the 75 to percent of the units only 20 percent have 3 bedroom unit we're not providing the multiple units for children and they're getting by using both units that's not a family home and trying to use the other bedroom as a bedroom at the time not really the way you want to live. and realistically i'm not going to try to suggest what the project sponsors are going to do comba but if not allowed to have the merger they'll continue to use both unit this is not going to be affordable rentals if one is ever sold one b will buy is and sell the two units above

what the sellers were able to make because one of the premiums is single units that are vacant and you know people will buy them single people that can only use a single-space but not a two family homes their good small this was originally a two family home breakdown in 189572 into two units they satisfy the first two its owner occupied nobody it being displace placed and intended for fore owner occupied and staff is correct they're adding now up to 3 bedrooms somehow they had it wrong and

the density in the area tlarts there's a variety but single families was stated 25 percent and the remaining 75 percent are split within the apartment buildings further done down and some that have two bedrooms so a case could go made tyler certainly within the allowed density and probably a lot of the units in the area with single families i'm supportive of the merger and not take dr and, in fact, i'm going to move not to take dr and approve the project and i'd like agree you ail recognize i'm sure you're aware of you've watched them before we don't want to lose unites and have a disposition

not allowed unit to be merged this is different. one you're going to go back to the uses of the single-family homes and this is a mankind 16 hundred science naturally affordable home it's a unique thing to see that we've not seen that usually i'm supportive and commissioner moore. ms. lindsey i assume you've given us the correct interpretation of the mayor derivative. i believe you did to that pits us in a walked situation the unit 16 hundred square feet are in the range of what he want to

protect we've heard seen a family standing in front of united states with who small unit and asked us that's fine you can't live will live in a 22 hundred square feet but everyone worked that out but with a child we're supposed to support family heirs i feel backing between a rock and hard place i've supportive of the mayors directive we'll asked how to with work the directive and in this case and i and i'm looking for help from commissioner president wu there is the emotional side of obviously wanting to supportive them but the directive is really a clear

hindering block to make a decision to go outside the directive to support n this family i want to spell that out that's the reality. commissioner fong >> i surely agree with a fine balance while the the hot topic but try to keep families in san francisco and to me in this particular case this super soedz they're not changing the continues but i absolutely see your point and agree with you while we come across hairs but i'm going to take a position and defend the small family and keeping them in san francisco in this case. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would agree with commissioner moore we're between a rock and hard place i think at

mayor and other policymakers wanted to say no mergers we should say no mergers we should pass that as kind of in the planning code by we've approved some you know it's kind of things presented themselves this case is different we're getting 4 thousand square feet homes and this arising to the expectation that's why i'm supportive. the conversation as laid down out the challenge for me there is clearly a family that appears to be well meaning it's a modest house not to use others to get their single-family home they've bought in 2007 the downturn of the market the housing crisis we

weren't talking about that in that way but in the situation we're in now if anyone wants to watch this tape i want to discourage this as a way for people to buy property to accommodate their single-family homes >> yeah. in terms of dealing with the mayors directive there's discretion, you know, housing for families of low income levels and families of requirements for different sizes depending on the number of children there are situation we as a commission are allowed to have discretion as most of the commissioner have pointed out we have to use your discretion in a sensitive way and realize this is not a case of a developer who is trying to sell this as a

profit and receiving if they had to sell this place and try to buy something comparable they're going to pay a lot more when they first bought this and it may not be economically feasible to do that because it above the $1 million if we had to buy something in the inner richmond i'm supportive. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to add one other thought to what commissioner president wu said together with the residential design team and his group take the discussion forward as to whether or not having you have a small size unit recycle this one that at least to recommend or consider a merger is something different when you have two 16 hundred

square feet units and all of a sudden you say i'm going to expand this for my family. there's wisdom and this is still a small house it's sizeable but still small i want to take the thought in memory further to reflect on what is in the permissible range to support a merger no right in order to prevent encouraging others to do the same we don't want the mayors directive might be fine tuned but i want you to take this further because you realize where we are >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, i think to continue on commissioner president wu's thought.

i don't think this commission has ever taken an action and considered it to be a precedent. i think we consider everything on its merits we have all the examples of the unit mergers why we approved some and not others i think the commission has pretty much acted independently and considered everything on its own merits i'm not going to add to the tape if you watch the unit merger oh, there was one and it got approved they'll realize they're on their own when they come here i have another thought but i can't remember it >> commissioner fong. >> i wanted to speak so we can

stretch this until 8 o'clock. >> laura. >>. i hundred percent agree with commissioner president wu's thoughts not to get the real estate value having this is a may or may not dr absolutely works we're sitting here close to 8 o'clock but this works to the situation and we have, you know, disapproved mergers before i that we had denied a couple in the arrange a if the same house where for two occupant

representing the upper and lower and evict on and try to mooring we would deny that but that's not a means to gain value >> commissioner johnson. >> this is really quick i support the motion, however, i will support commissioner moore's suggestion that we look at ways to put a little bit more detail behind the mayors directive i say that but the project sponsors own mission to rent the upper unit and they decided they were not going to be able because the bottom unit was not enough space so i almost feel like i'm sure their gathering we would have been in

the situation they got pregnant one year later and i'm supportive but i echo commissioner moore's comments to guide. >> decision but the may or may not discretionary review looks like it works. >> commissioner moore. >> for ms. jocelyn and memory lane we had a project on filbert around washington square about a year ago it was a young doctor from ucsf she was expecting a think child too flats and we conditioned the merger by leaving the ability to stay as two unit so the illustrate hookups we allowed an internal connection for the life they

would be in the building how have it retained it's as a two unit building because once it's a meerlgd you can't use it for two again, we left it for two out changing the structure outlet i like to go forward that would still allow for changes over time with this young family the house you might come back to the market and i as two. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. in defense of the staff they made the correct evaluation based on the career and the mayors diversify but i know that's the beauty of the commission so to speak in that we take what staff as recommended and factor in other

things and make the decision that way so it's not like we're rubber stamping the staff understands that that's why we have a discretionary process. >> was there a motion. >> there was a motion so commissioners, if there's nothing further there's a motion to not take doctor commissioner antonini. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong commissioner president wu no >> so that passed 6 to one and commissioners that places you on general public comment there are no speaker cards. >> thank you. such a nice couple. >> i think your concern about

the merger the people who are going to do it aren't going to come before i i can think of four or five around noah valley people do it piecemeal maybe that's the staff or other departments issue that goes on people are going to come before i are going to be honest this is my story and situation it's kind of like the all the remodels that are actually brand new buildings like the $4.5 million in noah valley that's the way it goes. . with that, general comment is closed thank you, again commissioner sugaya >> thank you commissioner sugaya. >> colleagues at least for two meetings. >> okay meeting

>> okay, good morning, the meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of the governor audit and oversight committee, i'm supervisor london breed, the share of this committee to my right is the vice chair, katy

tang, and to my left, president chiu is also on the committee, the electricker is miller and i would like to thank sfgov tv, and madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes, be sure to silence your phones, and speakers cards to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk, items acted upon today will be on the august second, agenda, unless others stated could you calls the first item? >>resolution approving a contract for operating the sheriff's jail commissary and inmate trust fund accounting & management system, between keefe commissary network, llc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its sheriff's department for a three-year term beginning september 1, 2014, and ending august 31, 2017, and two one-year options to extend, exercisable by the sherriff's department with a guaranteed annual minimum income of $590,000. >> okay, sheriff, welcome. >> good morning, supervisors. madam chair. there was a prepared presentation, but i don't see the staff here that has copies

so i want to be sure that we have it. here you go. excellent. i want to make sure that you have these in front of you. also f it helps, i would like to... there is a story also in today's san francisco chronicle that highlights our ongoing reforms on the exorbadant cost that the families who are incarcerated have to pay and this contract before you is step two of an ongoing menu of reforms that my administration is pursuing before this committee. not that long ago, you all helped make history that we

were the first county, sheriff's department, in the united states, to dramatically reduce phone rates, even though some attention has been placed on the federal level. what, i think, many do not know in the general public, in the world of consumer activism is that those utility and retail industries that provide services to the prison and jail systems, throughout this country, are virtually unregulated and having an unregulated corporate industry being welcomed by federal state prison systems or county jail systems, makes for a haven, where the express goal of generating revenue or profit has been done so on the backs of poor people. and this has been the practice for decades throughout the united states. and yet, i think that there is

not been enough of a nexus in looking at recidivism rates and the inability of families or loved ones of those who are incarcerated, very difficult time in coping during that loved one's process, in incarceration and what that does to egsaserbate the rates and the poverty that they already live in, and in california, as it states in this article, 80 percent of families of incarcerated live at or below poverty level in the state of california. and that does not exclude san francisco. so, when we came into office, what i did and what we have been doing with it excellent work of my staff, is review all contracts that the san

francisco sheriff's department is committed to and dissect where we can implement reforms. reforms so that it helps us in the larger goal of enhancing public safety by reducing recidivism and by also fostering the groundwork of all of our good staff inside and the people themselves who try to better themself to prepare for the release and connecting recidivism levels on the outside. to me this gets to the return of how recidivism has continued to allude the most enlightened authorities in criminal justice and we are taking those pieces slice by slice and frying to do something about it.

and so before you the contract, and it explains what it is and the term, and the commissary, a small 7-11 for people who are incarcerated. for us we are able to reconstitute a contract by letting go to the former corporation that we contracted with and that was aramark by initiating with a new company that this department has not been in business with before. if you turned to the inmate benefit page, next one, the graph on the right, the blue and the red graph, i think shows a pretty stark contrast of what it takes for somebody in the old contract verses the new contract of what they would be paying when money is put on

the books. so, for example, if somebody is putting on the books to buy those commissary goods, they would have to spend essentially $5.70 more for every $20. and so that those commissions fees and charges that is the kind of revenue that the family and then, the inmates and themselves would have to be burdened with and shoulder. and by us revising the contracts we have been able to reduce the rates, by upwards to 40 percent, which we think benefits everybody. and the good news is, we are not losing money. so, with, i think, the smart work of my cfo and our staff and the sheriff's department, we were actually able to enhance and increase our bottom line of how much money comes to the department, while at the same time, dropping significantly the cost to the

families and to the inmates themselves. so to fine it for any agency to make this with the corporations where profit is their bottom line. >> sheriff, was there any way that we could have dropped the cost to inmates even more and not take the significant increase that would come to the department? >> no, because those based on entering the call, for the rfp, this was what the negotiable point was for us to proceed and at the point, or the price point dropped significantly. nobody else would have been able to handle it. aramark is considered a giant in serving food and commissary and the u.s. prison and county system and keefe is a major competitor and level it to our advantage. >> so the percentage of savings for inmates will be what, roughly with this?

>> 40 to 50 percent,... >> compared to what they, paid >> previously. >> okay. >> that is correct. >> that is correct. and as i said, we actually are going to be able to take in a little bit more money because of the price point difference that keefe i think, is it has been innovative in being able to furnish to us and so their profit is less, too. than the predecessor. and so, next on the department benefits, replace paper ordering system with phone ordering system. and we are at booking kiosks to reduce the time spent and handling the cash deputies and modernizing the system and we even had to have a deputy at a kiosk, taking money and cash in, which i don't, necessarily subscribe to, and it is being the most efficient or the fool proof way, and so that is why we are trying to provide many other options for families or

in mates to be able to put money on the books, pay their web, phone, or leaving credit at the kiosk itself. and the financial impact as you can see is the current is $1,250,000 and the change, is really neglectible, and our commission goes up and the commissions into the sheriff's department, and the general fund go up, and that is in return, we invest back in the welfare fund, and but what we are doing is significantly dropping the cost of all of the price points of goods and services providing by keefe and so that is the contract for you. and it is a win/win, to say the least. and again, i think that it is consistent with the other reforms that we are making to really ring in what has been a unfettered unregulated practice between corporation, private companies, and jail systems.

more than happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, any questions? >> okay. >> supervisor? >> yes, i thank you for this and just a quick question, it says that the contractor shall provide a minimum of 5 percent of the food offered for purchasing, and so, just wondering you know, as we have been talking so much about healthy food options here in san francisco, whether there was a desire to increase that amount so that more of that is available. >> the desire is there, and i have to tell you. i am under whelmed by the options that are provided by these companies. when you look at the menu, it literally does resemble like a 7-eleven, it is not a whole foods. and so it, it has a lot of room to grow, in this capacity. and we have all been discussing that, that there is room for improvement in providing healthier options, but the companies themselves unless the

price point goes the other direction, they just do not provide, i think, as many as healthy alternatives that we would like to see available and that is pressure in negotiation that we plan to work with, over this next term as a contract. and there is a lot of room for improvement there. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, again, sheriff. >> we are going to open this item up to public comment, are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? >> you will have ten minutes, i mean... ten minutes. >> two minutes. >> okay. >> county, sheriff. and the jail system, it is to make some people maybe the unfortunate ones, or the people who enter boman in order to leave the 1 million... (inaudible) in time. and then it is the ongoing improvement afterwards, you see? and so for the individual, it is benefit for them to end up in the system of jail system.

and then, you get out of it. and better improvement. and what it is (inaudible) and it may be (inaudible) and all of the individual is required, yeah (inaudible). >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello, my name is sarah carson and i work for one family a program at community works i do all of the parent and child visits inside of the jails and i want to talk a little bit about just maybe one of our families that we work with a highlights these fees. i work with grandmother who has two boys, one who is in a prison and one in jail. and she struggles every month to put some money on their books for commissary and talks about no matter how old her boys are she feels them to be her children and want to provide them something and she is also a relative care foster provider for her grandchildren.