if that would be possible. >> of course. we'll take it all. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner dejesus says she wanted to buy several. >> yeah. you can buy them. pink is your color. but there's a mechanism by people to do that. >> also, buy extra back donated to the department? >> yeah. >> yeah. i just wanted to add through this local agency, if they wanted to go to the website specifically, they can do that, as well. so this is just one mechanism through the police department, but we will put them in contact with this agency, which is -- it's as local as it gets. the bay area cancer connection, and their goal, as sergeant mccray mentioned, personal support to breast and ovarian cancer patients and their families, so it's pretty broad in terms of the services they provide. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you for doing that.

>> commissioner mazzucco: so what we're going to do here is we have to make an amendment to the uniform department general order for purposes of this october, so i'll ask, do i have a first and a second, and we'll go to public comment. >> so moved. >> commissioner mazzucco: do i have a second? >> so moved. >> commissioner mazzucco: any public comment regarding this? has to be regarding this. >> okay. i agree. i stipulate to that because i, too, have family members that are on the receiving end of breast cancer, and because you are law enforcement, i think it's ideal for you to take not only this up in the organization, but also how a lot of this assault cancer is affecting females that worked at the shipyard, and also in

your jurisdiction of treasure island. there's three different types of materials causing cancer in females and birth defects coming from that shipyard. >> commissioner mazzucco: all right. thank you very much. any further public comment regarding this? all in favor? [voting] >> commissioner mazzucco: it's unanimous. thank you very much, again, to sergeant and everybody who did this. thank you. [applause] >> commissioner mazzucco: please call the next line item. >> clerk: item three, presentation of sfpd general policy proposal sparks report, first and second quarter 2018. discussion. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you very much. we have deputy chief connolly and samra marrian from the d.p.a. to give the report.

>> okay. vice president mazzucco, chief scott, director henderson, and commissioners, covering the first and second quarter 2018, the sparks report, which is a reporting out on our policy and development. i'll switch over microphones. in essence, i'm going to be very brief in my comments. the numbers speak for themselves. there have been 123 bulletins issued in the last six months. 64 a priority bulletins, 54 b, and eight c. at the bottom, it is reporting, you see department general orders. the next -- the following six slides are those general orders

in your packet. i am not going to go through them all, but i will tell you that there's 21 general orders in progress. of the 21 general orders, six are directly related to the department of justice, 272 recommendations. four are currently with the california state department of justice for their review and input in conjunction with the memorandum of understanding with them, and additionally, there's one department bulletin that is with the department of justice, and that has to do with the -- the limited english program or the l.e.p. program. again, they're in your packet. you also have a listing of the all department bulletins, primarily the a and b bulletins. on the final page of the -- the -- let me move forward

here. these are the objectives from the -- the federal use of -- or excuse me, the federal department of justice report. those are the objective areas. there are a total of 74 recommendations out of the 272 that point back or speak to some areas of policy development. as you can see, by the 21 general orders and the numerous bulletins that we have been working diligently on this. it is a capacity, too. there's always competing interest, but we have prioritized most of these orders -- in fact, all of them, but you will be discussing that at a different time outside of this presentation. so other than that, it's open for questions. i do know d.p.a. has the second half of the presentation in conjunction with the sparks report. >> commissioner mazzucco: we can move through the second half and then we'll have questions.

>> good evening, commissioners, chief scott, deputy director henderson and members of the community. it's my pleasure to be able to talk tonight about four main policy projects we've been working on for quite sometime, but we took the time to not only give you a cover highlights of those four policy projects but also to give you an indepth recommendations. and a few of them also have action items for this commission, so those four areas are use of force review, interactions with deaf and hard of hearing individuals, some language access recommendations, as well as reports provided to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking and el der abuse. so to start with our number one priority, it involves a robust review of use of force incidents. and when the d.o.j. reviewed the firearm discharge review board, which is the way in which historically officer involved shootings have been reviewed, they made some really important recommendations to

really enhance that process so that it would be an opportunity to look at tactics, training, policy. and building on that, our agency, we looked at what lapd has historically done in terms of looking at their officer involved shooting cases. and in february , we had an opportunity to go to seattle. and we purposely picked seattle because in part they're really at the forefront of some reforms. there's many similarities to our own city and to our own use of force policy, and san francisco police department has also worked with seattle specifically around crisis intervention team work, so we thought this would be a great opportunity to see the kind of reforms that they had done. we invited the police department to accompany us on this trip, and it was really an informative trip. i wanted to spend a little time talking about it because it really forms the nature of our policy recommendations. when we went there, we had an opportunity to not only meet with their use of force unit,

and that's a unit that's reviewing all of their use of force cases, we had an opportunity to look at their use of force investigative unit, as well. and that's another -- another aspect where they're able to look at and really delve into use of force, and we were able to spend several hours listening to their use of force process. it was a really robust discussion where there were different kinds of sergeants who were providing detailed responses and critiques on their use of force cases. so based on looking at what lapd has done, discussions with the chief specifically around being able to replace a firearm discharge review board with something broader like a serious incident review board as well as looking at some of the accountability features that seattle has in terms of the kinds of reports, we've made a number of recommendations, and the first is to create a serious incident review board to replace the firearm discharge review board

so there could be a broader array of reviews, so those kind of cases that involve more serious injuries, certain kinds of cases, perhaps with the eriw injuries to the head, there would be the opportunity to have a much more robust review process. we have also made recommendations to categorize the types of force so that there's a stream lined way of reviewing certain types of cases. other types of cases would have less serious review. to have this force investigative team, from our perspective, we could see what currently is an involve involved shooting team to be expanded so that there's a way in which there'd be greater response for more serious incidents, and then, to have this review unit so all uses of force would be reviewed through a particular kind of unit. and ultimately, during the review process, similar to what is best practice now, to be

able to look at deescalation, officer decision making tactics. of course we're looking at the use of force in policy or not, but also concerning quality of supervision, the quality of the investigation and equipment issues. and in ward, we recommend there's a template for looking at those types of issues, that there's a report that's provided at the end of that process and there's a report that's provided to the public. so again, there's more accountability, there's more transparency. and ultimately, one of our recommendations is to move this process along because we've been in process. we're talking to the department about it. we've gathered best practice research, but our recommendation is that this commission move forward with having a small stakeholder group that can really formulate what does the use of force or the serious incident review board like like? what are the components? what does that department general order look like so there's a working group that can pull together that -- that d.g.o., present it to this commission. but i would also recommend, and

our recommendation is that there be site visits. when we embarked on c.i.t. back in 2010, it was a huge move forward, and part of the process was to have a working group. we did site visits, we look the at lapd, we looked at memphis, and it was an opportunity to get from subject matter experts an opportunity to see what's different, what could be applied to san francisco, so that's part of our recommendation. so that's our number one recommendation, and i don't know if it makes sense to talk about each one and take questions and then move through the -- >> commissioner mazzucco: one thing is yeah, we're going through the sparks report, and i know that commissioner turman would have had a heart attack. >> that's why i did a cover letter. >> commissioner mazzucco: so we're covering the high points. we're not getting into detail and making cases for or against these different things. so what we need to do is just stick to this is what we recommend.

this is what we look to look at when we revise that department general order. so i hate to limit you, but we have to keep on the time limit. >> commissioner dejesus: i have some questions about this. we have sat on the firearms discharge review board. when i hear you talking about the serious incident review board, we're talking about the serious ones, not when somebody is taking off their weapon, and it discharges. having sat on there, sometimes there is robust discussions, sometimes there's not. so you talk about a template, that they would have to go through a check list each time. i think that's a great idea. so when you get done, part of it is what's the next steps to really get this thing moving forward. >> and that's where -- i mean, part of our recommendation to the commission is that there be a working group so that we're able to move forward. we've had ongoing discussions with the police department and we're really wanting to move it

to the next level. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. great. is that what we have to calendar? >> commissioner mazzucco: yeah. >> thank you. so that's our top recommendation. so the second is working with deaf and hard of hearing individuals. so in february , i initiated a working group with deaf and hard of hearing individuals with the hope to put together a department general order. we've been working on that for quite sometime with the police department. at this stage, we are almost completed with the department general order. the department's had a chance to look at it. and part of why we're bringing it to the commission at this moment of time is in september, will be national deaf and hard of hearing awareness month. we'd like to calendar it for september so that we could actually roll it out, individuals from the working group could attend. it just seems it would be a great time and to have that deadline in place. again, our request is we're able to calendar it for september and move forward on training and -- and get the department general order to you

for september. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. >> so then, the third topic has to do with language access. we have provided really detailed recommendations that we're working on. in the past there has been a commissioner who has attended our working groups. that commissioner is no longer. our request is if there is interest, a commissioner would begin attending our language access meetings. the next one is next month. i don't have the date right offhand, but it's the third week in august. it would be great to have that continuity with the working group. and then, the next recommendation has to do with sexual assault, and elder abuse. and we've worked for over a yoer to have the department comply with family code section 6228 because by law, those enumerated victims have a right to have their victim incident

report within five days. for good cause, the latest is within ten days. we've worked with the department to get a procedure in place, but there's still a lot of glitches. and again, we're bringing these recommendations to the commission so that there really can be full implementation, and our request is that there be quarterly reporting to the commission on compliance with 6228 because it's been such an ongoing issue that's been raised in numerous cases. we've tried to resolve it, but it's been an ongoing problem. so tho can concludeds my report in terms of our four main policy areas. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. and your report is very thorough, always extremely thorough. >> i just wanted to say, samra, those of you that have been on the commission for a while, and we've been talking for at least the last year, refocusing a lot of these sparks reports, and in the past, you've gotten a lot of the documents that have been

presented to you. in my opinion, they've gone kind of like water under the bridge, and so with any position, we're trying to get a new position with the sparks report so they're a more focused and meaningful presentation with the topic issues. we're taking the top priorities and focus on issues when they become ripe or that we feel that they're ripe for the commission to take action which is why you're getting these four with the recommendation on each of the topics which is to create the serious incident review board, to attend the hard of hearing board -- i probably should have explained it before we made the presentation, but i just wanted to answer the unasked questions of how and why we're approaching the sparks report in this manner to make it more efficient and effective for the

commission. thank you, samra for doing all the work and helping us get her. >> commissioner mazzucco: commission commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you. i guess my question would be how we would get the police department with respect to the firearm review board. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: i was -- first of all, i want to applaud you for telling us next steps. the serious review board is something that's near and dear. i think i've been asking for a variety of different reviews. so i would ask to put it on calendar, whether this commission will agree to put together a working group with the department and all the

different groups that we're going to include to talk about serious incident review board and moving that forward in terms of following the recommendation. i also think we should calendar whether we should have quarterly reports for the domestic violence to give the five days so we can camera out and do what needs to be done with that so we can be in compliance with the law. and the third thing is if no commissioner would sit on the language thing, i'm more than happy to do that. >> commissioner mazzucco: all right. thank you. anything further? any public comment regarding line item 3, the sparks report? just for reference, the -- hearing no public comment, the sparks report named after former commission president teresa sparks, 'cause we're trying to keep up with all the general department orders and changes. we've dealt with things on an emergency basis with the department of general orders

because it's become an issue. what we're trying to do recently is we're trying to mirror the reforms that were requested by the u.s. department of justice. obviously if they think it's a priority then we've been prioritizing those. with reference to serious incident review board, commissioner dejesus is right. we both have sat on that, and actually it's getting a little more robust, i have to tell you the last couple of times. there's been some discussion thanks to the participation of the d.p.a., well, how would this look under the new department order? i have to tell you there's been more questioned being asked by the members of the command staff. that is important that we do look at that because you know, things will change, and we start -- you know, the public

wants to see -- in any serious incident, they want to review. and i think what happens for members of the public, things happen, and they say what can they train to do differently. we're always looking to improve, and that's part of our role to make sure that happens. i appreciate your efforts, and again, thanks for sticking around. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. >> commissioner mazzucco: please call our next line item. >> clerk: item four has been put over. we're now on item five, general public comment. [agenda item read]

>> commissioner mazzucco: good evening again, sir. by the way, your research on the statute of limitations was excellent, and it was right. go ahead. we'll start your clock. >> i want to close by answering a question that was presented by your staff. sfg, please. this is the senate bill that you were curious about, the companion bill in the state assembly, ab 3118 is the one that was in question, authorized by assembly man david chiu, democrat of san francisco will compel a statewide audit by 2019 of police agencies, hospitals, crime labs, and any other

facility that handles or stores sart, which is assault kits, so get the definition -- definite count of the backlog of untested assault kits in california. a number that currently only exists in -- san jose police only has assault kits totals going back to 2012. moreover, a joyful heart foundation, a nationwide sad voe cassy -- advocacy group helped craft along with chiu an estimate that the state backlog numbers at more than 13,000 assault kits based on available records and public records requests. it is believed that the actual

total is likely thousands more, and is chronicled at thebacklog.org. and i believe that and i'll stipulate to that because at hearings when representatives for females spoke how at san francisco general hospital during one time frame, there were about 260 reports of assault to the hospital. during another time frame, there was another 300 victims that came into the general hospital. then in another time period, there was another maybe 2 or 300 victims that came into the general hospital. in fact during the hearings before the board of supervisors, it was testified to that there was one year, about 500 assault kits came to the general hospital. then, another year, about 450 assault kits were taken from

victims of assault at general hospital, so the number is a lot higher, and i know what i've seen on an educational show. when they showed that storage room at the hall of justice, the assault kits and numbered were stacked up to the ceiling. so that's a major problem. and also, i notice in the documentation from staff where they were talking about the -- [inaudible] >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, sir. your three minutes are up. thank you very much for your presentation. any further public -- general public comment? yes, sir. >> hello. pleasure to be brief. my name is jonathan burger. i'm a resident of san francisco and i work at a technology company here in the city. the thing that brought me here today was a question/comment about car break-ins. given my first meeting here with the commission, i'm not sure if the public comments are always as negative or as

critical as i saw today. but i wanted to -- >> commissioner mazzucco: oh, they are. >> they are? okay. i suppose i -- i wanted to add that that i think it's clear to most citizens, you can't block a public street for seven days, and i very much appreciate the police's difficult job in that matter, so thanks. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. any further public -- general public comment? hearing none, general public comment is now closed. and actually, i should say, we do get a lot of positive comments. but people come, and this is their opportunity to say good or bad things. we do see some of the same crowds that bring up the bad i think thises all the time. but our job is to sit here, listen, and do the best job that we can. next item. >> clerk: item 6, adjournment. action item. >> commissioner mazzucco: do i have a motion?

>> motion. >> second. >> that was quick. thank you very much. we're now adjourned. it.

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their shop & dine in the 49 within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services in

the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so we're will you shop & dine in the 49 chinatown has to be one the best unique shopping areas in san francisco that is color fulfill and safe each vegetation and seafood and find everything in chinatown the walk shop in chinatown welcome to jason dessert i'm the fifth generation of candy in san francisco still that serves 2000 district in the chinatown in the past it was the tradition and my family was the royal chef in the pot pals that's why we learned this stuff and moved from here to have dragon candy i want people to know that is art

we will explain a walk and they can't walk in and out it is different techniques from stir frying to smoking to steaming and they do show of. >> beer a royalty for the age berry up to now not people know that especially the toughest they think this is - i really appreciate they love this art. >> from the cantonese to the hypomania and we have hot pots we have all of the cuisines of china in our chinatown you don't have to go far. >> small business is important to our neighborhood because if we really make a lot of people lives better more people get a job here not

just a big firm. >> you don't have to go anywhere else we have pocketed of great neighborhoods haul have all have their own uniqueness. the budget and finance sub-committee. today is july 26th. we're waiting for sfgov-tv to catch up. all right. we're back. budget and finance sub-committee, today is july 26th, i want to welcome you to our meeting. and i thank sfgov-tv, and jesse and samuel who are assisting with the broadcast and miss linda wong is our clerk. and i want to recognize my committee women, we've got to my right supervisor sandra fewer and to my left is catherine stefani. >> clerk: silence all cellphones and electronic devices and have any documents to be included as part of the

file should be submitted to the clerk and items on today will appear on the supervisor's agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. let's start with the first item. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute amendment number 5 to an agreement with u.r.s. corporation, increasing the length of the agreement by up to 13 month for a total term of september 11, 2003, through july 10, 2020, and increasing the agreement by their 2,415,000, adjusting the estimated cumulative contract amount from their 28,500,000 to their 30,915,000 for engineering support services for the water enterprise water system improvement program-funded agreement number c.s.-716 >> we have the discussion of this resolution, and it was authorized a fifth amendment to the larger water system improvement company in the calaveras dam. but i think that increasing the contract by $2.3 million and i think that construction will be completed in 2019, is that right? >> yes, coming up soon. >> thank you, the floor is yours. >> so good morning, chair cohen, and supervisor fewer and

supervisor stefani. i'm the project manager for calaveras dam. before we start, yes, that's good. as you said earlier and probably you have heard over the years that calaveras replacement project is the largest project in the water system improvement program. and it is also the most important project because this reservoir is the largest local riz voir for the water system. and so it's a very critical asset to provide 2.7 million customers in the bay area. as of today great news as the construction is 93% complete and we had a celebration yesterday. we reached the highest point of the dam. so the amendment of number 4 was executed in 2014, and the project has increased -- has experienced increases to the costs and also duringation due

to the different site conditions. one of the major ones is the instability issues in area b which is one of the mining sites to build the face of the dam. and we have severe and unusual rainy events in 2017 which triggered a landslide on the major access to the site. if you recall in march 2017, that p.u.c. has declared an emergency because of this and also request the board of supervisors to approve the emergency work. now these issues have extended the previously approved construction duration by six months. so now the construction end date is may 28, 2019. and also as we start planning for the construction monitoring of the new dam we would like to retain who is the engineer of record to continue with the dam for a minimum of one year after the construction completion date. so we're here to request approval from the board to extend the contract for u.r.s.

as the design engineer of record for an additional 13 months and with a cost increase of $2 $2.415 million. and so this is that i want to show you we have a celebration of the dam yesterday with the team. and you have probably seen it, the slide from 2017. and so this shows you a history of all of the previous amendments. we have a total of four amendments so far which increased the budget to $28.5 and up to 5 years and 9 months. and as i mentioned earlier construction duration has been extended officially to may 28, 2019, for six months. so we would need to extend this contract to allow u.r.s. to provide services as the engineer of record. and in addition we also want u.r.s. to continue with the monitoring for one year past the project completion date during

the start-up, commissioning and the close down phases. this is very important because the dam needs to be monitored during the initial filling which would go beyond the construction end date, depending on the weather. and it's also important to have u.r.s. as the engineers of record to perform this work. so there will be sufficient funds to cover amendment 5 as part of the project. so this shows you the breakdown of how the work has been spread out. and so we're currently in -- working on stage 4, engineering service. so previously approved budget is $28.5 million and with this $2.4 million it brings us to $30.9 million. >> commissioner koppel: where do the resource comes from? >> from the original project budget. so that was already planned for. and with this i hope -- yeah,

supervisor cohen and the supervisor fewer and supervisor stefani will increase it by $2.4 million and complete the duration by 13 months. >> super cohen: thank you very much. and we're hear -- >> supervisor cohen: we will hear more on this. >> the proposed solution would authorize the public utilities commission to execute amendment 5 to the agreement with u.r.s. corporation and increasing the length of the agreement up to 13 months for a term of september 11, 2003 through july 10, 2020. and increasing the agreement by about $2.4 million from $28.5 million to $30.9 million for engineering support services for the calaveras dam replacement project. and as you can see on table -- on page 3 of our report, table 1, outlines the history of the original contract and the agreement and the contract

amendments you can see in table 3 the budget for the fifth amendment. and you can see that there's $2 million that is budgeted to complete the engineering support services during construction and start-up and commissioning and close out tasks. however, the scope of the work for this fifth amendment prepared by u.r.s. corporation submitted they would need $1.6 million in staff time and an additional 15% or about $247,000 for a total of $1,893,028 to complete these tasks. and our understanding is that u.r.s. added the 15% to the number of estimated staff hours to make the estimate more accurate. however, the total estimated amount of $1,893,028, including

the 15% cop tin gent needed to complete the task is $107,000 less than the budget requested of $2 million and so, therefore, we recommend to reduce the contract amount by their 106,209, to $2,308,028 to reflect that estimate. and we recommend approving the proposed resolution as amended. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, any questions? all right, thank you for your presentation and we'll take public comment. any member of the public that would like to speak on item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much, and i'll make a motion to accept the budget legislative analyst amendments if we could take that without objection. and also to make a motion to approve and send to the full board with a positive recommendation to send the committee report, item one. all right, without objection.

item two, there's. >> clerk: resolution approving the first amendment to lease l-13550 between boudin properties, inc, located at 160 jefferson street and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through the port commission, to provide the two extension options of 10 years each, for an aggregate ter july june 30, 2065. >> supervisor cohen: we have jay edwards from the port that will make a short presentation today and in short this is a lease amendment to give two 10-year lease extension options for the boudin bak bakery which is on jefferson street. and the current lease expires in 2045 and the extension potentially moves the lease date back out to 2065. and are you ready? all right, fantastic. so we'll hear from mr. jay edwards. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. jay edwards issue senior property manager, port of san francisco. i'm here today to give you a brief presentation on the ports

findings here for the lease -- for the boudin properties at 160 jefferson street for two 10-year extension options. boudin has been an anchor tenant of the fisherman's wharf community here since 2003 when they built a flagship bakery, café, restaurant and market hall. and they've been a very productive tenant for the port and we through a lot of discussions here wanted to enter into an extension to keep that relationship going for the foreseeable future until 2065. and so as you can see they have averaged in 2016, they generate $27 million in sales and pay the port $1.6 million in rent. so in going through this potential lease extension, we

determined that it does meet the port's two policies in regards to extensions. one is a tenant in good standing and it meets the retail leasing policy. that policy really allows the port to enter into these extensions provided that the tenant makes capital improvements into their premises that will generate additional revenue, that we would not have otherwise received. so we believe that this extension will provide for future growth and the sales and, therefore, we want to proceed ahead

in addition on top of the minimum rent, the tenant pays percentage rent of their food and beverage and off-premises bakery sales. so they remain the same but in the extension option it would be between the -- no lower than 6% and capped at 7% and they're currently paying 6.5%. in return for these extension options boudin would invest $2 million and an additional $1 million during the extension term. and that $2 million in capital investment is to help to

generate additional sales for the premises and it has to be -- it's not maintenance, it's actually business improvements. and for option 2 they'd have the same, $2 million by 2035 and an additional $1 million during the second extension term. in addition the port receives participation rent if they were to sell their asset here and we increase that amount from 10% to 12% of the net proceeds. so in determining whether or not to move forward the port has been tremendous with the financial analysis which we were assisted by c.h. elliott who helped us with our financial reviews. so we analyzed three scenarios and one is to keep the existing lease in place and would just renew at the end of its term and we receive no additional capital

improvements during the term and then the lease would continue on as it was. and the other scenario was the tenant would vacate and the port would be facing a significant vacancy and also in terms of downtime it probably would require an additional investment from another tenant and traditionally those result in rank credits that the port provides. so it would further deteriorate our financial position. scenario two is the proposed lease extension in front of and you we looked at that terms of what this meant for the port in terms of projected revenue. and so we've got this graph in front of you as you can see, scenario 2, that is the lease extension option scenario is much more favorable for the port in terms of financial stability as well as revenue growth.

and the second graph shows what would happen if the tenant were to leave and that'sy an scenaria and it shows a significant drop in revenue in 2045. we'd like to avoid offering these extension options and provide security and stability. and in summary our value analysis of it does show that with the scenario 2, it's substantial financial benefits to the port as compared to the other two alternatives. and with that thank you for listening to my presentation. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: seeing that there's no questions from colleagues at this time i'll go to the budget analyst and hear their thoughts. >> pro posed resolution approved the first amendment to the lease between port of san francisco as lanlandlord and boudin as tenan, and providing two 10-year options to extend the lease

through june 30, 2065 and the tenant to provide $6 million in capital improvements to exercise both options. on page 9 of our report if table one you can see the key terms of the lease amendment, including the requirement that the tenant invest $2 million in capital improvements by june 2025 to exercise the first option and another $2 million to exercise the second option. the tenant must also invest one million in the first five years of the extension term and in table two on page 9 also, you can see the rent projections of the lease including the existing lease and the two extensions. and we recommend approval. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for that recommendation. let's take public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment on item 2, please come up. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor fewer?

>> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair cohen and i'm happy to move this into a full board with a positive recommendation. i do believe that boudin is a san francisco-based company and really defines our fisherman's wharf area. and i have an outlet in my neighborhood that actually helps define also my neighborhood. so i think that they gave us approval of this recommendation. and i would like to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair cohen: we'll take it -- >> (indiscernible). >> chair cohen: yes as a committee report, items 3 and four together. >> clerk: resolution thursdaying the department of public health to retroactively enter into an amendmented agreement with the kam department of health care services to change the end date from april 30, 2018 to june 30, 2017.

resolution number four, resolution retroactively approving the agreement between the department of public health and the california department of health care services to the san francisco mental health plan for a five-year term of july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2022. >> chair cohen: regarding the regulation of mental health care in our city. marlo simmons is here to present from the department of public health. good morning. >> good morning, i am marl low simmons with behavioral health services within the department of public health and we function as a managed health care plan for mental health services to medical beneficiaries in san francisco and under that work we are required to have a mental health plan contract with the state department of health care services. and they in turn answer to the feds. in 2016, the federal government released new regulations that

oversee the requirements related to the work that we do and the state is required to develop new contracts with the mental health plans at the county level that reflect the new changes and so we -- the fourth item really is the new contract that outlines all of the new requirements and the third item is taking the existing contracts and backing it up. so we don't have two contracts at the same time. >> chair cohe.it is a retroactio july 1, 2017, which is a requirement from the feds down and on to us. >> chair cohen: does that conclude your presentation? >> it does. >> chair cohen: there's no legislative report for this item and i have a question for item 4. what are the new mental health

regulations mandated by the california department of public health that are triggering this change? >> so the federal regulations and it's the set of regulations that came actually as in relation to managed care for the affordable care act. and it has a very, very broad range. a lot is focused on trying to be sure that medical or medicaid beneficiaries across the country have equal access to providers that have language capacity on geographic proximity to beneficiaries and looking at the amount of psychiatry capacity that we have and the types of services that we provide. there's also a lot of the regulations focused on the policies that we have. you know, if we can't meet someone's need we need to do an out-of-network benefit, and so it is -- there are a few things that it does not impact, all the

way to how the size of the font is for clients. >> chair cohen: why is this retroactive? >> the regulations from the feds were april of 2016. and many of them coming into effect july 1 of 2017. and it was in june 18th the state came to us and they said because the federal regulations were in effect in july 1, 2017, we're requiring the contract to match that date. and even though they hadn't give be us guidance we're on the hook to have complied with those rules. >> chair cohen: i see. all right, thank you. we'll take public comment on item 3 and 4 at this time? any member of the public coming up. seeing none, public comment is closed. all right. make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. i believe that we're sending this as a committee report.

without objection. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> chair cohen: item 5, please. >> clerk: approving a contract agreement between the department of public health and the regents of the university of california for behavioral health services for adults or older adults for a contract term of five years in an amount not to exceed approximately $22.8 million. >> chair cohen: good morning, we have miss domigo ehas. >> ann acuoba with the department of mental health. good morning. >> chair cohen: it's for provisions, is that right? >> yes for adults and colder adults this is from a new r.f.p., however, the provider is a long-term provider and the contract is retroactive to july 1, 2018.

and this -- we're requesting retroactive approval because the process for negotiating and awarding this contract was delayed, the r.f.p. process was more cumbersome than we expected. they did have a previous contract that expired december 31, 2017. but we had a short interim six-month contract so that the contractor -- supplier or uscf has not been paid during this period. i want to note that there's a minor change in the resolution and the resolution says that it's a five-year contract but it's actually a four-year contract. so you may want to amend that resolution. and then if you have any questions on the problematic aspects of the contract we have someone here that can answer questions about that. >> chair cohen: okay, where are they? it's always funny when people sit in the back of the chamber

and it's like completely minute. come on down here. how are you? good morning to you. >> good morning, ma'am. i'm the program manager with the department of public health and i coordinate with the programs. >> chair cohen: thank you. i have a quick question about the r.f.p. process and you mentioned that it was delayed. can you explain to me -- did this r.f.p. follow the traditional pathway or was it a sole source contract? >> this was -- it was r.f.p. that followed the conventional pathway and it was a pretty large r.f.p. and we have large providers of mental health services and we have all kinds of services like the adult mode is different than the children. and so the r.f.p.s are pretty complicated and so the reason why this contract was delayed is the award of the contract, you know, the actual r.f.p. process. and then there's the lengthy

contract negotiation with the provider. >> chair cohen: thank you. we are going to hear from the spots on item 5. thank you. >> so the proposed resolution as stated would approve a contract between the department of public health and university of california san francisco to provide behavioral health services for adults and older adults for a term of four years from july 1, 2018 to june 30, 2022. and in the amount not to exceed $22,811,510. and as the department stated they had issued requests for proposals for new behavioral health service providers in 2016 and 2017 and awarded the contract to -- this contract to ucsf to provide various

services. on page 14 of our report, you can see in table 2, we outline the sources and the uses of the contract and you can see that over the term of the contract that about $8.4 million of general fund dollars will be used for the contract in addition to federal and state support as well as interdepartmental work orders. we do recommend that the proposed resolution be amended to specify the approval is retroactive to july 1, 2018. and as the department stated we concur that the proposed resolution also should be amended to state that the contract is for four years. >> chair cohen: any questions or clarification needed? public comment. anyone to comment on item 5? public comment is closed. i make a motion to amend the

contract to ensure that it's retroactive to july 1, 2018 and a motion to also amend the language to move from five years to four year. and we can take the amendments without objection. and also i'd like to approve and send this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. okay. all right, items 6 and 7, please call them together. >> clerk: authorizing the execution and the delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in one or more series in an aggregate amount not to exceed $35.7 million for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of an 81-multiunit project, and item 7, to approve and authorizing the long-term ground lease with 490 south van ness housing associates and for

a term of 75 years to construct a 100% affordable 80-unit multifamily rental housing development plus one manager unit for low-income purposes. >> chair cohen: thank you very much for reading all of that. hello. and we have our guests who will be available to answer on this. so this is a 75-year-old ground lease. why don't you take it away. >> good morning, chair cohen and supervisors fewer and stefani. and so item number 6 is a bond issuance resolution for 490 south van ness, this is an 100% affordable housing contract that serves up to 60% of the median income and one manager's unit. and the board approved our acquisition of the property back in 2015 and we selected mission

housing development corporation and bridge housing as the developers of the project. this resolution authorizes to execute up to $35,715,000 in multifamily to finance the project. and the proposed issuance will be conduit financing and not require the city to pledge any of its funds for the retainment of the bond. and item number 7 is a ground lease approval for the same project and the term of the ground lease is 75 years with an option to extend for 24 years. and the annual base rent of the ground lease is $15,000. and we did not seek a recent appraisal of -- to assess the fair market value of the lease because this is for the purpose of affordable housing. as such we're requesting the following amendment to item number 7 to include this finding in the resolution: whereas the purpose of this lease is to solely to implement the mission

of the mayor's office of housing and community development and the approval of this resolution furthers the purpose of providing affordable housing for low-income households in need, thus, to have the lease in the code section 101.3. and we are joined by bridge housing and the city attorney if you have any questions and we ask the committee to recommend the resolutions to the full board. >> chair cohen: thank you very much. we are going to hear from the budget legislative analyst on item 7, is that right? >> correct. >> chair cohen: thank you. >> the proposed resolution as stated would amend the -- sorry, would approve a 75-year ground lease with, one 24-year option to extend. and at 490 south van ness avenue, to construct 80 units of