good. and i see the turnover on the side of the san francisco county transportation authority, a great turnover. and i don't see any diversity. i don't see any diversity. and when i say diversity, i don't mean one type of diversity, i mean, do you all really represent the constituency, the taxpayers of san francisco? having said that, i see the supervisors are busy having a sidebar, and that tells me something. supervisors, one, to become a supervisor, you must represent. and for the newest supervisors, you can look what's happening around you. when somebody's giving public comment, which is sacrosanct, and you're having your public

conversations, and you think you're really smart, i can write, and that's the reason why i have my blog. >> chair peskin: is there any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and the t.a. is adjourned. [gavel] >> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the

board of supervisors, our first committee of the new committee structure of the new year. monday, january 28, 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor 5 hsha safai and shortly to be joined by supervisor and new committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. we are joined in the audience by planning commissioner dennis richards. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: do you have any other extraneous announcements that you would like to make, madam clerk? >> clerk: i do not. >> chair peskin: okay.

i thought you wanted to make an announcement about emergency evacuation procedures? >> clerk: that would be in the case of an emergency evacuation. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to welcome the counsel to this committee, counsel john give mer. welcome, mr. givner. madam clerk, the first item, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. and let me just start out by saying when i became the chair of this committee, i found out that there were actually a number of landmark designations that had been recommended by the historic reservation commission that were on the backlog of this committee's calendar, and i intend to bring them forward to this committee, including several at our next

meeting on the 11th day of february . and this measure has been sponsored by supervisor mandelman. and i see his representative today. sir, if you'd like to come back on behalf of supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of the historic landmark designation for the property at 22 beaver street, one of the oldest homes in the duboce triangle of district eight. the home originally built in the 1870's is one of the few structures in the neighborhood to survive the 1906 earthquake with minimal renovations to the italian style exterior. it is our belief that the duboce triangle neighborhood and san francisco at large would benefit from the designation of this property,

and i ask that you support the history torque designation. i thank you, supervisors for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. and on behalf of the planning department, miss ferguson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. janet ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to present the historic preservation commission's finding. the department received a community sponsored landmark designation from the property owner in june 2018. the landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as

a very early and well preserved italian villa within a garden setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on three of its four destinations, indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the

designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i bring up mr. verplank who prepared the report, i'd like to bring forward our esteemed planning commissioner dennis richards, mr. richards. >> commissioner richards: thank you. dennis richards here as an individual citizen because the commission did not hear this item. this house was a special house. i see -- i live directly across the street and i've been looking at it ever since i've lived in my house. people walk up the street and marvel that this house survived. it was on an 80 foot lot, and a 20-foot section was cut in 1953 as per the case report. the palm tree on the next door lot is also going to be coming before you as a separate

landmarking of the tree because it was original to the house -- i think it was built in 1869. people walk up the street. it's an amazing house, even on the inside. we have the owner of the house, miss geiling, who's been in the house since 1966, and against all odds, in the '60's and '70's, and the federal government came in, and we were supposed to be a redevelopment 2.0 area, she actually participated in the federally assisted code enforcement program known as face. it also created the landscape that we have in duboce triangle that many, many people including tour buses drive through the city and can't believe how lush it is. a couple of other things. this house, in its setting, plus most of the rest of duboce triangle is a california registered district. we had, as a planning department, determined in 200 #

when the market octavia program was passed, several of us are going to be getting duboce triangle on the historic register because if it's on the california register, it is exempt. and i'm also working with several other folks from several other neighborhoods that are also eligible districts to get them on the register. one last thing, if this esteemed committee or the board of supervisors can hold a hearing on s.b.-50 and its actual impact on san francisco because i've read the legislation and i've seen all the places where it points to, and you really need to understand it. it's -- it's going to rezone everything again, so thank you very much. i support this landmarking. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner richards, testifying in your capacity as a citizen of the city and

county of san francisco and the matter that you just brought up is not before us, so we, as you know, pursuant to the brown act, cannot discuss that, but thank you for edifying us on the history of this property. with that, mr. verplank, who wrote the case report on this, please come forward. >> thank you, chair peskin. justin sevplank. i want to thank the owner of the property, miss te tess geiling. without her effort and the effort of her husband, john, this property would be a stucco home or parking lot, no doubt about it. they painstakingly preserved 22 beaver street, but they've also

put the personal touches on the property in the time they've owned it, which is why we decided to call it the benedict-gieling house. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and thank you for all the work you do on behalf of historic preservation. you do it scientifically. miss gieling, if you want to come forward, and if you don't, i see just want to thank you for stewarding the house since before i was born, but if you'd like to come forward, we'd like to hear from you. right there. there you go. miss gieling, the floor is yours. >> i'm jean gieling. i've owned beaver street, 22

beaver for more than 60 years, and i think i've seen it at its worst, and i'm beginning to see it at its best. in the beginning, the house was in such miserable condition, it was rumored that it would become motel. well, nobody on the street wanted that, and when we bought it, the neighbors came one by one to tell me how grateful they were that we would be able

to restore the house and to live there. i've been in restoration for more than 60 years, but i'm sure i can finish it. and the neighbors told me a great deal about the beginnings of the house. but what i've been seeing is the fact as i've worked on the house to bring it up to standard, the rest of the neighborhood came with me. beaver street had been left

more or less neglected because of the rumor that it would become a park, a -- well, it was to become something they did not want, either a motel or a nursing home. and as i've worked, the neighborhood has improved. everybody has painted his house and made it the street it is today, which i think is one of

the best, most livable places in the entire city. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gieling, for your stewardship and for resisting the worst of development. and to my two new colleagues on this panel, that i've serve off and on on this panel for their part of a generation, i would like to see that we will see landmark designations come before us, some of them with the support of landowners, some of them with the vociferous opposition of landowners. of course, within our laws, we can landmark a building with or without support of property owner, but when a property owner like miss gieling comes forward and wants to do the

right thing for the next seven generations, i personally want to salute her and people like here. to people like dennis richards, thank you for making this happen, albeit, it probably ads value to your property across the street, but you're doing it in your personal capacity so you have no conflict. mr. givner has assured me of such. with that, is there any public comment on this matter? you already spoke. seeing no public comment, colleagues, would we like to allow commissioner richards to speak again? without objection, mr. richards, the floor is yours. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say one thing about mrs. gieling. she is a living part of san francisco history. she is a metallurgist.

some of her friends were imogene cunningham, who was a photographer of past, as well as ruth isawa, who helped her restore the house. >> chair peskin: thank you very much, commissioner richards. miss gieling, if we could preserve you, we would. colleagues, is there a motion to forward this to the full board? >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chair peskin: motion made by supervisor haney. we'll take that without objection. thank you, one and all. madam clerk, next item please. >> thank you. [agenda item read].

>> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, i do believe that supervisor vice chair safai is very familiar with what is a major encroachment permit, and i do not know, before i do not violate the brown act, whether supervisor haney knows what a major encroachment permit is. but over the last couple of years, my office has endeavored to make sense of a pellmell scheme around major encroachment schemes where in private parties have a license or right to the public

right-of-way, and there are many of these that have issued over the last 150-plus years in the city and county of san francisco. and i want to thank the number of interns who actually assembled a list of major encroachment permits that had issued. and there was no real clear way in our code as to how they should be revoked. and with the help of the city attorney, we actually created some changes to the major encroachment law which were unanimously passed. i believe supervisor safai was on the board and voted in favor of that. but as with all pieces of legislation, this is an evolving area of law, and akin to a piece of legislation i passed i think in 2002 or '03.

the change that is scheduled before the board of supervisors would allow us to schedule a hearing before the board regarding revocation of a permit when the director of public works has not timely scheduled and held a hearing or issued a decision regarding said revocation. i am happy to explain this. and before i do that, is there anybody here from the department of public works who would like to speak to this item? thank you for coming here this afternoon, and i do not know your name, so if you could tell me what it is, i would be happy to announce that. >> thank you. my name is jeremy spitz. i am in the director's office, and i work on legislative affairs. >> chair peskin: jeremy spitz,

like as the swimmer, mark? >> yes. no relation. the director of public works has reviewed this legislation. there is no major change, and it is a policy direction to the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. i look forward to getting to know you, and thank you for coming this afternoon. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. that's always music to supervisor peskin's ears, when he hears the director has no objection to his legislation. so i have a few questions. we worked on this last year. we moved forward, but i know we sent this back to committee to have further conversations. one of the things i wanted to talk about on page 3, line 23, when it talks about the director shall mail notice of this decision, i wanted to know

if we could add language, by certified mail just so -- >> chair peskin: upon filing of the notice -- no, line 21. >> supervisor safai: page 22 and 23. >> chair peskin: excuse me. >> supervisor safai: you're on the wrong page. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable -- this is the subsection b-1. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable period of time after the administrative hearing, this is for anybody who's watching, old language -- the director shall issue a written decision on the permittee's cure, if any, and the public revocation petition and fine based on the public interest that the director will reject the petition, approve the petition or initiate revocation of the permit on the grounds -- on grounds other than those identified in the petition. the director shall mail notice of this decision to the lead petitioner, the permit holder, and you are suggesting at line

22 that the director shall do this by certified mail? >> supervisor safai: yes, just based on problems that we've had in the past based on individuals not receiving. that's a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: i personally do not care. there are many notice provisions, and there are many definitions of notice, and i will ask deputy city attorney jon givner to opine about the definition of notice. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure whether in article 15 or elsewhere in the public works code, there's any requirement for the director of public works when providing mailed notice to do it by certified mail. i can check. you can certainly make this amendment next tuesday at the board. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i guess i started a little bit

later through the chair. i started -- no longer a question to you, deputy city attorney, but my question would be i sounded like you had interns do a lot of research. one of my questions was how many, if any, have ever been -- how many major encroachments have not been revoked? and i would imagine because we're talking about, when often times -- just for the public's edification, i know you're aware of this. often times when you're doing development, some of that development leads into or has a relationship in the public right-of-way, and that's what the minor and major encroachments are for. very often, it's required, not necessarily anticipated, but it's required by the planning department or those that are designing the projects on the frontage or on the side of the property, depending on where it lays in the alley and so on and

so forth. one of the ways they often will solve for the problem is to ask the folks that are developing something to -- they pretty much require a major encroachment. so it becomes part of the overall development. so my question was, in a lot of instances, this is essentially part of the design and part of the overall building or envelope and so on. so you don't have to answer this now, and i'm sure we would get that as part of this process. but i would imagine that we probably haven't ever revoked any major encroachment. i know that that authority is there, and it lies within the ability -- i know one of the projects that we worked on when i was at public works was a home, and it was in the san jose gulch, where they took, by eminent domain, many of the parcels, and then, they left some of the parcels adjacent to existing structures. and so one of them was a property that the actual yard or the open space, it seemed as though it was adjacent, but

actually was a major encroachment -- >> chair peskin: in the driveway. >> supervisor safai: no, this one was not. it was the entire yard, and at some point, d.p.w. was considering revoking it, but then, they formalized an agreement. but in that agreement always rested the authority if necessary in the future, the director of public works had the ability to revoke that. and that was understood and it was disclosed in the property. so i just wanted to make sure if we were going to go down this route, and i would imagine there would be a very few situations that we wouldn't get into -- adding that would be more like a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: sure. let's take the first and the second issue. the first, i think the director has the authority to send it by certified mail should the director desire, so we can let the city attorney drill down on

that between now and next tuesday. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: but with regard to revocation -- and this is related to the new member of this panel, the difference between minor and major encroachment permits, minor can be issued by the director, and major encroachment permits can only be issued by the body. there are tons of minor. if you would like to put a planter in front of your house or apartment building on the street, and you want to do it properly, you actually go and ask for a minor encroachment permit. a major encroachment is much more akin to a license or right, but the city retains in that instrument the ability to revoke it. and there actually -- and i

would be misrepresenting if i told you the number of major encroachments that would be revoked in my intern's research of 2.5 years ago, but there actually have been some that have been revoked by the city for a variety of reasons. but insofar as they are granted by the elected body, i want today make sure -- >> supervisor safai: we have the ability -- >> chair peskin: right. we have the ability to revoke them. in this particular amendment, the issue is a fine-tuning of what we voted for unanimously after some back and forth and rereferral to committee, and that is what i would call justice delayed is justice denied which is to the extent that the director, whoever he or she may be now and in the future does not issue a written decision or does not hold a hearing that five of us, as we do in the case of conditional use authorization appeals can

bring that matter before this board. this is really a due process issue. >> supervisor safai: right, but. >> chair peskin: and with that, i hand it back to you, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, mr. chair. that is almost 100% of the story, but it also -- if members of the board don't agree with the decision, you give us the ability to appeal. so that is one step beyond. so we have that -- >> chair peskin: the court of last resort, the people's court. >> supervisor safai: the people -- for the people. >> chair peskin: i'm not running for president of the united states, i'm just chair of the land use committee. >> supervisor safai: in same section, right above that section on page three, section 2-a-ii. >> chair peskin: got it. >> supervisor safai: begins with if the director accepts the petition, the director shall schedule an administrative hearing no earlier than 60 days and no later than 90 days after the date of the petition acceptance in order to provide the permit

holder with an opportunity to cure the problems associated with the permit as identified in the petition. at the administrative hearing, the director shall provide the petitioner with a chance to provide proof that the problems have been cured in the petition. in the next section, prior to any administrative hearing in the petition, the director shall develop an estimate of the cost -- [inaudible] >> supervisor safai: -- shall shall bear the cost. it is a party other than the permittee. i just wanted to ask mr. spitz to come back up. through the chair, i wanted to ensure that 60 to 90 days on this situation -- if the director was going to be making

this decision because his decision is based on two factors that we then have the opportunity to move past, one of which is determination of successful cure or whether or not engineering design is factored in. those are the two factors of which the director has the ability to deny the petition or determine. and i just wanted to know, in your opinion -- and it makes me a little wary that 60 to 90 days might not be enough time to develop a cost estimate. so i wanted to be sure that there could be some language that there would be an additional period of time -- a small amount of time to determine whether or not this is a right time frame to give a cost estimate on who the -- who the responsible party, the permittee, the cost estimate associated with the revokation and restoration of this major encroachment. so first, i'm happy to hear what the chair has to say, but i also wanted to give an

opportunity to public works -- but if you'd like to go first. >> chair peskin: i'd very like to hear mr. spitz. in that no less than 60 and no more than 90 days, what the department has to do is develop a cost estimate of the cost of revocation and number two, identify the responsible party. >> supervisor safai: and associated restoration. >> chair peskin: yes, costs and -- well, that's the costs. revocation and restoration is the costs, so if you have to remove the driveway, that's the cost, so same thing. so we're kind of replowing old ground here, which is that insofar as when this first came before earlier incarnation of this committee and went to the board and came back to this committee and went back to the full board, all of these issues were settled. what is really before this panel today is really a due process matter.

so the department, which ultimately supported the legislation, which this part is not actually before us, was in support of the 60 to 90 days. the funny thing about this is this is mostly a theoretical conversation because as we both stipulated to, very few of these happen, and the department is respectfully well resourced. but thus far, i have not heard any issues or complaints relative to the 60 or 90 days. but with that, mr. spitz, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor safai, 60 to 90 days should be sufficient. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. and then lastly -- so -- well,

i guess that's -- i guess my last question was just -- just maybe for the city attorney through the chair, on page four, just the first reference on -- in section -- in section 2-b, bullet number 2-biii, if the director rejects the petition based solely on engineering design, is that defined somewhere in the code, engineering design? >> chair peskin: ah, i remember these conversations. mr. givner? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the -- under state law, the city engineer, which is housed in -- works for d.p.w. has exclusive authority to determine engineering design issues. i believe that the -- that the term is -- i don't know if that

specific term is defined, but the scope of the city engineer's authority is defined in state law rather than this ordinance. >> supervisor safai: okay. i just wanted to clarify. that was it. thank you, mr. peskin. it seems, mr. chair, that the only thing we'll hear back on is the issue of certified mail. >> chair peskin: well i said in the beginning, i'm okay with it, but i could careless. okay. if there's any member of the public that would like to testify on item 2, please come forward. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, if there are no amendments, i would entertain a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation, we can handle that on tuesday. >> supervisor safai: move. >> chair peskin: so moved by

supervisor safai, and with that, we are adjourned. [gavel] i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today.

>> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better

to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with

the parks and recreation center so come >> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by

hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big.

so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and

everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint.

people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is

important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors

does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we

make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in.

but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪ -

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some

restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as

well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here.

>> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in sa

>> (clapping.) >> in san francisco the medical examiner performs the function of investigating medical and legal that occurs with the city and county of san francisco from a variety of circumstances in san francisco there is approximately 5 thousand deaths annually i'm christopher director for the chief mr. chairman the chief my best testimony a at the hall of justice on 870 drooint street that is dramatically updated and not sufficient for the medical chairman facility i've charles

program manager public works should a earthquake of a major are proportion occurs we'll not continue to perform the services or otherwise inhabit the building before the earthquake. >> we're in a facility that was designs for a department that functions and in the mid 60s and friends scientific has significantly changed we've had significant problems with storage capacity for evidence items of property and also personal protective if you're doing a job on a daily basis current little storage for prirjs are frirnlsz we're in an aging facility the total project cost forever ever commercial is $65 million the funding was brought by a vote of go bond

approved by the voters and the locations is in the neighborhood the awarded contract in 2013 and the i'm the executive director we broke ground in november 2015 and that started with the demolition of existing facility we moved into the foundation and january so pile foundation and then with second construction of the new facility. >> one of the ways that we keep our project on time on budget and we're having quality to have regular meeting and the variety of meetings with construction process meeting as well as cost of control meeting and i'm a project manager for public works the office of chief commercial we want walk the project site when we sign up and

also with a contractor insinuates for a change over we need to verify what or what was instead of. >> the building is 42 feet tall so it is two stories and 46 thousand square feet roughly we're that's a great question to be on time and budget have the roof complete a the exterior moving with the site work. >> and as you can see we've got a lot of the interior finishes installed. >> in an effort of an differentiate the facility that designed to work for 72 hours. >> not taking into account there was a lot of structural updates made into this building not seen in other construction throughout san francisco or other barriers we have friday morning examiners from 8 to one public comment monday to friday because of air circulation we literally have to shut the doors

and so the autopsy is done without staffing being able to come and go or exit the space and literally lock down the autopsy in the new facility we have bio build one door opens and closed behind you you can gown up and go through a second seizures of doors that has its own independent air supply and now in the exterior opt space having that middle space have greater flexibility of staff as they move in and out of the area. >> in the current facility investigative unit has small tiny, tiny place in the area of the new facility is almost doubled in all divisions from the current facility and the new

facility. >> the planning we have here gives them the opportunity to have the pool needs to complete theirs jobs in a much more streamlined fashion. >> we're looking forward to have secured parking to minimize the egress of you know visiting and the members of the public but really to minimize the investigators remaining remains from our advancing and so the facility. >> we have a new visitors area we're building that is a little bit more friendly to families. >> one thing you may notice in the room no windows there is no natural light not good for most autopsy but in the new facility at new hall we made that an objective they want to insure we were able

to look up in the middle of exam and see the sky and see natural lights. >> that's one of the things the architect did to draw in as much light as possible. >> we have staff here onsite we insure the design of the new design enables the investigators and other investigators skiefksz to consider to house on site this meant we needed to design and plan for locker room facilities and shower rooms the ability to sleep. >> third of the construction going into the building has been by contributions of small businesses. >> part of the project is also inclusive to the sidewalk have all new sidewalks and new curve cuts and landscaping around the building we'll have a syrup in

front of the building and rain guardian. >> the medical examiner's office has been a several if in their contributions of the understanding the exception and needs. >> it's a building that the chief medical examiner has been looking forward to quite a few of the. >> it is extremely valuable contribution to the, neighborhood address san francisco as a whole. >> the building will allow is to have greater very much and serve the city and county of san francisco and the neighboring

>> good morning, everyone. thank you for being here. we wilt