se 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. suervisor 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 like to speak please move forward to the podium at this time for two minutes. >> thank you supervisor -- president breed. congratulations on that and honorable supervisors. i support dr. bradley, the appellant and we thank you for that continuance and i think it provides ample time to get to the case management conversation, find out what the court can do with scheduling. >> >> and continue with the efforts to find a way to settle this case. >> thank you. is there any members of the public to

provide public comment at this time? >> yes, i am david myers and from the law firm [inaudible] and my pleasure to represent the applicant in this matter and this needs to be adjudicated in the court before the board has enough time to pass on the resolution one way or another so it's my recommendation that the board support the motion of supervisor campos. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to pride public comment at this time? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . and. mr. gibner. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the board it continue it but you have to keep it open to continue for three months so take the motion to continue the

hearing open per a subsequent hearing at the continued date. >> okay. thank you. and supervisor campos. >> to clarify that that in fact the motion is predicated on the understanding that the hearing remains open to a later date. >> okay. with that mr. clerk can you please call the roll on the motion to continue. >> open to april 28, 2015. supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> supervisor christensen. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> there are 11 aye's. >> okay the continuance passes unanimously. thank you very much. and we also have our

second 3:00 p.m. special order. and mr. clerk can you please call the items item 28, 29, 30. >> 27-30 comprise a public hearing for persons interested in the 2014 mitigated negative declaration for the embarcadero also known as steuart street. and other items are reversing the mitigated negative declaration and findings. >> okay. we have a mitigated negative declaration appeal at the 110 embarcadero and 115 steuart street and constains the analysis and sufficiency and completeness of the neg55 declaration and we will proceed

as follows. up to 10 minutes for the appellant to speak and up to two minutes for supporters to speak in support of the appeal and 10 minutes for the planning department to certify the mitigated negative declaration and 10 minutes for the real party and interest to present their case for certification of the negative declaration. up to two minutes for public comment for support of the negative declaration will have three minutes for rebuttal argument and at this time i would like to recognize supervisor kim for any opening remarks in regards to this item. >> thank you . we have before us a think other

-- building with long interest and on the waterfront with historical nature regarding the project before us. i look forward to hearing both sides of this project and i will reserve the rest of the comments after the arguments. >> thank you and at this time can the appellant please come forward with their presentation. you will have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am david [inaudible]. once again san francisco's heart and soul are under attack and for no important reason. i hope you found the letters and emails expressing support for this appeal in your packets. unfortunately they don't begin

the 476 page but they begin on packet page number 17 22. numerous involves include r members of the [inaudible] and organizations expressed concerns about destruction of this building. they include the richmond community organization, san francisco tomorrow, the preservation consortium, the victorian alliance and the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods which voted 22-one to preserve the embarcadero facade of this building. supervisor christensen might be interested to know the votes include the telegraph dwellers and the barbary coast association. [inaudible] unanimously called for landmarking this building out of the convention in seattle and can read the resolution in your

packets. there is widespread support all across san francisco for preserving this historic building. after prop b8 washington, the warriors arena and the rejected hiens proposal six years ago for the same location. >> >> and should be clear that they want it developed in the best way practices -- violating practices and ceqa requirements and destroying historic facades and introducing a modern glass wall represent the worse planning practices. today an historic facade maybe destroyed because [inaudible] they want windows opened. i lived near this site for years and they're --

[inaudible] -- by opening the windows. many people don't remember this but 32 people were shot by the police on bloody thursday 80 years ago. 32. 100 people were wounded. can you imagine what would happen today if the sfpd shot 32 people in one bloody day? it was a massacre. the day was july 5, 1934 and the location of mission street between the embarcadero and steuart street. charles [inaudible] wrote just around the corner the union headquarters took first aid station as the wounded were

carried to the second floor hall of this building where they were laid in rows on the floor. a doctor was found who was willing to treat them and if you moved among the wounded a teargas shell came crashing through a window dispersing sickening smoke in the room. supervisors that is part of the history of this building. the strikers who are headquartered in the building persevered and the strike was settled. however the planning department say none of the owptdants made a contribution to local state and national history. nonsense nonsense. boiler plate statement was made in 2009 as well. the attorney representing the appellants back then said

she found that claim insulting and she's right. it's insulting now and then. it's insulting to harry bridges and to the longshoremen and their families and supporters and to the men that gave their lives for the cause. we were a successful peamentant in the heinz project proposed for the same location and i reviewed the public testimony last weekend and 95% of the people who testify were not there to criticize the proposed building. they were testifying about preserving this building, the same building that is before you today. likewise you will find no one is opposed to the commonwealth club moving into the building. people are concerned about the unnecessary destruction of the embarcadero