attachment in the package. similarly, unfortunately, this is the curse of cutting and pasting sometimes, for item 7 on page two, line 15, same change in revising the date from april 26, 2011 to may, 14, 2010. we respectfully request to make that amendment. supervisor chu: just to clarify, what was the second one on item number seven? >> that is line 15, page two, revising the date of every 26, 2011 to may 14, 2010. >> and these are not substantive and would not require a continuance. >> yes, and i am happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: just a quick question.

there was talk about how was necessary to extend the contract for a year, given it took longer to finalize the agreement or the term. can you speak a little bit about that? >> certainly. i think the representative can also addressed this. because this is such a new type of development, interim use, there were some conflicts that we recognized moving forward in the permitting process. so we needed to adjust some of the terms of the lease to allow for some of the creative ways to bring interest -- to bring infrastructure to support these temporary improvements. those were really a around finding ways to be able to deliver interim improvements that have the infrastructure necessary there, everything from the power to other services. supervisor chu: great. do you have any other comments from city staff?

i see we have a representative from oewd. and we have a representative from proxy also. >> good morning. my name is douglas, and i am the principle of envelops architecture and design and also the sole member of proxy development, which was created for this project. i do not have prepared remarks. i can comment on the need for the lease extension, which really had to do with the fact that the building department really did not know what to do with the approvals of our process. because we're using reconditioned shipping containers. it was a very unusual thing for them to approve an kind of a first in the city, although this has been done in other cities. it really had never been done in san francisco, so it was a pretty intensive process and

ended up delaying us in moving forward with the whole project. supervisor chu: thank you. for these two items, we do not have a budget analyst report. so let's open these two items for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can entertain a motion to amend six and seven as articulated, item six, and lines 24 to read may 14, 2010. i * 7, to amend page two, 15, the same day, april 26, 2011 to may 14, 2010. we can take that without objection. on the underlying item as amended, can we send those forward with recommendations? we can do that without objection. thank you. the ok, item number 8. >> item number 8, resolution authorizing the release of 1360

mission street, suite 401, for the department of public health. supervisor chu: thank you. we have john updike . >> and good morning, again. the overhead shows the location of 1360 mission street, the lease before you today. this is really quite an active area, lots of discussion about improvements and new tenants in this area. we are only one block away from another location. we have passed-escalating rents in the area and a new dynamic that is happening. the good news is we have managed to negotiate the release before you with a decrease in the basic rental rate. i am pleased at staff's work on this, both my team and the

department of public health and mercy, working in collaborative lead to bring this before you. this serves the sexually transmitted diseases sections. they have about 6300 square feet here. the lease before you is a five- year lease with an option for extension of an additional two years. it reduces the base rate currently paid, about 16.7%. according to the budget analyst report. with this standard increases on an annual basis thereafter capped in the range of 2% to 5%. other firms are fairly standard in nature, but there are some improvements that are to be brought to the building within about six months of commencement by mercy. then there are some improvements that dph has made recently for telecom, and that is about a $16,000 investment. i believe we have a dph

representative here if you have specific questions about the program. supervisor chu: thank you. let's move to the budget analyst report on this item. >> as stated by mr. updike and john on the top of page four of our report, -- and shown on at the top of page four, approval would result in the first year rental reduction of 26,500 devaney $7 -- $26,877. on the bottom of page 8 of the report is the total cost of the proposed lease over the five years ranges from 707,896 to $750,624. that does not include some installation costs of $16,450. we recommend you approve this

resolution. supervisor chu: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. to the item, can we move this forward with recommendations? we can do that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome to the public safety meeting. we understand supervisor campos

will be joining us certainly. madame clerk, could you please read items #one, to, three, and for? >> item 1, a resolution authorizing the fire department to spend a grant in the amount of $230,000 from the federal emergency management agency for fiscal year 2007, a supplemental port security grant program for assets to enhance the fire department's water-based response capabilities and increase its protection of the port of san francisco and the san francisco bay. item #2, authorizing the fire department to spend a grant in the amount of $7,870,484 from the federal emergency management ag and seat for the fiscal year 2008 port security grant program to enhance the fire department's water-base response capabilities

and increase its protection of the port of san francisco and san francisco bay. item 3, authorizing the fire department to accept an expanded grant of 645120 -- $645,000 for the security bent -- for $645,125 to increase its protection of the port of san francisco and san francisco bay. item #4, authorizing the fire department to accept and expand a grant in the amount of 107,000 to enter $96 from the federal emergency management agency for the purchase and installation of seven commercial washer extractors to clean personal protective a quick assessment. -- personal protective equipment. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> i'm here on behalf of the

fire department to present the first four items on the agenda. the first three are resolutions requesting approval by the board of supervisors to authorize the department to except and expend approximately 8.7 $5 million related to water and pour-based projects. -- approximately $8.75 million related to water-based projects. the department applied for the program coordinated by with assistance from the united states coastguard. in january of this year, the far apart was notified we were awarded eight projects totaling $8.75 million. this is one of the grant programs under the federal department of homeland's security. the purpose is to increase management at the nation's ports and protect the nation support infrastructure. these projects are water-based

and designed to enhance the port and a response capabilities. the san francisco bay qualifies as a highest risk status as a port. the three different fiscal year grants for a total of $237,000, the 2008 grant is for $7.9 million, and the 2010 grant is approximately $650,000. it is good news in the current economic climate. there are no matching funds required by the department for any of these projects. the largest project is in the 2008 fiscal year both in scope and financial size, a new type to fireboat. currently, there are two fireboats and they're both over 15 years old. this would allow the department to purchase a new fire boat. the department is not actually receiving the money from. a fiduciary agent has been set up and we will be working with

them for reimbursement. the department is very excited about these upcoming projects, more so in light of america's cup coming to san francisco. we request you move these to the full board for approval. on the fourth item, an additional grant from, a resolution to have the department approved a grant for the purchase of installation of several wash extractors for the department. in august of last year, the board of supervisors passed a resolution at -- recommending a gift of five washer extractors to be used to clean personal protective equipment of members. these were donated by the san francisco fire fighters cancer prevention center. at the time, we were working with the cancer foundation and applying through for a grant of the dish -- of an additional seven washer extractors for a total of 12. the department was awarded the grand earlier this year. the total cost is 140 --

$134,000. a match is required which comes to a cost inc. to department's budget. the total amount of federal funds is $107,296, that is the 80% federal contribution. these machines are heavy-duty machines used to clean personal protective a quip and white coats and pants over the course of responding to incidents, they could be sought with toxins etc., so the goal is to increase not all health and safety department members but reduce wear and tear of personal protective gear and help them out by washington. i'm happy to answer any questions. supervisor mirkarimi: this is all pretty straightforward. is there any change in staffing? >> no. supervisor mirkarimi:

colleagues, any question? is there any public comment? public, disclosed. we take this with recommendation. so moved. madame clerk, item no. 5. >> a resolution authorizing the district attorney to renew its current agreement with the california victims' compensation and government claims board, an agency of the state of california, for a revolving fund and the amount of $75,000 to be used to pay for verified funeral and burial expenses for eligible homicide victims and emergency relocation for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault from the july 1, 2011 through june 30th, 2014. supervisor mirkarimi: good morning. welcome. >> i'm from the district attorney's office. we have a contract with the state victim's compensation program. the revolving fund is full of money that allows us to make

payments faster to providers, victims, and their families. if there is a homicide, we are able to pull the money out for the funeral burial expenses within a couple of days, otherwise we would have to wait for a longer process. this pool of money allows us to do that. homicide cases, domestic violence, and sexual assault cases. supervisor mirkarimi: sometimes my office and i know others have had to intervene to get assistance for victims families who do not have the wherewithal to pay for funeral expenses and other accessory costs. does it get to a point where we exceed the capacity of money made available to the city in being able to assist that population, especially if the population is increase relative to the homicide rate? >> know, we have not run out of funds to assist homicide victims

and their families. i would imagine it's a rare case when there is outside involvement needed to get these expenses paid. for example, when a homicide happens, the crisis response team responds immediately, they go up to the scene of every homicide. we have a close working relationship with the crt professionals and they will walk family members to our office. if that does not happen, our advocates reject immediately, but the contact information from the medical examiner, and start making contact as soon as a homicide has occurred. this is something we work on quickly. the homicides, we do not wait. the only wrinkle is the state has tightened up their interpretation of their guidelines for eligibility. so whereas a case in the past where there is a homicide and the victim may be was engaged in a drug deal, that would still go through. today, that would be tougher to push through because the state is looking at whether the victim contributed or was involved in

the crime. >> all the dollars associated our state driven, is there any match local dollars at all? >> there is no local match. >> is there a need for added assistance of local dollars or what is provided for by the state is sufficient? >> in terms of their appalling fund, that has been working well. when we get to item number six, the general victim compensation staffing, the dollars, we have taken a cut to that grand, so we have had to pick up one of the positions on the general fund, so there is additional need their. >>supervisor campos: i'm wonderg if you can give us information as far as how many families have benefited from this service? >> our data is not real good. the state keeps the data.

what i can tell you is for fiscal year 2009-2010, we paid out over $3 million in benefits to victims, their families and providers. that was for a total of 1120 cases filed in san francisco. that's not the number of victims we see, that is closer to 4000, but the number of applications was 1720. -- supervisor campos: what is the rate at which applications are approved or denied? what is the percentage in terms of applications that are approved? >> i don't know the answer to that and it depends on the benefit. in this last fiscal year, the numbers are lower for approval because of state guidelines. supervisor campos: what i am trying to get to is to have an understanding of how what we are

doing relates to the need that is out there and i think that requires having a better sense of how many people are applying, how many people are seeking help, who actually ends up getting the help, and to the extent applications are denied, what the basis for that and i'll is -- the bases for that and i'll are. -- for that denial are. >> i don't know if i will have the breakdown, but i think we do have the percentage of approvals and denials. supervisor campos: i think it is something we as a city should be aware of and have that information. to the extent this is a state- run program, where there may be a need where a gap needs to be filled, we need to be mindful or aware of that. i don't know where the money for

something like that would come from, but it's something we should consider and certainly look into. to do that, to have a sense of whether or not there's a need for the city to step in and supplement what the city is doing, we need to find out what the need is and we need to get a better sense of the way of the land. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: following along the lines of the supervisor campos, a want to know which department manages this data. >> it is the california victim compensation claims board. supervisor cohen: is this a politically appointed board? >> is appointed by the governor. supervisor cohen: all seats? >> yes. supervisor cohen: do you have the information on what the average payment to each family is? >> i do not. i don't know if they would have

it. supervisor cohen: so say my son is killed and i live in public housing. i make an application, where do i find that application? >> in the d.a.'s office. supervisor cohen: then who reviews it? >> the claims staff employed by the d.a.'s office. supervisor cohen: then what happens? >> it will determine eligibility and send it to the state. supervisor cohen: does the state have final say? do they have the ability to overturn the decision made at a local level? >> they do. supervisor cohen: i suspect you probably don't know what that ratio is. >> i do not. supervisor mirkarimi: just picking up on the threat of this discussion, who advocates for the victims' families to the state? is that you? >> yes. that is the advocates in the victims' services division. because of the problems we're

having now with the state's tightening up their guidelines, advocates have become experts on the appeal process. they're ready to assist them throughout the process. >> i would think part of -- supervisor mirkarimi: i would think part of that advocacy would be to be well equipped with statistics as to who is getting the kind of funding necessary and is getting rejected. i think that would empower san francisco to be more vocal either to the state or signal to the city government that state is not helping to the degree they should so maybe we need to step in. i have to tell you, less than one month ago, i had to spend a very sad morning with the mother whose son was murdered in hayes valley. she was very distressed and it was hard to have a measure discussion, but she was not getting assistance. her office did have to call on

the expenses that she felt completely overwhelmed, and very distressed about. not that i expect your office to be the ones that fix it all, but it bubbles up quite a bit that we have had to intervene from our office over the years to try to usher people through the process. i do not believe this is as smooth as it sounds like, and i have a feeling there's a larger population out there getting rejected then we are aware of. it would be nice to know that for sure because it is anecdotal. >> i think it would be nice to have the data. the process is rarely smooth because you're dealing with families that have suffered a devastating loss. the first time they come to our office, sometimes they don't even remember they have been there. it's not uncommon for them to go to another office and say no is helping me when they have been

held to the rest of our ability. but we cannot help everything and we cannot make the pain go away. we're always open to calls from other agencies for assistance, but those advocates, especially on homicide, i am positive they reached out to that mother before they called you. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it helps to tie the loop up so the d.a.'s office and the victim's witness assistant does not feel alone in this process, that there would be a more collaborative effort so we are at least half of the game, especially if the state is going through the kind of fiscal crisis is going through. that least prepares us so that in the budget committee, which i sit on, we are able to then anticipate potential need. it seems to be relative to the violence rate and homicide rate we have been experiencing, and it has been seesawing quite a bit.

>> we were collectively, so we will accept any help that is available. . supervisor mirkarimi: we may want to have a different relationship so that binds the officers and potentially criminal justice agencies, so that they're a little more alert to the fact that this is a need that needs to be addressed. thank you. we appreciate everything. i do not believe we have anymore questions. any public comment on this item? i did not call the next one, so -- i am ok for now. any public comment? public comment is closed. can we take this without objection? so moved. madame clerk, which call in #6? >> item 6, resolution authorizing the office of the

district attorney retroactively accepting to expand this $714,138 allocated from the california victim compensation and government claims board for a project entitled the joint powers agreement for july 1st, 2011 through june 30th, 2012. >> this is the grant that funds of the staff in the d.a.'s office to handle the applications and all of the bills and outreach that goes on with providers. as i said earlier, the amount of the grant was cut by 5% and we are currently -- which currently holds seven staff members whereas before it was able to pay for eight. we still have eight working on the program because that is what is needed to make it work. supervisor campos: why is the grant retroactive? >> i think that was a timing

issue. it has taken that long to get here. we have been doing the load all along and there has not been a gap in service. supervisor cohen: how many people on staff will this grant cover? >> 7. supervisor cohen: and you are not looking to expand or contract staff? >> we have had eight for a number of years, but only seven are covered by the grand -- to the grant. supervisor cohen: how is the eighth covered? >> to the federal fund. supervisor mirkarimi: the you have a volunteer program? sometimes i hear about people who are motivated by what happens in their neighborhood and want to help. maybe through internship there a particular criteria that is trained, maybe you could update us about that.

>> we have a very robust intern and volunteer program. we currently have six or seven volunteers working on this program, which, without them, i don't know what we would do in terms of phone calls and data entry. we do use that and it supports a lot of our operations. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. keep up the good work. any other public comment? public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take this without objection? so moved. madame clerk, item number seven. >> item #7 is an ordinance amending the san francisco police code by adding sections 4511 dissections613.9.5 to add findings to ordnances requiring a handgun to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock and prohibiting the sale of enhanced lethality ammunition. supervisor