and if, we get, the forest city completes the proposal and we will bring those to you for your consideration, but we are excited about this phase zero work. >> and this is not going to be eligible either. and this is available on the port's website with the staff report and the commission has it in its report as well. and a lot of what we have been doing on the city staff time is organizize ourselves across the city departments and into the teams that are going to be tackling the different components that sarah described. and is sarah is going to be leading the group that will be looking at sequa and the land use and working with the staff on those issues and david is going to play a significant role in the continued planning work. and the port is going to be focused on the dda and the financial plan to fund all of the infrastructure and steven wheel on the port staff is

going to be working very closely with the forest city engineers to develop that infrastructure plan and coordinate with the other city departments like the san francisco public utilities commission and the department of public works. so, we are trying to get an interdisciplinary team from across the city to really focus on how we build this new neighborhood. and so that, and in closing. i mentioned the exclusive negotiating agreement earlier. and we do intend to come back to you with a proposal to amend that exclusive negotiating agreement, perhaps as early as the november meeting. and to address a few issues for this phase two, period of time. so that concludes my presentation and sarah and i are available to answer any questions. >> is there any public comment?

>> commissioners is there any comment. >> i have a comment i am happy that you get your ppa letter from planning and i like how you are lining up your ducks there, and especially with the other two lots, and they are all going to come under the same environmental review and that is the real smart way of doing it. and otherwise, you have environmental done for one and you end up having to do and start the other one three years from now which drags everything out. and yeah, i think that it is coming along pretty nice and also, kutos, to the renting department for getting the new, tenants in there and getting

the money and keep the money coming in, and that is also very good. and so, that is, and that concludes my comments. >> and thank you. >> and thank you for the presentation, by the way. >> thank you. >> and thank you. >> thank you, that presentation was very clear and exciting to see everything moving forward and i am also impressed of getting all of the different city agency to coordinate. >> in addition to what the port will be providing with the mayor's office of housing, these with the 20 percent including of the housing on site as well as that contemplated. >> yes, the term sheet contemplates that the development will be following

all of the city's applicable, affordable housing rules. and the inclusionary number, i believe is 15 percent, where there is public ownership of a site. and the private market, rate is below that at 12 percent. sxh so we are going to be at that 15 percent mark. and there is also a jobs housing linkage fee requirement, for new, commercial, development, and to the presentation, and that is where the fee credits will go, and so we will be able to bring the fee credits either to the water front site or one of these adjacent sites in pier 70 to fulfill that obligation for the sea wall lot, 322-1. >> and then this is probably over my pay grade. but, in terms of some of the proposed affordable self-storage, i guess, and i may not understand, their use

for it, but my understanding is that this will be a relatively short term. the lease at the site or what is the contemplated timing for something like that? >> so, most of the other leases that we talked about, the yellow cab lease, and you know, the honda lease are very short term agreements, three years or less. and affordable self-storage, one of the larger of the two that is truck marshaling is the same. and there is 20th and illinois right now, the affordable self-storage units that are in cargo containers and it is a personal storage of items, and that is a contemplated to be a longer term lease, i think that we agreed to slightly less than five years with one year of renewal options at the port's option, and for forest city agreed to that because that particular division of the site

is late in the development plan and we also have the ability to other provisions in the lease to be able to move for development, purposes. and so we have felt that sort of belt and suspenders. >> and by the very nature we would get stuck with something that would need a longer term and may not have that available. >> and i think that we have been very careful to make sure that the interim leases matching up with the development and that we have preserved the rights. >> thank you very much for your report. >> moving on. >> okay. >> item 8 c, request authorization to amend contract with economic & planning systems, inc. to provide additional real estate economics and related consulting services for the pier 70 waterfront site, and to increase the contract amount by $250,000 (or 50%) to $750,000, and extend the term of the agreement for an additional 14 months. (resolution no. 13-43). >> and good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andre salsavedo and

i am the contract manager here at the port and i am joined by james and brad, the port staff as well as rebecca, the vice president with economic planning systems inc. and we are here today seeking authorization to amend the existing professional service contract with economic planning systems incorporated, eps to increase but not-to-exceed amount from $500,000 to $750,000, and to extend the term and end date from february, 28th, 2014, to april, 30th, 2015. and as background, in february of 2012, this commission, authorized, four contracts for as-needed real estate economic and related services to the following firms. bae, urban connection, inc, connection and planning systems inc. kiaser inc and siful conducting

inc and each this a maximum of $500,000 and a three-year term with an option to extend to a fourth term. under the contract, eps, has served as the primary port's consultant for the pier 70 water front development proposed by forest city, california and piers, 30, 32, by the golden state warriors, and presently there are only approximately, $25,000 or 5 percent of the authorized contract value of $500,000 remaining. and only about a five month term left on the existing contract. as there is a significant amount of consultant work needed left to be done over the next 18 to 24 months for the port city team to continue to negotiate with the four forest

city on the development of the agreement on the site, as a result, the port staff is seeking authorization to increase the term, both the term of the contract, and the maximum amount of the agreement with the eps. and all of the other terms of the contract would remain the same as in the existing. and a few comments on lbe participation. currently the contract has a 22 percent goal. and to date eps, has only achieved, lb participation rate of 19 percent. with the approval of this contract, amount, and the execution of the additional work as presently planned, eps will be able to exceed the goal, 22 percent by the end of the contract and the amended contract term. and funds for the additional work will come from the ports's operating budget and it will be reimbursed by the forest city

as part of the exclusive negotiation agreement. and in conclusion, the port staff requests the authorization to amend the contract with the economic planning systems real estate connection by increasing from $500,000 to $750,000 and by extending the contract termination date from february, 28, 214, to april, 30, 2014. this concludes my presentation. >> motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment? >> commissioners? any comments? >> yes. >> could you please explain a little bit how, we ended up so far, off budget? and or anticipated? >> i think that it is, i know that brad if you want to go into it. i don't think that we ended up off budget, i think that we just had a significant amount of work for them and especially working with the golden state

warriors project on this and i think that the team has been working with them on supporting their negotiations and the negotiating the efforts have been and extremely helpful and we want to continue to use them and so we thought that it was best to go ahead and modify and extend the contract, exercise our fourth year and also, increase the amount on that. >> it is my understanding that it was compared to the others they have a unique expertise when it comes to sports-related? >> we did bring in and they did bring in and did ask, to bring in a subconsultant who was a nationally recognized expert on the sports's consulting and that is what the use was for. >> and in discussing this item, i guess ta one thing to note is that you do have the four contracts of the $500,000 each, and what the understanding of that is that it is not necessarily meant that the funds will be extended and so to answer the question, of the budget, we would guess that

this would not cause the budget issue and this causes one contractor, and we spend more money with them and it is likely that we will stay within the amounts of the budgets for the other consultants and we will not spend as much money as an offset. >> we have not planned to reduce that capacity. >> i understand that, but that is the plan, in terms of i understand this is a contract out there, which is to say that we, in terms of managing, for the budget purposes, of the intent to stay in the budget. >> you are correct. >> commissioner. >> that is correct. >> just in the response to the commissioner's question, and to be on the record. >> okay. >> ready to vote? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. >> resolution, number 1 3-43, passed. >> item 9. new business? >> any new business from the commissioners? >> commissioner, i just want to

follow up on one piece that you asked before, which is to talk to come back to the commission when the economic information is available from ac 34, and i have not put that on the forward calendar yet but i don't yet have a good idea when it will be available but i want you to know that i have not lost track of it. >> i think when you do that, perhaps that you could also, talk about if we know by then, if the city of san francisco is going to be involved, how we will proceed with all of that going forward. >> and whatever we have by then, i will be happy to share. >> thank you. >> there are questions about how the process is going to work if that is the case. but at the moment, we have not received any notification, yet. >> and, the america's cup event authority exercised their options for the city to present them with a proposal within 90 days from the end of it, which i believe was september 25th which will put us out to september 23rd, more or less if you count the calendar days and the city is coming together to

work on that and but we are waiting for the guidance as well and. authority to their division. >> and okay, so we are on track, for, okay, so we are having to respond by the september 25th, that the america's cup side in terms of the protocol, has other things to deal with the challenges which may happen in 2014. but in the meantime, we are going to have toe prepare first. >> that is correct. >> yeah. >> so more to follow, but the initial step of them and the event authority of exercising the option has taken place. >> and their lease on the properties at the moment was supposed to expire at the end of november. >> several of that i have properties come back and one of the properties comes back to the port, november first, which is the pier 27, cruise ship terminal and in the valley, and most of the rest of the properties come back, either december 31st, the last day of occupantcy or the march 31, or coming back january 1 or april one, depending on what they are, for example, with the pier

23, the shed comes back to us january first, but the bulkhead does not come back to us until april first. >> and by exercising the option for us to respond by december 25th, how does that impact the existing leases? >> apparently, i said something wrong. >> no, i am just, this should be agendaized for the future meeting. >> we are getting into substance here. >> this is new business. >> i know. >> and good point. >> sorry. >> okay. as advised by counsel, but we talking about the public information. >> i move to adjourn, in memory of the bart track engineer's who was tragically killed, chris shepherd and lawrence daniels of oakland. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we are adjourned. thank you..

>> good afternoon, everyone, if i may have your attention, my name is david campos and welcome to the meeting of november 14, 2013 of the board of supervisors neighborhood services committee. i am joined today by supervisor norman yee and we will be joined later by eric mar. we want to thank the following members of the sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting today,

jennifer low and david larson. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices, completed speaker cards should be submitted 209 clerk. items acted upon today will appear to the november 18 meeting unless otherwise stated. >> if you can please call item 1, which is the only item on today's meeting and we have been joined by eric mar. >> item 1, hearing on the budget and legislative analyst's report to further understand the level of san francisco's housing crisis. >> i want to thank all the members of the public here at the meeting and all the people who have been contacting my office the last few weeks about

the displacement that is happening. i do want to make some introductory comments but before i do that i would like to ask the budget and legislative analyst to a very brief presentation on the report and what i would say about this report is the way this report came ba is that in the last few weeks, we in my office and i know that my colleagues in other offices have been hearing a number, about a number of cases of displacement of evictions. a lot of that information gave me the sense that there was something happening in the city, but we're talking about anecdotal information. i think it's important as we make public policy that we have more than just anecdotal information and that's the reason that we commissioned this report to make sure that the report gave us concrete data on what's happening out there so that we have a better understanding of what the issue is. you can't

really come up with a solution to a problem unless you understand the extent and the magnitude of the problem. so with that i want to turn it over to the budget and legislative analyst. i want it thank their office, fred bussard and their staff, for working in a very efficient way, to get this report completed. >> good afternoon, chair campos, supervisor mar and supervisor yee, i'm fred from the legislative analyst's ofrs. i will provide a quick report on tenant displacement in san francisco. we were asked by supervisor campos to review tenant displacement and he requested rates of change in property

change, rent burden and also requested demographic profile of people evicted. just a quick snapshot so this goes back to when the rent board first started reporting evictions and here's some detail from 1999 through 2013 on evictions, all no fault evictions which includes lfx evictions and for cause evictions, which includes those where a tenant is evicted for not paying the rent or being a nuisance of some type. you will see a sharp increase of he will -- ellis act, the

year by the way the rent board tracks is through february 28 so when it says 2013, that's rent board year of 2013 which starts march 1st of 2012 and goes through the end of february of this year. you can see there have been some peaks of ellis act evictions in the past, 2000 and 2001, that was the end of what was called the dot com boom when rents and prices of real estate were very high and escalating very quickly. again between 2005 and 2008 you see a bump in ellis act evictions and that also tracks with a general trend toward sharp increases in property rates and home sales values. and then the bottom row on the total, again, there were numbers of all types of evictions were high in the end of the dot com boom era and

slowed down some 2003, down to 1,561 and in all the years since 2003 through 2013 again as of february of this year, this is the highest we have had since 2003 with 1,716 evictions reported as of the end of february. i won't go through all the details on this table, this is in our report, but it does show the various types of evictions both no fault and for cause, and what is striking i think about the information in this table is that the overall rate increased between rent board year 2010 and rent board year 2013 by 38.2 percent from 1,242 evictions in 2010 to 1,716 in 2013. ellis act evictions, on the other hand, greatly outpaced that, increasing by 169.8

percent during that same time period, from 43 in 2010 to 116 in 2013. and this is the beginning of the recovery from the economic recession of 2008 and 9, as you'll see in some of the other tables later. that's the time when the real estate prices started going up again and housing sales increased. we did get some more recent eviction statistics from the rent board since their reporting period ends in february, as i mentioned. so here is the 12-month period for 2013 and there were 166 evictions reported for the 12 month period ending september 30th. for the prior year, the 12 month ending september 20, 2012, there were 105 so we see an increase still and higher than what was reported in february. this map is sort of a quick

snapshot showing where ellis act evictions have been concentrated. the darkest colors show where the highest numbers have been 20 2000 and 2013. you will see the intermission and the castro eureka valley noe valley, the next, it's the blighter shade of blue is haight ashbury. this is where most of the evictions were concentrated between 2009 and 2013. the numbers are there by neighborhood. what we've put next to them is changes in property values during that period as recorded by the assessor recorder. that's counting all kinds of properties, that includes commercial property as well as residential and as you can see

a number of the neighborhoods outpailsd the city-wide total for increased rates in assessed valuation. the others were also high but not as high as the city-wide rate. the ones high were the inner mission, castro, and castro. what's more striking is the column on the right showing increase in home prices. this is the actual home price of homes for sale during that period. five of the 7 neighborhoods exceeded the city-wide total in increased sales prices of their real estate and you can see it their. inner mission again very high with 29.5 percent, castro ue reek ka valley with 36.6 percent, and the others mostly well above the city-wide rate. that was the trend we saw in the neighborhoods where ellis act evictions have been concentrated. there's a

corresponding relationship with increases in real estate prices, particularly residential. and this graph shows the relationship with these, the line at the top is showing median home prices and you can see we have the numbers in there for 2009 of 735,828, bumps up to 897,89 ate, this is the median home price for all homes in san francisco. at the same time you can see total evictions, which is the middle line, curving up also and ellis act evictions curving up so there's certainly a relationship shown there and again if you go back to 2004 through 2008 when there were very steady increases in residential real estate we also see the eviction numbers, the ellis act eviction numbers going up in sort of a corresponding curve. the rental market, so for

people who are evicted and have perhaps have been long-term tenants in a rent-controlled apartment they face a rental market where, as in 2012, this is not even the most current, but the median rent for all apartments in the city, $3,414. that's an 8.2 percent increase over just the prior year, 2011. from all indications the 2013 rate will be even higher. at the same time the rental vacancy rate, which is the number of all apartments vacant in a year versus all apartments occupied, has declined each year going from 4.4 percent to a low of 2.2 percent in 2012. this is one measure certainly of the real estate market and i know in new york city where it's tracked very carefully, anything under 5 percent is considered a discouraging or

troublesome situation by the rent control authorities in that city. finally the percent of san francisco households who are rent burdened, what rent burdened means, a u.s. census bureau definition, means the household is paying more than 30 percent of their household income on rent. so you can see here in 2010 and 2011, not much change but still a substantial portion of san francisco households are in fact paying more than 30 percent of their household income on rent. looking for causes, and we looked at the different neighborhoods where the ellis act and other evictions are concentrated but ultimately came to some of the basic conditions in san francisco and the basic economic changes that have taken place. >> excuse me, sir, we have a question from supervisor mar. >> yes, sorry. >> thank you for the great study. so on the rent burdened households in san francisco, that's almost 1 in 2 households

in the city seem to be rent burdened but could you define what that means again? >> sure, yes, it's paying more than 30 percent of your household income on rent or housing. and this one is particularly rent. >> can i ask you a question about that? >> sure. >> can you explain why that's perceived to be a burden, why 30 percent? >> that's sort of a benchmark used by the federal government for what a household should spend on housing. the benchmark that used to be used by the banking and mortgage industry as well, sort of the cutoff for what people could afford. i think those rules have been bent over the years because housing has become more expensive, but it is the traditional benchmark of the up err -- upper limit of what should be spent on housing. back to