sections, for parcel g, and then parcel a and the other parcels. >> i think based on the documentation that we have, the cleanup work that we did, the testing that we did, again, 14 years ago, we believe the site is safe for current residents. now, with these new allegations, there's allegations of movement of soil from one part of the base to parcel a, there's allegations regarding a manhole cover and things of that sort. we have to look into that to make sure that we understand what those allegations are. and then, of course, we will work with our coregulators, with the navy, with your staff, to determine a course of action. that course of action could involve rescanning, but again, even if we go down that path, we have to do that in a very informed way. in order for us to be able to confidently reassure folks of the safety of the parcel, so i think there's a lot of science and a lot of work that needs to be done even if we were to go down that path, so i think it would -- it's most appropriate and appropriate responsible for us to take these allegations -- most responsible for us to

>> what we've done is we've reviewed the navy's data evaluation for certain parcels, parcel g, parcels b, and other parcels, like -- i can't remember right now. b-2, gc-1, and 3. we've reviewed the evaluations that they've done. we've made a lot of comments -- supervisor cohen relayed from one of our letters, from my colleague, john chestnut, in our evaluation where we had differences of opinion over the agree of data, data reliability problems. >> supervisor kim: so how long did that take? >> from the time we received the navy's report and the time that they got our formal written response, it was about three months. but i would assure you that in between that time, we were working back and forth with navy staff on -- on their report. >> supervisor kim: so -- and the report is now complete? >> that data evaluation report on b and g are now complete, yes. >> supervisor kim: and so what is the course of action on those two parcels. >> the course of action would be to develop a retesting for public review and our review. >> supervisor kim: what do we expect that to be done? >> if i heard

fully retest parcel a? >> we will work cooperatively with yourself and all the agencies. >> will you fight, ask the navy and e.p.a. to fully test parcel a? >> we will continue to work -- >> supervisor kim: can you continue to fight on behalf of our city to ask the navy and e.p.a.? >> we will -- >> supervisor kim: if the answer is no, you can just say no. >> the cdph has the facility and capability to do this public work -- [inaudible] >> supervisor kim: cdph is not under my jurisdiction. however, san francisco department of public health is, and i'm asking, you've now heard from supervisor cohen and myself. representing us, will you ask the navy to retest parcel a? >> we will have discussions about retesting parcel a. >> supervisor kim: okay. the answer is no. thank you very much. okay. thank you very much. supervisor cohen, did you want to go to public comment? >> supervisor cohen: i did want to go to public comment. >> supervisor kim: are you still sticking with the one minute? >> supervisor cohen: yes. i

what about -- associated with parcel a. what about parcel g? >> yes. any folks that access hunters point are safe. >> supervisor cohen: how dow guarantee their safety? how do you guarantee that they're not in danger? >> there have been tests, and folks have looked at the artists colony where the police are, any of the other folks that are on the base, those areas have been evaluated and deemed safe. >> supervisor cohen: all right. well, can you speak to building 322 which was temporarily placed on parcel a? >> yes. building 322 was the only building on parcel a that tetratech did any work. it was scanned, demolished, and removed from the sites. as we mentioned earlier, that parcel a has been repeatedly studied and cleared. that building was demolished and removed, and upon its completion, e.p.a. did a hand scan of that area and detected no radiological activity. >> supervisor cohen: what was stored in building 322? >> i don't even remember what was stored in 322. do you guys know? it was just administrative...yeah, i believe it was just administrative.

people live on parcel a. on treasure island, people live on treasure island, and the roads are dug up. the island is being teraformed as we speak, so we need to talk about what's going on next. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name's darca morgan, and i'm a concerned parent of a couple of first graders that go to san francisco public charter school, and i want to thank you all for pushing for retesting of parcel a. i'm very concerned about the coverup throughout the shipyard and i'm glad that you're pursuing retesting through all the parcels. i think also citizens oversight committee is crucial to regain public trust. i'm a biologist, and i have a master's degree. i review government -- i review forest service documents about grazing and mining and timber sales. the level of public community oversight for a timber sale or a grazing andrews and andrews foundation, and i live in bayview. i want to bring to mind that to me, the bayview is the most toxic neighborhood in the city, and it's poison. and the

so let me just say a little bit about the parcel tax that you have ahead of you. it has been growing steadily as you have seen on the bar chart in front of you. that is primarily due to cpi. we are a population of property owners that are ageing, so the majority growth factor that you have head -- heard of. about 71% of the funds that come in through the negotiated mou with the united educators of frisk and the remaining 29% of the revenue supports outside of that mou portion. the 2008 ballot measure covers a list of areas primarily obviously are salaries for our teachers and our staff as well as professional development, technology, and recognition of schools. the parcel tax is $244 perparcel, and as i said earlier, indexed towards inflation or cpi, and we have accepted nathan's audit findings and appreciate that there are no findings this fiscal. last year you may or may not recall one of the big items that we had ahead of us was the spending of the parcel tax was not at the clip that one way have desired. there was a significant amount of carry forward. we brou

the 102 parcels i bring to you today are a tiny percentage of the 209,000 total parcels in our city. we collect over $2.1 billion in property tax payments annually. and over 99% of property owners pay their tax bills on time and in full. so before you for consideration are these. as a result of our close partnership with the assessor, the mayor's office of housing and protective services, i'm proud to say we have zero occupied properties on this list for your consideration today. i want to assure you over the past six months, we have pored over each and every parcel here before. we researched the physical characteristics and ownership history for each parcel on the attached list, using property information available from the assessor and the planning department. every supervisor was provided with their list of parcels, along with a one-page sheet that includes the parcel map and other identifying information about the owner of record. we also expanded our research to identify as many parties of interest as possible. we used our debt collection expertise to search publicly available a

we also sent each of you a personalized list of the parcels in your district for consideration with parcel maps and some brief descriptions of the square footage and the taxes owed. and we are having parcels redeemed every day, which means people are getting our notification, paying off their back taxes and we hope to have a very uneventful auction this year. thank you. >>> thank you. supervisor tang? >>> thank you, i just wanted to thank the treasurer's office for really listening to us during that last issue that we had with the auction list. you did personally reach out to our office, sharing with us the list. we did have some very strange deliver of parcels. but i really appreciate you sharing with us everything the office has done since then. and i can see that it is going above and beyond what you did in the past, so thank you. >>> thank you. seeing no other names on the roaster on the item. madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call] >>> there are 11 ayes. >>> the resolution is adopted unanimously. all right, madam clerk. let's go to our next item where we left off. supervisor ro

map before you that we refer to as the jamestown parcel. hunters point shipyard of course is the previous location of the naval shipyard. i want to give a quick background of sort of the structure of what's the governing structure behind it. these two projects are of course within two redevelopment project areas. the hunters point shipyard redevelopment project and its associated plan was established in 1997. it includes two phases. phase one is currently under construction, partially complete. and then, phase two has not begun its implementation. candlestick point is in with the bayview-hunters point redevelopment project area. that area was established in 2006, actually, in its current state, it was establish index 200 200 -- established in 2006. in 2010, of course the project, the candlestick point hunters point shipyard project was -- received its master entitlements. it has its two components in these two project redevelopment areas. that project is a part of its master approvals, included approvals up to 10,500 dwelling units, potenti

so, again, the map here shows all of the tida parcels outlined in red there. those are all the spaces throughout the program that are available to us to construct the 1,866 units we're responsible to deliver. we have the first two sites here. c-3.1 and 3.2. and you saw the presentation last week by cmg and prior to and loretta on the next subphase of development. these are additional parcels that will be available to us in this next subphase area. so within these parcels, we have sufficient real estate to transition all of the eligible residents, the constraining factor, then, becomes funding availability for the transition. the program funds come from a contribution of 17,500 per door. that's due when they transfer lots to vertical development entities. the balance for the funding of the construction of the units will have to come from other sources. tax credits, but also potentially project-specific grants through grant programs and other sources potentially. city sources, if the next affordable housing bond program the city does, these are some of the other

the district has approximately 536 parcels. the services will benefit property owners, business owners, and the neighborhood as a whole. they reach 30.33% of weighted support, which is above the 30% requisite, and the district's term would be 11.5 years, and it would expire on december 31st, 2029 to coincide with lower polk sunset date. if the iri is passed and moves to the full board for aful pro, then the district will mail ballots on june 8s. ballots will be counted on july 24th. if the majority is in favor, then they can count the ballots to establish the district. i'd like to thank everyone for their invaluable support on this project. i'd like to turn this over to suzanne markel-fox if there are no questions for oewd. >> thank you. i'm not seeing the slides. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. first of all i'd like to thank supervisor peskin who has been supportive of our efforts through the three years that we've been working on this as well as the lower polk community benefit district who has served, as peskin said, as

every side of that parcel.t we have to respond to what's there. and so, you know, i think before i went down the path of minimizing that impact to baycrest by adding notches and openings which i don't believe are necessary for it to be code compliant or to even keep the units at baycrest co. compliant and havcomplaintand have the ex. i think our important neighbourly gesture. i like generally where that went by the question that remains unanswered and when i visited the folks there they told me, you can build the same number of units, which i think it defied logic on the 85-foot two tower alternative. you can build the same number of units. whether that means rebuilding studios and two bedrooms, we have to compare apples to apples on this to have the same percentage of two bedrooms and one bedrooms and the same size units. the developers tell us they will lose units. which to me, is what affects these abilities and an additional elevator court is absorbable although costly into this. so to me, that is what i wa

the two most western parcels are within the rc4 zoning district. the van ness special use district, and the 130v height in both districts. while the zoning districts permit the proposed residential and ground floor uses, the districts have different requirements for rear yards, residential open space, parking, and alleys. after publication of the case report in march of this year, the department received an appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. this resulted in a continuance from the march 22nd, 2018 hearing without any introduction or discussion of the project. since that time, the appeal was withdrawn, and the preliminary declaration is unchanged. before you is the final mitigated declaration. as a result, i have a summary table of the mitigation monitoring reporting program which will be attached as conditions to the project if approved. since publication of the case report, the department has received additional letters in support of the project from the principal members and parents of the tenderloin community school, neigh

in 20 -- 2008, they said yes to prop a, the $198 parcel tax. so the district could recruit and pay teachers a living wage so they don't keep leaving. 10 years later, meet prop g, a $298 parcel text to help teachers afford to live here. this is the chief financial officer. >> we are hoping that the new property ballot will provide additional -- it will provide additional $50 million to the school district. >> the school district's operating budget has increased more than $240 million. a while student enrollment has stayed relatively flat. so why does the district need more money? one reason, the dramatic rise in pension costs. >> i believe in 2013, everybody at the state level realized that there was a huge deficit in the casters plan. >> that is just for california teachers. it was on the brink of disaster recently. the new law increase the amount the school district pay. in 2009, 2010, the district paid 20 million to casters. two 2017, it was $53 million. the new property money, even though it's advertised as teachers being raise, they will us

, you had one of three parcels which could likely be used in this transfer. that is enough of an interest right there because there was a good enough likelihood that your property would be conveyed. so you should have disclosed at that point or stepped away. but it went further. this is an interesting case, because it shows the extreme. the result here was the court deciding that the property should remain with the city. and the developer should return all of the money that it received for the property. so there was a $260,000 impact to the developer. they lost the property and they lost the money. and that's because under california law, contracts that are made in violation of contracting, principles contracting laws, to not allow the contractor to retain any of the benefits, proceeds from the contract, and the city or the public agency that is on the receiving end of the contracts, are not required to return any of the benefits they receive as a result of the contract. so the results can be quite harsh and they were harsh in this case. which went up to the

much the parcel is located off first street near the approach to the bay bridge. guy place is a quiet, low traffic side street surrounded by residential and commercial buildings. the site slopes down from guy place to a flat pad. it's unpaved. it was last used for private surface parking. with funding from the community improvements fund, this parcel was purchased by the city in march of 2007 following a joint approval by the planning and recreation and parks commissions and approved by the board of supervisors in may of 2007. the park is designed for passive use as a respite from the urban environment. it offers space for quiet enjoyment as well as an opportunity for small group gatherings. to optimize use and accessibility, the design raises the slope terrain with engineered retaining walls to created a level site. it's characterized by three outdoor rooms that compose park space. these contain bench seating areas and are framed with a variety of plants that are selected for habitat value to pollinators that will provide seasonal interest and pleasant fragrance.

we would be very happy to have you tour potrero parcel x. that was the first public housing development at sunnydale and pore it's scheduled for completion this year and used bond funds for the development. and seeing the new construction relative to the existing conditions at the site, would be great. it would be really instructive. >> mr. carlson: thank you very much. >> i'd like to go on that. >> ms. chu: i do have a question. on the quarterly report on page 27 that mr. carlson just referred to, if you look at the lower part, under the heading, middle income housing, $80 million allocated, the line items are quite specific below that, and i was just wondering, going down to the third one, middle income teacher housing 43rd and irving. can you shed some light and elaborate a little bit on this type of assistance, the teacher housing, how it is generally, the concept, how it is actually the policy is? and this is specific, it caught my eye because it said 43rd and irving, what about some of the other areas in the city? >> well, the city has