So the amount of the fee was set by considering the overall expenditure budget of the office of cannabis. It adds additional overhead at the rate of approximately 7 for Services Provided by gsas administrative human resources, i. T. And accounting divisions, and it divides that by the approximate number of permits that may be sought in year one, and for permit amendments, the 110 perhour amount was calculated, setting an hourly rate for review based on the Staff Compensation in the office, and again, it sets a minimum charge of approximately two hours to review. That is my presentation. Im happy to answer questions, and i would invite the department of Public Health to come up and share more about their component. Supervisor cohen all right. Weve got a representative from the department of Public Health. Come on up. Share with us your comments and ideas around this Fee Structure proposal. Good morning, supervisors. Drew morell, finance manager, Public Health. The fee schedule in front of you is largely mirrored on our existing fees. The new one is the plan check for Cannabis Cultivation facilities and manufacturing facilities and microbusinesses, and its based on estimated number of hours for Environmental Review programs to review the plans of a manufacturing or new business. Theres provisions in the fee, reevaluate after the first year, to reset the fees if the law provides. Excess revenue or under collects revenue. That thats all. Supervisor cohen okay. All right. Thank you. Supervisor tang, and then, supervisor yee. Supervisor tang thank you very much. I wanted to ask some questions about what happens with the fee situation or the fee waiver if, for example, theres an equity applicant that partners with an existing cannabis dispensary, one thats already been in operation. Does the fee get waived for all of them. How does that work with the ownership structure, so if you could go into a little bit more detail about that. Supervisor, i could defer to supervisor cohen to explain the impact of that. Supervisor cohen sure. Supervisor tang. Give me a minute. I will get the answer to you. Do you have other questions we can get to. Supervisor tang no. Supervisor cohen okay. Well get back to that question. Supervisor yee . Supervisor yee i guess youre also looking up some information on what im going to be saying, which is generally speaking, when businesses startup, they have a rough time during the first year. Its not just the initial fees, and we appreciate know that in the Business Model that nobody really expects to make a profit in their first year, and sometimes, it takes several years before you can recoup your costs, so im id like to entertain a a notion to maybe amend supervisor cohens amendment to expand the fee waiver that may include the first year, so my question is, then, what impact that would have . Supervisors, i could defer to the controller and Budget Office to respond to that. Supervisor cohen so im going to pivot back to supervisor tangs question as the Controllers Office ponders supervisor yees thoughtful question. So your question is, what happens if you have an Equity Partner partnered with a person whos not an Equity Partner. Well, it depends on the qualifier. The applicant must have either 40 and be the ceo or they must have 51 ownership and have no ceo status, so that will determine how fees would be assessed. And so thats really up to the discretion of the individual business. Does that answer your question fully . Okay. All right. I want to go to the Controllers Office and hear their thoughts on supervisor yees question. Supervisors, michelle ehlers, Controllers Office. The current year budget assumes approximately 700,000 in cost for the office of cannabis, and it assumes that fees will be effective that support the operation january 1, 2018, so that the first half of the year is funded through general fund support of approximately 300,000, so its fees are waived and we would be needing general funds savings from other parts of the department to fund the expense. Supervisor yee i guess, let me clarify. The fees that would be waived would be for the for the equity piece, so its not just for everybody. Okay. Then that would the amount of general fund support needed to pay for the fee waivers is just whatever proportional amount would be of the pay base. Supervisor yee i guess in your analysis, did you take into consideration that there would be a certain number of new applicants thats going to be under the utilizing the equity piece . And by the way, i im talking about the most of them will be new. Thats going to take them a year or two, so this wouldnt even impact, i assume, next years budget on the office because i think, in the earlier meeting in this chamber, miss elliott mentioned that that anybody applying would take almost over a year, so i if youre assuming that people are applying, they would immediately be up and running and youll be collecting an annual fee. I dont understand that. That seems to be a conflict. I think that the budget that was established and proposed by the Mayors Office in may. [ inaudible ] im sorry. I think it just made that assumption on a broad level that fees would be effective halfway through the year, therefore, half of the funds would be borne by the general fund and half would be by fee payers. I would defer to the General Department upon which time fees are payable, whether theyre payable upon application or approval of the application. Supervisor cohen let me interject here. We just created regulations on tuesday, so would you be fair and give us a pass if we dont have answers on the fly. What im looking for supervisor yee, hes looking to give help to the to the businesses that are going to be starting up, and one of the key barriers to any business concession success are access to capital. The next issue hes bringing up is we want to make sure that the fees are not overburdensome, and if im putting words in your mouth, let me know, so hes asking is there some kind of a Financial Impact of the office of cannabis being able to do their business, because remember this is a Cost Recovery department, so the fees that you recover is going to pay you and kind of keep this operation. If we were to allow businesses not to pay fees, is that correct, you said for the first year . Supervisor yee for the first year. Supervisor cohen not to pay fees for the first year, we want to know how will that impact your offices ability to conduct its business. Thank you, supervisors. To your point, there is a lot of unknowns about what lies ahead of us, so when it comes to the number of equity permits that will be sought and that will be issued, that number is unknown, and so i cant answer what that fiscal what the real fiscal impact would be. It would be 5,000. Commissioner perez per permit, so whatever sort of permits are having what are sort of fees were having per permit, we just need to shift from the general fees of my Office Additional funds to support that endeavor. We do not know how many total permits will be issued in the first half of 2018, the second half of 2018 and beyond. That is something that we can only assess later in the year. Supervisor cohen thank you. And again, just for the record were not talking about waiving fees for all businesses applying, were specifically talking about equity businesses. Right. Supervisor cohen supervisor yee, do you have anymore remarks . Supervisor yee i mean, considering the answer im getting, which is, obviously, none of us know how many are going to apply, which means that its hard to even say that you could include anything in the budget, probably, what you do know are the existing operators, theyre probably going to get their permits at one point or another, and theyll pay their fees, so given the nature that you dont really know, and i hope you dont make assumptions that there might be 20 in 2019 that are new, so any new one would be almost additional funding that you probably wouldnt assume. And so if you if there were new operators, and theyre under the equity lens, you wouldnt actually miss it because you didnt assume how many were going to come in. Again, maybe my assumptions were wrong. What i understand of business and what people tell me is they struggle more in the first few years because as theyre wrapping up their business, theyre still spending money and the businesses arent fully operational, where theyre making enough money, so thats my thought process, the logic. If were going to waive and im going to support the 2,000 initial fees, waiving. If were going to do that, then there might be some logical conclusion that we should also support the first year where they dont pay the fees, so thats where im coming from, and im willing to make that amendment to supervisor cohens amendment if theres support for that. Supervisor cohen thank you, supervisor yee. I appreciate your enthusiasm in support of the equity program, and ladies and gentlemen for clarification of what were talking about, because were almost talking about two different things. First of all, miss elliott has proposed business fees for all businesses. The amendmented that i proposed are Fee Structure, but for equity businesses, so i just want to make that clear, and supervisor yee, i think im going to hold off on supporting the ideas that weve skisdiscu here today. I think weve got to wait and see how businesses are going before we start reducing and assessing fees. Is that fair, miss elliott . Okay. So thank you for the discussion. Is there anything else, miss elliott, that you want to contribute . Youre done . Yep. Supervisor cohen okay. Thank you. Supervisor, i see other names on the rosters thats leftover. Okay. Lets go to Public Comment and see if the public has any ideas or comments that theyd like to share on item 9. None . Okay. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Thank you. Okay. So this matter is in the hands of the board of this committee. So id like to make an amendment and wem ae make a motion to accept the amendments, if we could take that without objection. Supervisor yee yep. Supervisor tang so moved. Supervisor cohen thank you. I appreciate that. And then, id like to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a Committee Report and as amended tang tangs so moved. Supervisor cohen all right. Thank you very much colleagues, and thank you mr. Clerk. Now, friends, we are moving on. Lets go to item 10. Clerk next on the agenda, item number 10, resolution authorizing the extension of an existing lease for approximately 79,000 square feet of office feet at 1390 hourt street for the department of Public Healths Community BehavioralHealth Services division with the vera cort as trustee of the robert j. Cort Marital Trust and as trustee of the vera cort Survivors Trust as landlord. Youre back. This is seblly a lease are you new al, but its a new lease because weve renewed is it so many times, we wanted to clean it up and present a new one. It is a new lease, effective january 1, 2018, with numerous renewals. This is approximately an 80,000 square foot plg. It has been used for over 20 years by the department of Public Health at 1390 howard. It is substantially above the current market rate. Knowing where we were headed on this lease, our staff did a pretty exhaustive analysises on two fronts. One, was there a suitable replacement facility at comparable or better pricing, not surprising given the advantageous lease weve negotiated here, we could not find a similar sized property meeting the needs of the department of Public Health that was competitive financially. Secondly, we looked at although the ownership has made it clear they do not desire to sell the property, they really desire to have a consistent income stream, modest income stream, so thats why we negotiated a better rate than we might have here at other locations, the permanent nens of that income stream was probably more important than the amount, what i will say is we did the lease versus buy analysis over 30 years. We considered the reversionary value of the property at the end of that 30 year term, and what we are presenting to you, assuming substantial renewals, renewal increases as five year intervals over that 30 year period, leasing is advantageous to the city. Not slightly, but by over 30 million over term, so we feel strongly that a lease is the appropriate mechanism here to continue our occupancy. Lastly, there is a modest tenant improvement allowance, 479,700, just a refreshing of the space. There is an ability to exceed that amount if budget availability is within the department of Public Healths capacity, so we do have dph staff who can address both program use and the intention of the improvements to 1380 howard to improve our experience there. I think that pretty well covers the details of this lease before you today. Supervisor cohen all right. Lets see, colleagues any questions from mr. Updike . All right. Seeing none, were going to go to miss Severin Campbell and hear her thoughts. Yes. This is a five year less as mr. Updike said, three five year extensions. The initial rent is 45 persquare foot, based on market praisals, it is fair market value. First year rent of 3. 4 million, over 15 years, it would be about 17. 1 million, and the landlord would be putting in tenant improvements. We did note that the city could incur costs for the tenant improvements, but we have been assured but the department of health that the tenant improvements would be paid by the landlord, and we recommend approval. Supervisor cohen thank you for making that recommendation. Lets go to Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, item 10 is open if youd like to comment on item 10. All right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues is there any motions . Supervisor yee sure. Ill make this to pass this out of the committee with positive recommendation to the full board with a Committee Report to the december 5th meeting. Supervisor cohen all right. Well take that out wox. Mr. Clerk, could you call items number 11 and 12 together. Clerk yes. Item 11, resolution approving amendment number 2 to the domestic it term nat food and bench lease number 030200, and the annual promotional charge to 3,111. Item number 12, resolution approving amendment number 1 to the International Terminal food and beverage lease, between ssp america and the city and county of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission, increasing the guaranteeing rent. Supervisor cohen all right. Thank you very much. Weve got our friend Cathy Widener back representing the airport. Thank you very much, supervisors. Cathy widener, San Francisco international airport. We propose to increase the Square Footage as well as the minimum annual guarantees between the airport and fillmore in the International Terminal and the union street gastropub in terminal three. Both are operated by ssp america and m approved by the board of supervisors in 2015 and 2016 respectively. The proposed modifications would increase the mag rent retroactively. In the case of 1300 on fillmore, the square foot age will go from 1694 square feet to 2,094 square feet, and the mag will be adjusted from 224,000 22 224,000 to 279,000. Based on the current gross sales for both locations, the restaurants are currently paying the airport on the higher of the percentage formula rate, but this modification would correctly increase the mag to reflect the correct Square Footage for each location. The Budget Department requests amending the reds lugs to accurately reflect the Square Footage and retroactively allow rent from march of 2017. I would be happy to answer any questions. Supervisor cohen thank you. I have a question for you. Are you aware that the budget legislative analysts have made some amendments to the suggestions that we should consider. Yes. Supervisor cohen are you in agreement . Yes. I am in agreement with all of them cone koeb all right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Lets hear what the bla has to say. Yes, as miss widener said, we are making an amendment to increase the resolutions. Both of these would increase the minimum annual guarantee. Our understanding is the two restaurants is paying percentage restaurant, but under the revised resolutions, the minimum annual guarantee for 1300 on fillmore in the international would result in rent of about 2. 9 million over ten years to the airport. For the terminal 3 location, union street gastropub, it would result in 2. 6 million to the airport. The amendment to file 170255 would be to correctly state that the mag is 58 dlint 41 persquare foot, equal to 181,700 in the current area. Otherwise, we would recommend approval. Supervisor cohen thank you, and i appreciate that. Colleagues, any questions for either one of the ladies . All right. Seeing none, lets go to Public Comment. Public comments on items 11 and 12. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. All right. Lets take some motions to accept or may i do we have a motion to accept the amendments . Supervisor tang so moved. Supervisor cohen and supervisor tang as stated by our budget analysts office. Supervisor cohen and overall. Supervisor tang overall send a recommendation to with a report to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor cohen all right. Cl clerk, item 13, please. Clerk item number 13, resolution retroactively authorizing the airport director and his or her zigy to accept three gifts for the sfo museum collection. Supervisor cohen thank you. Chair cohen, supervisors, cathy cohen, chair of the San Francisco international airport. We are asking for your authorization to accept three gifts of 998 timetables from thomas g dragers, 73 model scale aircrafts from james lund, and 163 commercial aviation art facts from john simmons for use in the sfo museum collection. As you know, the San Francisco airport Aviation Museum provides opportunities for learning about commercial flight. The museums collection focuses on air transport with an emphasis on the west coast and pacific region. Its located in the International Terminal presecurity and is open to the public. Each gift has been determined as desirable by the review committee as well as the Airport Commission and each gift squierz board of supervisors approval as they are all valued over 10,000. Donations of commercial aviation related materials is an important way for the museum to help meet the goal of preserving and sharing the history of flight. There is not a budget analysts report, but i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Supervisor cohen thank you very much. Colleagues, are there any questions . All right. Seeing that theres no question, well go to Public Comment. Seeing that theres no Public Comment, well close Public Comment. All right. Item 13, in our hands. What shall we do with it . Supervisor tang i say we send to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor cohen so moved. Without objection, done. Please call items 14, 15, and 16 together. Clerk item number 14, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of San Francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness, authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to commit an application and related documents to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the issuance of Residential MortgageRevenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 150 million for 909 and 921 howard streets and 414 tehama street. Resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of San Francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to submit an application and related documents to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the issuance of Residential Mortgage revenue bond in an ago regate Principal Amount not to exceed 200 million for 2065th street. And item 16, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of San Francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from pros of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development to commit an application and related documents to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the issuance of Residential MortgageRevenue Bonds in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 90 million for 1990 folsom street. 920 howard will be an all Affordable Housing unit. Upon project completion half of the units will serve households earning no more than 50 meeting area median income. No residents will be displaced by construction as the site is currently a vacant lot. 206 5th street will be a 226 mixed income building. Upon completion, 20 of the projects units will serve households earning no more than 50 of the ami while the balance will be running at market rates. Again, no residents will be displatesed. Finally, the unit on folsom will be an all affordable building located at 1990 folsom street in the mission. Approximately 20 units will be set aside for residents moved from potrero hill. 25 will serve households earning no more than 50 of the ami. Again, no resident displacement with this project either. All of these projects will be submitted to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee in the next two weeks and if awarded an allocation ill return with an approval to the board therefore. Id like to thank you for your consideration today and i look forward to your support on those projects, and with that, ill be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Supervisor yee all right. Any questions . Seeing none, lets go to Public Comments. Any Public Comments on these items . Seeing none, then Public Comment is now closed. Can i enter main a motion on these three items . Supervisor tang all right. Ill make a motion on items 14 through 16, to send them through to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor yee seeing no objection, these items pass. Clerk next on the agenda, item 17, resolution approving and authorizing the execution and performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate in connection with the acquisition of the parcel located at 1491 sunny daily avenue street and a longterm 75 year with a 24year extension option. Supervisor cohen all right. Thank you. Weve got sarah amoral just by way for the ladies and gentlemen that are here, parcel cue is the first parcel of the sunny daily housing rebuild, and its slated for 55 units, and the Purchase Price is 3 million, which is less than the appraised value. You can go into the details in your presentation. I think that this is an important piece of small piece of an agreement that helps us get to the larger project, and that is overall vision to tear down the dilapidated Public Housing that is home to many several thousands of people, quite frankly, its the largest Public Housing thats in the city and county of San Francisco, so miss sarah, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair cohen, supervisors. Im with the mayor office of housing and Community Development. Today im pleased to present a resolution for the purchase and sale and subsequent ground lease for the first new construction at the sunny daily hope sf site, located at 1491 sunny daily avenue. The property starts a new chapter as supervisor cohen had mentioned in the revitalization of sunny daily publdale public that has been coming on for a lo sunnydale. And approximately 600 market rate Home Ownership units will also go on sale. The streets include all new utility spaces and infrastructure, and 60,000 feet of new neighborhood spaces including retail and services. Parcel q, while adjacent to sunnydale housing site has included in the master plan entitlement package it was chosen as the first site because it plays an Important Role in relocation. Parcel q allows residents to move to new safe spreer housup housing sooner. The parcel is located on the southeast corner of sunnydale and hahn. The sponsor acquired the property from the previous owner in early 2016 after being in contact for almost a year. When construction is ready to tart, the sponsor will transfer the property to city in consideration of payment of the loan, and boekt parties will enter into a longterm grount lease for 99 years to ensure affordability. Construction is ready to begin in january of 2018. Once constructed, as supervisor cohen mentioned, the property will be five stories and 55 units, with three studios, 19 one bedrooms, 19 two bedrooms, and 14 three bedrooms. One two bedroom unit will be reserved for an onsite managers unit. 75 of the units will be set aside for current sunnydale residents living onsite and that are substanceidized by a voucher authority. It will include 33 parking spot, a Management Office and office for services. Were here to ask you, subsequently, the grount lease before you today has annual base and residual rent, which shows a value of 5,950,000. The property will become income restricted to families making no more than 60 ami. Most city will collect 60 million annual in rent. Most city had requested a Third Party Review perthe citys administrative code, the Third Party Reviewer had issues with the Colliers International praisal methodology and rejected the praisal. However this is restricted land and it will be permanently affordable through the longterm ground lease, the praisal issues are a little mer academic, based upon the data that we have collected on the southeast neighborhoods, entitled parcels have sold on average about 213,000 a door. In comparison, that would compute 11,700,000 for personal cue. Parcel qs previous praisal would be at 4,00,054,000. We request this committee move to approve the purchase and Sale Agreement and subsequent ground lease. At this time, the sponsor, john updike, director of property and myself are all available to answer any questions that you may have. Supervisor cohen thank you for that thorough presentation. Colleagues, dow have any questions . All right. Lets go to the budget legislative analyst and hear her thoughts. Yes, this purchase of parcel q was contemplated by the Mayors Office at the time that mercy housing purchased the property. The Purchase Price would be basically forgiveness of the loan. There would be a 99 year ground lease set at 59 persquare foot peryear, plus residual value. We made this a policy matter because there had not been a policy review on the original praisal, and the original praisal review rejected the initial appraisal by. 9 million. We did final reference to an appraisal in 2018 that set the value at 3. 9 million, which would be more than the Purchase Price, but we did consider this to be a policy matter. Supervisor cohen thank you. Colleagues, lets go to Public Comment. Any members of the public that would like to speak on item 17 . Weve got a room full of Public Commenters. All right. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor yee . Supervisor yee yeah. Let me get some clarification with the appraisal piece again. Are you still going out to do another appraisal or are we done or since theres really no appraisal on this thats been approved . John updike, director of real estate. Supervisor, given that there was a prior appraisal in may of 2017, which is on the cusp of getting a little stale, we chose to get a new appraisal. In behind sight, we probably should have simply gone with the appraisal in may which exceeds the Purchase Price which as the budget analyst noted was 3. 96 million. I suspect had we done a review of that, that may have been acceptable. The methodologies used in the new appraisal not commissioned by the city, so colliers provided a report to the development side, when we do a review appraisal, it is usually a collaborative process between the appraiser and the reviewer, and if theres a differing approach, we ask the two to Work Together to do that. Its much more difficult to orchestrate that when were not the client. So in this case, we chose to look at the appraisal volumes that we had in this area to be sure to give us comfort that theres no question that this value is no greater than fair market value, and in fact, it is not, so as sarah eloquently outlined, we have a lot of data surrounding this property that we feel very comfortable with on a perachievable unit basis validates this transaction as being under the fair market value. So we have an older appraisal, we have a new appraisal rejected, but we do have a review that suggests what the issues were, and based on that, we took a look at some different comparables, really following the review appraisers recommendations, and it led us to the conclusion that were still in very safe territorial value, hope that helps. Supervisor yee yes. So the assumption is here were done with appraising . Yes. Supervisor yee got it. Supervisor cohen all right. Are we ready to go for a vote . All right. Id like to make a motion to send to the full board with a recommendation and id like to send it with a Committee Report, and we can do that without objection. Thank you very much. Lets call item 18 and 19 together as we finish this agenda. Clerk item 18, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Emergency Management on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco as the primary grantee of urban Areas Security Initiative funds for the bay area urban area and as the fiscal agent for the you uasi Approval Authority to accept and expend a fiscal year 2017 urban Areas Security InitiativeProgram Grant in the amount of 22,428,800 from the u. S. Department of Homeland Security through the California Office of emergency services. Item 19, resolution approving a memorandum of understanding with the cities of oakland and san jose and the counties of alameda, contra costa, marin, monterey, smant, santa clara, and sonoma that provides governance structures and procedures for application, allocation and distribution of federal urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds to the bay area urban area, as well as for other federal grant funds to the bay area urban area. Supervisor cohen thank you. Before i recognize the presenter, i would like to recognize my colleague, supervisor. Supervisor yee supervisor yee. Supervisor yee we would like to see that being used in a way thats not to militarize our Police Departments and so forth, and there was even discussions that maybe San Francisco would like to pull out of that altogether, and at the time, around that time, we let it go, in terms of the grant application, and said that we would revisit this, and i was joined by supervisor cohen at the time to introduce some legislation to look at the other issues piece. We havent moved forward with that yet because theres been a lot of things that we were able to participate in and so forth to see what was really going on. One of thing i think both supervisor cohen and myself went up and participated in the urban hs urban shoes exercise at least i did, and i think i saw supervisor cohen there, too. There were things that i saw in the exercise in San Francisco that were, to me, somewhat positive, but then, when i asked for more information, what about the other sites, not every other sites had similar programs, so i think what im seeing is that there were probably some possibilities to improve the urban shoes piece. Certainly, what i liked about what you saw in San Francisco, the one that i saw in San Francisco was the fact that even though it was not fully exercised, but they did have some activities in there that valued the deescalation techniques, and the team that i saw that was going through that had four people that were trained in it, which was a real positive thing to me. And i think weve had meetings, ive had meetings with different people surrounding this particular grant, and i have to say that im kind of disappointed that given what we articulated, given the fact that we said wed like to reflect our culture in this, that the mou in particularly, was an opportunity to do something with, and of course, what weve got today in front of us is basically the same mou that comes up every year with no modification, and at and to me, i i think the last, i guess county or whatever entity thats going to look at this mou, which but we had an opportunity to do some modification to this mou to include some language that could have expressed, at least from our countys point of view, what wed like to see better in the in the uasi activities, so i at the end of your presentation, i would like to introduce some amendments to the mou, as well as the other item, number 18. And and at this point, i still believe that we can help urge some improvements in their urban shoes piece. Alameda county already has pastored 12 principles and guidelines that theyd like to move forward on that. Im hoping that as we talk about these amendments, people will understand why its so important that we dont just accept anything that comes before this Budget Committee with the comment that this is its kind of too late and this is last minute and so forth, when everybody knew except for me that the mou was going to be was moving forward and this was at the end of the process. So we have several months, if not more than that, where you could have the department could have come to the board of supervisors saying hey, guess what . You know, were going to do an mou, its going to be due in december. What would you like to see, since you there was so much discussion around this issue earlier this year, so those are my comments. Supervisor cohen thank you, and with that, the floor is yours. All right. Well, thank you, madam chair, and thank you for your comments, supervisor yee, and supervisor yee, we look forward to the dialogue that weve had with you and your staff, and we look forward to continuing that. We have two items before you today. The first is resolution allowing the department of Emergency Management to accept and expand fy 2017 thorough Homeland Security and federal preparedness grants. These are critical to our preparedness both across the city and the region. They help us meet the National Preparedness goal of ensuring our city and residents are prepared for both national and internal disasters. The grants that we receive are used to prevent acts of terrorism, mitigate the impact of future disasters on life and property, respond quickly to save lives and meet basic human needs after a catastrophic event. Our investments are spread across these five missionaries, including community resilience, mass care, and critical emergency services. In San Francisco, we have invested heavily in people. We know preparedness are a people driven business, and these arent boureau kratters, theyre people involved in their community, and local and regional partners. For example, members of our team ensure the basic needs of people displaced by fires and other incidents are immediately met. In during the wine country fires, the department was able to deploy 13 Emergency Management professionals to help our neighbors to the north respond and cover from these deadly fires. Overall, San Francisco was able to deploy over 200 of our city and county family to help fight fires, assist with Law Enforcement activities, work in the eocs, local assistance centers, inspect buildings, manage shelters, and assist in the economic recovery activities, so in all, these grants support 39 individuals from five departments 14 at the general Management Team at the uasi, 13 at the department of Emergency Management, five at the police department, three at the fire department, three at the General Services agency, and one at the sheriffs department. Finally, i would like to express my appreciation fto th community for allowing us to apply for these grants. Although the recommendations of another task force have yet to be finalized, we fully participated and eagerly await the results. Prioritized scenarios with Disaster Response elements and encourage city departments to ensure their employees acting in an official capacity the second item we have before you is a resolution approving the mou between the city and county of San Francisco and 11 other bay area counties. As we have discussed, this mou allows San Francisco to serve as a fiscal agent for the region and would allow the uasi Management Team to continue critical regional projects such as interoperational mass Care Projects and operational shelters, so thank you and i look forward to comments or questions. Supervisor cohen all right. Thank you. Colleagues, we have a significant number of cards speaker cards. Before we go to the Public Comment, just wanted to see if theres all right. Well go to Public Comment. All right. Im going to call folks. Please thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Supervisor cohen call folks up, and just lineup over here and first, we will hear from elen brostki, barbara briggs, craig denton, shawn sex ton, and philip white. These names are in no special order. Im just reading them as they were handed to me, so please cue up when the speakers finished, we can get through this relatively quickly. Are you ellen . [ inaudible ] supervisor cohen yes. I appreciate this. Ive been running this committee for a while. Ive got more names im not ellen. Im alexi. Ellen had to go to work. Im a member of jewish voice for peace, as is ellen. We are a member of the stop urban shield coalition. We have a bay area chapter, although we are a national organization. Our focus is on true equality in israel palestine, focusing on palestinian rights. But were very concerned about urban shield, and its not an obstruction, it is a real life situation that militarized policing including participation in past urban shield trade shows. So so we have a direct concern about this issue, and you know, hearing the presentation, the whole requirement for the nexus on terrorism, which is our specific concern wasnt even mentioned, and that is the crux of our opposition. So if this was about fighting fires, were about interested in true securities for our communities, which is not militaryized so called war on terrorism exercises. And until the memorandum of understanding needs to be rejected if its going to be revised to address those concerns, and we believe this issue is not new to you, but neither is our opposition, and we will be here asking you to reject the mou and not participate in oush urban shie. Thank you. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is jim more srissey, a im employed by Alameda County. Im deemed as the mes branch coordinator, and acknowledge that urban shield initially started out as a primary Law Enforcement tactical competition. It has evolved well beyond that. For example, this year alone, there are about 240 Tactical Team members competing in our ems medical branch, we had 700 people involved. We trained well over 200 physicians, nurses, paramedics, involved in all aspects of emergency care, prehospital, in hospital. We actually created a scenario based on real life, a horrific event, the Pulse Night Club shooting in orlando, we trained or responders here to better dale with the horrific events that happened in real life. Granted, i dont agree with the terrorism nexus that happens, but we have to deal with what happens. All of our responders are well trained, well coordinated and have a true appreciation for the multidisciplinary approach to Emergency Management. We have seen time and time seen the successes of urban shield. I have travelled all over the country and the world taking the lessons of what i auld the interdependent triad of fire, emt and Police Working together. I teach and train internationally, and i cant say that there are lessons that we cant improve with urban shield, but it is a far greater good than it is any harm thats caused. Thank you. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next speaker. My name is john labindsey pullen, and i will be submitting some materials for you to review. People say its evolving the measures, but measures taken so far have been ineffective so far in stemming problems. These include Alameda County task force to review urban shed, which concluded that that task force did not have macy to speak on legitimacy to speak on urban shield matters. We have a company, strategic Operations Incorporated that uses racial stereo typing in its targets. This was declined the contract with this company was declined by the alameda board of supervisors, but in the same scenario that mr. Marsdey talks about, that contract was nevertheless used supervisor cohen sir, if youd like, you can put your hand down on the overhead, and face up, please . Supervisor cohen face up. There you go. Thank you. The next one is that the Alameda County sheriff also hosted the oath keepers at the at urban shield fair, and then, there was also a scenario which used terrorist role players wearing kaffias, of course, representing arabs to signify who are the terrorists in our community. There was a completely military scenario with supposedly a hezbollah encampment in Alameda County supervisor cohen sir, your time is up. [ inaudible ] koeb cone your ti supervisor cohen your time is up. [ inaudible ] supervisor cohen thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. After the last speaker, ive got a card from tariq saman, mohamed im sorry, i just cant read your writing. Woods irvin, mohamed check, it looks like, eleanor levine, laura kiswani. Thank you, chair and supervisors for giving me the opportunity to speak. Im just introducing myself. Im shawn sex ton. Im a captain with the alameda sheriffs office, and i had significant roles in urban shieldth