is here on behalf of the san francisco unified school district and as the owner of those properties, i wanted to offer her or any representative of the school district tell the committee what the school district's position is at this time. obviously, we are aware of the 2017 and 2018 letters that are part of the file as well as the e-mail communication that is part of the file. miss mogue, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin and land use committee members. we will have an additional representative if you have any further technical questions from our chief facilities officer? but as of right now, we did submit a letter dated in march 2018 that the board of education is not supportive of moving forward with any landmark designation at this time? and we are hoping to request a one-week continuance to discuss with our new board -- we

actually have four new board of education members, and we want to provide them some background before this gets moved forward, and we also have our chief facilities officer if you have any additional questions. >> chair peskin: thank you. and we also will want to hear from miss kamala naughton, who we hold in high esteem. my understanding is the h.p.c. forwarded three landmark designations to this body, and that one of them, washington, was the subject of controversy with regard to certain murals. and my understanding -- and maybe my now colleague on my panel who was a member of the school district might be able to elaborate. but my understanding is that all three of them got conflated with the controversy at wash, and that actually, as i understand it, i would watch

the tapes of that meeting over a year ago, except for that i can't find your school board meetings on-line. but at any rate, my understanding is -- no, they don't exist. >> they do exist. >> chair peskin: they do? >> yes. i can send that link to you. >> chair peskin: okay. i was not able to find them. but my understanding -- and supervisor haney can elucidate for this panel what it was. my understanding all three landmark designations was really directed at one, which is not before this panel, and i have no intention as chair to bring before the land use committee of the board of supervisors. but with that, miss kamala naughton as the facilities manager, replacing mr. golden, would like to address the land

use committee, the floor is yours. >> supervisors, kamala naughton representing sfusd. supervisors, i was not at that particular meeting. my understanding as the board's direction has been passed onto me is yes, there were considerable concern own the murals at george washington, but also the significant cost of renovation at these sites if designation should go forward. i'm going to remain agnostic on those points, but i think just echoing miss mogue's point in that the board was unequivocal in its opposition for the motion, now, we have a new board and we would like to reengage them and see if they would like to understand the topic in more depth, if they have any feedback that they'd like to share, it's as simple as that.

there's not a significant content objection to the work that's been done by the preservation staff. i think these are acknowledged resources within the district, and you know, i -- i don't think there are questions per se about the legitimacy over the future of these assets, but more of a procedural etiquette. >> chair peskin: so you are aware that the state law relative to our -- as the city and county of san francisco designate -- designation should this panel and should the full board designation, is mostly honorific. insofar as the school district is a subdivision of the state of california, it can, and i believe many times in the past

i believe as to other locally designated landmarks in sfusd's jurisdiction has chosen not to come before the land use board, not request c.r.s., although it would be a nice thing for your agency to do. but mostly, this is honorific with certain exceptions when they do not concern educational purposes. >> yes, and i am aware of that. >> chair peskin: and you're also aware in the case of theodore roosevelt, the facilities have been upgraded and there are no facility improvements that would compromise the historic fabric of the building that are contemplated. >> i am aware that there is relatively recent work within the kind of capital life ticyc of the building that was

conducted at roosevelt. i'm not certain that all the entire facility was captured top to bottom and therefore that there might not be some structural or mechanical issue in the future, so i'm not familiar enough with this particular asset to know if it merits the fact that it's completely off the table for the near future. something north of $30 million, i don't think something is anticipated in the future for roosevelt. >> chair peskin: okay. thank you. anything else you would like to add? >> no, thank you, supervisor. >> chair peskin: thank you. so we have -- i do have questions for the planning department, but we have a number of speakers, so i thought we'd start with professor robert turney, who is a renowned historyian, who is

here today in his capacity as a member of the historic preservation fund committee. colleagues, if you do not know about that, that is actually part of the city and county of san francisco, and many years ago was given some $2 million out of a legal settlement that they have spent on doing historic surveys and other good historic preservation work in the city and county of san francisco through -- under oe -- the office of economic and workforce development. professor turney, thank you for coming. >> good afternoon. thank you, supervisors. >> chair peskin: and by the way, just so you know, insofar as you're testifying on two items, you have four minutes. >> thank you. the historic preservation fund committee several years ago set out a priority list of things that we wanted to accomplish before the $2 million was all spent. among those was a historic context statement for the great

depression new deal era in san francisco, and that has been completed. it's been reviewed by the historic preservation commission. and as one part of that larger project, we were especially interested in seeing landmark nominations for the three schools that you mentioned. roosevelt school because of its architecture and its new deal murals. george washington as a new deal funded project in terms of both the building and the murals. and sunshine school both because it was a new deal funded school and because it was especial

1930's in almost every part of the united states where the children of the unemployed were unable -- >> chair peskin: thank you, professor. as always, i always enjoy hearing from you. >> thank you. >> chair peskin: our next speaker -- and we may have questions for you, so if you would, please stick around.

our next public commenter is mike bueller from san francisco heritage. mr. bueller, not to exceed four minutes on the two items. >> good afternoon, committee members of the mike bueller with san francisco heritage. i don't have much to add regarding the significance of the believe. we believe that was manifest. san francisco heritage in 2016 received the grant referenced by professor turney to complete both the new deal context study. in conjunction with that, we received a grant to prepare the three-school city landmark nominations, knowing that these three school buildings are among the most significant school buildings in the district and among the most significant buildings associated with the new deal era. as referenced earlier, both were unanimously endorsed by the historic preservation commission. the nominations themselves are of the highest caliber. i believe each is over 100 pages in length and in our view

will serve as valuable information signal documents to the district as they contemplate future improvements to their properties. they list what is significant about the school buildings so that future planning efforts can ensure that those futures are protected if at all possible. one important benefit of official designation that is not currently available to the district is that listing will enable the district to apply the state historical building code, which if you're not familiar is a more flexibility alternative to the uniform building code that often times results in a cost savings alternative to the u.b.c. thank you for bringing those nominations forward and i'm happy to answer any questions, as well. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. bueller. the next speaker card i have is from richard rothman.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is richard rothman. i'm a richmond district resident, and i want to -- roosevelt, you know, roosevelt was designed by timothy fluger, and that he was unusual in that he was a mission boy. he grew up in the mission. he did not go to formally architect school, he was a draftsman. he's probably one of our most prominent architects in the city, and i think it would be a great tribute to honor him in the city in naming this as a city landmark. and as it's said before, the school district is a state agency, so really, they can do -- they don't need to follow

the san francisco building codes or follow the landmark status, so it's just an honor of a recognition. and i think would be a great honor to -- for his tribute to make this a city landmark. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. rothman. and as the previous speaker said, there is actually a benefit to the school district which is this designation can actually allow the sfusd to avail themselves of the state historic building code instead of the uniform building code of the state of california. both of these case reports -- and colleagues, i don't know if you've read them carefully because there's a lot of pages in them -- were prepared by christopher verplank and donna graves. and mr. verplank is here. i have to tell you, i enjoyed reading both of these case reports this weekend. mr. verplank, the floor is yours. >> greetings, supervisors. my name is christopher

verplank. i am a resident of miraloma mark, and a parent of a student next year. i believe the architectural and artistic significance as well as historical is beyond question. what really strikes me about these two schools is they're both built during a can-do era long before most americans had been trained to hate their governments. the new deal and schools in particular were about the government helping to improve people's lives, to providing work to the unemployed, modern educational infrastructure to san francisco school children as well as public art for all of its citizens to enjoy. in our contemperary -- and that everyone deserves access to

high quality infrastructure. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and for that report inext infrastructure. miss karen kai. >> good afternoon, supervisors. these are two wonderful reports, and they're like anything that i've seen from h.p.c. adequate and quite thoroughly document them. i want to applaud the h.p.c., the funding committee, and this committee because, you know, there really hasn't been much effort to reach into the schools, and i think they're so important as mr. verplank noted, they teach. the places that send our kids that have value that tell them about our history and what we valued. because of that, it's a lesson where they are.

and i've seen what can happen by little bits. i live in district eight, but i do a great deal of work at rosa parks elementary school in the western addition, and rosa parks was the site of the last buses that took japanese americans away to the camps. and dorothea lang took a remarkable series of photographs there. very recently, we lost the big iron gates that were the backdrop for some of those photographs. they were there one day, and then, they were gone, and the community had no say in that. they just disappeared, and it's tragic. and i do know from experience that historic designation does not have to increase costs monumentally and doesn't have to stand in the way of what needs to be done. that's been shown by many

groups, and i've worked personally with little friends -- nihomachi little friends that has preserved a julia moran building, added onto it, and really taken care of it, and it has become a great asset to the community. so i thank you for moving ahead on this, and i hope that we can engage the school district in greater efforts to reach out to the communities to do more of this kind of work. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, karen. i really appreciate it, and i appreciate your work at niomachi little friends. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on items one or two? seeing none, public comment is closed. actually, mr. frye, i think we've asked -- unless my colleagues have more particular questions -- actually, i do have one question for you. mr. frye, are you aware of how

many other san francisco unified school district properties have located landmark -- local landmark designation under our police caring code article ten? i mentioned mission high. i think balboa is on that list. i'm not sure. is there anything else on that list? >> that is correct, and then, i.m. scott in the dogpatch. >> chair peskin: okay. so -- >> and then, just to correct myself, 135 vanness, the old school of commerce is part of the landmark district and is individually designated. >> chair peskin: under article ten -- under appendix a as an individual and under the civic center district. >> that is correct. >> chair peskin: okay. belt and suspenders. okay. are you aware -- obviously, many of these have come before -- have received changes. have any of them ever come to

the commission for arrest permit for a certificate of appropriateness to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. the only time a project has come before the commission during my tenure was about five or six years ago. the dogpatch community wanted an informational presentation on the work around i.m. scott, and the school district complied by just providing information at an h.p.c. hearing. >> chair peskin: got it. but the school has never come before the historic preservation commission of the city and county for a certificate of appropriateness which is what the h.p.c. issues. >> that is correct. >> chair peskin: all right. so the notion that has been expressed that this is honorific, although it's also to the school district staff an admonition that there's something very, very special here, and you guys should take it seriously, even if you don't have to go through the city bureaucracy as other parties

might have to do. this subdivision of government, the board of supervisors and the governing body of the board of education are intertwined in many, many ways. as a matter of fact today -- yeah, recently, quite a bit, although by the way, when i scheduled this and it needed a 20-day notice, nobody knew that the eraf stuff was coming, so these things shall never meet. they're not politically connected in any way. but we are involved with each other in many ways. i do want to give the elected governing board the ability to talk about it. it sounded like if you want a one-week continuance, your board is meeting later this week, is that correct, miss -- [inaudible] >> chair peskin: miss kamala naughton, please come forward to record it for posterity.

>> it is meeting tomorrow night. >> chair peskin: and this is on the agenda? >> it is not on the agenda. we were hoping to just have the one-week continuance so we could explain a paragraph what landmarking is, share that with not only the board of education but with the site staff itself which have e-mailed us can concerns over -- with concerns over the past few days about what landmarking is, how it works, and make sure that communication appears on the record and folks are apprised, and that's about it. >> chair peskin: thank you. so let's hear from my colleagues, but i would like to suggest that insofar as this is an information item only, that we forward this to the full board of supervisors, allow that informational exchange to happen tomorrow. it seems to me like -- no

disrespect to your predecessor that new staff gets it more than old staff got it because had old staff got it, this would not have been on my pending list of 48 items, and it would have been done sometime after it was introduced on december 20 of 2017. so my respectful suggestion that can allow you to address the elected board of the sfusd, and if for some reason, they freak out, we can think about it the tuesday after afternoon. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to just add onto that point. i think that there's been historically inertia within some of the movement of the sfusd when it comes to issues like this. i'm really happy that miss kamala naughton has taken over. i think it shows a new face of

leadership on these issues. i would just say hopefully we won't be in the same situation that we were before where the board voted not to want to add this label. hopefully, there'll be some additional exchange of information and clarity and that we can make a decision within a week, so i would support that. thank you. >> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: so i was a part of the school board that led to this letter here, and i want to thank everybody who came out and who was a part of bringing this forward and preparing it. as chair peskin said, in my recollection, although i do could dig out that video, too, the primary conversation was around george washington high school. as miss mogue said, it is possible that the board came

with a most specific concern about george washington but also a general concern about the impact on potential modernization, structural upgrades, etc. so i think that what chair peskin put forward is a fine solution on this. if we can update the board -- the school board and let them know and that we're all in understanding about what the actual result is for -- for these buildings, and i think for the school district to have a lot of pride in this -- this recognition but also understanding if there's modernization required, that there aren't new barriers creat created around that and we're all clear on that. that sounds fine to me, and i also want to appreciate whoever's decision it was to take george washington off of here. i think that would have led to a lot more challenges and complications around this designation. >> chair peskin: that would

have been your chairman, and as i said earlier, i have no intention of scheduling that. there's a lot of hair on that one, and i'll leave that to languish on that pending calendar which is now at 46 items. i would very much like to thank planning department staff, san francisco heritage, the preservation fund committee, mr. verplank and miss graves and to the san francisco unified school district for understanding this and if you -- if i need to talk to any of your elected board members, i'm happy to do that between now and tomorrow or now and next tuesday. colleagues, is there a motion to forward items one and two with recommendation? moved by supervisor safai. we will take that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code by amending the zoning map to rezone a portion

of 170 valencia street from r.t.o. to n.c.t.-3, to establish a uniform zoning for the site and approving appropriate findings. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. colleagues, i think we were all is 70 valencia for the mayor's state of the city address, and we all read the case report which actually reveals that that property is in two different zoning districts and should be confirmed to one -- conformed to one zoning district, n.c.t.-3, which would allow the current owners not to file a conditional use for that. with that, the representative of supervisor mandelman is here to present on item number three. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from supervisor mandelman's

office. i am here to speak in support of supervisor mandelman's office to establish uniform zoning for the parcel at 170 valencia street. it is important for a number of reasons. dating back to 1940 esthe four story art deco building has served as the high faith temple. the san francisco gay men's chorus for years used the building as a practice facility. since then, the gay men's chorus has become a social and constitutional institution that

represents the lgbt movement worldwide. our office was made aware that the parcel at 170 valencia is currently portioned across two districts. as a result, our office introduced the ordinance that is before the committee today. through this ordinance, it is our intention to apply uniform zoning to the parcel in order to continue the tradition of using the space as a community facility in this iteration as the new home for the gay men's chorus. in addition, we also believe that a uniform zoning for the building is in the best interest of preserving the architectural integrity of the building regardless of its occupant. in closing, i'd like to thank you all for your time and consideration and ask that you join our office in supporting this ordinance, and audrey butkus from the planning department is here to report on what happened at the planning

commission. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. and i note that on january 17 of 2019, all seven members of the planning commission unanimously recommended this ordinance to this body. miss butkus, you can still talk. i'd like to remind my colleagues when we agree with them, we like to say that it was unanimous. when we disagree, we like to remind ourselves that it is only an advisory vote by your commission. but with that, miss butkus, the floor is yours if you'd like to use it. >> audrey butkus, planning department staff, only to confirm, supervisor peskin that it was unanimously voted for approval by the planning commission on january 17. >> chair peskin: thank you, audrey. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item, number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: is there a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation?

made by supervisor safai. we'll take that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: i'd number four is an ordinance amending section 191 of the planning code to deem a grandfathered medical cannabis dispensary that received a permit to operate as an m.c.d., extending the expiration date of section 191 to january 21, 2021. >> chair peskin: we heard this last week. we had to continue it one week because there was a substantive change that was not objectionable to any member of the public. is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: seeing that, i appreciate that the director of the department of cannabis is here. if you have no comments, is there a motion to forward this

item to the full board with recommendation? made by supervisor safai. we will take that without objection. next item, please. [gavel]. >> clerk: item number five is an ordinance waiving permit and inspection fees under the commemorative street plaque requirements at one location on the silver sidewalk commemorating former high school student miss salina lam. >> chair peskin: this ordinance has been brought to us by supervisor ronen and her staff. miss carolyn gusen is here. miss gusen, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. thank you so much for having me. this waives the flooring and installation fees for this

commemorative street plaque in honor of salina lam. she joined the hill crest community as a toddler, accompany her parents and older sis tore to school and then began attending there as a kindergartener. she occupied a special place in the hearts of everyone in the hill crest community, and her friends and classmates remember her as the girl who was always smiling and always sharing her snacks. last year, selina unexpectedly passed away, and this will be installed next to a tree that will help enshrine her memory. essentially, these amendments -- these amendments do three things. they expedite the plaque

approval and installation process and authorize public works to provide reasonable maintenance and repair of the plaque after it has been installed. it waives the public works hearing that normally applies to the commemorative plaque explorations, and it expressly authorizes the city to accept the plaque as a gift to the city so that the city can be authorized to prepare and maintain the plaque and assume liability. supervisor ronen could not be here but was hoping that someone on the committee could help move this forward with these amendments, and we want to thank the hill crest community for bringing this forward with the planting of the tree and designing of the plaque to held salina lam in all of our hearts and memory. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gusen. is there anybody here from public works?

>> thank you, chair peskin, members of the committee. jeremy spitz, department of public work. we have a permit of application from the applicant, and we've been working with them on installation and location, and we very much support this ordinance. i'm here to answer any questions that you might have. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. any questions from members? supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: just wanted to move the amendment. >> chair peskin: we've got to get public comment first. are there any members of the public who would like to comment, please come up. >> thank you so much. my name is gabby anderson, and i'm the social worker at hill crest elementary school, and we just wanted to offer our thanks to you for hearing and to hillary ronen's office for supporting this legislation. it was a really hard time for our school, and we're really

touched that there's been so much support for remembering salina, and for public works in planting the tree in her honor. >> chair peskin: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we're very sorry for your loss. supervisor haney, would you like to move that? so moved, without objection. can we forward that to the full board with recommendation as amended? motion, moved by supervisor safai. we'll take that without objection, and we are adjourned. [gavel]

>> can you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge of allegiance, to the t es of america and to the republic for which stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> good afternoon, good evening everybody. this is the february 13, 2019 session of the san francisco police commission. we are ready to start with the first agenda item. ly say, we have a medium size agenda today. i'll limit comments from the public to three minutes.

we don't make that up. that comes from the san francisco administrative code which sets comments like this at three minutes or less depending on the length of the agenda. with that, we're ready to go. >> commissioner i like to call roll. [roll call] with us the assistant chief of police hector sinas in for chief scott. this is item one reports to the commission discussion, 1a, chief

report. weekly crime trend of offenses occurring in san francisco, significant incidents the chief will report will be limited to a brief description of significant incidents, commission's discussion will be limited to determining whether to counter any of the incidents the chief describes for future meetings. major events, provide summary of plans occurring since the previous meetings. it will include brief overview occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describe will be limited to determining whether to calendar for future meetings. facilities update, status of move of evoc, traffic company and service division. presentation of the 4th quarter 2018 audit communication devices and report on 2018 homicide clearances.

>> commissioner hirsch: thank you, good evening chief. >> good evening. assistant chief here for chief scott who is in washington d.c. attending the chief conversation. i will begin the report are the weekly crime trend. crime was down 24% this year compared this time last year. crime include violent crimes such as homicides, sexual assaults, aggravated assault, robbery and human trafficking. overall, we've had four homicides in 2019. this is a 33% decrease over 2018. we have not had a homicide since january 12th. which is a good trend. total property crimes are down 24%. property crimes include burglary, motor vehicle them and

larcenies. significant incidents, we a vehicle collision resulted in a fatality on saturday february 9th on the 2000 block of basher boulevard. a female was traveling on the boulevard for unknown reasons, veered off the road and headed into a traffic pole. witnesses saw the victim driving the vehicle. witnesses attempted render aid, paramedic transported her to sfgh where she was pronounced deceased. no other parties were involved in this incident. there was another vehicle collision with a pedestrian hit-and-run. this occurred in the richmond district. the victim was walking in the crosswalk crossing with the green light.

the suspect vehicle driven by an 84-year-old driver was making a left turn, westbound from cabrillo on to park and struck the victim. witnesses stopped for a brief moment and fled southbound. a witness followed the vehicle on to park. the suspect vehicle became blocked in traffic. witnesses were able to point the vehicle out to police. the police arrived, they took the suspect in custody and booked him for hit-and-run and other traffic related violations. major event. we have one major event that's the ibm convention. they are expecting 25,000 attendees at this event. that concludes my portion of the chief's report. the next presentation will be given by deputy chief moser on our facilities update which includes moves of evoc which is

our emergency vehicle operations course which is a function of the academy. the property division, traffic company and the forensic services division. >> good evening chief. president hirsch, vice president taylor, commissioners, and director henderson. good evening. deputy chief bob moser i'm from the administration bureau. i'm here to give you updates on few our facilities. we're going to start off with the traffic company, forensic services division update and tonight i'm joined with our partners from public works who are going to give us a short presentation on that facility and we can entertain questions and we can move into property and evoc.

>> good evening. my name is michael rosetteo. i'm public works traffic manager facilities project. this project is the largest project within the 2014 bond fund with a budget of

$165 million. this slide is showing the voter obligation which is primarily the consolidation of different aspects of forensics and traffic company from the hall of justice and the crime lab currently located at hunter's point into a if you facility where you can see the blue 199 1995 evans avee on the corner evans avenue and toeland street in the bay view district. this slide here, the upper right, shows the site approximately nine months ago. the red indication around the property that was purchased by the city in 2015. the location of the bakery.

the building including three small buildings on the lot have been demolished. the two photographs on the lower portion to the right show the site this week completely cleared and the installation of a new construction security barrier a will surround the site. the new design, it's a three-story building. the lower left portion, which is a yellow bar that you see slading -- sliding out one-story traffic company motorcycle parking garage. on the right the yellow portion is primarily for c.s.i. the ground floor is concrete block to provide secure perimeter at the street level. the upper two stories are for forensics and the blue indicates

two stories of office space and the green indicates two stories of laboratory space. the orange portion is shared amenities throughout the building including a break room, workout facility and conference room. the back to the right is an evidence vehicle storage area which is a wall on one side and chain link fence enclosed area, roof for c.s.i. to store vehicles. i'll get into the floor plans little bit more detail. this right here is a site plan. you can see evans avenue at the bottom and tolland on the right. evans comes down from cesar

chavez it comes down this intersection and another street that goes off to the bottom left there. there's a large entry plaza that greets the corner and to the left you can see the traffic company one-story parking garage, that portion of the structure and the evidence vehicle storage area towards the top of the screen, both vegetative roof over them. there's an l-shaped parking lot for primarily police vehicle. real estate has a few parking spots as well. there's an exterior pad area for emergency generator. then the large white reck tang is the three-story mass of the

building. this is a view coming down evans towards the large intersection. the glassy area at the corner is the two stories of amenity space, fitness room and break room and conference room on the third story. this is a bit of idealized photograph. we have been working with pg&e in an effort to relocate some of those electrical wires that maybe in conflict with construction. that is an ongoing exercise. this is view of the main entry, public entry of the building. it is not a facility that will be open to the public.

visiting attorneys and so forth who need to review evidence would be admitted to the building. it's not a freely open facility. level one plans towards the centre is traffic company to the right you can see exam base, that entire right portion of the ground floor is c.s.i. large yellow bar is the traffic company parking garage. level two and level three layouts are similar. yellow on the bottom right are the amenity bases. blue is office and green is laboratory with the secure corridor that runs down the

centre. only forensics staff that have the security privileges will be allowed to enter the secure corridor to enter the laboratory spaces. in this type of facility, due to accreditation issues, glass of water is not allowed on the laboratory side. anything that is not specifically laboratory related would take place in the office space. level three is similar lay out where the bottom right in this case are large conference rooms. office and laboratory spaces. i mentioned the budgets of the project. $165 million. the construction budget of the project is $105 million, the design team is obligated to achieve 95% of that budget.

$99.75 million. this is cngc contract which means the contractor is brought on board during design to help bring their expertise and construction to the team. in this case, we have additional players that we call the core trade subcontractors that have been brought on board as part of the team for mechanical, electrical plumbing and building envelope expertise. they are now the design builders for the project. they are doing the engineering work along with the architectural team. the first estimate that was produced by the cgmc team a year ago, yielded estimate over $129 million. that led to several months of cost reduction efforts which resulted in approximately $23 million of cost reduction to the project in identified

$6.65 million deficit that can only be resolved by reducing program from the facility. that given the early phases of the project, that deficit of $6.65 million was given 30% contingency which resulted in the capital plan committee to fund $8.65 million to the project. that's as we move the project on april 30, 2018. these are how we articulated some of those cost impacts to the cost at that april 30th meeting. scope adjustments, market conditions and causes for delay from various sources. this is the construction schedule as we know it today. as i mentioned, demolition,

there are few activities out there putting the perimeter fence for example. demolition is essentially complete and new construction will be starting in may to june this coming summer. there's a 24-month construction duration that is scheduled from the start of deep piles, can be going down to bedrock in the range of 30 feet to 110 or other 120 feet. that's the final slide. >> commissioner hirsch: i have a couple of questions. capital planning committee, is that a citywide committee? >> the committee is capital planning committee, we bring different projects for the funding and planning ahead of different projects if the city. it's expenditures within the city. >> commissioner hirsch: and, i

didn't understand your comment about there was an obligation to at least 95%. this is on page 13. >> within the design team's contract, they are rared to design a project with their estimated input estimated to be at 95% of what the project construction budget is. the intent of that is to create a contingency for especially bid periods where some bids may come in high and rather than causing another redesign which would slow down the project. it allow us to draw from that contingency to accept certain bids and move forward. >> commissioner brookter: thank you for the presentation. as former member of the bond oversight committee, do you feel like the projects on time and on budget?

>> no. [laughter] >> commissioner brookter: i like to see more information on that. other question is has there been an effort around the amount of traffic? have you guys come forward in front of communities -- [indiscernible] >> we have had had several meetings with the planning department. the project part permit application was required to go through design review and planning department several reviews through there which included m.t.a. we're working with b.s.m. for

the improvements along the publicway. there has been quite a bit of engagement different city agencies. we work with the p.u.c for the electrical applications. puck and also very much with the p.u.c on interactions with pg&e for the attempted resolution to conflicts presented by the existing powerfuls. [indiscernible] >> commissioner brookter: we know things are going on -- it goes a long way. >> commissioner hirsch: vice president taylor. >> commissioner taylor: i noticed on page ten.

you have a firing range next to the laboratory space? >> yes. >> commissioner taylor: i'm a civilian, is that usual? that seem like an odd choice to me. tell me the decision behind that >> firing range is a component of the forensics services division. there's a firing range out at hunters point crime lab. some of the activities that take place there are test firing to analyze bullet markings to test them. there's actually a gun library that will be in the building and part of the analysis includes firing guns of similar calibers and to analyze them against weapon that may have been picked up at a crime scene which could possibly identify and link that

weapon to the actual crime. >> commissioner taylor: this is firearm analysis. this is not officers training. >> no. this a lab space. >> commissioner taylor: my next question was about some of these unanticipated costs. for example, i see soil conditions on page 13 here, $5.5 million cost and sea level rise, $2.8 million. can you tell us about those in particular? >> sure. this project is less than blessed with an ideal soil conditions given the site that was selected. i mentioned bedrock, it's a very complicated site where bedrock crosses the site in an angle. one end of the site, bedrock is only about 30 feet deep and other end it's about 110 feet deep. that is filled with soft mud up to