tv San Francisco Government Television SFGTV January 29, 2017 4:00pm-6:01pm PST
announcer: b dreams and good grades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org. >> all right good morning, ladies and gentlemen, it is good to see you this morning, my name is malia cohen you have joined us on the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee, and i am the chair of which knit i committee and to my right is supervisor norman yee and katy tang and the clerk is linda wong and i would like to thank and
acknowledge sfgovtv for broadcast thanksgiving methis meeting for us. >> please silence your phones, and files to be submitted items today will be appear on the january, 31st, agenda, unless otherwise stated. ? ethank you very much, ladies and gentlemen just for your edification today is my first day of budget chair and so bear with me if i stumble and it is a privilege to serve san francisco in this cape capacity. could you call item? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $367,968 from california department of public health to participate in a program entitled california project launch for the period of december 1, 2015, through june 30, 2019; and waiving indirect costs. >> thank you. first we are going to hear from
miss diane besum and followed by mr. david bell from the department of public health to speak on this item. are you both here? good to see you, the floor is yours. >> thank you, i am the director of public health nursing in the san francisco department of public health and maternal child. and i am happy to share some facts for you if you would like to review those at a later time. project launch is an initiative to initiate mental health consultations to the public health nursing home visiting programs. we are also going to be promoting existing models of current cafes for parenting and child development. and we are collaborating currently with san francisco first five. and with the human services agency, and the behavior health
services within the county. i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, let's hear from mr. bell. >> are you not making a presentation. >> no problem. thank you for that brief presentation. i see that we don't have a budget analyst report on this item. let's go ahead and sperp tang make a few more remarks. >> thank you, this dates back december 1, 2015, if you could explain why it is retroactive and why. we received an executed estate and there were a number of delays and getting that information packaged and ready to be presented to the finance committee. >> all right, thank you. >> okay, thank you, and let's go ahead and take public comment on
this item. ladies and gentlemen, this is the time where anyone can speak on this particular item. just as a reminder you will have two minutes, you will hear a soft chime and that indicates that there are 30 seconds remaining of your two minutes allotment. public comment is open at this time. anyone is welcome to come to this desk and speak. all right seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues is there a motion for this item? supervisor tang? >> sorry my mic would not come on. i will make a motion to put it forward to the board with a positive recommendation. >> without objection this item passes. item two, please? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $207,500 from san francisco community clinic consortium to participate in a program entitled health care for the homeless - oral health expansion, for the period of january 1, 2016, through december 31, 2016; and waiving indirect costs.
>> thank you, do we have a representative from dph to speak on this item? hi my name is beth and i am the department of public health primarily care and we put a state with the san francisco community clinic on the healthcare for the homeless and we have for many years, which provides the social work and mental and dental services this year there was an opportunity for additional federal oral health services grant for 315 annually, which we were awarded a half a year for. and we also were allocating an additional $50,000 from the existing grant funds that another agently had given us. and it funds, directly dental aid services. >> thank you, and great with the program, and let's go ahead and open up for public comment. >> all right, public comment is opened.
seeing none, public comment is closed thank you. >> i would like to make a motion to pass it on the committee with the positive recommendation. >> i think that we want to continue this item if i am not mistak mistaken. make a motion for a positive recommendation. >> without objection that item passes. thank you. >> madam clerk, the next item please? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $434,777 from the california department of public health to participate in a program entitled prescription drug overdose prevention project for the period of july 1, 2016, through august 31, 2019. >> thank you, we have dr. cofen from the department of public health who is going to speak on
this item. >> so this is a project that california department of public health has asked us to conduct of academic detailing which is a method of educating physicians and nurse practice practice tigsers. and over the opiod prevention and we will be coordinating this project in the multiple rual counties in california and assisting those counties in training and providing them with the materials and over seeing their detailing efforts in each county. >> all right, thank you, dr. cofin. are there any questions? seeing none, thank you. we are going to go into public comment. public comment is opened. all right, public comment is closed. thank you, is there a motion? >> i will make a motion to send forth the resolution to the full board with the positive relation dagss. >> without objection, that
motion passes. >> item four. >> authorizing the recreation of the department to resolution authorizing the san francisco recreation and park department to accept an in-kind grant of $147,268 from the san francisco parks alliance to support the john mclaren bike park. . >> all right we have dalia, the floor is yours. >> good morning. >> the job and the park project will convert an unused section of the park into the city's first dedicated bmx mountain bike park. the park will be located in an area of the park that is used as an illegal dumping ground, it is situated east of sunny dale avenue and west of the glen eagle golf course, the plan for the park includes a family cycling train and a bmx pump track and the spaces with the pin i can tables and benches. additional structures irrigation, native landscaping and fencing.
and this community supportive project will create an hub for the biking community while allowing the opportunity for those new to the sport to be introduced to bmx and mountain bike cycling. the designated site is large enough to support the bike park and to include terrain for more advanced cyclists. the public private partnership, they are a community group that is fiscally sponsored by the san francisco parks alliance and they have worked with the xh unt to develop the concept and to produce the project which is valued at 147 to 168 dollars. the total project budget is 1 million, 131,921 dollars, and the additional funds are coming from several sources, including the california state parks plan and water and conservation fund. and the 2008, and 2012, park bonds, and jumping fences and the offices of the supervisor
avalos and mayor lee. it will provide a valuable recreational resource in the park and support a large youth dem graphic of the surrounding communities and it will serve as a community, gathering place for i don't uth and family and we are excited about this one. >> one thing that i just want to bring up and this is an inkind grant which i will support today. but i want to make sure that we are out reaching, the area that we are describing as the southeastern part, which is the largest public housing unit that the city has. >> and i have not been comfortable with the out reach that has been demonstrated by the project sponsor, and i have committed myself, and my staff foe assist with the out reach just so everyone can feel included. often times a lot of change happens in the neighborhood or around the surrounding neighborhoods. and those most affected by the area are not included in the discussion or how about the
professional con stit you ents are knowledgeable but the community is not as knowledgeable and so i just want to go on record to flag that as a concern to insure that we have got the buy-in from the neighborhood from the mid valley neighborhood as well as from those that are living in public housing in sunny dale. >> we would be happy to work with you you on that and we have the intention of doing out reach and there is going to be a really important volunteer component to maintaining the bike park and it is our intention to reach out to just the community you are talking about. >> thank you. that is good to hear. >> we are going to go to public comment at this time. supervisor tang? >> one quick question, what is the time line on this project? >> break ground next month, and construction will take about five months. >> thank you. >> public comment is opened and public comment is closed. thank you. may i have a motion on this item? >> sure. go ahead and pass this on to the committee with a positive
recommendation to the full board. >> without objection we take that motion. passes. madam clerk, also for the record i want to recognize that item four did not have a budget legislative analyst report on this particular item. could you call item five? >>resolution authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expend grant funds from the association of bay area governments in the amount of $546,258 for calendar year 2017, to perform various activities as part of a bay area regional energy network program, an energy efficiency program for the term of january 1, 2017, through december 31, 2017. >> all right, we are cranking through these ladies and gentlemen for the good stuff. we saved the best for last. but before we get there, it is good to see you. this is germo from the department of the environment and here to present on item five, welcome. >> thank you, madam chair and supervisors department of the environment and the accept and expend before you today from the association of bay area governments in the amount of 6
546, 258 is to support the efficiency program, and specifically these funds will be targeted for our work in multi family unit buildings. our goal is to help these buildings achieve 15 percent or more annually, and energy savings. and our goal is to enroll, 2000 multi family units by october, 31st of this year. and an aggressive program that we have and we hope that we can count on your support today so that we can move forward with the program. >> and happy to answer any additional questions. >> i see no names from my colleagues in the cue. and so we are going to go to. okay. i want to note for the record that we don't have a budget and legislative analyst report on
this item. >> i will make a motion to send it forward to the full board with positive recommendation. >> without objection, that passes unanimously. madam eric clerk, item 6? >>resolution approving an emergency declaration of the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) pursuant to administrative code, section 21.15(c), for the temporary replacement and repair of the dewatering equipment at the oceanside wastewater treatment plant; estimated cost of approximately $500,000. >> all right, ladies and gentlemen we have with us mr. tom. my the legend who is running things over at the south east water treatment plan, good to see you today. you are here to speak on item six? >> yes i am. good morning, madam chair, supervisor yee and tang. we had a catastrophic failure and i am here to talk about the emergency declaration that took place on the first week of december. this is at one of our five waste
water treatment plants that we operate. these are the facts. the treatment plan is at ocean side off of the great highway. what happened on that week is the first time that had has always happened. we could not remove the solid material out of this plant and so we declared an emergency. these are the facts and this is how much that we produced out of that building. and we needed to bring in emergency declared emergency to bring in a contractor to help us perform this task. we used the services and we estimated at the time to be over $400,000, it was going to be, the project was completed already by the grove, and our equipment are back up and running by january 21st, and we are back in operation as you can see. and i have just a picture here
of what it actually took for the mobilization, and i am here to answer any questions that you might have. >> if we were able to catch this in time what would have been the adverse effects. >> probably the violation of the permit and we would have overflowed the raw sewage into the ocean and maybe, much much more, and much worse, it would be a public health issue. one more technical term, i see the, can you just define mgd for me. >> million gallons per day. >> supervisor tang in >> i am just wondering for the new design that will be in place, will that prevent a similar situation from happening in the future. >> we do have the plans as if it were to happen again, we are working on that right now. >> okay. >> and then you have your
regular kind of inspection procedures in place to make sure that you are able to catch these kind of issues in time before it gets out of control? >> we are doing the very best that we can to identify those things. we are putting in and getting the extra equipment and so to prevent from happening in the future. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor yee? >> ask pretty much a follow up question to supervisor tang. and in regards to this failure, would it be was there any way that you could have anticipated such things and prevented it? >> it is very difficult to prevent. what happens is as you know, ocean side plant and the great highway is there is a lot of sand. and what happened was we received tons of sand that came into the treatment plant at once. and what happened is in this particular part of the process you are trying to squeeze the water out. it is very difficult to compress
sand. and what happened was the sand got compressed and that is what ruined the machine. it actually twisted metal is what ended up happening. >> was this sand was it accumulation of a long period or a particular day. how did it get if there? >> so the sand generally comes from all of the paved streets in san francisco and we have a combined system and so any sand that gets in the street that does not get picked up by the sweepers it ends up in the suer system, so during that storm prior to the event, all of the sand got washed into the treatment plant and so that ended up to get the water to get that sand to get out. so it would have been very difficult for us to anticipate this getting it out the sand out. right now the design that supervisor tang is talking about is trying to capture the sand on the front end, that is the improvement. but it ends up going through all
of the different processes at the treatment plant and ended up in the watering which is the last phase and the last phase and should never get there. so that is the improvement that she was talking about. >> and this improvement that would catch it in the front end, are there, is this system what you get rid of the sand before accumulates and plug up the whole system. >> yes. exactly right. >> all right. thank you. i just want to note that we have a report from the budget legislative analyst office. that i would love to hear from just a brief summy of what we got. >> good morning, chair cohen and member of had the committee, campbell from the office. on page 3 of our report although the resolution in the contract is for $500,000, the actual budget was for only about $435,450. and so we are recommending amending the resolution to reduce not-to-exceed amount to
435, 450 dollars, otherwise we recommend approval. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. all right, supervisor yee do you have a follow up question? >> no. >> thank you, and we are going to go for public comment. thank you. >> no problem. >> ladies and gentlemen, public comment is opened. >> all right, public comment is closed at this time. colleagues, any discussion or a motion? >> make the motion to amend the amount from $500,000 to $435,450. and approve the resolution with the amendments. >> all right. are we in agreement. >> without objection as amended passes you man musly. thank you. >> madam clerk in please call item 7. >>ordinance exempting the proposed airport development plan from administrative code, chapter 29, including from the
requirements for a fiscal feasibility study and a board of supervisors fiscal feasibility determination prior to initiating environmental review, but retaining requirements for possible future individual projects under the recommended airport development plan which would otherwise be subject to administrative code, chapter 29. >> thank you very much. today we have presenting on this item miss cathy widner from the airport. thank you. >> good morning, welcome chair and members of the committee cathy from the san francisco international airport. the item before you today is a proposed ordinance that would wave the fiscal feasibility study requirements under chapter 29 of the san francisco administrative code for the airport recommended airport development plan. or adp. and he want for the individual projects as required. the airport development plan is a long range planning study that will help to guide the future development. the study is a replacement to
the 1989 master plan. excuse me. and includes proposals to enhance and develop passenger terminals or land side facilities and support existing facilities in order to match our passenger growth and runway capacity limitations that exist in the current physical layout of the airport. it is worth noting that there are no shore line or runway projects included in the adp. the ordinance before you essentially requests your approval for us to resequence some of the chapter 29 requirements for the wave of an initial report, at the board of supervisors for the entire plan. and instead to bring you the individual projects as they would be triggered under a normal fiscal feasibility report. airport staff did meet with supervisor peskin as the original author of chapter 29 and worked with his staff as
well as the city attorney's office clabively on this ordinance to insure thintent of the feasibility of chapter 29 remains in place for the individual projects that will come before you. while the adp is not a commitment by the airport to implement any of the individual projects, the study itself is subject to environmental review under the california environmental quality act as well as chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code. the san francisco planning department has determined that preparation of an eir is required for the entire plan. following the completing of the eir no the airport development plan, recommended projects would be added to the airport's list of capitol projects and then go through the routine approval at that time. the airport capitol plan is subject to fiscal review by the board of supervisors and the
mayor. and any adp project that would normally be triggered under the requirements of chapter 29 for fiscal feasibility would come to the board for review and approv approval. i am joined today by the airport planning director and together we would be happy to address any questions you might have. >> great, thank you. could you introduce us to the planning director. >> yes, please, this is john, and he is the airport planning director. >> good to see you, colleagues do you have any questions for staff? >> thorough presentation, thank you. >> we will go to miss campbell for a quick up date on the report. okay. yes, if you will see on page eight of our report, the airport development plan does not actually identify the cost or have a plan associated with it. in our discussions with the
airport, we understand that the active projects will be evaluated as part of the airport's over all capitol plan. and that that will come back to the board, it does come back to the board for the future board approval. we do consider this a policy matter because it is waving provision tz of the administrative code. >> all right, thank you. >> all right, colleagues if there is no other discussion, i will go to public comment. >> ladies and gentlemen, public comment is open. public comment is closed. >> is there a motion? >> i will make a motion then to send forth this ordinance to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you very much. and without objection, this motion passes unanimously. >> item 8, please? >>resolution authorizing designated city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of the city and county of san francisco any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal financial assistance under various grant programs, including: the federal fiscal year 2017 urban areas security initiative grant, the federal fiscal year 2017 state homeland security grant program, the 2017 emergency management performance grant, and the 2017 local government oil spill contingency plan grant program. >> thank you very much.
we have chris tin to speak on this item. >> thank you, hello. good morning, supervisors my name is chris tin and i am the government affairs manager with the department of emergency management, the legislation before you today is a governed body resolution authorizing the city and county of san francisco to apply for this year's home land security grant. and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have about the resolution. >> all right, thank you. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you, i know that there have been a lot of questions surrounding this process. so san francisco we are from my understanding the fiscal sponsor for this whole entire grant for several counties. but i know that there have been concerns that have been raised about how it is that various counties have been using these grants. in particular, i am sure that you have heard, their concerns around urban shield and so i wanted to see if you could
discuss with this board how it is that we or what our responsibilities are as a fiscal sponsor of dulling out the grants from the federal government and to what extent we can put limitations on other counties and how it is that they expand the grants. >> i would be ha py to answer that question. thank you for the opportunity. >> the bay area region, well the bear area, urban area, security initiative manages the administration of the entire bay area, federal home land security grants and also the emergency preparedness grants that is actually 12 counties in the bay area region. our job within the city and county of san francisco, as fiscal agent is, the reason that we are here today, in is a state requirement to actually be able to apply to the grant on behalf of the entire region. once the grant is we get notice that we can apply, then we actually apply for the grant and
then we become the pass through for dulling out the funds throughout the region. every jurisdiction gets a certain amount of money based on their individual risks, san francisco gets a certain amount as a 34e78 of the bay area region as well. and when it comes to how the funds are spent, each injur jurisdiction is expected to follow a process that they apply and submit proposals and given the come my aply ans to the grant, and then the projects can move forward. in san francisco we choose to spend the majority of our funding through the grapt and for a lot of the emergency preparedness planning physicians and we plan through the fire department and the police department and the nert program and last year we spent money on up grades to the fire department and department of operations center. we buy radios. we are really focused on supporting the needs of our first responder and the
emergency management community. and that is how we choose to spend our money, when it comes to how the other jurisdictions spend their money, we cannot direct them on how to spend it unless what they propose is in out of compliance with the grant. >> when the other counties are submitting proposals for their how they are extending their grants, who is reviewing whether they comply with the grants requirements? >> sure, that is actually the bay area, the management team and if you have any specific questions about how that process takes place, i can deter to triston who is a member of the team that can get into the specifics. >> sure. >> that will be great because you know, again, i we have had this discussion before in fact in this committee and we have heard about how san francisco spends its money, i know that there is a lot of concerns about other counties and i am wondering if you could speak to those specific issues that arise from the other counties and how
you kind of figure out well does this meet our kind of goal of why we have these grants? >> sure. if you would like me to --. >> good morning, triston cfo for the bay area emergency management. so each proposal is vetted through the hub, depending on the nature of the funding because we segregate the funding for the hubs which are the members of the bay area and the region and there is also funding for the regional project. and so each proposal is reviewed by the area management team for compliance purpose and then they are vetted through the hub working groups, and regional projects working group, but they are presented to our approval already for approval. >> i am going to raise directly
the concerns. some folks are concerned that the other counties are using the money in their word to militaryize police and crack down on immigrants in our communities. and so if you i don't know how a grant proposal will come about and how it will be worded is that an appropriate use of these funds? . >> there are concern requirements when it comes to acquiring equipment because some funds are spent on regional training and exercise. it goes through a compliance requirement review. there is a set of provisions from the grants. and that tell us which items are allowable and which items are allowable. and so each of those spending go through that rigorous compliance review and they are deemed compliant. >> okay. >> how about for, say, i don't know -- services or --. >> yes, as well as regional
training and exercise. urban shield is part of that regional exercise. and so it has gone through that compliance requirement, making sure that we comply with federal program requirements. >> if i could add, which undoubtedly does not permit the, as you said, the militarization and the profiling of immigrants. so. >> could you say that one more time. >> i just want to clarify that in the simple answer to the question is that no, it would not be permissible for the grants to be used for the purposes that you articulated. >> how do you address the charges that the money has been spent in that way? >> the you are referring to urban shield. and again, i just want to clarify that we are here today to actually apply for the 23 million that is allocated to the bay area region. urban shield is an alamena
county initiative that is designed to help to train multi disciplinary first responders and although it does include law enforcement it also includes police, public health, emergency managers, opportunities for emergency operations centers to work together. the exercise also allows for practice for water rescue or urban search and rescue. there is a video for them to hone their skills in this area and so when it comes to -- while i understand the concerns of the perception of this exercise, it is an in it's truist form it is an opportunity for the region to come together to practice their skills so that we can be better prepared to respond to and major emergency. >> and so what about the tone in washington has changed a lot recently. and so i am just wondering, that
has caused a lot of fear for many communities. >> i feel very confident here in sfa because of what we stand for here. but i understand the fears coming from people who are in other counties. and so i am just wondering, you know with the recent change but will the funding and what you are able to spend it on will that change and allow for some of the kind of feared training or tactic that will occur as a result. >> although, i can't speak to the future of what the administration will yield. i know that we stand behind our entire city stance on protecting our communities, rights and our ability to keep everybody safe and secure, and while reporting everybody's civil rights and civil liberties. the programs that are in projects that are presented to for funding they do follow
guidelines on what is appropriate. if a project were to come forward that was not viewed for the potential of impacting the community negatively and then it will not be approved for the authority which represents the region. >> will you have to come back before us? >> no, just so that we can apply for these grants on behalf of the region. >> okay. >> let me add that it is part of our ordinance every year and so that is presented during the budget process. >> okay. i think that probably at that time, you know, i think that we should really look carefully as to whether the grant terms have changed given the change in the federal administration.
just to insure that they are being spent on emergency preparedness. >> and supervisors i would welcome the opportunity to up date you on changes that we are made aware with of. and so we look forward to updating you on any developments regarding the over all urban area initiative. >> supervisor yee as questions and i have questions for you as well. >> so, just stepping back a little bit, the grant itself is ear marked for the bay area? or is it something that we decided as a bay area to apply for? >> so based on risk allocation methodology implemented by the department of home land security, the funds are allocated to the bay area. region. and the agreement, i mean,
since, there was a decision to have san francisco be the fiscal here. >> that is correct, sir. >> and how much of an influence do we have in regards to the program itself that the other locatio locations are asking for? >> so there is a risk allocation methodology. it has three major components like population and asset and threats. and so every year we go through that riskal location, methology and and assessing the threats in the bay area and we designate the risk factor for each of the jurisdictions and that is used as a, allocation methodsology, determining what funds will go through to the jurisdictions. >> and i want to add to triston's point and to further
answer your question regarding our ability to as a fiscal agent to determine how the funds are used outside of us as a member of the bay area. i think i prefer to our city attorney to answer the legality of how far we can determine, aside from what he mentioned regarding the threat risk analysis and the >> city attorney, john, gibner as a fiscal agent we play a limited role or dem played an limited role with the agreement in the other counties, that we will apply for the funds from the federal government and administer them, but dem does not play a policy making role in
determining whether as a policy matter that the funds are appropriate or in appropriate and so the board can't conditionally apply for a grant for giving them to the county for certain purpose and not other purpose and our role is limited under our agreement with the other counties. >> so the question here would be can the different locations including san francisco, accomplish what they want to accomplish without utilizing or subcontracting with urban shields? >> well, we did contract with urban shield. it is an exercise that alameda county conducts. we in san francisco there are members of our law enforcement and our first responder community that participate in
urban shield because it is an opportunity to enhance our ability to respond to emergencies and disasters. although we in san francisco we do not put any of our allegations from the grant towards urban shield. so i don't think that we can speak to whether the region can, i think, in the simplest of terms, move forward or not move forward without urban shield, and again it goes to the role that we play as fiscal agents and how we stay within a parameter of making sure that the project s are grant compliant for government and state requirements. and that is sufficient as i can get. >> thank you. >> all right, so i guess my question is why do we have to be
the fiscal agent. why don't we rotate this with other counties? why do we get that distinct pleasure? >> it is actually when we created approval authority it was determined that at that point san francisco --. >> it was determined 20 years ago. >> so it has never been reevaluated since then? >> because we have the financial tools and the management team cap able to administer the program. but there is out of the whole allocation there is five percent allocated to management team. so and that is composed of san francisco employees and administratoring the program. so san francisco has full capability to administer the program in terms of compliance and financial management. >> but i am sure that other
surrounding counties have full capability too, san francisco is not the only game in town. >> yes, but that is the decision made by the approval authority >> who is the approval authority? >> the approval chor is a body composed of 13 counties, and three cities. including san francisco. >> and when do they -- in each city or each ra proval body has the same vote the san francisco vote is not weighted? >> yes. it is just the members jurisdiction has an equal vote on their policy making matters. aapproving projects. >> and so for the last 20 years we have had the votes lined up and everybody is in favor of supporting and allowing us to the fiscal sponsor. >> that is correct. >> that is interesting. >> i can actually clarify that. >> in 2013, we recently renewed the master mou that was passed by the board of supervisors and
legislation to continue and identified san francisco as the fiscal agent and that was in support by the entire approval authority, essentially the region had asked that we continue providing this service to the bay area. >> are you not concerned about what they are saying, or do you dispute what they are saying and or do you not think that any abuse has happened. >> not a trick question, i just want to understand a little bit
better. >> as a fiscal agent, we made approval to the authority. >> and so urban shield has been recommended as the compliance program with the provisions of the grant. and so we are the fiscal agent, administering the program to include, grant management and reporting to others as well. >> okay. >> hold on a minute. >> i think that the point that i am trying to make is a feel a certain sense of responsibility as the fiscal agent to take the claims that we are hearing seriously. i don't know enough about the item or about the matter as to whether or not alamena if the claims have been sub-stan ated. as you have seen on the news there are substantial protests and unrest of how they are using their dollars, if we are the fiscal agent, and i was dealing
with a non-profit in my district and if other non-profits are having a problem, as the agent you enter seed, you kind of step in to ask questions, and it sounds like to me that we have not been asking any questions. we have just been shirking our responsibility. >> let's open up to public comment, supervisor yee has a few remarks. >> >> what would happen? >> what is the process to no longer be the fiscal agent. >> maybe we should let alamena county be the agent. >> we have the capability to do
it. which is why the entire region has continued to ask us to play this role. if we were to no longer do it. i can only speak from approval authority limited standpoint that is possible that the grant could be there could be a gap in funding and it would take a long time to rebuild sort of the process that has been put in process to try to make this, funds and disbursal of funds as compliance and as fair, throughout the region. i think what i take issue is that it sounds like a matter of convenience, we have been doing it this way for x, numbers of year and it is comfortable and everybody accepts it and maybe
we should not rock the boat. i don't necessarily know if i buy that argument just coming to the table from a different place. yosh wanted to rock that boat and that was an economic institution and it sounds like we have a fiscal incentive to remain the agent because we have got some kind of cut of 5 percent that allows us to minister, frankly the remarkable programs like the nert program which i love. >> supervisor yee? >> yeah, is this annual allocation? or grant? >> we are requesting to apply for the 2017 emergency preparedness grant. >> can we maybe this is a question for the city attorney, could we stipulate you late here, and to continue to play the fiscal agency role?
from this particular grant and make it real clear with some language? in the resolution, you will say that we will not do it next year or the following i couldn't error that they have to find somebody else in >> i believe that san francisco no longer wants to be the fiscal agent or require amendment to the agreement in the counties and i don't think that this resolution is a vehicle, and perhaps it is exploring off line or at a future hearing with dem. whether they can take that proposal to the group to move forward with the amendment to that agreement, which will then come back to the board. >> yeah, i just understand that
it would be very difficult to change the vehicles at this point for what you are asking for, the current application. but i am very interested in having us as a body to maybe come up with the resolution to ask them to consider having some other entity, do this the following year. >> okay. >> is that in light of urban shield or in general? >> just as a follow up question. >> if it is a similar application and that is what i am specifically. targeting. >> are there others that you or we are the fiscal agent of? >> we are just the fiscal agent for the entire bay area. so. maybe --. >> are there more than one grant that we go for? >> there is the, there are home land and there is state home land security grants and there
is the oil spill continuing grant that is also a part of this. and so there is a variety of emergency preparedness grants in this legislation here today. >> okay. well, with he will take that into consideration. all right, thank you. let's go ahead and go to public comment. and ladies and gentlemen if you are interested, line up. i have one card, danielle. and i just have one card, so we will pull danielle to the front. and then the rest of you that are in line can stay cueed up and we will go in that order. welcome, public comment is opened. >> thank you. >> much has been made of san francisco and california values and it is an opportunity to stand up for the values yesterday many members of the community called your offices to push for the exclusion of funding for urban shield and it builds upon the long term work of the stop coalition and there are other forms of disaster preparedness training and there needs to be funded and separate from this conference, which propels the militarization and included the racist rhetoric.
which includes sold on the t-shirts and three of your supervisors wrote a letter to the supervisors last year and i agree with their points. urban shield trains units around the country and the world so this influences how people across the country deal with militarization of the police. especially in our current political client with where racism is stoked. it does sound like a tough stop that you are in, and i agree that being the fiscal agent puts the moral weight of urban shield impact in san francisco hands as well. i am not here as a coriorganizei learned about this on-line and in the news. while our friends and neighbors learn about these countries learn about this through the aggressive policing in their lives. iment 23, and i work on climate stuff but i am one of the people woken up by the black lives movement and the election of donald trump for the need of
average people like me to show up and see the decision makers in person. there are more people where i came from and we are excited to work locally. and we urge you to amend the resolution to stop funding urban shield, and to seek additional funding for disaster preparedness and community health instead with a view to deescalation rather than militarization, thank you. >> my name is john lindsey poland and i am with the committee which has an office a couple of blocks from here and we are one of xhirt groups that are trying to stop urban shield, this is actually for the shield in 2018. so this will not actually be carried out until the next calendar year even though it is this fiscal year. in terms of the claims about militarization, the county sheriff himself told me last week that these are para
military forces that we are talking about. he used that word. the main point that i want to make is that we have already seen the weight in which the values of this city and the value $of the new administration part ways and, this is particularly for counter terrorism training for local swat teams which are primarily deployed to serve warrants, disproportionately in houses and communities of color, and so it is rare that it is used for a terrorist incident and extremely rare and so it is applied in a way, in other ways. and this new administration is defining terrorism in new ways. defining ref you giz as terrorists and defining immigrants as terrorists. and that kind of criteria as it applied in 2017, in 2018, leads us in a direct collision course with this particular program. so i urge you, and i also we have a set of proposals for an
amendment that has been sent to your offices and i would like to leave it with the clerk. >> next speaker? >> hi, my name is tash win and i am an advocate at the center for human rights. we are here today to urge supervisor cohen and the committee to amend today's legislation to prioritize funding and other areas such as medical, public health community preparedness, recovery and emergency planning. and to exclude urban shield which is a militaryized international swat training and weapon's ex-expo. as you know, swat raids and sweeps are harmful and dangerous and disproportionately impact black and brown communities in this region, this training is also going to be the training that happened at urban shield are also international and so
these things that are learned in the county, have global consequences. urban shield is exactly the type of program that represents the dangers of the trump administration and as a sanctuary city, san francisco has the obligation to pro-teblth immigrants muslims people of color, and those who are targeted by this program. we think that it is actually a super great thing that you guys are the fiscal agent for the bay area fund and that you have the power to prioritize alternatives. that build up community preparedness. and that shift the world away from militaryized responses. thank you. >> >> good morning, my name is katie and i am a co-director with the bud different peace fellowship that come binds
muddism and social justice for years. i am not as informed as my colleagues, but i am here because we have been opposing urban shield since 2014, because of the aim pacts that 2 has. and we are head quartered in okay land and so we are directly impacted by urban shield and i am echoing my colleagues to follow your wisdom and intuition and saying that militaryizing the police force and swat teams under this administration is an unwise move and to actually take bold leadership and be a sanctuary city. san francisco has the opportunity to exclude urban shield from the funding for emergency preparedness and response for this entire region. so please hang on to that responsibility and use it wisely. for the protection of all beings. thank you. >> good morning, i am with the
stop urban shield and critical resistance, and first i really want to just thank the supervisors for really asking these questions and really driving to understand who urban shield is and how this program works. it is actually a really complex program, the bay area urban area, security initiative and one thing that i do want to highlight is that san francisco as the fiscal agent is designated in an mou across different counties that participate in the bay area approval authority. and line 23 # 9 says that the parties understand that until the fiscal agent and the jurisdiction, fully and finally execute the agreement, the fiscal agent shall have no om mri indication to disperse grant funds to that jurisdiction, that is in the memo of understanding
that designates san francisco as a fiscal agent. and so with that in mind, as supervisor cohen strongly stated is that san francisco does have a moral responsibility on what happens with this funding and it is not simply a technicality. as it has been said, urban shield is an extremely violent, extremely controversial militaryized swat training police program and weapon's expo. now what we are here urging you to do is to actually very simply address your concerns and simply address your questions. we have an amendment that basically says move this item along but just exclude urban shield and say that san francisco commits itself to prioritizing funding for community response, community repairedness, and the resources that don't rely on militarization, and a swat tactics when responding to
disasters and you have the power to do that. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good morning, supervisors my name is rion, and i am here as a member of international jewish anti-zion network. and i want to thank you for intergating the funding it is an investigation of where the funds are going and the impacts that i have seen. so thank you for that. as a san franciscan i am really proud of the way that san francisco is using its power to try to respond to the trump administration. and we just want to see you all take that same level of responsibility in response to urban shield, rather than re-negging your roll, please use that to direct the funds to the communities and a lot of people say that urban shield is emergency preparedness and we need emergency preparedness right now, because we are in a total emergency, we are seeing an increase and escalated attacks on immigrants community and refugees and so let's actually direct the funds in ways that benefit those parts to
our community. and urban shield is not emergency preparedness and we have seen the urban shield and the black lives matter, and those are not emergency preparedness and we have seen them gather, governments from around the world and police force and militaries from around the world with the history of human rights abuses to train the police in crowd control that is not emergency preparedness and with the government comeing in who looks to target and protests and activists we don't want to be bringing together police force frz around the country and the world with the purpose of crowd control and repressive technologies and please take on your responsibility of a fiscal sponsor and use it to direct the funds that we have to the beneficial measure and there are budget cuts coming in our future, we need to be cautious that every dollar that we spent is going to protect our communities in the way that are going to become ever more necessary. so please make sure that this funding can'ting used for urban
shield, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> hello, my name is liz and i am a san francisco resident all of my life. born here, i am just here to say that i am against the urban shield program that comes through this grant. i witnessed some of the films of what goes on at the expo and i am aware of how they use these tactics on our own citizens. they learn methods that are extremely heavy handed referring back to one of the other people said about the warrant. presenting warrants to citizens in the very extremely heavy swat method and there is films out there that explain about how that whole thing works. there is also a person in general john kelley who is the new home land security appointee. and i would like to just read something that give a background to this sort of mentality that
is behind this in the new administration. >> our enemy is safage and offers no quarter and has a single focus and that is either kill every one of us here at home or in slave us with a sick form of extremism that serves no god or purpose, that decent men and women could ever grasp, st. louis is as much at risk as new york and washington, d.c. and so it is quite a singular way of looking at things, very all or nothing kind of attitude and that is very concerning to me. thank you for also, i want to thank you all for taking such care to consider this. and san francisco i think is going to be the most responsible county to be able to really face the issues, that you have already spoken to. thank you, particularly supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much.
>> okay. thank you. >> just a minute, miss hogan. >> public xhebt is closed at this time. thank you to everyone that has sent out quite frankly hundreds of e-mails. and have made the calls i was in the office until 8:00 last night and was still taking calls from folks that are really paying attention to what we are doing here in san francisco. i think that we are in a unique position and there is a sense of responsibility that san francisco has been on the record of our sanctuary city responsibility and many of you may not know but i have been taking the lead of reevaluating our use of force policies in our own police department and that has not been touched in 20 years, so we are in a particular space in time that i think is critical that we need to be paying attention and pay attention to our responsibilities being a regional player. i think that you have a couple of programs and i think that we are ready to deal with the matter. >> thank you. i just wanted to say in closing
that earlier this month the alamena board of supervisors reevaluated the program to be able to administer the training exercise program throughout the bay area. and it was voted to continue to be the administrator of the region training exercise program, which does include urban shield. and it is important to mention that as a part of that process, it was determined that there would be a community-based oversight committee that would look into urban shield and to provide some more transparency in to the over all design and execution of that exercise. >> so i just wanted to say that in closing and i also would encourage our board to reach out to our board of supervisor, your board of supervisor colleagues and maybe to understand their perspective on urban shield. >> thank you. >> we are actually this body is in line with that similar notion. i would like to entertain a
motion to continue this item so that we can dig down deep sxer tweak the language for this resolution. is there a motion to continue this item? >> let's we are going to continue to the next meeting in one week. >> go ahead and make that motion to continue this item to the next week's budget committee meeting. what day is next week madam chair? or madam clerk? >> the next budget and finance committee meeting is on february first. >> february first, thank you very much. >> all right, if we could take this motion without objection. motion passes. snchlt item will be continued and we will see you next week. could you call item 9? >>ordinance appropriating $34,184,136 of lease financing to the department of emergency management for public safety radio system project in fy2016-2017, and placing the total appropriation of $34,184,136 on controller's reserve pending proceeds from the lease financing.
>> all right thank you. we have got a presentation from the jaime. >> that is right. >> karuban. >> from the controller's office and then we are going to hear from michelle gatus as well. >> if there is a project question. >> perfect. >> the floor is all yours, thank you. >> thank you, good morning supervisors again, jaime with the control's office of public finance, before you today is an ordinance, appropriate ating $24.2 million from the leasing agreement between the city and county of san francisco. and bank of america capitol corporation. to find the proposition of the public safety radio system project administered by the department of emergency management, this follows the board of supervisor's previous approval in october of last year, which authorized the director of public finance to procure financing for the portion of the costs through the state of california, department of general services golden state, financial market place program. otherwise, known as a gs smart
program. since the october, resolution approval, the office of public finance has worked together through the competitive bid process with the gs smart program to secure the lease financing in the amount of 34,184,126 for the projects and other associated closing costs. the final financing was aworded to bank of america, with the interest rate of 1.699 percent over a ten year term. with a total payment of 3 million shths with a total interest cost of 3 million, 104,585 and the term of the financing equipment and install lathes and the software will serve as the security of the financing until the debt is completely paid off. the city can also prepay the loan at any time without penalty. >> i am available to answer any of the questions regarding the financing and i have michelle
here to answer any questions regarding the project. >> thank you. i see no questions from my colleagues right now, and thank you for the presentation. and let's go to the public comment. >> public comment is opened, on item nine. >> all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. >> is there any other conversation colleagues? >> is there a motion? >> i am sorry. excuse me, campbell has a presentation. or remarks. >> yes, as she said the board previously approved the 34 million, the city share of the project of 45 million, 11 million was the previous year appropriated from the general fund, total cost to the city fshgs 37 million, including 3 million in interest costs, payments would be 3.7 million and subject to appropriation in the emergency management budget every year and we do recommend
approval. >> thank you for the recommendation we appreciate it. >> supervisor yee? >> i do have a question, in regards to it. >> it was recommended through the commitfy to pursue a financing option. >> because? why? >> i will refer to the may or's budget office. >> thank you, white house director, the honest answer is that allowed the project to move forward and instead of on a pay
go ba sis... and this is being financed and paid off for the allocation, for the next several years but it allowed to to move forward at a faster rate. >> what happens after ten years? is it a ten-year, lease. >> and then the coit bucket will have more capacity to do additional projects. >> no, what the equipment? >> oh, so just to speak to the structure, it is a lease to own financing arrangements. >> okay. >> so in similar to some of our other structures in financing, and radios as well as the infrastructure that supports the video system is about a ten to eleven year term of life and so we will then match the financing structure to that. the life of the asset and so once we paid the full $34 million loan, the city then owns the equipment, and we will be able to keep that going forward.
and it won't be a lease argument. >> thank you for the explanation. >> let's take public comment on item nine. >> public comment is open. public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee is there remarks. >> supervisor tang? >> i will make a motion to send it forthwith positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, without objection, that motion passes. >> item 10. ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to remove the $100 minimum penalty from one of the penalties for failing to register with the tax collector; and to remove the fee and administrative requirements for obtaining a duplicate registration certificate. . >> okay. thank you, we have got the miss amanda from the treasurer tax collector here good morning to present to us. the proposed ordinance which will amend the business and tax code, please the floor is yours. >> good morning, chair and supervisors amanda, from the
office of treasurer, since the voters passed the gross receipts ordinance in 2012, we have been consumed with implementation of the law. and as you know it is a complicated law both for us as we build systems, but also for tax payers. with several successful years under our belt, we are now looking at ways we can increase compliance and revenue, and make things easier for businesses of all sizes. the ordinance before you today will remove the $100 penalty for failing to register with the tax collector and for obtaining a duplicate certificate. currently, a business that fails to register, must pay a penalty, either $100 or, a penalty that increases pursuant to section, 6.17-1. in this case it is whichever penalty is greater. this minimum penalty creates a steep financial burden for small
businesses over 170 percent of the base tax amount. under this proposal, businesses of all sizes would be subject to the same penalty structure which starts at five percent of the tax due per monthly and caps out at 40 percent. let me give you an example of what this means. in it if you are a hair stylist in annual receipts you owe, # 1 in fees, despite several calendar reminder and writing it down on your hand, you missed the deadline on may 31st, you remember on june first and you see that # # 1 has increased to 241. and if that seems really high to you, you are not alone. we have received many complaints about this penalty. and while it cot identified in the law, we agree that it is out size and may be working against our tax compliance efforts.
the majority of our late filers are our smallest business and this will reduce the burden on small businesses who file by 39 percent, as you can see in the budget analyst report, if we had this proposed penalty structure in 2015, and the tax payers paid on the same schedule, we will collect about $1.5 million less in penalties. and however, we believe that changing the penalty structure will also change tax payer behavior and this therefore, lessen that revenue impact. and so we did some further looking after the great work of the budget analyst. and found that we have over, 5,000 businesses that filed late in the past two years. but then didn't renew on time for this current year. the outstanding revenue for those taxes alone the principal there alone is $530,000. so while we can continue to pursue those tax payers who are late and typically on time but missed one year, we believe a
big percentage of those tax payers at this point have thrown up their hands and said this penalty is too high, i can't comply and have chosen to go underground. we estimate that about 50 percent of those businesses will come into compliance if we change this legislation. and therefore, we would get revenue back of $215,000. we also as you are very aware have had several high profile efforts to increase registration compliance among the independent contractor, we registered 14,000 businesses this year related to the transportation network companies. that started solel, between, july 21st, to the current day, if we assume that a third of them continue to operate, that will be another, 405,000 in new tax revenue from business registration. so given what i just discussed above, the loss in revenue from the removal of the 100 fee, will be offset, by $620,000.
i also have for you today an amendment clarifying the effective date of this ordinance. hour intent was always for this change to be prospective. and through this amended language we are making that intention, crystal clear, thank you for your consideration of the ordinance and the pro-he posed amendment. >> thank you for that presentation. let's have a moment to hear from the budget legislative analyst. >> yes, this was actually continued last week's meeting. we provided information that we had estimated a loss in revenue of $1.5 million, as she just sort of demonstrated there, and now estimating that the loss would be reduced to $880,000, because of other compliance revenues that may come in. with he do consider this to be a policy matter because it revises
the business and tax regulations code. >> thank you very much. colleagues is there any discussion? >> all right, let's go to public comment. >> thank you. >> public comment is open, come on down. mr. lazerus. >> good to see you. >> good morning, supervisors san francisco chamber of commerce and i want to thank the tax collect collector's office. and there has been a number of meetings with the preparers and the whole fee and penalty structure is out of wac compared to the state and the federal come parable fees and the late fees and penalties and so we certainly support any sef forts by the treasurer and the tax collector and the board of supervisors in making changes to the fee and penalty structure that will encourage compliance. we were pleased to be part of a broad coalition that negotiated with the city on 2012, on the measure that converted us and we are on the process from the payroll to the gross receipts tax, the key is to have the
businesses of all types register under the city's business tax registration program. and we support the legislation. >> this is good to hear, thank you for your comment. >> public comment is closed at this time. >> i am actually in agreement, that is important that we support our small businesses i think that we tout how wonderful san francisco is, but we sometimes we can be over burdensome and it is unfortunate that we will be losing 1.5, in terms of revenue, but it is important that we send a message to the small business community that we understand their plight and that we are accept our responsibility and do not want to over tax them. so supervisor yee? >> i was wondering if we can actually get a report from the treasurer's office off a year to see what impact this really has had.
>> i think that is a reasonable request and so we will request that the tax collector come back in one year's time and give us an up date on what the economic impact has been. >> thank you. she is agreeing to that. >> is there anything else. is there a motion on this item? >> i will make a motion to send forth the ordinance to the full board, i will make a motion first to mend so that it is the effect will be commencing on or after, july first, 2017. and i think that is most of the acommendment here. and then as amended send forth to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> as amended without objection, thank you. >> please call the next item? >>ordinance amending the administrative, business and tax regulations, and police codes to eliminate various fees imposed by the city. >> thank you our very own supervisor yee is the sponsor of this item. do you want to walk us through.
>> this eliminates the driver license fee and makes the san francisco police department the one stop agency instead of both the sfpd and the treasurer and the tax collector. so san francisco police department requested this fee elimination. currently there are many out dated small business registration fees. and to make it easier for small business owners, i introduced this ordinance amendment amending the tax and business regulation and police codes to eliminate the fees. >> i work with the controller's office who worked directly with the department staff to come up with these recommended fees to be eliminated. the departments have all been very supportive of eliminating these fees according to the police department and entertainment commission. and these recommended fees were deemed out dated, unnecessary and minimal revenue impact.
and from the controller's, estimates from the fiscal year, 2015, and 16, the estimate, estimated total revenue impact would be less than 2600. and to date, no one has applied for any police code fees. we are proposing to eliminate. in fiscal year, 2015, and 16. and there was only, three estimated payers. of the city administrative fee. we are proposing to eliminate and so the impact is minimal. today, i would like to also make a motion to make some non-substantial amendments to this ordinance.
particular item. thank you. supervisor yee, thank you. any remarks? >> let's go to public comment any member of the public like to speak? >> public comment is closed. all right. supervisor yee, what would you like to do? >> i would like to request that we pass the amendments and pull it with the full recommendation to the full board. >> given that this is just clean up legislation to remove the fees by the entertainment entertainment commission that deem no longer necessary, i will add my name as a co-sponsor and take this without objection. thank you. >> madam clerk, could you call 12? >>ordinance approving a lease disposition and development agreement and 75 year ground lease (with option to extend to 99 years) with the regents of the university of california, san francisco ("ucsf") for a new research building at the priscilla chan and mark zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma center, with an initial base rent to be paid by ucsf of $180,000 per year; authorizing the department of public health to accept a $10,000,000 parking reimbursement contribution upon delivery of the ground lease to ucsf; making findings under the california environmental quality act, findings of conformity with
the general plan, and with the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1(b); waiving certain provisions of the administrative code and environment code; and ratifying certain actions taken in connection therewith, as defined herein. >> i have a feeling that is what a lot of people are here for. thank you for allowing the warm up acts to forward. it is good to see you here today, we have got the director of the public health miss garcia who will be presenting to us on item 12. >> good morning, chair cohein, and supervisors. we are here today to seek your approval for the lease between the city and county of san francisco and the uc regents of san francisco, of california, for ucsf in building the new research center on our campus. as you know, we have 150 year relationship and affiliation agreement with ucsf. also you know that we are a trauma center that requires a research component and our researchers have been scattered throughout the campus, providing incredible research services for us. this new building also required by uc to insure that they are
seismically safe, facility and also provides us an opportunity to retention and recruitment of our incredible researchers on the campus. i am going to be sharing my comments today with dr. sue carlile along with mark who will go through the detail of the lease. i do want to state that the health commission approved this on december six and allowed us to come forward to the committee and hopefully, next tuesday to the full board of supervisors. >> we want to really encourage that this incredible building will also help us in terms of the building 25. and as you know, we have an incredible new hospital, this will compliment that as well. and so we look forward to your questions, and we hope that we can give you the thorough information that you need for your vote today. i will now introduce dr. sue car lyle who is our assistant dean on the campus and go through the
research importance of this facility. >> great, thank you. >> welcome back dr. car lyle, it is good to see you. >> thank you. good moerrning morning and than the introduction. i am the vice dean for ucsf school of medicine that give me the responsibility for oversight of all of ucsf's activities on that campus. as you have heard today and many times before we have 150 year partnership between ucsf and the department of public health. we have been partners in serving the public health of this city for all of that time. faculty and staff and students from all four of the professional schools, dentistry, and nurse and pharmacy, provide care and teach and conduct research, and the ucsf faculty
provide all of the physician care, throughout this relationship, ucsf physicians and researchers have and continue to conduct the most influential research in the country. this research not only benefits the world but directly benefits our community as well. we have change the practice of medicine worldwide from the treatment of hiv and the advancements in brain surgery and pressing public health issues of such as type two diabetes and violence prevention, and pedestrian safety and mental health abuse, although the research has global impact, our physicians scientists draw their inspiration directly from the healthcare need of our local community. many of whom are members of san francisco most vulnerable populations. indeed our center populations
reduces vital research that is instrumental to understanding and reducing health disparities. research is also a critical component of our designation as a level one trauma center, more than 4,000 patients a year, prept to us and the top specialists with expertise in the care of these injuries are on sight around the clock, 365 days a year. it feels like 3,000 days a year. the it is vital to san francisco and it allows the physicians from the emergency medicine, surgery and neuro surgery and blood bank and many areas to treat the sff apes at their greatest areas of need. close proximity to provide the patient care and teaching and activities on the same campus is also, critical for our ability
to recruit and retain the best physician researchers in the world. we provide patient care that is outstanding and exemplary. >> in the ability to seamlessly, transition between the patients and students and research will threaten the breadth of our service and the level of excellence and the care of our patients, without being able to adequately provide the facilities for research and teaching and we will be unable to sustain the level of acceptable clinicians that serve our patients. san franciscos have spoke very loufdly and clearly that they valve you public health. they have approved bonds for a billion dollars of construction already on our campus, this includes the beautiful new hospital that we opened in may as well as the seismic
improvements to the old hospital. the $2 million building that ucsf will pay for and construct on this campus will further enhance our ability to care for the patient and insure that we can do so for the next 100 years as well as we have for the last 100 years. it is essential that we maintain this program. because we want to continually improve the patient care that we can provide. i will invite mark to speak to you and go through the details of the agreement. >> thank you, dr. car lyle. and madam chair and supervisor tang and yee. and i am going to take you through a quick powerpoint .
the slide just gives you conceptual idea of some of the massing and the bulking as you can tell the building conceptually is stepping down towards 23rd street to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. part of the eir process that ucsf conducted included a possible expansion with the variance of the existing san francisco general garage, here is the view of the garage and so in parallel to the process, is a process looking at aspects of fund and actually doing the expansion that would provide for about 307 spaces.
the research building they will displace, approximately, 130 spaces. and so part of the garage expansion will make-up some of that and will add to a parking deficit that we currently have on campus. we are here now with the board and we will continue through the beginning of february. and then we will return to the regents for their approval if necessary, and then actually start looking at executing some of the documents first with the lease, disposition and development agreement. and we anticipate trying to close escrow some time in november of 2017. the building construction anticipated to start in january
of 201 #. and last approximately, two years. i went through that quickly and i have john here and the members of the ucsf management team that are conducting the design and will manage the construction of the building. >> thank you for your presentation. and i have got supervisor yee who has a question hold on. supervisor yee has a couple of questions and i think that supervisor tang has a question. >> okay, thank you. chair cohen. >> first of all, new facilities will be exi sighting and i was able to go on the tour of the buildings for the researchers. and i am in total agreement that the existing facility is totally inadequate. and it is not made for world
class research. i am surprised that they have been able to do what they have with the existing facility and it seems like they have, experiments, in the hallways, and you know, and things were all over the place. so i am glad to see that we are moving forward. i do have some questions around a few things around the community out reach since it will be build on our city property, how many attempts have we made with the community input? into this process? and what are we going to do moving forward? >> good question. so as part of the process we had a number of prescoping meetings. actually on campus, in the
hospital. and we just finished a series of three meetings in the community director garcia actually called transportation director ed riskin to form a more cohesive body that would come together before some more community meetings to come as one united front. and often when you come into the neighborhoods there are so many different city agencies, and so many different people to talk to and so the director garcia and riskin want to bring together a cohesive work to do the community work that you are talking about. >> okay. >> so i am going to ask a few questions in regards to the parking. you mentioned that just the discussions of the sfmta in terms of the financial modelling, of expansion of the existing parking garage. and that and may go up to 307
spaces. and so if i guess one of the questions that i have is before you come up with the even the financial model for this, is there funding to replace the 130 parking spaces that exist today? without going into the bond issues? >> >> let me answer this, this way, we actually worked with and are still working with the controller's office to look at the financial modelling so that we can actually .
as to defra i that bond ads we are planning to do the rest of the project. and the project that we are estimating for the 300 spaces and the expansion is approximately, 25 million and so that ten million will bring it down to about a 15 million revenue bond instead of 25. >> and then in, and the new building minus that, is really to house the existing folks? >> and would there be increased staffing with the new building? >> it is anticipated that the 300 researchers and the 7 buildings will be relocated there because of the height of the bulk restrictions, the building is really sized around that, that population for the building. >> okay.
>> and maybe this is with the existing facilities, so basically when we are moving 800 people to a new building. and then the existing facilities will be empty, what is going to happen? is that also going to increase the number of people that come in? >> yes. at some point in the future, and dependent upon funding, so within the city's ten year period. the plan there is another general obligation bond measure that takes place.
to be on campus, and they would then, the concept would be, they would contribute money to helping us renovate some of the buildings and then we will correlate with them, and then in particular the buildings on the campus. i guess. where i am leading this discussion is if those, and the existing building gets occupied, again, there could be another 800 people that will be in this complex. when you, have you taken that into consideration? in regards to your parking that will be needed for 800 more people? >> we have. okay. >> where are you putting it? because the 300 you talked about? it is just to accommodate the
what exists today. >> so what we are doing along with the possible garage expansion, we are looking at increasing our tdm program which is a transit demand management program and so we are looking at increasing the shuttles and the frequency and the number of them and increasing the bike lockers and car pooling, and we are also using a strategy we used when we build the new hospital which is to shuttle the contractors from a remote site to a site so that they don't take out the patient parking and so we are looking at a number of things and that is one of the reasons that we put in the documents the parking relief plan that will go into detail both with the uchof, andw we manage those parking expectations in the future. and that document has to be developed before escrow can close. i appreciate that you are looking into it and i would hate
to see it in the future that our you know, the esteemed researchers will spend four hours looking for a parking space. >> thank you. sperp yee. and supervisor tang? >> thank you so much, for your questions, yee, and i have some similar, about you first off i will start off by thanking everyone who is in here, taking valuable time from your research and work thd it is such /*. it is such a prized gem and thank you, doctor to taking me on a tour as well. i think that many years ago. you know, over all i will say that i am very supportive of the project. now, i do want to get into the parking situation a little bit just because hospitals do see a lot patient and visitors in addition to the people who work there every day. >> currently the parking facility that is there, has 807
spaces, if i am correct. >> correct. >> and i wanted to know if those are used primarily by the staff what are working there or a combination of visitors patients and staff? >> it is definitely a combination. i think that the two primary users are staff and both ucsf physicians and nurses as well as the staff on the city side. and then a portion of it is also no what parking and so if the lot is filled up so there is parking across 23rd into the garage. >> and about how many spaces would you say are often used by patients or visitors? >> i believe lts about 75 percent is being used by physicians, nurses, staff, verses about 25, and of course,
you understand that is fluctuates on the time of the day, etc. >> okay. >> and so i think that what kind of caught me by surprise was that the agreement says that the parties agree to develop the parking relief plan during the course of con trucks and through the date or replacement parking is secured and i think that based on what you said, the parking plan must be developed before the close of escrow. i personally feel like we need to have this in place before that. yes there is a $10 million contribution that will count against the cost of the 130 parking spaces that would be eliminated and it is achlly quite shocking to see the price tag, it is about $78,000 per stall, i hope that they are electric cap able at that price. but in any case, i am glad that there is a ten million dollar contribution, and so seeing how you are saying that it might cost about 25 million dollars to
expand the parking garage to accommodate for the future loss or the future increase of patients and visitors and so forth. i am wondering if there is an ability to really raise that contribution so that we don't have to figure out how we are dpoeg to plan for another bond measure to be able to fund a parking garage expansion. is that part of the conversation? at all? >> well, i can say the number that we started with was lower than ten. so we did get up to ten and part of the controller's work actually helped us look at the actual cost of what that garage will be and that is how we came up with the 10 million. we used the 78,000, times 130, which is ten million and we rounded down. >> but how, i don't know if this is the controller's office, or if we were able to say work with
smfta to secure the future revenue bond to pay for the design and construction of a garage expansion, i mean that time line, how does that mesh with the time line where we see the building construction will start in 2019. i don't know how long these measures take, so i don't know if anyone can speak to that? even if we were successful. >> i can speak to it. the intention right now is to and we have been working with sfmta is to take both the tdm that i talked about earlier and the parking proposal, and the financial modelling, in the next month or two to go before the subcommittee and then take it to the full board. we think that if that is approved, the revenue bond and construction could start as early as some time late 2018. and the duration for that construction would be
approximately 14 months. >> okay. so that is if all things go smoothly. and so but again, i just you know i am wondering baudz this is a partnership with ucsf if there is some way to help us get to you know, beyond the ten million dollars, i mean we are incredibly grateful there is a ten million contribution for that loss. but, seeing as how there might be future plans to renovate more of the campus buildings, to co-locate the other parties within the campus, and you know, there will be more people coming to the site and so i just want to make sure that no parents patients or visitors or so forth could get in and out of the facility smoothly without impacting the surrounding neighborhood community and so really i would like to see us being able to push up that $10 million contribution for the parking replacement so that we can really move forward quickly on the parking garage expansion. >> could i -- city attorney?
how would we go about entertaining what supervisor tang is saying? >> pu are saying that we increase the $10 million, i think that it has to be a negotiated part of the deal. right now the term sheet reflected that there is a contribution equal to the number of lossed parking and the value of that and that is what the parties agreed upon and i think that you are asking no an additional which is a business term that will need be to negotiate and go back if they were consider to adding monther money here. >> is that something that would have to be approved by the other bodies. >> we will go back and have that discussion, supervisor with uc
and i just had a small conversation on the side. and so we will go back and have that conversation. just to note that this was a three year negotiation. so we will add a little bit more time to that to have more conversations. and want to insure that supervisors are satisfied with the uc contribution on that. >> okay. >> and i am wondering how we can check back on that. again, i do not want to take away from the importance of this project and please do not take this as i care about parking more, it is just simply that i don't want us to have to confront that problem when that day comes and the building is open and we have not solved for this. so >> i understood that it is the good financial stea rds and we are also, very under in terms of just our patients to identify parking. so i don't want it to be assumed that this is parking being taken
by uc. but both parties have the interest in insuring that the patients have access to parking and as you know, coming to a hospital and coming to visit your doctor at times, coming into a car is much more healthy. and so we will go back and talk to the uc partners. regarding their request. >> so will you be willing to come back on a quarterly basis and since this is no the totally associated with the about lg and willing to come back and keep you updated on this issue. >> okay. >> would you be able to say by the time that this item hits the full board to be able to share with us broadly whether there is the ability to revisit the $10 million contribution to parking in >> i think that i am making a commitment to go back and look at that today and hopefully we will have some news or not at the next full board. >> thank you. >> i just --. >> supervisor yee in >> i just want to urge that this is to me an important issue.
something else to think about, kwha i don't see is how they stack the cars and it takes money to buy those mechanical things and i see it in other cities in the u.s. that is maybe something that we should consider because we could create more parking spaces with the existing foot pript. >> we are looking at all of those options for example, valet parking and so we will be looking at that as part of the transportation plan. >> and maybe that could be part of your new discussion to say, would uc be willing to pay for those mechanical what they call them, stackers. >> yes, we will explore all of those options supervisor. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang has a few remarks. >> one question on follow up in
terms of i know that right now, i am sure that supervisor cohen is aaware of the road way improvement pro-jeblth that has already begun and i think that it is supposed to end if on time by march 2018. which is supposedly before construction, and the building construction will start. and so i am just wondering how it is that all of the different kind of city agencies are coordinating the construction on campus. ? eand that is such an important part and i ask asked director and the transportation director and we have talked about bringing all of the parties together and we have all of the dates of complete and to be aible to track back and forthwith the department to insure that we are coordinating better. we have been going to these meetings and to improve that we are showing the efforts that we are doing to improve to the
streets and road as well as the construction at the campus, and so we will make an effort to insure that we have a better effort on that. >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions so colleagues, general hospital is in district ten. and so incredibly familiar with the project. and i agree that this the transformative project for our city. and it will make a significant impact to the future of general hospital as well as the general impact of san francisco. and i have questions and i know that you have touched on them a little bit about the mitigating traffic in the neighborhood. director garcia and i have had conversation and director ed riskin and conversations with the others who are equally concerned, what is the over all strategy to insure that we are not allowing cars to drive through the neighborhood i am
talking about kansas street. with he have had conversations during the rebuild and make tg seismically sound and we had problems with traffic congestion particularly the shuttles peeding on kansas. ucsf in particular changed the contractor that was the man doing the shuttling and that actually helped with the speed of the shuttles in the neighborhood. there was certain of spillage and we are losing i think, 130 parking spots if i am not mistaken, and concerned that the people will be parking in the neighborhood, can you talk a little. >> we do have a transportation manager who will be looking at all of those issues and we are also looking at off site. you will have the construction and make sure that they are parking off site and that is the first population and then we
will working with the transportation manager to manage those kinds of comment from the community as we meet with the community and we will try the mitigation as they identify issues. and again this effort that i am trying to get with transportation and the departments that are work rg in the 24th street area to come together to insure that we are responding to the community concerns. as we identify no, sir we will be working on those and we have a list of things that have identified to us. >> great. this transportation manager i would love to be aible to get a commitment from this manager. for quick and thorough responses sometimes, i know that it takes a little bit of time to vet alternative routes, but if we can start to and if there is some way to build in the system some efficiency, in terms of time, you hear a -- you get a request in the e-mail or a phone
call, that there is a response, saying hey we are looking into it or here, how we are planning to solve the problem and just looking to insure that there is no gap in time. >> absolutely. >> that is a good customer service practice. and i will take full responsibility to make sure that manager responds in that manner. >> all right. >> there was the questions and i know that in initial presentation there was a slight discussion about the tdm program, and chaired the land use committee on monday where we passed out a few amendments to the tdm program. what and that is the transit management plan, is there a specifically addressing? >> this is the manager that i am talking about. ? ethat is their job to previed us transportation, shuttle or lockers for individuals and we have done a lot of work with mta around our buses as you know.
number 33 was glowing to be eliminated and that was going to cause lots of congestion for us and so working with all of the departments. >> so this transportation manager is this person already hired? >> yes. >> they are on our time. >> they are working? >> yes, >> are they here today snchlt >> they are not here, but i will introduce you to her so that you have a personal relationship with her. >> i also have spent a lot of time as has barbara french with folks from the hill and from the boosters as well as the dog patch neighborhood on a slightly different and nuanced project that is happening in the dog patch. but i wanted to say with the for beings that are weighing in that i want to give voice to some of their concerns that they have written and it has to do with the air quality control, how does the eir address the air quality control?
part of the measures of the region and the health commission adopted include in them requirements for both the general contractor the builder to adhere to those air quality standards just like we did when we built a new hospital. they will be doing on sight monitoring throughout the construction and looking at debris, traffic issues any sort of mess sures of having a building constructd on that site. >> that is good. i will say that i think general, and parts of the hospitals that are in the mission bay area, have done a really good job of understanding the concerns of the neighborhoods and have showed a willingness to empathize. >> and another one is the helicopter, and that is a charged issue for years, prior to my election, but i heard