today, we are going to be looking at mid september? >> could you talk about what impacts would be... >> we will purchase the parts at the same rate that we have been purchasing them and there are vehicles that are out of service for parts. those delays will continue to escalate and as the demand increases we may be seeing additional problems submitting service, and those are what we are currently working with and we will do our best to continue to provide timely parts and service. and i would like to see that this contract moving forward as quickly as possible. >> okay. i think that from the opinion here and i think that i would like to see it go to tuesday to see if we can accomplish what we need to accomplish in six days, that is my opinion, supervisor mar? >> i still have a lot of questions. the controller's office coming back on whether it is whether

prop j is really important to me. and i realize that three-month delay for accessing parts, and critical equipment is really unacceptable. and i'm very sensitive to the mta's needs, but i feel like the loss of potential jobs and whether the work is going to be transferred in a fair way and whether there is that kind of controls built into the contract as mentioned by mr. easton is really important to me as well. and so i am not prepared to forward this today as well. given the number of questions that i still have as well. >> okay. thank you, supervisor mar. >> and again from my perspective, i agree with all of the concerns, i am sensitive too, i have too many comments from constituents all of the time about the buses breaking down and it happens on a routine basis and it effects us in the papers and all over the city and i would rather see us try to get this resolved in six

days. >> just a question on the prop j, is that something that if we were to move to the full board, whether that would be enough time to kind of determine whether that should be triggered or not? >> to the chair, to the committee members, it really depends on the complexity and the type of work that is being proposed. this generally two ways to contract for services, and one is through the prop j process when it is clear that city employees have been performing a certain work and is being proposed to being transferred to a contract agency and the other is if the work is different than what is currently provided by the city employees, and is being proposed to be done by a contractor, then that question goes to the civil service commission to determine whether or not the employees are cap able of doing the work.

and so, the department did go to the civil service commission and i don't know if that discussion or what points were raised or what points were made and so we need to look at that information and do some fact-finding and conduct with the city attorney. over the course of the years, we have had questions from the departments as to whether something is prop j or not, and we tend to go conservative in terms of our interpretation, if it appears or certainly if there are questions by the union and so on. so we would also want to discuss their concerns with the union. >> and... >> we can give it a try and see if we can come up with an agreed upon determination and provide to the board and then you could choose to either send it back to the committee, or you could choose to act on the item before you on tuesday. >> okay. i think that would be okay. >> supervisor, colleagues i will leave it up to you >> before we allow

recommendation and pending information from the controller and the city attorney, and also, would like to hear from you know, something more definitive from the local 21 about what they would like to see on this as well and the concerns and i think that it is a broader question as well as to how often do we have vendor contracts like this? that perhaps could be circumventing our standards that we have in place? i think that i have heard of that and i am not sure how widespread it is. but we should be trying to prevent the proliferation of the contracts if they are structured that way that are actually circumventing and allowing the manufacturers to provide to the city that don't meet our standard. >> we have the motion to move it to the full board without recommendation and we will work with the controller's office. i think that it is clear that the burden is on you guys and your team to get the board

comfortable about the questions. >> would you like to accept a recommendation. >> thank you, mr. clerk. first of all, mr. rose has make a number of recommendations could we take those without oppositions. so approved. >> we can move that to the full board without recommendation. >> without opposition, so moved. >> thank you, colleagues, item number 24. >> 24. [accept and expend grant - legal educational advocacy program - $229,803] 24. 130496 sponsor: campos resolution authorizing the public defender's office to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $229,803 from the board of state and community corrections for the purposes of implementing a legal educational advocacy program at the public defender's office for the period of january 1, 2013, through december 3 res >> okay. thank you. and we have the public defender's office to speak on this item. >> good afternoon, supervisor avalos. farrell and mar. i am patty lee, the managing attorney for the juvenile unit and this is the second round of funding for our leap grant. and it has been a very, very

successful venture. i know that many of you are interested in improving the educational out comes of youth in the juvenile justice system. and today i want to introduce part of the team and i have lauren here who is our education expert and mark from cjcj, part of our leap grant and case manager for our youth and the juvenile justice system and i want to introduce them through the voice of our youth and family and our stake holders. and one of the youth had mentioned in our evaluation that lauren knows how to talk to the judge and brings out the best of me to the judge. and not in the way that i know how to do. and the parents have responded in the survey, and i feel that i am able to speak with lauren and express my concerns, she is genuinely caring for the child in need, she is not just doing

her job. she truly cares. and then for mark babus who is out and about in town, you might see him, riding his ten-speed bicycle in his shorts to all of the neighborhoods in the san francisco including the bay view and sunny dale and everywhere else. and our stake holders have stated mark's present nearly every day at the agency makes a difference, he brings the youth in and stands right by them as they work through the steps they need to take and it can be a very overwhelming process. and having the physical support of someone there can make or break the success of the youth, and in this program, has just been incredibly successful. and i believe that you may be aware of it but i have a brochure which i would like to hand to you and we have it available to all of our youth who might be at risk. and so lauren has pretty

incredible statistics that she would like to provide to you this afternoon. it is a no-brainer, if you keep the youth in school, they are not going to be in the juvenile justice system. lauren? >> good afternoon, members of the board. i just wanted to give a quick review of the numbers for the services that we provided in last year's service the funding that you will be approving will be the second year of the grant but we are on track to have the similar numbers if not the greater numbers this year, last year we served 121 individual clients all students in sfusd who are involved in the juvenile justice system. and we participated in 277 court appearances between mr. babus and myself and attended 62 individualized meetings at different schools throughout the city and we have clients at every middle school and every high school? the city as well as the number of charters and alternative

programs. we conducted 350 school visits visiting students and other clients and members of the different school staffs of which he actually did 298 of those visits all on his own in the last 12 months. we have also conducted a number of trainings on educational advocacy for the youth involved in the juvenile justice system and there were 18 of those trainings throughout the city in the 2012 year. and i am happy to answer any other questions if you have them. thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? >> comments? >> okay. thank you, for being here. thank you for presentation. we don't have reports so we will open it up to public comment. if anybody wish to comment on 24. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues could we move this item forward with recommendation without opposition? >> before we ask, i just wanted to thank you, i think that the program is a critical part of reinstructive justice type of

approach to young people and redemption and also giving especially lower income children and youth the best opportunities in life. but i just wanted to applaud the effort and to reach out and go into every neighborhood especially those that need it, and i think with the former peer courts program and many of the other programs it is critical that we support even more fully programs like yours but thank you for the great work and i would be love to be added as a co-sponsor to this as well. >> okay, and so could we move forward with the recommendation of the full board? >> do so without opposition? >> mr. clerk, could you call item 25? >>resolution authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $616,534 from the california coastal conservancy for the restoration of the copra crane and removal of pile supported wharf at pier 84 on islais creek for a period of august 1, 2013, through

august 1, 2014. >> >> thank you supervisors. whitney bearry with the port of san francisco. and i am here to present to you the item before you to accept and expend a grant from $616,534 and the item will be used to reif her it to the creek and the removal of the warf at pier 84. the project manager, and myself are both here to answer any questions. >> thanks. colleagues, any questions on this item? >> okay. much appreciated we will open it up to public comment, on 25, are we sure, 25. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, could we move this item forward without opposition. so moved. >> mr. clerk, could you call

item number 26? >>resolution authorizing a five-year lease of approximately 11,000 square feet at 1740 cesar chavez street from potrero investor i, llc and potrero investor ii, llc, for the department of human resources at the monthly cost of $21,450 for the period of september 15, 2013, through september 15, 2018. >> okay, thank you very much. and mr. updike, thanks for sticking around. >> director of real estate and this is in the lease of 11,000 square feet of first floor space. and that is just west of the 280, on the north side of cesar-chavez. and it was built in 1986 and the city has leased this space in this lease space in the center since 2008. and it meets the department of human resources test and training needs. and our 2008 lease expires in

about two months. and it does have a renewal option for another five-year term. and in lieu of pursuing that ownership asked us to reconsider relocating from the second floor down to the first floor space, it would be an improved layout but it would comprise in the location of an expansion, and additional 3320 space. we did not want to pursue this move unless given the fiscal i am fact, unless the ownership made it worth our while and in our opinion they did. we asked them to do so in providing a robust tenant improvement package, with $575,000. so, all of the improvements will be made at ownership's expense in this new space giving us a fresh, clean and far better space than what we are in today from a functionality. it allows us to host multiple

events at the same time which the existing space layout which was a choral group space surrounded by offices. we are going to be looking at a different space, i want to show that to you now on the overhead. >> it creates better separation from the large assembly testing space from the top of the page and then we have the break out, and interview space separate. and so, this allows us to do multiple things at the same time. and so while we may not necessarily see additional days of use, although that is a possibility. we think that the functionality is really critical that the extra 3,000 square feet brings and we talked briefly about the rate and i am going to ask, director calahan to address you as well. and i just want to give you a sense of the market and expand that out a little bit. the closest comparable here in

terms of submarket is patrora hill and i just want to show this not just for this lease but all of the leases that you have seen and the warning of the leases that you will see come in the fall. this is a sense of what the market is doing right now. this is from cvre and this is the q2, 2013 report and you can see the troph which is in the lighter shading to the left, and those rates, in first quarter of 2010, in the hill and we are looking at just over $25 a square foot per year, per space. and moving through to the middle of 2012, that rate jumped average asking to almost 40 dollars. today, we are in the high 40s. and you can see in other submarkets we are getting to some pretty pricey space in the $60 per square foot and that just a sense of how fast this market is moving and the trajectory of it in the last 24 to 36 months. >> the good news is that what

we have before you today is a rate that is $22.40 a square foot and so compare that to that chart and that is lower than the troph rate for the market. and that is a jump on a per square foot basis on what we saw in 2008 but what we negotiated was a five year fixed rate and so whenever we do that, and when i come before you for a renewal or a new lease it looks like a large jump in prays that is because it has been flat for five years. we think that this is reflective of market and beats the market. >> i would like to have director calahan come up and happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. >> thanks for stick sticking around. >> thank you. >> and thank you, supervisors. i would want to just comment a little bit on the utility of the space because i think that in all of the important discussion of the square footage, use, etc., and the

price, we may miss some of the bigger picture. we intend to use this space, this expanded space as part of the continual testing model for police and fire that i discussed with you before. it is well located for the testing events that increase the access to the community for testing. by this the configuration of the space allows us to have promotional exams, interviews without concurrently with having large assembled exams we do those by video and we have oral interview and it allows for more usage of the same time. and we bring in experts from around the country and we insure people that are unfamiliar with the local candidate population. so that we can insure there is no certain about the discrimination and favoritism and that. and etc.. and so we need to have it, you know, interviews, private interview rooms, for the

testing process. for promotions. and the other option would be to use lease hotel space, which we did in the past before we had the center in which we occasionally have to do, as difficult as you know to get hotel space that is 12 wcompliant and that is a big challenge for us and with this expanded space we will be able to engage the testing for the police and fire and entry level testing and reduce the usage of the outside facilities. i noted too that the director advices me that we have commitments to use the space and we are filling it up almost all of the time. and the space that we have already, we are at capacity. and this will give us new, ability to complete our testing and let other departments use it for other reasons as well, which saves them money and they don't have to go inside of the city as well. so that is a little bit of the overview, and i am happy to

answer any questions. >> and respectfully, we believe that while we are slightly at variance of the finding of the budget analyst, that this is actually the right thing to do and they are supportive of our compliance with the civil service and the equal employment opportunity in the city >> thank you, any questions? >> could we go to your report then for item 26? >> yes, mr. chairman. members of the committee. we will start off by stating that we are not questioning the fair market value the good deal that the director of real estate has negotiated in any way shape or form, or that this may or is improved and better space, that is not our question

at all. on page 74 of the report we point out that the first year rent of 257,400 for the first floor, is an increase of $134,827 or 110 percent, that is compared to the current of 122,523 on the second floor where it is now. this increase is due to a 47 percent increase in the rent per square foot as shown in table two and that is on page 74 of our report. and based on fair market value and an increase of 33,320 square feet that is a 43 increase in square footage. on page 75, of our report, we

state that while dhr is showing that the increased floor space would allow more testing capacity, dhr does not have specific information on, current delays and testing and service eligibility lists due to insufficient space on the second floor or have test and generation of civil service list will be increased due to the increase space on the third floor. >> in fact, we request of the department and we were very desirous of recommending approval of this item and we requested the department to provide us with the documentation which we felt was needed for the board of supervisors to have a good or to have good documentation to approve this and we were never provided with the information that we requested. so, we state that because on the bottom of page 75, because we propose we increase the city

costs by $77,688 in the first year of the lease and $414,336 over the five-year term of the lease, this is in comparison if they stayed on the second floor without sufficient information, on how the generation of civil service eligibility lists, excuse me, on how the increased space under the proposing lease would contribute, to increased testing and generation of civil service eligibility lists we do not recommend approval of the 5-year lease of the first floor as an alternative to the board of supervisors should request that it is our recommendation that the board of supervisors request the director of real estate to enter into the negotiations with the landlord to exercise the available option to extend the existing lease of the second floor of the facility. and i would also point out mr. chairman and members of the committee, that the department still has in fact you approved

in this budget, hotel space for the departments they still rent space for hotels, and they still bring in specialists and that is a cost, which incidentally we recommended approval to this budget and finance committee for that additional cost to run hotels and to bring in the specialists. and we have not been provided with any documentation that other departments would, or the department that we have indicated that the other departments might use this space. we have not been provided with any documentation on that point whatsoever. so our recommendation as i say is to disapprove for the reasons that i stated. >> supervisor avalos? >> mr., rose i am just wondering what would satisfy you in terms of information? that the dhr could provide to show you that they will be using the space for additional testing? what did you request from dhr that you did not receive? and is there any way that you would be satisfied with...

>> we wanted me tricks and documentation that there will be increased examinations, number of examinations. that is basically the documentation. and they are stating that this is going to result in as you know, the departments are complaining all of the time that it is difficult to fill the positions. and it takes a lot of time and the dhr is saying that with this space, they can fulfill that or that need and there will be more exams given but we were provided with no documentation to document that. >> and then, you ask the dhr for that documentation and that is something that you were aware that is not being provided and is there data that can be transferred to satisfy it. >> well, we are not aware that we would fail to answer any questions and so there seems to be any confusion and so the

deputy director of finances has just given me the copies of an e-mail with miss campbell who was assigned to this project and this is on thursday, the 18th and he says, we spent $30,000 in october, and november of 2012 for testing rooms at a city hotel for the h40 chief exam and we are spending about $30,000 a year just on hotel rooms for exam administration, this is for interviews and that is independent of the need of putting up the people who are traveling to participate in the exams. >> this space would... the need to use a hotel room but you are still the budget authority to rent them for testing. >> we have to have the hotel rooms, we can't make the people sleep in the interview rooms, so we bring in the people. >> so you have hotel rooms and you have testing rooms in the hotels as well. >> but they are not sufficient, we have to rent, it is really

auful but we have in the past rented bedrooms to interview people in in a hotel. we need a lot of little rooms and they typically don't have the kind of meeting space that we need. and we would use a hotel room, which is not optimum, but i am sorry that the budget analyst does not feel that we have answered questions, we will answer any questions. >> is there any way that the dhr could break out from what use of hotel rooms is used for people to stay in when they are visiting and what is for actual testing, is there a difference one one in the sao*im same. >> the money that we provided and the $30,000 was for testing rooms no. for accommodations. and that is what we have been studying annually for just the fire promotional. and we also, and i think that this perhaps, we did not do a good job explaining our need for it. but, we really want to be able

to have our continuous testing and police and fire on a regular basis, and where we could get the groups together, of people from the community, and come to this location, to do our or to participate in the continue of assessing, if we don't have the facility to do it there, then people have to go to san jose or some other location to do it. so, the other and another just point that we provided to the budget analyst is that we have additional computers to use because we got them from the virtual warehouse from child support services. but we don't have a place to set them up right now with the additional space. >> and so i would be very happy to if we had a specific, you know, what the specific questions are, and we want to answer them and i was not aware until yesterday that there were any unanswered question or a belief of an unanswered question, we think that this makes economic sense and good policy sense and so we would ask for your assistance in this.

>> so, one last question, if we were going to be able, and they were going to approve additional space for testing, at this site, would we see the budget for renting hotel space come down? >> i mean,... >> yes. >> i mean... >> is that the fiscal year. >> i would say that, let's see, our director of public safety testing is here, but dave, we would completely eliminate any need of a testing space in a hotel? >> the cost savings? >> supervisors, dave johnson manager of the public safety team. we have one rank in each of the police and fire and sheriff where in the size of the applicant pool would even exceed a new space. and although, there are one exam in each department that we give approximately every four years where in we will likely have to rent the hotel space to

do testing. the other exams there are two exams in each department where in the current space does not accommodate our needs, but moving down to the first floor would. so we anticipate immediately, 30,000 a year of not spending on hotels, because we don't need those testing rooms. >> thank you. >> yes, supervisor, avalos, to the chair, for the budget analyst office. i do want to say that the department and the human resource and mr. updike had lengthy conversations with me and so it was not like there was not a lot of discussion. i think that the two concerns and one is this $30,000 in hotel space, the final e-mail i got was that there would be no savings in terms of that $30,000 a year. and there was an e-mail after the one that was just referenced and i just think that would have made a difference if we felt there were some other cost savings that would have been incurred by the space. i think that the other things

is that a number and i know that a lot of the discussion was about recruitment for fire and police and exams for those recruitments. and the promotional exams. my understanding was there was going to be two promotional exams in the coming year and maybe 19 over the following four years. and it did not seem like a very large number for us to justify the space. so some of it was simply how we looked at the numbers and there needs to be clarification because i did receive an e-mail saying that there would be no savings in terms of that $35,000, that they are currently using. >> with permission, i don't know, perhaps, that was miscommunicated. i don't know, i don't have that e-mail here. we believe that there is savings, dave has described those savings and they will add significantly reduce our reliance on hotel rooms for testing for those exams and i would note that we have a mm