tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee SFGTV April 15, 2022 10:20pm-12:01am PDT
thinks the april 13, 2022 budget and finance committee meeting. i'm supervisor safai, vice chair of the budget committee. i'm joined by gordon mar, our chair today supervisor ronen will be joining us later in the agenda. our clerk is mr. brent ja lipa. i would like to thank matthew from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, any announcements? >> thank you. with our return to the chamber, just a friendly reminder to make sure you silence all cell phones and electric devices. they're combining hybrid meetings that allow remote access and public comment by
telephone. equitable access is essential. whoever is attending in person will be allowed to speak first and then we'll take those on the telephone line. for those watching 26, 78 or 99, the public comment number is streaming across the screen. that number is 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2498 755 5308 # #. when connected, you'll hear the meeting discussions, but be muted and in listening mode only. when the item of interest comes up, those joining in person should line up and those on the telephone should dial star 3. if you're on the telephone, remember to turn down the tv. we'll take public comment for those attending in person first and then we'll go to the
telephone line. you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. e-mail them to myself, the committee clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the official file. you may send your written comments via postal service to our office and city hall, 1 carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 19 unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor safai: i'm going to announce this, but just for the record, please be advised as of march 18, masking is recommended throughout -- though not required throughout the entire building here in city
hall. however, but it remains required in the chamber room while hearings are in session. today we have a full budget and finance agenda. thank you, everyone, for being brief with our presentations. can you call items 1 through 7. >> thank you, items 1 through 7, are resolutions authorizing -- item number 1 is a resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into amendment number 2 to contract with staples, the l.l.c. for the purchase of office supplies for city departments, increasing the contract amount by $11.5 million, for a total not to exceed $16.5 million and extending the term by 15 months and 25 days from april 6, 2024 for a total contract duration of five years from august 1, 2020 through july 31, 2025. item 2 through 7 are resolutions authorizing the office of
contract administration to execute the following amendments and terms with the various parties for the purchase of technology products and specialized services on as needed basis with no changes to each of the contract durations of five years, all from january 1, 2019 through december 31, 2023. item 2 is amendment number 4 to contract with cct technologies doing business as computerland of silicon valley for amount not to exceed $62.9 million. item 3 is contract with corner stone technology partners, increasing the contract amount by $11.2 million for total not to exceed $31.2 million. item 4 is contract with insight public, increasing the amount by $11.7 million for $39.7 million. item 5 is amendment number 3 to
a contract with intervision systems l.l.c., increasing the contract by $13.4 million for a total not to exceed of $44.4 million. item 6 is amendment number 4, contract with x tech jv increasing the amount by $35.7 million. and item 7 is amendment number 2 to contract with zones l.l.c., increasing the contract amount by $3.6 million for total not to exceed $23.6 million. members of the public wishing us remotely and wish to comment on these resolutions, please call the public comment number at 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected to the meeting, you will need to press star 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.
when the system indicates you've been unmuted, you can begin your comments. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. clerk. i believe this morning we have the city administrator's office to present on these items. >> director of the city's office of contract administration. i'm joined today virtually with my colleague. she'll be directing the slide presentation. so, o.c.a. term contract for office supplies was awarded in july of 2020 to staples contract and commercial l.l.c. using the authority of administrative code section 21.16b which allowed city departments to utilize the competitive process of another public agency or nonprofit purchasing organization if deemed in the city's best interest. purchasing cooperative issued a
solicitation for office supplies. this contract is for $5 million with an initial term of three years and eight months. i should clarify, this is the o.c.a. contract. this was amended once to modify certain terms but with no change to the value and duration. under this contract, the city receives the volume discount pricing to all staples advantage customers. this is a catalog contract, meaning that city departments may purchase any office supply with restrictions. certain items such as computer hardware and software and items that don't comply with the city's green purchasing standards are blocked. so, again, this contract provides a wide range of office supplies from paper to writing products to books and forms to other, you know, breakroom and
offices supplies. it's a heavily used contract by our city departments with an average monthly spend of $276,000. the biggest users are h.s.a., m.t.a. and the police department. and as of today, the contract balance is nearly depleted. so to ensure the contract can continue to provide for the city's needs through july of 2025, we have projected the contract will need to be increased to $16.5 million. as such, o.c.a. requests your approval increasing to $16.5 million and to extend the duration to july 30, 2025 for a total contract duration of five years. the proposed -- excuse me -- i do want to note that the resolution will include or does include a nonmaterial revision to change the contractor to
staple, this is on line 24. i can pause here if you have questions before items 2 through 7. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i just had a question. it's more general about whether this office supply contract, whether there are local vendors that might have -- be considered for it. i know this one, it was done through the source well? is that what it's called? so i probably -- i understand that if we're selecting a vendor through source well then there is probably not a local vendor that, yeah, is going to have an opportunity, but are there local vendors that could potentially fulfill this contract? >> yes, i believe there are, supervisor. there are local vendors that could provide office supplies. one of the reasons we entered
through source well is because staples provides volume discounts on their products because they know there is a large number of users for the contracts. additionally, one of the key features of this contract is that departments, in fact, can search for items through their online catalog which makes it much easier for departments to order. >> supervisor mar: i'm just curious, in the past has the city used local vendors for similar contracts? >> i believe the last contract for office supplies was with office depot, in fact, and i'm not aware of the city having entered into contracts with local suppliers in the past. >> supervisor mar: that just reflects the status of the supply industry. thanks. >> supervisor safai: thank you. do you want to continue with the presentation? >> certainly, thank you. so, next slide, please.
so, now i'm going to provide you background on the technology market place followed by summary of the proposed amendments. these are six contract amendments. items 2 through 7. so, what we today call the technology marketplace, in fact, started in the 1990s as a computer store. this market place is a pool of as-needed contracts that were publicly and competitively awarded and it's intended to streamline procurement of technology products and services. with each iteration, o.c.a. works to improve technology procurement and to keep pace with changes in the industry. the marketplace is an efficient purchasing model for the city's technology needs. it reduces the time required to complete a transaction from several months to one to two weeks. it now consists of 50 suppliers competing against each other. 29 of the suppliers are local business enterprises.
the market place model essentially creates a partnership between the city and providers. it generates the best value in our investment in technology. so this pre-qualified pool of suppliers was selected through a rigorous proposal process conducted by o.c.a. in 2018. each supplier in the pool is awarded an as-needed term contract separated into three tiers. each contract within a given tier was set at not to exceed amount equal to all other contracts in the tier. the three tiers range in contract size, technology offerings, transaction limits and competitive solicitation. tier 1 is 18 contracts with $20
million each. the pool does consist of two joint ventures with lbe. tier 2 is amount of $3 million each and this pool consists of three lbes. and tier 3 is 24 contracts with amount of $600,000 each. all of these contracts are with micro lbes. it's to purchase technology, goods and services based on each department's business needs. all transactions as i mentioned before that are above established thresholds must be competitively bid out to the appropriate pool of suppliers. here you'll see the total spend to date for each of the six technology marketplace contracts for which we are requesting amendments. as well as projected expenditures through december 2023. the end date of the contracts.
expenditures as you can see range from $70 million to $15 million. the contract expenditures vary because each contract is awarded on a competitive basis. projected expenditures here are based on the average monthly expenditure on the contract. again, through december 2023. next slide. so here you'll see the total city expenditures on that's six marketplace contracts broken down by departments. the total expenditure stands at $195 million to date with the biggest spend as you'll see by the airport, and h.s.a. so to meet the city's business needs, o.c.a. respectfully requests approval 0 , increasing the amount to expected usage and
no change to the end date. first, cc technologies to $62.9 million. next corner stone to $31.2 million. next, inside public sector to 39.7. next, intervision to $44.4 million. next, x tech jv to $115.7 million. and zones to $23.6 million. o.c.a. agrees with the budget and legislative analyst recommendation. thank you. >> supervisor safai: anything else to your presentation? >> nope, that's it. happy to take questions. >> supervisor safai: just to summarize -- why don't we go to the b.l.a. report?
>> just three reports. just brief reports, nick from the budget & legislative analyst office. one is staples contract competitively procured by a state agency in minnesota that the city is piggy backing off of which is allowed under the code. as we show on page 3, the amendment increases the contract to $16.5 million which is consistent with previous average monthly spending of $276,000. we recommend approval of item 1. items 2 through 7 are resolutions that would approve six amendments. as we show on page 7 of our report, the resolutions increase by $94.5 million which is
consistent with actual spending to date on these contracts. or excuse me through january 2022. we recommend approval of 2 through 7. >> supervisor safai: great. just to summarize, kind of simply, we had these contracts. they were competitively bid. they're coming toward the end. rather than go out and try to re-bid them again given the current environment, we know we would pay more, we might not get as many responders, this is the best economical thing to do for the taxpayers and also for time and effort of being able to continue the work that we need to do given all the shortages that we have in the marketplace, is that correct? >> yes, that is correct, but i would like to note that we are working on issuing a new solicitation to create the next iteration of the technology marketplace. while i can't guarantee this, what we're attempting to do is
work to get those new contracts in place by early next year. >> supervisor safai: great. so this buys us a little more time for that process as well. >> correct. >> supervisor safai: and i also believe there are amendments you're requesting. did you want to talk about that? >> i'm not aware of any amendments to the resolution. i'm going to ask karen, my colleague on the phone, to clarify if there are. >> supervisor safai: my understanding was there was an amendment on page 1. >> had to do -- hi, we rounded the numbers to the nearest $100,000, so the n.t.e. balances for a couple of these are slightly different than what was initially requested. so the values in the b.l.a. report are the accurate values. if someone who has the b.l.a. report, they can refer to the two values that are changing --
i don't have it in front of me at the moment -- because of that rounding. >> supervisor safai: the amendment that i saw was on page 1 where it says staples contract l.l.c. operating as staple advantage and striking out the word contractor. >> that is right. there is an amendment to the resolution for item 1. >> that was for item 1, yes. that's the amendment i was referring to. i wasn't referring to the other rounding. i think you guys have already taken care of that, is that correct? okay. so any other amendment? >> no, that's the one. >> supervisor safai: just for item number 1, okay. so why don't we hear public comment on this item and come back and make the amendment. mr. clerk, please call public comment. >> very, mr. vice chair, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person should line up to
speak along the curtains. for those listening remotely, please call 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected, you'll need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those in the queue, wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. that will be your cue. we have no in-person speakers. are there any on the line? >> mr. clerk, we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor safai: thank you am no in-person, no callers, public comment is closed. so as read into the record, i'd like to make a motion to strike the word online, 25, page 1, the word contractor and replace that with the language staples contracting commercial l.l.c. operating as staple business advantage. >> ahead of that vote, should we
take a motion to excuse chair ronen until her arrival? >> sure. >> on the motion to excuse chair ronen until her arrival. we have two ayes. >> supervisor safai: great. now i make the motion to strike the word contract and replace with the language as i stated into the record. roll call vote. >> on that motion to accept the clerical offered by the office. item 1, vice chair safai? aye. mar aye. we have two ayes. >> supervisor safai: then a roll call vote on item 1-7. >> to forward to the full board with positive recommendations. item 1 as amended vice chair
safai? aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: great. so 1 through 7 are approved. thank you. >> item number 8 is a resolution retroactive authorizing the department of public health to expend a grant in the amount of $5 million from the department of health and human services, substance abuse and mental health services administration through the california department of health care services for participation in a program entitled community mental health services block grant, behavioral health response and rescue project supplemental for the period of july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2025. members of the public who are joining us remotely and wish to comment on this item, please call the public comment number at 1-415-655-0001.
the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected to the meeting, you'll need to press star 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that is your cue to begin your comments. >> supervisor safai: great. i believe we have alexander jackson from the department of public health to present on the item. mr. jackson? oh, no, looks like greg wong. >> good morning. mr. jackson will be presenting on this item. i just would like to introduce some amendments to the resolution. >> supervisor safai: before you do amendments, why don't we just present the item and then you can do the amendments after, please? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. on presenting on behavioral
health -- first let me introduce myself, alex jackson, i'm the acting director for behavioral health with the department of public health. today i'm presenting on a community mental health services block grant that was received from substance abuse health administration pass through under the coronavirus response and relief supplemental appropriations act. and the american rescue plan act. so, the total of the funds that we're awarded are $5,052,171.99 under the coronavirus response and relief supplemental appropriations act.
that total was 1,000,508 and under the american act that was awarded. these will run through -- from july through june 30, 2025. with this grant funding, we're looking at adding a new behavioral health program coordinator to manage all these overall grants. we're also looking at adding three full-time health workers. these positions will support our mobile outreach teams and work. also adding full-time clinical psychologist to provide neurocognitive testing and treatment coordination for older adults, expanding our mobile
outreach team that will engage with medical, law enforcement in emergency psychiatric systems while providing support and capacity building and training. and early psychosis capacity building and training. increasing funds to emergency stabilization units in wellness centers. as well as increasing -- or providing low-income housing for hope s.f. wellness centers trailer to provide services. funding laptops tablets to help increase access to services and increasing 5150dy -- diversions for psychiatric hospitalization,
emergency rooms for frequent user of psychiatric emergency services. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. and mr. wong, you wanted to talk about some amendments -- or before we do that, supervisor mar, any questions on this item? and before we get into the amendments, mr. jackson, can you just explain on the record the reason for the retroactivity of the request? >> yes. we were awarded the grant back in december and it's retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year which is july 1. >> retroactive because that's when it began? or it took a while for the award to happen? other than the nature of the fiscal year beginning in july 1, what is the reasoning behind the request for it to be retroactive? >> yeah, that's really not on
our end. it's a pass-through from the federal through state. i just think it's -- it took a while for them to actually get the funds to us. so... >> supervisor safai: so do they ask you to start expending funds in advance and you're going back and reimbursing the department for the money already spent? >> perhaps -- yeah, go ahead. >> if i may interject. i apologize. we're asking for approval as we received award notice on december 6, 2021 for a start date of july 1, 2021. so we were not able to -- we received the contract on july 1, 2021, but obviously i don't have any funds expended. >> supervisor safai: so what
they do is make the term of the grant previous to the award date, is that it? >> i believe they go by their fiscal year. >> supervisor safai: got it. okay. now, mr. wong, do you have any amendments? you said you have amendments that you wanted to read into the record? >> yes, please. thank you very much. on the resolution, page 2, on line 22, starts with d.p.h. is hereby authorized to expend grant funds. and be it -- we would like to strike out the semicolon and replace it with a full stop. on the same page, number 2, line 23 and 24, we would like to take out for the result that the director of health is authorized
to enter into agreement on behalf of the city. >> supervisor safai: the way it reads now, when you make those amendments -- so i see it here. on page 2, you take out the further resolve that the directors authorize and be it -- and then it says further resolve that within 30 days -- but the way it reads right now, it says the way that this would end, further resolve that d.p.h. is hereby authorized to retroactive accept and expend the grant pursuant to code -- and then it says, and be it -- and then that's how it ends. >> we would like to take out the, and be it -- >> supervisor safai: so that is a period, not a colon. not a semi-colon and take out
the words "and be it". >> yes. >> supervisor safai: why are you taking out that within 30 days? you're providing a copy to the board of supervisors for the official file? why is that being removed? >> because when block grants, there are no agreements. this is a supplemental grant -- >> supervisor safai: okay, got it. s -- >> members of the public who wish to speak on this item, and if you're joining in person, line up to speak along the curtains. for those listening remotely, call 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2498 755 5308 # #.
once connected, you'll need to press star 3. for those already in the queue, continue to wait until the system indicates you've unmuted. as we have no in-person speakers, do we have any on the line? >> mr. clerk, we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> supervisor safai: thank you. u.p. /* public comment is closed. change the colon on the sentence there to a period. semi-colon to a period. and strike the words "and be it". and then on subsequent page 3, lines 1 through 3 should be struck. >> on that motion --
>> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes. we have chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: thank you. now i'd like to make a motion to send this item as amended to the full board with positive recommendations. >> on this recommendation -- >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. this item is approved. item 9. >> item 9 is a resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2022 annual joint fundraising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. those wishing to comment on these items, please call the public comment number at 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #.
once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that's your cue to begin your comments. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i believe we have the city administrators office here to present on this item. >> yes, good morning. this is an item that appears on your calendar annually. fred rations -- federations that wish to participate in the combined charities drive submit applications to your office and the office of the city administrator reviews them. all four federations that applied this year have met the criteria in the ordinance to participate. if you have any questions -- >> supervisor safai: yes, can you -- did i say your name right? >> i'm sorry? >> >> supervisor safai: can you define what a federation is just for the public so they understand what that is. >> the federations are an
umbrella organization that as an example, earth share, is one that has a number of environmental groups that are within its umbrella. the america favorite local charities have really probably a couple hundred of organizations within their umbrella. and city employees can choose to donate just to the umbrella or they can choose a participant within -- an individual participant within each group. and there is criteria in the ordinance about having to be represent agencies of 10 or more organizations, be a 501 c-3 and be in existence for 10 years and so forth. >> supervisor safai: and this is an annual item? >> the applications are made
annually and my office reviews them annually and reports our results to you. >> supervisor safai: okay. sounds good. any questions? please open this item for public comment. >> members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now to speak. for those listening remotely, call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. please continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. and that is your cue to make your comments. we have no in-person speakers. are there any on the line? >> mr. clerk, we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> great. so public comment is closed. guess we can make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation?
can we take that same house, same call? >> no, we don't. sorry. >> go ahead. >> on that motion to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor safai: aye. mother >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: great. this item is approved. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: please call item 10. >> item 10 i see a resolution approving and authorizing the director of property on behalf of the fire department to execute a purchase and sale agreement with prologis lp to purchase real property at 1236 carroll avenue for purchase price of $38.5 million. execute a memorandum of understanding with the port to transfer jurisdiction of real property located at 1236 carroll avenue at fair market value plus
closes costs for a total cost not to exceed $6 million and place both properties under the jurisdiction of the fire department and adopt the planning department's findings and contemplated temperatureses. members of the public joining us remotely and wish to comment on the items, please call the public comment number at 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when the system indicates you've been unmuted, that is your chance to make your comments. >> we have the director of the office of real estate to present. >> thank you. good morning. director of real estate. i'm here this morning seeking your positive recommendation for a resolution to do two things.
one, to execute a purchase and sale agreement to acquire -- this presentation will describe the key terms and risk involved with this transaction. and will also describe why this fire training facility and the intended purpose of this acquisition is needed and the services to be provided there. at this point i'd like to introduce chief nicholson from the fire department to tell you about the fire training facility and the services it will be providing. thank you.
>> great. thank you. >> thank you, director pennic and thank you vice chair safai, supervisor mar. nice to see you both and i appreciate your time today. san francisco fire department as you may or may not know is the largest fire department and ems and paramedicine provider in northern california. the treasure island training facility will be shutting down in a few years due to all the development that is going on, on treasure island and this has been a top priority for me since i began as the chief three years ago to get this squared away for future generations and resiliency of the department in the city. this will not only serve all of our members and all of their training needs, but it will also serve as a regional training
center and, you know, it's really important we be able to bring all california here, fire, ems, i.c. -- incident command -- rescue training needs, et cetera. it's really important we're able to grow and train to remain resilient. with all the new things happening, or not so new, wildfires, paramedicine work, this is a much needed facility. as i said i've been working on this for three years since i became chief. so i am really hoping for your positive recommendation. i thank you again for your time. i want to thank director. he has been a superstar in this process. >> thank you, chief. mr. clerk, could you advance to
slide 7, please? this transaction involves aggregation of two different properties from two different owners. first i'd like to go through the prologis property. they own 4.1 acres of property located on two blocks. we, last year, negotiated a purchase option that was reviewed and approved by the board of supervisors. that purchase option basically locks the terms, including price of the acquisition. the purchase price is $38.5 million plus closing costs not to exceed $40 million. the condition of the property is wild land and being sold as is.
the closing date will be between may 1st and may 31st, pursuant to the purchase option that expires at the end of may. the other key terms of the transaction were locked by the purchase option which was approved by the board and supervisors and it's pretty standard with city acsgrigss. -- acquisitions. the port acquisition is a little atypical because of some conditions that i will explain in just a brief moment, but basically the port of san francisco owns a triangular section of railroad remnant of 28,000 square feet. they also own griffith street which is a paper street approximately 38,400 square feet and bancroft avenue, 48,000 square feet for a total of
114,448 scare feet. the purchase price for the property will be the fair market value as determined by the california state lands commission. this is because the property in question is subject to the public trust. the property has been appraised for $5.8 million plus closing costs under this resolution. the acquisition is not to exceed $6 million. the condition of the property is raw land with no improvements being sold as is. the estimated closing date is december 2022 through february 2023. next slide, please. because of the overlay of the trust, there is some
preconditions to transfer. first, they have to approve the memorandum of understanding that i just described to you. that came yesterday at the port commission hearing, so that condition has been satisfied. secondly, the board of supervisors has to approve this m.o.u. which we hope will occur this month. third, passage of the state legislation to lift the public trust which is in calendar which we hope to occur in the late fall of this year. the legislation has already been introduced by assembly member tinge as ab2607 on february 28, 2022. the state land commission has to confirm the fair market value which will not occur under after the state legislature lifts the trust. and there is some additional technical conditions contained
in the m.o.u., basically our standard one, all of the approvals have been obtained, we get title insurance, approved ceqa, et cetera. we expect to close in january or february of 2023. next slide. this basically shows you a site map of the land to be acquired. block 4852 and 4877 on the right-hand side, the upper and lower blocks, are the prologis holdings that will be acquired. those blocks are separated by bancroft avenue. to the right, going north to south is griffith avenue which is not shown here. and then the triangular cutout in the upper block is the port property. so the port property consists of the triangular block and the upper section of block 4852,
bancroft avenue and griffith avenue which runs north to south along the right-hand side not shown. >> supervisor safai: excuse me. what is currently on these sites right now? >> this is vacant raw land. it's basically dirt and weed. >> supervisor mar: all of it? >> yes. this is a conceptual layout and i want to emphasize conceptual of what a fire training may look like. armstrong to the north and griffith is encompassed in this drawing. you see it as the parking area on the right-hand edge of the sight. you can -- site. you can see bancroft, although it's incorporated into the project is not built upon
because not only is it a paper street, but it contains a sewer line which prevents vertical development. next slide, please. this, again, is a conceptual 3d view. you can see the parking that wraps around the outside. these are one to two-story structures. griffith is shown to the east. i want to emphasize the fact that there are change in vertical elevations, so this project sits about 20-25 feet below the griffith site which is higher up on the hill. so these one to two-story buildings will not or should not impact the view corridor of the people from griffith to the water. next slide.
as i stated earlier, there are some risks involved in this transaction due to the timing. we are asking for the board's approval to acquire the prologis sit before may 31st -- site before may 31st. however, we will not know with certainty we'll be able to acquire the port site until january of next year. one risk is that the city acquires the prologis site and then ab2607 doesn't pass. if that were to occur, then we would have to reconfigure the layout of the fire training facility to take advantage of the property that we currently own. if we were to go back to slide 11, as you can see, the port property consists of bancroft
avenue which is no build. so the loss of that property would be unfortunate, but wouldn't impact the design. griffith avenue, we would lose parking and the major impact would be the buildings listed as haven'tlation in the -- ventilation in the upper right-hand corner of the development. if we had to reconfigure, the fire training facility would be a lot smaller. we could possibly incorporate hall street which is city owned but would have to be vacated. it would be a much inferior solution to having the port property, but could be done. the seconds risk is the state lands commission determines that the fair market value when added to the closing cost exceeds $6 million. right now we're at 5.86, our not to exceed is $6 million, so it's
very close. if that were to happen, we would have to come back to the board and ask their business decision as to whether or not they wanted to pay the additional cost or proceed without the port property. if we do not move forward with this transaction, the purchase option will expire and we would lose the opportunity to acquire the prologis site. one other point i wanted to bring to our attention. if you could advance to slide 13, please? chapter 23 requires appraisal review. due to unforeseen circumstances that review is delayed. as i said before, we -- this is for the property. we do have appraisal dated march 31, 2022. it was $5.86 million. we anticipate the appraisal will
review will come in on the 18th of this month, the day before the full board action. if that occurs, we will proceed to the board as scheduled. if it does not occur, we will ask the clerk of the board to ask the president to continue the item until the review appraisal is in hand. at this time, i want to thank the mayor, president walton, supervisor safai, for their leadership and sponsorship of this matter. i'd also like to thank chief nicholson and the staff from the fire department, d.p.w., the port, the b.l.a., state lands commission, assembly member ting and the city's lobbyists for their work on this project. that concludes my presentation. chief nicholson from the fire department, josh king from the port and myself are available to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor safai: thank you.
just so we get into the record, looks like you got cheers for your presentation. just kidding. >> timing is everything. >> supervisor safai: just so we get into the record, i understand this, so we have had already a full appraisal that was done on the port property? this is the final layer. it was a peer review appraisal with someone outside of the appraisal justifying or looking at the appraisal to determine if they did their methodology and that their preliminary appraisal was done properly, is that correct? >> that's correct. we had an appraisal done on both the prologis property and the port property last year. the appraisal for the prologis property is fresh because the board of supervisors in enacting and approving the purchase options locked the terms. that doesn't need to be
refreshed. we refreshed the port property appraisal and it came in at 5.86. the review appraisal is delayed and as you said, it's to confirm the methodology. >> supervisor safai: great. i feel confident about that. i feel comfortable moving forward if we had not had an appraisal, i would say let's wait, but since we have already had one, this is just a reaffirmation, peer review, of that. some of my other questions are for chief nicholson if she can come up? >> yes, sir. >> good morning, chief. this is something that has been long in the making for the fire department. i see this as a really important step in the right direction. it's important for us to have the fire training facility, state of the art.
and i think most of us here on the board of supervisors went through a small training on treasure island. so you have that facility and an older smaller facility in the mission and both of those have served the city well. i think the treasure island facility is appropriate, a training facility is appropriate, but because of future development, you all need to find a permanent home. i am a strong believer and have been a strong proponent on this board for the city purchasing property so that we're not spending the taxpayer dollars on rent whereas we then have the ability to own and for future opportunities, it lowers the cost and exposure to the taxpayer. i'm excited this is happening. i think it's overdue and it's something we want to fully support for your department. the question i have for you today -- and thank you for your leadership on moving this forward and thank you to the
mayor's office for their support on this. my question to you is, you have the two -- so one facility, you didn't own, you were renting on treasure island, that's going to go away. what happens to the mission property? what happens to that facility? i know there is a firehouse on site, but there is a lot of land back there. will that continue to be used as training or subtraining site, what are the ideas and plans for that? >> yes, thank you for the question, and for the support. so we are going to -- the plan right now is to continue to use that as well as a secondary site, but what we're looking at with the growth of community paramedicine and the need for, you know, other -- other facilities to hold some of that equipment and personnel, we're looking at options for part of
the property. station 7 also needs to be rebuilt, but we -- we are in conversation right now about exactly what to do with some of that back property. we don't want to lose that tower, that training tower is very valuable to us. but we're in conversation about it. >> supervisor safai: you will have a training tower on the new facility? >> yes. >> if we're able to execute this agreement? >> yes. >> that would be everything on treasure island and mission will be enhanced and expanded at the new facility? >> yes. >> so somewhat to be determined, covers will happen. i -- conversation will happen. i know there are conversations on the cost. something to keep in mind, is if the cost exceeds what was originally anticipated, you have the option of potentially -- like we're doing with the port
-- to subdivide your mission lot, sell that and recoup some of that money to put back into the intended purposes, but that's something we can talk about down the road. just wanted to put that out there for you. i don't have any other questions. we originally last year had the conversation about this. we were able to lock in the negotiated price with prologis for the main parcel. we talked about moving forward and were able to get into the budget these dollars. these dollars are already identified. $6 million correct? we put that into the budget? i just want to reconfirm that on the record. >> that is correct, but i want to put a finer point on it. last year we had $5.8 million in the budget and we're now asking for the $6 million to cover the additional increase in costs which was $60,000 plus closing
cost. i believe that is budgetary asset in this year's budget. >> supervisor safai: that would be added into this year's budget, so there would be need for additional $200,000? >> that's correct. >> supervisor safai: great. i know we have anna dunning, deputy budget director here with us today. can you speak about the additional shortfall and what the plans are? >> sure, as you know, we're looking into and figuring out what budgets will look like. >> supervisor safai: the commitment is there from the mayor's office. >> absolutely, we want to see this happen. >> supervisor safai: great. it seems as though -- >> that's correct, we do not anticipate a shortfall at this time. >> supervisor safai: great. those are all my questions. i'm fully in support of moving this forward. happy this day has come and look forward to seeing this facility
first executing the agreement at the state level and removing the trust and thanking assemblyman ting taking care of that and working with us. once we overcome that this time next year, we should be able to finalize that. we're purchasing the prologis site, we're going to close on that in may? >> that's correct. the m.o.u. has the conditions embedded in it that i described earlier. so this board will be approving the m.o.u. hopefully next week, but the authorization to move forward with the transaction is conditioned upon all of those approvals. we have some of those now. like i said before, the port commission has already approved the m.o.u. now we're simply waiting for the state legislature -- >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry. my question is we're going to consummate and execute the purchase of the prologis site
far prior to finalizing the purchase of the port? >> that's correct. >> supervisor safai: that's all i wanted to confirm. >> i'm sorry, i misunderstood. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> the agreement expires end of may. >> supervisor safai: right. the final approval will come from the board and then you all will have the authorization to execute the agreement by the deadline. >> supervisor mar: thank you. actually i could ask my questions after the b.l.a. report. >> supervisor safai: sure. mr. menard? >> vice chair, thank you. so this resolution would approve a purchase and sale agreement with prologis l.p. for the purchase of 1236 carroll avenue and approve m.o.u. between the port and fire department to transfer the property to the
fire department. as we show on page 13 of our report, the resolution caps the carroll acquisition at $40 million including closing costs and the acquisition costs of the port property is capped at $6 million including closing costs. i want to raise a couple of issues that came up during our review. one is that the board authorized $275 million of earthquake safety general obligation bonds for fire training facility development and land acquisition cost as well as the rehabilitation of fire stations. now when you consider the estimated cost of the facility of $210 million plus the $40 million of the prologis acquisition, it only leaves about $24.3 million left in those bond funds which is sufficient to do a limited scope renovation of one fire station.
there are four fire stations that need this work that are identified in the capital plan, so it does -- there is not a funding plan to address those needs if you move forward with that plan to consolidate the training operations on this site. and then the other issue i wanted to note is that as the fire chief noted, once the site is fully operational, it will duplicate training infrastructure that currently exists in the mission district and so i think, you know, it's worth considering alternate uses for that site in the mission. it could be put to another public purpose such as affordable housing or a behavioral health care facility or it could be sold and plowed back into the training facility cost which would free up bond money to address that seismic work noted in the capital plan. having said that, we do recommend approval of this resolution. thank you.
>> supervisor safai: thank you. just one point of clarification. i know the board of supervisors were part of authorizing the language fort bond to go to the ballot. but it was the voters of san francisco that approved, correct, the earthquake and safety bond of 2020? but the breakdown you described is correct. it was $150 million for new training and the remaining balance for upgrade of four facilities, although there is flexibility within the definitions to allow for this use, correct? >> that's correct. in fact, i think the bond authorization didn't actually specify the amount going to training versus fire stations. what the voters approved was a bucket of $275 million to the fire department for these purposes, without detailing how they would be spent. >> supervisor safai: right. so that even gives more flexibility. >> correct. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you.
first of all, i wanted to thank chief nicholson and the directornd the department and the office for all of our work on this important project. and, yeah this is very much needed not just because of the impending closure of the treasure island training facility, but to ensure that the department has an up-to-date and state-of-the-art training facility to meet the training needs of the important staff at the fire department. i would love to be added as a co-sponsor to this as well. i just had a few questions. per the report from the b.l.a. about how this project now with a budget of 256 -- $257 million total will really use up all of the $275 million that was allocated in the bond both fort training facility as well as upgrades to neighborhood fire
stations. chief nicholson, i just wanted to see if you could respond to that and whether -- yeah, like, you expected the need to spend this much money on the training facility and what does that mean for the needed upgrades to our neighborhood fire stations? >> thank you, supervisor mar, for your support. and so what we know, we've looked at this as well because we do have critical needs for fire stations -- for our fire stations. we've looked at getting the land and building some of the infrastructure and perhaps holding off on a few of the props or a few other things that we could, you know, fund down the line in order to move some of that money for station 7 and the others. so, yes, we're open to moving things around and, you know, doing a prioritization of all of
our projects. >> supervisor mar: great. so you're saying there is a possibility that the $256.7 million cost for this project, not all of that would come from the $275 million from the bond? >> so, yeah, what i'm saying is that we may not do all of it off the bat. and, you know, try to piecemeal it in coming years on the most important things. the most important thing is to get the property and some of the basic infrastructure in place. and, you know, then what comes next, our fire station 7, our fire station 40. so we are looking at how to prioritize that. we haven't designed the facility exactly to spec yet, so there is
room for a little -- a little movement and, again, just holding off on some of the -- perhaps some of the props so we can do some of our fire stations. >> supervisor mar: does the department have a budget for the needed neighborhood fire station upgrades? >> so this is all part of that budget, the eser bond is. >> supervisor mar: does the department have a projected amount that is needed for the needed upgrades of funding i guess for the neighborhood fire stations? >> so i know public works did analysis several years back. and it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. it was close to 800. and so we just really have to prioritize and figure out what we can do with what we have. >> supervisor mar: certainly. okay.
thanks. i'm just -- i had a question about maybe for the director about the transaction. as vice chair safai raised in his questions, so, the plan is right now, if the board approves is to move ahead with the purchase of the carroll street site by may it sounds like. and then go through the process to be able to move ahead with the transfer of the port sites. that probably wouldn't happen -- it sounds like early next year? did i get the timeline right? >> that's correct, supervisor. >> supervisor mar: it sounds like there is the expectation that things are going to go smoothly in order for us to acquire the port side? >> that's correct. we saw this disconnect in timing
last year, because we knew that we had only one year in order to close on the prologis site. that was before the board last -- i was before the board last year in the may timeframe to get the approval of the purchase option. at that time we were hoping to get on the state legislative calendar last year. if we had been successful in doing that, the state legislature would have approved this legislation in december of last year and then we would have had from january until may in order to close both of 2022 -- in order to close both the prologis site and the port site. we were unsuccessful in getting on the state legislative calendar last year, so we have basically that same process, but this year 2022. that's why we have this disconnect between when the purchase option for prologis expires and when we'll get the
final approval. we've been working very closely with the port staff. as i said before, the port commission has already approved this. we've been working with the state lands commission staff. and our -- the city's lobbyist has been working on our behalf in sacramento. all signs are positive. we are confident. however, there is no guarantee until the board -- the state legislature approves it and the governor signs it. as i stand here right now, i have every confidence that will happen, but i can't guarantee it. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and just one final point. >> supervisor safai: i wanted to add on to your question. go ahead. >> supervisor mar: i appreciate all the work you've put into this. i'm sure you considered whether the option to purchase could be better extended so it better aligns with the timeline of the
transfer of the port property or if the purchase could be made contingent on that? >> we have looked at that and had those discussions with prologis. the purchase option payment was only $15,000 per month. it was basically nominal. prologis is not willing to extend the purchase option. they would much rather just put the property on the open market and, thus, we have the possibility of losing the site. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you. >> supervisor safai: director, i'm glad that you talked about that, because when we met in the budget committee last year to talk about this purchase option, the plan was to move aggressively at the state legislature then. do we have any idea why it didn't make it on the calendar? >> i'm not the expert on the legislative process, but the legislature accepts new items in
january and february. we were coming to them in march. so the deadline for introducing on the calendar had technically passed. we thought that we would be able to get into the queue on an urgency resolution or by piggy backing on some other legislation that was already in the queue or substituting this legislation for other legislation that was in the queue. we attempted all three of those and were unsuccessful. >> supervisor safai: it was about the legislative calendar and time line. >> yes, it didn't have anything to do with the merits, we were just asking to get on a train that had already left the station. >> supervisor safai: do we have someone from the mayor's office following and leading on this? >> budget deputy director, i can follow up and find out. i don't have one immediately. >> supervisor safai: it would be
good to know. >> i was just going to say, i know that eddie mccaffrey from the mayor's office has been assisting josh shaw, the city lobbyist and shepherding this through the process in sacramento. >> supervisor safai: hmm. might be good to hear from eddie this morning if he's available. okay. maybe we can get him on the phone. mr. clerk, can we take public comment on this item? >> thank you, mr. vice chair. members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in-person should line up now. for those listening remotely, call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #.
once connected, you will need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line and for those already in the queue, please continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. that is your cue to begin your comments. can you verify if we have any callers? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> so public comment is closed. maybe we can -- before we close this item, i'd like to hear from mr. mccaffrey if that's possible. maybe we can go to item 11. >> item 11 is a resolution supplementing resolution 7-17 of the city's infrastructure and
revitalization financing distribute number 1 to authorize issuance and sale of one or more series of bonds not to exceed $30 million, approving related documents, bond purchase agreements and continuing disclosure certificates and a special fund administration agreement for approving bonds for purposes of internal revenue code, approving a debt policy for the irfd and determining other matters in connection as defined. those who wish to comment on the resolution, please call the public comment number at 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #. once connected to the meeting, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. the system prompt will indicate you've raised your hand. please wait until the system
indicates you've been unmuted. that is your cue to begin your comments. mr. vice chair? >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. we have luke brewer from the controller's office to present on these items. >> thank you. good morning. my name is luke brewer. the item before you is a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of tax increment revenue bonds for the treasure island financing district or irfd. in an amount not to exceed $30 million along with approving other matters and bonds under the internal revenue code. a map of the treasure island r.f.p. as it stands. there were five project areas at the time of formation, with the first being yerba buena which is the initial phase of development with the second project being on
treasure island. just milestones. in 2011, the disposition development agreement was signed. in 2017, this financing district, the irfd and cfd was formed with the original project areas. since then, we've collected special taxes on yerba buena and we've begun collecting implement on yerba buena island. we've issued three bond issuances and the board has adopted and amended ifp after we did a full legislative and election process. here before you, we're just considering this resolution with the plan for issuance coming in may and closing in june with the first year of tax inkrext being collected treasure island coming up fiscal year 22-23 as well as the special taxes of that cfd.
just for context of the overview of the r.f.d., the city has pledged a portion of its incremental property taxes collected on properties within the irfd which is about 56.59% of the 1%, which we refer to as net available increment. of that net available increment, 82.5% is going to reimburse the developer for infrastructure costs which we'll be issuing a series of bonds, and the 17.bonds is to provide funding for the affordable housing project. the city's remaining 8% of the 1% portion of its share of property tax is pledged to the rfd to provide additional debt service coverage, about you the funds are not -- but the funds are not pledged at this time and the funds will return to the general fund each year if not needed to cover any shortfalls.
so the plan for finance for our tax increment revenue bonds. these will be sold as nonrated. where increment is derived from property values of a small geographic area in a very early stage of development with higher concentrated taxpayer base are not likely to receive a grade rating like aaa tiffs are supported by passive revenue stream. it's not a number that the city can force the taxpayer to pay. it's based on the 1% and then the city's portion of the 1% of property value. taxpayer concentration risk is the biggest piece of the risk as the bonds are currently secured by incremental property taxes.
based on the assessed value that has occurred from land sales as well as their construction in progress on the island. the bonds are limited obligations of the city. they're paid solely from pledge of property tax collected. the bonds are not debt of the general fund and the general fund is not responsible for the payment of the debt other than the property taxes, but the bonds will bear the city and county of san francisco name. so for the structure i mentioned there will be two series of bonds. we'll have facilities bonds and housing bonds, their proportionate share of the increment being pledged to each, under separate trust indentures so that the housing bonds and facility bonds will not be cross collateralized at all. no assumptions of growth or
development. we do have projected ab for fiscal year 23 that includes construction values as of january 21-22 provided by the developer to the assessor. according to the development agreement and the conditional, will not be leveraged and act as additional coverage for bond investors. each series of bonds will fund a debt service reserve. so in the case there was decline, there would be additional funds available to cover. so our planned use of proceeds. the facilities bonds are expected to reimburse for project costs including but not limited to the geotechnical earth work that was conducted and attributable to the structure. the housing bonds are the planned source for mercy housing for affordable housing project on the island. this project received a unique source of funding from the
state, from the housing accelerator fund and so they're not using tax credits and, therefore, we are planning to issue 501 c-3 bonds under section 147 of the internal revenue code as the property will be owned by a nonprofit and we can issue the tax exempt status. the financing costs associated with the deal and formation of the r.f.d. here's sources and uses. the breakdown, you can see, we have estimated maximum final maturity of 20414. bonds coming in around $22 million. financing costs $1 million. and total debt service over the life of the financing $41.6 million with the annual debt service of $3.6 million annually as a level number we are see nothing growth so there is no
additional increase in that. and then just one reminder, we have an amendment to the resolution. it's to complete a blank of a tetra hearing date. so, resolution page 6, lines 12 and 15 completing the blank with a date of april 7th. any questions? >> supervisor safai: you did that really quickly. i want to make sure i'm clear. on page 6 -- >> lines 12 and 15. >> supervisor safai: page 6, lines 12 and 15 entering the date, april 7th into the public hearing date. so you want to make an amendment for that? okay. great. >> and i also will -- director
of tida is available for questions on the line. >> supervisor safai: good. i'd like to ask bob some questions. are you there? >> i am. >> great. so this seems pretty straightforward. what piece of the overall development cost is this financing? >> this will be reimbursing costs that have been incurred by the developer to date in developing infrastructure on the island. so, at this point new water reservoirs have been constructed on yerba buena island. new roadways have been constructed on yerba buena island and the stage one area on treasure island. and as well as the new ferry terminal, new electrical
improvement. >> are we reimbursing the developer? are they investing any money of their own that we're not reimbursing them for? >> go ahead. >> there is also the land sales from the horizontal developer to the vertical developer. horizontal costs are going covered and the rest is covered by public financing. or if the public financing is insufficient, then the -- >> supervisor safai: my question was specifically about how much money is the developer investing into infrastructure development that we're not reimbursing them for? >> i don't have an exact figure. much of their public infrastructure costs are eligible for reimbursement, but there is a question of leverage. you know, at this point the developer has invested i believe
more than $650 million into the infrastructure. and through this 3cfd issuances so far to date, i believe we've generated $70 million in public financing return. so, while many of their costs are eligible for reimbursement, there is a tremendous -- there is quite a lengthy period over which they're financing the progress of this program. >> so you're saying to date, they've invested over $650 million into infrastructure on the island? >> infrastructure and other entitlement and related costs, yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. go ahead. >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: all right. okay.
supervisor mar, any questions? no. okay, got it. can you open up for public comment? >> yes, mr. vice chair. members of the public who wish to speak on this item and are joining us in person should line up to speak now along the curtains. those listening remotely, please call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 2498 755 5308 # #. then press pound twice. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. please continue to wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comments. any callers? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. >> supervisor safai: public comment is closed.
okay. so, b.l.a. report? >> thank you. this resolution approves the issuance of the first treasure island infrastructure revitalization and financing district bond up to $30 million. as we show on apparently 20 of the report -- page 20 of the report, the bonds would be used to reimburse eligible project costs and affordable housing. we're currently reviewing the affordable housing gap financing and will report on that project at next week's committee meeting. as we show on page 21 of the report, total debt service from the $30 until million bonds, it's expected to be the -- we recommend approval. >> supervisor safai: great. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you. i just have a question about the -- just the structure of the
tax. i see that -- so it's a 1% property tax? >> yeah, so it's just the base city and county 1%. there is about 34% goes to the eraf portion school district, community college district, bart and bay area and air quality management district and the balance is the city's. and of that, only the 56.9 or so is pledged to the r.f.d. specifically for the financing of the improvement. and affordable housing. >> supervisor mar: so it's not an additional tax or a special tax. it's just -- >> correct. >> supervisor mar: i'm just trying to understand this unique financing strategy. so, if it wasn't for the r.f.d., would what would that 4.6% --
>> those would be the general fund dollars along with baselines and set asides and all of the other things. >> supervisor mar: okay thanks. >> supervisor safai: great. so let's make a motion to accept the amendments on page 6. lines 12 and 15. insert the word april 7. >> on that motion to accept the amendments to fill in the hearing dates of april 7. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: great. and then make a motion -- before we make that motion, i'd say to mr. beck on the record, i think there are a lot of questions out there about the treasure island development in general. we should follow up about the
amount of money that the developer has invested into infrastructure along with some of the upcoming conversations in the city regarding tolls and other previous agreements made along with these reimbursements that are happening. so it would be good to get an update on that. so my office will follow up with you and we're happy to get this out of the committee today. so, make a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> as amended. on that motion to forward this resolution to the full board with the positive recommendation as amended. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: great. thank you. this item is approved. thank you, mr. beck. thank you. >> thank you, chair. we'll follow up with your office. >> supervisor safai: thank you so much. and let's come back to item number 10. i which we've -- chief
nicholson, i think we also have mr. tom paulino from the mayor's office is going to speak on behalf of eddie mack kafari and the team that is in sacramento today. so the question was, and we wanted to get on to the record, there were missed opportunities last year or maybe the deadline passed and we were not able to do it and there was not necessarily a sponsor for removing the trust from this land and we need support from the land commission and wonder federal government you could update us on the confidence that the mayor's office and the legislative team has working with the chief and the fire department in real estate on this item. >> absolutely. good afternoon. i'm with the mayor's office.
messaged the work with the -- mentioned the work with the land commission. that happened at a time in the state legislative process where introducing a bill would not have been possible last year, which is why it was ready for introduction this year with assembly member ting. just earlier last month on the 21st of march, this bill passed out of the national resources committee where it was sent to the appropriations committee with we anticipate it will on the consent calendar. as far as our assessment in the confidence our city department office as well as our lobbyists are working to ensure that this non-substantive bill gets to the governor's desk by september. >> supervisor safai: great. it's my understanding also there is work done in advance of look
for the sponsor to ensure that the state lands commission staff were supportive of this, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor safai: perfect. okay. just wanted to get that on to the record so we'd have a little more confidence in this legislative process this year. it would have been nice to have both move together at the same time, but the california legislature has pretty strict deadlines when it comes to sponsoring a bill. it's good to know assemblyman ting has taken this and it's moved through the legislative process and our team along with our lobbyist is in full confidence this should move forward. i don't have any further questions. thank you for that. wanted to get that on the record. i think with that information i'm prepared to make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendations. >> on that proposal --
>> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor mar: aye. >> we have two ayes with chair ronen excused. >> supervisor safai: perfect. thank you, chief nicholson, director and mayor's office team and controller and assemblyman ting and everyone else involved. and state lands commission will hopefully approve this. the big step is finalizing the prologis transaction which would be good for us to hear back that has been finalized in may. you have one more step in front of the full board and then we'll hear that in may that is executed. other than that, i think this is a positive step for the city. thank you for all your hard work on the item. >> thank you, supervisors. we will keep you informed. >> supervisor safai: i think that item is approved. i don't believe there are any other items in front of us today? >> yes, mr. vice chair, that concludes our business. >> supervisor safai: thank you. we are adjourned.
good morning everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed. and today i'm here to talk about laguna honda hospital and i'm joined by the director of department of public health dr. grant colfax as well as the director or laguna honda michael phillips and located in supervisor melgar and we also have a representative from our speaker of the house nancy pelosi's office, her director, dan bernal. we're here to talk specifically about what we know have been challenges at laguna honda hospital. for over 150 years, this facility has been a beacon of hope. it's been a place that has cared for those who