tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 18, 2019 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
there's been a number of murals on your consent calendar and as the mayor's office in particular starts to look for other ways to revitalize the central market area which has a number of article 10 and 11 properties and generally, there's not a concern over murals on secondary areas providing their reversible and certain requirements are met according to most preservation practice, we thought this made sense tsenseto include this as s well. so that concludesmy short comments. if you have any comments, happy to ands them an answer them. if you're readopting this,
instead of coming back to you in 2020, now we're coming back to you in the spring or early summer of 2021. thank you. >> any member of the public wish to comment? anything further? >> i move to adopt or approve this delegation. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to approve the delegation amendment? (roll call). so moved and the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> best of luck, victim. >> we're adjourned.
the lovely linda wong. i would love to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes, please silent cell phones and electronic devices. any copies of files to be submitted to the clerk. the board of supervisors agenda, unless the device stated. >> madam clerk, can you call item number one. >> a lease extension option for the property located at 520 jones street, june 1st through may 31st, 2029 for a total annual base rent of 1 million. >> thank you very much. we have miss claudia here from the real estate commission.
>> thank you. for your consideration is a resolution authorizing a ten year option to extend the term of the lease at 520 jones from june 1st, 2019, to may 31st, 2029. it is used for 75 single resident occupancy rooms, plus about 9 rooms for tenant services at pacific bay inn. the department of homelessness and supportive housing has jurisdiction over the use. tenants include individuals with a history of homelessness and may have a disability related to mental health, aids or h.i.v., an substance abuse. the city gave written notice of their intention to exercise the first option to extend the lease. unfortunately, the landlord failed to provide notice to the city of the new rent amount within 30 days of the city's
notice option as required by the lease. real estate followed up and on april 2nd, actually provided the landlord with the rent amount they believe should be paid based on the formula set forth in the lease, using 51% of the monthly allowance for a zero bedroom rent unit in the city in the most recently published hud governmental index. so there is no real negotiation on the rent price. it's approximately $1 million for the first renewal year. on april 19th, 2019, the parties executed a letter agreement regarding the amount of rent which commenced. the lease expired on april 30th and we have been on rent holdover for one month, but it's lower than what would be paid under the new extended term
based on the government rent index. the city will continue to pay all utilities and services in the annual rent adjustment will be between 2% to 6%, dependent on the c.p.i., which has been averaging around 3%. we agree with the budget and legislative report and recommendation and urge you to move this recommendation first with a positive recommendation. should you have any programming questions, g.g. whitley is here to answer them. thank you. >> thank you very much. colleagues any comments on questions? seeing none. >> good morning chair fewer and members of the committee. this would improve the first of two ten year options to extend this lease through 2019.
it's for 75 supportive housing units. the rent includes by formula in the original lease agreement, based on the formula, the first year of rent will be $1 million as we show on table 2, page 4 of the report. it will go up between 2% to 6% per year. we expect an increase of 3% a year, for a total cost of 2.2 million over the ten year term and we do recommend approval. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive remitted -- recommend takes. madam clerk, can you call item number 2. >> a resolution on a multihou multihouse -- multifamily housing revenue notes, on a 30
unit multifamily housing project. >> joan mcnamara. >> good morning, my name is joan and i'm a senior project manager at the mayor office of housing and community development. i'm here to present on item 2, a bond issuance to fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of abel gonzales, an existing 30 unit affordable housing for seniors located at 1045 capp street in the mission district. transactions fundamentals have not changed since september 2018. it's still a conduit financing with no recourse to the general fund. 29 of the project's units will serve families earning no more than 50% a.m.i. and one unit
with a household earning of no more than 80% a.m.i. with income averaging, and this is acceptable. they continue to be in compliance to prevailing wage and l.b.e. requirements. the developer has secured a debt limit allocation amount from sidlac. the financing team has developed the substantially issuance document with the city attorney and outside accounts, and that's what is in your package before you. the financing team is on track to close this transaction by the first week of june. the rehabilitation is expected to be completed in august of 2020. on behalf of the project's sponsor, mission housing
development corporation, i would like to thank you for your consideration here today. i look forward to your continued support. i'm joined today by john lovell of mission housing development corporation in case you have any questions for me or mission. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions or comments? there is no, i do have one question. my one question is so, how do i get this in my neighborhood? >> how do you get this? >> okay, me too. >> because this is needed in my neighborhood. having posed that question, i think that's a longer conversation that we should follow up with. >> right. >> madam clerk, i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. any members of the public would like to comment on this issue? seeing none, public comments is now closed.
now madam clerk, can you please call item number 3. >> an ordinance about the public works code for a temporary street space occupancy permit on may 11, 2019 to promote small business week. >> and we have dominica donovan. good to see you again. >> chair fewer, supervisors, thank you so much for having me. i am the senior policy analyst and small business commission secretary. last week, san francisco celebrated its 15th annual small business week and for the 13th year, concluded with celebrating shopping and dining in the city's merchant corridors. this has been an effort led by the district merchants and the office of small business, and this is impossible without the continued support of the board of supervisors for a permit waiver. the fee waiver seemingly nominal
has allowed our businesses to showcase their products and services through sidewalk sales, contributing to the economic vitalities of our corridors. last saturday, nearly all districts participated, totaling in $18,284 potentially waved in fees. i have a list of the number of bloc blocks that participated. everybody though this event has passed, the legislation doesn't include a retroactive date for the fee waver for the events this past saturday. i would like to know that it includes district 8 and district 10. the small business commissioner would like to thank supervisor brown for sponsoring this legislation and public works for their annual partnership,
especially director and his team. the office and the commission always appreciates the support through this annual fee waver, as do the merchants association, so i look forward in participating in the event each year. it's thanks to your support that they are able to. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. would anyone in the public like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. if we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, please call item number 4. >> the real property located at 70 oak grove street, amending the first extended term to may 31, 2019, with an additional 35
year option to extend, for a base rental of 479,000. >> we have claudia here from the real estate division. >> good morning again, for your consideration, as a resolution authorizing basically three things, the exercise of a five year option to extend the term of the lease at 70 oak grove from june 1st, 2019, to may 31st, 2024. it provides a third extension of five years. it revises or basically corrects an administrative error in the lease, which will change the ending date from may 30th to may 31st, 2029. the premises has been leased by the city since 2004 and we exercise the first extension option in 2014. it's occupied by the san francisco sheriff's department. it includes incarceration
programs, the sheriff's work alternative program, the five key charter schools are there and there are some administrative offices. the current rent is $44 a square foot and an appraisal was formed at $53 per square foot. an annual rent for foregoing some tenant improvements, including recarpeting and repainting the premises, which is required every extension under the original lease. the sheriff's department indicated there is no need for repainting and recarpeting at this time. the rent is about 90% of fair market rate for similar space in the city. there will be no annual escalations in the rent in the five year extended term. the sheriff's department will be responsible for all utilities
and services at the site. we agree with the budge and legislative analyst report and recommendation and urge you to move this resolution forward with a positive recommendation. chief deputy paulson and krispen are here if you have any questions. >> thank you, can we have a b.l. a. report. >> they entered in 2004, and it was most recently approved by the board of supervisors in 2014, but before you today is emphasizing a five year option from extending the lease to 2024 at basement at $479,000 per year. this is confirmed as 90% of fair market value from an independent appraisal. on page 9, table two of our
report at 2.4 million. this lease also adds an additional five year option to extend -- let me make sure i'm not confusing my leases here, it add an option to extend the lease through 2029. it's not in the original lease. it would be the option for the board of supervisors' approval. >> thank you very much. any members of the public would like to comment on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation if we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call item number 5. >> item number five, a lease for the portion of the equipment room at 1 market street, at an
annual -- sorry at an initial annual rent of 185 thousand or the monthly base rent of 15 thousand, with 3% annual adjustments there after. >> thank you very much. we have claudia from the real estate division. >> good morning again. the city currently owns and operates 2800 megahertz communication systems. the first is an emergency radio system used by police, fire, and other emergency management agencies for first responders in the field to communicate with each other and dispatch centers. the second system is used by public works and public agencies for their daily operations. the department of emergency management and the department of technology are currently upgrading and replacing the current system and are combining
them into one system. the new system consists of ten radio communication sites and primary dispatch site designed to provide radio coverage throughout the city and san mateo county, especially during an emergency event. these are sites that the city has telecommunications, equipment, and towers on for years. real estate has brought a few of them before the board and they have all been approved. one market plaza is one of the original sites and one of the ten communication radio sites needed for coverage of the city. they will replace equipment and batteries, and antennas and microwave dishes. the resolution for your consideration authorizes a 2nd amendment to the original lease between the city and now owner, landlord, p.p.f. paramount one
owner. it extends the lease until may 31st, 2020, extending the lease through 2030. the lease has been on hold since 2013 when the former director of property offered a letter of intent to extend the lease under certain terms. the management company changed and negotiations continued. in 2015, sfmta added equipment to the site. shortly after the board approved the 800 megahertz project. with all the new equipment and additional square feet, the two parties negotiated aholdover rent and rent that will have basically continued and would have lapped -- lapsed in 2020. that's why there is a question to extend the lease to may 2020.
the parties agreed to a holdover rent, they agreed to a 3% annual adjustment which would continue through the new term. starting in june 2019, the rent will increase 3%. both the former director of property and the current director of property says the lease is at let's than $45 per square foot, which means no appraisal is required. telecommunication leases are not usually rented on a square foot basis, but a used space, saying they look at the number of towers, antennas or microwave dishes. they look at how much equipment you have, where exactly on the
building is the equipment, on the side or on the roof. all of those considerations are taken into account when determining a rent for a telecommunications lease rather than an office lease, which goes by square foot. i will also note that the city has over 20 antennas on the roof and 2 radio rooms. in conversations with a broker, i was told that there are no similar leases in the city because no one has that much equipment on top of a roof in downtown or on a building such as one market plaza. other city leases on private property, that we have on private property buildings and one at 564 market street, which is at $41 per square foot. if i had to calculate it out, we would be be at $26 per square
foot. we're below fair market value. the department is still responsible for their own ewe utilities. we urge you to approve with a positive recommendation. mr. christopher chamberlain is here if you have any programming questions. >> thank you very much, can we get a b.l.a. report please. is this to approve the lease for one year, through may 2020, and then two five year extensions to may 2030. the city has been at this location since 1997. in 2015, the m.t.a. was added to this lease. originally it was just other telecommunicati telecommunication equipment and the rent went up at that time and the discussions we had with real estate over the negotiations of this lease, it's true that it looks different than how leases are described in
the admin code, in terms of requiring appraisals for fair market value. it's a little bit difficult to evaluate the cost of the lease based on square footage, because this is only 700-square foot. there are also coasts on how they stretch their leases for the antenna and other equipment. they did have cbrb go out and find comparable rent. we did receive the report from c.b.r.e. and we consider this to be a reasonable rent for the first year of the lease. there's a 3% per year increase in the rent over the term. it would be about 2.4 million over the 11 years and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions or comments? >> i do have one question, so
it's not about the use of this because i think we made the case that we need to use this rooftop space to put a whole bunch of stuff on it. but, this is in violation of the administrative code that says the approval of a term of -- because it's been a holover for so long, my question is this is a holdover of more than one year, which is in the administrative code, but this is a holdover of many, many years. what exactly is the criteria for a contract like this to be held over? >> so, i'm not going to throw the former director under the bus, but i took over this lease last summer when the former director left. my understanding of why there were so many difficulties is that one that the party we were
negotiating with changed and then they changed again because the management company changed, so rather than recreating the wheel, he wanted to keep the wheel the same with several different parties. i think our policy, there is no formal written policy, that holdover rents at times, and the earlier one, i forget which one i just did, can be advantage -- advantageous to us. fair market rent is so much, holdover rent can be 200% more, can be lower than the fair market rent. that is advantageous to the city and actually gives us an edge in negotiations with the landlord. so, we want to keep a holdover rent as long as we can, and they want us to get to a new fair market rent, which is higher.
it's certainly not real estate's policy to have a holdover go this long. if at all, it would be used during negotiations, if we can't come to an negotiated extension or renewal lease. it's a useful tool to use to get the landlord to come to the table. so, i think is why the administrative code gives approval for one year, because that would seem to be ample time. >> yes, holdover rents are month to month, and not to get into semantics, but it can go on the it's lower than 15,000 or whatever it is per months, and it can't go over ten years, but i agree, we shouldn't have allowed this to go on as long as it did. our policy is maybe a few months at a time. certainly we want to be in leases and we usually want to be in leases that are more than a
year at a time. >> how many holdover leases do you have now? >> i do not know. >> is it possible to find that number or any other ones in violation of the administrative code? >> i can fine both those items. >> should i continue this item until the next meeting so you can bring forth that information or do you think that you will be able to e-mail our offices, everyone in this committee about two things, one is how many holdover leases you currently have and how many do you have in violation of the administrative code. >> i can certainly give you those numbers to the second, although i know it seems like anything that's a month to month, that it goes over a year would be in violation. i don't know if that's necessarily the city attorney's position, so i can't comment on that, but i certainly can get you those two numbers before next week and i wouldn't want this particular lease to bare the brunt of being continued because of my failure to not
know those numbers. >> okay, thank you. i'm going to request that you actually e-mail from your office that there are three offices with that information, and let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that like to comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. i would like to move this to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. >> there are no further items. >> thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned. [♪]
>> good afternoon. the meeting will come to order. this is may 15, 2019 regular meet of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer chair of the budget and finance committee. i'm joined by supervisors stefani, mandelman and norman yee. our clerk is ms. linda wong. i'd like to thank s.f. gov tv for broadcasting the meeting. can i have a motion to excuse hilary roanen from the meeting. seconded and objection. madame clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk: please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and include any
attachments should be submitted to the clerk. >> commissioner: thank you very much. madame clerk will you please call item number 1. >> clerk: the hearing of the practice of assigning city-owned vehicles to ployos for personal use and the related budget impact and requesting the budget and legislative analyst office of the city administrator. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the budget and legislative analyst office. and i would want to say we were requested by supervisor fewer's office to survey city departments on their use and
policies for take-home vehicles. i do want to introduce ashley clark who is one of the main personal -- bern -- personnel working on the department and we evaluated their annual cost and policies. the administrative code actually has the provisions for when city departments are allowed to assign take-home vehicles for individuals who use their vehicles to and from work. i want to say when we say take-home vehicles i'm referring to permanent assignments not pool vehicles. in the admin code the provisions for when a take-home vehicle is allowed basically if somebody's working outside the city and they're on call after hours or conducting city business before
8:00 a.m. or on weekends and there's forensic pathologists and medical examiners office and the other provision is in instances when an individual would need to have a vehicle at their home. this is in the admin code in 2004. we found little corresponds to the admin code in how the take-home vehicles are assigned by city departments. the city administrator is assigned responsibility in the ad-min code to approve take-home vehicle assignments. in our discussion, the role was defined as information coordination and there was a memorandum focussing on public safety and emergency response when they assign did take-home
vehicle vehicles and there's about 100 vehicles in the admin code. we found there's about 247 vehicles assigned as permanent take-home vehicles they were assigned in the admin code and within that number or below that number. all the departments below the line exceed the admin code and for most they're nine departments. seven are not allocated any vehicles in the admin code and two are allocated vehicles but the actual number exceeds the admin code. so the other thing is when we
look at assignments, most are not specific to the issue of public safety or emergency response. and this is a summary of the departments who have vehicles in excess of the add min code. as you look at this, for instance, many of the departments define the take-home vehicles their responsibility and didn't consider it unreasonable if a department head or deputy head needs to be concerned with what happens 24 hours a day. some defined their need to be in emergency response. you'll see several of these have what we call canine which is basically police dog, sheriff dogs. the vehicle is specially designed for transporting the
dog so that didn't seem so particularly unusual. there were others we had questions about. some were well, with fire 30 staff take the vehicles home and garage them at home. that's allowed in the admin code and a provision allowed but requires board of supervisors approval and we have no documentation it came to the board for approval. some others we had concerns about you'll see public defender and city attorney assigned take home to all their investigators. now, they're not on all 24 hours, seven days a week. they usually have specific on-call assignments and could be assigned a vehicle on call but for a permanent assignment the justification was not clear to us at that point.
others were unclear the airport and business and policy and communications and marketing. you'll see the same with mta and incident and safety. some never have to go out on-call without notice. they may have scheduled events but not routine responsibilities after hours. you'll see the risk management. there's a cost. our estimates were cost about $1.6 million annually for the vehicles that's maintenance, fuel, replacement costs, insurance claims. our policy considerations were basically departments define the need for take-home vehicle vehicles broadly.
there's no consistent stab standards. many are not clearly defined for public safety or emergency response requirements. you'll see them assigned for media engagement and there's a cost to the city. our recommendations are one there simply needs to be a clarification and updating of the administrative code. the code language was written 15 years ago and there may be better ways to provide people have adequate transportation. our recommendations for the board to request the city administrator to establish guidelines to city departments for when it's appropriate to permanently assign a take-home
>> commissioner: did you ask the departments whether or not they had parking spaces for the vehicles? >> we didn't ask that questions. the only one where it came up as an issue was the fire department was people garage them at home because there's no space at their second street location. it's specifically fire prevention and investigators who took them home. we didn't ask that question of any other department. >> if you had to do the analysis and if you had to build a garage
or whatever, would it balance out or come close to that? >> we did not look at that but we didn't understand it was a garaging issue. it was the other analysis we didn't do for purposes of this report which would be legitimate is the cost of maintaining one vehicle for one employee year-round compared to paying the mileage for a specific need or assigning a temporary vehicle. i also want to say during the course of the review, just because we're asking departments questions, the numbers changed. a couple of departments the district attorney's office said we're going to reduce our assignments to no longer exceed the admin code. i think talking to the police
departments there was clearly some flex in terms of whether they were needed or not. and some were unmarked i assume? >> they're all civilian. we didn't look at that. to my understanding this was not official police vehicles by ann means. >> but they could have been marked. >> and there's no indication, most probably bring them back and forth was there indications of other purposes once they bring hem -- them home.
>> it wasn't an audit but o.c. airport has a transporter to track the mileage and they do that with the police bureau and other staff. and i think we have in here a table on which departments use telemetrics to track vehicle usage. >> commissioner: and look at vehicles once it passes. they would be armed. >> the airport does use it on their police vehicles in the report the other departments that specified using telematics
was police accountable and police and p.u.c. >> commissioner: did you analyze at all how many vehicles are in the pool. so i'm hearing that there is a pool of take-home vehicles. and there'll be a pool of vehicles departments have. and how do we differentiate between the pool and then also the ones take-home? >> we did not look at department pool vehicles but i will say our questions were very much designed to differentiate between when somebody gets to take their vehicle home as a permanent assignment and when someone take it out of a pool.
for instance, the human services agency has a large pool of vehicles. they have a lot of staff and have to make visits many outside the county and they get assigned the vehicles. that's for budget departments too it was not part of our sir have a but we were clear the numbers in our report are the permanent assignments not pool assignments. >> commissioner: is there a governing code for the pool of cars? >> not to my knowledge. maybe management would be able to tell you. >> commissioner: and the admin code i think is fairly vague. it doesn't also describe the procedures to access a vehicle from personal use. meaning it doesn't direct departments and keep a log of them or ask the department to report on mileage or not to exceed a certain amount of mileage or require a department to take note if the vehicle has
accrued citations. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> commissioner: colleagues, any questions or comments? so we have -- thank you very much. >> commissioner: and we are representatives here from the airport and they have 40 vehicles. none are allocated in the code. fire 45 vehicles, none allocated
in the code and police here, 47 vehicles, 33 allocated in the code. public defender, 16 vehicles, none allocated in the code. and the sheriff's department, 24 vehicles and only five allocated in the code. we have other departments actually that have more vehicles than allocated in the code. and start with the san francisco airport. is there a representative from the airport here. >> cathy wagner with the san francisco international airport. would you like me to walk you three -- through the airport
vehicles and tracking mileage is that the best way to start or start with questions? >> commissioner: i think we have some questions, if you don't mind. i know that the response from the airport was these were approved by the board. >> we include the allotted number of vehicles in the 2018 san francisco airport operating budget. we had received approval for 40 city vehicles. we have 39 that are currently assigned. 17 of those are to commissioner employees and the remaining are two airport bureau police and fire department personnel. >> commissioner: so when you request the vehicles were they specifically requested at take-home vehicles. >> i don't know the answer to
that but i'll find out and they were in our operating budget. the numbers vary and we look at who has them and how they're being used. i do know in 2018 we had 40 of these vehicles in our budget. >> commissioner: so would you agree that when you're requesting for a budget allocation for vehicles there's a difference between a vehicle used by many individuals in your department versus a car assigned to one individual to come and from work. would you consider that a big difference? >> it's completely difference. we have both. take-home vehicles for employees expected to report to the airport for a major event and have pool vehicles used during regular business hours for meetings within the airport and city and san mateo county.
>> commissioner: how many pool vehicles do you currently have? >> i don't know but i'll find out. it's under 100. there's quite a few. >> commissioner: okay. actually per the admin code you're allocated zero. you say it's under 100 though. >> don't quote me on that. i'll find out for you. each division has access to a pool of shared vehicles they can use to get throughout the airport whether that's in between terminals or if they have meetings in the city or san mateo county. okay. i think the question we had was so what is your procedure for these people. the take-home vehicles is under the admin code. have someone in your marketing i believe has a vehicle.
>> the 17 vehicles are allocated to commission employees range from the airport director to the executive. and we also have officers that good out to the community regularly. >> commissioner: and some have take-home vehicle. >> that's not my call. the airport will apply that direction if you have a different direction. >> commissioner: and is there a procedure in which people take out the cars? for one, in your pool vehicles also but are you taking into
consult the mileage and do you check mileage on these take-home vehicles and do you check licenses and whether they're licenses are up to date? what is your procedure? if i were to say to you, car number 5, you can tell me who has a take-home vehicle and when they've take jeb it -- taken it home how much mileage. >> yes, there's a transponder and the director get a weekly report for the airport commission. the chiefs of the airport fire and police department get the read-outs on the cars. the majority the canine vehicles the budget analyst referenced. >> commissioner: any other questions, colleagues? thank you very much. we have fire next. do we have someone from the fire department?
>> i'm happy to answer any and all questions. would you like a brief overview of the numbers on our vehicles? >> commissioner: we see the fire department's actually allocated zero cars and that you have actually 45 take-home vehicles but you may have other cars in the pool. >> but they're not taken home. >> commissioner: how many vehicles in the pool? >> seven or eight. it's less than 10. >> commissioner: okay. you have 45 vehicles actually take-home vehicle vehicles? >> correct. >> commissioner: would you say either the administrative code is outdated or that perhaps not
all 45 people who are assigned a personal vehicle need a personal vehicle? >> >> the code is outdated. we have 45 vehicles and they fall into two buckets. those on call 24/7 and that makes up 14 vehicles 31 are not on call, prevention inspectors and vehicles we cannot house. we do not have housing for the vehicles. >> commissioner: are you tracking the mileage on the vehicles? >> when you fill up the gas, you have a code for your car and have to enter the odometer reading and tracks the amount of fuel you're using. >> commissioner: these people, 31, not on call, they take them
home because there's no place to park them is that correct? >> correct. right now we have 12 vehicles we pay for parking. it's around 30,0$30,000 a year those vehicles. we're happy to if it's the will of this board, to not allow those 31 to go home. you cap probably triple that cost easily if not more to park the vehicles. >> i just had a meeting with the fire administration. i understand you are requesting more ambulances this year. i asked do you have room to park the ambulances and they said absolutely but you have no room to park the vehicles, is that what you're telling me? >> i'm not part of ems i oversee fire prevention and investigation ems house the vehicles over there. i cannot speak to station 49. i can speak so headquarters and the other fire houses throughout the city which we surveyed for
available space to park vehicles. as far as station 49 i can not speak for them. >> commissioner: are these vehicles clearly marked as fire from the fire department? >> absolutely. do you differentiate vehicles for person pool and fire vehicles. when you make a budget request for vehicles in your annual budget request do make a differentiation between vehicles take-home vehicles and vehicles used on call? >> we do not. >> we have a separate funding
for replacement vehicles. >> commissioner: i think what we're trying to get is that this is an add -- admin code written in 2004 and we're seeing gross violations in the admin code and city departments and not just your department, spirp we're trying to -- sir, we're trying to figure out the right balance and what is necessary to serve the city well and is it necessary to have this many vehicles if you can't park them, to be frank and whether or not how we're keeping track of it in our budgeting process so we can make sure if we re-design the admin code we're in alignment with what the admin code says so we're able to track them and why i asked the questions about if you ask for vehicles do we make a specific request for take-home personal vehicle or on-call
vehicle. >> commissioner: are nay -- that marked? >> they are clearly marked with the city emblem. >> commissioner: president yee. >> people are taking them home because you have nowhere to park it. when they go into work what happen to the vehicls to the ve? >> we park where we can and if anyone's visited us at second and townsend and it is a challenge. it's part of our policy. we do not leave them parked out in the back alley behind the sation.
-- station. i would disagree it's a gross violation and i would say the code never properly addressed fire vehicles. we have a command staff on call 24/7 and where do we house them and we're happy to house them anywhere and we're trying to find a creative solution to save money for the taxpayers and make it work. we're open to any idea or proposal by this board to change that for the 31 cars. >> commissioner: abe other questions, comments? nothing? thank you. i appreciate it. how about mta. is mta here? >> good afternoon, supervisors, steve lee, mta.
>> commissioner: good afternoon. >> let me begin by saying we agree with the report and believe our numbers are in assign with what our needs are and we take it very seriously. over the last several years we have reduced numbers from 32 to now 23. we really have been struggle the fact that we cannot supply with this ordinance and never will until we see amendment address our concerns and city wide. >> commissioner: you have none allocated you have 23 vehicles that are take-home vehicles. they're not in the