Good afternoon, everyone, this meeting will come to order. Welcome to the december 6th, 2017 regular meeting of the rules committee. Im chair of the committee to my right is vicechair supervisor sandy lee fewer and to my left is Rule Committee members. Our clerk today is alicia and madam clerk, do you have any announcements today . Silence all cellphones and Electronics Devices and copies of any documents to be include firstdegree as part of the file and items acted on will be on december 12th agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you, madam. Are there any initial comments please call item number 1. Item number 1 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to reauthorize the San FranciscoSentencing Commission and extend the date to june 30th , 2020. Unless theres comments from my colleagues id like to call brittney forward. Please proceed. Good afternoon chair and Committee Members. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk with you today and my name is brittney from the office of supervisor ma leah cohen and im here to request the Sentencing Commission which began in 2012 be reauthorized and i actually have a small amendment to the ordinance in front of you and were asking that instead of re authorization it until the end of june 2020 that instead we reauthorize it until june 2023. Whats the reason for that . The reason for that is instead of having this cumbersome two year extension for the commission to come back and reauthorize in two years they can get work done by extending this done through five years and we would have to overlook board rule 2. 21. So i just wanted to provide a little bit of background and i have the amended language here if you would like me to pass that to you. Sure. I have a copy for you too. Thank you. Thank you. So were only looking at page s 5 and 6. Or excuse me page 5, section 5. 254 the sunset clause. What page . Page 5. Oh, ok. Line 15 and 18. Here you go, alicia. Thank you. So the Sentencing Commission which begin began in 2012 brings together San Francisco criminal justice agencies with experts in sentencing reform, reentry and research. To collectively advance the way that we approach criminal justice policy. Three to four times each year the commission looks at criminal justice data and learns about innovations in the field and at local state, national and Even International levels. The members then generate policy and program recommendations. These recommendations have yield ed concrete changes to our Justice System at both the local and state levels including proper 47, which was approved by california voter in 2014 and reduces drug related offences from fell knees to felonys ex miss da meaner and a Young Adult Court which has National Attention as a new model for justice involving young adults age 1825. The replication of the seattle Law Enforcement assisted Diversion Program lead program here in San Francisco that will divert in to services and instead of the Justice System and improving San Francisco facility to collect Justice System data and measure out by establishing Research Institutions that amplify our local capacity to give this critical work done so theres much more to be done. The Sentencing Commission has established itself as a proven incubator for this work and a model for criminal justice innovation and original original ly supervisor colin introduced the legislation with the intent of extending the sentencing date until 2020 but is now asking that this body in lieu of board rules 2. 21 extend that sunset date until 2023. Given the commissions proven track record for the reform of criminal sentencing strat goes the supervisor feels that extending the sunset by five years will permit regular review of the purpose of the commission on a more practical time line so with that im happy to answer questions. Thank you, new questions . What has this internationally come up with in terms you said that they come up with policies and ideas and how to improve the system, what have they done . What are some examples of that . Interview for the most accurate report out i would defer to Terry Anderson who can give that information if you dont mind. Sure. Hi, im ter a anderson for the San FranciscoDistrict Attorney office and the Sentencing Commission so in addition to the accomplishments that brittney identified in her overview of the Sentencing Commission, i would say data sharing is a significant outcome from the Sentencing Commission and last year we were awarded a grant from the Mac Arthur Foundation an Innovation Award to invest in data sharing across multiple criminal Justice Systems to come up with a resit vism dashboard and just this morning we saw preliminary reports on the findings from combining data from the sheriffs department, adult probation, our District AttorneyCase Management system and looking at the points of re arrest, rearraignment and re conviction for a 2013 cohort for the city and county of San Francisco. This is the first time such an analysis has been done for San Francisco so its one concrete example of the value that the Sentencing Commission has provided and also, just News Headlines today from the bart news letter, the lead program is now in full implementation and is San Franciscos ability to divert individuals at the resource thats they need to make them whole as imposed to the criminal justice. Interview thank you. Any other questions from colleagues . Any member of the public wish to comment you have to minutes to speak, please clearly say your name. If you have any documents. Public comments closed. Entertain a motion. I would like to make a motion to forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation. With reauthorizing Sentencing Commission. Id like to make a information to adopt that amendments. Yes, oh, yeah, im sorry. So motion to positive recommendations this ordinance amending the administrative code p Sentencing Commission extend this date to june 30th, 2023, is that correct . Yes. Ok. With amended. As amended. So move without objection, congratulations. Item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code for certain city jurisdictional transfers for Affordable Housing from appraisal requirements. Great. Thank you madam clerk and unless there are any initial comments from Committee Members i guess were going to, i know we have ms. Amy chan but also we have supervisor aaron so would you like to speak first lee. Interview sure. This legislation before today please identify yourself. Thank you chair and members of the committee and the legislation before you today is a little bit of trailing legislation and relative to something that our office persuade in 2016 and that was a piece of legislation that revised the policies around appraisals and appraisal reviews for certain city jurisdictional transfers acquisitions convey ances and leases of Real Property and the legislation before you today would hopefully expedite the provision of Affordable Housing in the city and county of San Francisco by exempting from those appraisal review requirements in a jurisdictional transfer of Real Property for the purposes of providing 100 Affordable Housing to the city and county of San Francisco. That is about all i have to say i hope that amy chan and director john updike from the department of real estate can better address the impotence for this legislation and the scope relative to its impact Going Forward. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Amy chan thank you from the Mayors Office, please come forward. Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. Amy chan from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development and im also joined here by director updike. First we want to thank supervisor passkin and lee heppner for their sponsorship of the legislation and their work on the legislation. So currently as lee has mentioned, chapter 23 of the administrative code requires a appraisals to be updated within nine months of seeking board of approval for purchase. The city has followed chapter 3, 23 requirement force the real estate but we are requesting this waiver of this requirement for inter departmental or jurisdictional transfers between departments for two reasons and first, our office acquires sites at no cost and when these are transfers from nine enterprise departments like d. D. W. For example, doing anna praiseal for the sites value would not really add value to the process and then second, they have to acquire sites at cost when the transfers are from an Enterprise Agency and like m. T. A. For example and we will get anna praiseal to value the site and in our experience, the appraisal is typically taking the process to get the approval to the board of supervisors is typically longer than nine months because of a result of having to go through a process to also get Department Commission or board approvals and so currently under chapter 23 rules, we would have to come back and get an addition al appraisal or updated appraisal when were going to the board of exercises foray approval and because it would not typically change the purchase prize of the site, based on its original a priceal appraiseal would not add value to the process and this change would benefit Affordable Housing by the cost of the arraysal and then it also would mean saving about a month s time in the process for us to get this new appraiseal review completed. What you would also mean a cost savings for the project and there are two projects in our pipeline that currently would benefit from this policy change that needs jurisdictional transfers and that is 735 davis and the upper yard projects. So that we ask the committee to please recommend the legislation to the full board and im here with director updike to take questions. Im going to ask director up dike to comment on this item as well. Good afternoon chair and members. Azzam said were looking to streamline a process please identify yourself. John updike, director of real estate. Were looking to streamline the process in a way that does not impact fiscally or your Decision Making processes that you need to make where you need to be sure you have all the information you need and its just been determined in these departments at in cost we had a process that didnt add value and thats why the supervisor was good enough to entertain this and something to put forward and we would appreciate your positive consideration. Great. Ok, so, any questions before we do Public Comment and ill save my questions for after Public Comment. Supervisor yee. Thank you. Quick question, in regards to this provision that would expedite things, how much time how long does it take to do anna an appraisal . Are we talking years or months or what . Interview supervisor, on average appraisals will take 30 45 days and 60 in its complicated contracting. Often our port projects are complex and those often take 60 days and the day we make the request for bids the day we have a product and the review has to follow after the product is completed so that adds another 15 to 30 days depending on that so its streamline and its as fast as we can get it in socom plying with all our procurement regulations. It seems like the time that you save is its it doesnt seem like a lot in the grand scheme of developing a project. Im just curious, there are some negative piece to this where does the public really want to know the, i guess the what something is worth . Im just trying i cant think of anything but it seems like this information that we wouldnt have then in terms of anna praiseal . Your question is exactly what . Is there a down side not having a commission coming from a prison . Given it will apply in the case of a jurisdictional transfer when its a general fund asset that is already mandated by voter approved Surplus Property processes, none enterprise must be conveyed at no cost for Affordable Housing purposes or sold and the revenue received go towards Affordable Housing purpose unless for some certain the board uses to use the funds for a different purpose which happens so given we already have that policy and voter approval, supporting that policy theres no transfer of funds so securing the evaluation is an Interesting Data point but i dont see it provides value or helps you in your decisionmaking process and we do think that 30 to 60 days or 90 days total, every day is money and Construction Costs right, escalate right now at a ridiculous space so that is a savings and the cost itself of the appraisals and the reviews thats five to ten thousand dollars every time and that money can be put back in to Affordable Housing instead of towards the appraisal document itself. Thank you. I guess im going to ask director updike before you go away, sorry, ive got someone to ask my questions now just to add on so, just so were clear we talk about Surplus Property and these situations were only talking about vacant land or a physical building . Is it on the vacant land . Interview in thur it could be a building with improvements but the same rules apply under the code unless the board chose by ordinance . That part i understand and whether its a land or building at some point having anna praise al is advantageous if its 100 Affordable Housing and event at some point anna praise al is advantageous to the process whether its tax credits , whether it is conversation with the bank so at some point its owe proseal and you are brought in to the conversation or do they, when its transferred to that different department, there will be anna praiseal in the process or will it not . It could be a Development Effort or entity that needs the report because theyre securing. They would pay for the report and produce it and right now we take advantage of that when the occasion arises where the developer can provide us with a report we review it and were looking that the before the board now that was just approved yesterday where it was a developer commissioned report and we did the review of that report. I just wonder there are those occasions. The reason im asking is because certainly the transfer from the Mayors Office of housing is advantageous to move the process over in an ex pa dieted matter to bring Affordable Housing online but if theres an instance where you need anna praiseal maybe it could be done after the transfer do you think thats important because if it is, we could amend this in such a way that anna appraiseal happens . I dont think it provides value to our office and our decisionmaking and not to the elected body either. Ok, thank you. Ms. Chan. We do do appraisals for all of our projects and we do appraisals for applications for tax questions and i think the value do you go to the department of real estate or higher a third party hire a third party . The sponsor will do the appraisal for the tax credit applications and in this case because of the requirement this is chapter 23 the department of real estate is required to do the because of the transfer. Because of the transfer. But that appraiseal is not used at a later date by at forward able housing developer and in many ways what im trying to say, i want to be 100 clear this appraiseal is not used in the future for the development of Affordable Housing because if it is, we can require it after the transfer so it doesnt slow down the process but if its not helpful, then im 100 in agreement that eliminating it all together because its a required step thats no longer necessary. Interview it varies depending on the timing between the transfer is happening and the project is applying for financing so if the appraisal is outdated than the response sorrn update appraiseal and the value is in order to move forward with the transfer, we dont, we wouldnt want to do updated appraisals when the value of the actual transfer is either zero or its a ready set based on an easterly year appraisal so as director updike has mentioned, the