issue regarding the facility and were told that if we did not seek a suitable replacement, we would lose accreditation. supervisor mirkarimi: how does a warning like that come to be? does that, in a visit by the state or national authorities? is it a three month warning? of one year morning? describe what it looks like. >> the actual inspection is a plan to inspection by the national association of medical examiner inspector. it is a rather extensive process. the physical plant is only one part of it. at the end of the inspection they write a written report, which is provided to the jurisdiction, a summary of their findings. the main deficiency that was found for our office in the

last inspection was the physical plant. at that time we were still able to secure full accreditation, which lasted for five years. it will be ending in 2012. i am scheduled to undergo another inspection at that time. does that answer your question? >> in part. we held a hearing in public safety about two years ago, when the implosion of the drug crime lab happened. we had even stay theory that perhaps these laboratories should be independent and put under the city administrator, much like the medical examiner. testimony back then, in our trying to understand the fit, the question of fit, of putting the crime lab together with the medical examiner, at no time did that testimony bring questions

of accreditation problems with the medical examiner. i am curious, with that have shifted in the last two years of them love or should we now believe that there is a problem with accreditation? -- two years of them up or should we believe that there is a problem with -- two years? or should we believe that there is no problem with accreditation? >> we were told that we need to put together a plan for the improvement corp. -- of the physical space we were in in order to maintain accreditation. supervisor mirkarimi: i must have missed that, two years ago. it was not mentioned at the end of 2012 that there may be some question over accreditation being jeopardized if there was not a physical move from the

current facility. that is what is being proposed today, correct? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: on the deficiencies side, can you describe, is it a question of being able to accommodate the need for, what is it, an additional body count that is being examined? or is it the forensic facilities? what is it, exactly, that is deficient? >> the overall efficiency of the building is that we have outgrown the facility. not only the technological advances that have happened since the building was established, things that we can not accommodate, but also the service needs of the department. especially including the forensic toxicology laboratory,

whose services have expanded manyfold over the original purpose of that laboratory. these combined things have made it so that this current facility we are in is not only to small and worn out, but it lacks the ability for us to meet the needs of the department. supervisor mirkarimi: is there an average per month or purge your account of the deceased the bodies that, again for examination? is that number growing? >> id is not growing. it generally follows the population base of the jurisdiction. because the san francisco population base has remained stable, the number of deceased individuals coming through the office has not changed.

the way that we are expected to examine these individuals and the technologies that we need to have in order to support the medical and legal component of what we do, those things have changed. supervisor mirkarimi: so, to have two sizes the times -- two times the size of the current facility without the body count changing relative to the proportion of the citizens of san francisco, i am trying to understand that better. thank you. >> a perfectly reasonable question. it is a flat rate and we are playing catch-up. this was a study in which we looked at the name that the accrediting organization had set about the space. we also did a little bit of benchmarking.

san diego, los angeles, and sacramento county. we looked at the number of deaths in the population as reported, except the deaths in each population. benchmarks in those facilities, comparing the size of the facilities with the size of the facilities there. we found that with more projection of growth, we were under-sized in comparison. it really is a case of playing catch-up. not necessarily the case of anticipating future growth. if there is future growth, clearly deficiency clearly grows. this is an opportunity to address slight increases over time, based on simple population projections, and the rates of death for population. there is some population in the county. >> perhaps you and the doctor

can speak to this. -- supervisor mirkarimi: perhaps you and the doctor can speak to this. when we heard the hearing on the implosion of the police fought -- crime lab, we brought out a study by the national academy of sciences. they insisted that there would be a move through an independent crime lab structure. does the math -- national academy of sciences weigh in on this? >> yes, it does. but they make the same recommendation that they do for crime labs. in this jurisdiction, we are already more -- already moving the report's recommendations. we are just trying to maintain what we already have.

supervisor mirkarimi: this is the carry over. the carryover from this discussion has been, and i remember this vividly, great resistance, law-enforcement side that said not to move the independence. that the medical examiner is quoting the national academy of sciences. i do not know how you bifurcate that thinking. i do not understand. personally, i think that if we are to make this kind of investment, it would have been the perfect move for us to move the crime lab under the rubric of what the national academy of sciences suggested that san francisco should do, in a larger building so that we would be able to start afresh. i think that that would have been the better move. i would have been very happy to see that the day. including the discussion about the crime lab moving in a new

direction as well. i know that my colleague has some other questions. i will think about some other things. ops supervisor mirkarimi: -- other things. supervisor chu: there has been a desire to take a look at all of justice. certainly, there have been a number of deficiencies in that building for quite some time. housing a number of city departments, including the medical examiner. what happens to the tenants in that building? that has been a long conversation and has been part of the planning process, moving from that location so that we can work on repairing and fixing that site. could you speak a bit about the context and background? i think that part of this is a

space or accreditation issue. the medical examiner, separate from hall of justice issued. second, we do have the hall of justice issued, moving from that location. can you speak on that? >> happy to. in the program concept, moving folks out of that facility to permit reconstruction on site of a new criminal justice facility, that will take many years and many different funding sources tackling these individual items. this is one of them. the office of the chief medical examiner. one of the larger elements is police administration. with approval in 2010 and a portion of that going into the public safety building, it moves us into the new facility out of

the hall of justice in 2014, first quarter. those are two major elements. another major element is the jail itself. having to replace the jail, the hall of justice is unfortunately situated where the jail is on top of the building. one of the key elements is finding a replacement facility, so that we can begin the construction of that site. an element that we still have construction on. one item in the approved capital plan is to look at property solutions with additional in sequential design processes ahead. leading us to a new hall of justice. we are coordinating with the superior court as well. obviously they have an interest in moving forward with this.

where they are not suffering the degree of cuts that the other side is having. they also have a desire to see a new facility have been in relatively short order. supervisor chu: 4 perspective, the hall of justice has often been one of the top capital needs as identified by the hall of planning. a building with significance in challenges to it. we have a public facility where we are asking people to come into that building time and again. a building that the public really does utilize. in addition to that, we do have a significant inmate population on that site. i understand that it has prioritized by hall of justice at the top of the list for those reasons. >> the seismic issue is certainly a great concern.

that is the sense of urgency in moving us to a new facility. supervisor chu: currently we have an existing lease with the new site. in terms of the option to purchase, is there a time line for that? does it have to be acted upon by eight articular time line? >> we tried to bring this into fiscal year 2012 and passed september 1. meaning we would have to negotiate with the owner to pursue a purchase and guarantee the pricing and terms of condition. subject to mutual discussion and agreement. by now we have a contractual right that is executed awaiting board approval for a closing of escrow at a price that is certain.

supervisor chu: regarding the site for the medical examiner, the first is the urgency in dealing with the hall of justice and finding locations appropriate for city functions. second is the accreditation issue. do we have any other means for sites for the medical examiner at this point? as i think about this, we have the option to exercise this purchase. are there other options on the table? >> the other options that met the need physically have been repurchased or released, were sold for other uses. so, right now there is nothing on the table as a viable plan be site available for purchase or lease, meeting sizing requirements. of course, we are always looking at options in the marketplace, but we have nothing articular

established. we have vetted a number of sites, but none of them came to this point where everything came together. pricing, timing, availability, willingness of the owner to work with us. this has all of those factors. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: what is the number of the property that the city owns currently? >> each year, the apartments are required by ordinance to report to the director property as they are either under-utilized or declared surplus. again, this is a self-reporting process. there are about two dozen

surplus properties. the majority of those are strips of rights of way under the public works jurisdiction. a few of them are under the housing of office jurisdiction ordinances' from the mid-2000's. some of which are moving forward with either development for sale purposes. others are coming back to the granting department, as they did not look feasible. supervisor chu: how much property do we own? >> enterprise apartments are not required to record surplus property. i cannot speak to that. we do assist, as the real-estate arm of the city, with the puc we have disposed of many assets. recently we have provided funding for the 525 gates project.

supervisor chu: what about the properties that may sit within the square footage of what you need? >> always look at what the city owns first. especially nothing that the criteria before us today. supervisor chu: what about the two properties provided, over the number of square feet that she might need? 191 portola, can you talk about why you rejected that? for the sake of me understanding the process? and the diligence of that went into this? when we have to look into purchasing more property, especially. >> these larger sites always get our attention in a site search.

those the two particularly mentioned are really under the radar of the park department for potential jurisdictional transfer. so, we are having active discussions with public works about that. driven by neighborhood concerns, they are primarily residential in nature and provide an open space feel as undeveloped, vacant land. some of them are ideal for community gardens. others simply maintain open space. the rec and park department is being responsible to neighborhood concerns. these are not development opportunities. these are life was i-industrial opportunity in a laboratory facility. hoppsupervisor chu: these are al they can facilities?

>> yes. with the exception of onondaga, which is a converted residents used as an office and self-help for the elderly. those are the only improved properties that we have on the surplus list. supervisor chu: we had nothing else that was an interesting, warehouse-type building on the property? the process of renovating this is an incredible amount of money. i am just surprised that the city does not own anything that could not be converted after $45 million. >> i get comments from people in the community every day to that extent. it is nice to be able to say that we are thoroughly using everything that we own, with the exception of these you, so it is good to have what the taxpayers are looking for. on the other hand it means that

where we have a need, the inventory is there. we need to go out and find something else, unfortunately. supervisor chu: this is a different kind of line of discussion. can you talk about the process and actually committing to this first lease? i was not here in 2006, but it seems like a rather lonely east for a building that we were leasing for the first time. i know that we have a relationship that is traditionally the second or the third in use. but they have come to be longer. we know that that space works for us. there was arbitration work that was overturned. we have to have known that this was a possibility. why such a long-term lease? >> unfortunately, i cannot

personally speak to this. i was not here for those discussions are either. my understanding of the tenor of those discussions was that long term commitment was important to the parties involved in this issue regarding the laundry workers. i think that the board was trying to be responsive to that in terms of having five years with options. you are right, this is a bit out of the realm of 10-years. supervisor kim: regarding the potential source of sons of -- source of funds for the site, if the measure does not pass? please talk a little bit about the plan b process. >> there is plan b and c. we have the need to address this

with the office of the chief medical examiner. if the funding opportunity does not reveal itself, we would probably look at other opportunities first. if there is not capacity within the city's budget to solve this problem, we will have to try to solve it in a different way. after that we will look that repurchasing this asset. once we have ownership, we are confident that we are getting in at a base price that is competitive. so, financial risk to the city is minimized. i am not trying to say that there is not a risk, but it must be repurchased for city use, or disposed of. >> what happens to the medical examiner's office? upo>> we restart the search.

that is what we do all the time. supervisor mirkarimi: if i may make a suggestion, and i am not sure if you have space under article four, i know that in conversations with the mayor it has been important for him to find incubator space here in this city. i know that he has been talking about finding spaces that are affordable. i do not know if that has been considered. i know that four years is not an incredible amount of time, but it is an incredible amount of incubator space to have time for companies to get started here. i know that in the long term, he is interested in permanently helping manufacturing. just something that i thought of. i am not sure if that action was explored. >> we can certainly look at those options.

supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: we have taken public comment? this item is before the committee. for me, just understanding a couple of things. given that the budget and a less rigid budget analysts -- given that the budget analyst chose to relocate the cme to that location and that we have accreditation that is a longstanding issue, perhaps having to move tenants from hall of justice, knowing that the contractual rights will expire on september 1, when we go on recess in the month of august, i would be interested in moving

this forward to act on it. colleagues? supervisor kim has made a motion to move it forward without recommendation. thoughts? supervisor mirkarimi: i am on the line on this. i am looking at the request be submitted to one-and-a-half years ago. i have to say that i am fixated on this idea that when we had that major setback with our crime lab, the national academy of sciences had, i thought, a very helpful guide before us. i thought that that would give us a new lease on looking forward to how san francisco can even sell its police forensics lab -- evince its police

forensics lab. something that the met -- national academy of sciences is trying to abide by, you are making this move, which i think would have been, in terms of the capital infrastructure, moving to a whole new facility would have been a perfect opportunity to move the crime lab. i am torn, because i absolutely see the need for this to happen, given the dilapidated state of the hall of justice and everything that is occurring. that made itself evident. but to do this right, i think we could have seized upon the opportunity to do something more brand. i will go ahead and move this with the recommendation and reservation. supervisor chu: we do have the motion to send it forward with a recommendation.

i would imagine that the department can follow up with the supervisor to provide information on that relevant point, how we colocate facilities or integrate them. i would hope that that conversation would happen between the department and the supervisor's office. we have the recommendation to put that forward to the full board without objection. next item, please. >> item #3. resolution approving the fourth amendment to the agreement with serco, inc. to replace, upgrade and add parking meters; conduct an education campaign and expand the pilot testing of new residential parking management strategies in support of the sfpark pilot project, and to increase the contract not-to- exceed amount by $22,000,000 utilizing a loan from the metropolitan transportation commission for a total not-to- exceed amount of $44,080,000. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am relieved to be before you on this first non-controversial mca contract in a long time. as you know, we have been working very hard at implementing the programs are in august of 2011. also in supporting the program they have given us a $22 million loan to expand the project. what is before you is an amendment to the contract that allows us to spend the loan, providing infrastructure for the project. seeking your approval on the proposed recommendations, i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. >> madam chairman, on the committee -- madam chairman, members of the committee, the first payment repayment of this loan has been made. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to send forward with recommendations. >> without objection. supervisor chu: before we call item no. 4, i meant to think of -- thank mr. young. your work yesterday on the budget, you were very important ak