tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 5, 2018 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
this will successful project. this permit and your ability to find some middle ground here. i think it's one way of helping in that matter. it's been separated that we have work that's done related to trying to comply with someone's interpretation as well as trying to make this a better project and you should keep that in mind. you have the ability to at least try to find some physical solutions here and take this permit and be able to do that. maybe a way to do this is to continue this, allow them to go back and re-evaluate and try to redo this deal in some way or another. and then come back and try to find a better physical solution. i don't think requiring them to go back to the 2004 condition will result in a successful project. nor will it result in occupancy. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i just noticed this one
calender, my mom fell about 12 years ago and broke her hip. she was 88 or 89. she was in a hospital for a week and screamed and yelled and said get me out of here, i want to go home. she went into assisted living for a couple weeks. we found mel's place. i took care of my mom. the place wasn't fully occupied then, 12 years ago. she stayed there for a year-and-a-half. they took care of her. when she left it wasn't occupied fully. they did take care of my mom. she left because she wanted to go home and watch fox news and she commented she was the oldest person there. most of the people were in their 60s and 70s and she was in her 90s. they've never been fully occupied. i don't understand it because it's a wonderful facility. thank you. >> thank you.
>> good evening, commissioners. my name is bruce beauman, i'm here not to speak from a code standpoint but to speak from my heart. my parents were both residents of the avenue. my father was there for four years in the dementia ward where he required 24 hour care. my mother was there and in hospice when she passed away there. i truly believe the avenue extended my father's life. they gave my parents the dignity and the honor to move onto the next stage until life. i'm here to ask you to look at this facility and understand that it is a special facility that provides the kind of care that you cannot find in a large corporate institutional chain
facility. it's a small -- we can almost call it mom and pop type of operation, where you walk in the front door and mel greets you. i recall fondly ever time theresa would walk up to my father, his face would light up and he would feel happy to see her. so please, do what you can to try to work with the avenue. do what you can to resolve these issues. this is not a hotel. this is a place where people get care that they deserve. thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttle. from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> i want to clarify a couple of things about the hotel. our business, assisted living, is not just a regular apartment,
it's for people who come if they have a need to be cared for like medication and dementia care. those are very limited clientele. it's not just you come in a room and board. to answer the question of commissioner swig about why does this not fill up for the entire last 14 years and we are stuck. the below market we have problems of the market rate, you know. but for below market, even that wait was set up by d.d.a. and it's still an forward abl not ar people that qualify because they have a limit of how much income to qualify for level care. it's a very complicated calculation and during a couple meetings with city attorney and also the mayor's office and office solution how to resolve it. they don't listen. my goal is, i think also the goal for the public is how to fill up and help seniors who
need help. not only we, avenue, are private. we have to pay taxes. we have to pay everything. benefits and everything. even the city-owned facility is 100% non-profit and they buy the land for $1. they're not sold out. they're not sold out. they have a problem to fill up. for the those living on site they are non-profit. the add minutes straigh adminise the the entire staff live on site. it's required. so other thing i want to clarify about 20 beds or 20 rooms. the 20 beds of care please give me the definition of convalescent care. if that is for convalescent care is i really have no clue because we are non medical building.
we are not supposed to save the life that you can make people who require convalescent/skilled nursing/rehab. those people have to go to those really medical building. we are residential. so we provide 20 beds on the second floor. we can be dementia care. so we do have 124 units. we provide 20 people beds. we are licensed for 145 beds actually. we can put them anywhere in the building. as long as that is compatible and then we can manage the care. >> any questions? >> i have a question.
why wasn't this attempted to be negotiated out with the city attorney's office or other interested agencies before it came here. you are asking for authorization of permit, which doesn't match the d.d.a. >> the answer is this is currently in litigation. i hope they can work something out. the permit is separate from litigation. i don't think it's the case. even if the permit did conflict with the development agreement, that would be something that they would come back after the permit and ask for an amendment of the development agreement. it's also entirely possible to the extent there is conflict to
amend this permit to remove that conflict. if they're shy by a unit, a unit can be removed from the administrator unit. >> what you really want is for us to continue this case. then the fines will continue to be deferred. >> in all cander, i think we would like to have finality. but we would like to have this permit. >> ok. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, mr. patterson. could you, since i was on the site visit, can you give me the square footage of the two on-site resident manager's units. >> all our units start from 180 square foot to 250. >> for the two administration units. what size are they now? >> the one with four units combined around 800.
the one proposing for the five units about 1,000. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> i think the commission is going in the appropriate direction questioning in hasn't the d.d.a. been amended. this is a contract that the appellant signed with the city. it has already been amended numerous times by the appellant as they've made changes throughout the project. why did they stop doing that and then start doing work without benefit of permit? i appreciate the comments about the success of the unit and ensuring success and whether the improvements could increase the live ability of it and improve the occupancy rates of it. but to keep in mind, the illegal work has been done for about a decade and that has not had any notable improvement in terms of the occupancy.
when we viewed the site yesterday we saw the four double rooms that were meant to be for couples. they were all vacant. i appreciate that there are success stories with the clients who have used the facility and that it's been a meaningful place, but i do have concerns that we have a project sponsor that has shown a disregard for the residents that are under its care by performing illegal work. not only, you know, at the penthouse level, where we have one set of five rooms that's gutted to could be merged together with exposed wires and plumbing. no permits for that. but even on the rooms, i noticed when we did the site visit where they merged the two rooms together on the inside, they sheet rocked it where the door was. on the outside, the door was still there. so i'm wondering, what if you are a fire fighter and you are coming through and you need to check that room and how does the
door work when there's sheet rock behind it. it's questionable some of the action that's have been taken here. aside from the failure to provide 25 affordable units as they said they would, almost 20 years ago. for those reasons, i would respectfully request the board up hold the planning commission's denial of this and i do agree that if they want to work this out with the proper agencies they can go back and seek to have an amendment of the d.d.a. that's a more comprehensive and appropriate and direct approach. i think what we've had for more than a decade is a lack of direct approach on the part of the appellant and tackling the issues head on. getting the permits and if they need to revisit this now, they can do it with the appropriate agencies, revice the d.d.a. and come to terms with the affordable housing they signed on to. there are detailed directions about what is expected when you need to provide affordable housing obligations and that was outlined in the d.d.a. i understand it can still be
complicated but they signed it. i request you up hold the denial and bring finality to this and the city can move forward properly and get it resolved. thank you. >> thank you. anything to add? >> mr. duffy, i am assuming i should ask this question to you, given that it's the building and not planning. so, mr. sanchez just pointed out that there was exposed elements that are not only unpermitted but probably illegal. that there are -- that you walk down a hall and i'm sorry you did not go on the site visit but i will trust the eyes of the zoning administrator.
there is a door that shows from the hallway and if you were trying to get through that door in an emergency to save someone, you would find that you could not because it was sheet rocked over. these are illegal conditions. where does your department come in with something that would yellow tag, red tag or stop the occupancy of a building like this in this condition, especially with dementia patients. especially with seniors who probably lack the physical agility to move quickly during an emergency? >> we do have a notice of violation documents all those conditions. it's pretty well written notice of violation and it's in the -- i was going to read it out. i was on the site visit as well. i did see the door with the sheet rock behind it.
i brought it to scott's attention. it is an issue. i mean, there's no number on the door but yeah, there's just definitely an issue. we have a notice of violation. it's going through our code enforcement process. they need to take care of it. the earlier the building that is under remodel on the top floor it's away from the residents of the building. i don't think it inte interfereh the life safety in the building. the work has stopped. they started the work without a permit. it's in demo stage. you have the unit and you see metal studs exposed. that area would not be an area that the residents could get to. i'm not that worried about that. the door probably something on that door would be helpful to them. i did give it some thought. they may want to pull a notice on that door that there's no access to unit from this door or
something like that. i can speak to them off line and get that on there. on any doors there's sheet rock over. >> where is the tipping point where the building owner, also in this case the operator of the business, where the license gets pulled and they have to close this building for operation because there are dangerous conditions, especially in consider of doing all this work without a permit. and god knows what is behind those walls. >> we leave that to the attorney office. i believe the case is with the city attorney office. it was through one of their task forces that we were in the building in the first place.
i'm not sure what happens to licenses and stuff like that. we document the violations on the code. >> i don't know if this is your question or mr. sanchez's question. in the process of up holding the denial of this permit, where is the part where we require ha humpty dumpty gets put back together all over again in the fashion according to the d.d.a.? how does that happen? >> well, that would be a new building permit, in my opinion. it would have to be. the opening is on the notice of violation from d.d.a. to revert to legal condition which was on the c.f.c. when the building got built. or apply for a permit to legalize the way you have it and they did chose that path and that permit has been denied.
that where they are in that case. mr. sanchez is happy to comment on that as well? but that's where i stand. >> they chose that path. it's just been denied by planning, that's all. >> correct. what's going to happen with -- >> the permit would have legalized all of things that they did. >> i understand that. how do we -- in denying if they were to deny the permit or deny the appeal, where is the point -- what's the next step to get this put back together in the way that it should be according to the agreement that the developer and owner -- >> i don't think this is the question for mr. duffy. >> well, all i can tell from is we will keep our enforcement going on the notice of violation. that will lead to further code enforcement processes. planning may have an enforcement case. the city attorney may have an enforcement case so there will
be pressure coming from after agencies are dealing with this. >> if we don't believe that this permit is appropriate and to deny the appeal, tha then we dot have to worry because other forces will be at work to try to put the building back in order in the way it should have been in order in the first place. >> i give you an example of that. when the permit was filed, we held a notice of violation. when it was denied, we kept going with the enforcement. so the enforcement will go on anyway. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you know my thinking was along the same line. for a different reason and probably a different end point. this permit and the actions that we're going to take today, really are not the consequencal ones with respect to any type of a resolution of the issue. no matter how it goes against
the property owners. there is no way for myself to be able to grant a permit that then changes the conditions of a d.d.a. i'm not prepared to do that. on the other hand, i'm not prepared to do something that doesn't help to try to find a resolution. where the institution then goes down. i'm not saying that it would. i'm just saying that you know, if there is no resolution, then we lose the community assets in some sense. what i would propose is that we continue this case. our actions really are not very
significant and they should follow what the larger decisions and either settlements that may occur and then we'll act upon it at that point in time. >> are we in the discussion point yet? >> yes. >> ok. >> i didn't get a chance to say it. >> i just started first. >> compared to everybody else. >> the matter is submitted. >> you asked -- you mentioned i wasn't on the redevelopment agency commission, which i was. and i quickly said the most of our focus was on bay view hunters point and that area, probably those were the ones that are most memorable in my mind and were the greatest scars are still present. there was some wonderful, wonderful work done by the redevelopment agency with regard
to specialty housing. that was senior housing, affordable housing, housing that provided special services to special needs individuals, special needs doesn't mean that they were ill or anything, they just had special needs and required special services. there was a developer of those projects that we owe the citizens of san francisco should be very proud of. the developers and the operators which were selected by fulfill their notes and to my knowledge we're always found more demand than there was inventory for
those projects. and so where i'm having a hard time having any sort of compassion for this developer or operator is with reference to those very, very successful projects which are in equal locations, which have the same size modules, et cetera, et cetera. that is where my energy is coming from at the moment. i would -- i guess i would agree with you, president fung, that a continuance to find a better way might be the best way to go. but there's no way that i would support the appeal. >> i would expect something to come back that's different. >> yeah.
>> i'm having a hard time with the entirety of what has gone on here. there wasn't any discussion and all about the effort to convert it to student housing just a couple of years, which speaks to me of a lack of commitment to this as well. i understand your sort of trying to sequence things but i don't know that denying this appeal is going to make a difference in the long run. i'm not prepared to continue it. >> i can go either way. i did do this site visit yesterday. i'm extremely concerned with the business plan and motto of this particular facility. the fact that the zoning administrator or one of the department either joe or scott noticed that even that the
facility care licenses had been expired. i can go either way. i think that more importantly, the district attorney has other plans for this particular facility itself. but i do have a concern on how it is run. before me is the permit of the illegality of the work that was performed, which we know at this point was not performed with permits. >> planning department. if the board does vote to continue, i would like to know if the board has an expectations from the city agency what should happen in this time? should they take steps to abate the violations out there now?
if the board does deny the appeal, that doesn't prevent the applicant from moving forward to still working with the city. if anything, in my opinion, it will crump it. >> it doesn't but also it doesn't affect the long-term resolution at all. whatever our action is. i wouldn't have an expectation. this board and it's power as stated by the councilor on the previous case, was really true at one time. it's less true these days. you know, when we had the ability to review and either change conditional use which is not far off of what a d.d.a. is, there it was entirely different.
i'm just saying that the actions of this board, whether you want to take the high road or not, really has very little impact because the actions of the city attorney and their lawsuit and perhaps sediment at some point in time is really what is going to bring it. and then we'll pick up the very minor pieces. this board could assist in that, you know, whether it's the processes of certain types of permits or things that occur. >> there's a sediment it would never come back. >> they might require some further actions. >> it would be a building permit application that they could file and the departments would take the appropriate action on -- i'm just concerned there's -- >> if it came here it probably would be issued much faster than if it started out as a new permit. >> let me ask you a question --
because you've been down these roads before and you are going to have to handle it one way or the other. if we deny the appeal, then what happens in your mind or in reality, what is the next step? what is tomorrow going to look like on this item? if we continue this, what will tomorrow look like? >> it leaves the violation unabated. taking action tonight will give a very clear direction to the appellant about how to proceed and that is to abate the violation. the violation will never be abated adds long as this permit is continued. that's one of the concerns if the decision is a upheld. the n.o.v. gave two paths. revert back to what was there before, that addresses the violation or legalize it. they sought to legalize it. they will continue and have that
illegal condition until the board continues this to the call of the chair. i would prefer to have the matter resolved and then if there could be discussions between the appellant and the city about how to resolve it. it doesn't for close if the board up holds the denial. it doesn't -- >> so your view would be denial of the appeal would give yourself, mr. duffy and other departments the teeth to get this project back in order more immediately than kicking the can further down the road. >> it gives certainty to all parties. >> ok. >> was that your point of view too. why we should just take action? >> yeah. >> i think i would lean towards
commissioner lazarus point of view. >> would you like to make a motion. >> i move to deny the a we'll ap and hold the decision of the planning department on the basis that it was the appropriate decision. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to denial the appeal up and hold the denial of the permit on the basis it was appropriately denied. president fung. >> no. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> with three votes that motion passes. the appeal is denied. that concludes the hearing. >> the meeting is over.
. >> supervisor fewer: the meeting will come to forward. this is a special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am supervisor sandra lee fewer, the chairman of this committee. i am joined by supervisor stefani and supervisor katey tang. supervisor malia cohen is excused from today's meeting. can we have a motion? owe will do that without objection. today's clerk is linda wong. madam clerk, do you have any person(s) responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. items acted on today will appear on the october 16 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk can you please call
item number one. >> item number one, resolution authorizing the department of homelessness and supportive housing to apply for a grant from the california department of housing and community development. >> good morning, vice chair fewer, supervisors. i'm emily cohen with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. as the resolution title implies, this authorizes our department to apply for the california emergency solution and housing program, which is a new state program to provide services to people at risk of or experiencing homelessness. this -- there's a total of $5.3 million being made available from the state, and san francisco anticipates receiving 1.6 million in the first rounding funding, and there will be two rounds of funding this year. we appropriates spending the funds in the following way: 1.5 million will be spent on supportive services for people
in scattered sites supportive housing. we propose spending $50,000 on reentry costs, and then the remainder on administrative costs. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment, is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this issue? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: there is no b.l.a. motion. would someone like to make a motion? >>clerk: public comment has already been opened and closed. would you like to open it up for public comment, madam chair? >> supervisor fewer: yes. we have one speaker at the podium. thank you, miss wong. >> the housing wong is the proposals that were indicated yesterday, because they were indicating some proposals yesterday that the -- that needed much funding to renovate and other remodelling on other
properties. is that what this is in regard or is this the homeless situation to build more housing for that or is this for increase in taxes? >> supervisor fewer: i believe miss cohen can answer your questions after public comment is finished? >> okay. is this for the funding process because if not, i need to elaborate how we're going to come up with a financing institution because it's of feasible importance to the project. >> supervisor fewer: miss cohen can actually answer those questions after your public comment has been completed. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: are you -- is your public comment completed, sir? >> no ma'am. i just want to get the --
[inaudible] >> okay. excellent. the importance to that is did you -- i'm here to resolve this corrupt government and corrupt society. the important thing is i will fund any project as long as it serves the purpose and it helps the project with what it's supposed to. you've got to go. so the important thing is we build or we buying property to renovate it to allow the homeless to be living in it. which one is it? >> supervisor fewer: sir, seeing that your time is up, i'm sure if you ask miss cohen, she'll be happy to answer your question. thank you very much for your public comment. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, is there a motion on
this item? >> supervisor tang: i'll make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: great. we'll cake that without objection. madam clerk, would you please call item number two. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe jennifer calwart from the department of public health is here to present on this item. >> my name is jennifer calawart, and i manage the tobacco retail program in environmental health. i'm here to provide the approval for the california justice department proposition 56, a law
enforcement grant. the grant award is approximately $1.7 million to cover our tobacco program enforcement and educational efforts for the next two fiscal years. just last month, the f.d.a. has called team vaping a public health epidemic, shining light on the increase in youth tobacco use. the funding will expand our enforcement with the san francisco police department under 21 decoy department. in addition, the project will aid in the elimination of illegal sales of tobacco products at unpermitted tobacco facilities, as well as create a sampling procedures for unidentified tobacco products. through this, an administrative law judge will be activated.
the department requires a more face-to-face interaction with the department to understand federal, state and local laws. therefore an increases outreach effort by our department will occur at 400 retailers peryear to provide improved educational materials and conduct compliance inspections. lastly, our department will develop and provide training at conferences and to rural northern california jurisdictions regarding our enforcement and educational efforts and lessons learned. we look forward to the opportunity to expand our efforts to improve the health of san franciscans and to create transparent expectations for all tobacco retailers in san francisco. i'm here if you have any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions? seeing none, there is also no b.l.a. report on this item. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on
this item? seeing none public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues is there a recommendation on this item? >> i'd like to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: madam clerk, would you please read the next item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor tang, would you like to speak about this at all? >> supervisor tang: no. we have a representative from d.p.h. who can speak to this item. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i think june weintraub from the d.p.h. is here to speak for this item. >> we apply to receive it every year for the past several years. it's to support part of our water to do water quality monitoring on our beaches.
>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues any questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is no b.l.a. report. would someone like to make a motion? >> supervisor tang: i'll move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. we can take this without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number four. >>clerk: item number four, item approval are you lugs master lease between the treasure island development authority and the united states navy to extend the term for one year to commence december 1, 2018. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i thank peter summerville from the developer's office is here. >> thank you. in front of the committee today is the annual extension for the lease with the united states
navy, continues the agreement through 2019. authority staff requests approval, and i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report on this item. colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. summerville? yes. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion for this item? >> supervisor stefani: yes. i'd like to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: without objection, we can accept this item. madam clerk, please call item number five. >>clerk: item 5, item authorizing the municipal transportation agency to extend the contract -- with a minimum annual guarantee of approximately 32.3 million. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe gail stein from the
sfmta is here to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisors. this resolution would authorize a five year extension of the existing contract the city has through the m.t.a. has with incident section media. the contract is on exactly the same terms as the initial term. it was worth a minimum of $32,250,000 to the m.t.a. over five years and possibly more if the contractor sells more advertising. there's a 65% revenue shares. the contractor has exceeded the minimum in each of the four years so far. i'm happy to answer any questions. i know the b.l.a. has done a report on this, also. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you. i know it's in our information but maybe for the record if you could just state on you the contract has exceeded the max each year, what level. >> yeah. basically, permonth, we have an amount permonth, and if they exceed it, then, we get more
than the minimum, so it would take the amount permonth and multiply it by 65%. >> supervisor tang: no. i was just wondering if you could state what level it's exceeded the mag each year. >> so they have exceeded the mag by approximately 1.5 million over the four year period, and they have exceeded it each year, and particularly, the year of the super bowl, which obviously, there were quite a bit sold at that point. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. miss campbell, can we please have a report from the b.l.a. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. severin campbell from the b.l.a. office. the original contract was approved by the board for five years through june 2019, so this examine accept -- exercise the first of two five-year options, beginning july 2019 going through 2024. again, as the question was asked
and miss stein said, the revenues are either the minimum annual guarantee which is set in the contract itself not only for the first five years but also this extension option was already set in the contract or 65% of gross advertising revenues. the contractor has paid m.t.a. the gross advertising revenues over the first time years. it was about 1.5 million more than the minimum revenues. if the five-year extension is approved, the m.t.a. would receive 32 million in minimal annual guaranteed revenues over the five year term plus an additional $1.6 million had showing in our marketing fees, and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any other questions for miss stein? i have one. i'm wondering, do we have the option to eliminate the wraps on the buses? >> if we were, we would have to
renegotiate the minimal annual guarantee. the proposal is to extend the contract as it is. any changes would result in a reduction in the minimal annual guarantee and possible a substantial reduction. >> supervisor fewer: has it ever been discussed eliminating the wrap from the buses? >> we understand we do have customers that don't like them. we have limited it to 30. the contractor, there are months where they could sell more. for example, right around now with dreamforce and the holidays. generally, there are no more than nine or ten at a time, which is 1% of our vehicles, but yes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion for this, colleagues? >> supervisor tang: i'll make a
motion to send forth the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item six. >>clerk: item six, resolution approving modification five to the airport with pgh wong-mck jv for a total term of june 11, 2015 through july -- i'm sorry, june 10, 2019 to commence following board approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i think we have kathy widener here from the san francisco international airport to present on this item. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. the item before you seeks approval for a fifth modification to an existing contract with pgh wong-mck jv for project management support services for the on airport hotel project. modification number five would extend the contract through june 10, 2019 and increase the amount
of the total contract by $4.6 million. the airport hotel project consists both of the new grand hyatt hotel as well as some road and aircraft parking reconfiguration that's required to accommodate the hotel footprint. the hoe tel is expected to be completed by the end of 2019. the project management contract provides support services for both aspects of the project, including design management, project controls, system testing, and cost and schedule controls. this contract is the result of a competitive request for proposals process with pgh wong-mck jv being selected as the highest ranked proposer. there is a budget analyst's report that does recommend approval, but i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for miss widener? seeing none, miss campbell, can i have the b.l.a. report.
>> so this was originally awarded to the pgh wong-mck jv through a competitive process in 2015. it has not had to come to the board of supervisors previously because it's been under the $10 million threshold. the contractor has modified the contract on an annual basis. in may, they increased it to 9.9 million to allow time to come forward to the board for the approval of modification number 15, which would set the contract at 14.5 million. our understanding is this should be the last modification to the contract. the hotel is -- project should be completed in 2019, and we do give a detailed budget for the $14.5 million, and we recommend approval. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any questions, colleagues, at all? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. public comment is now open. >> the indication on the airport and the hyatt to utilize the
funding, the excessiveness of it again is highly inadequate. the important thing is we must understand 9.9 million and 5 million, so what we're looking at is a total of 14 million -- or 10.4 million -- or more than that, get out of here. but the important thing is this -- i've got these idiots, and i want them away from me. i'm gregory williams, and i'm here to tell the board today i'm going to reform this government. i want the money back into my land. i want their name off of it. somebody put it there, and i cannot get access to it. and i don't want to utilize the maritime law to profile civil
litigations or terminations, including international litigations. but i need it done today. i can't get access to it for 11.5 years, and there's nothing i can do. so i want this body to make sure that the banks of federal reserves, embassies, counties, will get my money back to me. that will make a good undering of who we are going to utilize in the financial institution whether it's attorneys, management or anything in regards to the financing. so i'm ordering that this is did you happen today, immediately. and in regards to the funding for this project, we're going to put that project on hold. we have more important projects and concerns in regards to san
francisco -- [inaudible] fewer fur thank you very much. your public comment is now closed. any other members of the public that would like to speak? public comment is now closed? i'd like to move this item to the board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, call eyes number seven. >> authorizing the department of the environment to submit applications on behalf of the city for grants offered by the california department of resources, recycling and recovery for which it is eligible. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe that we have charles sheehan from the department of the environment to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisor. charles sheehan. i'm the public affairs and policy manager at the department of the environment. the resolution you have before you today is fairly straightforward. it allows the department of the environment to apply for grants for which we are eligible for
from the department of -- from california's department of resources, recycling and recovery, more commonly known as calorie cycle. we routinely -- cal recycle. we apply for a lot of grants, including solid waste cleanup, container and bottle recycling grants, and so we have an ongoing relationship. some of these grants require yearly applications that we apply for each year. and so periodically, cal recycle asks us for updated resolutions to reafirm our authority to apply for these grants, and that's why we're here. we're working on a mobile recycling pilot grant, and that is mostly complete, except they're waiting for an updated
resolution, which is why we're here. i'll take any questions if you have them. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any questions for mr. sheehan. there also is no b.l.a. report. let's open it up to public comment. is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'll make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation to the full board. take that without objection? thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number 8. >>clerk: ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of the treasurer and tax collector to accept and spend a grant for the financial justice project and amending the annual salary ordinance to provide for the creation of one grant funded position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have amanda freed from the office of the treasurer and tax collector to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisors. this is an ordinance to accept
and expend 415,597 from the laura and john arnold foundation. this grant award is to support the treasurer's financial justice project to develop a fines and fees reform. fines and fees serve as consequences for breaking rules or help us underwrite our costs, but for low-income people and particularly people of color, fines and fees can become predatory. they can push people in a hole they cannot climb out of. but thanks to you, they eliminated these fees that were high paying for people but low gain for government. the impact of this legislation was felt almost immediately when
the court greed to write off debt for 21,000 people. cities and counties around the country are clamoring to learn from our experience. this grant will help us help other cities follow our lead. government should be an equalizer of opportunity and not another driver of inquality. thank you for your consideration. >> supervisor fewer: thank you for your presentation. there is no b.l.a. on this item. i have one question for miss freed, really. too. so this $415,000 plus is for one f.t., is that correct? >> it's to support the program over several years and includes one f.t.e. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so my question is what happens after this position when the grant is finished? >> typically, grant funded positions are treated like exempt positions for three years, and at that time, the
position is over. >> supervisor fewer: okay. and so there is funding for this for the next fiscal year? >> correct. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. there is no b.l.a. report. can we have a motion? >>clerk: madam clerk, can we please open it for public comment? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, miss wong. i'd like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now item. may i have a motion. >> supervisor tang: i i'll make a motion to send item 8 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we'll do that without objection. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? >>clerk: no, madam chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. the meeting is now adjourned. .