>> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ in landing a contract with the

sfoifk is pretty champ but now with the opened contracting center visitors can get opportunity at the new state of the arc facility and attend workshops and receive one-on-one technical assistance and learner what you need to become a primary contractor or what information to be a subcontractor and a created bed public commission it will help people to assist people to compete for and performance open city contract a lot of small businesses do have the resources to loblth the opportunity so one of the things we wanted to do was provide ways to access contract

>> access to the plans spiefkz and a data place basis ease contracting opportunity and funding or capital training. this is and other documents that needs to be submitted. to compete is a technical skill that it takes to win a scheduling for a popular to you can win a professional services job or how to put together a quote it's all those technical pieces. looking at the contracting assistance center is our touch point with we get the people to come and see the planning specks and later than about projects earlier is he get training so you're ready to go arrest hello engineering it has all the tools that a contractor small or large

can come here. i can't say enough about the center it's a blessing. we do business all over the country and world and a place like the contractor center to identify the business in san francisco >> the reality is you need training and that's what the center is here to train and make you better qualified to go work with the city and county and to be successful at the end. >> that will give people the competitive edge e edge at receiving contracts with the city. >> we have krafshth services here that help you find out where you need to get the skills

forbidding. >> i mean local businesses participation in city projects is a winning factor it helms help the business their local businesses they're paying savings and a property tax and payroll tax and normally adhere san franciscans so their bowing goods and services in san francisco it really helps the economy of san francisco grow so its not only a benefit to the project but to the city. the contractors center is 5 thomas melon circle in the bayview area open 8:30 to 5 welc

everyone. >> welcome and thank you all for coming this morning here my chief deputy city attorney and evan that has been working diligently on the investigation in this case and thank you for your efforts part of my responsibility as

city attorney to protect san francisco residents and taxpayers from unfair or lawful business practices my office filed a law enforcement over the tower the reason for the action is simply because of the facts in the case are so clear but not make them any less my office investigations shows the developer mission district, llc knew for a year before they began selling condominiums to the 58 story residential building was sinking faster than expected yet they went ahead and solid accumulated without telling the buyers about the situation we were legally required buyer be aware didn't cut it smol someone selling real estate must disclose that when construction of tower was completed in february 2008 it

had already settled a lot of 6 inches 6 inches was a a maximum amount of engineering appreciated it would sink it had reached the point a year again, the developer began selling the condominium by february of 2009 just before the condos went on the market the tower settled 8.3 inches more over the maximum amount predicted by the geotechnical engineer on may the developer had data showings the tower way continuing to settle at different rates in different parts of property that leads to the building tilting now the building has sunk 16 inches and news report say it is sinking at the base before they sold a single

condominiums mission street development, llc knew they're building sunk more than it was supposed to and that was still sinking yet doesn't dell the homeowners they're required under the law mission street, llc turned over 19 hundred packages of documents with the disclose information about the property as a result of the subpoena that my office issued in september these disclosures documents discussed everybody from color and marble to noting the size and types of of the plans in the common area change but they left out of most important detail no where is the city aware of mission street, llc disclose that the building settled faster than it was designed to do that's not just a bit of information perspective homeowners would like to know the information the developer is

legally required to provide and at the heart of the case the homeowners have filed define the transportation authority and the city and county of san francisco my office is bringing this lawsuit to a cross complaint against the mission street, llc they filed it today in a case of a number of millennium homeowners have sued the joint powers authority and the san francisco city center they're building a tower next to the site san francisco is one of the members of the authority the authority is a separate legal entity and our cross complaint we are seeking damages the court feels is appropriate in 2013 when it closed it's for sale millennium brought in what delighted quota massive 78 hundred there are no thousand

dollars it was one $.8 million my office has a duty to protect the taxpayers of 70 spot sit by and allow a developer to gunshot themselves by hiding information in their required by law to disclose that gave the developer in this case an unfair advantage and cheated the homeowners out of the information they needed to make an informed choice that's summarized the information and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> go in order. >> (inaudible). >> no do not. >> was there a choice to file a criminal complaint. >> this is a civil complaint i don't have the power under the law to file a criminal action

this is a can i feel complaint we're not seeking reference nor have i made referral to the duo district attorney or any other entities that makes that inquiry yeah. >> is the filing a cross complaint. >> that's correct. >> the homeowners that sued the transbay joint powers authority and the city and county of san francisco. >> well, it is depend on what the findings is in this case, the damages according to prove and in the event there was a finding against a city an indemnity against the developer since their the party at fault. >> (inaudible). >> monetary damages yeah. >> (inaudible).

>> well, i think that that's right what everybody - that should be the primary concern of everybody we're protecting life and safety i know there's a review going on by other city agencies to make sure that that the building is safe from everything i'm told the building is safe and would perform in an earthquake that's not the focus of my inquiry at this point but i know the city and the mayor and the department of building inspection and everybody has focused on assuring paycheck and safety. >> (inaudible).

>> well, i'll disagree as a matter of fact the department of building department dbi didn't have information about the current settlement until the past july so that's something that will be discussed in litigation. >> (inaudible) you've already said in some litigation the homeowners waited too late to file their filing against the city you said they've known about it since 2015 and should have settled sooner you want the - now your intervening that goes sg against the millennium developer

and then he going against the developer and they don't have any money they're out out of luck your public health they're wrongly suing the city and on the other hand, you're saying it is millenniums fault. >> the as a matter of fact jackson i think what you're referring to a lawsuit that was filed against the city we filed and refiled today but we've been clear the vocal point of this needs to be on the responsible party that's the developer because if you accounted a lot the claim before us and the complaint against the city it is basically for a condemnation and the claim of the value it because what has occurred there was a loss of value not an

adequate disclose made to the purchasesers by the developer at the time of the arbitration it was completed that's what cause the loss in value has occurred from my perspective the vocal point is on the responsible party the developer who has known about this all along and not disclose the information that was required to disclose to their purposeers or pro seismic purchasers. >> i'm sorry. i'll come back to you. >> certainly i do absolutely i think that you know this is every homeowners worst nightmare a lot of people go through this they know what happens when the investment it is to go and purchase a home or condominium sometimes you have people's

entire savings they put forward to purchase something that's why this is egregious and the california raw is to district and expensive whaven when it comes you must throwers for the purposeers the reason for the law in this area is to that people don't get ripped off and they're protected and in our view what makes that egregious when you look at all the disclosures and the marble eloquently goes to the heart of what one considers had making an transaction yet i have compassionate for the folks that's why we're stepping in to make sure the developer that the city is making sure that the responsible party here is paying for their misdeeds. >> you have a question.

>> (inaudible). >> it is it is. >> (inaudible). >> okay this gentleman here. >> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry (inaudible). >> we received 19 hundred pages of documents in respond to a subpoena we issued in september. >> oh, okay. >> (inaudible) 2011. >> yeah. >> do you think that although it is millenniums responsibility aren't you you embarrassed the agencies didn't bother to tell nobody that the city's job for safety obviously they can step in a do the right thing in 2009 including those are by all measures the presented measure

of settlement is he watched and the city knows the millennium is not telling you it is readily apparent or the. >> at least be careful with the words the gentleman asked about criminal activity i'm not sure anyone is committing a crime no doubt that dbi knew about settlement in 2009 but it wasn't until this past july dbi had additional information about the continuing settlement accordance of differential settlement they didn't have all the information number one but number two the second part of our question you - who's the one that is dealing with the purchaser the city is not in a position of knowing what the developer is disclosing to pro

seismic purchasers we're not in a contract the city didn't interjefferson county themselves into all transactions we don't know what in their disclosing to the purchasers it was as a result of our subpoena that we preserved the disclose and went to the purchasers and saw what was and not disclosed if we followed the logic the as a matter of fact of the matter the city being sure on all home purpose in san francisco stepping in and trying to monitor and interjefferson county themselves in that to see in profits are made or not made its simply - >> your city is a aware of the position and let them get away

with it and actually nobody recorded a crime so nobody recorded it. >> we didn't release or know that millennium was not living up to its obligations the second we got the information we were not aware they were living up to their obligation we taken steps to address that so i'll say you know we operate laws are on the book people expect their live up to the obligations we become aware they're not we'll take action and be aggressive about that that's what we're doing today and (inaudible). >> i'm sorry in my office i have a code compliant office division. >> (inaudible). >> somebody from city building look at this and you start talking about you have this building we talk about the fact

that may not be seen - a big earthquake was a threat i mean the city just walked away under the table. >> as dbi has gotten information the department of building inspection that's who i presume you're asking about they're involved and making sure that the building is safe and i don't think that anyone is walking away and trying to say it is not anyone's problem the city is aggressive in the health and safety and the terms of discloses to make sure that millennium their obligation is up and that's what we're talking about today. >> (inaudible). >> i can't speak to that that's something the department of building inspection will be continuously working with the developer as it processes and

not anything i can speak to - yes. >> (inaudible) to fix the problem and what you know what is the next step that building is still - >> i can't speak to a criminal inquiry that is something for the district attorney or something else i have - we're unaware of at this time but if we become aware nushgs we thought darned a criminal inquiry we'll make that referral but i don't have any indication. >> yes. it is about monetary damage; correct. >> no according to prove the courts democrats as we go through the case. >> (inaudible) that are it is urban precedent have you not necessary developer. >> we sue people and entities

all the time. >> this is obviously i don't think - this is obviously a very, very serious case and a big case in a high-profile case but you yufgs one case is more important than at a homeowner feels their safety is threatened even though this is not a high profile this is a big case and a big development this is unprecedented case (inaudible). >> (inaudible). >> i can't will you at this point. >> (inaudible). >> well, we obviously directing your attention of this litigation looking at everything obviously we'll have to in terms of handling this case. >> part of our toufbz about

the disclosure (inaudible) part of our objectives we should be more scrutiny and will be scrutinizing this and the developers be wander and i'll not is that actually, i think that here in california basis there are such robust and protective disclosure laws i'll find in most incidents in purchases of hopes and development there is a lot of disclosure a lot of disclosure because buyers are sophisticated and sellers are they know what the law requires that's what makes this particular egging gregarious you have a very, very sophisticated developer but be

assure if someone is not living up to their legal responsibility we'd like investigate and take action where appropriate i'll not say this is sending a message i think that most sophisticated developers and purchasers are aware of their legal responsibility and live up to it. >> yeah. >> (inaudible) the stores you've done can you talk a little bit about more about the development. >> that's the developer of an affiliate that was wraeshl for the sale of the condos in the beginning of the marketing of that. >> (inaudible). >> an affiliate, an affiliate. >> take two more questions aj has not had a chance.

>> (inaudible) we thought that was the best deal for the case and knew we had to file an answer and orderly in a case like this if you going to file an answer you have a cross claim choose to go to this group two more questions. >> obviously in terms of our case the millennium will be i should - just to be clear mission street development will be served and with the complaint and they'll have an opportunity to respond file an answer and we'll see where that goes. >> (inaudible). >> said an obligation to disclose. >> yep. >> (inaudible) i'm kind of confused those guys profited millions of dollars for

failing to disclose a serious problem and walk away with the money that is why isn't this a crime and there - when you file a criminal action i know that makes for a sexy sounds like bidded owl crimes very specific elements and as we reviewed this to date we are obviously i'm not a criminal lawyer but reviewing this and we see a violation of civil lay in the event we thought this was an element to the crime we referred it but does see any element of criminal activity we filed an action of a lawsuit i don't throw the word out criminal crime willy-nilly

without having evidence i don't have any evidence if i did i'll make the information to the appropriate party. >> okay - >> (inaudible). >> no, that's - we're going to have to see where this goes if there is liability we found a contribution or who is held responsible for the payment of damages - >> we'll have to see where things go in this case at this time it is premature to talk about that. >> but - >> but if you think about damages yeah. i don't know what a mechanism would be because of the early stages of the litigation thank very