supervisor campos' concern about this. i don't think any of us want to over pay for anything and i was a little taken back by these numbers. i do recognize also that finding comps for unique properties can be difficult. have small properties so it's difficult to find -- repair uses in the city and finding them unavailable and considering moving different services to outside of the city of san francisco which isn't a place for our business community in the city or for the workers who tend those facilities so i am pleased there is a 2-acre site somewhere in the city that can house city services. i guess the concern about the 4 million is somewhat balanced by the question i would like to

ask mr. updike which is what is the cost to the city if we don't do this? is it possible there is another alternative plan for us that maybe more parsimonious? >> thank you supervisor christensen. on the overhead i indicated some of the impacts to delay. we have $1 million in sunk costs related to the ceqa process which in the determination of public works is not transferable to a new site so that is specific to this site that is lost but more importantly is the escalation costs of the construction project. overall this is a $165 million project, 16 million of which is allocated for the acquisition, so the estimate is if we had to secure a new site and go through ceqa for approval of the site and looking at cost to 7- $15 million in inflationary costs of the project assuming the project

did not have to be redesigned so that's a minimum expense for delay. >> okay. supervisor tang. >> thank you. i think supervisor christensen posed one of the questions i was going to ask and the complications we have with passing these general obligation bond measures and the process that we have to engage in because of that. want like a typical sales transaction like buying a private home for example so one of the issues that i wanted to raise going back to the issue with appraisals is although it was done in 2014 based on the information i received and i wanted to confirm this with the director i want to know in what years were the sales that were conducted in that appraisal done? from my understanding it was based on sales that occurred in 2012, 2013, not necessarily buildings of the same comparable size so hence this $11 million

amount so if you can confirm that? and also the fact let's remember when the bond measure came up that there was language in there that authorized the city to spend up to $16 million on purchasing a building, so although it would be nice if it was an amount to go under that legally that's the approved purchase price so if you can respond regarding the appraisal. >> thank you supervisor tang. yes, one of the key issues that we took with the appraisal was that smaller sites were used and the transactions were dated 2011 and 2012 transactions through the appraisers' conclusion. of the comparable sales six of them were not enough large enough for our project. only one of the comparable sales had enough land

mass so the sales were smaller properties. while that allows a person to derive a price per square foot it was about we need 2 acres of land and whatever building came with it is great but we felt the information was a bit dated but that's not unexpected but the sales were much smaller and from our perspective it was not that helpful and we needed the 2-acres. >> thank you and one question about environmental review because it was a bond measure that voters approved first to even be in discussions about the crime lab environmental clearance had to happen before the voters acted on it and hence more complicated in the process. >> it's one of the issues with the bond measure that requires

a bond acquisition measure and we must show site control to complete the ceqa. to come before you so you can make a decision whether the matter should come before the voters so that matters to structure the leases with purchase options far in advance of the project and await the decision of the voters on the project itself. >> okay. supervisor yee. >> thank you madam president. in regards to the two comps that you showed on the screen earlier when were those sales? >> both of those sales supervisor yee occurred in the latter part of 2014, the most recent being the last sale noted which is site size comparable

to the acquisition site but the acquisition price was $35 million. >> okay. when this first purchase was brought to my attention i was taken aback like many of my colleagues here in terms why are we paying so much? so i asked the question why are we paying so much? and i think some of the questions that my colleagues asked today were the same questions i asked mr. updike privately. i asked to speak to me about the rational of this and so forth and i am very appreciative for you to come and meet with me to actually explain what the process is, and what kind of latitude you had in your decision making, and your explanations to me were logical to me, but what came out of that

discussion was we could tighten up the language administratively in terms what we could ask your office to do and not do, and i understand that these type of situations don't occur too often, but when they do occur we should probably have some policies around it where we could give you guidance. it seems like there is very little guidance at this point, so because of your explanation and because of the situation we're in and because of the latest concept you came up i will be supporting this. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. mr. updike could you tell me what activity is going on there now? >> yes supervisor cohen. we are currently using the property for storage of materials for the department of technology, public safety swigz as well as central

shops and vehicles awaiting for repair and actively used under the lease agreement with the ownership? >> how long have we been in that agreement? >> since the summer of 2013 with this board. >> correct me if i am wrong mr. harvey rose -- or we directed harvey to direct you to renegotiate the terms of the purchase? >> that's correct. >> and you were successful in some way getting it reduced down -- not much -- >> very nomally. yes. >> if this item was approved today could you say what the future is for the property? >> this property would be secured for the crime lab and moving from hunter's point and surrounded by development as [inaudible] moving forward with that project and traffic

investigations as part of the hall of justice moving out of that facility as approved in the general obligation bond. >> okay. colleagues i too have expressed an uncomfortable feeling around the $16 million price tag associated with this particular piece of property, but the reality is that finding 2 acres of pdr space is going to continue to be difficult to find, and i do believe that mr. updike has done his best in trying to negotiate the fair market value price. with that said dealing with the go bond makes it very complicated. meaning we go before the voters and see what we're going to do with this property requires us to honor that, but i can tell you as representing district 10 in the bay view that property

owners see dollar signs and they're definitely using this as an opportunity to cash out. i will also say that given the high levels of -- the increasing crime trends that are happening. a lot has to do with our inability to process our crimes and so for me i am going to be approving this measure with looking to the future to be able to get this crime lab up and operational so the other discussion later on to talk about the need and the impact of these crime trends that many of you have experienced in your own district the increase of crimes. now this is a real property acquisition like i said 16 -- 2 acres for $16 million is quite a hefty price. he was successful in getting it reduced somewhat but even through the negotiations -- correct me if i am wrong and the lead

negotiator passed away. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this has been an ongoing process for a while. i hope you join me in supporting this measure. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor avalos. >> thank you president breed. it's interesting we had this same item -- similar item about the crime lab that came before us in 2010. we were looking at a different building for the crime lab and there was a problem with that building. we were trying to do -- design to build contract with the property owner i believe and this is in the mission bay area and we actually threw that out and didn't approve it and wasn't the process and i will the developer bailed out as well if i recall. that was in 2010 so we didn't put the crime lab into that bond, that public safety bond in that year so we did in the

following iteration which was last year. i think the process for this -- it makes mow really me really uncomfortable and the order and the appraisal and the lease, the purchase option agreement, that order of things done and the appraisal done and things done prospectively what the price could be years from now from the out set of the lease. it doesn't makence to have a up or down vote on and i am uncomfortable voting on this but i know there was a lot of work to put this together according to the cap tap plan according to have a new crime lab facility. we have been dealing with a facility that is inadequate for years, perhaps decades and now we have the opportunity to do that. we can't find the precious space for the crime lab and if we kill it and do it again i feel we would come up with a

price greater than what we're getting today even though today feels like it's inflated by $4 million so i feel terrible voting for it but i will vote on it because i don't think the alternative will come our way despite create a process that makes more sense for us. what we have before us is more expensive and that would be an impact on the voters and the tax payers so i'm going to hold my nose and vote for this and i hope we find a new way of going forward and not be in this position again and all we have is a up or down vote and express our discomfort and often it's not enough i want to move forward on the public safety efforts and this lab is a essential part of that so let's move it forward. >> all right. supervisor farrell.

>> thank you president breed and i want to reiterate what my colleagues said and mr. updike thanks for being before us again today. we had this at budget committee and the dialogue we had last week. it's real and i think everyone is uncomfortable with the aggregate numbers but no alternative and costly thinking about alternatives as well talking about today and quite a bit this year. public safety is an increased issue in the city of san francisco so the use isn't relevant and i will be supporting it and i want to say i appreciate all my colleagues comments and mr. updike thank you as well for the willingness to talk to my colleagues and incorporate our comments into the future here at the board of supervisors. >> thank you. supervisor cohen i will come back to you since supervisor mar hasn't had a chance to speak yet. supervisor mar. >> i want to say this is 'deja vu' of the conversation at the

budget committee several times and i want to shout out to harvey rose for raising these issues early on but i feel all of the questions have been answered and i feel obligated to support this as well given the alternatives but i want to appreciate all of the work that has gone into this as supervisor avalos laid out as well. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> let's just call -- put it to a vote now. thank you. >> okay. we were just joined by supervisor kim and so we are voting on item number 17. mr. clerk can you please call the -- oh supervisor kim. >> just in advance i want to explain my vote. based on what i read and seen in voting committee i will vote against the item today. i didn't get to hear the answers. if there are follow up answers to the budget analyst report so i want to make clear the basis for my decision. >> thank you supervisor kim.

mr. clerk can you please call the roll. >> on item 17 supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> no. >> supervisor christensen. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> no. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> there are nine aye's and two no's. >> okay. this resolution is adopted. mr. clerk can you call item 18. >> item 18 is ordinance to amend the arcades in the upper market street neighborhood. >> okay. can you call the roll. >> (calling roll).

>> there are 11 aye's. >> okay. this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. mr. clerk can you please call the next item. >> item 20 is a resolution for the transfer of on sale liquor license at 101 -- >> item 19. >> my apologies. >> number 19 ordinance to amend the police code to require formula retear establishments that entered into a contract with contractors in effect on the dates listed to provide such contractors with copies of the articles of the police code. >> colleagues can we do same house same call. this ordinance is passed on the first reading unanimously. mr. clerk can you call the next item. >> item 20 has been called madam president.

>> colleagues same house and same call. this is passed unanimously. next item please. >> item 21 is for the administrative code establishing the gun violence prevention task force. >> supervisor cohen. >> >> excuse me. thank you very much. colleagues i want to thank you for hearing this important item that affects all of us. back in september i asked for an audit of the violence prevention services. this report uncovered useful information what we're doing in our city to prevent violence. over the last five years we have spent $208 million on violence prevention. $208 million. this report also highlights that given all of the dollars that we're spending that we have no method in place to determine whether all of the efforts are to prevent violence are effective or ineffective. in

the last 48 hours there have been three homicides in the southeast. however many of our resources have been allocated to the mission and the south of market. though the neighborhoods have real challenges with public safety much of the violence we're seeing today in the city happens to be in the bay view and the western edition. i had two horrific incidents leaving three people dead and last year lost 45 lives to violence and this year 26 in this year -- 26 days into the new year we have already lost nine lives and this is unacceptable for a city as great that we say we are so i hope to correct some of the shortcomings and have a coordinated approach with the city departments and the task force using this as a benchmark and move forward collectively.

i want to thank supervisor avalos and president breed for the cosponsorship of this and supervisor farrell is on board. any other takers? okay. supervisor kim is on board. supervisor farrell. normal yee going once -- >> >> campos. is that a yes supervisor christensen? okay. there we go. i appreciate it. so one of prioritys is really focusing on the public safety response. that includes response times to calls of service. that includes how we are allocating our resources. that also includes joining in on a hearing request you will hearing later in the agenda so folks i do hope to have your support. we got a positive recommendation out of the rules committee lasted week and i hope to have unanimous support today. thank you.

>> thank you. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and i want to thank supervisor cohen for the work she's done, not only on the establishment of this task force but also the report, and i look forward to working with you supervisor cohen as you explore in greater detail what the significance of that report is and how we should address the issues raised but one thing i would say is that that sort of stands out to me is we're spending millions of dollars and we have so many departments that are actually -- that have their -- you know, their hands involved and it's not clear who is really coordinating, who is in charge, and not only that but there is no level of involvement from the community in terms of deciding how the money should be spent. when that kind of money

is allocated to an agency usually there is a commission that oversees the expenditure. we don't have that here so i look forward to working with you and i think this is one of the most important reports before the board and points to a lot of work needed and assessing how many resources should go into the various communities is an important part of that assessment. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i just wanted to address a comment that supervisor campos raises and i think it's very important to recognize that this task force is not only going to be comprised of department heads and mental health care professionals and the san francisco unified school district a representative from the school district but there are seven seats available for members of the community and one of which includes a person who has been convicted or a perpetrator of gone violence crime and generally speaking a

mother but it can be a parent of a person who has been lost tragically to a violent crime so the rest i turn over to you madam chair. >> thank you. can we do this item same house same call. >> >> with that this ordinance is pass on the first reading. mr. clerk can you call the next item. >> item 22 is for the cord cord establish a children youth and their families and over sight and advisory committee. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you supervisor breed. i am working on amendments that i hope you will all agree with and i would like to refer this to later in the meeting. >> okay. supervisor avalos asked to refer this to a later time in the meeting. is this a second? supervisor cohen. okay. without objection this item is moved to a later part of

the meeting and let's go back to item 12 please. >> item 12 has been called madam president. >> okay supervisor kim would you like to wait for that item as well? >> thank you so much for continuing this item. this item before us is a supplemental appropriation of $203 -- $203,000 to go to extending a successful pilot that took place in my district in the tenderloin district for three portable toilets in response to the great need for public toilets in this neighborhood. it began in july as a pilot again and we were able to put in three portable bathrooms that are solar powered and allow usage tuesday-friday in the afternoons for people that need it. we're happy to

say that the results have been outstanding. we have seen anywhere from 33 to 60% reduction in steam cleaning requests in the neighborhood coming from a neighborhood that actually had the highest number of steam cleaning requests regarding human feces in the entire city and seen a reduction of water by the city. rereduced it by hundreds of gallons a month saving the city much needed water given the drought that is occurring in the state of california and we're able to provide a respite for many of our individuals that neat restrooms whether they're tourists or homeless or residents that just need to use a bathroom. because these bathrooms have been monitored they have been highly successful and able to provide jobs for residents in our neighborhoods and another positive. we're asking the board to extend the pilot through the end of the fiscal year so we can consider

this probability among other budgetary needs in the next fiscal year but wanted to add an additional one in the south of market and this expenditure would allow us to do so. i will add we had a reduction in of the cos due to the pilot being put in place, particularly in the usage of water as i mentioned and also manpower and staff hasn't been asked to come to the tenderloin to do steam cleaning requests so we hope over time this program pays for itself on top of the environmental outcomes and of course the residents who have been able to use it successfully and i ask for the support of my colleagues. >> thank you supervisor kim. can we do this item same house same call? one second. okay. can we do this item same house

same call? this ordinance is passed on the first reading and now we have two 3:00 p.m. specials and mr. clerk can you please call items number 23 through 26 for the first special order. >> 23-26 is for people interested in the public works approval located on the map at 639 peralta avenue and approve or disprove the department's decisions and the appropriation of findings. >> okay. colleagues before i begin a conversation with this item i want to recognize supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and let me say that this item was continued before, and it's a complicated matter

which unfortunately turns greatly on the question of ownership which is a question that ultimately will be decided by the court, and my own personal view in terms how we should proceed and i leave it up to the board as to whether or not to hold the hearing today but i personally believe that for us to be able to fully assess this item that we need to hear from the court and wait until the court has actually decided the issue of ownership which is something as i understand from the city attorney's office may not happen until probably two, three months unless -- from the city attorney if that is the case.

>> mr. gibner. >> city attorney john gibner. the parties can probably speak to that best. my understanding there is a conference coming up in a month and a half and if there is no a settlement the trial maybe follow three months after that but they could probably speak best to the exact timing. >> okay. supervisor campos. >> so my inclination would be to continue this item and in light of the uncertainty of the schedule perhaps to do that for three months and see where the case is at that point, so that would be my suggestion in terms how we should approach this case. i want to of course give the parties an opportunity to comment on that.

>> okay. so supervisor campos you're asking that we continue this item, and until that time a three month time period. do you want to specify a specific date? so it would be -- i don't know if there is a specific date for three months from today, and april that could work mr. clerk. >> april 28. >> april 28. >> okay. >> that would be my motion. >> okay. supervisor campos has made a motion to continue this hearing until april 28. is there a second? there's a second by supervisor yee. with that i think we need to hold public comment on the continuance so this item is open to public comment to provide public comment about the specific continuance of this hearing so if there are any members of the public that would