we're really talking about maintaining the nine currently. first off, i know i have asked a lot of questions about this item. i was very excited about this location. we know these have been an amazing and said both to the tenderloin and treasure island. the staff there have been phenomenal. i appreciate the boys and girls club. a lot of my concerns were outside of the players that are involved in this item. i just had some quick questions. i'm not familiar with how the other parcels were given. if you could go over that.

i know that several have been slowing housing. how was that done? >> it during 2000 the city entered into the corporate of agreement, there was 20 time does 22 parcels. 8 of those were sold to the redevelopment agency. early those funds that allow for the construction of a octavia boulevard. franklin was one of the first to be completed. the remaining parcels, and it or does that was referenced -- in the ordinance that was a

reference, there was the sale of those remaining parcels. we have sold four parcels and relying on that legislation to add purchase and sales agreements. >> for those that were given for the building of affordable housing, i assume that that went through this process? >> i was not with the city at that time. >> the relationship between the city and the redevelopment agency, those were transactions that ad market value. direct sales, not a competitive sale to an agency that is not the city and then the redevelopment agency engages in their process to secure the housing developer. some that have been completed, some underway.

>> how were those nonprofits selected? i assume that the previous process went through this. >> the initial transfer of those parcels that were sold to the redevelopment agency were not done through the public solicitation process. i believe that the redevelopment agency goes through the solicitation process an order to partner with developers on a case by case this basis. >> i know that this is not a frequent occurrence, the city has parcels of land. i believe that we don't have enough parcels.

i'm wondering if we have a process by which we go through planning for land and how we go through deciding who we sell the land too. >> as i mentioned earlier, this is a departure from our normal process. this is not by code that our process has been to offer properties on the market through some mechanism which is an auction. we have used this to dispose of some of the parcels within the octavia footprint. we sold other surplus properties through that mechanism. the experiences we have had,

particularly in the nonprofit world, where there is a directed transaction. typically there are leases. we have found that there have been some problems associated as well because this is a city asset. there are some lingering liability and capital obligations that we then maintain under a lease. there is a project where a noncompetitive 20-year lease was provided for that facility. we have provided operators upon a termination of that lease. that is our more frequent experience, a directed, noncompetitive community survey use. that is not as viable a solution

here but they definitely would not have had a situation. ownership is really imperative for capital fund-raising opportunities as well as any fund raising opportunities. >> in the sale, we did not mandate that residential unit to be built on site to help augment the fund. >> there was a 50% affordability target. we met that 50% affordability target. this had always been allocated as market rate. actually, in conversation we brought up the idea as possibly

an additional affordable housing opportunity because this is outside of any redevelopment area and given the redevelopment agency's changing future. it seems that they are at the lower end of their priorities. >> why did we not mandate that in the sale? if residential is still on side, that will get 50% of the proceeds. that was not mandated as part of the development. i'm curious why we did not do that. that would go back to the plan for enhancement, transit, infrastructure. >> this is a fair observation. in this case, the residential element becomes a financial

principle to help the non- profit. this speaks to being market rate. this plan would address on a parcel by parcel basis, the required contribution. we are alone in the plan that the board had adopted to dictate what affordable components might be required as part of the project. >> i am not answering the question. why didn't the mandate residential building as part of the sale to the boys and girls club? >> right now it is an option. i'm wondering why we did not mandate to this as part of the sale and they would build both the center and market rate housing which would be more funding for the plan. >> part of that is that it is

very conceptual in nature. we are not sure of the efficacy and finance ability of the financial component. mandating it, we felt that it might overload their requirements we're placing on the nonprofit. their plan is first and foremost the community service element. >> i want to maximize. we have land and we want to be will too maximize its value to the city. >> you are correct. this is not require that residential is construction on the side. it does it require that should be constructed, not only does the city participate but we try to negotiate.

i do think that there is some openness into including a provision. there would be sensitivity to allowing this to be sensitive enough for them to find what they're looking for. your concern is a valid one. >> it is my understanding that this is zoned residential so other uses are not allowable. >> commercial on the bottom, residential above. if another use will be built, that would have to come back to the board? >> any type of sony change would have to come back to the board. "it's one thing that would make me more comfortable if another uses determined, for example market rate office, verses commercial space.

if they came to the board for a change in use, we was to be able to share profits from that scenario as well. i very much appreciate the amendment on the proceeds of a land sale, if that were to happen in 40 years. >> this is a 70% discount. obviously, the boys and girls club will put tremendous investment on the land. i was wondering how this was calculated. >> we should go to the budget analyst report. i do have some questions of my own. >> madame chair and members of

the committee, as was stated, the city would sell a parcel f to the boys and girls club to hit below market rate. this is 43% less than the estimated market sales rate. it could be developed on parcel and it has significant community service benefits and investment. the real estate division has provided no documentation with respect to quantify such a benefit. also there has been no requirement for development of the residential units and the proposed sales agreement provides that if the boys and girls club the votes residential units, the city would receive 50% of the net sale or proceeds.

there is a potential that would be reviewed. and the revenue in the future will be shared between the city and caltrans 4 specified street transportation and projects such as recreation projects. i will go right to our recommendations. the budget and legislative analyst cannot recommend approval of legislation because the sales price of too fine -- 2.5 million. less than a state it than the estimate its sales price.

we might add that the property was previously approved by the board of supervisors ed market rate prices. the real estate division did not intend to elicit other agencies or developers to purchase the subject property or auction it to the highest bidder as is usual procedure. the workforce development not conduct a formal plan in process to determine the best use of the parcel. the agreement does not require the boys and girls club too have a certificate of occupancy. the agreement does not require development of residential units. if commercial is available and

this does not require the boys and girls club to the city. after 30 years, if the property is sold, the boys and girls club would maintain these proceeds. we would be happy to respond to the 20 questions. >> i was wondering if you had the opportunity to evaluate and review the amendments? >> there received an e-mail today and certainly this improves the deal without a question. it does not address all of the issues that we will state it improves the deal. >> the department, to you have a

response to supervisor campos question -- supervisor kim's question? >> the participation reflects the increased value of the land. that allows the boys and girls club to recoup the cost of building and maintaining and operating the facility. we can share some of those numbers and calculations with you and make sure that that hits the goal. that was taking into account the future value of the land. >> what happens to the abandoned property? there is no swap that is part of this deal. the land that would be sold would be sold at market rate,

correct? >> correct. this would be helping with the sizable funding at the burroughs and -- the boys and girls club need. >> is the 18 million that was mentioned already implicated in the sale of that land? >> i don't believe that we have assessed that land but i believe that it goes to the cost but i will let rob answer that. >> i think that we have heard numbers as low as three and a half million. our thought is that that begins to lower the cost.

the sale of the number would go into the area of 13 million. we had an $8 billion boys and girls club. this has been a significant amount of money to race to build centers around the city. >> i would say in that part of our area, he would command a much higher price. you are right next to the new wholefoods and you are literally looking at golden gate park.

>> in terms of the committee benefit, many of us are aware of what the boys and girls club does and they're very happy with the work that you do. i think that many of our departments feel the same way. one of the questions i have for the organization and the market octavia plan overall. i think he mentioned that child care facilities was something that was prioritized and identified as a need in the area. as you look at the additional information, this does not list a recreation center. can you speak to that discrepancy if this is not considered a phase one or two

party, where is it fit? >> we are talking about two different documents in this case. when we are talking about the need for a child care facility, those are identified needs in the plan. the central freeway projects were approved by the central board in 2006. those were projects which were specific to the project. they are a separate obligation and commitment. by the identification through the long community process, there is a commitment that the excess funds of the central freeway parcells would then be designated towards these ancillary projects. >> the idea you are articulating is that they're both parties in two separate

plans that tend to overlap. >> exactly. >> if we sold this parcel at a below market rate, we would have more than enough to pay for some of these days one, phase two projects. these things that were valued at a certain level back in 2006. i'm imagining that we were in 2000 all of them, those values have gone up. if we end up selling this parcel, it appears that will be short likely from what the estimated total budget looks like. what do you think about that? >> the estimated budget was 7.5 million.

you're correct, those costs have changed. we're much closer to the completion of those projects. those have gone out to the construction project and will start and the next month. this is a 95% shrine. this is fully complete and ready to go to bid. as to be closer and closer, that number becomes more and more firm. this includes funds which have been expended for the designs of the state park. we are keeping the number as a conservative estimate. >> for the two remaining projects, are those substantially under way? >> one has committed that concluded its process.

>> those are not necessarily at a place for we know what the cost will be? >> these are less certain than the state park. >> finally, with regard to the ancillary projects, there is 8 $2 million estimate it cost. -- a $2 million estimate cost. >> the dog run is on caltrans parcels. there is maintenance of these facilities, maintenance of the streetscape. that is a five-year estimate. >> with regards to the financial component, i am thankful that we have come forward with some

improvement but we have had some improvements to the transaction. i would like to say that if we do sell the property at a below market rate and at some point in time after the agreement terms are met, say 30 or 40 years, if the boys and girls club decide to sell 8 or whatever the subsequent information -- organization is, what is the city's potential financial uptake and what any appreciation would be. i don't think that we have that in the previous agreement. i want to thank-you for that and for those improvements to the legislation. the other things i wanted to talk about, the residential development. i don't have any additional questions at the moment. if there are no other questions, i want to open this up for public comment.

are the members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for hearing our comments. the current building was built in 1952 and has had decades of use. the infrastructure is really old, from plumbing, to the bathroom facilities, machines, technology. the layout is inefficient for moving the kids around the building. there is poor natural light. we don't feel that it makes sense to invest in renovating that particular area. we have attempted to rebuild a

new facility with upgraded technology and infrastructure, so i asked for your support in selling its property to us. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi, he has done a lot of work in our district. i want to speak to the heartbeat of the boys and girls club and the dynamics of the community from the standpoint of different children coming from different parts of the area and being able to come to a safe environment. i think that this will provide that. it is interesting to me, sir and kids can live on laguna street yet they still go to page street for the services. this brings some of that

closure with the kids coming from different areas. i think the most important thing is the dynamics of that community of the blocks, from one block to one block. some people are living as gangs. i think this is a neutral area. i think would be very beneficial to the city, to the community in providing excellent services. thanks to the city and i hope this passes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me. i'm a former member of the boys and girls club. i want to speak to the

transportation. i guess in part with this location, it would be very neutral. not only that, we would have transportation close by. we have the board, the underground muni, the buses that run along the xanax. -- that run along van ness. that allow children from all of the city to take it an edge of the boys and girls club. we have different events that go on in the area. we have used coming from a sunny tale or hunters point. if they have a neutral place to go in a way to get there, that to be fantastic. that is the goal, to get as many

use as possible. dust to get as many -- to get as many youth back as possible. i want to thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon. i have been a lifetime member of the boys and girls club. this thinking about the boys and girls club in my community would be huge. this would speak volumes. i used to catch a bus to the club on a regular basis. that is not viable anymore. parents are not letting their kids catch the bus anymore. kids catch the bus anymore. i used to catch the bus that