cash transaction has appeared yesterday in the budget under the general services agency. so, in negotiating this transaction we extended the closing date as long as we could, beyond the range allowed for, technically, the purchase option and a price reduction for the amount that should be followed for an additional savings of $323,044. it compared this purchase to the leasing of property 331 for the same purpose, considering the potential costs of operation, finding the purchase approach with a 11% savings over that time. let me be clear, this item solely seeks authority to acquire. it does not commit the city to place ocme in to the property for super-review or funding

source secure all. although the measure is subject to that design and other findings, should the city choose not to place in this facility, the purchase provides us with a greater our right of options that we have today. holding a lease that does not expire until 2017 and no immediate user. through ownership we create opportunities for direct leasing or direct use by city entities. failing those options, we can also dispose of this asset, given the competitive purchase price and the market's recovery since the appraisal that was almost 1.5 years old, we should be financially whole on the sale, retaining future option should be used not come to pass. the current circumstance of us

having a long-term lease and a vacant asset is a rare. i know it has caused some concern. we have revealed records to see how where this was. we have seen no similar incidents of these improvements that are vacant. that is not the driver of this recommendation. it meets the needs of ocme at the right time to potentially package this for the future. that is why we are here today. i am joined by dr. amy heart, our chief medical examiner. we are happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you. doctor, is there anything you would add to this presentation?

>> thank you for asking for my comments regarding this. we have been working with the capital planning committee and the people in the real-estate division for many years, trying to find an adequate location. at this time i think that a location that meets all of the needs of the medical examiner's office and fits in with the city's plan has been found. i am in agreement with mr. updike regarding this presentation. i see the purchase of this facility as a good faith from the medical examiner's office in the future, meeting needs for accreditation. supervisor chu: i was curious. does accreditation, up at the end of 2012? >> correct. supervisor kim: if we move

forward with this proposal, you will not be able to move in until 2016. what are your thoughts on the impact on your accreditation? does this impact your ability to get accreditation? >> i see it as a positive impact. i say that because the people that come to do these sections are also people who are in the medical examiner's field and have to deal with issues regarding capital needs for their facilities. so, they have an understanding that the process will take time. it is something we have been working on at the medical examiner's office for over 10 years. i believe that the purchase in the building will show a good- faith effort on the part of this city to move in a good-faith

direction, usually sufficient for an inspector to see that we are actively working to remedy the deficiencies they have identified. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: mr. rose? >> madam share, on page 6 of the report would point out that the total cost to purchase the facility, as shown in table one on page 6 of the report, that amount does not include the total cost for needed capital improvements. as shown in the second table on page 6, the total capital improvements are currently estimated to range between 25,000 -- [unintelligible] on page 7 of the report, as shown on table 3, the total

estimated cost of purchasing an occupying the facility, including acquisition costs, capital improvements, and other costs, would range between $40,000,000.50 $0.2 million. -- $40 million why and $50.2 million. we have compared leasing this facility with purchasing this facility. it would cost about 5,325,000 more, or about 99.1% more to lease, rather than purchasing. of course, capital purchasing would need to be constructive whether it was a lease for a purchase if this building could use the location for the medical examiner.

currently we are considering approval of this resolution for the supervisor and i will be happy to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. do any members of the public wish to speak on item number two? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. dr. carr. perhaps you covered this earlier. as the accreditation of the examiner's office ever been a concern bell or in jeopardy? >> it has been continuous, to my understanding, for over 20 years. it is only reason seat -- recently, during the last accreditation, that we had the 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