matter, the $500 million bond, it's a do or die. and we need to put it out there, you know, for the city and county of san francisco. it is a do or die. so everyone -- everybody that i know, 100%, want affordable housing because this bond measure comprises senior housing, homelessness, disabled -- everybody has their parts in that. so we have that, $500 million, at least. it's not going to be the solution. but then at least we will have something that we can go and start begging for treasure island to have something in there. it is really important that everybody should be talking about that and bringing everybody out to pass that. it is really bad. depending on this state, they're still trying to get their act together. every city in the state is faced with this problem here, and some of them even worse than san

francisco. so that's how much it is. are there any public comments? so we can go to the next thing on the agenda quickly. none? thank you for your presentation. mr. beck, if you can go through the subphase in a few minutes. >> thank you. directors, this is a bit of a recap. but i did want to provide you an update. the super-phasthe sub-phase appn for the next year proposed for development is a cul culmination of all of the precedent documents that have come before, from the d-4 deed to the major phase application, and now the subface applicatio subphase. the application that we've

been reviewing encompasses the remainder of major phase one. it has the potential to support more than 2300 additional residential units. and it does compass the island center area of the island, which is the bulk of the mixed use zoning on the island. so most of the it will also be the home of the commercial core for the island. in terms of open space, it incorporates or completes the clipper coat frontage as welclip coveclipper cove ares supposed to be part of the major phase two, but was incorporated into this subphase, in lieu of the aagricultural farm, which

will be moved to another phase. it also includes an area that was originally proposed to be part of subphase three or major face three, which iphase three,s where the future police and fire station will be, as well as future parking garage, in the island center. not proposing to move the construction of the public facilities forward in time, but to prepare the site and construct the surrounding treaties and streetd roadways, so those sites can be used as surface parking until the permanent facilities are constructed. that was just more of a logical sequence. there is also an affordable housing parcel in this area, that we're going to reconfigure, and i'll talk about that in a second. so on the left is the original major phase map, and then on the right,

that modified to reflect what we're currently proposing to be incorporated into this subphase application, and into major phase one. so the subphase application approval is an administrative function by the director. it doesn't require board action, unlike the major phase application. with the basis of design that was prepared by ticd, it is i intended to inform the street improvement permit submission. the application we received, we have before us, we received it in january and it was reviewed by seven city agencies, and we've been working with them to resolve their comments. a revised document was submitted by the developer

on march 24th, and that's been being back-checked and reviewed by the city agencies. and last friday send communication to ticd approving the design and technical aspects of the application. and we're required to notify the navy of our intention to approve the subphase application. and we sent that notice to the navy with their concurrence -- with their concurrence, we issue the final approval of the subface application. i mentioned the parl sell, the , the affordable housing parcel, included in subphase area 3c, if you can make out of the numbers, ic4.2 is the parcel within the green, just below the 1d symbol.

and the pink trap trapizodal parcel, and immediately tods right is ic4.2. and what we proposed to do and agreed to do with ticd is to extend the parking garage parcel, which is the lowest parcel within the green, so that it spans all the way from between the two streets but then to narrow it, increasing the depth of the parcel that fronts the east side commons, which will give us a better parcel to work with from an affordable housing development perspective. but it maintains our overall total square footage and gives us some flexibility there with

design. another parcel that i wanted to highlight was ic2.2, which is the parcel that you see immediately across from hangar three, the smaller of the two orange parcels. that was originally identified as an authority lot. we agreed to swap this parcel with ticd for a parcel in a later phase, which will be more -- this parcel is a little small to be an efficient development parcel for affordable housing, so these other parcels will give us greater development potential in terms of the total number of units we can construct on those sites. and it will be more in line with what we anticipate having funding. within this major phase, we maintain the same number of affordable

parcels because of the parcel from what was supposed to be major phase three that i just discussed, which has been moved into this major phase. so our next steps in going forward to issue final approval to ticd, and upon receipt of the navy concurrence, continue the subdivision mapping process with public works. the director of public works will be holding a hearing tomorrow morning on the tentative transfer map for this subphase. because of our trust exchanges with the state lands commission, we actually have a complex mapping process where we will have a tentative transfer map, multiple final transfer maps, two trust exchanges with the state, and then a tent tiff and final subdivision map. so we have a lot of

approvals to work in over the next 10 months. ticd is planning to -- is working to submit their street improvement permit application at the end of may, which will give us a target of issuing all final maps and permits for the subphase by the end of february 202 2020. and, again, that timeframe, because of the review periods fof the for the agencies, the time it takes to revise drawings and reconcile comments, it really means we can do a maximum of two resubmittals during that process. and we need that final package to be approved essentially as noted by the agencies. so that's where we are with this subphase and kind of our goals for the next year. >> thank you so much, director.

commissioner light? >> thank you. director beck, i have asked, i think twice before, about which parcel we're intending to swap with ic2.2? i understand the logic, but i want to make sure we're swapping with something that will be worth the value. >> yeah. i highlighted the three parcels that we're looking at. they were all originally identified. when we were a 30% affordable redevelopment program, these were all parcels that were designated to be affordable housing parcels. and then when we dropped from 30% to 25% affordable, they became developer parcels. so they were already planned within the community to be distributed with market rate sites. so in terms of the question of clustering --

would this site be clustered, it won't be clustered with other affordable sites. it will be separate. but in terms of area, all three of these sites are quite a bit larger than the current site. i think the smallest of them is about 40% larger than the parcel that we're giving up. and the largest is almost twice the size. >> did you say you already showed that on this presentation? can you pull that back up and point that out to me? i just want to note where it is located. >> yeah. can you bring that up. on this slide i mentioned parcel c4.2, c6.1, or c14.2 -- >> where are they? because i can't see -- >> i can show you on -- unfortunately the highlighter doesn't show.

c4.2 is within the orange block. that is shown as major phase two on the city side. c6.1 is within the block labelled 4c. and both of those would be shared between -- between avenue "c" and the shared public way. >> mr. beck, these maps are fairly small. it is almost inledgelegible. it would be helpful to have the parcels -- a larger map so we can clearly see what is being discussed. please.

>> c4.2 is this parcel right here, the center of this block, and c6.1 is this parcel here, at the corner of this block. and 13.2, i believe, is this parcels right here, within major phase three. >> i'm sorry, maybe i misunderstood. are we exchanging c2.2 for all three of these parcels -- >> for one. >> which one, though? >> we haven't finalized which one of those it would be. >> i see. so we have the option of three? >> yes. we focused on these three because they were all

previously planned to be affordable housing sites, when we were a 30% affordable program, and these were three sites that tida gave up when we shrunk to a 25% affordable program. >> my concern is making sure that we're trading for something that is equal or better for the future affordable housing developments. it sounds great that the site is larger and we have more land to work with, but there are other considerations, including how close these parcels are to the bus stops or to other community amenities. looking at this map, i really don't remember where we are providing the services on the island, but, um, it seems like the closer east we are, generally there is more access to retail and neighborhood services. and so that remains my reservation about this because, you know, obviously the original

site, although it is small, it is much more proximate to all of the central services of the island. it sounds like perhaps staff -- this is maybe a staff-level decision because it is informational in front of us, but i would be very concerned if we're trading for a parcel that is very far west without very much support of amenities. >> i can include it in our may discussion, you know, specific size, zoning heights, massing for these three parcels. but we, working with natalie, working with them, we did see them as having significantly better development potential than the site that we're proposing to the developer to take. >> all right. thank you. >> other questions, commissioners? >> mr. beck, in this subphase application, are there mi minimum or maximum

parking requirements? or do we leave that as a flexible negotiation item? >> throughout the development area, the residential development has a maximum parking entitlement of one to one. >> thank you. >> and -- but the parking is decoupled, so the buyer of a condominium cannot be required to purchase a parking space. so i think particularly in the initial treasure island subphase, they're planning projects to be at one to one, but i think as those projects are sold, i think there will be a learning curve of what is the market demand for parking spaces. so as we move into this

subphase, i think we'll probably see a lower ratio of parking actually developed. >> i see. thank you. >> thank you very much. so please bring back the maps so we can have other questions. are there any public comment? i see none. okay, we've had a very productive meeting. and thank you commissioners for being here. >> one more item, discussion of future agenda items by directors. >> directors, are there any? yes. >> hi. just a quick one about parks, playgrounds as a followup. there were lots of comments made today at various points about the importance of playground structures. i just want to say that -- you know, my kids are six and two, and we bring them to treasure island on occasion to play on the playgrounds. and i've talked to a couple of other families, and it seems to me -- and i don't have the gem demographics to support this, but anecdotely,

there seems to be a large proportion of very young kids on the island, as opposed to the older kids, like eight and above, and the play structures that currently exist on the island are really meant for large, older kids. it is actually not that safe for younger kids. so i'm wondering if we can maybe do a little bit of an evaluation of what the age categories are for kids on the island, and how age-appropriate our parks are for them, and just to keep those demographics in mind as we continue to develop our programming for the playgrounds moving forward. and the second item, i didn't want to get into this discussion er earlier on, but i do feel like a followup is necessary in evaluating our continued outreach efforts for the transitional housing issue. i certainly agree with my fellow commissioners that we've done our job in

notifying the residents, through years and years of engagement, but it does strike me that perhaps we should evaluate whether or not the current outreach program is meeting the needs of the residents because i feel like we're doing a great job in, like, notifying people of workshops and meetings and things like that, but somehow there is a disconnect between our notification and the confidence that the residents have in terms of next steps and what to do. i think i get the sense that just from engaging with the community that perhaps this is a very complicated process. and maybe the nature of the outreach needs to be adjusted to match really this next phase of outreach because we're no longer just saying, hey, pay attention, we're doing this. i think people know that this is going to happen, but in terms of

understanding all of the details, and perhaps it is more of an intensive session -- i just want to make sure that we're spending or consulting our money and time the most effective way. thank you. >> thank you. any other's tros? we certainly concur on having the outreach. every meeting we have had here had the outreach component in there, because it also has legal implications, also. and tida also needs to demonstrate that we've done everything to accommodate the residents. so it is a major item that this commission will need at some point to stand up to, to explain how they conducted that. so let's revisit everything we can with regards to the outreach, and every meeting, even with the general meeting for the board, i thank the commissioners should continue to ask about --

ask questions about the outreach, as we've been doing all along. no other commissions' suggestions. please, for the next thing on the agenda. >> meeting adjourned. >> okay. thank you very muc

adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to

do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood

of san francisco and a vibrant community >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement

depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific

neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's elected assessor. when i meet with seniors in the community, they're thinking about the future. some want to down size or move to a new neighborhood that's closer to family, but they also worry that making such a change will increase their property taxes. that's why i want to share with you a property tax saving program called proposition 60. so how does this work? prop 60 was passed in 1986 to allow seniors who are 55 years and older to keep their prop 13 value, even when they move into a new home. under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value.

compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home.

this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're looking to purchase and sell within a year, were you nur home must not be at a value that is worth more than 105% of your exist egging home. which means if you sell your old home for $1 million, and you buy a home within one year, your new home should not be worth more than $1.15 million. if you sell your existing home at $1 million and buy a replacement between year one and two, it should be no more than $1.1 million. know that your ability to participate in this program expires after two years. you will not be able to receive

prop 60 tax benefits if you cannot make the purchase within two years. so benefit from this tax savings program, you have to apply. just download the prop 60 form from our website and submit it to our office. for more, visit our website, sfassessor.org,peaker cards an copies of documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon will appear on april 16th for the supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> call items 1 and 2 together. -- issuance of mortgage revenue

bond not to exceed 77 million for sunnydale block number six. item 2 resolution approving authorizing director of the mayor's office to execute amended and restated loan agreement not to exceed 28.4 million to finance the first phase of infrastructure improvements and housing development for the sunnydale hope s.f. development. >> thank you very much. we have sarah amral and also, oh, and -- we have theo miller here. hi. so, this is continued from last week, and i believe last week we heard from the b.l.a. also, and we, i had some questions and i actually have met with folks and so i just want to ask my colleagues if they have any questions for the speakers, seeing none, open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on items 1

or 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. oh, michael. public comment is now open. >> i spoke yesterday and i demonstrated that there's 144 unit apartment building complex that's being built in mountain view county. lowest rate by a developer to produce housing construction on a brand-new apartment building for most vulnerable in the area. applied to people who are teachers and also homeless, economically disadvantaged, you campaigned on, who you promised you want to help here in the city. demonstrated said $500 million to house the homeless. with that much money and the 11

billions from tax cuts and tax cuts regulations from the president of the united states, put that money together and you could build nine apartment building complexes that have 144 apartment units for homeless economically disadvantaged people with disabilities, mental and physical, amputees, people wheelchairs and the veterans. the land in the embarcadero, build 27-story apartment building complex with the $5 million, you could build nine apartment building complexes and places for people who need help. navigation center, all you are doing is building 200 shelter beds. and you can't stay there no longer than, than 90 days and you kick them out and put them on the street and homeless all over again. stephanie, you said you needed to know where does the good idea

to stop the cycle of people going into the navigation center and put back out on the street. you make 27-story unit building, 1,269 apartments for permanent housing for those people instead of that -->> thank you, michael. thanks. well, we do hope that teachers will live in the hope s.f. sites, actually, and the people you are talking about. thanks much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i believe that we had a recommendation last week from our budget legislative analyst. would you read that again? >> from the office, this week we did incorporate the recommendation into our report to amend the proposed resolution to request director of the

mayor's office of housing and community development to submit a written report to the board of directors on the proceeds of the sale of block five after finalization of the sale, includes the process for advertising the availability of the process, the property, the number of bidders, the range of bids and the criteria for the buyer. thank you very much. >> and mr. miller, do you accept those amendments? >> i do. >> you agree with them? >> thank you very much. >> that's great. make a motion to accept the amendments. we can take that without objection. and i make a motion to move items 1 and 2 to the full board as amended. with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisors. >> madam clerk. read item 3. >> ordinance amending the administrative and business and tax regulations calls to confer upon certain non-profit organization first right to purchase consisting of both a right of first offer and a right of first refusal over all

multi-family residential family building in the city. >> we amended it last week, they were substantive, and now a fiscal impact so now we have a b.l.a. report. hear from the b.l.a., please. >> on page 11 of the report, table 1, summarize the impact of the amendment in committee. amendment in the committee exempted property -- from the transfer tax, purchase the property over $5 million for the portion of the transfer tax, the incremental portion. page 11, we sort of show what that would be per property. so for a property sale price at $5 million, the transfer tax exemption would be a one-time reduction of 75,000. for property sold at $10 million, exemption 200,000. and for 25 million, exemption

562,000. we do consider approval to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. public comment. peter cohen. any one else that would like to comment, come on up. >> good morning, peter cohen with the community housing organizations. we know that last week was the big hearing and there were lots of folks here. just again, thrilled this resignation is going through with all of the supervisors signing on. i thought i would take a minute or two to emphasize funding that will help make this happen. this has been a question that's been raised. we have the great tool, adding to the toolbox. we have the ability along with the capacity of our organizations to scale our acquisition work. but it's going to need money and that's the great question. i wanted to remind us of the

opportunities we have forth coming, of course, november 29th housing bond, at this point, a half billion dollars at minimum, is going to have a preservation component. it's a great opportunity to have a dedicated source of funds to help move acquisition and take advantage of copa. looking out ahead, we also again potentially have surplus in future fiscal years, nice to have a continuing set aside from that. we also have november 2020, impending prop 13 reform measure on the statewide ballot, the split roll, 600 to $800 million a year to san francisco. just imagine if a small portion was set aside for acquisition of housing. and lastly, something lost in the redevelopment evolution in san francisco, we have what is called a replacement housing obligation that went with the redevelopment agency. over 6,000 housing units were

destroyed in urban renewal efforts in san francisco, 6,000. and in the early 1990s, senator burton required san francisco to replace those and allowed use of redevelopment funds for that. unfortunately, governor brown blocked the use of those funds and we have been trying to restore them. with a new governor and hopefully new appetite by this board we can bring that back. i wanted to put that on your radar screens. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good morning. mada young, a member of the bay area homeowners network. we represent thousands of members from around the bay area. small mom and pop owners are being systematically forced out of the housing market by the unreasonable restrictive, draconian rent control laws. over 40 years, san francisco has developed hundreds of amendments to their rent ordinance and they

are doing nothing to stop the rent from going higher, but the opposite. they are forcing the rent to go higher and forcing the rental units to be out of the market, so there are fewer and fewer affordable housing on the market, and that's all because of the politicians and their organizations behind the scenes pushing them to do these without concern for the general public's well-being. with that said, this is just another step towards a final goal of these organizations trying to take over the homeowner's market. so, the homeowners can no longer do the business, but they will take over the biggest landlord. already i see privileges around the bay area that are dictating

the market unfairly. so please say no and think it through. you are undermining the whole american society. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good morning, reverend. >> good morning. good morning to everyone. i want to first say i'm reverend yana moore from faith in action bay area and some of my teammates are here. i want to thank the board of supervisors for the courage and initiative you have shown. i want to simply state the human cost every day i hear stories of evictions. i work with young people, very young children and work with teachers as well. and i have heard recently in the last couple days stories of eviction. i hear stories from millennials telling me they are considering leaving this city. this legislation will invest in our youth, i'm talking about

millennials and others, and i thank you again and i support it. and i hope it passes. thanks. >> thank you. any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i would like -- should i -- i would like to make a motion to move this to the board with positive recommendation. take that without objection? thank you very much, colleagues. madam clerk, item number 4. >> resolution authorizing municipal transportation agency to execute a retail lease agreement for retail space at 44 ellis street for a ten-year term plus two five-year extension option, base rent 3.5 million. >> items 4 and 5 together. thank you. >> 5, resolution authorizing municipal transportation agency to terminate the lease agreement with tad's, inc. for retail

space ellis, in the garage. >> thank you very much. i believe we have jason a. gallagos, manager strategic real estate, sfmta. >> that is correct. thank you. so i'm going to run through this as quickly as possible. the two items for consideration today are one, a lease termination agreement with the current tenant, tad's, inc. and on top of that, a new lease agreement with tad's, inc. tad leases 5368 square feet of retail space and operated as a business and as a restaurant at 44 ellis street and other locations in san francisco. this one in particular is ellis garage. the garage is owned by the city and under the direction of the city, built in 1965, 3 commercial retail spaces, one #

1,000 square feet. when it comes to the current lease, approved by the board of supervisors on march 1, 2015. tad's assumed the lease in 2017 as part of a business accusation. now the original lease has a ten-year term, and six years remain on that lease. in addition, there are rent credits which are incorporating lease for tenant improvements. those and at option, if you will, was never exercised, utilized by our past and current tenants. the initial ten years of the lease to produce $5,127,000 in rent and as i mentioned before, there's been no real significant tenant improvements to the space in over 20 years. tad being able to terminate the existing lease and a new lease, they will invest and make significant improvements to the

retail space and the costs of the improvements are well beyond the existing rent credits of $250,000. with the new lease it includes a fresh ten-year term, so adding four additional years on top of the new, and two five-year options. nine months of written abatement incorporated to the lease to offset the costs of what we are estimating at about $2.7 million in tenant paid for improvements. the lease will generate $5,317,024 of revenues during the initial term. lease starts at 82.50 per square foot. within a reasonable appraised range when factor in the tenant improvements being invested by our existing tenant and escalates at 4% of the base annual amount during the in addition sal terms, and 103% at the option period or 95%, whichever is greater to the

city. to conclude, tad's has been operating greater union square over 45 years. like i said, they are paying the cost of all the tenant improvement upgrades, include, you know, hood ventilation, electrical, plumbing, ceiling, flooring, new bathroom upgrade, mechanical systems, lighting fixtures, facade and canopy. they have not been able to open their business since assuming the lease but have consistently paid their rent totally over $730,000 plus as february 1, 2019. we believe this is retaining the local small business contributes to a proper public purpose and that it's a very responsible business retention effort. i have folks from the tad's team to speak if necessary and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. i love tad's steakhouse, actually. ok. i used to work at macy's, and so went to tad's with friends a

lot. colleagues, any questions or comments? let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> we summarize the fiscal impact of this, lease termination and renew lease on page 19 of our report and table 2. under the renew lease, rent at $82.5 per square foot per year. considered to be market rate based on an appraisal, independent appraisal that rent does include a rent credit. this incorporated into the rent credit 322,000 over the term of the lease. tenant improvements, estimated cost 2.7 million. total revenue to the m.t.a. over the ten-year term, 5.3 million, we recommend approval. >> i see you have a recommendation also to amend item 4. >> technical recommendation.

an error in the numbers in the legislation itself. and so we recommend amending it to correct the language from stating the initial annual basic rent is 5.3 million to the total rent over ten years is 5.3 million. >> thank you very much. any members of the public like to speak on 4 or 5? seeing none, public comment is now closed. can we have a motion to approve the amendments, please? and we can take that without objection. thank you very much. i just have one question also. is tad's a legacy business? >> legacy in terms of -- >> legacy business registry? >> not that we are aware of. >> ok, a little overdue once they get back into business. thank you very much. i would like to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended.

thank you very much. madam clerk. please call item number 6. >> resolution retroactively authorizing the department of technology to accept an in-kind gift of consulting services from city innovate, october 9, 2018, to october 8, 2023, 125,000. >> i believe we have christa canolakis. >> good morning. resolution will allow the department of technology to accept an in-kind gift of consulting services from an organization called city innovate. to assist in the administering of the start-up and residence program or stir program. five-year agreement began in october of 2018 and will continue until october 2023. connects city agencies with start-ups to develop technology

that helps make our government more accountable, efficient, and responsive to residents. the objective is to help city agencies serve their communities through modern service delivery. survey departments to determine operational and service challenges that may benefit from innovative technology solutions. our team works with the agencies to issue solicitations for proposed solutions by companies and the department then selects their preferred proposal, via this competitive solicitation process. over a 16-week residency period, the departments co-develop a custom solution that addresses the challenges they face, and they can move forward with a purchase of the solution if it meets their needs. a number of past successes, human services agency pro curing

a tool to simplify the process for a foster family, saving h.s.a. workers up to 40% in processing time. the city innovate will assist us in -- it's assisting a variety of jurisdictions nationwide in administering programs. they will assist us by helping us to scope, select, and refine technology challenges. they help us with the recruitment of companies to work with the city. they provide an online dashboard for us to review and evaluate the participants, and help us with facilitation of scoping workshops. i wanted to also share where the resolution is retroactive. it's retroactive because the stir program is a function which the department of technology assumed at the beginning of the fiscal year and reviewed the stir program and other office of civic innovation initiatives we realize certain arrangements

constituted a gift that would require board approval. and we are in the first few months of this five-year agreement. our team at the office of civic innovation operates a number of programs that seek to apply private sector resources to assist in solving civic challenges and working to ensure we receive board of supervisors approval prior to engaging these moving forward. happy to answer any questions. >> any questions or comments from my colleagues? seeing none, there was no b.l.a. report on this. let's open it up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on item 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. call item number 7. >> resolution retra actively authorizing the department of public except, 3.1 million from the department of health care

services to participate in a program, homeless, mentally ill, outreach and treatment. >> i believe we have dr. irene sung. san francisco health network, department of public health. >> good morning. or almost afternoon. my apologies if i stumble a bit, the first time i've done this, only in the interim role a few weeks. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> we are absolutely nice. yes. this is easy. >> great, great. this is a new grant and it's focussed on providing services and linkage services to support the homeless people that are suffering from substance use disorders, and mental illness. it's a new grant. i believe the application, the approval to apply was previously approved by the board and that

we are approving, we are requesting the approval to accept the dollars and expend the grant. let's see here. we are getting started now, took us some time to actually figure out what gaps in services we really needed to focus on to be sure we are addressing the correct gaps, and i believe that we are in a place now we are moving forward. what we are doing is we are increasing the number of social workers, peer navigators, augmenting street medicine and, with the harm reduction ban to ensure coordinated services, and increasing hours of operation for various programming to make sure there are more nighttime availability and so there's more, greater coverage. we really want to try to get folks into care as best we can and provide that linkage. if you want -- >> thank you very much. one question for you, which is

have you ex -- have you begun to expend the funds yet? >> we haven't -- we haven't actually, no, we have not started spending the funds yet. we wanted to make sure we were addressing the correct gaps. that's what we were focussing on. >> sure. supervisor stefani. >> yes, thank you, chair fewer. this grant is said to be able -- will be able to enhance residential treatment services and residential care facility beds, i'm wondering how you will carry that out through the grant. >> it's not actually for beds, i'm going to refer to michelle here. >> okay. that's in the resolution. >> that's language in the resolution. >> linking them. what we are finding is we are, sometimes, when folks will come into p.e.s., try to get them hooked into hummingbird, they won't make it there. so trying to attach services to make the linkage actually happen.

in terms of the actual beds, michelle -- no actual beds increase in this particular grant. it is really about making sure they link into services. and helping them stay in services. >> that may get them into a bed at hummingbird. >> and maybe help them stay in a bed. >> that's fine, ok. thank you. >> yeah, sorry. >> thank you very much. any other questions? no comments, there was no b.l.a. report on this. open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to make a recommendation to move to the board with a positive recommendation. thank you very much. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please read item number 8. >> accept, expend a grant in amount of 402,000 from the california department of public

health. >> thank you very much. i believe we have joshua nositer, interim director. please start. >> so the black infant mortality rate in san francisco is four and a half times of the white rate. our black infant mortality rate is actually higher than that of sri lanka. what this grant proposes to do is the first installment of a multi-year grant from the state to better understand the gaps in service that contribute to black mortality in san francisco county, and to remedy those disparities. >> can you tell me the actual numbers of children that actually -- is this -- so this is -- is this children are not

coming to full term, or is it after children are actually birthed? >> so, there is both. preterm birth is a significant contributor to infant mortality. these are the 14 through 17 numbers. infant mortality rate among black infant mortality, 9.6 per thousand, 2.1 for the white population. >> ok. there is not -- there's no b.l.a. report on this. any other questions or comments from my colleagues? open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 8? seeing none, public comment is now closed. actually, i wish it was for more than 402,000. that's ok, thank you. make a motion to move to the board with a positive

recommendation, and i can at that that without objection, thank you very much. madam clerk, please call items 9 and 10 together. >> 9, resolution approving the boarding area c retail concession lease to the marshall group, and 600,000 for the first year of the lease. 10, resolution boarding c lease number one between hudson group retail, r.d.j. enterprises and manhattan investment, retailers, and the city for a term of seven years with 2-1-years options to extend, and 1.8 million for the first year of the lease to commence upon board approval. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. airport is seeking your approval for two boarding area c concession leases, each with the

lease term of seven years with two one-year options to extend. rent is the greater of the percentage structure or minimal annual guarantee. between the airport and h.g.s.f.o. retailers for retail marketplace called 49 mile market, feature local vendors plus grab and go food and beverages, minimum annual guarantee of 1.8 million, and marshall retail group, a stand titled the scoop, guarantee of 600,000. the budget analyst recommends approval. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> please hear from the b.l.a. on 9 and 10. >> two leases were selected through a competitive process, through terminal one, for seven years each, two one-year options to extend, total of nine years. h.s