also to really remind what their responsibilities are. [inaudible] >> this is what the electronic monitoring is. actually it is the essence of electronic monitoring is that it is that the court says you must have electronic monitoring upon release. it makes sense that on this form, a consent form of electronic monitoring that it would be spelled out in a much more concise way. so it has a deeper understanding of what the court has ordered. this is not -- [inaudible] >> what i'm hearing today and supervisor walton correct me or

just come on into the conversation if you like. what i'm hearing is that we actually have pretty much consensus on item number 1. item number 2, i feel there is a pathway there. item number 3, i believe it will take more work with the sheriff's department. as a board member, we don't have the authority to actually change the rules and procedures within the electronic monitoring in the sheriff's department, but we can actually help facilitate a conversation that we reach a consensus and agreement on how we can better serve those people, those clients we are serving. i think these three recommendations brought forth is an attempt to do that. before we go any further and we lose some of our public commenters, i would like to open this up for public comment on items number one and two. can you see how many speakers we have in the queue? my apologies everyone that this

hearing has gone on for such a long time, but as i said, that we have continued this item, i think five times. i felt like we needed to give it its due full time and respect to this subject matter as so many departments have presentations for us for this deeper discussion about electronic monitoring. can we see how many public commenters we have on items one and two please. >> yes madam chair. currently there are seven speakers in the queue and three listening. >> okay, let's open it up for public comment. let's give everyone 2 minutes for this public xhechcomment. let's hear what our public commenters have to say. thank you. >> yes madam chair. operations is checking to see if there are more callers in the queue. operations please let us know if you have not already done so press star 3 to be added to the

queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please queue in the first caller. >> good morning madam chair and supervisors. i am the policy manager. we are strongly opposed to the city's reliance on using electronic monitoring. our reentry program works closely with people who are formally incarcerated and their families. many of them have been on electronic monitoring, which is not an alternative to but a costly and counterproductive extension of incarceration that does not only affect individuals but their families as well. there is no conclusive analysis or evidence that suggests that it works. we ultimately need to work towards a rejeshgs of the program there is daily evidence and vulnerabilities that result from this program. i urge you to recommend against

approving the current rules and regulations and incorporate harm reduction measures. among many recommendations that have been submitted to you, further steps need to be taken to decriminalize quality of life crimes, place a cap on the amount of times that people are on the program and electronic monitoring should be subject to less surveillance or excluded from it completely. decrease the restrictions for the people subject to the program. there are multiple pages of rules, each with a thorough analysis. we need to facilitate and strengthen community ties, inclu including family care rather than requiring permission for these activities and punishment, rearrest detention should be the

last result of the rules. we need to set people up for succe success, not throw up barriers. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hello speaker. we strongly oppose the use of electronic monitoring and i recommend against approving the current regulation of the city's program and incorporate harm reduction measures. g.p.s. tracking negatively effect employment, child care, healthcare, and family responsibilities. it can create harmful complications with employments, especially with jobs with unset

hours, and family emergencies. expansion of electronic monitoring has resulted in large increases in overtime pay. proponents of the electronic monitoring state it will reduce cost, but it only increases the amount of money that the city spends on incarceration. no data shows that the e.m. positively impacts court appearances. what does work are programs and tools that support court attendance and reentry in the community. this also looks like supportive housing, mental healthcare and other employment services. our city believes that

electronic monitoring is harmful. i ask that you not move forward until more information is shared with the public and there is work to implement harm reduction implications and demands that we sent to you. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hello supervisors. my name is meredith. i live in district 8 and i'm a staff attorney here in san francisco. i am here to speak specifically of electronic monitoring of youth. we strongly oppose the use of electronic monitoring in the juvenile system. it has no basis in research as an effective intervention and contradicts the science of

adolescent development. [please stand by]

to electronic monitoring increasing when it was implemented. at the same time electronic

monitoring was increases and public safety outcomes increased significantly. it has tripled our staffing and budget. that could be looked at as a conclusive to public safety rates increasing because we are able to provide our agencies are embedded in the community and nonprofit working in the states. we do believe it provides support. we are currently increasing

for the pre-trial services. thank you, have a good day. >> thank you for the comments, next speaker please. >> hello, supervisors. i'm gracey and live-in the district. i'm against electronic monitoring. it's not a good alternative to incidence cars ration. they fail to provide the opportunities that people need. this reinforces the racism of the criminal and legal systems. it expands jails and policing in the moms and communities of black, indigenous, trans, and

poor people. expansion has increased the budget and overtime pay. finally, more resources into incarcerate. it's less expensive than incarcerating in jail without cutting fixed cost like staffing, electricity, and water. those resources should be reinvested into the community where they belong other than limit or takeaway power and agency. we shouldn't invest in a different type of incarceration. decriminalizing use of life crimes would keep helpless poor folks from being put-on

em and stop the revolving door of heart shipment our cities rely on electronic monitoring. we must move away from this. let's invest in support for increasing reentry and focus on services that will straighten community ties. this will keep us safe. as long as we use electronic monitoring. >> speakers time has elapsed. >> next speaker please. >> i would like to comment i'm opposed to electronic monitoring and i'd like to say why. when we have the rate of incarceration we do when we allow this level of electronic monitoring what it means is that we placed police officers in all of these communities to

continue the specific superiors. what it means is again, those communities that are already suffering from over policing and mass incarceration and mass surveillance, especially are incarcerated are again going to be subject to to this excessive policing. there is another way. with mass incarceration.

beyond that eit means the surveillance state is much more privaciesive in the provasive. i oppose the two measures i join my community in doing so. we must stop this. >> next speaker please. >> my name is christian and i'm part of the coalition that recommends against approving the current rules and regulations of the electronic program. this is while working to oppose electronic monitoring. the existing documents don't

outline the rules and regulations this is the farther review of the rules and the concentrate consequences. we would like the opportunity for the public to weigh-in as well. the coalition sent over demands. they can be found on our website. there are different levels of custody. they should be restrictions for electronic monitoring. we also recommend the a time limit when someone should be

allowed to have less sure fall vance. we need to invest in court date reminder and transportation to courthouses. our cities reliance on electronic monitoring muss be moved away from. today, we not pass this and work with the preventionive measures we shared. >> thank you for your comments. >> i'm a district nine resident. i'd like to echo what has been said. this is by the jail coalition.

i oppose the use of electronic monitoring anywhere i'd like to thank the supervisor and echo what the very supervisor said this is the fifth time we met about this. we are often barred because we might have a criminal past. if you have a monitor on your ankle your options are limited. even though you pay taxes and your license and you live-in san francisco. san francisco, l.a., philadelphia, new york. all of these places are doing

great work this is what the people in my community would like. i'd like to thank you for having public comment and keep it going. those on hold police continue to wait until the system indicate you happen to be muted. please unmute the last speaker. >> hello, i'm malissa hernandez. until we make changes to ensure at the least crime reduction for people placed under these restrictive monitors. for purposes i'm personally

opposed to the use of ankle chack shackles. this is another monitoring tool for people of color. before the pandemic the number of folks of em increased but so did the number of people in our jails. em is another form of incarceration. i'd like to discuss the use of them in san francisco. em has grown and it seems there is a lot we don't know about how it's use the our city can that will straighten community ties.

in the meantime, as long as em will be used and we understand this is not a ref refer ran dumb. >> anymore speakers. >> hi, i'm kate in d.c. my research is in the use of em in the criminal and legal system. i'm thankful you convened this hearing and been following this for the past several months. i sent a letter two weeks ago. icon cur with the i concur the others concerns.

three quick points that came out today that i wanted to respond to. the sheriff's office and probation set the rules but the court orders someone to be put-on the monitor. they hold a lot of power to determine someones time on the monitor. some people are having 25 rules in addition to the court order conditions. some overlap and some don't. i also think there are serious concerns and legal issues. we are sharing the data with law enforcement. there is no such bases here. there is a process concern. most important, the question is how can emb used less. how can we find community

alternatives. there is court appearances that don't involve surveillance. i welcome the opportunity. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. any additional speakers. >> madam chair, that completes the cue. >> thank you very much. public comment on items one and two are closed. so, item number one is a hearing that has to be heard before the board. it doesn't need to be approved. is that correct? >> that's my understanding of the statue and penal code the board needs to review it, that's it. >> so, i'm wondering, i actually think we have momentum here. i think we learned a lot from the hearing. i think what we can honestly

say we don't have enough data and we real have collective data on other strategies that might be more successful i'm wondering, supervisor walton. i'm leading the office on january 8, 2021. i just wanted to make sure we started work here. primary there is language that's before us to explore them today. so, i'm wondering supervisor walton, i was going to file the hearing on both of these

items this is the program and regulations. if you would like to bring it back you can bring it back on a regular hearing and also updates. if i were to file both of the hearings as being heard. supervisor, i think i'm knowing i'm leaving and leave this decision up to you. >> thank you so much, chair. i'd love to to call this to the call of the chair. we have had headway with the public defender and chair we can bring it back and come to consensus as members of the board move it forward in a positive manor. that possibility -- i'd like to reiterate as i listen to mr. hollen. they focused on what the rules are suppose to be act.

it sounds like it's to benefit the individuals who might be on electronic monitoring. to your point, chair, i thank you for presenting the language that would be specific to item five. if this is really about the benefit of the client and making sure they understand their rights. it definitely should read something like only if the court mandates or something explicitly like that. if item number one continues to the call of the chair. i'll let the conversations continue. >> thank you very much. supervisor, anything to add? >> nope, i'm good. >> okay, that's great. i'd like to tank everyone for coming today and the sheriff's department. they called you back multiple

times. your patients is incredible and i'd like to say i think we are trying all to get on the same page with electronic monitoring. we knew this could be the fall back and we are seeing it. i think we can agree the data is inadequate. i'm happy to say the sheriff's department is taking the lead to do studies on this. your head is in the right direction with this. as i leave here i'd like to say thank you to the sheriff's depart. public defender, i'd just like to say thank you for bringing the recommendations forward and they are reasonable. i don't know why you couldn't workout this agreement but our time constraints we need to get in the room and workout the language. thank you for bringing that forward. duh to the others that gave us

a deeper understanding about electronic monitoring and how complicated this issue is. i have to say, it's odd to me we have three different companies and three did i have kent contracts with electronic monitoring and three different wavers you have to same. are be the they all the same? i'd like to look at the rules and procedures and see if we can alean them to be verisimilar to each other. anyway, having said that, i think i'll make a motion to continue item one to the call of the chair. i'd like to file item number two, may i do that in one motion? >> yes, madam chair. >> thank you. whether it's in the news or watching the meeting about how, perhaps, we have come to

consensus on this and how to make it better. i'd like to make a motion to cauley temperature one to the call of the chair. item number two i'd like to file. >> roll roll [roll call] >> aye, have it. >> i'd just like to thank you for your service to the city and county of san francisco. it's been a pleasure severing you as it supervisor. madam clerk can you cauley temperature call item number three. >> indicating the board of supervisor nonbinding to appropriate agenda item by november 2020 for the tax ballot matter.

members that which to provide public callment to call-in. press pound twice. press star 3 to indicate you would like to speak. which will make it in your comments. >> madam clerk, today we have with us super advice hanie. the floor is yours. >> thank you, it's good to see you all. i saw you just a few hours ago. this resolution in front of you would indicate the board's intent to appropriate revenue generated by prop l. this would pass overwhelmingly during our most recent election. i'd like to thank all three of you for your support for the measure when it was in front of the board.

thankfully we have nearly 66 % of the vote and in the near few we will have addition additional revenue. it is also connected to what is our related ongoing budget crisis and the many years in the making of the under funding and public health. when we first wrote prop l it main goal was for the economic recovery and the pandemic aftermath by raising up to $140 million. we made it clear from the by beginning from san francisco voters they could make great strides and the economic hardship with coronavirus. the funds raised by the tax will be deposited into the

general fund and the board would invest the funds for some of our most critical needs and hiring emergency responds. it's not binding and expresses an important intent that i think we have shared the need to invest funds into our health and public health systems. particularly, as a result of the strains they are experiencing during the pandemic. i think i don't have to go through the elements of the tax itself and why it was needed. we'll discuss that at length and it's important that we express our intent with other general funds and revenue measures as to how we would plan toous the funding when it comes to us in a little over a

year. we know that our public health system and general hospital are under funding and staffing of nurses. our addition services needin' vestments and this will give us a sense to do that and it's connected to the inequality our city is facing. i hope you will join me for the resolution supporting healthcare workers, emergency responders. and investing in our strained and struggling system. we can express our intent together as a board. thank you for your time. >> any comments or questions from my colleagues. we'll open this to public comment. >> so sorry, i'd like to be added as a cosponsor.

checking to see if there are any callers in the cue. for those on hold continue to wait let us know if there are any callers that wish to comment on item number three. >> madam chair, we have no colliers in the cue >> i make a motion. >> roll call vote please. >> on the motion we recommend item number three with the recommendations. [roll call]

>> approving item number 4 for the united states navy to extend the term for one year to commence on december 1. members of the public listed for public comment should call call-in and press star 3 to let us know you have to

speak. >> i have an image on my screen that i'd like to share. i'll put that on the screen. >> so, the structure lease between the navy was put in place in 1998 appeared we bring it back to the board annually for renewal because it's been in place for more than ten years. lands have been transferred from the navy to the treasure island development the scope of the lease has been released to the point because it released three structures. buildings 225 and 264 as well as the other pathway that goes

along the edge of the island. the other open spaces and commercial buildings that were originally part of the lease are all on land that have been transferred to the city. >> any questions or comments? >> i just have one question. the buildings that 22, 264, and 292 are around the island. these are all areas that have been found not to have toxic wastes, is that correct? >> these are all areas there

is no farther cleanup. they have completed reimmediate asian but it's an area that's been designated by the state to be state of for people to live and reckuate. >> so, they immediatated there is a little bit of the perimeter around the edge. it still hasn't been cleaned up but pending. >> yeah, that lies within there and they haven't completed the sign-off.

this is adjacent to the path. as they cleanup they might extend under the path. there was no chemical issues. it was buried beneath the pathway. these structures have no there were no issues with

reimmediate asian >> we have no callers in the cue. >> any comments or questions 1234 i was at the hearing they have to admonish the navy for the lack of cleanup knowing how the reports were falsified and everything else. i'd like to say it worries me. every time i vote on something it bothers me.

i know you are looking closely at that. i think with the housing they kept me up at night. there is an organize that it's actually watching this and keeping an eye on it and i'd like to inif a sighs to get future recognize accidents of treasure island. i know they have failed us. so, having said that. i'd like to make a motion to move it with the board with a positive recommendation. roll call please. [roll call] >> should we do a vote? >> my apologies madam chair. my mike mic was on mute.

[roll call] >> can you cauley temperature number five. meet press pound twice. if you have not done so press star 3. the system will indicate you have raised your hand we have

pat muller. i understand this is something we approve on an onyule bases, isn't that correct. >> i can go into a brief explanation or you can handle this separately, it's up to you. >> let's hear from the bla. can we hear from the bla. >> yes, good afternoon, chair and members of the community. this is the annual prevailing wage rate for the recovery classifications. we show the classifications covered on page two of our report. an attachment to our report we summarize the changes in the rates and the fiscal impact is unknown. it depends about the any

increases are passed on. we will set these rates for approval i'm available most of it is the classifications that have been approved those cover the full range of construction services as they would apply on any public works construction projects. there is ten unique to san francisco, all of these classifications were adopted by the board. the oldest of which going back more than 20 years in 1999.

the office of labor standards enforcement follows the same practices for both periods and the department of industrial. there was a collective bargaining agreement. this is consistent with those. so, they submitted to the civil service commission and approved and forwarded to the board of supervisors for consideration. i think it's fairly boilerplate. there is mostly cost ovliving increases and some cost of living increases. we know of if we don't have

them we won't submit them. >> it is pretty cut and dry i see no one in the key. also, it's been negotiated through our labor union >> the bases are all based on collective bargaining agreements through labor organizes >> if they haven't done so please press star 3 to be added to the cue.

are there any callers that wish to comment on item number five. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the cue. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board. >> yes, on the motion [roll call] >> we have three i-s. >> good to see you again. >> thank you, yeah, happy new year. >> yes, thank you so much. can we please cauley temperature number six. >> yes, item number six authorizing the department of emergency management on behalf of the city as it primary grantee fiscal year 2020 targeted and the prevention

program 830,000. security for the period of october 2020 through september 2022. anyone wishing to provide public comment should call-in. >> thank you very much. we have marry with us today. there is no bla report on this. >> thank you supervisors. the legislation before you today is an except and expand of the targeted prevention grant in the amount of $830,242. the grant program will seek to

build local and regional capacity for targeted violence and all forms of terrorism. $10 million was awarded in grant funds to 28 different agencies and universities and nonprofits. this includes the city of boston, new york city and new york statement also in various universities. training and educational efforts in the region and houses of worship. we have four contracts that total $754,000. there might be indestruct costs of $75,000. the four contracts are training and awareness raising progress. we will learn to recognize those who might be radicalized. we have a youth resilience program that builds on the community matters program that's in 7 of the 12

counties. the ambassador in the project identified student leaders and helps provide training on recognizing warning signs of proten calvary lance. we have a threat assessment project on the school safety admissions that provides early intervention services to students. fourth is behavior alan analysis training. you can identify nonseveral high schools and a congresswoman jacki spears. i'd be hispanic with any comments or conversation you might have. >> mary, i'm liz. >> you can call mary.

>> i'm hesitant about this because i sat on the board and as my colleague also iconner have we had conversations around this grant? >> yes, we actually did, supervisor. we spoke to them at some legislate early in the application process. the determination from the san francisco usdis they wanted to wait and see how the piolet programs in the various other high schools. i'm speaking off the top of my head. there are some 355 high schools in the bay area. so, some of these projects are going into a percentage of the schools and we talked with ffu. i personally spoke with some of them abdomen they wanted to wait and see what results were obtained before they decided where or not to join.

that was the only reason why. >> so, would this grant go to private schools first? >> no, public schools in the san francisco bay area. >> so, we are the recipient for the 12 counties. >> that's correct. the team accede the fiscal agent for the 12 bay area counties. it's part of our master mlu. >> sure, now i get it. okay. >> supervisor walton. >> just a quick two questions. for all of the strategies across the region are the same so there is no difference how the strategies would be in san francisco versus another community >> i'm not sure i follow your questions. >> does ice receive resources from this? i know other counties don't

operate with the way we do in san francisco. >> no, this has nothing to do with ice. not at all. >> yeah, i think, i'd like to say this will train you the lookout for somebody that might be so much of it is preserved we have seen the adverse effect of preserved danger when it's not real among our students and in particular students of color. supervisor walton can attest to that this is our reluctance they cheese to do this work if we were to bring though those to san francisco a very active

school board. i wouldn't feel comfortable approving a grant like this about the it were to be put into san francisco. also on the superintendent himself. i understand we are the money people for the region and there are school districts that are interested in this. we are targeting. so, having said that. i'd like to make a motion. have we opened this for comment yet. >> no, we haven't >> i'm checking to see if there are any callers in the cue.

if you haven't already done so press star three to be added to the cue. for those on hold wait until you have been unmuted. are there any callers that wish to comment on item number six? >> madam chair, we have no callers in the cue. >> public comment is now closed. i'd like to move this for a role call vote. >> aye have it; motion approving between the port commission and bakers bakers inc. for a term this will

commence following the board of approval. if you would like to separate public comment meeting id 622. if you haven't done so press star two to be added to the queue >> thank you very much. we have jay edwards and rebecca from the port. is that right. >> yes, thank you. >> i'm jay edwards, good afternoon supervisors. i'm the property manager with the port and working closely and put them together before seeking recommendations of the

approval. >> this is a plan for the chowder hut located at taylor. it's a short distance from the flagship bakeries that perhaps you have been to and enjoyed. it's a subsidiary of theirs. they have been operating this premise for the last 17 years. if you look closely they have four parcels. i'd like to draw it to public d. this is the public restaurant that serves the general public and done so for many years. they clean it seven days per

week in exchange for credit that i'll explain. that's the prim miswe are talking about. this is from their lease, next slide. we have here, it's the proposed atrium going on the exterior of the excysting existing octagon. this will enhance the public dining experience and increase the revenue and for consultants. this is an improvement that will benefit the public and the port. next slide please. >> this is the summery outlined in your report. this is from the budget analyst office. we'd like to thank him for his

diligence and we spent time making sure we provided information needed. head of the terms with a ten year lease and five year option to extend at fair market value. the rent is higher of base or percentage rent calculated and paid on a monthly bases. the current rent is credit for maintaining public restaurants that was on a cause bases through what might occur for similar janitorial services. the percentage remains at 9 % which is higher than our other comparable properties. this is year-round dining or

experience is proposed up to $8,000. we think that's a number that's rely able and the new lease which has been signed by all of the requirements be in it. next slide please. here is a summery of our financial analysis so we have twosar twosar that two scenarios. move forward on the lease as processed. in a approximately three years. 2a is lease expires and the tenant vacates and they initiate a process the process

was completed and it could include time for construction we would preserve there is a lower percentage rate through the market conditions currently there night be credits required again as a condition to bring in a new tenant which we all know the retail sector that's been highly impacted by the pandemic. the fact that they would like to move forward on the lease is a testament to their belief in san francisco and our economic recovery summarizing the presentation. we have an expensive track record with the bakery.

they performed well above the other portfolios. the indoor outdoor casual dining experience with the retractable atrium is suited for what they are looking for. it's affordable and open to everybody. we will really enjoy it. there is an additional $1.7 million and to the port. it's compared to the alternative. they will pay a percentage of

the proceeds from the sale on the property. with that, that concludes my presentation and look forward to your input, thank you. >> thank you very much. there is a new ten year elites with the chowder hut. this is in the retail lease. we are on the terms of our report andesed revenue takes into account the current policy for rent forgiveness due to covid-19 which is 1 powerpoint 8 million. because the lease is consistent with port policy we recommend this. >> we'll open this for public

comment. >> operations is checking to see if there are any callers. >> if you haven't done so press star 3. if you are on hold wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. >> madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment is now closed. i think it's the perfect spot to be on our street. it's a heavy tourest area. the logo and the bread and the chowder and the soup. it's the perfect place to be. i also wanted to say to them is thank you for having such a wonderful bakery in my

neighborhood. it's a legacy in my district. i can't image the richland district without it. i'd like to say to my colleagues that i think this is a name we can invest in in san francisco. they are investing in us. i'd like to take a motion to move this to the board. i'd like a roll call vote. >> on the motion supervisor watson. [roll call] >> ayes have it. madam clerk can you cauley call item number eight. >> to expand the grant in the amount of 1.6 million through the california emergency versus for participation of the grant program.

this is for may 22, 2020. members that wish to provide public coloment should call 415-655-0001. press pound twice a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand we have cay and joe. >> good morning, madam chair. i'm the major and >> we would like -- in the amount of 1,640,000 from fema

to participation in the program the grant for the project is from may 22, 2022. also it's by the supervisor. they will have upgrades, innovations and renovation of the second floor very little has been done since the construction. in 2016 the sendingter added to the committee of 2016 bond program part of the renovations the study was

completed and they didn't meet the requirement. they upgraded it before the building. between 2018 to 2020 they moved towarded with completion and the we are looking at the start of construction be in january 2021. >> for clarification purposes. fema granted we have applied to the upgrade prior to the project it was submitted in august of 2018. based on engineer costs ofle million dollars and the fema program is about

$2.1 million. we will pay 75 % of cost which is about 1.625 million % show it's required. about $538,000 and backed by 2016 for the bond program. we have bond measure in the meeting and he might ask you a question. >> thank you very much. >> oh, sorry. >> two more in terms of fiscal requirement the reimbursement program of the expansion that we reimbursed. for the duration of the progress and doesn't

require -- we have asking for approval. the reason for requesting retroactive approval is it was awarded may 2020 there was a delay in the grant because there was a continued discussion around the reporting requirements and additional grant applications. the legislation was sent to the mayors office on on >> operations is checking for callers in the queue. please let us know if there are callers. please press star three to be added to the queue.

for those on hold continue to wait the system indicates you are muted. if you wish to comment on item number 8. >> madam chair, no callers in the queue. >> public comment on item 8 is closed. motion to move to the board with positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor. >> aye. >> three psys. >> nine and 10 together, please. >> resolution supplementing resolution 196-20 authorizing sales of tax bonds for city and

county of san francisco special tax district 2020-1 mission rock facilities and services $43.3 million and related documents. 10. supplementing resolution 36-18. approving pledge agreement by the city and county of san francisco infrastructure financing district 2 with respect to sub project areas 1-13 in connection with special tax bonds, tax district 2020-1. mission rock facilities and services. members who wish to comment on these items call 415-655-0001. 146, 622-0460 and press pound twice. dial star three to line up to speak. the prompt when indicate you have raised your hand.

>> thank you very much. >> we have mr. wyatt, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you have the floor. >> thank you, chair fewer and

haves for your timsupervisors f. i am here to talk about the mission rock district facia tax. 9 and 10 are both related to the bonds. first item is the pledge agreement. update to previous pledge agreement. this takes the tax increment be from project areas 1-13 to the special tax district for debt service. second is the resolution authorizing issuance of bonds themselves in the amount of

$243.3 million. i will go over on the project itself as a refresher and talk about the financing structure, of which the bonds you will get a positive recommendation for today, hopefully. i will talk about the bonds and then the next steps. the mission rock project will be 2.7 to 2.8 million square feet of space, approximately 1300 ap. the office space and approximately 240,000 square feet of retail and 240,000 square feet of future use at pier 48. this is not yet planned. we are looking at different options in the future. to the right you can see the

map. 11 parcels and parking garage replacing the current surface lot that serves as parking lot for the giants stadium. phase one and the bond today will fond the horizontal infrastructure. it is the road, the park, sewer, all things needed in preparation for the vertical development. of phase one there are two housing buildings, 540 total units of housing, 200 affordable. two buildings of commercial office space. 550,000 square feet. one building is fully leased to be the new global headquarters. 65,000 square feet of ground floor retail in nose four

buildings. on the northern side by the water across from the stadium will be the park which is an expansion of the current park. the project infrastructure is funded by the bond. we are targeting end of 22 for completion of the horizontal infrastructure with some construction in early 203 for the vertical building. the project funding uses three sources. they are at the bottom of first developer import equity. mostly developer equity here. the developer funds the early horizontal infrastructure. road, sewers, parks to prepare for the building of the four buildings. we are excited we are preparing to break ground any day now.

the two other sources are the portlanport -- port-land value. those ground leases are the other early source on the infrastructure that are key. the final is the tfd community facilities district special tax on top of the standard property taxes. i.f.d. is infrastructure financing district to capture growth in property taxes through the development and that tax increment is key funding source as well. those two sources combined are going to help pay this bond which will fund the early infrastructure. just a little on the phase one budget. it includes the horizontal

budget. roads, sewers, parks, utilities, all of that. revenues are the four phase one. there are two residential buildings and two office buildings. there are bond the cfd with the special tax district. different sources from the cfd and i.f.d. overview of the budgeting for phase one. second item is the bond. $35.2 million in bond proceeds from $40 million bond. i am bringing good news we are excited about and i will go over it in a second. to date what different public financing actions have been taken? it is a long process in february of 2018 when the board approved the formation of project area a

the mission rock area and the 13 subproject areas in september 2019. the board approved the amendment to the tax law allowing the cfds to be formed for different uses at the pier 70 mission rock project. it is entitlement, historic rehabilitation and sea level rise and other projects. finally, may 2020 the board approved the special tax district to secure these bonds. there are four taxes associated with that cfb. first is the development tax. that is the one that will secure these bonds. the office tax and the shoreline tax and services tax are not to be used to pay the debt service on the bonds. the tax specifically markedded to pay for infrastructure and

parks is a project tax increment that is available as long as that is available from the i.f.d. the amount of bonds the city will issue are limited by two factors. first appraised value of cfd. the city issues with a three to one ratio. the appraised value must be three times the amount of bonds issued. this is to assure if something goes wrong the value is sufficient to pay the debt service on the bonds through a. the value way $130 million resulting in $43.3 million in bonds. we exceeded by $10 million. we have $3.3 million in bonds and more potentially in

proceeds. second limiting factor is ongoing tax capacity. how many taxes do you pay? the requirement is 110% statewide. this applies to the first four phase one parcels in excess of 110%. that is not the only factor. once the buildings are completed they will come back. the sale of the $43.3 million in bonds we are hoping $44.8 million potentially with premiums and to the right you can see the different uses of this. the main one being the improvement bonds for the different infrastructure, streets, parks, utilities, entitlements in the amount of $39.8 million. just an overview of the financing items.

i will go over the bonds. the final maturity is a 30 year term of 4.68% interest cost. the total bonds are $39.79 million from the previous slide. financing costs $1.31 million and the total estimated debt service is a little over $88 million. to my light specific risks and facts. these are nonrated. they are not part of the city's general bond or the court harbor fund. the only opligation of the city to pay the debt service is from the cfb. it is completely separate from the city's general fund. there is specific risk to

nonrated bonds related to development at the early stage until the project is built it is unrelated to the general fund. just to highlight information about the preliminary official statement. as board members there are requirements to review and make staff aware of issues with the preliminary official statement. that includes the terms of the bonds, sources of payment and security of the bonds. in this case the special tax and the different information about the cfd it and the development at mission rock. any special risk factor which i highlighted. that is all for my presentation. thank you for your time. i am available to answer question as well as colleagues.

>> items 9 and 10 approve the issuance of the bonds in the amount of $42.3 million for early infrastructure development at mission rock and approve the pledge agreement to allow property tax increment to use for repayment for the bonds. the actual commission infrastructure initial budget $265 million on page 17 of the report. $47 million would be property tax. property taxes that would otherwise go to the general fund are part of the i.f.d. as previously approved by the board of supervisors. the presentation we show it

again on page 20 of our report. this is the early implementation of the horizontal development at mission rock. this is consistent with other board policies and approvals, we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. comments or questions from colleagues? open up for public comment, please. item 9 and 10. >> press star 3 to be added to the queue. please let us know if there are callers for items 9 and 10. >> madam chair, no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is closed. we have someone from the san francisco giants listening in?

>> yes. franis available. >> i have a question for ms. wells. in previous conversations we have had about mission rock. i have brought up about the lack of a school there. i wanted to know and just to give me sort of an updated on what is happening with the school? there is a lot of affordable housing built but no public school. i know the giants have been working on this with sfufc. would you please give me an update.

>> i apologize. she may have dropped off. i know the giants are working with sfufc on consultation on different ways to serve the community that is going to grow there. they do not have specific plans in phase one. it is a four phase project with more than half of the residential units in later phases. if you would like i can follow up with the san francisco giants to get a more detailed update. >> actually, it takes five years to build the school, as we know, supervisor walton. i know the giants have a commitment to work closely with sfufc on the site because there are no public school options nearby. it was affordable housing for

families i have spoken to the giants in committee. i am surprised ms. wells is not joining us. >> she just joined. it may have been a technical glitch. my apologies on that. >> hello. this is fran. i was in a waiting room listening to the phone call but not able to get on. i am here. now, i think i can turn my camera on the that would be okay. >> that would be great. >> it is great to see you all. thank you so much. yes, we are very much in touch with the school district and

dawn and we have been working with her for several years at your prompting. thank you for highlighting this. probably in 2018 or so. we are really excited that the school district made the progress they have made in moving the mission bay schools forward. we actually had two representatives at a design update meeting last week. we are excited they will be moving forward in 2025. at that point in time the first phase of the project would be complete, but i think a as as wt the full usual will follow the school. we have made commitment goes to participate in the neighborhood to kickoff the neighborhood steering committee to support their efforts in that. i know that several of the

elements really important to them are around understanding the neighborhood demographics for the school, thinking about maintenance and facility cost and making sure those are covered. the capital coasts are separated from the facility coasts going forward. we have been working with neighborhoods. the mission bay community is growing and many families have been moving in. we have been working with several neighboring families in addition to businesses and just a lot of neighborhood stakeholders encouraged by and committed to the school. >> correct me if i am wrong. you said the school would be open before you have residential units completed, is that correct? >> we will have the first phase. the first phase will be open. we will have residents. then the school opens on the

timeline they are targeting. then the last three phases. a portion of the residents on site for about two years before the school opens but not all of them. >> you are also keeping track then of the timing of the opening of the school and sort of plotting the progress to ensure the people who move into the units at mission rock have a school to attend, is that correct? >> absolutely. any more questions from colleagues about this project? we heard from the bla and had public comment. now it is time for a motion from the full board. can we make a positive motion for items 9 and 10 with a roll call vote, please. >> on the motion.

>> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you very much. please call item i is 11. accept and expand a grant from the united states department of transportation for $100,000 for participation in a program pedestrian and bicycle safety program for october 1, 2020 through september 2021. if you wish to comment call 415-655-0001. (146)622-0460. press pound twice. dial star three to speak. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin comments.

>> today we have -- >> your volume is low. can you up the volume? [ inaudible ] >> thank you for your time and opportunity. i work as a health worker and planner with the department of public health. in october of 2020 we received a $100,000 grant from the california office of traffic safety. the grant increases safety for the communities at risk for injury with the focus of people walking, biking and disability.

based on the data pedestrians were 60% of traffic deaths and one killed by bike. a fiscal disability. [indiscernable] over half in the data were 65 and older which is an expected finding as disability increases as people age. we do not have data on the primary language spoken of those injured. there is a high-injury network. they are disproportionately in communities with a high proportion of people with disabilities, color and seniors live, work and play. the burden by severe and traffic

injuries is key. the ongoing partnership and activities to keeping the community engagement with residents and people with disabilities as both of these communities might not be represented at public meetings. if you have any questions i am here to answer them. thank you for your time. >> any questions from colleagu colleagues? let's open up for public comment, please. >> it appears we lost our clerk. operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. let us know if you are ready if you have not done so press star

three to be added to the queue. please let us know if there are callers to comment on this item. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed on item 11. i would like to move this with positive recommendation to the board. roll call vote, please. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you very much. can you please call item 12. resolution approving city agreement between hi street community services and behavioral health services to increase amount $17.7 million for an amount not the exceed $27.2 million and to extend the term by five and one-half years from january 1, 2021 for a total

agreement term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2026. if you have public comment call phon415-655-0001. >> thank you very much. michelle ruggles is with us and edwin are with us. >> good morning. [indiscernable] i am ed win and you pronounced it very well.

>> , excuse me. i am hearing interference with your sound. [indiscernable] >> it is distracting. madam clerk, do you have any suggestions for assistance?

>> let's here from the bla first to give us some background. >> item 12 approves the first amendment to an existing agreement between hi street community services and department of public health for behavioral health services increases $17.8 million and $27.3 million and extends by five and a half years to june of 2036. i will be brief. i have a presentation that is available. we do summarize the sources and uses of funds on page 27 of the

report. it is funded by medical and some others medicare and local funds over the term. we do recommend reduction in is not to exceed amount $236,027.3 million to $27 million. we recommend approval of the resolution as amended. >> thank you very much. edwin are you able to get back on? >> i am trying to activate my phone dial in audio. perhaps that would be better. >> i think that this discussion today is about the hyde street services. they provide mental health and case management under two rps that were conducted in 2017, is that correct? >> that's correct, yes. >> dph went into agreement with the services to provide services

july 1, 2018 through december 31, 2020. you would like to continue under that agreement through june 30, 2026, is that correct. >> yes, i believe that is correct. >> they recommend approval. colleagues any other information that you need to know from edwin? i think that pretty much covers it with the report. we will open up for public comment on item 12, please. >> we are checking for callers in the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicates you are muted. please let us know if there are callers for item number 12? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> public comment the closed for

item 12. there is an mment we have to approve that was brought fort and i would like to make a motion to approve the amendment. >> madam chair, has the department indicated if they accept the amendment or are able to make that change to the contract? >> let me ask. dph, edwin, are you there. >> i am here. can i get a clarification on the amendment, please? >> your voice sounds good now. while it is still good, anything to add to what i said? >> there was a question about the program performance of the contractor. michelle submitted clarification of that matter and the fact there are extenuating

circumstances. i can answer any questions around that. >> any more clarification about this? okay. would you accept amendments brought forth by the bla? >> chairman fewer could i get clarification on the amendment? >> yes, members of the committee. our amendment is based on the actual budget provided by the department. the request for the contact amendment for $27.3 million. in fact as you can see in the budget page 27. the contract amount is $27 million. our recommendation is to the difference between the requested amount in the resolution and the actual amount provided as part of the budget.

approximately $257,000 less. >> $236,000. >> edwin. >> we are in agreement. >> does that suffice, city attorney? >> yes. >> can we -- i would make an motion. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> i would like to move this to the board with positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> motion. supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer.

>> aye. >> please call item 13. >> resolution retroactively authorizing the san francisco police department to expand and expand 101,000 from the state of california department of parks and recreation division of boating and water waste for the sfpd marine unit for the project period of october 1 through september 1, 2021. if you want to comment on this item call 415-655-0001. dial star three to speak. >> thank you very much. today we have with us deputy and also the chief financial officer

for sfpd and sergeant matthews. would you like to kick it off, patrick? >> patrick will get into the nuts and bolts of the cost. we are here to ask you to allow us to accept and expand the grant. we have had a green unit. it is essential we maintain a well equipped and well functioning marine unit. we are the only marine unit on the bay that patrols every day. coast guard doesn't. we can't rely on neighbors. everyone is busy. as recently as thursday we rescued a kite border off

treasure island. sergeant matthews will talk about the camera that will allow us to find people in the water during dark hours, heavy fog days. it is essential that we maintain this unit. currently with the staffs is two and six. it allows us to patrol seven days a week off the waters of san francisco. this provides security for at&t and chase and swimming and the city. with that i will have the cfo talk about the cost. >> thank you, chief. we are requesting the committee's recommendation for the resolution.

the camera system which will be purchased will we used to replace an existing camera system that is no longer operable. the equipment will help our marine unit locate and search and rescue victims more effectively and help navigate the waterways under low visibility conditions. i am joined by the marine chief. if the committee has questions we would be happy to answer those. >> we have had an accept and expand before because all of the maritime unit is by grants for the equipment. that is my question.

will this require any general fund money for this camera or does it include the whole cost? >> no, the cost of the grant includes the cost to purchase the system. it comes from federal passengers state fund from the department of parks and recreation through the dogs of boating and waterways in california. >> also, we are required to have an american unit, that is correct. that is correct. that is part of it. >> thank you so much. a question. any data on rescues, number of people rescued each year of folks who get rescued due to

this work? also, what is the coordination with the fire department in this work? >> sergeant matthews will present now. >> the floor is yours. >> yes, supervisor. speaking to your question about rescues anchored nation with the fire department. the san francisco police marine unit is on water seven days each week. we ran statistics since january our unit has executed 14 rescues of persons or vessels in danger on the bed. we have alsovesqued three person with mental health situations and safely delivered to medical personnel for the services and

as assistance they needed. we work with the fire department hand in hand. we both get deployed to rescues on the bay simultaneously to the 911 system. if they are from the radio the fire department is notified once the coast guard or our unit passes that information and requests that they be dishappened to that event. we work with them on any type of resque in the water cliff rescue on the coast or directly inside the waters of the county, 64 square miles. we work hand in hand with them. >> you may know we had a tragedy yesterday at the leak. someone went in the water. they found them 20 minutes later. i know the fire department was on the scene. i was wondering if your unit

also participated in that? would that be something you would show up for along with the fire department? >> it would be something we would respond to if we were notified of it. sometimes it is if it is in controlled waters or confined spaces, depending what part that is and where the recovery would occur, it may not get days patched to the marine unit if the land based unit can affect that rescue or recovery. i wasn't personally working yesterday. i don't have knowledge directly. we could find out. typically if it is where our vessels are needed we will be called on those. >> open this up for public comment. >> madam chair, operations is

checking for callers in the queue. please let us know if there are callers ready. please let us know if there are callers for item 13. >> there are no caller in the queue. >> public comment is closed on eye stem 13. i would make a motion to move to the board with positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you. >> on item 12 i did amend and send to the board as amended? >> that's correct. >> okay. here we go. madam clerk. any more business before us

today? >> no further business. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much. lesb ri >> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪]

>> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for our students. >> our premise came about for san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were

they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28, 2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of

the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all moving around and having to have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet.

>> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time with us. it was a great pleasure, and see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have

seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important. the social confidence development of our early learners. [♪]

>> good afternoon. we are here this afternoon for a virtual town hall meeting with an officer-involved shooting that occurred on november 17, 2020, on the 800 block of market street in the city and county of san francisco. before i move forward i'd like to announce to our viewing and listening audience that we have sign language interpretation services here this afternoon to assist persons who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. also this town hall is being translated in spanish and cantonese for members of the community who speak those languages. and in this presentation you will see and hear details of an officer-involved shooting incident that resulted in life-threatening injuries to