>> the second item on the agenda, and the community services block grants, we received this grant late in our program. and these were stimulus dollars that were basically sub-granted to our office by the economic opportunity council, to augment some existing programming we had in place that met the requirements of those dollars. what we were able to do with these funds is add additional training services. what we ended up doing was concentrating the dollars primarily in our summer youth program. as such, we were able to surf 530 san francisco youth. they rare given a job opportunities over this past summer. they were also receiving job

readiness training, workshops, and for those of those in school, a transition back into the educational environment. because we were able to augment the program with these dollars, we will be able to continue our summer youth employment program this coming summer. we were able to start a summer youth employment program with the stimulus dollars a came into our office originally two years ago. those dollars are now expiring. but we will be able to carry forward formula dollars and run another program this summer, which we are happy about. we know there are a lot of young people who need those opportunities to stay off the streets in the summer. we want to make sure we can give as many of them opportunities as possible. we were also able to use this change to give specialized hazmat and abatement training for another 85 out of work construction workers that we

would not otherwise have been able to serve with these dollars. the additional item on the agenda, the federal training grant is part of the work force investment act funding that was received by our office. these are discretionary dollars that were granted to us in a special grant. we will use these to provide staffing and cdo support really to coordinate the variety of green program that we have running currently, including both of our youth programs and the green academy we were speaking of earlier. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: on item two, a $750,000 grant going primarily -- almost 100% of that going to contractual services. the 71 is going to fund a position with a bit of contractual services, $30,000.

>> exactly. supervisor chu: why don't we open up these two items to public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. -- is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> the first time i was only given two minutes. now we have two agenda items and i am given another two minutes. if this is not mickey mouse in the issue, i do not know what is. you representatives, i think, should be ashamed of yourself to call on people to have public comment but not give them sufficient time to address such issues. what i am saying here categorically -- and i want to start a freedom of information act. when stimulus money comes to us, he constituents of san francisco, that is our federal tax money. what we have a department like this doing is they talk the talk

but they cannot walk the walk. they take the money and give it to citybuild, city college, cdo 's and the people that really need training, the ones that deserve training, and there is no doubt reach. path office of economic development to talk about this and other. the people at ground zero do not have the information. we cannot allow our taxpayers' money, our federal money to be wasted by an agency like the mayor's office of economic development. it is too fake. now that you are only giving us two minutes, we have a group of people who are investing in these issues. we are going to use that and

take this department before the ethics commission so that the whole world knows about it. i will personally address this to president obama. thank you very much. supervisor chu: are there other members of the public that wish to speak on item two or three? seeing none, public comment is closed. the two items are before the committee. >> so moved. supervisor chu: both items will be forwarded to the full board with recommendation. if you could, i think some of the questions raised here are good, specifically, i would be interested in a summary of knowing what it is we currently do, the programs we have, the dollar that we spend cumulatively, who manages the program, depending on which agency manages the project.

as well as the population that we serve. and perhaps we can work with you in the coming months to try to get that information in an easy to read fashion so that all of us have the information. >> absolutely. i would be happy to. supervisor chu: ok, without objection. please call item five. >> resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the sale and conveyance of property nonexclusive permanent easements and three temporary easements -- supervisor mirkarimisupervisor k to item no. 5. >> the item before you on item 5

is the sale of property rights to caltrans for some work that cannot and will be doing to highway 84. i have on the overhead a brief look at this property in alameda county. the city of fremont is near my finger. the section of highway 84 which is the watershed area that feeds the san antonio reservoir is the area at issue. there are eight different parcels that contract would be acquiring read it totaling -- three temporary construction easements of about half an acre. based on a grill and analysis, the fair market value of these rights are estimated to be $3,500, and administrative fees to process this request from caltrans was added on to that,

$2,500, making the total acquisition price proceed of funds to the city $6,000. a fairly straightforward acquisition for city purposes. happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor chu: there is no budget analyst report on this. our current threshold is $200,000. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item #5. seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item ford with recommendations. without objection? item four. >> resolution approving the sale of an improved surplus property located at 909 tennessee street. supervisor chu: thank you.

again, this item is an item, from my understanding, there had been new news with regard to the purchaser of the property. i know john will give us an update on that. just so committee members know, i will be introducing an amendment for the whole of this piece of legislation that will require it to be continued for a week. so we will not be taking any potential action on this item today. >> thank you. this item is regarding the potential sale of surplus fire department assets at 909 tennessee street. following a declaration of surplus by the fire commission, real estate was asked to complete its due diligence requirements to proceed with the sale of that, including an appraisal, which was concluded in the spring of 2010. the upraised knife of the asset was $340,000.

that considered the nature of the asset, requiring a lot of rehabilitation. the fact that it is a potentially contributing structured to the historic fabric of the neighborhood, and thus, somewhat limiting redevelopment options. following the completion of a purchase to sale agreement and a bid process, the property was put out to bid. public bids were secured in late november. nine bids were received. they ranged in prices from three and 77 dozen dollars to $1,310,000. eight of those bids were without contingencies, including the high bidder. the high bidder was waco heavy industries llc. that is a limited liability corporation under the auspices of win big here the third.

a local resident of the neighborhood. he had a passionate interest in the asset. however, after tendering the bid and moving the property toward escrow, awaiting court approval of the sale, final item required in order to close an escrow, mr. degear decided to withdraw his high bid. upon consultation with counsel, it is felt the best approach following this, given the discrepancy of the high bidder of $1.3 million and the second batter of $906,000, was to rebid the property through a fast- track process. that is the substance of this substitute legislation that the chair would be introducing. that would grant the authority to still sell the property at the $1.3 million price subject

to the did call. that then creates a floor for a new bid process. we have some confidence that even those secondary or tertiary bidders that been dissipated in the first time around in november, or other parties, as the market continues to strengthen 62010, will yield the results receipt of $1.3 million for the property. we also feel it is the fairest approach to rebid the property, rather than in most circumstances, going to the second bidder. given again that difference, significant between the first and second bidder, we think it is in the city's best interest economically to put it back out to bid. the intention is we can probably see bids probably in the first week of march. we are just scheduling and confirming the documents subject to that now, subject to any input the committee may have

today. with me today is deputy chief fields and finance officer mark horsa from the finance department. we are able to answer any questions you have about this bid process. supervisor chu: just to clarify what we are looking at, a 1.3 $1 million sale that we were going to vote on -- rather than to authorize the sale of, given that the purchaser has backed out of the transaction, we propose rebidding. the nature of the men and i am proposing today is simply to allow the real-estate department at the authority to go forward and we did it and to sell it for no less the $1.31 that we are currently going to contemplate. and so there is an amendment of all that i'm proposing. it would have to set a week and we would not be able to vote on that. so if i could, let me open this item for public comment first

and then we can vote on the amendment as a whole. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? before we do that, i want to welcome supervisor colon who has joined us. -- cohen who has joined us. gesso members know, this item will not be voted on today. it will be continued on to the next week. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor jim? supervisor kim: thank you. happy to see that things are moving along and there are potential bidders for this item. i want to let my colleagues know that i am interested in proposing an amendment for the recommendation from our analyst to specify the use of the remaining five under $19,000 to

actually -- $519,000 to actually go to zerhousing for those who e homeless. as the look of cuts to hrsa, reductions were toward support of housing for the formerly homeless. i will be looking toward that and could be proposing that. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair, extending into the comments that supervisor kim just made, that was your -- your intimation was to suggest that the remainder of the dollar's, that we honor the original surplus property ordinance moved by supervisor daly so that it would go for exactly that purpose, isn't that what you were suggesting? >> let me clarify, madam chair,

supervisors. what we are suggesting is, first of all, normally, an exemption is considered or not by the board of supervisors prior to the sale. in this case, that did not happen. so the board made -- there was no legislation approved by the board to say either they want this to go forward for housing for the homeless or not. my recommendation to the board, given the fact there has been a sale and i understand it is going to be rebid. incidentally, supervisor mirkarimi, we are no longer sure about that $500,000 excess because of the rebid. but you are right, that is the concept. our recommendation would be to make a determination. do you want ithe excess money

that the board approved in the fire department's budget for 2010, 2011? do you want access to go to housing for the homeless or to the general fund? that is my recommendation for you to amend and take your choice on either of those two. we recommend that you approve as amended. supervisor mirkarimi: since we are looking ahead, i absolutely agree with the letter of the ordinance of the surplus property. in the spirit that supervisor ken suggested. whether it is permanent housing for senior hamas or families that are homeless, i am hoping that it is categorized in that direction. i would like to hear how it would then be best applied toward not just a general kind of remedy by really gets into

the specifics of that. supervisor kim: hopefully, we can work together on the amendment. >> just a note to my colleagues, -- supervisor chu: just a note to my colleagues, we do not have a sale to consider so we do not know how much money we will spend. as we head into the budget season, we know we will have a significant budget shortfall. the trade of we would be making if we decide to come forward with an ordinance in the future to appropriate this excess money above and beyond what was anticipated is the fact that it is a trade-off between other cuts that we would potentially be taken from the city's budget. recently, we heard news that out of the $25 million in terms of the general fund reserve that we had, we have to draw approximately $8 million in unanticipated expenses in its

current year, so our current budget deficit is growing by $8 million for legitimate reasons. you will be hearing supplementals come through. just a note for folks. if we can, think about the allocation of this money in context of our larger budget and how delicate things would be helpful. supervisor colon? >> what a wonderful introduction to keep things focused. good afternoon, calis, members of the public. i am here today to give my voice of support for this property which sets -- i want everyone to be reminded -- it is in the dog patch neighborhood, which is in district 10. the prospect of this sale has been discussed for some time. my interest now has it been in the remaining revenue that we were discussing from the properties fell after the fire department's previously budgeted portion. there are many that we need to address with the general fund support and affordable housing

is certainly one of our top objectives. i just want to call to your attention that section 23 a of the administrative code speaks to the need for affordable housing funding in san francisco and states that revenue from sale of surplus property should be considered as additional support for affordable housing programs. so i come to you today to humbly asked, in the spirit of the surplus city property ordinance, i propose using the remaining proceeds from this sale to support the hope sf project which is located up the hill from the site. as you know, the public housing developments are two of the oldest and most dilapidated public housing complexes in the city. the proposed rebuild will build 600 units of housing at below 50% ami, integrate the site into

the surrounding neighborhood, as well as generate economic opportunities for residents, and create an additional portable market rates housing unit. the project is approaching pre development phase and needs to continue financial support. the city has made significant general fund commitment to the hope sf program, which are then leverage for the state and federal support. but major funding gaps still remain. so in the coming weeks, i will be introducing a supplemental appropriation ordinance that will dedicate the excess revenue from this property sale to the mayor's office of housing for the purpose of the hope sf project. additionally, i asked that you add this language to the ordinance before this goes into effect. thank you for hearing me. supervisor chu: thank you,

supervisor, penn. a question for the city attorney. -- cohen. with regards to an allegation of funding for the property ordinance, we cannot allocate anything until a sale is complete, correct? >> madam chair, deputy city attorney, cheryl adams beer that is correct but more for in the, you could allocate the funds using this resolution as a vehicle. it would require a supplemental appropriation ordinance once the sale is complete and the funds are available. supervisor chu: thank you. ok, so we have a motion to take be amended as a whole. without objection? if the department a real-estate can provide an update on when the sale of the property is completed, what the update is,

that would be helpful for members of the committee. i am also interested in hearing about -- a lot have folks have talked about the need for affordable housing. one thing we should take into context when deciding what to do with this money is, what the budget scenario looks like for the upcoming year, and second, the pot of money available to the redevelopment agency. i understand there is about $100 million available for affordable housing through the redevelopment agency that would be equally important to consider when allocating this fund. okay, without objection. do we have a motion to continue this item for a week? without objection. thank you. item six please. >> ordinance appropriating $477,732 of certificate of participation series 2011a proceeds to fund disability access improvements in the board of supervisors chambers for the mayor's office on disability in

the general services agency, administrative services, for fy2010-2011 and placing these funds on controller's reserve pending issuance of the certificate of participation. supervisor chu: thank you. we have susan from the office of the mayor -- from the mayor's office of disability. >> we do have a slide show to briefly present item. i will talk about the history and design, dpw director at risk in can talk about the finances and topline. to begin the history, i will just give you a brief history of this project. the key points are, in the city hall renovation of 1998, required access for improvements

throughout the building. this was an item that was not forgot or deemed exempt. it was simply that there was not a design found that was agreeable to historic preservation committee -- community and disability community. between 2004 and 2008, and larger array of boards, commissions, and experts that multiple designs. we got a consensus from the mayor's disability council, city of preservation commission, landmark preservation board, planning commission, an historic preservation commission on the final design that we are presenting to you in september of 2010. the bourse supervisors approved the certificate of appropriateness. the final design involves lowering the podium by three steps so that it is 12 inches

above the floor level and lowering the clerk's podium to the floor level and moving it 14 inches toward the center of the room so that we can have access between the court costs desk and the podium. and then a short ramp could be built to the president's podium on the right-hand side, as this rendering shows you. the design has both disability access and historic preservation benefits. the disability access benefits are that access is provided by a ramp, not a lift. the access is quick and direct because the ramp is short. both the president's podium and clerks area are made permanently accessible. from an historic preservation perspective, the recreates a small footprint within the chamber. it maintains the balance of the room.

it preserves all of the historic material in the president's desk and clark's desk and allows for but does not require the use of the historic function of the president's podium. why the current configuration is not sufficient -- it is not compliant. we have a temper iran that was placed on top of carpeting. we have, in fact, somewhat a risky area for someone in a wheelchair. the bottom line is this was required work when the building was renovated. i will now turn it over to director riskin for the cost. >> good morning. as is laid out in the budget analyst report, the cost for the

work moving forward is about $477,000. it is mostly city-labor. we took a lot of pain in the past few years to minimize the cost to the greatest extent possible. this is an absolute bare bones budget that we are committed to be able to complete the work within the breakdown before you and in that budget analysts report. the schedule for the report is broken into three phases. the first of which we already completed back during the last holiday break of december 2010. we used emergency hazardous materials money that was appropriated by the board and the dpw budget to remove hazardous materials in the work area. the next phase of work would start when you leave for recess

in august and would take roughly 48 working days, which would take us into mid-october, depending on your meeting schedule. during that time is when the bulk of the work would be done, lowering of the clerks podium, moving it forward, lowering of the president's podium, and all the work that needs to happen on the ground to replace the cabling that we will have to move as part of the relocation of the desks. the last phase of the work, the installation of the permit ramp and handrail, we would defer until the next holiday break, december 2011, so as to minimize the amount of time the board would have to spend out of the chamber. the source we are proposing to use for funding of parties to -- or their certificates of apri