report to the chief's office again as you used to be. >> great. president mazzucco: as a commission, we would need to do this. mandate about checking in with -- about ptsd. what we like to mandate they have three mandatory visit stacks -- three mandatory visits? >> we will make it a direct report and we will figure out how long this goes in including the other suggestions and we will give you a final report. >> we were talking about this offline. something you have to mandate, we can touch 1111 but these are great ideas. the chief said he would do what

he can to mandate each and everyone. it is important for the officers and we appreciate that. >> is the idea to combat -- come back, what will look like? if we put these into action? >> we will look at the existing policies. if there is any and we will modify its to see what has been discussed tonight. >> the existing policies outside the department? >> right now there is an officer involved shooting policy that mandates one visit. we will amend that policy. we have what we call all hands meetings, quarterly meetings for all the tenants. we have -- could have one of these dedicated so they get their annual training there. i do not think this is the forum to do it. we will sit down and figure it

out. >> as long as we have a time like this, is this something that commission is prioritizing? what would be a good time to come back with a report on what action steps you would suggest? >> before we get further, steve johnson from the poa is here. is there anything you would like to add? >> thank you, commissioner. this is one of the most important items, helping the members out. they do a tremendous amount of work and we try to work with them. any support you can give them would be greatly appreciated. thank you. president mazzucco: thank you. is there any public comment regarding this presentation?

>> >> we brought of the suicide rate and the unauthorized use by a policeman. correct me if i'm wrong. i always call them officers. is this information available to all policemen of all ranks which was clear that it was not. i saw that it was not clear whether the suicide rate was related to a police officer in combat or a police officer that had fired his weapon or not fired his weapon. this is an interesting topic.

in afghanistan, they were running 30 suicides a month. it is not clear where we are on this. i think this is a great topic to be discussed and it should be available to every police officer in the city and county of san francisco. i am aware that at the -- center, my father was in the u.s. military and intelligence. they had an anonymous hot line that you could call. i will leave it at that. >> any further public comment?

hearing none -- >> it looks like at about october 12th or so, we will get a report back. >> thank you for being amenable to this. >> item number6 is all matters pertaining to item 8 below. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is asking for public comment it involving confidential matters. is there any public comment? >> item number7, a vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >> i move that we move into closed session. >> second, all in favor. >>

>> we're back in open session. we have a quorum. >> thank you. do i have a motion on whether or not we should disclose matters held in closed session? all in favor? the next line. >> item 10, adjournment. president mazzucco: so moved. all in favor? thank you very much.

>> you can see that it is amazing. you can hear that it is refreshing. you reach for it because it is irresistible. and the taste. simply delicious. san francisco tap water. it engages the senses. 311 is an important resource for all san franciscans. should >> hello, welcome to a regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. my name is current two.

i am joined by supervisor kim. supervisor mirkarimi will not be joining us today. the clerk today is victor young. we have mark and bill from sfgtv. >> please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please provide a speaker card and turn them in to myself. if you present any documents, please include a copy to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on center 20, 2011 unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi has requested that we recusing. we can take that without objection. call item number 1. >> resolution authorizing an increase in the assessor- recorder's base recording fee for recording and indexing the first page of every instrument, paper, or notice from $3.10 dollars pursuant to california government code section --

section 27361(a). supervisor chu: thank you. this is brought to us by supervisor kim, and the ss r is here. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to thank supervisor kim for carrying this legislation. it is fairly simple. pursuant to senate bill 676 in 2009, it allows us to increase the fees for the first page that we file on various documents up to $10. that fee, which is currently $4, would be proposed to be increased to $10. this would allow us to cover greater costs. we estimate currently that the fee, the cost to process these papers is about $24. at this point, with this new fee, we would be recovering about $10 for that. so it would still be about a $14 subsidy. this puts us in line with other counties.

alameda county charges $18. after we add in all the other fees in terms of access, indexing, social security feet, and the fraud protection fee, the fee goes up from $11 to $70. this is in line with alameda county, which is $11 -- $18. santa clara is $18. san mateo is $15, but they do not charge a frothy. i would be happy to take any questions or to walk you through any concerns you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. the clarification is that we have an amendment of the hole that would change the basic record number from $3 to $4 -- that was just a simple typo? >> madam chair, it was just a change in reference to the existing fee. so it is not a change at all in

the fee and does not require any kind of continuance. supervisor chu: in terms of the cost recovery, it costs us about $24. even if we increase it to the $10 rate, we still would not be the full cost recovery? >> correct. supervisor chu: thank you. if we do not have comments, why don't i go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, supervisor kim, the assessor estimates that this proposed base increase $6 to generate approximately $1.2 million, resulting in a total estimated annual base fee revenue of a little over $2 million for reporting documents. -- fort recording documents. supervisor chu: thank you. it's up in this up for public comment. do any members of the public was to speak on this item? aca none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, can we take the amendment as a whole? >> yes. >> we will do that without objection. supervisor ken, did you have any comments? supervisor kim: no, just that i was glad we brought this up. i am glad we could raise some of our fees closer to what it costs us to put this together. supervisor chu: thank you. the item has been an amendment, or an amendment of the whole has been accepted. to the new document, there is no continuance required, and we can take that without objection. thank you. item number two, please. >> item number two, resolution approving and authorizing the execution of modification number one of lease and use agreements l-10-0081 with cathay pacific airways and evicted for lounged in the international terminal of san francisco international airport. supervisor chu: thank you.

we have a member of sfo. >> the airport is seeking every approval to our existing lease with cathay pacific airways. the airlines wishes to expand its current square footage to include any additional exclusive space in the international terminal so that they can build a passenger lounge. cathay pacific airways currently leases 2,616 square feet of the exclusive use space and 631,000 square feet of a joint use common use space in the international terminal. the proposed modification would allow for an additional 5664 square feet of exclusive space so that the airline can build a passenger lounge at their sole expense. improvements associated are estimated to be approximately $2 million to be paid for by the airline. this carries an additional

annual rent to the airport of $917,000. the budget analyst has recommended the approval, and i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. let's go to the budget analyst report on this item. >> madam chair, supervisor kim, as shown on table two, page four of our report, the total annual rent proposed under the lease, which is payable by cathay pacific airways to the airport, is a little over $6 million. that is $917,000 or $2 more than the $5.1 million currently being paid by cathay pacific airways to the airport. however, because cathay pacific airways has already been paying this additional rent for the added 5006 injured 64 square

feet of space under a permit that the airport reworded to cathay pacific airways, the airport would continue to receive the same annual rent for the duration of the lease. there is no additional rent here. it is just going from rent being paid under the permit to rent being paid under this proposed modified lease if you approve this modification. under the airport's breakeven policy, this release modification would not have a direct physical impact on the airport. we do recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. given that we do not have any other questions, can we take this item without objection? ok, we will move this item forward with recommendations. item three, please. >> hearing to consider release of reserved funds, port commission, the amount of

$17,907,635 to fund the pier 27 mixed use cruise terminal project. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have a member of the court with us. >> good morning. the port of san francisco is asking for release of the reserve are in the amount of $17,907,635. by way of background, these were originally appropriated in 2003 by ordinance, which acted as a supplemental appropriation with the intended use being the wharf project and the cruise terminal project. the source of funds are from the sale of seawell lot 330 and deferred land sale proceeds from the water mark. since that time in 2003, the land lease proposal for the mixed use cruise terminal project is no longer being pursued, and a blue ribbon crewuise terminal proposed pier

27. as you know, the america's cup event is a link to this pier 27 at project, and those projects are under environmental review. if approved, the cruise terminal building will be used as a special event for the america's cup for races, a team basis, and the pier will be the starting an end point of the match. this relationship requires a two-phased project. phase one is estimated to begin march 1 through january 2013. the development of the shell. phase two will be done after the event for interior improvements, border and customs offices, and maritime expert men. we were here in may with the committee reviewing fiscal feasibility. we provided much more detail at that time. the subject release of reserves

would be for phase one. design and project management. the structural steel order and other construction costs which would be pursued following project approval, should the project be approved. ceqa is now underway on the cruise terminal project and the america's cup event. we have more than 1400 meaningful public, and speed of the city's working hard to develop legally meaningful responses to those comments. the port commission and the city are pursuing this project because the cruise industry brings two hundred thousand passengers to the city. it brings jobs and benefits to the city. the project will enhance the city as a destination for tourists. they're also the northern waterfront improvements. it will be part of the 34th america's cup to the week at -- it will be part of the 34th america's cup. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst

report. >> madam chair in supervisor kim, she has provided us with budget data, shown on page four of our report. all of this $17.9 million would be expended for phase one of the project. as we note on pages five and six of our report, the port provided us with attachments showing the entire project. so this $17.9 million becomes a portion of the phase one costs, shown on page 5 of our report. the phase one costs are $60.1 million. the estimated completion date of this project, which is shown on page four at the bottom, is january 2013, not april 2012, which was listed in the report. we recommend that you approve

the requested least -- release of the $17.9 million. these are funds that were previously appropriated but reserved by the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you very much. why don't we open this up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? have only one speaker card. >> yes, a good morning. my name is terry shore. i am with turtle in the last hurdle island restoration network. we have been following the development of a cruise ship terminal for quite a number of years. as proposed, i must say that we oppose the proposed appropriation of $17.9 million for the cruise ship terminal project as written. for these reasons -- there are three key reasons for this.

one is the document refers to the relocation of shoreside power, which was revealed last year and unveiled in october 2010, which allows cruise ships to turn off their huge diesel engines and plug into the clean air electrical grid. this was a $5 million project, publicly funded by the city of san francisco and a number of agencies. that was projected to save about 97 tons of air pollution per year. what this document does not point out is that in relocating the shoreside power for a number of years from 2012, 2013, and now it looks like until the end of 2014, the port has not proposed any air quality medications that would offset the loss of these emissions benefits. our organization and another -- a number of other stockholders recently sent a letter to the city on this issue, and we

believe it is premature to appropriate the funds to the city of san francisco for the pier 27 project. the eir has not been approved. no mitigation seven proposed, allied or adopted. bcdc and other agencies still need to take action on approval of this project. there many health risks that will occur due to the loss of the air quality benefits. i would urge the supervisors to take the following actions. one, consider delaying this item until the port and the city of san francisco provide a written commitments to mitigating the loss of these air emissions. b, direct the port as a condition of his appropriation to provide an updated progress report on the mitigation to stakeholders specifically. and/or, 3, hold a public briefing, a public hearing, in this committee or the fault

supervisors, within two weeks so that the port may provide a look at what it is looking at. the port says they are looking at the issues and are concerned and working on it. but unfortunately, stakeholders have not been engaged, and we're not clear where, when, and why. we think this is a very important issue and really appreciate your consideration. i wish we could have done more for at work on this, but we just found about this item late yesterday afternoon. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. i have one other speaker card, diane bailey. >> good morning. my name is diane b. look at i am a scientist with the natural resources defense council. i share my colleagues' concern that she just discussed with you. i want to reiterate her recommendation to you. i think it is very important to take a step back and really

consider the environmental impacts to the air quality and health impact. we are concerned that these impacts are not being properly mitigated, and we have no assurances at this time that they will be mitigated, although we understand that discussions are underway. therefore, we respectfully request that a commitment be made as a part of the financial agreement for this project that any air quality impacts through discontinuation of the shore power facility at the cruise terminal be fully medicated before the project financing goes forward. and whether that requires taking a step back from making a commitment today, that might be difficult to do, so we think it is imperative to appalled that commitment. the eir has not been approved. through our review of the eir, we were disappointed to see that there was a lack of substantial

litigation that was proposed to deal with this issue. the issue was really somewhat ambiguous in the discussion in the eir. thankfully, there is a very long list of medications that could be implemented to address these air quality issues. -- a list of mitigations that could be implemented to address these air quality issues. there has been difficulty with the communication. we understand there are discussions under way with the air districts and other parties to consider mitigations. but we're concerned that there are no assurances that these air quality impacts will be a properly taken care of. so we urge your consideration. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any their members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> yes, i apologize. it might like. i am jennifer, president of san francisco tomorrow. the shoreside power that is currently hooked up at pier 27 is a publicly-funded asset that

is used by cruise ships when they visit said they did not have to turn on their engines. so it is a public benefit that is improving public health. it is going to be discontinued for about two to two and a half years. and this funding will allow the disassembly of that shoreside power, which is why we are asking that this particular item be tabled for approximately two weeks and that you use your influence, since we fill the port has been sluggish in sharing their information with us, we would like you to use your influence to tell the port that you like them to solve this problem before you approve the funding. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. first off, i do want to thank the members of the public for

speaking on this item. for this item, this has long been a project that has been part of the port, has had a long history, and is clearly not interrelated with the america's cup event that the city is looking to host or to complete. in terms of the environmental impact report, i think there is a good point, there is currently an environmental impact report that is being prepared both for the cruise ship terminal but also for america's cup. i know that there has been a large amount of public comment and public interest in this project, and rightly so. given that this is so important, i would feel more comfortable leaving on reserve those items and more associated with the construction on the project and continuing forward with the items that are the planning aspect of this. i have a question for the port. there is about $17.9 billion -- $17.9 million being requested.

what portion is related to the construction? >> of the $17.9 million, $9.456 million is needed now. and thank you for the question. i prepared an overhead for you. so $1.167 is for dpw. $2.239 are for services. we can continue the reserve for shoreside power. we appreciate the public comments. this issue is subject right now to the ceqa review. there are substantial comments related to this topic. the port is working with the districts and the epa.