presentation on item 9. >> chair cohen, supervisors, nicole el jot, director of the office of cannabis. thank you for having me here today. as you remember, in september, when you created this office, you directed us to deliver to you three things. the first, the fee schedule is what you have before you today. what it includes is a couple of things. it sets a one-time nonrefundable application fee in year one of $2,000 with a $3,000 permit fee. it sets a cannabis business license fee at $5,000 every year therefore, it sets a legal fee of $115 perhour with a minimum of two hours, and it sets a new fee schedule for the department of public health, their costs of initial and ongoing inspections, which the

department is here to speak to today. all other departments will assess their fees separately, depending on the inspections and permits required for the specific circumstances of those businesses, and these fees will be subject to each department's existing fee schedule. so the amount of the fee was set by considering the overall expenditure budget of the office of cannabis. it adds additional overhead at the rate of approximately 7% for services provided by gsa's administrative human resources, i.t. and accounting divisions, and it divides that by the approximate number of permits that may be sought in year one, and for permit amendments, the $110 perhour amount was calculated, setting an hourly rate for review based on the staff compensation in the office, and again, it sets a minimum charge of approximately two hours to review. that is my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions,

and i would invite the department of public health to come up and share more about their component. >>supervisor cohen: all right. we've got a representative from the department of public health. come on up. share with us your comments and ideas around this fee structure proposal. >> good morning, supervisors. drew morell, finance manager, public health. the fee schedule in front of you is largely mirrored on our existing fees. the new one is the plan check for cannabis cultivation facilities and manufacturing facilities and microbusinesses, and it's based on estimated number of hours for environmental review programs to review the plans of a manufacturing or new business. there's provisions in the fee,

reevaluate after the first year, to reset the fees if the law provides. excess revenue or under collects revenue. that -- that's all. >>supervisor cohen: okay. all right. thank you. supervisor tang, and then, supervisor yee. >>supervisor tang: thank you very much. i wanted to ask some questions about what happens with the fee situation or the fee waiver if, for example, there's an equity applicant that partners with an existing cannabis dispensary, one that's already been in operation. does the fee get waived for all of them. how does that work with the ownership structure, so if you could go into a little bit more detail about that. >> supervisor, i could defer to supervisor cohen to explain the impact of that. >>supervisor cohen: sure. supervisor tang. give me a minute. i will get the answer to you. do you have other questions we can get to.

>>supervisor tang: no. >>supervisor cohen: okay. we'll get back to that question. supervisor yee? >>supervisor yee: i guess you're also looking up some information on what i'm going to be saying, which is generally speaking, when businesses start-up, they have a rough time during the first year. it's not just the initial fees, and we appreciate know that in the business model that nobody really expects to make a profit in their first year, and sometimes, it takes several years before you can recoup your costs, so i'm -- i'd like to entertain a -- a notion to maybe amend supervisor cohen's

amendment to expand the fee waiver that may include the first year, so my question is, then, what impact that would have? >> supervisors, i could defer to the controller and budget office to respond to that. >>supervisor cohen: so i'm going to pivot back to supervisor tang's question as the controller's office ponders supervisor yee's thoughtful question. so your question is, what happens if you have an equity partner partnered with a person who's not an equity partner. well, it depends on the qualifier. the applicant must have either 40% and be the ceo or they must have 51% ownership and have no

ceo status, so that will determine how fees would be assessed. and so that's really up to the discretion of the individual business. does that answer your question fully? okay. all right. i want to go to the controller's office and hear their thoughts on supervisor yee's question. >> supervisors, michelle ehlers, controller's office. the current year budget assumes approximately $700,000 in cost for the office of cannabis, and it assumes that fees will be effective that support the operation january 1, 2018, so that the first half of the year is funded through general fund support of approximately $300,000, so its fees are waived and we would be needing general funds savings from other parts of the department to fund the expense. >>supervisor yee: i guess, let me clarify. the fees that would be waived would be for the -- for the

equity piece, so it's not just for everybody. >> okay. then that would -- the amount of general fund support needed to pay for the fee waivers is just whatever proportional amount would be of the pay base. >>supervisor yee: i guess in your analysis, did you take into consideration that there would be a certain number of new applicants that's going to be under the -- utilizing the equity piece? and by the way, i -- i'm talking about the -- most of them will be new. that's going to take them a year or two, so this wouldn't even impact, i assume, next year's budget on the office because i think, in the earlier meeting in this chamber, miss elliott mentioned that -- that anybody applying would take almost -- over a year, so i --

if you're assuming that people are applying, they would immediately be up and running and you'll be collecting an annual fee. i don't understand that. that seems to be a conflict. >> i think that the budget that was established and proposed by the mayor's office in may... [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry. i think it just made that assumption on a broad level that fees would be effective halfway through the year, therefore, half of the funds would be borne by the general fund and half would be by fee payers. i would defer to the general department upon which time fees are payable, whether they're payable upon application or approval of the application. >>supervisor cohen: let me interject here. we just created regulations on

tuesday, so would you be fair and give us a pass if we don't have answers on the fly. what i'm looking for supervisor yee, he's looking to give help to the -- to the businesses that are going to be starting up, and one of the key barriers to any business concession success are access to capital. the next issue he's bringing up is we want to make sure that the fees are not overburdensome, and if i'm putting words in your mouth, let me know, so he's asking is there some kind of a financial impact of the office of cannabis being able to do their business, because remember this is a cost recovery department, so the fees that you recover is going to pay you and kind of keep this operation. if we were to allow businesses not to pay fees, is that correct, you said for the first

year? >>supervisor yee: for the first year. >>supervisor cohen: not to pay fees for the first year, we want to know how will that impact your office's ability to conduct its business. >> thank you, supervisors. to your point, there is a lot of unknowns about what lies ahead of us, so when it comes to the number of equity permits that will be sought and that will be issued, that number is unknown, and so i can't answer what that fiscal -- what the real fiscal impact would be. it would be 5,000. >> commissioner perez: -- per permit, so whatever sort of permits are having -- what are sort of fees we're having per permit, we just need to shift from the general fees of my office additional funds to support that endeavor. we do not know how many total

permits will be issued in the first half of 2018, the second half of 2018 and beyond. that is something that we can only assess later in the year. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. and again, just for the record we're not talking about waiving fees for all businesses applying, we're specifically talking about equity businesses. >> right. >>supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, do you have anymore remarks? >>supervisor yee: i mean, considering the answer i'm getting, which is, obviously, none of us know how many are going to apply, which means that it's hard to even say that you could include anything in the budget, probably, what you do know are the existing operators, they're probably going to get their permits at one point or another, and they'll pay their fees, so given the nature that you don't really know, and i hope you don't make assumptions that

there might be 20 in 2019 that are new, so any new one would be almost additional funding that you probably wouldn't assume. and so if you -- if there were new operators, and they're under the equity lens, you wouldn't actually miss it because you didn't assume how many were going to come in. again, maybe my assumptions were wrong. what i understand of business and what people tell me is they struggle more in the first few years because as they're wrapping up their business, they're still spending money and the businesses aren't fully operational, where they're making enough money, so that's my thought process, the logic. if we're going to waive -- and i'm going to support the $2,000 initial fees, waiving. if we're going to do that, then there might be some logical conclusion that we should also

support the first year where they don't pay the fees, so that's where i'm coming from, and i'm willing to make that amendment to supervisor cohen's amendment if there's support for that. >>supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor yee. i appreciate your enthusiasm in support of the equity program, and ladies and gentlemen for clarification of what we're talking about, because we're almost talking about two different things. first of all, miss elliott has proposed business fees for all businesses. the amendmented that i proposed are fee structure, but for equity businesses, so i just want to make that clear, and supervisor yee, i think i'm going to hold off on supporting the ideas that we've skisdiscu here today. i think we've got to wait and see how businesses are going before we start reducing and assessing fees. is that fair, miss elliott?

okay. so thank you for the discussion. is there anything else, miss elliott, that you want to contribute? you're done? >> yep. >>supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. supervisor, i see other names on the rosters that's leftover. okay. let's go to public comment and see if the public has any ideas or comments that they'd like to share on item 9. none? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. okay. so this matter is in the hands of the board of this committee. so i'd like to make an amendment and wem ae make a motion to accept the amendments, if we could take that without objection. >>supervisor yee: yep. >>supervisor tang: so moved. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. i appreciate that. and then, i'd like to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report and as amended tang tangs so moved. >>supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much colleagues, and thank you mr. clerk. now, friends, we are moving on. let's go to item 10. >> clerk: next on the agenda,

item number 10, resolution authorizing the extension of an existing lease for approximately 79,000 square feet of office feet at 1390 hourt street for the department of public health's community behavioral health services division with the vera cort as trustee of the robert j.cort marital trust and as trustee of the vera cort survivor's trust as landlord. >> you're back. >> this is seblly a lease are you new al, but it's a new lease because we've renewed is -- it so many times, we wanted

to clean it up and present a new one. it is a new lease, effective january 1, 2018, with numerous renewals. this is approximately an 80,000 square foot plg. it has been used for over 20 years by the department of public health at 1390 howard. it is substantially above the current market rate. knowing where we were headed on this lease, our staff did a pretty exhaustive analysises on two fronts. one, was there a suitable replacement facility at comparable or better pricing, not surprising given the advantageous lease we've negotiated here, we could not find a similar sized property meeting the needs of the department of public health that was competitive

financially. secondly, we looked at although the ownership has made it clear they do not desire to sell the property, they really desire to have a consistent income stream, modest income stream, so that's why we negotiated a better rate than we might have here at other locations, the permanent nens of that income stream was probably more important than the amount, what i will say is we did the lease versus buy analysis over 30 years. we considered the reversionary value of the property at the end of that 30 year term, and what we are presenting to you, assuming substantial renewals, renewal increases as five year intervals over that 30 year period, leasing is advantageous to the city. not slightly, but by over $30 million over term, so we feel strongly that a lease is the appropriate mechanism here to continue our occupancy. lastly, there is a modest

tenant improvement allowance, 479,700, just a refreshing of the space. there is an ability to exceed that amount if budget availability is within the department of public health's capacity, so we do have dph staff who can address both program use and the intention of the improvements to 1380 howard to improve our experience there. i think that pretty well covers the details of this lease before you today. >>supervisor cohen: all right. let's see, colleagues any questions from mr. updike? all right. seeing none, we're going to go to miss severin campbell and hear her thoughts. >> yes. this is a five year less as mr. updike said, three five year extensions. the initial rent is $45 persquare foot, based on market praisals, it is fair market

value. first year rent of 3.4 million, over 15 years, it would be about 17.1 million, and the landlord would be putting in tenant improvements. we did note that the city could incur costs for the tenant improvements, but we have been assured but the department of health that the tenant improvements would be paid by the landlord, and we recommend approval. >>supervisor cohen: thank you for making that recommendation. let's go to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, item 10 is open if you'd like to comment on item 10. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues is there any motions? >>supervisor yee: sure. i'll make this to pass this out of the committee with positive recommendation to the full board with a committee report to the december 5th meeting. >>supervisor cohen: all right. we'll take that out wox. mr. clerk, could you call items number 11 and 12 together. >> clerk: yes. item 11, resolution approving

amendment number 2 to the domestic it term nat food and bench lease number 03-0200, and the annual promotional charge to $3,111. item number 12, resolution approving amendment number 1 to the international terminal food and beverage lease, between ssp america and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, increasing the guaranteeing rent. >>supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. we've got our friend cathy widener back representing the airport. >> thank you very much, supervisors. cathy widener, san francisco

international airport. we propose to increase the square footage as well as the minimum annual guarantees between the airport and fillmore in the international terminal and the union street gastropub in terminal three. both are operated by ssp america and m approved by the board of supervisors in 2015 and 2016 respectively. the proposed modifications would increase the mag rent retroactively. in the case of 1300 on fillmore, the square foot age will go from 1694 square feet to 2,094 square feet, and the mag will be adjusted from $224,000 $22 $224,000 to $279,000.

based on the current gross sales for both locations, the restaurants are currently paying the airport on the higher of the percentage formula rate, but this modification would correctly increase the mag to reflect the correct square footage for each location. the budget department requests amending the reds lugs to accurately reflect the square footage and retroactively allow rent from march of 2017. i would be happy to answer any questions. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. i have a question for you. are you aware that the budget legislative analysts have made some amendments to the suggestions that we should consider. >> yes. >>supervisor cohen: are you in

agreement? >> yes. i am in agreement with all of them cone koeb all right. thank you. appreciate that. let's hear what the bla has to say. >> yes, as miss widener said, we are making an amendment to increase the resolutions. both of these would increase the minimum annual guarantee. our understanding is the two restaurants is paying percentage restaurant, but under the revised resolutions, the minimum annual guarantee for 1300 on fillmore in the international would result in rent of about 2.9 million over ten years to the airport. for the terminal 3 location, union street gastropub, it would result in 2.6 million to the airport. the amendment to file 170255 would be to correctly state that the mag is 58 dlint $41 persquare foot, equal to

181,700 in the current area. otherwise, we would recommend approval. >>supervisor cohen: thank you, and i appreciate that. colleagues, any questions for either one of the ladies? all right. seeing none, let's go to public comment. public comments on items 11 and 12. seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. let's take some motions to accept -- or may i -- do we have a motion to accept the amendments? >>supervisor tang: so moved. >>supervisor cohen: and -- >>supervisor tang: as stated by our budget analyst's office. >>supervisor cohen: and overall. >>supervisor tang: overall send a recommendation to with a report to the full board with a positive recommendation. >>supervisor cohen: all right. cl clerk, item 13, please. >> clerk: item number 13, resolution retroactively authorizing the airport director and his or her zigy to accept three gifts for the sfo

museum collection. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. >> chair cohen, supervisors, cathy cohen, chair of the san francisco international airport. we are asking for your authorization to accept three gifts of 998 timetables from thomas g dragers, 73 model scale aircrafts from james lund, and 163 commercial aviation art facts from john simmons for use in the sfo museum collection. as you know, the san francisco airport aviation museum provides opportunities for learning about commercial flight. the museum's collection focuses on air transport with an emphasis on the west coast and pacific region. it's located in the international terminal presecurity and is open to the

public. each gift has been determined as desirable by the review committee as well as the airport commission and each gift squierz board of supervisors approval as they are all valued over $10,000. donations of commercial aviation related materials is an important way for the museum to help meet the goal of preserving and sharing the history of flight. there is not a budget analyst's report, but i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >>supervisor cohen: thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions? all right. seeing that there's no question, we'll go to public comment. seeing that there's no public comment, we'll close public comment. all right. item 13, in our hands. what shall we do with it? >>supervisor tang: i say we send to the full board with a positive recommendation. >>supervisor cohen: so moved. without objection, done. please call items 14, 15, and 16 together. >> clerk: item number 14,

resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness, authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to commit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $150 million for 909 and 921 howard streets and 414 tehama street. resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the

mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bond in an ago regate principal amount not to exceed $200 million for 2065th street. and item 16, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to commit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $90 million for 1990 folsom street.

>> 920 howard will be an all affordable housing unit. upon project completion half of the units will serve households earning no more than 50% meeting area median income. no residents will be displaced by construction as the site is currently a vacant lot. 206 5th street will be a 226 mixed income building. upon completion, 20% of the project's units will serve households earning no more than 50% of the ami while the balance will be running at market rates. again, no residents will be displatesed. finally, the unit on folsom will be an all affordable building located at 1990 folsom street in the mission. approximately 20 units will be set aside for residents moved from potrero hill.

25% will serve households earning no more than 50% of the ami. again, no resident displacement with this project either. all of these projects will be submitted to the california debt limit allocation committee in the next two weeks and if awarded an allocation i'll return with an approval to the board therefore. i'd like to thank you for your consideration today and i look forward to your support on those projects, and with that, i'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >>supervisor yee: all right. any questions? seeing none, let's go to public comments. any public comments on these items? seeing none, then public comment is now closed. can i enter main a motion on these three items? >>supervisor tang: all right. i'll make a motion on items 14

through 16, to send them through to the full board with a positive recommendation. >>supervisor yee: seeing no objection, these items pass. >> clerk: next on the agenda, item 17, resolution approving and authorizing the execution and performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate in connection with the acquisition of the parcel located at 1491 sunny daily avenue street and a long-term 75 year with a 24-year extension option. >>supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. we've got sarah amoral -- just by way for the ladies and gentlemen that are here, parcel cue is the first parcel of the sunny daily housing rebuild, and it's slated for 55 units, and the purchase price is $3 million, which is less than the appraised value. you can go into the details in your presentation. i think that this is an

important piece of -- small piece of an agreement that helps us get to the larger project, and that is overall vision to tear down the dilapidated public housing that is home to many -- several thousands of people, quite frankly, it's the largest public housing that's in the city and county of san francisco, so miss sarah, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair cohen, supervisors. i'm with the mayor office of housing and community development. today i'm pleased to present a resolution for the purchase and sale and subsequent ground lease for the first new construction at the sunny daily hope sf site, located at 1491 sunny daily avenue. the property starts a new chapter as supervisor cohen had mentioned in the revitalization of sunny daily publdale public that has been coming on for a lo

sunnydale. >> -- and approximately 600 market rate home ownership units will also go on sale. the streets include all new utility spaces and infrastructure, and 60,000 feet of new neighborhood spaces including retail and services. parcel q, while adjacent to sunnydale housing site has included in the master plan entitlement package it was chosen as the first site because it plays an important role in relocation. parcel q allows residents to

move to new safe spreer housup housing sooner. the parcel is located on the southeast corner of sunnydale and hahn. the sponsor acquired the property from the previous owner in early 2016 after being in contact for almost a year. when construction is ready to tart, the sponsor will transfer the property to city in consideration of payment of the loan, and boekt parties will enter into a long-term grount lease for 99 years to ensure affordability.

construction is ready to begin in january of 2018. once constructed, as supervisor cohen mentioned, the property will be five stories and 55 units, with three studios, 19 one bedrooms, 19 two bedrooms, and 14 three bedrooms. one two bedroom unit will be reserved for an on-site manager's unit. 75% of the units will be set aside for current sunnydale residents living on-site and that are substanceidized by a voucher authority. it will include 33 parking spot, a management office and office for services. we're here to ask you, subsequently, the grount lease before you today has annual base and residual rent, which shows a value of $5,950,000.

the property will become income restricted to families making no more than 60% ami. most city will collect $60 million annual in rent. most city -- had requested a third party review perthe city's administrative code, the third party reviewer had issues with the collier's international praisal methodology and rejected the praisal. however this is restricted land and it will be permanently affordable through the long-term ground lease, the praisal issues are a little mer academic, based upon the data that we have collected on the southeast neighborhoods, entitled parcels have sold on average about $213,000 a door.

in comparison, that would compute $11,700,000 for personal cue. parcel q's previous praisal would be at 4,00,054,000. we request this committee move to approve the purchase and sale agreement and subsequent ground lease. at this time, the sponsor, john updike, director of property and myself are all available to answer any questions that you may have. >>supervisor cohen: thank you for that thorough presentation. colleagues, dow have any questions? all right. let's go to the budget legislative analyst and hear her thoughts. >> yes, this purchase of parcel

q was contemplated by the mayor's office at the time that mercy housing purchased the property. the purchase price would be basically forgiveness of the loan. there would be a 99 year ground lease set at $59 persquare foot peryear, plus residual value. we made this a policy matter because there had not been a policy review on the original praisal, and the original praisal review rejected the initial appraisal by.9 million. we did final reference to an appraisal in 2018 that set the value at 3.9 million, which would be more than the purchase price, but we did consider this to be a policy matter. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues, let's go to public

comment. any members of the public that would like to speak on item 17? we've got a room full of public commenters. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor yee? >>supervisor yee: yeah. let me get some clarification with the appraisal piece again. are you still going out to do another appraisal or are we done or since there's really no appraisal on this that's been approved? >> john updike, director of real estate. supervisor, given that there was a prior appraisal in may of 2017, which is on the cusp of getting a little stale, we chose to get a new appraisal. in behind sight, we probably should have simply gone with the appraisal in may which exceeds the purchase price which as the budget analyst noted was $3.96 million. i suspect had we done a review

of that, that may have been acceptable. the methodologies used in the new appraisal not commissioned by the city, so collier's provided a report to the development side, when we do a review appraisal, it is usually a collaborative process between the appraiser and the reviewer, and if there's a differing approach, we ask the two to work together to do that. it's much more difficult to orchestrate that when we're not the client. so in this case, we chose to look at the appraisal volumes that we had in this area to be sure to give us comfort that there's no question that this value is no greater than fair market value, and in fact, it is not, so as sarah eloquently outlined, we have a lot of data surrounding this property that we feel very comfortable with

on a per-achievable unit basis validates this transaction as being under the fair market value. so we have an older appraisal, we have a new appraisal rejected, but we do have a review that suggests what the issues were, and based on that, we took a look at some different comparables, really following the review appraiser's recommendations, and it led us to the conclusion that we're still in very safe territorial value, hope that helps. >>supervisor yee: yes. so the assumption is here we're done with appraising? >> yes. >>supervisor yee: got it. >>supervisor cohen: all right. are we ready to go for a vote? all right. i'd like to make a motion to send to the full board with a recommendation and i'd like to send it with a committee report, and we can do that without objection. thank you very much. let's call item 18 and 19 together as we finish this

agenda. >> clerk: item 18, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of emergency management on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the primary grantee of urban areas security initiative funds for the bay area urban area and as the fiscal agent for the you uasi approval authority to accept and expend a fiscal year 2017 urban areas security initiative program grant in the amount of $22,428,800 from the u.s. department of homeland security through the california office of emergency services. item 19, resolution approving a memorandum of understanding with the cities of oakland and san jose and the counties of alameda, contra costa, marin,

monterey, smant, santa clara, and sonoma that provides governance structures and procedures for application, allocation and distribution of federal urban areas security initiative grant funds to the bay area urban area, as well as for other federal grant funds to the bay area urban area. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. before i recognize the presenter, i would like to recognize my colleague, supervisor. >>supervisor yee: -- supervisor yee. >>supervisor yee: we would like to see that being used in a way that's not to militarize our police departments and so forth, and there was even discussions that maybe san francisco would like to pull out of that altogether, and at

the time, around that time, we let it go, in terms of the grant application, and said that we would revisit this, and i was joined by supervisor cohen at the time to introduce some legislation to look at the other issues piece. we haven't moved forward with that yet because there's been a lot of things that we were able to participate in and so forth to see what was really going on. one of thing -- i think both supervisor cohen and myself went up and participated in the urban hs urban shoes exercise -- at least i did, and i think i saw supervisor cohen there, too. there were things that i saw in the exercise in san francisco that were, to me, somewhat positive, but then, when i asked for more information, what about the other sites, not

every other sites had similar programs, so i think what i'm seeing is that there were probably some possibilities to improve the urban shoes piece. certainly, what i liked about what you saw in san francisco, the one that i saw in san francisco was the fact that even though it was not fully exercised, but they did have some activities in there that valued the deescalation techniques, and the team that i saw that was going through that had four people that were trained in it, which was a real positive thing to me. and i think we've had meetings, i've had meetings with different people surrounding this particular grant, and i have to say that i'm kind of disappointed that given what we

articulated, given the fact that we said we'd like to reflect our culture in this, that the mou in particularly, was an opportunity to do something with, and of course, what we've got today in front of us is basically the same mou that comes up every year with no modification, and at -- and to me, i -- i think the last, i guess county or whatever entity that's going to look at this mou, which -- but we had an opportunity to do some modification to this mou to include some language that could have expressed, at least from our county's point of view, what we'd like to see better in the -- in the uasi activities, so i -- at the end

of your presentation, i would like to introduce some amendments to the mou, as well as the other item, number 18. and -- and at this point, i still believe that we can help urge some improvements in their urban shoes piece. alameda county already has pastored 12 principles and guidelines that they'd like to move forward on that. i'm hoping that as we talk about these amendments, people will understand why it's so important that we don't just accept anything that comes before this budget committee with the comment that this is -- it's kind of too late and

this is last minute and so forth, when everybody knew -- except for me -- that the mou was going to be -- was moving forward and this was at the end of the process. so we have several months, if not more than that, where you could have -- the department could have come to the board of supervisors saying hey, guess what? you know, we're going to do an mou, it's going to be due in december. what would you like to see, since you -- there was so much discussion around this issue earlier this year, so those are my comments. >>supervisor cohen: thank you, and with that, the floor is yours. >> all right. well, thank you, madam chair, and thank you for your comments, supervisor yee, and supervisor yee, we look forward to the dialogue that we've had with you and your staff, and we look forward to continuing that. we have two items before you

today. the first is resolution allowing the department of emergency management to accept and expand fy 2017 thorough homeland security and federal preparedness grants. these are critical to our preparedness both across the city and the region. they help us meet the national preparedness goal of ensuring our city and residents are prepared for both national and internal disasters. the grants that we receive are used to prevent acts of terrorism, mitigate the impact of future disasters on life and property, respond quickly to save lives and meet basic human needs after a catastrophic event. our investments are spread across these five missionaries,

including community resilience, mass care, and critical emergency services. in san francisco, we have invested heavily in people. we know preparedness are a people driven business, and these aren't boureau kratters, they're people involved in their community, and local and regional partners. for example, members of our team ensure the basic needs of people displaced by fires and other incidents are immediately met. in during the wine country fires, the department was able to deploy 13 emergency management professionals to help our neighbors to the north

respond and cover from these deadly fires. overall, san francisco was able to deploy over 200 of our city and county family to help fight fires, assist with law enforcement activities, work in the eoc's, local assistance centers, inspect buildings, manage shelters, and assist in the economic recovery activities, so in all, these grants support 39 individuals from five departments: 14 at the general management team at the uasi, 13 at the department of emergency management, five at the police department, three at the fire department, three at the general services agency, and one at the sheriff's department. finally, i would like to express my appreciation fto th community for allowing us to apply for these grants. although the recommendations of

another task force have yet to be finalized, we fully participated and eagerly await the results. prioritized scenarios with disaster response elements and encourage city departments to ensure their employees acting in an official capacity -- the second item we have before you is a resolution approving the mou between the city and county of san francisco and 11 other bay area counties. as we have discussed, this mou allows san francisco to serve as a fiscal agent for the region and would allow the uasi management team to continue critical regional projects such as interoperational mass care projects and operational shelters, so thank you and i look forward to comments or

questions. >>supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. colleagues, we have a significant number of cards -- speaker cards. before we go to the public comment, just wanted to see if there's -- all right. we'll go to public comment. all right. i'm going to call folks. please -- thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. >>supervisor cohen: call folks up, and just lineup over here and first, we will hear from elen brostki, barbara briggs, craig denton, shawn sex ton, and philip white. these names are in no special order. i'm just reading them as they were handed to me, so please cue up when the speaker's finished, we can get through this relatively quickly. are you ellen? [ inaudible ] >>supervisor cohen: yes.

i appreciate this. i've been running this committee for a while . i've got more names -- >> i'm not ellen. i'm alexi. ellen had to go to work. i'm a member of jewish voice for peace, as is ellen. we are a member of the stop urban shield coalition. we have a bay area chapter, although we are a national organization. our focus is on true equality in israel palestine, focusing on palestinian rights. but we're very concerned about urban shield, and it's not an obstruction, it is a real life situation that militarized

policing -- including participation in past urban shield trade shows. so -- so we have a direct concern about this issue, and you know, hearing the presentation, the whole requirement for the nexus on terrorism, which is our specific concern wasn't even mentioned, and that is the crux of our opposition. so if this was about fighting fires, we're about interested in true securities for our communities, which is not militaryized so called war on terrorism exercises. and until the memorandum of understanding needs to be rejected if it's going to be revised to address those concerns, and we believe this issue is not new to you, but neither is our opposition, and

we will be here asking you to reject the mou and not participate in oush urban shie. thank you. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is jim more srissey, a i'm employed by alameda county. i'm deemed as the mes branch coordinator, and acknowledge that urban shield initially started out as a primary law enforcement tactical competition. it has evolved well beyond that. for example, this year alone, there are about 240 tactical team members competing in our ems medical branch, we had 700 people involved. we trained well over 200 physicians, nurses, paramedics, involved in all aspects of

emergency care, prehospital, in hospital. we actually created a scenario based on real life, a horrific event, the pulse night club shooting in orlando, we trained or responders here to better dale with the horrific events that happened in real life. granted, i don't agree with the terrorism nexus that happens, but we have to deal with what happens. all of our responders are well trained, well coordinated and have a true appreciation for the multidisciplinary approach to emergency management. we have seen time and time seen the successes of urban shield. i have travelled all over the country and the world taking the lessons of what i auld the interdependent triad of fire, emt and police working together. i teach and train

internationally, and i can't say that there are lessons that we can't improve with urban shield, but it is a far greater good than it is any harm that's caused. thank you. >>supervisor cohen: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is john labindsey pullen, and i will be submitting some materials for you to review. people say it's evolving the measures, but measures taken so far have been ineffective so far in stemming problems. these include alameda county task force to review urban she'd, which concluded that that task force did not have

macy to speak on -- legitimacy to speak on urban shield matters. we have a company, strategic operations incorporated that uses racial stereo typing in its targets. this was declined -- the contract with this company was declined by the alameda board of supervisors, but in the same scenario that mr. marsdey talks about, that contract was nevertheless used -- >>supervisor cohen: sir, if you'd like, you can put your hand down on the overhead, and -- >> face up, please? >>supervisor cohen: face up. there you go. thank you. >> the next one is that the alameda county sheriff also hosted the oath keepers at the at urban shield fair, and then, there was also a scenario which used terrorist role players

wearing kaffias, of course, representing arabs to signify who are the terrorists in our community. there was a completely military scenario with supposedly a hezbollah encampment in alameda county -- >>supervisor cohen: sir, your time is up. [ inaudible ] koeb cone your ti >>supervisor cohen: your time is up. [ inaudible ] >>supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. after the last speaker, i've got a card from tariq saman, mohamed -- i'm sorry, i just can't read your writing. woods irvin, mohamed check, it looks like, eleanor levine,