city and county of san francisco budget and finance committee, november 1, 2012.

>> good morning. and welcome to the budget and finance committee. my name is supervisor john avalos, the chair of the committee.

joined to my right by supervisor jane kim and to my left by supervisor sean elsbernd. the clerk of the committee is mr. victor young and mr. clerk, can you share with us your announcements? >> please turn off all cell phones and electronic devices. items acted upon today will be forwarded to the full board of supervisors meeting of november 20th, unless otherwise stated. thank you. >> i wanted to acknowledge our sfgovtv staff who are work on this hearing. that is nona and jesse larson. could you call our first item. >> item no. 1, resource approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of parcel of real estate located at 1550 evans avenue and 330 newhall street consisting of approximately 4.6 acres improved with 50,593 square

feet of office and industrial buildings for the san francisco public utilities commission for a purchase price of $15 million, adopting findings under ceqa, adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the city's general plan and eight priority polices of city planning code section 101.1 and authorizing the director of property to executive documents make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >> mr. updyke, welcome. >> so today we seek your positive recommendation to acquire one property that has two addresses, 1550 evans and 330 newhall. the property at the corner of 3rd and evans. the southeast water pollution could control plant located in

this area, so you can see the proximity. the aerial photo, i think does better justice to show that. the where my pen is and of course, obviously where the southeast plant is located. very proximate this particular property has been 2,000 square feet of land and contains buildings with 32,000 square feet of office space and 19,000 square feet of secure warehouse space. as i mentioned it's located at 3rd and evans. it's an m-2, that is heavy industrial property zoning. and it's of course situated near that water pollution control plant. the cellar, 3rd and evans llc is controled by the among other things family who owned-and-operated morgan company on the site in 1978 and then leased are the property

after those business operations cease ed the negotiated purchase price in the agreement [pr-u/] today is $15 million. the appraised value is $16 million. that value is predicated on an assumption that really all of the value of this property is in the land. it happens to have contributory interim use improvements. they are actually ideally situated for the sf pc use. on the overhead i have a list of the comparable sale used by the independent appraisal for this property, ranging from $49 a square foot for over $100 a square foot in land. you can see they are very close by. hooper evans, newhall, oyster and 7 [*-fpbl/] street are [kpa-eurblg/]s.

warehouse and office situation meets the needs quite well of the sfpuc so we can co-locate the staff, the equipment and the vehicles from several other locations into this one complex that is going to provide a much greater efficiency of operations for the sfpuc's wastewater enterprise collection systems division. this is detailed in the excellent budget analyst's report particularly in table 16 page 3 and table 2 of page 4 and i will let the budget am go into that into further detail. the total figure to be consolidated is about 134 and that is broken down by division for you on those tables. upon move-in, we would like to also note the acquisition would yield savings of over 400,000 a year from lease terminations of 3801 3rd is street, and evans. the general plan conformity letter is in the board file. this matter is not subject to

ceqa. i am engined today by a host of puc officials to provide any particular details about operations you might have. mr. carlin, miss russell, and others. so look forward to answering any questions that you might have. >> thank you. why don't we go on to mr. carlin just to augment your presentation, just to hear from the puc on how this land will be operationalized. >> thank you. chairman avalos and supervisors kim and elsbernd, miable karlin, deputy general manager for the puc this. is a unique opportunity for us to actually consolidate several operations that we have in sort of different locations into one location. it gives us the opportunity to have those people in the same place, from our collection system, who do the testing of the streets to actually doing sewer clean-ups. it also allows us to expand and we're actually forward-looking with this piece of property as well. as we implement the sewer system improvement program we are going to locate some of the

project management staff there that will be working on the southeast plant. so they will be there for decades, as we kind of redo that plant in the southeast sector of san francisco. so this is really an opportunity that we looked at and we want to pursue. and with your approval, we would actually move forward on buying this property. >> and then -- i mean the southeast plant is across 3rd street, correct? >> right. >> so what is the plan tentatively in place right now for how thatlant will be reconstructed is it -- it's going to be in the same vicinity, right? >> right. the footprint of the plant is looking at reconstruction of the plant partially [stkph-euft/]ing footprint and potential potentially moving into some other properties that the city owns. the asphalt site and talking to public works about pushing our biosolids project against the berm of caltrain, along germ avenue. and so most of the work will be

contained within the existing site with maybe some expanse moving across quince street at this point in time. >> thank you. colleagues any questions for the departments? we'll go on to the budget analyst, mr. rose. >> mr. rose, we're ready for your report. >> mr. chairman, members of committee, on page 5 of our report, the bottom of page 5, is shown in table 3 on page 6 of our report. the cost of purchasing this property at 1550 evans and 330 newhall is $15 million. plus an estimated $1,179 in closing costs. so the total estimated cost is [shao-eubgt/]ly offer 15 million, $15,

slight over $15 million. so from that standpoint, it looks like the city is purchasing the property at element a $1 million saving from the appraisal. on page 6 of our report. we point point out that the net present value of the existing leases, where they are now, including annual increases over 30 years, is an estimated $8.2 million. it so that the net present value including the relocation costs, the purchase price, and financing costs over a 30-years is an estimated $18.1 million. therefore, the proposed purchase is $9.9 million, almost $10 million or 122% more than the cost of the existing leases. however, as has been stated the purpose of this purchase is to consolidate in

one central location. the sewer system improvement program, staff and equipment, as well as the wastewater collection division. now on the othered and, we point out on page 7 of our report that if the puc were to lease instead of purchase comparable property, new properties, to get a centralized location, then it is shown in table 4 on page 8 of our report the net present value of such lease is over 30 years is an estimated $23.1 million, which is $4.9 million or 27% more than the net present value of the estimated purchase price/relocation and occupancy costs, as well as the financion costs over a 30-year period that. would be an estimated $18.1 million. so

our our conclusion because it includes new costs for the pucks, as compared to continuing to lease at the existing locations, therefore, we say it's a policy matter, even though we acknowledge that if the supervisors agree with the department to centralize in one location, it appears that the city would be getting a good deal. >> thank you, mr. rose. sean? >> mr. rose, and maybe this is puc too, and maybe you might not know harvey, the current lease analysis that you did, if we kept it for 30 years, what are the current terms of lease? do we have those leases for the next 30 years at the same rent? >> no, we made a projection. it's a combination of leases and city-owned property. and we simply made a projection to get a net present value. >> okay. so it's an

expectation of 15 years from now what the property owner would be charging the city. >> exactly. >> fair enough. ? >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i do have a quick question for mr. updyke from real estate. and it's actually just a tangential question. with regards to the two sites with the fire department and with dpw that the puc will no longer be utilizing and i nose it's not a cost-savings to the puc because they weren't paying to use it. are there ways fort departments to generate revenue from the sighs now that the puc will no longer be occupying it? >> supervisor kim with respect to the property particularly that is associated with fire, i

believe that [shr-r/] in discussion amongst dpw, my staff and capital planning. so i think we're looking at reuse, where possibility, where we're vacating or pulling certain uses off city-owned property s. >> so i'm sorry for 2245 gerald? >> that would be gerald. >> so the fire department may reuse that site now? >> yes. >> it would be great to learn how we reutilize sites or see if there are ways of generating -- i don't know if they are releasable. >> we're looking at a broader picture of all the industry yard needs that the city has. they are quite numerous. this board deliberated over an issue recently with the mta, that i think brought to light some of the challenges that we have to find industrial uses. there is only so much within the city footprint and we're

looking can we con sodate the uses to have search for a whole number of options. so we're having those discussions to have a consolidated discussion going forward and i execute [spwr-eubg/]ing something forward to you to discuss that. >> thank you. >> let's open the item up for public comment. any member of the public who wishes to comment, please come forward. seeing no one come forward, we'll close public comment. colleagues, we have this item before us. can we have a motion to approve this resolution and send forward with recommendation. >> so moved. and we can move forward as a committee report for the tuesday meeting? okay. we'll take that without objection. >> that will be forwarded as a committee report to the november 6th board of supervisors' meeting. >> very good. item no. 2, please? >> item no. 2, resolution authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing to execute a local operating subsidy program grant agreement with 220 golden gate master

tenant lp to provide operating subsidies for formerly homeless single adults at kelly cullen community, 220 golden gate amp for the period of december 1,2012 to november 30, 2027 napolit not to exceed $18,475,118. >> very good. we have the mayor's office of housing. good morning, supervisors. i will dot introduction and then lydia ely from my office, who is the project manager will give you the details. we are here to seek the committee's recommendation on this local operating subsidy program contract. this is a continuation of our collaboration with the city's department of public health, where the mayor's office has provided capital for the development of affordable housing, and we are working

with the department of public health to basically subsidize the operation of the facility. so that the department can ensure that it can meet its goals of serve formerly homeless medically-frail individuals. and this project is just one in a series of projects that we're doing with the department of public health. we're also doing similar projects with the human services agency and this projected is a 15-year contract for the operating subsidies for the kelly cullen community facility. and i will bring up lydia ely to talk about the details of the particular project and the subsidy itself. >> good morning supervisors,

lydia ely, project supervisor at the mayor's office of housing. i wanted to talk about the local subsidy program and its genesis and goals before we talk about kelly cullen community and the specificked of that project. the local operating subsidy program has been operated by our office since 2005. and it was created out of a need -- out of the recognition that we needed a local source for operating supportive housing. the ten-year plan to abolib chronic homelessness, which was drafted in 2004, set a goal of 3,000 units for formerly homeless people. however, we did not have a local source to keep those units -- to operate those units in the long-term. federal sources such as section 8, shelter plus care, were scarce and have become even more scarce since that time. so the local operating subsidy program supp