today is wednesday, october, 19, 2016, the regular meeting of the building inspection commission, i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices, the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> mccarthy. >> here. clinch. >> here. konstinshths. >> here. >> lee. >> present. >> walker. >> here ewarshell. >> here. >> and we have a quorum, and item two, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody and welcome to the bic meeting october shths 19, 2016, i have quite a little bit to read into the public record, before i start out, i would like to welcome commissioner warshell to his seat and i mreefsh that it

is the general public seat that he is sitting, so a big responsibility. and i had a chance to sit down with him for an hour, and we had a chat and introduction to get to know each other, and he is a well seasoned veteran of the community and knows a lot about this great city, and so welcome and we look forward to you working here. >> thank you, i look forward for working with you all. >> thank you, and with that, i will go straight into my announcements. and this is regarding the tower. and i have been working with the director and the taf to understand the unfolding story of the tower, issue, at 301, mission street. and it is implementations for the current and future building, design review. while i expect the department and the bic and the mayor and the board of supervisors are all will have proposals on how to address these issues, and dbi practices more in regards to the review and approval of the tall

buildings over 240 feet, our performance based buildings, the director has discussed with me, some ideas to immediately insure the integrity of the dbi pare review process moving forward. dbi will select all future participants under 82, 83, tall building design procedures instead of the current practices where the project sponsors participates in the selection process. different the unusual circumstances, and the poe tension of the health and safety, concerns in the tall building design in seismic and risk locations that the director proposed to ab, 82, and 83, is effective immediately. under the revisions of the san francisco building code, 104

a.2,.1. and the director is also inform me that there may be additional staff initiated changes to both the ab 82, and 83. to improve the information that dbi received during the permit review, and these changes will come before the bic at a future hearing, for its consideration. perhaps as early as november meeting chl. also congratulations on the director to equip the residents and the businesses alike with the important seismic safety, and preparedness information for the next big one, the past saturday, director joined the community, youth center to hand out the important, emergency preparedness information to business owners. with the 27th anniversary of the 1989, earthquake, this past month, this is a very important

effort that our department has taken on, in an active role. congratulations to director for expanding the out reach program and the enrichment and the sunset with our grantees, the community, youth center and self-health, and we will roll out this in october. we will get training in spanish and chinese, china town and the western addition and the bay view, and we have conducted, 120 workshops and reach out to the people in the last year and a half and that work continues and it is a challenge, thank you. >> for the mandatory soft story program that started in 2013,

two years ago have passed since the program's inception and we are making good progress. close to 1,000 property owners have already completed their seismic retrofit work and another 1100 property owners will have already filed the permits and expected to start the retrofit work. which is three years in advance of the 220 over all completing deadline and, congratulations to the director and the soft story team, and the inspection service and the communication on this progress and, so outstanding job there and so well done. we have received, 85 come mri ans, for the over, 25 owners of the 50 or more unit buildings last month for the tier two properties oufr, over 80 properties have not complied, these properties will now move to the code enforcement process. the past monday, our staff started to post notice of violations on earthquake warnings.

and so a big thank you to dennis, for the housing inspection, who received letters of appreciation two months in a row, one from a customer who was extremely thankful for his assistant with the multiple issues athe her family's apartment, including plumbing, heating, and mold. he was also helpful in coordinating the city departments along with everything else. and congratulations to joseph duffy our inspection service who received not here. a letter of appreciation from a customer who was very thankful for his kindness and going the extra mile to help to get her job card signed for their bathroom renovation and went on to say that it was a stressful time since she was expecting the baby boy and the insprekter saved the family and it is nice to know that there is still people in the world like him, and so you will get no arguments from him, and he does the work that goes above and beyond the

call of duty that we have seen, in the reach to make the job that much easier, and another honorable mention, to the central permit bureau, who was given a thank you letter for what the customer described as one of the smoothest customer service oriented site permits submitles he has ever experienced at dbi. a special thanks for heidi of the record management division for receiving a letter commending her fantastic customer service skills. heidi assisted the customer for the report that was ordered by the seller, he said it was a great to run into someone that he felt really wanted to help. so well done there. and finally just a reminder to all of the deputy directors and staff supervisors that this is once again, time to submit your nominations for dbi's employee

of the quarter three. and 2016 and mres please send in to william, at sfgov and in the next week or two, so that the employee recognition committee may convene and select a winner, and last week, it was a couple of weeks ago, we had a celebration dinner, on the last winner and so we enjoyed that and so thank you, if you could get your nominations it, it is really important. that madam secretary concludes my announcements. >> okay. >> and commissioner clinch? >> it is just a question on the announcements, ab 84, and 85, or 82, 83? >> yeah. >> is there or are they available publicly or could i get a copy of them? i would like to have a look? >> yeah, we have the copy, but we are make the changes actually >> okay. >> but we are going to do this election. >> so, we expect in the next week or so to have those written in the changes from the city attorney and work on the language but it is agreed on

that they can make them administratively and there are other changes but they have to dig further to see how to implement them. >> okay. >> and i think that it is a, and you know, if so our commissioners are clear, you know that was one of the issues that was brought up on the whole transparency thing and that it does address and we control who the peer reviewers are and they pretty much will work towards the plan check for the department. >> go ahead? >> is there more attention to geological, issues, and i think that it was not necessarily included in the previous peer review? >> yes, we will on the ab, there and already specified, and technical is one of the specialty on the panel. >> yes. >> and you know, on the ab, already specified. >> you will need to touch that part. >> yeah, and we get. >> and does it also, include things like a report from the

beographic, or the geological report, and i think that --. >> okay. >> geotechnical report, is required on certain areas. on number of stories. you know, and that is in our building code. geologist is different, it is the rock formation and all of those. >> which is an issue on the mel lynn um. >> no, that one is no geotechnical expertise on the panel. >> that is different. so it is going to be a part of the review. >> okay. >> so to the question that it is important that we stay on topic on this, because it is a move that is moving in progress here. but i want to thank, everybody involved from our staff, right through to the mayor's office, and everybody is all over this to try to make it system more efficient. and so, but as i said, it is still a work in progress, but this is, major first steps. >> okay. >>? what has to go forward for the

future projects that are going to be particularly the large projects that are going to be plan checked. and peer reviewed. okay. with that. madam secretary, pass it off to you again. >> okay, is there any public comment on the president's announcements? >> okay. seeing none, item three, general public comment? >> the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda? >> okay, no general public comment item four, election of the bic vice president. >> i would like to move this to the november election so that we have a full commission. if i can get a second on that. >> second. >> so moved. >> there is a motion and a second to continue for items to the next meeting, is there any public comment on that? >> okay, seeing none, the item will be continued to the november meeting. item five, commissioner's questions and matters. 5 a, inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents,

policies, prakz, and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >>, commissioner lee, please, based on a couple of the abatement appeal items this morning, i would like to ask the question to the department, they don't have to answer me today, but just think about it and let me know in some way. is there any method or process where the department could red tag a section of a building to prohibit the people from accessing it or occupying it if it is unsafe? and if there isn't, should there be one, the reason that i ask is for example the last case where the gentleman fell through the de deck, should we have closed it off? should we have red tagged it and say nobody should be accessing this deck? and on the one with our hotel, the two unpermitted rooms and they are mentioned to be

tourists rooms, so there is no long term tenants there, could we have red tags those rooms and say no one should be occupying these? that is all i am just posing that question. >> great. >> i think, didn't the inspection happen after the injury, i believe? >> no. i think that it was flechlt i mean once we find a violation, if there is a problem and they determine there is a violation, and it is a safety hazard, and then it is unsafe to ak y occup, should we close it off. >> the question so that --. >> and i think that he is just asking a discussion with regard with the next steps once we have a serious violation. and obviously what does it trigger off and the unintended

consequences. >> we are trying to be respectful for the tenants, so i think that it is a fair question. what we can do to make it as safe as possible. without disrupting the tenant's occupancy. >> commissioner lee, yeah, what we can do, yellow, the area, and not the rat, and mean of the unsafe building. >> he can do it next time. >> give more details. >> i think that it will have an understanding of what we are asking me. >> thank you, is there any other inquiries to staff? >> item 5, a, future meetings and agendas, at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and future meetings of the building inspection commission, our next meeting is on november the 16th. >> okay. >> okay, is there any public

comment on item 5 a or b? seeing none, item six, discussion on the accela permit and project tracking system. >> good morning, commissioners, director huey, and my name is director, and i am the project manager to the dbi accela project. what you should have in the packets is the same format as last night but the status of our current effort which the planning of the restart of the project and so we are continuing on track, and the items that have been completed so as i have referenced last time, the first order of business was to have each of the business units divisions at dbi to sit with accela architect and do a formal review of all of the requirements. this is critical to make sure that we understand what parts of

the system were configured and properly, and which or where do we still have the gaps in functionally that need to be addressed to go live and that is the critical piece for then determining what is the scope of work and the cost and the time line and the budget. and so we have completed round one, which was the initial discussion to go through all of the requirements with each of the divisions. and there is ten divisions in total that we are working with. and round two if there are noo he questions or things that need clarity, after round one, round two was to close those out and get the approval for the business owners and units that we have captured the requirements and also hear, and we understand those requirements. and so we know that they are heading off to give us a bid on the proper work. >> and so we have, at this point, the round two started last week and they are continuing this week. and we have five of the ten that

have given approval of the requirements and accela has been kind and given their acknowledgment that they understand the requirements and so we have the remaining five that were on track to have those closed out this week. and that is per our schedule, already in motion behind the scenes, is the thick gap work which is that deciding of what is the scope of the items that need to be resolved, or developed in the system and so that kicked off last week, and it will continue and continuing this week. and we will finish off next week. at that point we will have a ballpark or a projected budget. and that is a critical milestone to be able to prepare a packet to bring to the civil service commission approval process, so that the first off there, is the union reviews and then it is a

60 day process that it ultimately if there are no challenges or issues, and then the reviews that go through, or that goes through, and it will end up with the appearing before the commission, civil service commission, and to get their approval on doing that work. using professional services. and so, that is our big milestone is to, and that submission packet is due november 4th and that will be the big first deliverable out of this to make that date, to submit that packet and get into that review cycle. >> oh, the other major piece of work that also is happening in parallel was i have talked before about the proof of concepts there are three areas that were pointed out during the assessment of very critical items that dbi had never seen

work properly and the accela platform and for the three areas which are the inspection work flow scheduling and so that is the management of the district and inspectors and dealing with the things that happen every day, and the inspect and the inspection getting reassigned and the inspector calling in sick and you have to reassign and all of that activity that the senior inspectors handle every day to manage that part of the business we asked for that proof of concept, and we have also, asked for a proof of concept for what we are calling inner faces which is the daily set of data that he with get from the business license office and the city of san francisco that we have to load into the system to make sure that when a contractor comes through, besides checking their csl license that they have a valid license and classification and also a valid business license, and third and final, area is what we are calling usability, and this really gets to the

heart of the question about can we make the user inner face sufficient enough to deal with the high volume areas on the fifth floor of the initial review of the ipr and the counter permits and that work and the requirements for the proof of concepts were finished last week.

i am happy to take the questions. >> commissioners? >> no, commissioner walker please. >> thank you. >> so it looks like you said it looks like we are on schedule. i mean even though with everything being on schedule, a lot of this technical stuff is requires like two months to go through the process, once we get it, like the review by the union, you know, the labor input and the labor review panel, is that what you called it? >> right, the process of getting to the get off to the agenda, and the civil service commission. >> you start off with going through a union review. >> right. >> and there are a few other reviews and that is a 60 day process, if there is no

challenges that where it gets stopped along the way. >> and we are submitting that and our target is eleven four, or somewhere around there, where we are sub-milting to put on the calendar. >> correct. >> that is a 60 day out. >> yeah, that will be it, again with no hiccups we would be on the february, and the first monday in february, would be the meeting that we would be targeting. >> okay. >> to go on to the agenda. >> and then, everything else will catch up to that. and then the contract does not get reviewed until after that. >> well, the and so the civil service commission reviews will that process will start in november and parallel to that, where we are finalizing the details budget, and the detailed time line, and because all of that will be necessary for the contract, amendment. >> great. >> and so that is the details of the contract amendment will be worked through november, and december, to get to a final contract, at the end of this calendar year. >> okay. >> and which means that we have

gotten final language, dbi has reviewed the city attorney has reviewed. and the vend ders have reviewed and we get to the final language, and as soon as we are able, we can submit that for the proper reviews. >> okay, great. good. >> thank you. >> >> mr. henry. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> any public comment on item 6? >> good morning, my name is jerry, and i would like to comment on the activities listed on the hand out. that deal with accela functional requirements. the lack of clear functional requirement has been the root cause of the solid implementation problems in the past.

under the activities and progress, the second item is final requirements and review, with dbi business users under weigh. are these activities leading toward a document that is signed off by the dbi director, assistant correctors, and a formal presentation to the bic, thank you. >> just to recap very briefly, to respect out last time, that

mr. gutter made not have heard is that we did go through the requirements of the discovery process with all of dbi from january to september of this year. that is what is being reviewed. and so the second round is to get approval from the dbi business users and a lot of time they owned the requirements and front line, day-to-day operationally. so all of the directors are part of that committee, and they will have the final approval. and accela will also sign approving that you know they have accepted and have taken in these requirements as final.

>> okay, commissioner walker? >> and the commission participation in that, i thought that someone from the commission was going to be sitting on this executive committee? >> there is, and the committee to guide the project, is the one that will once we relaunch the actual project will constitute all of the representatives from all of the stake holders groups that are identified in the assessment. and if, if it is within the, i guess the rules, for the commission to participate, and in the review with the committee of these requirements, >> or, or, submit, or are we going to be hearing a presentation of those requirements with all of the approvele as in it so that we can, i mean that was a major part of the issue with this project from the beginning.

>> yes, happy to present that. >> thank you. >> item, 7, the discussion regarding the certificate of final complexion, the cfc process. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director and inspection services. i am here to give you the overview of the certificate of final complexion. the certificate is a document that is described as the occupancy of a building or a

structure, no building or structure of housing, any occupancy can be used or occupied until a certificate of final completing is issued. the certificate of final completing, is also used to document abatement and code violations, cited under the director's order of abatement. the certificates of final completing and occupancies are issued by the building, inspection division. issuance of certificates of the final occupancies. certificates of final completing shall be issued for the building, permit applications that authorize the following types of work. construction of new buildings, and structures. construction of horizontal and vert tal additions to buildings and structure and changes of use, and occupancy of an existing building or portions of an existing building, legalize of the existing illegal use of occupancy, removal of the use of

occupancy, correction of all code violations necessary to clear the director's order of abatement, correction of all violation, cited in the three hour, report and the seismic up grades under the jurisdiction of the safety. and this is produced in our operation procedure manuals that has recently been updated this is the copy that the building inspectors have that are familiar with that operation and process and procedure. >> the next slide is a picture of this and the final completing. and it gives the mrok and lot, and the number of the building, and the permit application, and the type of construction and the amount of dwelling units. and that is what puts in the description of all of the certificate of occupancies and this is a very important document for the building. and it establishes the occupancy of the building. for the mandatory soft story program, that was issued in the last, bic meeting there, in the

ordinance itself, section 3404 b, 4.2, the certificate of financeal completing, and the certificate of final completing and indicating the completing of the required, seismic retrofit work shall be obtained in completing of the required seismic retrofit work is right in the ordinance. and in fact of the ordinance, and there is also the reviewed by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor. as far as the certificate issuance of process, when we, and the dbi unit verification reviewed and when the permit goes into the building department and it stops at the first floor, and the intake reviews it and they review the property provifilprofile, and o intake and the plan review and over the counter on the fifth floor they review the permits and the units for the property profile. and they have in the unit

information sheet g-20 that gives you the routing of it. if they are not sure of the unit, they will also refer to the housing department and review it and give the updated from their documents. and now on a three hour report, sometimes there is a discrept ancy, and the status is unknown, if they are required to figure out the occupancy of the building, we actually do a verification, a unit verification document. where we asked for the map, and we asked for the water department map.

>> i have a question, let's say, i mean is the cfc the document that sets forth the zoning, the approved zoning, for instance if let's just say that someone puts an application through, misstating what the type of

housing and whether it is residential hotel or apartments on are that type of thing and we miss it and it gets filed. with the incorrect zoning, or the incorrect housing type. or unit count, is it the legal standard? >> it is the legal document, and it is an expression, if there is a discretion in the document and which are sometimes in, because a lot of these older buildings. >> yeah. >> have an unknown status, and that is when we put all of the documents together on the third floor for the unit verification count. >> if it warrants if you get the final completing that has to be given, and we actually have to pull the permit out for the documentation purposes. >> okay. >> and that is to reflect the proper unit kind of the building. >>

>> if we are changing the number of floors, if we can put this exhibit up to see it. >> there we go. >> right here, number 24, on the face of the permit, does this constitute a change in occupancy, # 9 percent of the time when a permit is filed and they are removing or adding units, that isn't always checked, if that is checked they

are changing something. >> in regard to the case that we heard recently of the tourist hotel, that added three units. clearly, they don't qualify for a certificate of completion in lieu of having that, i did not hear of the units that were not legal yet, was being suspended uks vr, is there any trigger that is in our systems, that until we are able to verify the

safety, and usability of the units, that triggers, a notification? >> okay. >> they were in violation. >> in that case, there was a notice of violation by housing. with the housing director goes out and looks at the jobs and if he feels that there is a hazard that xiflts, and he would notify the department as far as the building inspection, but let them know that there is a hazard that exists. and we would actually go out and inspect it and 1044 had a major fire as well. so they did the large scale improvements to the property, i am not sure if the cfc that was given to them was correct or not. and but, they do get caught,

housing does go out there on a regular basis, because it is a hotel. they do, and they count doors, and they have the cfc, and they, and up in the sixth flee we have the depository of the paper files because i like to see the last cfc that was given, and not only do they have the last one, they have every cfc. >> the reason that they came in

1945, was the building and the planning code was suspended for proceeding four years, and i would imagine let's up date our housing stock. and it was done for a couple of years, and then it was done haphazardly, in the late 50s whoever was director at the time, laid down the law and said, okay, we are just going to get up to speed, we are going to give cfcs for virtually everything that we do, and that was done for a few years and since then it has been consistent with the system that we used now that if you are adding and subtracting for the new buildings, you get a cfc, what is different here, is that this legislation we were going into the existing buildings and we are going seismic up grades and, we are not adding and we are not subtracting and because in the ordinance, it also says that any additional dwelling units are on i separate permit. and so if they are adding units we will definitely see it.

i mean there are allowed to. and i know that there is quite a few, in planning at the moment and there are a lot of them are being or the architect and the engineer are adding them after they get the seismic permits. and also you have to realize that the o6 fire earthquake destroyed all of the building records and that is why we rely on the water department, they survived, and in the 60s, we had a lot of programs designed to stabilize the inner city, and in doing so, we -- a lot of it, and for instance, in the haight ash bury, a lot of the attics got legalized, the basement units got legalized and so there is a lot of times in san francisco history, where there was a blank spots. and that is what we do, we have to go back and get all of the

records. we currently probably do about 7 verification accounts a week. so we are doing seven a week, with this new program, it might go up an extra, one or two, i think that there is about, there are thousands of units that are going to get retrofitted by the time that we finish this program in the next ten year period. >> thank you. >> getting back to the question, it presumes that there is something that one would revoke. if the certificate of final dom mrekz and occupancy is accurate as to the legal use and it is a construction of the building permit process, in other words, certain building permits require the issuance of the certificate of final completion and occupancy, for adding units and major change of use, if that was correct you would no the revoke

that. but the question that also presumes is there some kind of a license that was not revoked for the operation of what you were really getting at and we used to have a permit of occupancy and we don't issue those any more, they have to pay a licensed fee to defray the cost of our inspections, but dbi does not currently admin trait over a licensing per se of these hotel to operate, what we are doing is essentially, implementing over the code enforcement of the various codes, so if they failed to maintain it or do the work without the permit, then we have jurisdiction, and the assessor does have, a licensing program for any apartment building or a hotel for the four unirts or more, for the dwelling units but they don't use that particular process as a way of pulling away the ability to operate so the

issuance is that you have done, something beyond a legal use and you need to ultimately in this case, when they legalize this, they will need a new cfc that will reflect in the new use. but it is not the type of document that this is revoked. if we did a license, if that was under the jurisdiction of the department and the commission, then that will be something, but we found that to be unproductive. because we were really after maintenance and doing work under the particular permit. so the focus now, is within the confines of those requirements. any more questions? thank you for the summary, i thought that it was helpful and i thought that we needed it as a commission because over the years we have been hearing the different issues and the occupancy is very. >> it is difficult for the plant check and difficult in the building and inspection and so you can see the building

inspector go out and the issue, and go door-to-door, come and the units. and it is an issue with housing, and we look at that we are cautious on that, when the plan check and printed application, to look at the unit count in the building, because it is not only a cfc for the story, and it is the permit that comes to the office. >> yeah. >> we have to look at that closely >> with the in you system, the strategy is not going to change, it is going to be the same format, with the new system. >> yeah. >> and so, give me now, just one quick question. could you talk a little bit about temporary occupancy? that is given sometimes by and how that kind of relates to this? >> yeah, before. >> for a tco, temporary. >> yeah. >> we do it like some of the large buildings downtown and we even do it to the smaller structures and if you get a high-rise building, it shows complete, what they would ask for the temporary when you occupy the half of the building and we look at the life safety are complete and the inspections

are complete, and want to occupy a certain portion of the building and we will look at that and the fire and plumbing and if it is okay to occupy that we will issue a temporary certificate to occupy that concern area. for the rest of the building is completed. there is a time line on that. and we give it a short period of time. a good example of that is like i said, a restaurant next to a building there, and the restaurant wants to open up but complete but the rest of the building is not. >> so that is, certificate or that temporary occupancy can translate into the residential and commercial as well. >> the commercial or residential. >> yeah. >> it could be commercial or residential. >> yes. >> and just on the time frame, what is the time frame that you

normally give it? >> in the project? >> no, a lot of times what we will limit it because we want to observe it and so the temporary certificate we will get to 90 days, and we want to know and if we want to extend that certificate they have to come back with a request letter telling us what they did, and what they proposed doing, and ad more days for that certificate of occupancy before it will allow the second certificate. and we do track it within an inspection. >> right. >> and the single family homes are they held to a different standard than say multiple units? >> well, there is we will not issue a certificate for the family, because there is just occupancy. >> right. say for the five unit building, three of the units for 100 percent complete and get the work done on two units we could issue a temporary certificate for those three. but for a single family home,

obviously, it is gone and it is built to what it is supposed to, and for example, if there was a planning issue, would you allow someone to move in and would you certificate a building? for example, planning says you know, they don't like the windows but the family needs for move in, would that hold you up from issuing a temporary certificate? >> no, we could issue a temperature certificate, and on the singling family dwelling, but we don't do it but we can do it if it was a planning issue, where we had just to see the windows or, you know, size of a window or something. >> it is not life and safety issue. >> yeah. >> so you do have the atonomy. >> that is important, because sometimes, the stuff goes back to planning. and i am seeing a lot like for the separate issue. and well i am seeing a lot, to addendums, which we had a great hearing on here, and we were told very time certain dates would be given and from what i am hearing now the addendums are

quite the opposite, they are taking quite longer. then and so you have a single family home or a family trying to move in and they are waiting to at deny dumb and they want do the thing and they are waiting on the planning to get back. and so that is another conversation and another topic that we want to talk about again, but i want to make sure that we have flesbility for the families that are going through the stressful situation. >> the issue brought up about the aaddendmuchlt, planning want to to see all, and oci wanted to see all. we had discussions with planning and explained that you are holding it up. the only one that they want to see now is the architect you areal. for the new buildings, or large additions. >> or before we were sending

over for the foundations and the mechanical. >> that is interesting, and so if you have right now, the requirements are exterior of the buildi building. >> no, the layout. >> that is usually at the beginning of the project. what it kills is when someone wants to cover up when you are going to do the insulation or the sheetrock and you don't have the addenda yet and you built it using the structural. >> yeah. >> that sometimes causes trouble. >> okay. >> and then just finally, because you kind of opened up another kind of part here. and this is. >> and so, inspectors changed toward the project, and you know, the job card is a very important part of the sign-off of coming to the certificate of

occupancy, that they have for all of the different departments and sometimes in the job cards, you will have an inspector saying, that it is okay to cover up, however, aband c needs to be addressed, right? and then aband c is addressed. >> and if it is minor, yeah. >> and yeah, okay, fair enough, it is not major, but then aband c is fauld on to the other inspector who says that you need to go back to the other inspector who said that he would sign it off, based on a, b, and c, and so to your point, that it becomes this trying to figure out to get the signature, and how do you get around that and how do you feel? >> okay, we ask and we bring it up to the staff meetings and the steve also. if there is an inspector and the abc has to be done, and a secondary, or a second inspector goes out with the different inspector. look at those and, make sure that they are there and sign up the cover up.

>> and don't tell them to see the original. what do you do then? >> i am going to see a supervis supervisor. >> okay, you are clear on that, and you are not dead in the water. >> that is correct. >> all right. >> okay. that is really good, it you so much, for that. >> appreciate it. is there public comment on item seven? >> seeing none, item 8, the up date on the budget inn hotel on 1139 market street. >> members of the commission, this particular hotel is on

market street, between 7 lth and 8th street. and it is a large residential hotel and it has # had guest room and one department, and 63 of those are tourist units and 31 are residential, the building is migrating for a for profit operation and it is going to go under a program under the new department of homelessness, and support of housing. and that office has asked us to do a room to room inspection for those purposes. and so there has been a significant amount of renovation of the building, as you can see from the colored photographs, we have distributed, they have recently, now replaced all of the, or most of the doors and they have tiled and they have spent a lot of work and what is outstanding in the notices of violation, that we have, the

adding of the two bathrooms to the floors of occupancy on both floors and they are working on a stairway system. so that is td work that we have, and now i know that there was some testimony before the commission at the last hearing, regarding invier mental factors associated with the renovation, shgs i can't tell you on the scope of the house gs division that when we went out there on a complaint, with he go out that same day or the monday of the complaint comes in on a saturday to 311 and nound that all of the work was done and it was wiped clean and an hepa vacuum in the hallway, so it was a very, very, clean site. there has been probably an inconvenience to some of the occupants as you look at those photos, this is going to be one of the nicer hotels in the city with respect to what you are seeing in the common areas.

>> we will be conducting the requested inspection, which is separate, but they are proceeding with the permit and

there was a point at which they had exceeded the scope for one of the bathrooms and they need knife on one floor and six on the other and so they are working on that and watching that carefully, and we will then be summarizing all of this in a letter to the department of homelessness before the items before it actually goes over into their program, but we see quite a lot of great improvements to this building than what previously had been there. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> no questions. >> is there any public on item eight? >> item nine,? the process and the time frame? >> nichlt good afternoon, the director for the department of inspection, and i will take a

few minutes to go over the department's hiring policy and procedures. so basically the hiring procedures are what the city's are, and we are governed by the civil service rules and that means for for the permanent positions we have to make sure that there is a competitive process and we are selecting from a certificated list and normally what happens is that dvment hr, because that is a class that is used throughout the city. but a lot of times we have to establish our own list and establishing that entails a variety of things and so it takes a little while and so the thing that you do is you have to make the job description in the minimum qualifications and you approach that for two weeks or so, and it is a minimum of two weeks, and that allows the

people to submit the information or resume, to meet the qualifications and then, the department will have to go through that list of everyone as selected, that submitted applications and in determine who meets those minimum >> once there is a ranking for the test scores, and those who take it and maybe, protest it and if they have questions about it and then we have a certificated list and then and only then, are we ready to start the hiring process, and then that means, we are going to request a referral of those who are on the list, and usually, if you have a list, and it is a rule of three and depending on how many applications you have,

and that is how far you can go down the list and you can send it out to the people for that position and, there is an interview, process, and so this takes three or four months, and originally before, for a couple of the ones that we did, for instance, the building inspectors and it took a little bit longer because although that we have the bulk, we have some of the other departments that are going to use our list too. as i said before, a lot of our jobs are ospecific to the dbi, we have to go and establish our list and, so over the past three years, or so, we have done about 20 different examples and those have been exams for permit clerks, and building inspectors

and the plumbing inspectors as well as the it, positions too, and so we have done a variety of exams. and with he have done a lot of exams and from us doing those exams, i think that over the last, i have it here. for the last three or four years we have been able to fill, and we have been able to hires, however the net is lower, as we bring in the people we also lose people, although we have done, 120 hires that does not mean that we have increased the fte count by 120, because a lot of times for instance, for the senior positions, that still is by the internals and although we may have gotten a promotion in a senior position and that means that they can see in the other position and, there have been retirees and the people that have moved on, for the transfers and so the net pretty much is, and i put that up here, so that you can just get a sense.

i thifrpg that back in 12, 13, we were at 243, and now as of early in october, 281, full time positions. so i don't know if that was what you needed if you have other questions, about the hiring process, about you that is basically what we used to hire. commissioner walker. >> thank you for this, i have a couple of questions, how long are the lists active once we have a list that we can draw from, how long do they stay? >> they usually stay active for about a year, but we have extended a couple of lists, and i think that we may have extended the housing inspector list a couple of times. do rehave active lists for the positions. >> we do, if we needed to ramp up quickly, we would not have to go through the process. we have an active building inspector list, and the active

electrical inspection list because we know that it takes a little time to get it done. >> all right, thank you. >> and thank you, and i asked for this because, just to kind of looking down the road here to commission walker's point, you know how we are situated in going back to the gray days, where we were trying to ramp up, and it was extremely difficult for us, you know, the list exists and stuff, but there was a real kind of a long period of

time before we actually saw the out come of somebody be hired. >> to that point, has that changed in any way, i know that it is a civil service kind of a position. and with he have the service departments that are hired quicker than the departments and so maybe it was because of the qualification and so on and all of that took a bit longer, and i am just wondering, i tlifrng that we had a 7 to 8 month period before somebody actually what would that period be now in your best estimation. >> so, i think that what has changed that before the hiring process used to include approval from the dhr in any budget and this was not just a dbi, it was a city wide issue where it had to be approveddy dhr and the mayor's office. >> and sometimes if there was a justification or questions about that, that could wait before you got to that point. >> at this point, dhr is not

involved in that. >> for the most part when we issue a requisition, and we want to hire a position, it only goes to the mayor's office and that is speeded up a lot. >> yeah. >> i will give you an example. >> i believe that the 63, 23, which i think interviews are being held right now, possibly, i think that we began that process of establishing a list maybe about four months ago or so, and we are at the point now where we are at interviewing and with he have been able to get that pretty quickly. and i mean for another reason that we are able to do it quickly, because now they are established examines and i think that in the beginning, we were creating the examines from the very beginning too, so all of notes things and it was everything that could go, happened and you needed to have have all of those things happen. it has been four months or so before you can actually get to the point where you are interviewing. and then, once you fill a position, like we said that we have gone through a list and we have done the interviewing and

made a selection, and there is another point where you don't bring someone on and you have to go through fingerprinting, and that has sometimes taken a little bit longer than anticipated too, just depending on not necessarily because of the person fingerprinted but it is just how much are in the cue, if you are doing the hiring who will get through it too. and so that sometimes impacts how quickly we can go from being asked some nonand having that person start. because you can't get started until there is a clearance. >> yeah, that really refreshing to hear, because it was the time frame that you would expect, and the few more reasons, in regard when you do the budget. are you snou able to say, okay, i can have those people in

place, by the time that the new year, kind of budget comes on you. and then i guess, that they would take what you had last year and move it over to this year and so you were always chasing us. you no he what i mean? satisfying that dollar amount that you put aside on that year was a big challenge for you. >> i think that that may have been a challenge before for the department and for us it has not been a challenge, and we usual an exceed our attrition because it has been taking a while, at this point in time yes, i don't think that we will have problems with meeting our attrition because we usually have had savings, but once again, even though we are hiring i think that every month, three or four new people are coming on, maybe even more than that, but and that is a good thing, and that is what we are having control over, what we don't have control over, is the retirees or someone going to another department or for the most part, promotions, so we, if we have a position, and most of the qualified person is the person in the department

and that person is going to promote and it isn't like they are getting in the extra position, and like you are losing them in the lower level position, and so then we have to kind of backfill that too. >> but the actual hiring has been going, and it is pretty aggressive. >> and finally, i will let you, and during the difficult time when we are trying to -- and one of the ideas and that commissioner mar or someone in the commissioner brought up, about this kind of universal person. who could cross over and be okay with all of the different departments to cover and if you had trouble meeting certain you know, people to fill certain positions. on the temporary basis, was that already explored any further or do you think that is something that is necessary. >> it is preyour time as well. >> we do do temporary positions because for instance if we need something right away. there are temporary positions

and we do project positions, i am not sure of having finance float in, because once in that necessarily it can float from the different departments to help out but not necessarily what is a part of that department. >> right, and so, i think that the closest thing to that would be a temporary inspector, but even for the temporary positions

all hires is based on position, you have to have a specific position, we don't just have a generic position, if there is a vacan vacancy, in the building or the plan check or something like that, we have to submit it for that specific one, and then, so if, the easiest way to if there is not a list available and we don't have time, the easiest way to address that is to back so that temporarily, and we have done that. although, sometimes it is difficult to get people to come from the outside to come back, so temporary, because as the temporary employee you are not getting all of the benefits that you get as an actual permit employee. and also, there is usually a limit on that. 1040 hours is the limit on that. >> yeah, and just for the record, the terminology that we use for those people who are retired and come back, and the temporary --. >> yeah. >> the prop f. >> yeah. >> and so we do have, and we can do that too. >> okay. ? ewe can bring them prop f to

come in. >> do we have many prop fs working for us now? >> i am not aware of very many, there may be a few. >> ed said two. >> yeah, i am not aware. there are only, a few. >> yes. >> but it has come in on as-needed basis and they do a good job because they have done the work before us and so there is no training. >> but hard to come by, though? >> right, the prop f and not everybody wants to come out of the retirement and so really that is really, and in answer to my question, you answered it for me there, it is the only real mechanism in place is to go out and find the people who worked in the different department and beg them to come back and cover us until we get it. >> or, you can do a temporary. i mean that you can get someone that didn't work in a department, you are just not getting the expertise and someone to come for right abay. >> okay. >> thank you, for that. and i am sorry commissions, no, and if there is any further in noechlt no, thank you. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> any public comment on this is

em. >> seeing number, item ten, director's report, up date on dbi's finances? >> good afternoon, commissioners, deputy director for the department of building inspection, and before you is a september 2016, year to date, financial report, and in it discover covers the revenues for the first quarter of first calhoun year, cal quarter. and i think that last year we collected about 17 million this time and we are just a little bit under that. and however, the revenues are high, 1 and 16, and i think that it was the highest on record and so it is higher than the other procedures, and it is just a little bit lower than last year, and it is basically, a reduction and a major place that we see a

reduction in would be the premium r plan review and that is $500 noushgs less than it was the same time last year, on the expenditure side, we are slightly higher, and than we were at the same time last year and that is due to we just talked about this to the salaries, and as we hire more people, and we are spending our salaries a little bit faster and a couple of other, non-personal items that we spending a little bit earlier, over all, this first quarter, report is a very preliminary, if you noticed in the first page that we did not bother putting in the projections and just because the first quarter is not enough data, on the expenditures side, we are just setting it and to the pos and we are setting up the work orders and all of those things and so a lot of bills don't come in through july and september. later we will start to get more and more bills, so that we can get a chance to really look at and see what our spending is doing. >> and i will be happy to answer the questions if you have any.

>> thank you. >> ilt em ten, b. >> up date, on proposed recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and president mccarthy, communication director presenting on behalf of bill strong and he is out today. so there is an up coming land use subcommittee meeting on october 31st, regarding the code cycle and the new code that is to go into effect on january first, 2017, and so, that one is up coming, and we are planning for that and we will be reaching out to the board and kind of briefing them before the land use subcommittee meeting. and another quick announcement or up date to you guys, as president mccarthy had talked about in his president's announcements.

t mandatory soft program is moving ahead and we are happy with the progress and we do have tier three that most of you know about, there are 3,000 properties fortunately, 1,000 of them have turned in paperwork ahead of the deadline, next year. the buildings tla are yet to be comply, and they thud be completed as well. and those are the two updates, if you have any questions, i can answer them. >> thank you, lily. >> thanks. >> item 10 c, up date on major projects? >> good afternoon, commissioner. for example you can see last month we had minus 2 percent.

and this month we have 3 percent and that means that it is depend on the project coming in, and i think that it is this to the housing project, and to the 30 project is issue, and that is why we have these numbers going up. >> i am here to give you the code enforcement and dbi monthly up date for the month of september. for the building inspections performed, 5054, complaints, 343, complaint response within 24, 72 hours, 264, complaints with the first notice of violation sent, 47. complaints and abaited would ut notice of violations were 133.

abaited complaints of notice of violations were 26 of. as second orders of violation occurred were 15. for the housing inspection services housing inspections performed, 1138. complaints which received the 398. and the complaints response in the 24, 78 hours were 390. complaints with notice of violations issued were 164. and abaited complaints with the notice of violations were 327. and the number of cases sent to the director's hearing were 50. and the routine inspections were 291. with the code enforcement services number of cases sent to the director's hearings were 43, the number of order of abatements issued were eight, and the number of cases under avicement were eleven, and the cases abaited were 66, and the code enforcement and were formed rment, and 114, number of cases referred to as the federal

committee and this concludes, the code enforcement dbi monthly for september, and there is also graphs and that depict the complaint activity in the housing activity for the past year, thank you. >> thank you, director. okay. >> is there any public on the director's report, items ten a through d? >> okay. seeing none, item 11, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of march, 16, 2016. >> moved to approve. >> second. >> okay. >> there is a motion and a second. is there an any public comment? >> lock. >> seeing none, are all commissions in favor? >> aye. >> any, opposed? okay, the minutes are approved. item 12, adjournment, is there a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> okay. all commissions in favor. >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. it is 12:48 p.m. thank you.

>> good morning and welcome to the government audit and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, thursday, october 20th.

i'm the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin, joined by member and board president to my left, supervisor london breed, our clerk is ms. erica major and ms. major do you have any announcements? >> yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic derises and completed speaker cards and documents included as part of file should be submitted to the clerk and items act on will appear on the november 1st, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise state ed. i.e., 1sy resolution authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute a grant agreement with broadway sansome associates lp. >> thank you, ms. major. is there a representative here from the mayor's office of housing and community development? >> good morning. joan mcnamara, mayor's office of housing and community development. >> good morning, ms. mcnamara.

>> seeking aproval to enter into a 30-year subsidy agreement with chinatown community development center to provide rental subsidies to 12 extremely low, and low-income households previously displaced by city action. the subsidis would enable the 12 households to live at broadway sansome apartments and pay 30% per hour household income for rent with the city's municipal transportation authority picking up the difference between the units full rent and 30% of the household's income. in 2012 to give you a little bit of background mta purchased and later demonthished the chinatown building in which these households were living to make way for the central subway chinatown station. as required under federal relocation law, mta provided 42 months' of rental subsidy to each household displace -- to each of the displaced

households. the subsidy was used to pay the rent differential between 30% of the household's income, and the rent that was being charged. in addition to the federally-required relocation assistance mta wished to provide permanent replacement units as an option to the displaced residents. mta and mohcd identified the broadway sansome site to provide the unit and mta committed $8 million to the construction of broadway sansome a 75-unit affordable housing housing development locates at 255 broadway. 12 of the displaced households with incomes at or below 50% ami were offer a unit at broadway sansome. five of the households qualified for 50% ami units, and 7 qualified for 30% ami units. all households are required to pay 30% of their

household's income for rent, with mta picking up the difference between the actual rent charged and the household's 30% payment. the subsidy will continue to the households for up to 30 years, provided at least one member of the households was an original displacee, and the household income is no higher than 50% ami. the total projected subsidy over 30 years, which is based on the household's current incomes is $1,192,320. or $39,744 per year. households are annually certified, and as their incomes go up, their subsidy is reduced. this ends staff's presentation, and i have both whitney jones from chinatown cdc here and staff from mta to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you it all seems very straightforward and the

budget analyst recommends approval. mr. jones, anything that you would like to add on behalf of community cdc? are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item no. 1? seeing none we'll close public comment and supervisor breed, if there is no objection, we'll send the item to the full board with recommendation without objection. item 2 or would you like to skip over it? madam clerk, please call item no. 3 out of order. >> yes, item no. 3 say resolution establishing a new public benefits civic non-profit entitled the yerba buena gardens conservancy to assume long-term operating and management responsibilities for yerba buena gardens. >> i do not see ms. venancion from supervisor kim's office, so why don't we go to item 4. >> item 4, hearing to consider that the transfer of type 48 on-sale general

public premises license from 451 bush street to 447 bush street forces sffsre, llc. doing business as as fluxus will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco. >> do we have a representative from the police department? sergeant kennedy? and let me start by thanking president breed for transferring this item from the committee to the government audit and oversight committee because i know time is of the essence and i was personally able to go out and meet with the applicant on-site, and look at the premises and with that, sergeant kennedy. >> san francisco police has previously mentioned that we approve and stand by our decision. >> thank you, sergeant. and as to the questions that i had at a previous hearing, with regard to issues

related to the single-residency occupancy hotel those have been asked and answered. would the applicant like to testify? seeing none, we will close public comment. and supervisor breed, if you have no objections, we'll send this item to the full board with recommendation without objection. [ gavel ] while madam clerk, please read item no. 2. >> yes, item no. 2 is a hearing to receive updates from various cry departments who are required to provide a response on the implementation of recommendation no. r5 dcontained in the 2015-2016 civil grand jury report entitled "into the open: opportunities for more timely and transparent investigation into fatal san francisco police department officer-involved shootings." >> let me start by thanking the civil grand jury for their work and we previously

heard this item in the middle of september. and had a couple of outstanding issues. one of them, being the status of the memorandum of understanding between the police officers' association and city and county of san francisco, and i see that chief mckeveren is here and the other was pending the release $1.8 million for the district attorney's unit and those have been released and ms. numan, what day did the budget and finance committee release those funds? >> september 28th, 2016. >> okay. i think our hearing was september 15th and it was supposed to be released by october 1st and indeed it was. with that, deputy chief. >> good morning, a appreciate the promotion, but

i'm still a commander. [laughter ]. >> commander, sorry. >> thank you very much. good morning, supervisor breed and supervisor peskin. good to see you this morning, and members of the public and the grand jury representatives. i know there is really one topic tonight -- this morning that you wanted to talk on our current status of the mou with the district attorney and i will get to that in a second, but i just wanted to speak on a couple of things that happened since our last meeting. obviously last week the department received the doj collaborative review initiative with 270 recommendations and as you know the mayor and chief agreed with the report and committed to all recommendations within that. there are timeframes set in place, but we have a lot of work to do, especially in the next 18 months. we're currently prioritizing those recommendations and response plan for the implementation of those reforms. what we found that we expected within that was there were many linkages between some of the other

reports that we received, and you've received in the last few months including the blue-ribbon panel it's report and directives on 21st century policing and grand jury report specifically to ois investigations. what we did after we got that report was we looked at it and there are a number of -- as i said, linking recommendations, that were from the doj collaborative review, as well as from the doj report and just to name a few of them, some of the things that came out of the report was a creation of an officer-involved shooting web page with statistics and updates to the officer-involved shootings, which was also a recommendation from the grand jury report. and we're currently working on that as we speak. so that we can get responsive to both of those reports. obviously revisions of general orders as you know they have been outdated for a long time and that is one of the processes that we'll be look the. standard methods of timely

notifications to the district attorney and other responding units, when there is is an officer-involved shooting. press conferences and town hall meetings with the policy. we do have tonight a town hall meeting with the chief out in for the ois that happened friday night. so i'm happeny to report those will continue, and that is something that the grand jury recommended. i know that they at the time had talked about having codified, written policies for that and i think that was a very good recommendation and we're looking at that as well. so that we have not only what our responses is going to be in the future, but a directive that we can point to, and that the public can see for the transparency. and the last thing is that we talked about and here today for the creation of the new mou with the district attorney. where we are ot that, after we met last time, the district attorney provided to the police department a draft mou between the police

department, and the district attorney's office. about a week ago, the department met -- i was there with chief sinez and christine is here from the da's office and we presented changes to the mou, looking at certain things that we currently have in our general policies and procedures and policies that we're required to agree with and agreements with allied agencies and agreements with other agencis with officer-involved shootings and some codsfied response to how that would be if there was a shooting say between bart pd and an outside agency and provided them with basic of charter and discussions with the city attorney. we presented to them last week and last week chief chaplin and chief sinese met and discuss what discussed

what they agreed and they currently have a meeting planned, i believe next week, to discuss it further. so we have both exchanged mous and the chief and the district attorney are currently in discussions with about the agreement what is in it, so we can move forward and hopefully sign an mou between the go agencies. with, that the last thing is [tkha-erplt/] is moving forward with internal change s to response to oiss and what is out of the mou and those will be presented at future presentations on grand jury reports and other reports that we got from the doj and the collaborative review. with that i'm happy to answer any questions, or if you want ms. debary to come up to speak about that process from yesterday. >> thank you, commander mckecklin, supervisor breed. >> so we have a change to the response. so this -- i don't have any questions.

thank you, commander. and i just want to make sure that make a change to our response for the response to the civil grand jury report and i'll enter this in for the record. resolution that the board reports to the presiding just of the superior court that recommendation r.5.5. >> on page 4 [#3*-/]. >> has been implemented for the reason as follows: the board of supervisors appropriated and placed on budget and finance committee reserve $1.8 million in fiscal year 2016-2017 to add 14 positions in the district attorney's office to expedite officer-involved shooting investigations. on september 28th, 2016 the budget and finance committee released $1.5 million to

hire these 14 positions, in fiscal year 2016-17, and retain .3 million on-budget and finance committee reserve. the board of supervisors agrees that future funding decisions and department oversight should evaluate the da's improvement and promptly completing criminal investigations and issuing charging decision letter in officer-involved shooting cases and be it resolved. >> okay. motion made by supervisor breed. which we'll circle back around to after public comment. ms. debary. >> good morning, chair peskin, supervisor breed, thank you for having me here this morning, christine debary by way of update on the work of the officer-involved shooting

civil grand jury report, we have made as indicated in the last hearing the requested improvements to our website, and continue to do so. we're hopeful at the conclusion of mou negotiations we can put up more thorough information for the public about the process and procedure. we have posted the procedures that currently exist. as indicated we received the majority of the funding, though there is still a portion of that on reserve to the budget committee and we'll see its release at the appropriate time. immediately upon receiving approval for those positions, posted them and have been receiving resumes and conducting reviews. and are making very good progress towards identifying future personnel for that, and quite excited about the prospects of who will be we'll be able to bring on for the unit. the critical and outstanding issue is the mou and we have not reached agreement and da

indicated yesterday to the chief he is fine with the vast majority of what the police department has proposed in their mou. but there remains the challenge of the criminal investigation. obviously the administrative portions of any work that the police department would do around a firearms review board, around return-to-duty, any administrative or personnel sanctions that they wanted to implement is certainly not our purview and we have no interest in crossing over that line. but the criminal investigation remains criticallies important and the 21st century report and many reports that have been released recently create deat conducting a criminal investigation of one'sself is less than ideal. we would actually welcome an opportunity to report-back. >> thank you. any members of the public

who would like to testify on this item or any members of the civil grand jury, who would like to testify on this item? please come forward. >> good morning, eric vander pool with 2015-to 16 civil grand jury and i wanted to thank you for bringing this back on the agenda to get various updates from the departments. as a concerned citizen and representative of the civil grand jury our hearts go out to the officer who was shot in the officer-involved shooting incidents last friday at the lakeshore district and we're sending our best wishs for a full recovery and our thoughts and prayers are also with the family of the suspect who was shot and killeds and at the center of that incident. is wanted to acknowledge that and shows it reinforces the importance of the work that everyone is diligently doing around officer-involved

shootings. on that note i would like to recognize all the departments who have been working to push forward some of the recommendations that civil grand jury made in our report. it's an exciting time, especially now that the doj has released its report, and the blue-ribbon panel report, the civil grand jury report and doj report all complementary and encourage all department s that they look at all report because they are not identical. there are different recommendations, but none of them if are in conflict and shouldn't be mutually exclusive and as everyone continues to work on this topic that we look at all of the reports in tandem to make sure that we bring our investigators in the officer-involved shootings into the open, make them as timely and transparent as possible and encourage the san francisco police department and da to work to

a new agreement so this investigation process can be haged as independently and as transparently and as timely as possible. thank you. >> thank you, mr. vanderpool and thank you again for your work and the work of the civil grand jury. are there any other individuals who would like to testify on this item no. 2? seeing none, we'll close public comment and there is say motion to amend that supervisor breed made on the first resolve on page 3, can we take that without objection? >> i wanted to make a comment, mr. vanderpool brought up a really good point about there being -- first of all a number of reports provided by the civil grand jury, which we definitely truly appreciate the work that went into developing those reports. but we also have the blue-ribbon panel report and the cops report, and the board of supervisors is currently planning to

continues quarterly committee of the wholes in order to have continued discussion of this issue to see how far we have come from the time that these reports are issued, to implementation of many of the recommendations that exist. i do think it's important that we continue to make sure that we're having a public discussion around this particular issue, and we're demonstrating clearly that progress is being made. and although i know that we want to see it happen sooner rather than later, to shine a light on this, to keep it in the public eye, and to consistent life move in the right direction is really important. i think in looking at these reports as a whole and continuing to work together is going to help us get to a place where we'll eventually, hopefully be able to reestablish the trust that has been broken between the communities and the san francisco police department. i'm looking forward to that day. i know it's going to take

time, but i think we're taking a bold step in the right direction, and we'll continue to push on this body to make sure that discussion is at the top of our agenda on a regular basis. supervisor cohen proposed as resolution, i think we're meeting in november, to have these discussions, if i recall, chair peskin. and the following meeting will take place next year, 2017, in february. and quarterly after that. so i'm looking forward to a continued discussion. so again, thank you to the civil grand jury for their work on this and these reports will not just be put on the shelf and forgotten. they will be pushed and implemented by this body from my perspective based on the interest of this board to see us make progress in this regard. thank you again very much. with that, chair peskin. >> yes. >> supervisor peskin, just

for clarity, the motion -- the action will be recorded as prepared in committee as a motion, because this item is a hearing. >> correct. >> okay. and it will be recommended to the full board. >> correct. that will be the order without objection and let me concur with president breed, the board of supervisors is obviously very focused, and the confluence of those three reports has been very, very helpful for our work. [ gavel ] we have already called item no. 3. and ms. veneerasion has joined us. . the floor is yours. >> good morning, chair peskin and president breed, from supervisor kim's office. this is the second time we're

hearing this urging resolution -- and acknowledging the establishment. yerba buena gardens conservancy. i believe there was a lot of testimony last time about the formation of this new non-profit organization to maintain it the interrelatedness and synergy of the open space in yerba buena gardens and to once again thank the stakeholders who came together with the city and the office of community infrastructure and it investment and the san francisco real estate division to put together this plan. i have some amendments todays to begin the feedback from the community hearing last week and to address some of the issues raised in harvey rose's report, namely the development of a communities facilities plan. having more direction and

specificity as to the composition of the board of the yerba buena conservancy and acknowledging there are some important cultural institutions adjacent to yerba buena gardens that was mentioned at the last hearing, particularly the museum of african diaspara and adding the san francisco filipino cultural center which is adjacent to the gardens as part of the analyses and the plan. i think underlying this resolution is one, recognizing the work of the stakeholders, but also these are important assets and institutions that serve the city and purpose. it's part of the interconnectedness of the moscone center and these are assets that visitors attend and this is something that should be planned for in the long-term. for these types of facilities and these types of art facilitis that are also

burdened with having to fundraise for their operations annually and year after year, a ten-year capital planning timelines is not sufficient. we need to have a longer-term horizon in terms of taking a look at what revenues are needed to maintain these assets? and that is what we're calling upon the expertise of the san francisco division of real estate to do by asking them to put together a plan by march 2017. the original resolution, which we had introduced in june, had a year-end timeline, but i think that changing the date to march 2017 should provide sufficient time for them. the plan also calls out for an investigation of resources, and names the central soma plan as a new area of upzoning and a potential. i just want to emphasize this

is a potential revenue source and all of that will be for discussion with the expertise of the department of real estate. and then ultimately the board of supervisors to decide on the allocation of funds. so i'm happy to walk through the amendments line-by-line. is that what you would like me to do? >> i think the ones we were most focused on, which was the composition, and appointments to the board, as well as the involvement of the san francisco real estate division have been addressed on pages 4 and 5. i think that is what we were focused on. i guess a question to mr. updike, but as the capital number moved from $30 to $50 million at our last hearing on this i said to mr. updike, what do you think the real number is and he said, i don't know yet or words to that effect. if we turn it over to john updike, that would be

helpful. >> good morning, chair peskin, supervisor breed. unfortunately, we still don't know exactly. however, we are running models of. both the model that the mjm management, the current management entity for yerba buena gardens has and what is called comet. that does not produce great returns over long periods of time. so we're validating that information with our own city's system known as srsf that was referenced in the civil grand jury report regarding our capital and maintenance process for improvements. so it's really timely that we have taken a deep-dive into what that can do and thus system to better allocate system resources. we're continuing that effort and certainly supportive to get more time to be sure these numbers are vetted. and want to work with the stakeholders on that.

plus the march timeframe syncs up very nicely with the capital plan process, when that capital plan will be put to bed in the spring and move forward to the board for review. so we can input that into the new 10-year capital plan and we look forward to doing exactly that in the coming time. i don't know if $50 million is the right number. however, what i will say is that we took the revenue numbers, which are fairly known, added in some components for the conservancy's anticipated costs of taking on some obligations. so added that into the expense stream. and assumed a fixed amount of capital renewal costs of $50 million taken over a 30-year cost stream. frankly, it looks fairly good. we're able to maintain a reserve in excess of a percentage of calculated replacement value that we should have as a best-practice. so we're actually initially encouraged, but well still

want to vet these numbers and be sure that we have accuracy here. >> of. i hope that is helpful. >> i'm just wondering whether or not we want to further tinker with the last recital, the whereas at the bottom of the page 3 whereas the gardens is projected to need approximately $50 million capital funding over the next 30 years whether or not we want to say something about subject to the division of real estate's analysis? >> yes, chair peskin, it would be "approximately." or "subject to validate." something along those lines would be appreciated. >> thank you. you are comfortable with the resolution as amended, mr. updike? >> having confirmed that is what we saw last night, yes, i think we are comfortable

-- deputy city attorney givener has any comments. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. >> my understanding of the resolve clauseses that say shall or will are anticipation of -- anticipating how, for instance, the appointments will be made, rather than imposing a legal requirement on this new non-profit that the appointments will be made in this way. other than that, reading those words "will" and "shall" meaning essentially "should," i have no concerns. >> mr. givner, you are specifically, i assume, addressing on page 4 the be it further resolved yerba buena gardens conservancy will be governed by?

>> that is right. as well as two resolve clauses down, the conservancy will continue to contract for -- i think those are all -- the resolution in effect is the board saying this is what we intend for this body to do and be. >> do you suggest that we specifically say that, or is this self-evident in your opinion? >> i think it would probably be best, if the board, if you explicitly say that or replaced some of the "wills "owe with "should," or it's the intent of the board -- if you don't, because that is a lot of line editing right now, i would just note for the public here and for the record that is the meaning of this resolution. >> okay.

are there members of the public who would like to testify on this item, please come forward? >> good morning, my name is kathy, the director of the yerba buena community benefits district and here in interim board of the conservancy and to go on record saying that we are in support of the sponsor's proposed amendments to the resolution. and that we had done some work that has been incorporated into this about the board size, split and composition. so i have brought copis for you guys. i think you have seen this, but just wanted to say that we are in support of a 15-member board with 9/6 split and have proposed and thrown some ideas for composition for each of those, but open to conversation and looking forward to those conversations with the city on how that composition actually -- how it ends up

in the wash. those are just our suggestions at this point. thank you. >> thank you. mr. ellerling. >> good morning, supervisors, i just want to of course focus on the funding. as you spoke to operating and capital, these are obviously pivotal to the success of the gardens now and in the future. they are difficult challenges, and we will work with the city in solving them. but i do want to note, it's very important to remind all concerned that it will be the board of supervisors, yourselves, next year and of course with the mayor's agreement to really figure out how to allocate the available resources? especially from the central soma plan, which is going to, in fact, generate hundreds of millions of dollars of resources over the long haul. and of course before it gets to there, with regard to the central soma plan, the

planning commission, too, musts give support and agreement. and so the staff is not necessarily in agreement with us, but at the moment -- but it is the commission and it is this board and our mayor who really shall make the decision how to allocate the resources. and we look forward to that conversation. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other members of the public, we'll close public testimony. and we'll let the words of deputy city attorney givner stand as it relates to the intent as expressed in a number of "wills," and finally why don't we add on page 3, on the last "whereas," "the gardens is projected to need approximately $50 million

capital funding over the next 30 years for routine renovation of its buildings and facilities subject to validation by the san francisco real estate division." if those amendments and the amendments that ms. venarasion brought are acceptable, supervisor breed we'll adopt those without objection and send the item to the full board with recommendation, and that concludes our -- oh, one piece of housekeeping, which is we need a motion to excuse supervisor yee. >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor breed without objection, and we are adjourned [ gavel ]