Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  August 28, 2019 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT

3:00 pm
>> who will have the cleanest city? >> we will protect our bay by making our neighborhoods shine. >> join us on september 21st as a battle for the bay. >> which city has more volunteer spirit? which city can clean more neighborhoods? the city with the most volunteers wins. sign-up to be a bay protector and a neighborhood cleaner. go to battle fo [ gavel ]. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the july 24, 2019, regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, i am joined by supervisor catherine stefani and supervisor mar who is sitting in today.
3:01 pm
our clerk is ms. linda wong. colleagues may i have a motion to excuse supervisor rafael mandelman. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices. anything to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. the items today will appear on the next agenda. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much. can you please call item new brunswick 1. >> clerk: item no. 1 is the resolution retroactively approving an agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco bay area rapid transit district (bart) regarding administration of capital funding to fund half of the cost of the bart/muni market street entrance modernization project with proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds, in an amount not to exceed $45,000,000 for an agreement term from february 1, 2018, through december 31, 2025. >> commissioner fewer: thank
3:02 pm
you very much. colleagues, last week we heard this item and continued it for more information. we heard from the bla last week. we may not need to hear the report again, but we are joined today by supervisor mar who was not here last week. supervisor mar, would you like to hear from the bla? >> supervisor mar: i don't think that's necessary. i had a briefing from them already. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much, supervisor mar. let's bring up leo levinson from the toa and of course our elected bart representative bevin dusty. >> thank you, chair fewer and committee members. i am the cfo for the san francisco mta and happy to be coming back here to supply more information on this item. just briefly, this is an item for the mta to share with bart the cost of installing 21 can y
3:03 pm
canopies over the shared bart and mta stations along market street. this is up to a $90 million project of which the mta would be agreeing to fund up to $45 million from general obligation bond funds. i'm very happy to have here carl holmes is the assistant general manager for bart and he's going to supply more details about this project. >> commissioner fewer: mr. levinson, you mentioned 21 canopies, but in your powerpoint it mentions 22. >> there are two installed as pilots that helped with the costing of the remainder. there is 19 further that would be in the base contract that would be approved here within the $90. then there are three others that could be an option under this. so the 22 would represent one
3:04 pm
more optional canopy, but this funding of $90 million would be for 21 canopies. >> commissioner fewer: for 21. >> as in the bla report. >> commissioner fewer: thank you very much. >> so carl. >> thank you, leo. thank you, supervisors, and thank you for acknowledging our board president. my name is carl holmes, assistant general manager. i lead the design and construction for most of the capital projects for bart. first, i want to thank you for the partnership that we have with you and with sfnta. i also want to apologize for not having the right info last week. i believe there was a miscommunication, but we hope that we're bringing the right data today. we normally do present to our own boards when we ask for approval of funds, so we understand the questions. first off, before i introduce tim chan who is our group
3:05 pm
manager for stations planning, i will say that the main point of this i believe is the questions came with the questions of the cost. so i'll just start by saying -- and tim will get into it as well -- we believe, i believe, it was the responsible thing to do with -- by having our engineer's estimate be modified based on the lessons that we learned in our pilot program that we have in san francisco at pal street station as well as the civic center station. this is our second pilot. so we had another pilot that we installed several years ago in 19th street in oakland. san francisco wanted a different design. so that's why we have this template that we're proposing. it is more costly than what we had in oakland, however, we think that even with 2019 dollars the cost for our 19th
3:06 pm
street canopy, it was around $2.3 million could be as high as $3 million. we have another canopy in downtown berkley using that same template. so we believe that was going to be the model. however, we're willing to work with san francisco with public works, sfmta, and that's why we're moving forward with this canopy design. there has been a history of engagement and tim will speak to the details of that. we have a lot of information that's in these slides. there's six slides, including the cover, but i asked tim to just highlight some of the points and that way it allows for if there's questions, we would be happy to answer. i know supervisor fewer, you had a question about the quantities. so the $90 million is for 21 canopies. we've got 19 that are in the base contract, two -- that
3:07 pm
includes the two pilots. so that 19 plus the two gets us to 21. we have options for three canopies, and that could allow for us to go to 24. this agreement that we're asking for approval, the $90 million is requesting $45 million to be paid by city and county san francisco. this is an estimate. we're wanting to advertise this project and we want to have estimates better in line with the market conditions and better in line with the lessons we learned on the pilot program. we think that's the responsible thing to do and once we get the business that will verify that we're closer aligned to the market. >> commissioner fewer: mr. holmes, apologies for interrupting you. just to clarify, the $90 million that we are talking about and discussing today will cover 21
3:08 pm
canopies, as 19 base in the contract plus the two pilots? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: this does not include the option for three additional canopies that we have the option of adding on later on; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and the cost of the additional three canopies, do you have an estimate cost if we wanted to extend for three other stations how much that would be? >> i believe we do. i can make sure we have that if tim doesn't have it with my colleague sits behind me. >> commissioner fewer: thank you. you're telling us you also installed these structures over the 19th street station in oakland; correct? at the 19th street bart station in oakland, you had constructed one of these canopies over there? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and that was at a cost of $2.3 million? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: and the one in berkley cost how much? >> that was around i believe it was $3 million.
3:09 pm
>> commissioner fewer: so from your pilot of the two, and i believe you mentioned civic center -- >> actually, i think it was the closer to $2.5 million. it was a bigger canopy. we tried to isolate the cost because there's a number of station entrances so we tried to isolate the cost for that particular canopy. >> commissioner fewer: so we've had this pilot and there's been two pilots. i think what you mentioned briefly is that after doing the two pilots and the one was at civic center and the other one is at pal street, that your cost estimate that you're giving to us today incorporates what you've learned around the cost analysis or what might be needed during the construction of these 19 canopies; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: okay. so -- and then you have here today with you someone that can respond. so actually i think what
3:10 pm
supervisor mandelman asked last week was about a cost analysis. so if we build these canopies over the escalators i think and i think during our meetings we have heard that the purpose of these canopies, one, is that it is required by state ordinance -- >> state code. >> commissioner fewer: state code. so we must have the canopies in accordance with state code, so they're required. we -- the reason we're doing this is because also wear and tear on the escalators, also to prohibit feces from getting stuck in the escalators and whether -- all that kind of stuff; is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner fewer: so we know what we're getting. and i think what you may not have mentioned which i got during your briefing and i wanted to share with my
3:11 pm
colleagues is that the 19th street bart station design over in oakland is a different design than what the city and county requested because of better market street. so because of better market street they wanted a design element that was different than the 19th street bart one that added also additional costs because of the redesign of them. and then also each entrance canopy must be custom designed because of the site environment. now, am i capturing that correctly? >> absolutely correctly. >> commissioner fewer: okay. great. sorry to interrupt. i just wanted to clarify because it is confusing and i think it is a little complicated and it is a hell of a lot of money. so your next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> commissioner fewer: thank you, mr. holmes. >> tim chan, group manager, stations planning. >> good morning, supervisors. you did a great job.
3:12 pm
i feel like i don't have to say a lot, but i will add more information. so i'm not going to go through a lot of information that was provided at the briefing on monday. so what i can do is i can take questions towards the end. this is really just a list of the process that we went through. the information has not changed, so i'm going to move to the next slide. we did add this slide in providing an overview of the market street canopy project. so i have 22, but it is 21 plus two options. it is anticipated for that construction program to be completed over the next seven years. now, the benefits of the canopy program is to provide safety for bart and muni patrons as well as employees who have to close early in the morning and late at night. when we took a look at the
3:13 pm
performances of the entrances at the 19th street station with and without the canopy, we saw, in fact, an 80% improvement on the operational reliability. so that is significant. of course, you know, by closing the gate at the top, we are significantly improving and will improve the entrances at the four downtown stations. we are of course expecting to have the canopies last for decades to come, as long as the maintenance is consistent, and this maintenance includes cleaning, it includes glass replacement, stainless steel, grille gates, maintenance, and then lighting. so we included a lot of this information, but it just quickly bears mentioning that we did significant outreach to bart and and muni customers when we started the process to get input. we've reached out to a lot of supervisors and other elected officials, but over the last two days of course we briefed
3:14 pm
supervisor fewer, supervisor mandelman, and then we also had an opportunity to brief the staff of supervisor stefani and supervisor mar. we've engaged a lot of the stakeholders on market street, and the one information i would like to highlight is that staff went to the sfmta board on june 18 of this year and received approval from that board. so we -- there was a lot of lessons learned from the pilot, and this is a list of that. i think you saw that on monday. so we took all of those lessons learned and then incorporated that into the next phase of design and cost estimates. and then at the same time, as you are well aware, the construction climate, the market conditions for all major public works construction projects are astronomical. we're dealing with a lot of factors that are driving up costs annually, and these are what we're dealing with, these factors. i'd also like to mention any delays to the canopy project is
3:15 pm
going to significantly impact the overall project costs, not just for the canopy project, but also for the escalator project because they have to be constructed in tandem. now, i know there was requests for information about how we do our cost evaluation. we bring on a professional estimator, and that professional estimator is very fully aware of all of the market conditions, all of the site conditions, everything that we do in the state and in the region, and brings that knowledge to our projects. so when we have the estimator both help us in developing the engineer's estimate, the engineer is also there when after we advertise and we receive the business, the estimator is also there to review that information, the bid information, to determine for accuracy and reasonableness. so the cost information, this is the last slide, so it's the unit
3:16 pm
cost for this next phase of design is approximately $4.5 million, but that does include the 10% contingency. so the construction costs, if we break it down, it's approximately $3.3 million. the soft costs that include design, construction project, project management, it's approximately 1.2 million. as carl mentioned as we go out to advertise we'll have a better sense of what the bid will be and what that price will be. as we compare that with the 19th street pilot, that project was completed in 2015 and it was 2.3 million and the market street pilot that was just completed last fall is $3.5 million. if we were to take the 19th street pilot, again complete in 2015, and we escalate that over the five-year period to 2019, it would cost $3 million to implement that project now. so again, it's giving you a sense of that cost escalation
3:17 pm
that we're dealing with. so there was also some information requests around the allocation, the funding allocation. so here's a table that shows you over the next seven years of the construction phase where the money is going, all the different pots of money that we've identified. so the column right after the phase is the san francisco prop a bond. so you can see how much is allocated for each of those fiscal years. then we layer on the state prop 1 b money and how that's going to be spread out over time. we are going to frontload i think the prop a bond and the state prop 1 b bond towards the front. and as we move forward and towards the middle to the tail end of construction, we're going to bring on the bart measure rr. then finally, in partnership with san francisco, we applied for a state and cap grant fund and we received $1 million from
3:18 pm
the state to help contribute to one of the canopies on market street. i believe it's in conjunction with an affordable housing project that's coming in in that location. so finally, i also want to highlight that sfmta, we're commiserating and sharing the pain. just a simple project, although nothing is simple, if i use a muni shelter, that is a consistent design across the board. even the sfmta saw a cost escalation of 40%. so this concludes my presentation, and i'm here to answer questions. >> commissioner fewer: thank you. so, mr. chan, i think what supervisor mandelman asked was sort of a cost analysis about the current situation of our escalators. so we spend money to repair them. do escalators need to be replaced because of weather or feces?
3:19 pm
how much do you think this will -- putting a canopy will offset the overall cost of the maintenance, also the inconvenience that happens when our escalators are not functioning? >> we were trying to get that cost from our maintenance and engineering group. i'm going to turn to carl and mark to see if they know. i had not heard back from me. >> so we don't have a cost yet. we got numbers from them, but we're trying to make sure that they're accurate. what we also were looking at were the number of maintenance calls and also the days out of service. i can say that looking at other escalators, for example, at 19th street station, there was a number of days out of service i want to say over 100 without the canopy and then you were looking at maybe 50 with the canopy. so the cost may not translate
3:20 pm
linearly, however, that's just an order of magnitude. we've seen significant improvements with the operability of our escalators. >> commissioner fewer: you've mentioned these canopies will last for decades -- should? >> yes. >> commissioner fewer: we've had problems with structures here, cracks in beams and things like that, so does bart have a maintenance fund that actually is -- so these canopies will be on a regular schedule of maintenance? >> so we have an operating budget and that includes the maintenance for all of our assets. so -- >> commissioner fewer: is this a shared asset with the city and county of san francisco? >> yes, it is. >> commissioner fewer: so would we be responsible for the maintenance of these canopies? >> yes, for half of -- >> commissioner fewer: for half of them? >> yes. >> commissioner fewer: how are we coordinatoring this effort
3:21 pm
together? because as we're seeing this is going to be a $90 million investment, so we want to make sure our investment is well-tended and maintenance does not slack off so that we maintain these and they're in good condition, they should last us for a long time. how is that coordination going to be happening on the maintenance of these canopies together? >> so i'll make sure at staff level that it's happening with bart staff as well as sfmta staff. i know that has been occurring in the past in regards to providing a five-year look-ahead for projects, as well as making sure that both maintenance departments are on the same passage with regards projects that sfmta may be performing and making sure they're in line with our projects. there is that synergy there and i'll make sure it happens with these new canopies.
3:22 pm
>> commissioner fewer: yes, because it has been a concern about our bart stations and we co-share them with bart, and the maintenance and the cleanliness, the elevators, everything, i actually feel there has been an issue with the maintenance and this is why i bring it up. maybe mr. levinson can shed some light on this. >> i can just say that we meet regularly with bart staff over the maintenance needs and we have an annual maintenance agreement or maintenance funding that we supply with bart and a discussion over priorities and roles and responsibilities. that includes not just physical maintenance, but also issues around security in the bart stations and other items such as staffing of elevators in order to have better security and cleanliness in the elevators. so we are reviewing all of those maintenance items, and we have a
3:23 pm
substantial commitment and contribution each year. it is something that comes out of our operating budget. so when we have operating budget pressures, this is one of those things that is also under pressure, just like everything else in the operating budget. but i know i have a very strong commitment to the concept of maintenance, that we don't underinvest in our existing assets and then have greater costs later. so it's very much on our radar screen that we maintain the assets that we have as we get all of these requests to expand our services and assets, we don't want it to be forgotten that we have to maintain what we currently have and that includes a close relationship with bart on our current assets. >> commissioner fewer: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i'm glad you are asking those questions because those were mine. but i'm wondering what is the annual cost of maintenance for these structures? do we have an annual cost of maintenance? >> we do not, at least at this
3:24 pm
meeting, but i can see between now and the last question if i can get something for you. >> supervisor stefani: do we have a ballpark figure? do we have any idea? >> supervisor stefani: i can get that for you, any minutes. >> supervisor stefani: and any foreseeable events that could increase the cost of maintenance. >> i think the intention of this project is that there is a net reduction in maintenance costs associated with the station because the reduction in maintenance costs around the escalators, should bart heed the extra cost of a physical canopy. i'm not speaking from any cost analysis, but that is one of the general purposes of this project is that it's reducing escalators maintenance costs. >> supervisor stefani: okay. >> commissioner fewer: but we have not seen a cost analysis of that. so i think that is fairly vague,
3:25 pm
quite frankly. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. thanks for the presentation and for all your work on this important project. i just had a question around cost information that was presented and just wanted to see if you could provide a little more explanation about the difference in the estimated costs per unit is $4.5 million for the new canopies and in the pilot -- for the market street pilot, it was $3.5 million. can you just explain that, the cost difference, is that just due to the cost escalation or is there going to be any -- some changes made to the new canopies from the pilot? >> sure. so there are a number of lessons learned from the pilot. for example, we needed to provide additional security. as we were doing the construction of the pilot. so we incorporated that cost of providing officers into the next phase of design. we also had some unanticipated
3:26 pm
things that came up around the permitting, requiring that we do monthly permits. so we're going to reach out to some of the supervisors to see if we can help expand the permit time so that our contractors don't have to keep going back to public works to get that permit. and then also i would say that if you look at the second half around the labor shortage, the fact that wages are going up in order to meet really the cost of living in the bay area, we're dealing with that. we're dealing with a lot of construction. workers leaving the bay area because they can't afford to live here. we're dealing with significant steel tariffs, up to 25% that we're incorporating into the engineer's estimate. we are working very proactively, including with our board president, devin dufty, but also with staff. we're reaching out to all of the construction companies that are in the bay area in order to generate interest, because as
3:27 pm
you know, the more competition that we have, the more we're able to drive down the overall bid price. i mentioned the cost of doing business for agencies, we incorporate a lot of different programs around sbde and around our pla programs. i also want to mention this is going to be an approximately seven-year project to construct, but we're also dealing with city issues and policies around moratoriums. so during the period between thanksgiving and new years, we have to shut down. we're not going to be able to do a lot of construction work at pal area. so all of those different factors, including an annual cost escalation of 5% is what's elevated that price from 3.5 to an engineer's estimate of approximately 4.5. but again, we're really working diligently to get all of the different construction companies to be interested, and from there
3:28 pm
we hope we will see some benefits as a result of that. >> thank you. >> commissioner fewer: i'd like to call up actually board president devin dufdevin dufty. good morning. devin, i know you've been doing a lot of work about cleaning up our bart stations yourself -- i mean yourself actually. so we've had this question, i think supervisor stefani and i were just discussing, about the maintenance of these -- i mean, of bart stations in general, but also about the maintenance of these canopies because it's such a huge dollar investment, we want to make sure that they're maintained on a regular basis. since you've been working so
3:29 pm
diligently on cleanliness and maintenance of the bart stations, i thought you would have some insight to this relationship that bart has with mta around shared maintenance. because what we've seen so far isn't that reassuring. >> thank you so much and it's an honor to be here with my friends at the budget committee and, madam chair, as you know i swept at the 16th station for four months with your colleague supervisor ronen. i spent a lot of time in civic center station. and i believe over the last year and a half to two years that we've changed the culture at bart. for example, when we hired custodians, who are known as systems service workers, they were not trained. they were simply given the tools of a grabber, gloves, a bucket, and a broom and told to go at it. i have cleaned human waste at 16th and mission station at the platform level and i was deeply
3:30 pm
concerned that i felt that, first of all, we also had 21 maintenance vacancies in our last fiscal year. so i drove that home, and we do not have vacancies anymore. at the 16th and mission station, the first day that i swept when i was by myself, i had a gentleman who identified himself as being homeless and said that he pretty much lived in the plaza and there hadn't been a full-time custodian daytime for eight months, and i was absolutely shocked at that. we have had a change in leadership. our former assistant general manager for operations retired, and tamar allan who is an engineer and she's been with bart for over 30 years has come into this role as being our assistant general manager for operations and engineering. we now participate with the international systems supply
3:31 pm
association, issa, which is an international maintenance and cleaning association that i'm sure city hall belongs to, the empire state belongs to. so now we have two certification programs that we have for our custodians and they love it. our new employees, our continuing employees, love the fact that we have he will -- elevated the art of cleaning and maintenance and how important it is because it does set the tone for our riders. i think we are remiss in that it would have been good for our assistant general manager tamara allan to come and latifa simon and janet lee, we work closely with her. i think in the additional years maintenance should be minimal. we have not seen major problems at the two canopies that we have. we have a public safety problem
3:32 pm
with a lot of narcotics dealing around the 7th and market. i was connecting carl fabry with our police chief. and i think the issues around employment have been communicated. so chief scott has been asked to engage our department to engage employment. while i'm at it let me say we have hired 33 additional police officers just this year and we really are working hard to fill our vacancies. so i want you to know that i think that there is true religion at bart about the importance of cleanliness. we're working through a lot of modifications on our fare gates to create a system that has more integrity to it. i can tell you in the time latifa and i have been there, the youth fare had been from ages 6 to 12. it made no sense to come in there when 18-year-olds are the
3:33 pm
most likely to ride the system and go to middle school or high school or camp or wherever they are going to. i think there is very much a changing culture as we grapple with the societal issues that have really affected us. now, to be candid, loss of ridership in transit is something that the mta is facing. it's a huge issue in los angeles. we have not lost our ridership on weekdays, but on evenings and weekends we are losing ridership with uber and lyft and unless you see an active safety presence, there are people less comfortable when the system is not crowded. i know we haven't given you specific numbers, but we will work with the staff that is here and operations and give you the numbers that will be funded by muni and supporting and maintaining these stations.
3:34 pm
>> chair fewer: i think what we're concerned about is joint relationship, that we're making sure that these structures will be maintained, but i think it's good to hear that you had a change in leadership perhaps. that might be a little bit more diligent about this. this is just such a huge investment, and we want to make sure that our investment holds up well in the conditions in san francisco. >> yeah. and as you know, we are hopefully completing a search for our new general manager. we have a closed session tomorrow at our board meeting and we may hopefully have an announcement. that's important. i think it's really the reason i ran for the bart board is because i do know the city so well from running the complaint department of neighborhood services, to being a supervisor. so i really do endeavor to have partnerships and i think you see what we're doing working with urban alchemy, a admonish-profit organization that has a lot of credibility in their work with the city and we've embraced with
3:35 pm
them and working with the hot team here. we've extended through supervisor ronen's leadership, the initial work at pal and civic and we've added 16th and 24th street because we have to rely on the city and county of san francisco partnering with us to help people enter treatment, housing, shelter, all of those things. so that really is -- that's my mission as a bart director is to bring us closer. and i think that both latifa simon and janet lee bring their enormous experience and toolbox to make sure we are connecting and cooperating and maintaining our programs and doing a good job with the facilities that you help us fund >> chair fewer: thank you. >> thank you so much. >> chair fewer: and then one last question. we have -- so currently if people would like to see what this structure would look like, they can go to the pal street
3:36 pm
station and that will be replicated similarly as other stations. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> chair fewer: that is the design that mta and bart has chosen? >> well, it's mta, the mayor's office -- yes, and planning. >> chair fewer: okay. got it. >> yeah. >> chair fewer: okay. colleagues, any other questions? comments? seeing none, let's open this up to public comment. any members of the public like to speak on item number 1? >> while admittedly this is a waste of saliva i'm sure, but i believe you have a definite problem with calls which very likely relates to bureaucratic redundancy and too many middle men. what are the estimated material
3:37 pm
costs per square foot? who is the manufacturer? who is the fabricator? this project sounds like something that will be custom manufactured offsite and installed as a kit. so how is it that a simple canopy is supposed to cost as much as a custom, luxury, three-level home? it doesn't make any sense? >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so we heard from the bla. they actually approve of this item. so let's move this to the board with a positive recommendation, and i can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the san francisco public utilities commission to accept and expend a grant in an amount not to exceed $3,759,822 from the california state water resources control board for planning, design, and construction of the sewer system improvement program baker beach green street early implementation project for the
3:38 pm
period of november 4, 2017, through march 21, 2022. resolution authorizing the >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i believe we have sarah bloom here. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to present today. i work in the wastewater enterprise of the san francisco public utilities commission, and here today i am here to speak to you about the baker beach green street projects and the grant we received from the control board. so the baker beach green street is one of our eight early implementation projects that we are delivering as part of phase one of our sewer system improvement program. we selected one project in each of our eight urban watersheds,
3:39 pm
and the baker beach green street project was selected for our richmond watershed. the project has two major project locations, one is from alcameno del mar and the second location is in the seacliff neighborhood along seacliff avenue and 25th avenue north. in the baker beach terrace area we will have rain garden at the corners of 25th and 26th avenues, along with merm i can't believe paving strip. and then at the 25th avenue north in the cul-de-sac at the entrance to baker beach we will have a rain garden on the property that helps to improve the entrance at baker beach. along el camino dell mar we have four nodes of green infrastructure and those are located at existing pedestrian crossing.
3:40 pm
they are going to include rain garden belts and provide traffic calming benefits and pedestrian safety. the overall performance of the project, it's going to manage 17 acres of area within the richmond watershed and it's going to remove over 3 million gallons of stormwater. and in addition to the removal of stormwater it's going to remove activations of rainfalls on baker beach and china beach. the total project budget is just over $12 million and we've been awarded 3.8 by the state water control board. we're going to spend that on bid and award and direct construction costs. and the remaining funding will be through our sewer system improvement program. the stormwater grant program is administered by our state water resources control board. it's funded by a combination of
3:41 pm
proposition 1 and proposition funding and some of the major grant requirements are that the program requires a minimum 50% match, quarterly reports and reimbursement invoicing and records of retention for 36 years after the project. we were awarded the grant back in december of 2016 and our commission approved it in march of 2019 and if the board of supervisors approves our request to accept and spend, we anticipate we'll be executing the agreement in august of 2019. that is it. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's hear from the bla, please. >> good morning, chair fewer, supervisor stefani, supervisor mar. the board is being asked to approve acceptance of a grant from the water resources board for $3.8 million. this is for the project being described, the baker beach green street project.
3:42 pm
this is part of the city sewer improvement program. the grant of $3.8 million, the city's matching funds are $8.3 million for a total project cost of $12 million. you will see the project budget on page 7 of our report. the city's matching fund is from the wastewater enterprise and we recommend approval >> chair fewer: thank you very much. seeing no questions or comments from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item number 2? seeing none, item number 2 is closed. i will recommend to move this to the board without objection. madam clerk, can you call item number 3. >> clerk: item number 3, resolution authorizing acceptance and expenditure of california state senate bill 1 local partnership program formulaic funding in the amount of $2,340,000 for san francisco public works' sunset and parkside streets pavement renovation project. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i believe today we have
3:43 pm
oscar -- oh, no, hi. who do we have here? >> elizabeth ramos with san francisco public works. >> chair fewer: please start. >> good morning. the resolution before you will authorize san francisco public works to spend the partnership funds in the amount of $2.3 million. these state transportation funds are part of the local partnership formulaic funding otherwise thon as sb-1 and this is the third project to receive these funds. on october 17 of 2018, the california transportation commission programmed $2.3 million in these funds to our project and the project will actually repay $2.5 million in residential streets -- 2.5 miles in residential streets in the
3:44 pm
sunside and parkside neighborhoods. this construction work in conjunction with our asset management strategy decrease the lifetime maintenance and repair costs, while also providing safer and reliable roadways for multi-modal transportation. i'm joined today by our project manager and we'd be happy to answer any questions >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any questions from my colleagues? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? i didn't call on the bla. let's have the bla report first. i'm so sorry. >> this accepts the senate bill 1 grant for the sunniside and parkside streets. these are street pavement programs. the grant amount is for $2.3 million. the city is matching $2.6 million. the total project cost is $5
3:45 pm
million. we show it on page 10 of our report and we recommend approval >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment now. any members of the public like to comment on item number 3. seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor mar, would you -- >> supervisor mar: actually, i had a few questions. >> chair fewer: sorry. >> supervisor mar: i had a few questions, more a background question. how much does the city receive in the lppformulaic funds for these types of projects? >> we've applied three times for formulaic funds. >> supervisor mar: so we don't receive a regular funding amount? >> we don't. we apply in joint partnership with the transportation authority. they're eligible to receive these funds since bayes do collect a tax here in san francisco. so we've overall have received -- let's see here --
3:46 pm
i'm going to ask my colleague to help out. >> supervisor mar: so the formulaic funds are received by the transportation authority, it's about $2 million per year. the first three years were programmed for san francisco public works resurfacing projects. we haven't decided or the transportation authority hasn't decided how they're going to spend future years of formulaic funds. thank you. i did have a question about the sunset parkside pavement renovation program. i'm really happy to see this being the priority for the funds this year. it looks like the bla report says that -- this was chosen because of the poor state of the streets in the sunset and parkside generally.
3:47 pm
there's a pci score of -- in the mid-40s. but then it says: upon completion of the project, public works expects the pci score to rise to 100, which sounds great, but is that real -- what does 100 mean and is that realistic? does that mean that we're going to have perfect streets in the sunset and parkside with no pot-holes? >> is it moratorium grade also? >> yes, good morning, supervisor. paul ratis, public works project manager for this project. there's about 30 blocks in the project. we score streets between 0 and 100, 100 being the best and 0 being fully pot-holed and a really bad street. once you pave the streets, the street goes up to 100. those streets will go up to 100 and then every year slowly scale
3:48 pm
back down. >> supervisor mar: one final question -- i would be interested or my office would be interested in seeing the more detailed streets and blocks that would be repaved through this and i guess maybe just a comment. it seems like it would be good to sort of get input, at least from the district supervisor's office, about priority streets and blocks. so i don't know if there's still an opportunity for us to still have some dialog about that. >> this project is nearing the 100% design, but we do have our information about our program on our website and we can also provide you the information about the project directly to your office too. >> supervisor mar: that sounds great. thank you. >> chair fewer: i think actually you bring up a good question. what are the streets that are going to be resurfaced? >> sure. we have two streets on 16th avenue, two blocks on 18th avenue, a stretch of blocks on
3:49 pm
ortega, about ten, about six blocks on pocheko and another ten blocks on uloa. >> chair fewer: okay. wow, lucky you. so i understand that these moneys were actually -- we applied specifically for the sunset and parkside streets paving. so it's not like we have these moneys and we put it in district 4. i think we applied for these moneys specifically for this project; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so we've had public comments. would you like to make a motion, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: i'd like to move that we recommend this -- move this forward to the full board with a prorecommendation. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i think we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you call item
3:50 pm
number 4. >> clerk: item number 4: resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco ("city") to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development ("director") to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee ("cdlac") to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 for 401 avenue of the palms (parcel c3.2 >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. i believe we have amy chan. >> good morning, chair and supervisors. item number 4 before you is a resolution related to the tax-exempt bond financing for the maceo may apartments. this resolution would require the city to conduct a bond financing application which is not to exceed $50 million. the proposed bond issuing will be conduit financing and not require the city to prejudice any of its funds for repayment of the bonds. about the project, it will be a
3:51 pm
105-new unit supportive construction to be located at 401 avenue of palms and treasure island. it's being developed by china town development corporation. 42 apartments in the building will serve as replacement housing for formerly homeless veterans. the remainder will house formerly homeless or low-income veterans. all units will serve extremely low and low income households. we intend to return later to the board for the bond issuance approval and we anticipate it will close next here. here i have my colleagues with me if you have any further questions about the project and we ask that the committee send out the resolution to the full board with positive recommendations. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up to public comment. any members of the comment like
3:52 pm
to speak on item number 4. seeing no comments or questions from my colleagues, i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without recommendation. >> clerk: item number 5, resolution -- >> chair fewer: 5 and 6 together. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development, ton behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to accept and expend the county competitive allocation award in the amount of $18 million under the california department of housing and community development program and number 6 resolution authorizing and delegating the mayor's office of housing and community development, on behalf of the city and county of frisk, to accept and expend the inconsequential non-competitive allocation award. >> items 5 and 6 authorize us on
3:53 pm
behalf of the city to accept and expend no place like home project designation for competitive funds which is item number 5 and non-competitive funds which is item number 6. the state of california created this program to develop multi-unit housing for people with mental illness, homeless or at risk of chronic homelessness. the no place like home funds was made available to each county's most current sheltered and unsheltered count. we have awarded the city funds based on approval of documents that we have submitted with the county's documentation back earlier in the year. that was with this body back in february to make this application. so we're here to seek your approval to accept and expand the funds. as next steps to receiving the funds, we require that an
3:54 pm
application is made to the body. the resolution before you designates us to accept and designate the funds. we will enter into a standard agreement with the state of california, that's our contract, and we will loan funds to a qualified housing project. the project will be selected to receive these funds that's located at 1064 to 68 mission street and we will return to the board for approval of our anticipated loan to that project in the fall. we anticipate receiving further non-competitive funds and will be funding other permanent supportive sites where referrals meet the program criteria in the coming years in the same no place like home program. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. there is no bla report on this. any members of the public like to comment on items 5 and 6? seeing none, it is closed. seeing no comments, i would like to move these items 5 and 6 to
3:55 pm
the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much.
3:56 pm
>> it would pay for the operations expenses and furnishings for a district headquarters office and a cultural community center at 229 ellis street. it would pay for the district public awareness place making campaign that the district is beginning to undertake, which includes banners, murals, and branding in the district. it would also pay for a district launch party on august 31st of this year commemorating the 53 rd anniversary of the
3:57 pm
compton's cafeteria rights. it would pay for a transgender tenderloin oral and visual storytelling project to raise awareness for the rich transgender history of the tenderloin neighborhood and it would also pay for aspects of district strategic planning and for the development of the report that is required for all cultural districts. that is my report. >> thank you very much. >> i will submit those expenditures for your approval. >> there is no file report for this. -- there is no b.l.a. report for this. his or any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation and we can take this without objection. please call item eight. >> resolution approving and authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute documents relating to loans for the acquisition, rehabilitation or permanent financing for four projects pursuant to the small
3:58 pm
site program, preservation and seismic safety program and downtown neighborhood preservation fund for a total loan amount not to exceed $87.5 million. >> thank you very much. i think today we have liliana lopez. >> hello. good morning, chair and supervisors. i am one of two project managers for the small sights program at the mayor's office of housing and community development. today the action i am requesting you to approve his first a resolution authorizing the director of mohcd to execute on loans providing permanent financing for four projects and one requesting when requesting downtown neighborhood preservation fund. and requesting preservation and seismic safety programs for past mortgage loan financing. the second request is confirmation of planning sequel determination and findings with respect to the projects regarding the general plan and planning code section 101.1.
3:59 pm
these loans are brought before you today because the loan terms are 40 years and thus require your approval. one thing i do want to point out is all the projects requesting funds today fall within programmatic and funding guidelines of the ssp program, with a total not to exceed the amount of $37 million, which is actually $51,000 less than what is written in the resolution you received. i am going to gloss over these because my colleague talked about these last month when we were here. i will focus on the projects. if you have questions, we can answer them at the end. so the four projects before you today, three of them are located in district nine and one is located in district three. among the four projects, the units total 100 residential and
4:00 pm
four commercial units. projects are in various stages of development from preconstruction, to post rehab and are expected to close between august and november of this year. the first one is 305 send carlos which is sponsored by mission economic development agency in district nine. it includes ten units plus two former garage spaces that have been converted into two a.d.u. units. two retail spaces were rehabbed and are now being released to community serving tenants, which include a music teacher and an artist or jewellery maker. the building is curtly occupied by households ranging from 11% and my two 71% a.m.i. the things are occupied by latino households, half being elderly and other half our family. 937 clay is sponsored by chinatown community development center and is in district three. this project will rehab and

17 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on