Back in open session, any Public Comments on whether we need to disclose the discussions held in closed session pursuant to administrative code 67. 12 [a], employee evaluations. Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is closed. Commissioners. Whats your pleasure . A second . All in favor . Its unanimous, thank you. Item 11, adjournment. Commissioner covington so moved. President cleaveland the Commission Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Welcome to the november 15th, regular meeting. Did i go too soon . Im supervisor safai, and to me is supervisor fewer and joining me is supervisor yee who is not here and my clerk is lisa wang and i thank charles kriminac from sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. Clerk please silence all cellphones and complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the files to be submitted to the court and items will appear on a november 28th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Super safai i think that supervisor safai i think that item number one is going to be continued. So actually why dont we take item number two, please. Clerk yp two, ordinance of money to require parties to pay a refundable deposit when requesting written findings when the assessment appeals board has established procedures concerning the waiver and renewal of requests for written findings. Unless theres any comments from my colleague here why dont we hear from supervisor peskins and aide lee hel heppner. The proposed legislation before you today is an amendment to chapter 2b of the administrative code with policies and procedures for requesting findings of the assessment appeals board prior to an assessment hearing. As i understand it and this was sort of urged to our office at the request of the assessment appeals board, these amendments codify the policies and the procedures that have been developed by the assessment appeals board with the cooperation of the assessor recorders office. Relative to requests that the board prepare findings pursuant to california revenue and taxation code 1611. 5 and the property tax rules 308 and 325. And im happy to go into details and either the applicant or the assessor may make a written request for findings before commencement of an assessment hearing and theres a 215 ddeposit to cover the first hour of those finds and to the requesting party is billed for the preparation of those findings up to 30 hours. Theres also a procedure established for the abandonment of a request for findings and if the deposit is not paid before the conclusion of the hearing itself, if the requesting party fails to pay the total assessed amount or if the requesting party either explicitly or through neglect abandons their request for findings. If the request is abandoned, the requesting party is entitled to a full refund of deposit or fees paid unless the city has already spent more than an hour preparing those findings and for the appeals board to notify all parties that the request for findings has been abandoned. Again, this is to codify the existing procedures that the assessment appeals board already uses and in doing so to fill a gap in state law that was left there for us to be able to develop these procedures. One nonsubsanative declaration, on page 2, line 4, i believe that it should read, finding fees shall be waived instead of just findings shall be waived, and so it should be waived if any of the following occur. So i request that slight modification be made and don duran from the appeals board is here to address any details that i left out. I have a quick question. So this is designed and so this is prior to having a hearing that youd get essentially a written response. Is this prior to having the hear something. I think that is the case. Okay, great. Please come forward, mr. Duran. Good afternoon, supervisors. In answer to your question, the request for findings of fact must be made prior to the commencement of the hearing and the deposit is due either before or at the conclusion of the hearing. Once the hearing is held, when the board has the hearings, both parties are present, and the board can choose to render its decision prior to issuing those findings, or they can choose to issue its decision in conjunction with the findings. If the board releases their decision, if they choose to release their decision prior to issuing the findings or writing up the findings of fact, the parties both parties will be notified of the boards decision. The requesting party is then given the original requesting party is then given 10 Business Days to confirm whether they still want those findings to be issued by the board. please stand by . My name is jan an wong a regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in Civil Engineering i thought ill follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan implement and shape it into realty love the champs of working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into fruition ive also take advantage of the sfpuc Training Program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording San Francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around me good morning, and welcome to the government audit and Oversight Committee for november 15th. My name is jane kim, ill be chairing todays committee. Joined by aaron peskin and joined when i president london breed shortly. Mr. Clerk, any announcements . Clerk silence all cell phones and electronic documents. Items acted upon todays will appear on the november 28, 2017, board of supervisor agenda unless otherwise stated. Supervisor kim forgot to announce our clerk today is victor young and the staff from s. F. Govtv is leo and charles, making sure its available online. Mr. Clerk, call items 1 and 22. Resolution of intention to form project area i mission rock, and infrastructure financing district number 2, establishing the time and date for public hearing and determining other matters in connection therewith. Item 2, resolution of intention to issue bonds for project area i of the sfru financing district number 2. Supervisor kim i see we have our presenter here up today. Good morning, madam chair, supervisor and members of the public. My name is rebecca benisini, assistant director of the port, pleased to be here on the first board action or recommendation related to mission rock project, the port has been working on many years. Acknowledge many members of the team here, fran weld, jack bare, harry obrien, and roscoe from the San Francisco giants available if there are any questions. A bit of context on the site, lot a and pier 48, comprise the mission rock site. Here is a rendering of the project at buildout. Very exciting project with a lot of important highlights that ill just briefly mention to you. The site is intended to build out at about 2. 7 million gross square feet, including residential, office, retail and active uses. Pleased we have 40 inclusionary below market rate units, mixed income from 45 to 50 of a. M. I. , eight acres of parks, the site to 2100 projected Sea Level Rise at 66 inches. Ongoing Revenue Streams for shoreline adaptation at the site as well as in other sites along the port. The site has a comprehensive planning and design framework, design for development was extensively created with a lot of Community Input and a lot of great folks from the design team on the giants, we are proud of the sustainability plan in the project. All of the pretty pictures take a lot of costs, anticipated infrastructure, hard and soft costs today in 2,017 estimated about 281 million. In addition, we are anticipating using excess tax increment and special taxes from c. F. D. We plan to form in several months to be directed to resiliency throughout the port. And then well have financing costs associated with developer returns as well as Public Financing and bond issuances. Total estimated costs, 692 million in 2,017. We have several Funding Sources and financing mechanisms in order to make this happen. The one we are talking about today is infrastructure financing district which captures growth and property tax revenue and the intended use of the revenues, eligible expenses are public improvements, Public Infrastructure and parks, as well as historic rehabilitation. For our one historic resource, pier 48 in the site. I. F. D. Is intended to cover the entire site. You see the building blocks, the park, as well as fear pier 48 and mission rock square. Authorized by state land for i. F. D. In 2013, went through the board how the i. F. D. S may be established across portland. There are threshold requirements the port needs to meet well bring to you when we actually complete all the documentation and are recommending formation of the project area. Once the guidelines are established the board then established the port wide i. F. D. And since then, activated with g1, historic core in pier 70. We now have in process the waterfront site also at pier 70, and the resolutions today for mission rock represent the first step, the public noticing requirement and the board would direct the port executive director to prepare the infrastructure financing plan and then brought back to the board for activation of the actual project area. A bit of background on timing, we have gone to capital planning. We have been to the port in terms of informational for the project approvals. We were here with you today and we intend to be coming back for full project approval to the board in january, when we ask you actually form the infrastructure financing project area. And we subsequently come back to the board for the formation of the Community Facilities district. The recommendation that we are asking for today is to we read the budget analysis, recommendations related to the i. S. P. And details included in the plan and consulted with the consultants and they are prepared to include all the details and bring them back for the formation proceedings so we have those available for the budget analysts at that time and recommending approval of the proposed resolutions. That concludes my presentation. Supervisor kim thank you, and i understand that we also have adam sandwater from omwd as well for additional questions. And so before i move to questions and comments, i want to go to our budget and legislative analyst. Good morning, chair kim, supervisor peskin. Yes, this as she noted, resolutions of intention. They do not obligate the board to approve the i. F. D. Sub project area or the bond issuance. Also do direct the port director to prepare an infrastructure financing plan for the i. F. D. Project area. That plan was not available as of the writing of the report. There is a list on page six of our report of the potential projects. However, the actual projects are not yet defined. Also notice on page 11 of our report that the property tax increment expected to be generated by the Mission Rock Development is about 1 billion over the term of the i. F. D. S. However, the proposed limit on tax increment that could be allocated to the i. F. D. Is about 3. 85 billion, this is considered like 20 contingency. This contingency is higher than the contingency included in the proposed i. F. D. S for project area for pier 70 and for the hoe down yard and the tax bond authorization asking for, 1. 4 billion. The port said that they would include our recommendations in the financing plan. Our recommendations are the first is that there be very detailed accounting for the tax increment limit on these, this i. F. D. Project area because of the 200 contingency there be a detailed explanation in the financing plan of the actual projects that would be financed and a cash flow analysis. We do recommend approval of the resolutions. Supervisor kim thank you, miss campbell. Are there any questions on this item . Ok. Well, why dont we open up for Public Comment on items 1 and 2. Seeing no Public Comment, Public Comment is now closed on items 1 and 2. Supervisor peskin madam chair, i would move these two resolutions of intention to the full board with a positive recommendation. Supervisor kim thank you, supervisor peskin. We have a motion to move this forward. Supervisor peskin i believe there is a proposed amendment. We do need to amend. She said committee of the whole date and i believe there was a proposed amendment from your office that was dropped off. There is i do not i see it but dont see what the amendment is. I dont see supervisor kim i dont have a copy of the amendment, im so sorry. I dont think its from my office. May i clear this up . I think i might be the source of this. There is a cost typo, or a resolution, there is a cost in the resolution i had spoken to supervisor kims staff about potentially amending but i was not sure if i was able to do that at this time and let us know we could amend in the resolution, its not a substantive change to the resolution or we can do it at a later date. So, if the supervisors are amenable to it i dont see it in the copy you forwarded to our office. What page and line. Page five, row 13. 355,100,017. Thats correct. Should have been 692 million. Instead of 355 million. Thats right. And i have clean copies of the resolution if you are able to take this amendment at this time. This is this would be the appropriate time to take any amendments. So, that should be included in the presentation so that we know before we take a motion to pass an item. Is the recommended amendments from the port. On page five, line 13, an amendment to change the dollar amount, 355,100,000 in 2,017 and amend to 692 million. Is that correct . That the only amend that your office or department is requesting . Yes, maam. And that, to be clear, is in file number 171118, not 117. Thank you. So, we can take this motion to amend as stated, and just a quick question to miss campbell. I know in your recommendations you have requested that the port executive director include in the infrastructure financing plan the specific definition of public facilities to be funded, the details on the total limit on the property tax increment and the detailed cash flow source, and you said that recommendation has been accepted by the Port Department . Yes, thats correct. Great. So, lets take this motion to amend and we can do that without opposition. And theres also the setting up the committee of the whole hearing date. I believe the proposal was january 23, 2018. Ok. So, before we pass the motion to move this forward with positive recommendation we have to take a motion to convene to committee as a whole at this whole. To set the committee as a whole hearing date. Supervisor kim could you point out what page that is on . Page three, line 22, and supervisor kim line 22. Whereas on january yes. I believe on page two, line 14. Supervisor kim ok. Whereas on . Yes, and strike 2017 and insert 2018. Supervisor kim ok. So the second motion to amend is that on line 14 whereas on january 14th, is that the i believe january 23, 2018. 2018. And also on page three, line 22, i believe. Supervisor kim again, january 23rd. 2018. Yes. Yes. And file 17117, we would need to amend the title to insert the hearing date. And also on page two, line 18, where we can insert the date of january 23, 2018. Supervisor kim im sorry im not sure we are looking at the same sorry. This doesnt make sense to me. In the first file i believe you need to amend page six, line 16, which is the notice that dates when the board will hold its public hearing. Right. But i think the other amendments are not january 23rd. The other amendments i believe can be added by the clerk after the board november 28th. Whatever that date is, the clerk can add administratively, i dont believe the committee has to make those amendments today before the board actually takes those actions. But the critical date for the amendment today is to set the date for the public hearing. Which is on the first file, 117, public hearing line 16 and that 2017 should be stricken and it should be january 23, 2018. Respectfully, next time to the port, nice if you communicate them earlier rather than later but im happy to make that motion to the first file and the clerk can administratively do the dates on pages two and the other corresponding areas. Supervisor kim page three and maybe page six. It would also be really helpful to get copies of these in advance so i know what we are amending specifically. But forgetting the date that the clerk can put in administratively without this committee body having to take action, we will take the single motion as stated by city attorney, the motion was made by supervisor peskin and we can do that without opposition. We now have a motion to move forward both items, positive recommendation to the full board. Supervisor peskin as amended. Supervisor kim and we can do that without opposition. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call the next item. Agenda number 3, hearing on the coordination of data sharing between Public Safety departments as it relates to Crime Prevention and investigations and requesting the Police Department, District Attorney, city administrator, adult probation, juvenile probation, sheriff, superior court, Emergency Management and department of technology as part of the justin tracking Information System to report. Hearing was called by supervisor norman yee and begin with opening remarks. I want to thank supervisor yee for calling for the hearing. An issue that i have been hearing about for quite some time and i think its incredibly important for the Public Safety of our city that we really ensure that we are moving swiftly in a process for appropriate data sharing. Supervisor yee. Supervisor yee thank you very much, chair kim and thank you, and also supervisor peskin for holding this hearing today. We all know the importance of data in the work that we do as policy makers. And we constantly are asking about data to identify problems, to measur