to improve the technology, modernize the equipment for the justice department, and we have been working with the mayor's budget office and dhr to fill the positions related to justice, so i think we are tackling the problem on the systems, and i think it will be more reliable in the future. supervisor mirkarimi: and is part of attacking the problem recruiting the cro -- cfo from the department? absolutely. >> is there anyone else who wants to speak? >> i just want to say, ♪ good

luck with your license on paul street good luck with your license on paul street and make the money fly make it fly up, up and away, with telx and paul street up, up and away with item 2. >> are there any other public comments or anyone who would like to speak on item two? then public comment is closed. the item that is before the committee, i know there might be an additional question. one is around the flexibility of

the city to be able to exit, and from my understanding of it, there are two the we are talking about. there is also the renewals. was there any opportunity for the city to potential shorten that to get out of the lease earlier or to help us understand whether this is a possible agreement in terms of flexibility? >> we think that the structure with the main item before you is the five years, with an exit after three, plus an ability to go up or down, depending on whether we are increasing not or decreasing services, so we do have a cost differential as a potential, so if there is a beginning of a migration out

before three years, we do have an ability to capture some savings, and then, going forward, we're just not sure it is realistic given the provisions before the date of exit, so we are thinking what is presented is probably the best we are going to get, also looking at what the master tenant is looking for what they will receive for providing this to the city. this helps us get a better price. supervisor: so what i am understanding is we have a five- year lease with an option to terminate the notice? so a three-year lease, but we also have the option to limit

the side to that we are leasing, even before that period? >> yes, with notice and provisions. supervisor: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: madam chairman, i unwilling to make a motion for both of these items, it reluctantly -- i am willing. to make a motion for both of these items, reluctantly. the review period, to the board of supervisors, on a six-month basis. supervisor note -- chair chu: there is a motion to support this. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am not prepared to do that.

i think we need to have presentations within six months, but i want to see a plan that really consolidates this, and that is why i would be much more interested in a shorter license agreement, just so that there is a mechanism by which the department could hold the department of technology accountable, so, i mean, i really want to see that timeline. i understand technological needs. i think that probably, this mission probably have happened a long time ago -- this move probably should have happened a long time ago. with a differential over 20 years, down to $28 million with city-owned property, to me, i really want to explain that a little bit more.

the 10-year plan for the city, whether we have talked about this, to be able to have up- front costs for the city property, because i think in the long term, the cost differential, this is not insignificant. i understand having two different ones, but that makes sense to me. also, i kind of want to hear more concrete terms about what is planned to put in the airport, but that is what would make me more comfortable about supporting this in the future. chair chu: thank you, supervisor. is there anything you can add about funding, whether that is part of a capital fund for a city-and facility? -- a city-owned facility? >> i appreciate the supervisors

comments. historically, the request has been in the capital plan, and we have yet found a way to fund the program. chair chu: any other comments from the mayor's budget office? >> madam chair, there is a question about whether the intent is to provide funding in the budget for the consolidation of data centers at the plant facility. c -- planned facility? chair chu: no, i think it is about a future data center. we talked previously from the comptroller's office above the cost potentially of having to make investments to retrofit a facility. is that part of the capital plan at this time? >> absolutely. supervisor chu, capital planning

staff had been involved since the beginning, and actually were part of the leadership in some of the early studies on data centers, the issues, and facilities, and investment, so it absolutely was flagged as part of that capital planning discussion, and i think it is viewed similarly by the capital planning staff from what you have heard today. chair chu: thank you.

supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: again, what is the differential? >> it is approximately $1.90 million total. i have a monthly in front of me. i have that off the top of my head. what we are currently paying in one market is closer to $1 million a year annually. however, i will say that we are on a month-to-month agreement in one market, and the rent has fluctuated. if we have played up to $1.50 million for that place -- and we have paid up to $1.50 million for that place. supervisor mirkarimi: this is not an overlay of apples to apples, but to show sort of the ongoing concerns of frustrations, we had passed a law that said we would want them to implement at a cost of $75,000 per year, not a month, a year for the ongoing stream

before the committees and commissions that exist at the board of supervisors and city government, city hall, that are not covered. dt helps us develop the legislation. it was passed, a super majority passed by the board of supervisors. three years later, it still has not been implemented, and yet the cost was 75,000 per year. actually, it was less than that. and now we're talking about a monthly expenditure. it begs the question that i think speaks to the larger concerns, why cannot we actually really make the package division of what we want, in a way that i think we had launched, even several years ago? and that is what i feel like, you guys and we are in kind of a jam, where you need to make a move. there is very the option to not make that move, and i think this

is indicative of how things have sort of been in this transition towards consolidation. i am hoping that this is coming to an end, as soon, of what your transition has been. this has been a long transition in some ways in consolidation, and it would be nice that along the way, seeing whatever blossoms from the final product that you look back to things that have not been implemented. and, frankly, that $70,000, on an annual, which is why we are sort of scratching our heads about doing this on a monthly, so if it means increasing access to the citizenry of listening it to the committees and commissions that are not well covered, neither by sfgtv or any other medium, television access, then at least, the very minimum

is that i think that we turn back to those on realized proposals that are really cheap on a dime and make them happen, and then i think it makes these kinds of questions a little more palatable to us. does that make sense? >> it does. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. chair chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. number one, we have a motion to amend the motion by supervisor mirkarimi, to allow for and require that there is a reporting that is done by dt in terms of consolidation efforts every six months, twice a year. can we take that without objection? [gavel] so the item has been amended. there is also concern with regard to making a recording that is now required as part of the amended legislation. just a general update at some

point in time about future consolidation efforts. i think supervisor kim pointed out about -- concretely wanting to know what that looks like, which departments will be part of that consolidation efforts, also about the staffing that is associated with that, so at some point in time, i would like to see that update come back to this board. perhaps, is as simple as getting information about what was passed in december as an initial starting point for this committee to hear what that consolidation looks like and to start to move them forward, so i would be happy to work with supervisor kim on that, so with that, we have a final piece of amended legislation. do we have a vote to send this forward, as amended, knowing also that supervisor kim would also like to have further conversations about the lease provision before the vote? >> if the chair would not mind,

i just want to apologize for a mistake i made in basic terms. i think it is important that we have this correct. my apologies for not getting this correct. it is an ability to exit after two years, not three. my apologies. two years, with a nine-month prior notice. this is a little different than we discussed, and it is a two- your exit, not three. -- a two-year exit. it is a fairly significant advance notice, but yet, we do have an earlier that discussed exit provision. chair chu: ok, i believe that supervisor mirkarimi had the motion to move it forward reluctantly, as do i, knowing this could result in a consolidation in the future and a better facility. why do we not take the role on that? -- roll on that?

clerk young: [reading roll] the motion passes, and this will be recommended to the board. chair chu: thank you. are there any other items? clerk young: that completes the agenda. chair chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban setting. you would simply see different groves that gives you a sense of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away.

he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim. it's extremely popular. many fights in the city, as you know, about dogs in parks. we have 317 acres and god knows there's plenty of room for both of us. man and his best friend. early in the morning people before they go to work will

walk their dogs or go on a jog themselves with their dogs. joggers love the park, there's 7 miles of hiking trails and there's off trail paths that hikers can take. all the recreational areas are heavily used on weekends. we have the group picnic area which should accommodate 200 people, tennis courts are full. it also has 3 playground areas. the ampitheater was built in 1972. it was the home of the first blues festival. given the fact that jerry garcia used to play in this park, he was from this neighborhood, everybody knows his reputation. we thought what a great thing it would be to have an ampitheater named after jerry garcia. that is a name that has panache. it brings people from all over

the bay area to the ampitheater. the calls that come in, we'd like to do a concert at the jerry garcia ampitheater and we do everything we can to accommodate them and help them because it gets people into the park. people like a lot of color and that's what they call a park. other people don't. you have to try to reconcile all those different points of view. what should a park look like and what should it have? should it be manicured, should it be nice little cobblestones around all of the paths and like that. the biggest objective of course is getting people into the park to appreciate open space. whatever that's going to take to make them happy, to get them there, that's the main goal. if it takes a planter with flowers and stuff like that, fine. you know, so what? people need to get away from that urban rush and noise and this is a perfect place to do

it. feedback is always amazement. they don't believe that it's in san francisco. we have visitors who will say, i never knew this was here and i'm a native san franciscoan. they wonder how long it's been here. when i tell them next year we'll get to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the park,k,