Was appropriated by the board of supervisors under the sfpuc water system improvement program. We recommend that you approve this resolution. Okay. Thank you mr. Rose. Colleagues any questions . We will move on to Public Comment. Anyone wishing to comment on item 10 . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. Colleagues can i have a motion to move this forward. So moved. Motion by supervisor tang. We can take it without objection. Madam clerk call item 11. Item 11 requisition of the Real Property at 490 south van ness, the Purchase Price of 18,500,000. Okay. We have the Mayors Office of housing here. Hello. The res before you is approve the acquisition of Real Property at 490 south van ness from the south van ness limited partnership benicia lake llc and Maurice Casey collectively referred as the seller for the agreed amount of 18,500,000 and the resolution ask that you adopt ceqa findings and consistent with the general plan under the code. There will be a deduction of transfer tax credited to the city upon closing as noted in the report and the final amount paid as listed and creates 255,000 buildable units for the acquisition of this parcel in the heart of the mission neighborhood. 490 south van ness is currently vacant site zoned urban mix use. Its former use was a gas station and now environmentally remediated and ready for development of the site is titled for a 72 Unit Multifamily Development containing over 90,000 square feet of condition space with ground floor commercial and vehicular parking and ample high school parking. This represents the best efforts of the city and chunt community and recognizeing sites inlet the community and to the mission and if sites are identified and are available they will move with maximum dexterity and urgency to take title of the project as soon as possible to create Affordable Housing in the neighborhood. This opportunity is unique given the fully entitled nature and have them thoughtfully to respond to the development on an expedited time line and serve low to moderate income households and 20 set aside for homeless families and with the citys goals of building out 30,000 units and a third being permanently affordable. The acquisition of this property is in addition to the pipeline in the neighborhood and they expect to close the transaction at the end of august and publish requests for proposals to procure a developer winter of this year. I would like to thank the city departments and the sellers and the community for having this transaction take place and reacting to the dynamics to produce desperately needed opportunities for our city and specifically the mission. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. I brought a rendering so you have an idea of what the project looks like now and we hope to build in the new future. Okay. Thank you very much. Supervisor mar. Yes thank you kevin and the Mayors Office of housing and development. This is from a gas station to 72 units of permanent Affordable Housing and its great and i know we need to do more but what a great example how the city can address the housing crisis in creative ways. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rose can we go to your report. Yes mr. Chairman and members of the committee. On page 27 we report in june 2015 the Real Estate Division conducted an independent appraisal of the 490 south van ness property and determined the fair marshal value as of fair market value is listed and as the department indicated we report on page 28 of the report that the purchase sale certifies that the Purchase Price will be reduced by a credit of 462500 the amount of the real estate transfer tax that would otherwise be due on the transaction and pursuant to the citys business and tax regulations code. That section specifically exempts payment of the transfer tax for the purchase of property property of the city and as a result the general fund will not receive the transfer tax revenues for this transaction so our recommendation on page 29 is we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to specify the Purchase Price with a credit as listed to reflect the citys exemption of paying the citys Real Estate Property transfer tax and result in adjusted city cost as listed and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. Okay. Thank you mr. Rose. Colleagues any questions for mr. Rose or our team . Okay. We will move on to Public Comment. Anyone wish to comment on item 11 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues do we have the budget Analyst Recommendations in front of us and under line item. Through the chair i make a motion to amend the Purchase Price reflecting what the budget analyst said for the transfer tax that the city is exempt from and move forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. Okay. Motion by supervisor tang and take that without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 12. Item 12 resolution approving and authorizing the sale of easement on the citys property at corner of 23rd street and potrero avenue to the pacific gas and electric for the price of approximately 11,000. Okay. Welcome back mr. Updike. Thank you sir. John up dike director of director of real estate and this is to sale of easement at corner of 23rd street and potrero avenue and i was going to bring in something the size of the property but i decided not to. This is by the hospital and with adjustments serving the infrastructure adjustments that are made and this facilitates location of an electrical distribution pole. Its an area of over hang of wireos the citys property extending 5 feet on either side of the wires so thats the subject of the easement before you. The Purchase Price pursuant to an appraisal which i approved. Because this is a sale of a permanent property right board approval is required and i am happy to answer questions. Thank you mr. Mr. Updike. Any questions . We will move on to Public Comment . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] i move that we approve this item. Motion by supervisor mar. Take that without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 13. Item 13 is contract contracts with cotton, shires and associates with Arup North America limited and Geostabilization International for the Telegraph Hill rock slope Improvement Project for stabilization and inn constitution of the northwest face of Telegraph Hill and not not to exceed the amount listed. Okay. This is a project stabilized Telegraph Hill. Its an emergency project. There are three contractors involved in this project. Two of the contractors are engineering consultant. Initially we declare emergencies in july 2014 for the project for all three contracts, but it had to go through a negotiation process. For the construction contract we solicited nine contractors to look at the project. Four of them provided a proposal. We negotiated with the contractor that had the lowest cost and also had 2lbe components to their construction contract. One of the Construction Consulting Engineering Contract as a result of an agreement with block 60 lot five and the property that stipulated we were to retain them for engineering support during construction. We notified the board of supervisors in march of 2015 initially and the reason was for that we had to make sure that the scope of the work because its a Telegraph Hill rock slope Improvement Project a lot of the work was behind vej taifive areas that we are to remove to finalize the scope and then we submitted the documentation in june of 2015 towards the end of the project so i will take any questions. Okay. Colleagues any questions . Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Rose can we go to your report . Yes mr. Chairman and members of committee. On page 33 of our report we have a table one which shows the three original contracts total listed. However all three contractors submitted change orders which were approved by dpw for the revised amount as listed on the Actual Expenditures that you see in that table are through june 30, 2015. On page 34 of our report we note that the director of public works declared an emergency in 2014 but the resolution approving the emergency determination was want submitted to the board of supervisors until one year later or specifically 346 days after the emergency was declared, and we note on page 35 that although a board of supervisors recently approved ordinances not yet effective its significant to note that the proposed resolution was submitted 286 days in sceses excess of the 60 day limit pending before the board of supervisors. Our recommendation is on page 35 and amend the proposed resolution to delete the incorrect contract amount as listed with cotton, shires and associates and add the correct amount as listed. We recommend that you delete the incorrect amount as listed with Geostabilization International and add the correct amount as listed. We recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to delete the innot to exceed amount as listed with and add the not to exceed amount as listed and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. Okay. Thank you mr. Roases. I appreciate that. Colleagues any questions for mr. Rose . Okay we will move on to Public Comment. Anyone wishing to comment . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. Colleagues we have a number of recommendations from the budget analyst and the underlying item. Can i have a motion to approve the items . I move that we approve the amendments and move it forward with a positive recommendation as amended. Thank you very much supervisor mar. We have a motion and take that without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 14. Item 14 is approximately 4. 2 million from permanent salaries and premium pay in the fridge departments in the Sheriffs Department and Police Department and Public Utilities commission and for the projected increases in overtime. Thank you very much. We have ms. Howard to speak on this item. Good morning chair farrell and members of the committee. This item appropriates 4. 2 dollars to over time and the same amount from premium and Fringe Benefits for the departments for 2014. I believe the clerk has provided to you an amended version of this legislation for 5. 03 million which is based on final fiscal year 1415 costs. I believe that the budget Analyst Report reflects the amended version of this item. The three departments included in the supplemental appropriation and deappropriation need to shift straight time salaries to over time for a variety of reasons and including Law Enforcement presences required at events this year, over time for deputy sheriffs to complete training requirements and vacancies in the Public Utilities commission. The action is required as a result of the citys over time ordinance and requires eight departments including these three come before you to request the supplemental appropriation should over time spending in their departments exceed the budget. There is no general fund impact to this request because departments have sufficient salary premium pay and fringe benefit authorities in the budget. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you ms. Howard. Colleagues any questions . Mr. Rose if we can go to your report. Yes mr. Chairman and members of the committee. On page 40 we have a chart and shows the funds and the department to be appropriated and use of funds to be reappropriated under the ordinance as listed for the amounts and we recommend that you approve this ordinance. Okay thank you mr. Rose. If no other questions or comments we will go to Public Comment. Anyone wishing to comment on item 14 . Okay. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] so colleagues could i have a motion to accept these amendments and then accept the underlying item as amended . So moved. Motion by supervisor mar. We can take that without objection. [gavel] okay. Thank you everybody. We have gotten to the two final items and the two hearings and madam clerk call item 15 first. Item 15 is hearing between the department of the environments landfill disposal agreement with recology San Francisco for the board resolution no. 17105 and including discussion of the terms of the agreement and support the zero waste goal and time line and request the department of the environment to report. Okay thank you madam clerk so i know i see mr. Rodriquez here and our director of the department of the environment to speak so this hearing. If there are any members of the public that wish to comment please fill out speaker cards. If not we will open it up when the hearing is concluded. Good morning supervisors and we have copies of the powerpoint and the new agreement for your reference. First i would like to thank you supervisor farrell for scheduling this hearing at our request. We wanted to make sure that were clear and up front with the board about the change we are making in our contract language for this landfill agreement. Im going to be speaking at a very high level but i have with me two of my colleagues, so if theres more specific questions if people want to dive in deeper we can certainly do that so i think its important, and i dont know why there is [inaudible] okay. Im sorry. I think its important for you to understand when we as a Department Look at a landfill contract there are three standards that were looking at no matter who were awarding the contract to. Number one the contract needs to be legally defensible and stand up in court and follow the rules and regulations of the city and seconds must be project of the environment and supportive of the zero waste goal. Incredibly important to us as a department and as a city and thirdly the contract has to be cost effective. We need to protect the ratepayers to make sure theyre getting the lowest cost and the best service. Looking at the current landfill agreement why are we here today . We are here today because were notifying you of a small contract change but theres a much larger issue going on. In 1987 the city entered into a contract with Waste Management to dispose of our solid waste and at the landfill in alameda county. The contract for was for 15 million tons or 65 years whichever came sooner. We are expected to reach that amount by the end of the calendar year, the beginning of 2016. Its important to note that the cost of a landfill agreement isnt strictly off to the rate payers. We have in San Francisco another process which is the rate process and that landfill amount is build into the overall garbage bill that the residents and businesses in San Francisco pay. The important point is there lots of public interaction and Public Comment and time to weigh in as we look at our zero waste programs so just tracking the history of this landfill agreement. It started in neefn 87 and we started the process in 2007. In 2007 we held five public hearings to determine the guidelines for the process would be. In 2008 we did a competitive rfq process to look for qualified respondents. In 2009 we did a public rfp and got two bids and one from recology and one from Waste Management. We looked at other environmental factors which came out fairly evenly but the thing that was very striking was the difference in cost which would translate to over 100 million for ratepayers over the lifetime of this contract. So recology was selected by the panel. Lawsuits were filed. Lawsuits were dismissed and over the course of the next four years the board repeatedly took a look at this contract. You held four hearings, two votes and after the hearings and the votes the board unanimously approve the process and said in fact recology was the qualified bidder for the contract. Supervisor mar. I just wanted to ask you to slow down a minute and on the environmental benefits of the recology contract my recollection is the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions because of the green rail but with more miles trucking from tunnel road to oakland and then rail all the way to yuba county but thats changed and i know the sierra club raised some concerns about increase increased Greenhouse Gas emissions and the department of the environment said theyre negligible but the contract was based on greener way of transporting the trucking and then the rail, and thats changed significantly and that is an Environmental Impact so i would like to know about the analysis but i know it may come up with the report later, but i wanted to say the price was a key thing with the points on the panel as i recall way back then, and the points because of the much lower pricing for the recology contract put the bid of recology way above Waste Management. Correct. But there were still environmental benefits of the green rail proposal which has changed now though. So in a way when you look back at that original contract they were half the price and they a appeared to have a transportation option that was greener and either way you look at it recology was the best practice. I am saying i dont want to gloss over the environmental benefits of the original contract. Exactly, yes. Because the pricing was critical in the points but proposed as a green rail project that was much superior to the other one. Right. And that was incredibly exciting to us to think about the green rail and the contract was we would love to do that and if something happens we have a backup plan and go to a different landfill so any way you cut it it looked like the most protective of the environment and for ratepayers. The green rail option turned out to be still of interest to us but its a very long protracted process. It does need more Environmental Review and agreed with that and yuba county said we need a deeper look at the rail and as that became longer and longer we fell back to the backup landfill which is hey road. And i want you to know that Melanie Nutter and john avalos and i visited yuba county and livermore as well and the environmental benefits were critical in addition to the pricing you mentioned earlier. Yeah, fair enough. Thank you for bringing that up. This is high level and anything i am glossing over please stop and lets go into detail on, so you bring up the Environmental Review and the department feels like this new landfill going to hey road is not of significant Environmental Impact so that word significant is a legal term and the determination of whether a Environmental Impact is significant takes place with the Planning Department through the ceqa process and transition to my next slide so what happened under the Environmental Review so the agreement with hay road versus althat month and the planning Department Looked at that and transportation and there is a 40mile difference between taking the waste from our city to hay road for recology versus Waste Management so the question that needs to be answered from a legal perspective is that significant . Does that trigger a full eir . Thats the question that the Planning Department struggled with so we asked them to evaluate it and after nine months they came back and did all of the calculations and assumed a 50 truck per day and looked at the 40mile difference and was below the threshold of ceqa and i will come back to that and its important as the environment doesnt that we understand a legal obligation and moral obligation so that determination was appealed. The Planning Department unanimously agreed with their staff im sorry the Planning Commission agreed with the Planning Department that negative declaration, the impact of the 40 miles of insignificant and a full eir didnt have to happen. Now thats not the end of that discussion. That discussion and decision will come back to you in some time i expect in september, to redo and reevaluate so that you can feel comfortable that the city is in fact meeting the legal obligations to project the environment in terms of emissions. Thats not what todays hearing is about, and its not the end of the story so i want to make that point. Supervisor tang. Just a question. I know this is again not the full purpose of the hearing but you or planning staff if you would like to answer this. We did receive some comments from i guess the opposing party there is no ceqa threshold at this time based on the number of vehicle miles traveled and therefore ceqa thresholds are met based on air quality, Greenhouse Gas or noise impacts resulting from vehicles miles traveled so i am wondering if you or the Planning Department can respond to that quickly . I cannot. Erin [inaudible] from the department. Im sorry. I am not prepared to talk about the environmental deration for that. Okay. Perhaps we can follow up when it comes back to the board. Absolutely. We will make note of that and that is important point is that this is coming back before the board to take a look at those issues in more detail so the new agreement, the agreement that was being negotiated was of course the hay road landfill and looking thea a term of 5 milliontons and take about 15 years for us to reach given our efforts of zero waste and given the citys commitment to reducing what allly goes to landfill and our progress. This agreement that is now in your hands is actually reducing the term of the contract down to nine years and 3. 4 million tons but allowing an extention and that permission would be heard by you at the time were approaching the end of the contract so the reason we shortened the term of the contract we want to honor the competitive bid process for all of the years and meetings and process that is legally defensible. It ensures rate stability because the department has the authority to sign the contract and ensure that a contract is in place before the existing contract ends at the end of the calendar year and honors public review and allows public review because the contract is shortened and allows the board to revisit it at the time of renewal and rather than wait 15 years the board can look at it in nine years. The other change to the contract was seeking about the whole ceqa issue and the environmental issue and the discussion that came up from people that had concerns over the 40mile difference and what we put into the contract we capped the number of trucks that recology could send to landfill at 50 per day. The reason we did that was the assumptions in ceqa made a 50 truck assumption but that wasnt set in stone so by doing that were ensuring that the Environmental Impacts remain below the threshold and making a statement about the commitment to zero waste that no matter if
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.