman's wharf, to create a new public, not with very good use of the day, alcatraz landing, and the historic bayview arch. currently, most of it recently used for parking. it will protect the shoreline by replacing a failing timbers the wall between pier 43 and the san princess in westport -- restaurant. -- san francisco restaurant. this reserve was placed in the first issuance of the clean and safe bonds in october of 2008. at that time, the project totalled $6.8 million. the scope of the budget was increased to $9.6 million to address the bay conservation development commission requirements for adjacent public access. the court added $2.8 million in port funds a

supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: what department will bear the cost, dem, police, or fire? >> ultimately, the public safety departments will have to bear some of the costs. we're working with the mayor's office now to try to work that out. obviously, that will become a big concern beginning with the upcoming fiscal year. we do not have a whole lot of costs to allocate for this current fiscal year. but with the budget process that is coming at for the 2013 fiscal year, we will have that information is sorted out and presented it to you as part of that budget. supervisor avalos: as this system goes forward and becomes implemented, does it offset any the other costs, some cost savings to help cover the additional cost? >> in terms of radio devices in the service costs, that is true. police, fire, public safety departments will have to pay the cost of those services. this would replace those costs. so the cost of devices and the cost of the service itself when we ge

supervisor chu: thank you. any others who wish to comment? a seat none, public comment is closed. a quick question to the comptroller's office with regards to the last speaker. are the numbers accurate? >> i do not have the calculations. i would like to get back to the committee afterwards. supervisor chu: ok, do you think you might be able to provide the information to the full board before it gets to us on tuesday? >> yes, absolutely. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, we have heard public comment and heard from the departments. are there further comments or questions? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, a chair. i appreciate the public comment. a question for the mta on the discussion of around complete streets and how we are ensuring that we are incorporating our policies at around complete streets into the road resurfacing/repaving bond? >> i would ask that john thomas, the project manager for the bond, start with that. he may be able to get the best context. >> thank you. project manager

supervisor chu: thank you. just to the department, from my understanding, in our last sale of bonds, the same 2008 bonds, we have issued them in a different chunks in the past. in our second chunk when we issued, we also allocated an amount for the play fields program without the programmatic information, knowing we would have to come back for specific projects and environmental review on each of those. >> exactly. on the second bond sale, the full $8.5 million with -- was but issue, sold, and appropriate for the play fields program without any of the issues that have been raised in the past 24 hours, even coming forward as a decision. it is consistent with the rest of the bond and how it has been managed. we had issued and sold the funds for that $8.5 million, appropriated it to the play fields program. but in order to fund the palega contract, we brought a supplemental to the board of supervisors to reallocate the bond funds. and then we borrowed about $7.5 million from the play fields program to help us find

supervisor chu: thank you. given that you have received the information, would it be a problem to be a budget that information prior to a tuesday board meeting? >> no, we could do that. i just would advise you that, based on our preliminary analysis, we are going to have recommendations to change the numbers. supervisor chu: right. potentially -- potentially lower? >> yes. >> if we were to amend that at the full board to a lower amount, that would not be substantive, what it? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: despicable thoughts. i would be interested to hear what my colleagues think about this. i appreciate the work that the budget analyst is going to put into analyzing their rates and what we're paying and how much we do need. i and understand where the department is coming from. it has to do with your prior year experience. so the budget analyst is trying to get to a point where we really understand how much is needed, as opposed to just taking last year's amount. so i can appreciate this information that