power to prioritize alternatives. that build up community preparedness. and that shift the world away from militaryized responses. thank you. >> >> good morning, my name is katie and i am a co-director with the bud different peace fellowship that come binds muddism and social justice for years. i am not as informed as my colleagues, but i am here because we have been opposing urban shield since 2014, because of the aim pacts that 2 has. and we are head quartered in okay land and so we are directly impacted by urban shield and i am echoing my colleagues to follow your wisdom and intuition and saying that militaryizing the police force and swat teams under this administration is an

unwise move and to actually take bold leadership and be a sanctuary city. san francisco has the opportunity to exclude urban shield from the funding for emergency preparedness and response for this entire region. so please hang on to that responsibility and use it wisely. for the protection of all beings. thank you. >> good morning, i am with the stop urban shield and critical resistance, and first i really want to just thank the supervisors for really asking these questions and really driving to understand who urban shield is and how this program works. it is actually a really complex program, the bay area urban area, security initiative and one thing that i do want to highlight is that san francisco as the fiscal agent is

designated in an mou across different counties that participate in the bay area approval authority. and line 23 # 9 says that the parties understand that until the fiscal agent and the jurisdiction, fully and finally execute the agreement, the fiscal agent shall have no om mri indication to disperse grant funds to that jurisdiction, that is in the memo of understanding that designates san francisco as a fiscal agent. and so with that in mind, as supervisor cohen strongly stated is that san francisco does have a moral responsibility on what happens with this funding and it is not simply a technicality. as it has been said, urban shield is an extremely violent, extremely controversial militaryized swat training police program and weapon's expo. now what we are here urging you

to do is to actually very simply address your concerns and simply address your questions. we have an amendment that basically says move this item along but just exclude urban shield and say that san francisco commits itself to prioritizing funding for community response, community repairedness, and the resources that don't rely on militarization, and a swat tactics when responding to disasters and you have the power to do that. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good morning, supervisors my name is rion, and i am here as a member of international jewish anti-zion network. and i want to thank you for intergating the funding it is an investigation of where the funds are going and the impacts that i have seen. so thank you for that. as a san franciscan i am really proud of the way that san francisco is using its power to try to respond to the trump administration. and we just want to see you all take that same level of

responsibility in response to urban shield, rather than re-negging your roll, please use that to direct the funds to the communities and a lot of people say that urban shield is emergency preparedness and we need emergency preparedness right now, because we are in a total emergency, we are seeing an increase and escalated attacks on immigrants community and refugees and so let's actually direct the funds in ways that benefit those parts to our community. and urban shield is not emergency preparedness and we have seen the urban shield and the black lives matter, and those are not emergency preparedness and we have seen them gather, governments from around the world and police force and militaries from around the world with the history of human rights abuses to train the police in crowd control that is not emergency preparedness and with the government comeing in who looks to target and protests and activists we don't want to be bringing together police

force frz around the country and the world with the purpose of crowd control and repressive technologies and please take on your responsibility of a fiscal sponsor and use it to direct the funds that we have to the beneficial measure and there are budget cuts coming in our future, we need to be cautious that every dollar that we spent is going to protect our communities in the way that are going to become ever more necessary. so please make sure that this funding can'ting used for urban shield, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> hello, my name is liz and i am a san francisco resident all of my life. born here, i am just here to say that i am against the urban shield program that comes through this grant. i witnessed some of the films of what goes on at the expo and i am aware of how they use these tactics on our own citizens. they learn methods that are

extremely heavy handed referring back to one of the other people said about the warrant. presenting warrants to citizens in the very extremely heavy swat method and there is films out there that explain about how that whole thing works. there is also a person in general john kelley who is the new home land security appointee. and i would like to just read something that give a background to this sort of mentality that is behind this in the new administration. >> our enemy is safage and offers no quarter and has a single focus and that is either kill every one of us here at home or in slave us with a sick form of extremism that serves no god or purpose, that decent men and women could ever grasp, st. louis is as much at risk as new york and washington, d.c. and so it is quite a singular way of looking at things, very all or nothing kind of attitude and that is very concerning to

me. thank you for also, i want to thank you all for taking such care to consider this. and san francisco i think is going to be the most responsible county to be able to really face the issues, that you have already spoken to. thank you, particularly supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. >> just a minute, miss hogan. >> public xhebt is closed at this time. thank you to everyone that has sent out quite frankly hundreds of e-mails. and have made the calls i was in the office until 8:00 last night and was still taking calls from folks that are really paying attention to what we are doing here in san francisco. i think that we are in a unique position and there is a sense of responsibility that san francisco has been on the record

of our sanctuary city responsibility and many of you may not know but i have been taking the lead of reevaluating our use of force policies in our own police department and that has not been touched in 20 years, so we are in a particular space in time that i think is critical that we need to be paying attention and pay attention to our responsibilities being a regional player. i think that you have a couple of programs and i think that we are ready to deal with the matter. >> thank you. i just wanted to say in closing that earlier this month the alamena board of supervisors reevaluated the program to be able to administer the training exercise program throughout the bay area. and it was voted to continue to be the administrator of the region training exercise program, which does include urban shield. and it is important to mention that as a part of that process, it was determined that there would be a community-based

oversight committee that would look into urban shield and to provide some more transparency in to the over all design and execution of that exercise. >> so i just wanted to say that in closing and i also would encourage our board to reach out to our board of supervisor, your board of supervisor colleagues and maybe to understand their perspective on urban shield. >> thank you. >> we are actually this body is in line with that similar notion. i would like to entertain a motion to continue this item so that we can dig down deep sxer tweak the language for this resolution. is there a motion to continue this item? >> let's we are going to continue to the next meeting in one week. >> go ahead and make that motion to continue this item to the next week's budget committee meeting. what day is next week madam chair? or madam clerk? >> the next budget and finance committee meeting is on february first. >> february first, thank you very much. >> all right, if we could take

this motion without objection. motion passes. snchlt item will be continued and we will see you next week. could you call item 9? >>ordinance appropriating $34,184,136 of lease financing to the department of emergency management for public safety radio system project in fy2016-2017, and placing the total appropriation of $34,184,136 on controller's reserve pending proceeds from the lease financing. >> all right thank you. we have got a presentation from the jaime. >> that is right. >> karuban. >> from the controller's office and then we are going to hear from michelle gatus as well. >> if there is a project question. >> perfect. >> the floor is all yours, thank you. >> thank you, good morning supervisors again, jaime with the control's office of public finance, before you today is an ordinance, appropriate ating $24.2 million from the leasing agreement between the city and county of san francisco.

and bank of america capitol corporation. to find the proposition of the public safety radio system project administered by the department of emergency management, this follows the board of supervisor's previous approval in october of last year, which authorized the director of public finance to procure financing for the portion of the costshrough the state of california, department of general services golden state, financial market place program. otherwise, known as a gs smart program. since the october, resolution approval, the office of public finance has worked together through the competitive bid process with the gs smart program to secure the lease financing in the amount of 34,184,126 for the projects and other associated closing costs. the final financing was aworded to bank of america, with the interest rate of 1.699 percent over a ten year term.

with a total payment of 3 million shths with a total interest cost of 3 million, 104,585 and the term of the financing equipment and install lathes and the software will serve as the security of the financing until the debt is completely paid off. the city can also prepay the loan at any time without penalty. >> i am available to answer any of the questions regarding the financing and i have michelle here to answer any questions regarding the project. >> thank you. i see no questions from my colleagues right now, and thank you for the presentation. and let's go to the public comment. >> public comment is opened, on item nine. >> all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. >> is there any other conversation colleagues? >> is there a motion? >> i am sorry. excuse me, campbell has a presentation. or remarks.

>> yes, as she said the board previously approved the 34 million, the city share of the project of 45 million, 11 million was the previous year appropriated from the general fund, total cost to the city fshgs 37 million, including 3 million in interest costs, payments would be 3.7 million and subject to appropriation in the emergency management budget every year and we do recommend approval. >> thank you for the recommendation we appreciate it. >> supervisor yee? >> i do have a question, in regards to it.

>> it was recommended through the commitfy to pursue a financing option. >> because? why? >> i will refer to the may or's budget office. >> thank you, white house director, the honest answer is that allowed the project to move forward and instead of on a pay go ba sis... and this is being financed and paid off for the allocation, for the next several years but it allowed to to move forward at a faster rate. >> what happens after ten years? is it a ten-year, lease. >> and then the coit bucket will have more capacity to do additional projects. >> no, what the equipment? >> oh, so just to speak to the structure, it is a lease to own

financing arrangements. >> okay. >> so in similar to some of our other structures in financing, and radios as well as the infrastructure that supports the video system is about a ten to eleven year term of life and so we will then match the financing structure to that. the life of the asset and so once we paid the full $34 million loan, the city then owns the equipment, and we will be able to keep that going forward. and it won't be a lease argument. >> thank you for the explanation. >> let's take public comment on item nine. >> public comment is open. public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee is there remarks. >> supervisor tang? >> i will make a motion to send it forthwith positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, without objection, that motion passes. >> item 10. ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to

remove the $100 minimum penalty from one of the penalties for failing to register with the tax collector; and to remove the fee and administrative requirements for obtaining a duplicate registration certificate. . >> okay. thank you, we have got the miss amanda from the treasurer tax collector here good morning to present to us. the proposed ordinance which will amend the business and tax code, please the floor is yours. >> good morning, chair and supervisors amanda, from the office of treasurer, since the voters passed the gross receipts ordinance in 2012, we have been consumed with implementation of the law. and as you know it is a complicated law both for us as we build systems, but also for tax payers. with several successful years under our belt, we are now looking at ways we can increase compliance and revenue, and make things easier for businesses of all sizes. the ordinance before you today will remove the $100 penalty for failing to register with the tax

collector and for obtaining a duplicate certificate. currently, a business that fails to register, must pay a penalty, either $100 or, a penalty that increases pursuant to section, 6.17-1. in this case it is whichever penalty is greater. this minimum penalty creates a steep financial burden for small businesses over 170 percent of the base tax amount. under this proposal, businesses of all sizes would be subject to the same penalty structure which starts at five percent of the tax due per monthly and caps out at 40 percent. let me give you an example of what this means. in it if you are a hair stylist in annual receipts you owe, # 1 in fees, despite several calendar reminder and writing it

down on your hand, you missed the deadline on may 31st, you remember on june first and you see that # # 1 has increased to 241. and if that seems really high to you, you are not alone. we have received many complaints about this penalty. and while it cot identified in the law, we agree that it is out size and may be working against our tax compliance efforts. the majority of our late filers are our smallest business and this will reduce the burden on small businesses who file by 39 percent, as you can see in the budget analyst report, if we had this proposed penalty structure in 2015, and the tax payers paid on the same schedule, we will collect about $1.5 million less in penalties. and however, we believe that changing the penalty structure will also change tax payer behavior and this therefore, lessen that revenue impact.

and so we did some further looking after the great work of the budget analyst. and found that we have over, 5,000 businesses that filed late in the past two years. but then didn't renew on time for this current year. the outstanding revenue for those taxes alone the principal there alone is $530,000. so while we can continue to pursue those tax payers who are late and typically on time but missed one year, we believe a big percentage of those tax payers at this point have thrown up their hands and said this penalty is too high, i can't comply and have chosen to go underground. we estimate that about 50 percent of those businesses will come into compliance if we change this legislation. and therefore, we would get revenue back of $215,000. we also as you are very aware have had several high profile efforts to increase registration

compliance among the independent contractor, we registered 14,000 businesses this year related to the transportation network companies. that started solel, between, july 21st, to the current day, if we assume that a third of them continue to operate, that will be another, 405,000 in new tax revenue from business registration. so given what i just discussed above, the loss in revenue from the removal of the 100 fee, will be offset, by $620,000. i also have for you today an amendment clarifying the effective date of this ordinance. hour intent was always for this change to be prospective. and through this amended language we are making that intention, crystal clear, thank you for your consideration of the ordinance and the pro-he posed amendment. >> thank you for that presentation. let's have a moment to hear from the budget legislative analyst. >> yes, this was actually

continued last week's meeting. we provided information that we had estimated a loss in revenue of $1.5 million, as she just sort of demonstrated there, and now estimating that the loss would be reduced to $880,000, because of other compliance revenues that may come in. with he do consider this to be a policy matter because it revises the business and tax regulations code. >> thank you very much. colleagues is there any discussion? >> all right, let's go to public comment. >> thank you. >> public comment is open, come on down. mr. lazerus. >> good to see you. >> good morning, supervisors san francisco chamber of commerce and i want to thank the tax collect collector's office. and there has been a number of meetings with the preparers and the whole fee and penalty structure is out of wac compared to the state and the federal

come parable fees and the late fees and penalties and so we certainly support any sef forts by the treasurer and the tax collector and the board of supervisors in making changes to the fee and penalty structure that will encourage compliance. we were pleased to be part of a broad coalition that negotiated with the city on 2012, on the measure that converted us and we are on the process from the payroll to the gross receipts tax, the key is to have the businesses of all types register under the city's business tax registration program. and we support the legislation. >> this is good to hear, thank you for your comment. >> public comment is closed at this time. >> i am actually in agreement, that is important that we support our small businesses i think that we tout how wonderful san francisco is, but we sometimes we can be over burdensome and it is unfortunate that we will be losing 1.5, in terms of revenue, but it is important that we send a message to the small business community

that we understand their plight and that we are accept our responsibility and do not want to over tax them. so supervisor yee? >> i was wondering if we can actually get a report from the treasurer's office off a year to see what impact this really has had. >> i think that is a reasonable request and so we will request that the tax collector come back in one year's time and give us an up date on what the economic impact has been. >> thank you. she is agreeing to that. >> is there anything else. is there a motion on this item? >> i will make a motion to send forth the ordinance to the full board, i will make a motion first to mend so that it is the effect will be commencing on or after, july first, 2017.

and i think that is most of the acommendment here. and then as amended send forth to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> as amended without objection, thank you. >> please call the next item? >>ordinance amending the administrative, business and tax regulations, and police codes to eliminate various fees imposed by the city. >> thank you our very own supervisor yee is the sponsor of this item. do you want to walk us through. >> this eliminates the driver license fee and makes the san francisco police department the one stop agency instead of both the sfpd and the treasurer and the tax collector. so san francisco police department requested this fee elimination. currently there are many out dated small business registration fees. and to make it easier for small business owners, i introduced this ordinance amendment

amending the tax and business regulation and police codes to eliminate the fees. >> i work with the controller's office who worked directly with the department staff to come up with these recommended fees to be eliminated. the departments have all been very supportive of eliminating these fees according to the police department and entertainment commission. and these recommended fees were deemed out dated, unnecessary and minimal revenue impact. and from the controller's, estimates from the fiscal year, 2015, and 16, the estimate, estimated total revenue impact would be less than 2600. and to date, no one has applied for any police code fees. we are proposing to eliminate. in fiscal year, 2015, and 16. and there was only, three estimated payers. of the city administrative fee.

we are proposing to eliminate and so the impact is minimal. today, i would like to also make a motion to make some non-substantial amendments to this ordinance.

only needs to communicate from one entity from start to finish and makes it easier for the customers and takes the minimal work for the police department to administer. >> okay. and i want the record to reflect that we do not have a budget legislative report on this particular item. thank you. supervisor yee, thank you. any remarks? >> let's go to public comment any member of the public like to speak? >> public comment is closed. all right. supervisor yee, what would you like to do? >> i would like to request that we pass the amendments and pull it with the full recommendation to the full board. >> given that this is just clean up legislation to remove the fees by the entertainment entertainment commission that deem no longer necessary, i will add my name as a co-sponsor and

take this without objection. thank you. >> madam clerk, could you call 12? >>ordinance approving a lease disposition and development agreement and 75 year ground lease (with option to extend to 99 years) with the regents of the university of california, san francisco ("ucsf") for a new research building at the priscilla chan and mark zuckerberg san francisco general hospital and trauma center, with an initial base rent to be paid by ucsf of $180,000 per year; authorizing the department of public health to accept a $10,000,000 parking reimbursement contribution upon delivery of the ground lease to ucsf; making findings under the california environmental quality act, findings of conformity with the general plan, and with the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1(b); waiving certain provisions of the administrative code and environment code; and ratifying certain actions taken in connection therewith, as defined herein. >> i have a feeling that is what a lot of people are here for. thank you for allowing the warm up acts to forward. it is good to see you here today, we have got the director of the public health miss garcia who will be presenting to us on item 12. >> good morning, chair cohein, and supervisors. we are here today to seek your approval for the lease between the city and county of san francisco and the uc regents of san francisco, of california, for ucsf in building the new

research center on our campus. as you know, we have 150 year relationship and affiliation agreement with ucsf. also you know that we are a trauma center that requires a research component and our researchers have been scattered throughout the campus, providing incredible research services for us. this new building also required by uc to insure that they are seismically safe, facility and also provides us an opportunity to retention and recruitment of our incredible researchers on the campus. i am going to be sharing my comments today with dr. sue carlile along with mark who will go through the detail of the lease. i do want to state that the health commission approved this on december six and allowed us to come forward to the committee and hopefully, next tuesday to the full board of supervisors. >> we want to really encourage

that this incredible building will also help us in terms of the building 25. and as you know, we have an incredible new hospital, this will compliment that as well. and so we look forward to your questions, and we hope that we can give you the thorough information that you need for your vote today. i will now introduce dr. sue car lyle who is our assistant dean on the campus and go through the research importance of this facility. >> great, thank you. >> welcome back dr. car lyle, it is good to see you. >> thank you. good moerrning morning and than the introduction. i am the vice dean for ucsf school of medicine that give me the responsibility for oversight of all of ucsf's activities on that campus. as you have heard today and many

times before we have 150 year partnership between ucsf and the department of public health. we have been partners in serving the public health of this city for all of that time. faculty and staff and students from all four of the professional schools, dentistry, and nurse and pharmacy, provide care and teach and conduct research, and the ucsf faculty provide all of the physician care, throughout this relationship, ucsf physicians and researchers have and continue to conduct the most influential research in the country. this research not only benefits the world but directly benefits our community as well. we have change the practice of medicine worldwide from the treatment of hiv and the advancements in brain surgery

and pressing public health issues of such as type two diabetes and violence prevention, and pedestrian safety and mental health abuse, although the research has global impact, our physicians scientists draw their inspiration directly from the healthcare need of our local community. many of whom are members of san francisco most vulnerable populations. indeed our center populations reduces vital research that is instrumental to understanding and reducing health disparities. research is also a critical component of our designation as a level one trauma center, more than 4,000 patients a year, prept to us and the top specialists with expertise in the care of these injuries are on sight around the clock, 365 days a year. it feels like 3,000 days a year.

the it is vital to san francisco and it allows the physicians from the emergency medicine, surgery and neuro surgery and blood bank and many areas to treat the sff apes at their greatest areas of need. close proximity to provide the patient care and teaching and activities on the same campus is also, critical for our ability to recruit and retain the best physician researchers in the world. we provide patient care that is outstanding and exemplary. >> in the ability to seamlessly, transition between the patients and students and research will threaten the breadth of our service and the level of excellence and the care of our patients, without being able to adequately provide the facilities for research and teaching and we will be unable

to sustain the level of acceptable clinicians that serve our patients. san franciscos have spoke very loufdly and clearly that they valve you public health. they have approved bonds for a billion dollars of construction already on our campus, this includes the beautiful new hospital that we opened in may as well as the seismic improvements to the old hospital. the $2 million building that ucsf will pay for and construct on this campus will further enhance our ability to care for the patient and insure that we can do so for the next 100 years as well as we have for the last 100 years. it is essential that we maintain this program. because we want to continually improve the patient care that we

can provide. i will invite mark to speak to you and go through the details of the agreement. >> thank you, dr. car lyle. and madam chair and supervisor tang and yee. and i am going to take you through a quick powerpoint .

the slide just gives you conceptual idea of some of the massing and the bulking as you can tell the building conceptually is stepping down towards 23rd street to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. part of the eir process that

ucsf conducted included a possible expansion with the variance of the existing san francisco general garage, here is the view of the garage and so in parallel to the process, is a process looking at aspects of fund and actually doing the expansion that would provide for about 307 spaces. the research building they will displace, approximately, 130 spaces. and so part of the garage expansion will make-up some of that and will add to a parking deficit that we currently have on campus. we are here now with the board and we will continue through the

beginning of february. and then we will return to the regents for their approval if necessary, and then actually start looking at executing some of the documents first with the lease, disposition and development agreement. and we anticipate trying to close escrow some time in november of 2017. the building construction anticipated to start in january of 201 #. and last approximately, two years. i went through that quickly and i have john here and the members of the ucsf management team that are conducting the design and will manage the construction of the building. >> thank you for your presentation. and i have got supervisor yee who has a question hold on. supervisor yee has a couple of questions and i think that supervisor tang has a question. >> okay, thank you. chair cohen.

>> first of all, new facilities will be exi sighting and i was able to go on the tour of the buildings for the researchers. and i am in total agreement that the existing facility is totally inadequate. and it is not made for world class research. i am surprised that they have been able to do what they have with the existing facility and it seems like they have, experiments, in the hallways, and you know, and things were all over the place. so i am glad to see that we are moving forward. i do have some questions around a few things around the

community out reach since it will be build on our city property, how many attempts have we made with the community input? into this process? and what are we going to do moving forward? >> good question. so as part of the process we had a number of prescoping meetings. actually on campus, in the hospital. and we just finished a series of three meetings in the community director garcia actually called transportation director ed riskin to form a more cohesive body that would come together before some more community meetings to come as one united front. and often when you come into the neighborhoods there are so many different city agencies, and so many different people to talk to and so the director garcia and riskin want to bring together a

cohesive work to do the community work that you are talking about. >> okay. >> so i am going to ask a few questions in regards to the parking. you mentioned that just the discussions of the sfmta in terms of the financial modelling, of expansion of the existing parking garage. and that and may go up to 307 spaces. and so if i guess one of the questions that i have is before you come up with the even the financial model for this, is there funding to replace the 130 parking spaces that exist today? without going into the bond issues? >> >> let me answer this, this way,

we actually worked with and are still working with the controller's office to look at the financial modelling so that we can actually . as to defra i that bond ads we are planning to do the rest of the project. and the project that we are estimating for the 300 spaces and the expansion is approximately, 25 million and so that ten million will bring it down to about a 15 million revenue bond instead of 25. >> and then in, and the new building minus that, is really to house the existing folks?

>> and would there be increased staffing with the new building? >> it is anticipated that the 300 researchers and the 7 buildings will be relocated there because of the height of the bulk restrictions, the building is really sized around that, that population for the building. >> okay. >> and maybe this is with the existing facilities, so basically when we are moving 800 people to a new building. and then the existing facilities will be empty, what is going to happen? is that also going to increase the number of people that come in? >> yes. at some point in the future, and dependent upon funding, so within the city's ten year period.

the plan there is another general obligation bond measure that takes place. to be on campus, and they would then, the concept would be, they would contribute money to helping us renovate some of the buildings and then we will correlate with them, and then in particular the buildings on the campus. i guess. where i am leading this discussion is if those, and the existing building gets occupied,

again, there could be another 800 people that will be in this complex. when you, have you taken that into consideration? in regards to your parking that will be needed for 800 more people? >> we have. okay. >> where are you putting it? because the 300 you talked about? it is just to accommodate the what exists today. >> so what we are doing along with the possible garage expansion, we are looking at increasing our tdm program which is a transit demand management program and so we are looking at increasing the shuttles and the frequency and the number of them and increasing the bike lockers and car pooling, and we are also using a strategy we used when we build the new hospital which is to shuttle the contractors from a remote site to a site so that

they don't take out the patient parking and so we are looking at a number of things and that is one of the reasons that we put in the documents the parking relief plan that will go into detail both with the uchof, andw we manage those parking expectations in the future. and that document has to be developed before escrow can close. i appreciate that you are looking into it and i would hate to see it in the future that our you know, the esteemed researchers will spend four hours looking for a parking space. >> thank you. sperp yee. and supervisor tang? >> thank you so much, for your questions, yee, and i have some similar, about you first off i will start off by thanking everyone who is in here, taking valuable time from your research and work thd it is such /*. it is such a prized gem and

thank you, doctor to taking me on a tour as well. i think that many years ago. you know, over all i will say that i am very supportive of the project. now, i do want to get into the parking situation a little bit just because hospitals do see a lot patient and visitors in addition to the people who work there every day. >> currently the parking facility that is there, has 807 spaces, if i am correct. >> correct. >> and i wanted to know if those are used primarily by the staff what are working there or a combination of visitors patients and staff? >> it is definitely a combination. i think that the two primary users are staff and both ucsf physicians and nurses as well as the staff on the city side. and then a portion of it is also

no what parking and so if the lot is filled up so there is parking across 23rd into the garage. >> and about how many spaces would you say are often used by patients or visitors? >> i believe lts about 75 percent is being used by physicians, nurses, staff, verses about 25, and of course, you understand that is fluctuates on the time of the day, etc. >> okay. >> and so i think that what kind of caught me by surprise was that the agreement says that the parties agree to develop the parking relief plan during the course of con trucks and through the date or replacement parking is secured and i think that based on what you said, the parking plan must be developed before the close of escrow. i personally feel like we need to have this in place before that. yes there is a $10 million

contribution that will count against the cost of the 130 parking spaces that would be eliminated and it is achlly quite shocking to see the price tag, it is about $78,000 per stall, i hope that they are electric cap able at that price. but in any case, i am glad that there is a ten million dollar contribution, and so seeing how you are saying that it might cost about 25 million dollars to expand the parking garage to accommodate for the future loss or the future increase of patients and visitors and so forth. i am wondering if there is an ability to really raise that contribution so that we don't have to figure out how we are dpoeg to plan for another bond measure to be able to fund a parking garage expansion. is that part of the conversation? at all? >> well, i can say the number that we started with was lower than ten.

so we did get up to ten and part of the controller's work actually helped us look at the actual cost of what that garage will be and that is how we came up with the 10 million. we used the 78,000, times 130, which is ten million and we rounded down. >> but how, i don't know if this is the controller's office, or if we were able to say work with smfta to secure the future revenue bond to pay for the design and construction of a garage expansion, i mean that time line, how does that mesh with the time line where we see the building construction will start in 2019. i don't know how long these measures take, so i don't know if anyone can speak to that? even if we were successful. >> i can speak to it. the intention right now is to and we have been working with

sfmta is to take both the tdm that i talked about earlier and the parking proposal, and the financial modelling, in the next month or two to go before the subcommittee and then take it to the full board. we think that if that is approved, the revenue bond and construction could start as early as some time late 2018. and the duration for that construction would be approximately 14 months. >> okay. so that is if all things go smoothly. and so but again, i just you know i am wondering baudz this is a partnership with ucsf if there is some way to help us get to you know, beyond the ten million dollars, i mean we are incredibly grateful there is a ten million contribution for that loss. but, seeing as how there might be future plans to renovate more of the campus buildings, to co-locate the other parties within the campus, and you know, there will be more people coming

to the site and so i just want to make sure that no parents patients or visitors or so forth could get in and out of the facility smoothly without impacting the surrounding neighborhood community and so really i would like to see us being able to push up that $10 million contribution for the parking replacement so that we can really move forward quickly on the parking garage expansion. >> could i -- city attorney? how would we go about entertaining what supervisor tang is saying? >> pu are saying that we increase the $10 million, i think that it has to be a negotiated part of the deal. right now the term sheet reflected that there is a

contribution equal to the number of lossed parking and the value of that and that is what the parties agreed upon and i think that you are asking no an additional which is a business term that will need be to negotiate and go back if they were consider to adding monther money here. >> is that something that would have to be approved by the other bodies. >> we will go back and have that discussion, supervisor with uc and i just had a small conversation on the side. and so we will go back and have that conversation. just to note that this was a three year negotiation. so we will add a little bit more time to that to have more conversations. and want to insure that supervisors are satisfied with the uc contribution on that. >> okay. >> and i am wondering how we can check back on that. again, i do not want to take away from the importance of this

project and please do not take this as i care about parking more, it is just simply that i don't want us to have to confront that problem when that day comes and the building is open and we have not solved for this. so >> i understood that it is the good financial stea rds and we are also, very under in terms of just our patients to identify parking. so i don't want it to be assumed that this is parking being taken by uc. but both parties have the interest in insuring that the patients have access to parking and as you know, coming to a hospital and coming to visit your doctor at times, coming into a car is much more healthy. and so we will go back and talk to the uc partners. regarding their request. >> so will you be willing to come back on a quarterly basis and since this is no the totally associated with the about lg and willing to come back and keep you updated on this issue. >> okay. >> would you be able to say by

the time that this item hits the full board to be able to share with us broadly whether there is the ability to revisit the $10 million contribution to parking in >> i think that i am making a commitment to go back and look at that today and hopefully we will have some news or not at the next full board. >> thank you. >> i just --. >> supervisor yee in >> i just want to urge that this is to me an important issue. something else to think about, kwha i don't see is how they stack the cars and it takes money to buy those mechanical things and i see it in other cities in the u.s. that is maybe something that we should consider because we could create more parking spaces with the existing foot pript.

>> we are looking at all of those options for example, valet parking and so we will be looking at that as part of the transportation plan. >> and maybe that could be part of your new discussion to say, would uc be willing to pay for those mechanical what they call them, stackers. >> yes, we will explore all of those options supervisor. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang has a few remarks. >> one question on follow up in terms of i know that right now, i am sure that supervisor cohen is aaware of the road way improvement pro-jeblth that has already begun and i think that it is supposed to end if on time by march 2018. which is supposedly before construction, and the building construction will start. and so i am just wondering how it is that all of the different kind of city agencies are coordinating the construction on campus. ? eand that is such an important

part and i ask asked director and the transportation director and we have talked about bringing all of the parties together and we have all of the dates of complete and to be aible to track back and forthwith the department to insure that we are coordinating better. we have been going to these meetings and to improve that we are showing the efforts that we are doing to improve to the streets and road as well as the construction at the campus, and so we will make an effort to insure that we have a better effort on that. >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions so colleagues, general hospital is in district ten. and so incredibly familiar with the project. and i agree that this the transformative project for our city. and it will make a significant impact to the future of general

hospital as well as the general impact of san francisco. and i have questions and i know that you have touched on them a little bit about the mitigating traffic in the neighborhood. director garcia and i have had conversation and director ed riskin and conversations with the others who are equally concerned, what is the over all strategy to insure that we are not allowing cars to drive through the neighborhood i am talking about kansas street. with he have had conversations during the rebuild and make tg seismically sound and we had problems with traffic congestion particularly the shuttles peeding on kansas. ucsf in particular changed the contractor that was the man doing the shuttling and that actually helped with the speed of the shuttles in the

neighborhood. there was certain of spillage and we are losing i think, 130 parking spots if i am not mistaken, and concerned that the people will be parking in the neighborhood, can you talk a little. >> we do have a transportation manager who will be looking at all of those issues and we are also looking at off site. you will have the construction and make sure that they are parking off site and that is the first population and then we will working with the transportation manager to manage those kinds of comment from the community as we meet with the community and we will try the mitigation as they identify issues. and again this effort that i am trying to get with transportation and the departments that are work rg in the 24th street area to come together to insure that we are responding to the community concerns. as we identify no, sir we will be working on those and we have

a list of things that have identified to us. >> great. this transportation manager i would love to be aible to get a commitment from this manager. for quick and thorough responses sometimes, i know that it takes a little bit of time to vet alternative routes, but if we can start to and if there is some way to build in the system some efficiency, in terms of time, you hear a -- you get a request in the e-mail or a phone call, that there is a response, saying hey we are looking into it or here, how we are planning to solve the problem and just looking to insure that there is no gap in time. >> absolutely. >> that is a good customer service practice. and i will take full responsibility to make sure that manager responds in that manner. >> all right. >> there was the questions and i know that in initial presentation there was a slight discussion about the tdm program, and chaired the land use committee on monday where we passed out a few amendments to

the tdm program. what and that is the transit management plan, is there a specifically addressing? >> this is the manager that i am talking about. ? ethat is their job to previed us transportation, shuttle or lockers for individuals and we have done a lot of work with mta around our buses as you know. number 33 was glowing to be eliminated and that was going to cause lots of congestion for us and so working with all of the departments. >> so this transportation manager is this person already hired? >> yes. >> they are on our time. >> they are working? >> yes, >> are they here today snchlt >> they are not here, but i will introduce you to her so that you have a personal relationship with her. >> i also have spent a lot of time as has barbara french with folks from the hill and from the boosters as well as the dog

patch neighborhood on a slightly different and nuanced project that is happening in the dog patch. but i wanted to say with the for beings that are weighing in that i want to give voice to some of their concerns that they have written and it has to do with the air quality control, how does the eir address the air quality control? part of the measures of the region and the health commission adopted include in them requirements for both the general contractor the builder to adhere to those air quality standards just like we did when we built a new hospital. they will be doing on sight monitoring throughout the construction and looking at debris, traffic issues any sort of mess sures of having a

building constructd on that site. >> that is good. i will say that i think general, and parts of the hospitals that are in the mission bay area, have done a really good job of understanding the concerns of the neighborhoods and have showed a willingness to empathize. >> and another one is the helicopter, and that is a charged issue for years, prior to my election, but i heard about it all of the time on the campaign trail in 2010 and 9. and several years ago there was an heli pad that was added to general? >> mission bay. >> diane

>> i want don't want to throw her under the bus. >> she is it is expert and so sheg going to share with us her findings. >> hello, diane i am the environmental coordinator. >> let me just set the stage real quick, as you can imagine there are several environmental

impacts that the people of district ten have dealt with and have lived with for generations. whether or not talking about the waste water or the power plant keeping in mind, where the hospital is located is between the two freeways, we are concerned about the matter and i have introduced the legislation to protect the people and insure that there is new construction made and constructed so that the homes are able to filter out the matter. that can cause the problems.

there was a traffic analysis, and where it was identified. and the uc eir and development plans according to my con stit you ents they have come to the conclusion that it is inadequate because the project has scoped and the project as scoped is inconsistent with the city law's and rules, are you in a position to speak to that? >> yes, i would say that is not correct. we absolutely involved the city early in our eir process. both the city attorney's office and the planning department they were early reviewers of the

administrative drafts of the department document. as well as the mta and so they are very much involved and our significant standards are the same as the cities as indicated in the eir and the approach to the analysis are the same as to what the city of san francisco were done. >> thank you, i appreciate it. colleagues if there is any other questions, i would like to go o to. we have a report that we will hear on this particular matter and then i have got 50 minutes worth of public comment there are 25 cards and that is just what i have in hand and so perhaps if there is no diversity in the perspective, and maybe

there is other things that you would what they are be doing, you can feel free to stand up when you here someone that is articulating your position and we can shoot right on through these. but i would never dream of robbing u of u opportunity for public comment. i am just letting you know that you have choices we will hear from sevon and i will let you think about your choice and keep it moving. >> yes, the legislation before you would approve at 75 year grant lease with the 24 year option for 99 years and the lease disposition and the development agreement. and the rent under the grant lease is 180,000 per year. this is based on a fair market value appraisal. and taking into account that the ucsf affiliation agreement allows for 765,000 annual

credit, towards their lease out at san francisco general hospital. the terms there is that ten million dollar payment that is discussed towards the parking garage and i do want to point out that there actually is not a specific plan in place or a financing plan for the parking garage. it has been discussed with sfmta that there is no documented decision on that. we do very this, although the ground lease is consistent with the oernl term sheet, and because it waves the code in terms of the actual development we consider it to be a policy matter. ucsf has some other policies that are, you know, no not the same but address the same issues in the environmental code but does wave those provisions. >> thank you. >> i appreciate that report.

i just want to indicate that i plan to support the item before us today, if that has any of your influence on whether you stay for public comment or not. >> i am just presenting you with the options and choices. >> i am going to concur with you. ? ethat might be two votes right there, i don't know. we are going to open up for public comment, ladies and gentlemen our favorite time of the day. two minutes. so i have got a stack of cards oh, wait. lora has eight, that is 16 minutes, you know, everything counts, and dollars. and okay, the floor is yours and welcome. >> good morning. and i'm susan and i am the chief executive officer. i am one of a few precious speakers up here this morning as the ceo of the hospital, at ucfs

faculty member and a graduate of ucsf medical school i want to stand in strong support of the proposal in front of you. i bloo everybody that the ability to conduct this very influential medical research is critical to our delivering patient care. as you know we serve the entire community and among them most vulnerable among us. most important job there, is to keep for our patients and whether they come in for a primary care visit to have a baby or are the very unfortunate victims of a major trauma, we are there for them. in order to care for the patients there is no more important asset than the talented committed team, as you have heard from others, we have had a very, deep and devoted partnership, for 150 years, and in the main point that i want to

make is that in many ways this partnership defines who we are at csfg, our ability to attract and maintain the faculty, and the faculty who is able to care for the patients requires us to have a place to do research. and so today i urge your support of this item not only to insure the city's partnership continues for another century, possibly two, but more critically that we can continue our work to insure the best care for all san franciscans thank you very much. >> doctor before you leave, i want to ask if there is anyone in the audience that stands with her and in support of this and if you could stand up and visually see you. >> it is an impressive group of folks, thank you as sfgov tv, perfect. >> thank you very much. for your time. i appreciate your service as well. >> thank you. >> are you going to ask the people who oppose to stand up. >> i am going to let the people who oppose it come and speak for their in public comment.

>> next speaker. please. >> i am the board president of the san francisco hospital and i will shorten my remarks as you have received a letter. just to add my comments on behalf of the found dags, i want to offer our strong support for the resolution to approve the ground lease and the ld da for the construction of the new research building. of course you know zfg is the heart of san francisco urging care and the research is a huge part of that so this opportunity is of great importance to keeping the level one trauma center functioning that way. as a fund-raiser institution h we have a significant history of supporting zsfg including the new trauma center and our foundation recognizes the value of ucsf in adding to the already treasured public institution. at no cost to tax payers.

we are pleased to offer our support of this resolution. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> thank you for the opportunity to speak, i am kirsin and i am a professor of medicine and i am a practicing physician at general and i direct the center for vulnerable population clz is housed athe general and, celebrating our tenth anniversary, and i invite all of you to come to our celebration to tuesday next week. at the hospital. in reflecting on ten years, i look at the multiple research projects that we have been involved with and the grants that we have brought in and the papers that we have written and the leadership that many of our faculty have in research nationally but moistly what i look at is the work that we are doing is still so grounded in improving the health of our

communities in san francisco. and in fact, providing the evidence for many of the initiatives that you as a board of supervisors have supported and are transforming for our city, sf can, the cancer initiative in the city, and the eat sf and the program in the city and it is research from our faculty that if underscored the importance of sugar and the contributions to our diabetes epidemic that really under gurds our house and homelessness and the health programs in the city as wells assuring that at our hospital we are using evidence based practices. we are building on a long line of research at ucsf and at san francisco general. when the first presented with hiv aids to our hospital, we cared for them as clin nigss and as nurses but as researchers we also took to understanding this condition.

and to figure out what we can do, we are always moving to try to be at the forefront of this and this infrastructure is critical. i do invite you to come and join us next week and support this initiative. >> thank you very much my name is jeff and i am the chief of neuro surgery. we really have a team of doctors and nurses and professionals that deliver the highest level of care for those with brain and spinal cord injuries and it is some of the best care. and we were the first group in the country here to be certificated by the joint commission as the center traumatic brain injury. our clinical protocols have been implemented in many parts of the

world and what we developed ten years ago is now the basis for the american college of surgeons for the treatment of brain injuries, and so what drives this cutting edge care? it is really our relationship with ucsf and the research. so we are not here to deliver just the high quality care for everyone, but also to pioneer care for the future. so to do this, in my opinion and i think that is why you see the support here today is that we need a new building on the campus. our group is currently in a building mr. yee pointed out here over # 00 years old, and it is not seismically safe and we are now being asked to leave this building. we need to be close to our patients and without a new research building our options to go to mission bay or another part of ucsf. speaking to myself, we don't want to be on another campus, we want to be where we continue to deliver the highest level of care and continue to pioneer the type of agreements that we are

doing here hello and i wanted to just amplify some of the comments that dr. manly made about the importance of proximity of the physicians to our patients of san francisco general hospital. not only does the research directly impact the patient and new ways to prevent and control disease, but being in situated in a context in which on any given day, i can be doing my research for 2 and a half hours and i can get called from the clinic and the nursing staff and you no he run down the stairs and go across the street to the clinic and take care of my patient and provide tremendous added value in terms of efficiencies and economy of

scale and of course as dr. manly implied keeps us grounded in the mission the other thing that i wanted to add, is that providing a state of the art facility will not only improve our research productivity and our positive economic and health impacts on the city, but more importantly, could tremendously improve patient satisfaction and patient out comes. there is an increasing body of research now that shows that clinician well-being and where you work, the place in which you work and the attributes of the place are a strong determinant of the well-being and strongly associated with the patient satisfaction and health out comes including patient safety. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good morning, madam chair my name is gym marks and i serve as the chief of the medical staff. and in that role i over see the

clinical care provided by the more than 1,000 physicians who work on campus. i like to highlight and emphasize that the very physician scientists who are providing the research and working in this building are the same physicians who care for our patients in the hospital and in the clinics. the same attributes that make these decisions successful researcher thirst for knowledge and seeking improvement and never settling for the status quo also makes them outstanding clinicians and has resulted in it being recognized as one of the nation's premier public hospitals. if the new building is not bment, we will be faced with a stark choice, sees doing the work that they are doing or work somewhere else. >> some will leave immediately over time we will be challenged

to recruit their replacements as you have heard without a research, component we will lose our level one trauma center designation and in short order shlths it will seize to be what it is, a place for anyone in san francisco can be acured that they will receive the best possible care regardless of gender or social and economic status and, for those reasons, i strongly appreciate and suggest that you support the resolution thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is monica and i am the medical director of ward 86 which is a large hiv clinic located on the campus. this is the. >> it is a mouthful. i know. >> this is one of the oldest hiv clinics in the country and one of the largest. and because of the proximity of our researchers and our division, which is the division

of hiv disease and global medicine to our patients, on campus. we have really developed innovations in clinical care that have served as national and enter nigsal models. we were the first clinic to arv treatment trials and the first place in the country to start people on universal arv therapy. not based on how they were doing but just you have hiv we need to treat it, for a number of reasons. we work on hihave, and aging and social determinants of health and hiv and we work on inflammation and we work on the cure. and which i think that we are going to achieve in this new research building is if the resolution passes for hiv. so, really urge you to support this, it you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my mame is steve and i am a physician and a researcher in the general hospital for close to three decade. i am also the co-chair of the research committee.

and i thank you for acknowledging the importance of our clinical and our research submission. and it feels good to be acknowledged in the forum and i appreciate your stamina for hearing our arguments. i am also the chief of pathology that has a long and storied history with the tee. we are one of the oldest departments that has been contracted by the city in the affiliation agreement. 60 years ago, my predecessor dr. car made the same argument in this front of this board successfully, to lob about i for a research building that i have been the direct beneficiary of, and i now okay you pspa is that need to be remodelled but that space has been very valuable for attracting world class researchers that have made contribution and trauma care and we took the first photograph, and we now house the world's

largest tissue bank and we provide tissue to researchers all over the woirld. and so i think that it is important to know why we believe that lts so important to have a research facility at a county hospital and it is so important for our researchers to be co-located with the patients in the community that they serve. i should mention that nearly 800 of our researchers choes when asked, if they want to move to the mission day. and i would like you to support their decision and it is in their best interest but in the city's best interest, and i hope that you vote in our favor next speaker please. >> thank you, good afternoon, my name is ted and i am the chief of orth peed i cans and i am also the director of the trauma institute and i thank you for your stamina in hearing out the

discussions. it seems very clear as i went out sdm talked and to the community and so i understand the concerns as well. that there isn't a lot of controversy over the important of research in at san francisco general hospital, and what they do, and the partnership between ucsf and san francisco general. and so i am not going elaborate on that too much. >> i would like to start and stop with two stories. >> i was recruited here 20 years ago as a young faculty member because i was interested in research and they needed someone to begin one in orthopedic surgery, and we didn't have good research space and over the ensuing six years we cram belled together and found some things and settled into one of the red brick buildings which we live now, over the course of the last 15 years since i have been chief, we have grown the group

to 100 people who are dedicated to the cause of taking care of san franciscans and those beyond. our entire group is housed in one of those buildings and as doctor manly mentioned they are not seismically safe at this point and so we continue to be housed in unsafe structure. and we do urge sort of a timely progress sxh support in passing this building for all of the great reasons. and the one story i would end up is several years ago just this is one of many stories when our department and others. we had one of our faculty members recognize there was certain kind of pelvic surgery that was not popperly treated in the literature. and figured out a way to develop the system for it and implemented and it and now used in filipisan francisco and acro world. and it is something that shows

the importance of research in our opportunity and expanding beyond the walls. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, my name is alice and i have the privilege of leading a health research team that focuses on the health of homeless women living in san francisco. the sf gh is an hub for the research. which has been extraordinary for us in a few ways, one, is that when homeless women are able to access healthcare in san francisco, it is often times at zsfgh and for us, that is fantastic, because it means that they trust the hospital, and they are familiar with it and this he show up for the research, which is wonderful for us. at the same time, being there, is fantastic because some of the most preimminent experts in healthcare deliverly and research and safety net patients work there. and so this combination hatz allowed us to do strong research and it has allowed us to contribute to healthcare guidelines and policy for under

served populations and it has been critical for us and so thank you for considering this and as a side, when the homeless lady in our studies come, they actually come on public transportation just to let you know that it does not impact parking all of the time. and our amazing research staff go out to greet them and ex-court them in and so thanks again for considering this. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for having us here today and also for just the hard work you do every single day. my name is cristina and i am a psychiatrist based at the hospital and. i fell in love with san francisco general hospital when i whats a medical student here. and i saw faculty members who were great educator and researchers and i am so proud that i am able to be here too with them. i am in the center for vulnerable populations.

and i spend my life and my career trying to improve the healthcare received by people with severe mental illness. i try to reach with the health or even in jail shths other hat that is relevant and speaks to our space is that i run a public psychiatry fellowship at the hospital. this fellowship is actually the strong support from the county. and it has five fellows now we are the largest fellowship in the department of psychiatry. and then they end up working in the public mental healthcare sector and they get a taste of research by doing projects over the course of the year trying to really improve the care in the clinics that they are working in here at san francisco. and we are creative about how to do that baudz we don't have any space. so they are in different conference rooms with laptops work wg assistants and so, we really need the space so thank you so much for listening to us

today. good afternoon, jim, vice president. and standing in that line i was here to bring the average iq down to a normal level, it represents 2500 employers from throughout the city including we are proud to say the university of california san francisco. and i appreciate your support for this project. as you well know, medicine is one of the key pillars of the san francisco economy. pro-probably well over 125 or 150,000 of the 600,000 people in san francisco are tied to this industry. whether it is the education side, the research side, or the delivery of medical care, directly to the residents of san francisco. and obviously, these researcher facility $should have been rebuilt long ago, and fortunately it can be done and done in a way that keeps as you heard the delivery of those

services on the campus of general hospital and we support your positive vote for this project. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chair cohen and supervisors tang and yee, thank you for listening to all of us today. i am neil po and a physician and researcher who came to the general eight years ago because of the opportunity to promote innovation in health disparities. i am also the chief of medicine at the general. and we are the largest department at the general and have the largest research funding of over, 100 million dollars each year for many years. we have been engaged in research to improve the health of hundreds and thousands of san francisco residents. we compete competitively for millions of dollars from the federal government, including the national institute of health and the can enter disease

control and prevention. to support, the world class innovation for the treatments treated at the general. our work for trees on hiv aids and its complicated has turned it from a death sentence to a treatable disease and the torque on tb has protected the residents from the ought breaks and the work on obesity is preventing diabetes in youth. our research serves as a model as you have heard from the nation and the world, shining line on san francisco as a health leader. >> we employ, san francisco residents attract, super star physicians, many in this room and train young people to make them competitive for the jobs of the future, we can only do this if we have a modern and safe

buildings where with doctors can perform research that helps patients. >> please support innovation, to save liefdz by approving this measure. >> thank you. >> if there are any of con stit you ents that want to speak against this measure you are welcome to. sometimes it is hard to speak when there is an overwhelming support to one side ers haves the other. >> seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. >> all right, colleagues the matter is in our hand is there hey motion? >> inturp supervisor yee. i want to make a comment, i want to thank everybody for coming out here and for all of your good work ripting san francisco and ucsf. as i stated up front, it is the good time that we have a new facility for the researchers. and the issue of the parking that goes beyond these

particular facility $is of great importance to me. and i am hoping that we will have the satisfaction answers from dr. garia in the next few weeks so that i could fully continue to support this. all right, thank you. >> you want me to make a motion. >> supervisor tang has a few remarks that she wants to share. >> thank you everyone again to taking your valuable time to come out here and share your thoughts with us. i think that for me, what the motion that i would propose is to send this forward to the full board without recommendation, but so that everyone here is aware, it does not stop the project, it does not halt anything, it just flags i think for us, which was the parking issue that we would like to have addressed between now and hopefully tuesday we will have some sort of an answer or indication as to what direction we are going to go and so do no worry, everyone this is just so

that my colleagues who may not have followed this hearing will flag it when we see the board agenda and we can all talk about. so this will still allow this to move forward. >> all right. that was a motion and we will take it without objection. thank you. >> all right. and clerk could you call item, excuse me. i would like to do something, we need to colleagues we need to take a motion to rescind item 8, a motion the vote on item 8, so that we can continue that item to thursday february second, which is the new budget meeting date. >> go ahead and make a motion to re-scind. >> seconded >> second by tang without objection. >> passes. >> all right. now, colleagues i would like to

introduce the motion that we continue this item to february thursday, february second. so moved. >> all right. and without objection that mosses passes. could you call item 13? >>resolution fixing prevailing wage rates for workers performing work under city contracts for public work and improvement; workers performing work under city contracts for janitorial services; workers performing work in public off-street parking lots, garages, or storage facilities for automobiles on property owned or leased by the city; workers engaged in theatrical or technical services for shows on property owned by the city; workers engaged in the hauling of solid waste generated by the city in the course of city operations, pursuant to a contract with the city; workers performing moving services under city contracts at facilities owned or leased by the city; workers engaged in exhibit, display, or trade show work at a special event on property owned by the city; and workers engaged in broadcast services on property owned by the city. >> we have pat who is going to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisors. every year, the board of supervisors approves prevailing wage standards for any project $covered under city contracts on are city lease agreements. this includes the 63 different per veiling wage classifications that are approved through the department of industrial relations as well as eight prevailing page classifications that are unique to the city and county of san francisco. and i moo it add that there are two recently improved prevailing wage classifications that are no the included in this packet and

that is because they are approved by the board of supervisors on october, 14th, and october, 18th. and that was after it went to the civil service commission and so those will be fourth coming and in the 120 day requirement by our office. >> great, thank you. and good to see you. >> great. >> there is a bla report on this item. item number three in >> miss campbell? >> yes, on this item as we say, and we always say with the prevailing wage rates, this could but is not known if it will have an impact on the cost of future city contracts. it is required to be administrative code, however, the board does have discretion in terms of choosing the data that they use. to determine the prevailing wage. and therefore, because of the board's discretion, we consider this to be a policy matter. >> we will take up that policy matter. any public of the p you believe that would like to speak on 13? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> is there a motion for this

item? >> i will go ahead and move this with the positive recommendation out of the committee to the full board. >> all right, and without objection that motion passes. >> thank you, thank you, madam clerk are there any other business before this body? >> no further business. >> all right this meeting is adjourned. >> very happy to be joined by mayor ed lee my chief assistant jesse smith and ron flynn and

droopings molly and christine and matthew and others all these advertising have been work on the action i filed a federal lawsuit invention plummeting u president donald trump for depriving san francisco and another cities of billions of because of our sanctuary status the president's executive order is not only unconstitutional you think american that's why we must stand up and oppose it grand of our democracy is president trump spoke of in his address not a step i take lightly but is necessary to defend the country for the respect for the constitution the fabric off our community and

billions of dollars billions of are at stake my lawsuit says it is unlawfully first president trump didn't appear to understand the constitution and elements on executive power gives local and state godmothers in the best interests and president trump executive order is intervening and interfering with those powers and second john updyke executive order is on federal statutes that governs local and state government about a person's immigration status while san francisco is a sanctuary city we are in full compliance with that federal statute, however, with you that federal statute is unconstitutional that's why we are challenging the executive order this country was founded other than the principle the federal government can't force state and local to act as its agent

throughout the history this highest court you would that in 2012 the supreme court in the affordable health care said that the federal government can't put a financial gun to the head of state and local governments? true no matter who is in charge in washington, d.c. tried to turn the city and state employees into federal officers that is unconstitutional no wanting o president to take the federal government beyond unlawful president trump order undermines the trust hard work and open communication the city's are the loobtsz of innovation the engine and heart of this country this is where the american dream happens there's a reason more than 4

hundred cities and counties across the country with every major city from new york to los angeles has sanctuary policies recognize when san francisco first recognized 28 years old that undocumented victims were too scared to report their attacks before us they feared being deported sanctuary policies encourage the undocumented to report crime these policies are getting violent criminals off the streets many people think this sanctuary city policies protect criminals that is wrong in the federal government has a criminal warrant we honor that sanctuary cities protect children by insuring their parents are safe to schools and hospitals sanctuary cities policies protect families and sanctuary cities protect all of

us we're safer with everyone including undocumented immigrants feel safe we're hearther when the 2ku789d assess the public health podiums were we smarter including the undocumented immigrants attend school the numbers bear that out a recent two the california san diego city council colleges people are fewer employment this is executive order is supposed to will be public safety this study found on average 35 fewer crimes per sanctuary cities compared to others if allowed to be implemented many executive order will make our community less safe our residents less prosperous that's why and

requesting the court policy part of this executive order is urban constitutional and indicating that san francisco complies that the federal law continue to coordinate with the federal authorities that recent the states right and more importantly the constitution i'd like to give mia moment to say a few words and stated clearing that san francisco will continue to be a sanctuary city and protect that wonderful tradition that san francisco has a little been based on. >> morning first of all, i want to commend our city attorney dennis herrera and his entire staff for their swift action in filing of this of those papers to protect our

sanctuary city and thank you supervisor ronen from the board of supervisors as i said last week, we are ready to fight to keep our city safe today is a prime example the incidence misguided executive orders make our residents less safe and as a city we will fight back today, we fight back since november of last year the entire city has work together to prepare a legal defense unfortunately, it has come to that. >> strong cities evict san francisco inform must continue to push our nation forward and lift this be a remiss reminder we're a city that fights for what is right that we stand as one to protect san francisco and all that we believe in thank you, again to our city

attorney. >> and your team for protecting our city and residents thank you, mr. mayor. >> thank you supervisor ronen for being here with that, i'll up, up for questions. >> (inaudible) any and cities or state officials (inaudible). >> you're absolutely right things are at stake some quantifyable some not but just as important we've made it clear in a financial perspective income tax that are billions of at stake for sanctuary cities more important 90 in san francisco billion dollars and 50 percent is direct 50 is disconnect to the state but more importantly the comfort and the

confidence of our residents we have thirty thousand undocumented even resident here in the city and county of san francisco and they are scared and we owe it it our community whether their undocumented or citizens that a comfort not fearing this will be an ice raid at their home we'll support them as stewards of this city to make sure we are providing that assurance and that comfort to our residents we'll fight on their behave against a attempts to violate the rule of law that is very, very important for our community and we're fighting for equally as well as with respect to outlet community i know myself and the mayor have been in contact with a host of city not only in california but

across the country and i'm hope with the lawsuit today more cities will step up and take action comfortably. >> (inaudible). >> well, like i said, we've been very clear in terms of of laying out our lawsuit we cite what has occurred in the affordable health care act but can't put a gun to the head of elements and we have a variability did case law back decades what is required when we're going after federal funding we're confident and in our analysis and we believe that the law is clear you can't come dear local officials to carry out federal dictates if you're

going after federal grant it can't be the dictate can't be unconstitutional and put a gun to the head of state elements to get them to comply you might want at federal government. >> (inaudible). >> well, i think if you look at our complaint we're very clear and careful with respect to how we attack that we attack the constitutionality of 1473 number one we say that it is quite clear that san francisco already complies with federal law i'm not worried about this we don't deal with the issues of funding as it were fully knowing what we're articulated is basis for getting to that point when that happens we'll be well positions to make those arguments

yeah in the back. >> (inaudible). >> we have obviously been looking at the issue for quite sometime a variety of issues we've been looking at since the election to make sure that san francisco is protected and we have been coordinating with the state and 09 governments throughout california to make sure that our positions are protected we've been looking at this issue quite a while and and the health care and vital and climate issues that been going on for months obviously we have to have the first shot and we're ready to go. >> (inaudible).

>> i think that what you see is that as i mentioned interest the data shows quite different 35 and one-half per residents in sanctuary jurisdictions versus non-sanctuary jurisdictions it is clear that sanctuary cities or sanctuary cities make the coordination between community more robust and confident and in the kate steinle case was a tragedy we empathize with that family whenever someone is a victim of crime and i think stwla is a misnomer that with respect to skaurpgz we are protecting criminals that's not the case we comply with federal

law and provided with a criminal warrant are court order we turn the information over with the convenient that folks used for political pumpers to the tragedy of kate steinle death but the reality is in the a broader sense xhurnt communities are safer when you have a robust sanctuary policy in place yes. >> (inaudible). >> i would say this then i'll let the mayor give his perspective no secret that san francisco has been a target as it were from well before our filing of this lawsuit today and

we owe it to our residents to make sure that we are protecting their interests protecting transpire dollars and use every tool to make sure the rule of law is followed our residents are protected and they have an entity that fight on their behalf. >> not a surprise we might be targeted our city's values the way we conducted ourselves to protect our immigrant populations talked about diversity and the ininclusiveness from our airport to how we help advantaged groups in the city it always made us a target there is no surprise 124 president will target us that's why we need to be ready everyone whether on the health care or

the civil rights front or the cabinet we have to be ready that's why we prepare and that's why we're calling not just on the city attorney we've asked attorneys throughout the bay area to join along with the foundations that want to be part of the effort inform resist this politicizing and making sure that those executive orders don't come forward. >> (inaudible). >> well again, i think to the extent they have warrant and their abiding by the law we'll

be a level coordination, of course, this is a concern when you emphasis people not interested in making sure that our counties are safe safe may be one definition i agree with the city attorney that skaurjz with safer and this has been proven state of california but our chief of police and other law enforcement professionals they believe that having open communications with all the elements of our society is much more preferable to having a safe society increased enforcement in ice is what the president is doing hopefully, he has an objective that will make us safer i don't believe that will make us safer. >> (inaudible). >> i think that this is going

to be organic i think that we welcome as much support and assistance that the cities might want to provide address we have a history of working with other jurisdictions and that will not change. >> (inaudible) we're in communication with them and any assistance we work together and that's not something i think will be a problem. >> (inaudible). >> i think obey the rule of lieu abide by the constitution we're a nation of law not have men; right? there are processes and there are legal structures that give a level of preebltd we have to live by you can't the

emperor that - we're going to make that clear san francisco is in accordance with the law we'll live by the law and mr. vice president and administration needs to do so too you have a question. >> (inaudible) >> well that's why we are so we thought that was important to file that lawsuit now i mean as a unfortunately, the mayor knows bernie do the process takes most and there are assumptions that are made how the city allocates money and summaries made the last thing in the world we want to the position down the

road we don't know where we are and the mayor makes the assumptions this this is money put aside that impacts the law enforcement and health care and homeless services so by filing this lawsuit today wire trying to get a declaration from the court this is unconstitutional we're in correspondence with the law is that wasn't you're talking about is not a risk we are running into. >> wells fargo we filed today, we'll have to wait and is what this case holds. >> (inaudible). >> well the city attorney is lead i'm sure they have i was referring to call upon community lawyers and the bar associations he did a few years ago there were over