sheshatshiu [gavel] >> good morning, everyone, the meeting will come to order. this is the february 12th, 2020, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by supervisors walton. i would like to thank those from s.f. gov. tv for broadcasting this. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please silence all electronic devices. and speaker cards and documents should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the february 25th board of supervisors' agenda unless otherwise stated. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. i apologie apologize for being . can you call item number one. >> clerk: item on one to increase the contract amount by $5.9 million not to exceed an amount of $15.8 million, with no change to the contract term to commence upon board approval. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. we have cathy widener here from the san francisco airport. >> good morning chair fewer, cathy widener with the san francisco international airport. the item before you seeks your approval for a modification to an existing contract with ceta information networking computing u.s.a., for support services of the airport's shared-use passenger processing systems, which includes hardware, technical support, maintenance, system administration, system monitoring and supplies for equipment in our harvey milk terminal one, as well as in the international terminal. modification number one would increase the contract not to exceed amount by $5.9 million. this contract is the result of a 2018 competitive request for proposals process to support and maintain the airport's check-in and boarding systems, common use, self-serve kiosk and baggage reconciliation systems, information display systems, and pas passport control systems. the increase is for the additional equipment, coming on line in new gates and arriving and departing passenger processing fas facilities in harvey milk terminal one when this went out in 2018. the cost of this contract and proposed modification is budgeted as part of the airport's operating budget. the budget andrew bell has analt recommends approval, and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> chairwoman: can we hear from the b.l.a.,? proceeding. good morning.i'll just sortf reiterate of what ms. widener had to say. the board is being asked to approve the modification with the airport agreement with ceta to display services in the international terminal and other domestic terminals. this contract increases close to $6 million, increasing it to $15.9 million. the increase is actually for the addition of services and equipment in harvey milk terminal one that was added after the r.f.p. process in the original contract. table two, on page three of our report, shows the increases under the proposed modification. we actually have reviewed the details of the increases in the contract budget and consider them to be reasonable. and we're recommending approval. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number one. seeing none, complic commennone, publiccomment is no. any comments? >> ms. widener, i do have a question for you. this increase is for terminal one because it was not completed at the time when you did the contract. is that correct? >> yes. the $5.9 million proposed modification is for the new gates and some of the swing -- the ability for us to have a arriving passengers come into terminal one. that was all in the planning stages when this was originally put out to bid in 2018. >> so the airport has how many terminals? >> three domestic and one international. >> so this is a contract for three domestic and one international terminal. is that correct? >> the whole contract? >> yes. >> yes, the equipment throughout the airport. yes, that's correct. >> it just seems disproportionate that it will be $6 million for one of the terminals, but -- >> i don't know the answer to that. i'll have to go back and look. my understanding is this is for new equipment. i believe partially what this contract does in the rest of the terminal is just maintain and operate the equipment, but this is to actually install the equipment that we need for our common use processing. >> okay. thank you very much. >> chairwoman: any comments or questions from our colleagues? seeing none, i would like to move to the board with a positive recommendations. madam. >> authorizing public works to accept an grant in the amount of $15 million from the united states department of transportation for the fiscal year 2018, better utilizing development transportation, discretionary grant for the better market street phase one, for the period of june 2020 to june 2025. >> chairwoman: okay. better market street. is this escar quinn toia? >> yes. >> i'm a capital finance analyst with san francisco public works. the resolution before you authorizes them to acceptp accet a $15 million grant for the better market streets phase one project. we were awarded this competitive grant in december 2018. this project will deliver transformative street scape, and transportation improvements along market street, between fifth street and eighth street, and go good repair and investments in our transportation infrastructure. the grant funds will be used for roadway work and traffic and pedestrian signal upgrades. as you might be aware, starting january 29th, market street -- most of market street became a car-free zone, and m.t.a. is currently placementing some of thimplementingsome imprd this will make the permanent and state of good repair investments as well. we are working with s.f. t.a.staff, and the preparation of the construction mitigation plan, as you might remember back in december, when the t.a. approved the didie signdesign allocations mog forward. i'm joined by our project manager to answer any questions. >> chairwoman: any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, can we have a b.l.a. report on this, please. >> the proposed resolution accepts the $15 million grant from the u.s. government for the better market street program. if you look at exhibit 3 on page nine of our report, the total budget for the program is $176.7 million at this time. that is improvements to market street, between fifth street and eighth street, largely. so the $15 million grant is part of the overall budget. if you look in exhibit 3, of the 176.7million, there is about a $38 million funding gap that still needs to be identified for this project. however, the $15 million grant does meet the criteria, including the matching funldz, s funds, so we recommend approval. >> chairwoman: any comments on questions? supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair fewer. >> chairwoman: you're welcome. >> i can't say i'm new to this committee anymore, but i have a question about how to think about gaps on construction projects like this. and, um, if this is standard and what happens if you can't identify $38 million over the next couple of years? >> right now we're working with s.f. m.t.a., and also applying for other grant sources. yesterday we submitted an application for the affordable housing and sustainable communities grant program. program, and it's such a large project, so we're looking at state funding, such as the local partnership program, which will call for projects in a couple of months. so it is all about timing and making sure that at the time of award of the contract we have a fully funded project. we're still a few months away. we're working with our partners to figure that out. >> and you believe you'll have that gap closed before you award the contract? >> yes. >> chairwoman: okay. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public want to comment on this item? >> supervisors, first and foremost, we have to look at the projects that one of you kind of alluded to but it was not precise. if you look at the central subway, we know what happened to that. it started with $600 million, and now it is $2 billion. if you look at the van ness project, and i just walked certain parts of it, it is pathetic. it is really pathetic. now, we've been talking about market street for a long time. but before we even initiate -- we already initiated closing it down for the causeway and keeping it open for the bicyclists, we failed to do a needs assessment on the surface of market street. especially when it comes to the elderly, or somebody like me, who wears a brace, and there are potholes. we are not paying attention to the rails. we went -- some of the new guys who come in, they have no clue how all of the improvements that were done to market street, and how businesses were impacted. so one of you all alluded to it in a general way. it failed to ask the real questions because, remember, you can get millions of dollars from the federal government, but as i see it, the planning department -- [buzzer] >> -- and all of the committee meetings that you have, there is no real input from the public. and the san francisco county transportation authority has kind of an advisory committee, but they're all over the place. we do have experts in san francisco. [buzzer] >> chairwoman: thank you very much. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. actually, i have a question, if you don't mind. i think the speaker brings up a pretty good point about the public input that we've done so far around this better market street project. and our small business people at the table. okay. >> i can speak to that. good morning, supervisors, i'm the better market street project manager. to date we've had five rounds of community outreach. these are large meetings held around market street to collect input from the community, not just residents, but also business owners, about the project itself and the impacts of construction. we're now starting to develop the construction mitigation plan. i think you might remember as part of the transportation authority -- your role as part of the transportation authority board, i'll be giving the presentation in march about our construction mitigation plan and support for small businesses. so we are clearly aware of the impacts. our estimate is that construction will take two years. to do the first phase of market street, between fifth and eighth streets. and we're working closing with our project partners at the s.f. m.t.a., as well as o.e.w.d. to conduct a survey of the existing businesses and to understand their needs and their expectations during construction. we're also looking at what we can do to reduce the construction duration, or minimize construction duration, possibly building the north side first and impacting the north side businesses for a shorter amount of time. moving to the south side, and then doing the center track way area, so that the impact to businesses is reduced by which side of the street you're on as well. >> chairwoman: so then i have one request: that when you come before us with the t.a., you would also include a proposed budget to help mitigate the negative effects on the small businesses. >> we probably won't have that in march, but we will have that as part of the plan. so in march, we're just giving you an outline, and then we give quarterly updates. so probably the next quarter will have more details and more of the budget. >> chairwoman: great. thank you very much. and then oscar, i'm wondering, i know that this is a grant from the united states department of transportation. why did we seek a grant for better market street but was b.r.t. included also in the grant proposal? >> personally, i'm not aware of that. this application was in july 2018, so i'll have to check on how -- do you remember? >> i know the decision was made as a city, which project to propose. it was thought at the time that it would be very unlikely we would receive any federal funding through the build program, just giving the current administration. so i think the city, as a whole, led by the transportation authority, i think, determined that we would summit the bill grant for better market street, and i believe that was the only grant that the city submitted for this cycle of build. but build is part of the u.s. department of transportation, transportation funding, so there will be future cycles for other projects to apply. >> chairwoman: so is there a plan to apply for these funds for the garry b.r.t.? >> i don't know. that would be a question for the transportation authority or for m.t.a. there are several cycles of build. it replaced tiger, and you may have heard of the tiger grant previously. in the past, i think the city has only received one tiger grant. so, therefore, it is for larger infrastructure projects. >> chairwoman: thank you. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, i would like to make a recommendation to move this to the board. a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. and i can take that without objection. thank you very much. can you please call iams number three and four. >> [item called] >> chairwoman: thank you very much. is this mr. calvin healey? >> yes. >> chairwoman: great. you're from the san francisco p.o. c.? >> yes. good morning. i'm from the s.f. p.u.c. i'm here to request authoritauthorization to execute services for dams and reservoirs, and in particular for agreement 138aa, and agreement pro0138. the s.f. p.u.c. manages a very complex water system, stretching all the way to the city and county of san francisco. we manage dams, reservoirs, pipelines, tunnels, and treatment systems. in 2017, the oroville dam incident occurred. from 2017to 2018, the california division of safety of dams, the s.o.d., issued updated orders for dam reservoir owners. s.f. p.u.c. has a total of 18 dams and reservoirs under the jurisdiction. they have complied with the new s.o.d. requirements, performing condition assessments. they are proactively analyzing our damsp dams and reservoirs and has developed a capital improvement program. they are proactively seeking contracts for professional energy firms for planning, design, and energy support of our improvements through the various reservoir facilities. the specialized energy and dam and reservoir services include hydrology and structural engineering. and to address this, the s.f. p.u.c. issued a request for proposals in 2019. and three agreements are to be awarded to the three highest-ranked proposals. each agreement will be for 11years, for an amount of $1 million. $11 million. they deemed the three highest scoring proposals. january 14, the san francisco public utilities committee approved them. and the s.f. p.u.c. approved the p.e.i. contract. we will be coming back to the board for authorization to execute that agreement. pro01388, and agreement pro138c. these agreements are $11 million apiece for the dureritioduration of 11 years. >> a quick question: do these agreements include community benefits? >> yes. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: can we hair frohear from the b.l.a., please? >> good morning, supervisors. the legislation -- it is two resolutions, each approving a contract between p.u.c., one for energy, and the other for technical services. this was explained by the representative from p.u.c. each contract is for $11 million over 11years. the contracts were selected through a competitive process. we show on page 15 of our report, we show the actual sort of dams and reservoirs that each contract would cover under these contracts. h.d. r. would be for market and o'shaughnessy. and also as explained, there will be a third contract coming forward at a future date for the same program. we recommend approval. >> chairwoman: any public comment on items three and four? >> i've been following this for 40 years. and the way i'll state this is, some of the guys come in and give you the presentation have no idea, and have not read the regular act. they have no concept about a glacier, that is our main resource, which we won't have access to. while discussing about the dams and the pipes, nobody wants to address the leakages, millions of gallons of clean drinking water that seeps into the watershed. so this is not to say that the same old guys who make a lot of money and you supervisors don't have an audit on those things. we don't need the same engineers milking the cow. and that is what is happening here. at the same time, we need to have a needs assessment done on all of our dams in a timely manner. not when we have to spend millions and millions of gallons of water. i can divert a little bit on the mountain tunnel. somebody did a first-time assessment and it took a lot of money, and they found cracks in the tunnel, close to the hedgy reservoir. [buzzer] >> and they chose to repair it, spending (mumbling) omillions of dollars. nobody is asking the relevant questions because most of you are not engineers, most of you are not even aware in the year 2020 we flush our toilets with clean drinking water, which is a shame. it is all connected, but i don't want to go into detail. thank you very much. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. public comments? seeing none, public comments are now closed. any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, i would like to move these two items to the board with a positive recommendation without objection. madam clerk, please call number five. >> resolution approving and authorizing the director of property on behalf of the department of homelessness and supportive housing, property located at 888 post street for an initial term of 20 years, anticipated to commence on october 1st, 2020, as a base rent of $1.5 million a year, increasing a 3% a year, one option to extend the lease for a period of 10 years, and authorizing the city's contribution towards landlord work. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. supervisor peskin? >> thank you, chair fewer, and supervisions for supervisorr hearing this matter, which has been a long time in the making. i think it was in july of 2019 that the board unanimously passed a resolution that sent us in this direction. i want to start by thanking the department of homelessness and supportive housing, mr. ca casinski and ms. schneider, and for negotiating with tidewater these many months. i want to acknowledge goodwill industries, as set forth, would be the city's sublessee at the ground floor. most importantly, i really want to thank the community in the northeast corner of san francisco, the polk street folks, the lower polk cbc, the lower polk neighbors. and mr. jacobson and mr. shulman are here, but folks from all walks of life who have come to a number of community meetings and have, on the most part, been very supportive, very helpful, made very good suggestions about this navigation center that the city is contemplating a 75-bed facility. so i am really delighted. it has been a long time in the making, and a long time coming, and i really want to express my appreciation. i associate myself with the recommendations of the budget and legislative analyst office, and you'll hear from ms. campbell in a little bit, and there are many members of the community here to testify on this item. and with that, madam chair, i'll turn it back over to you. >> chairwoman: thank you very much. i think we have a presentation. thanks. please identify yourself. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm t.g. rippley, i'm with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i'm pleased to be here this morning to ask for your support of the proposed resolution for a lease between the city and the property owner at 888 post street, and 888 poster street llc. and that will house the first navigation center, low-barrier center, for young people. as supervisor peskin mentioned, it has been a long time priority for the department, for youth advocates, as w