distribute it. >> thank you. anybody else wish to comment on this item we are going to continue? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, can i have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? >> move. >> motion. we can take it without objection. okay. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number 4? >> item number 4 is a resolution approving the special transit fare (fast pass) agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district, with a term of july 1, 2014, through june 30, 2020. >> okay, thank you. i know m ta is going speak on this item. come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. steve lee with sfmta. the current bart fast pass agreement with the sfmta expires this june 30th, 2014. the agreement before you is a new agreement that will expire in june of 2020.

some of the new arrangements with with bart with the bart agreement is that the rate will increase from $1.21 to $1.27. the cap is currently at 10.$5 million and the cap will have increase of 5% over the next six years. and the agreement also will expire to coincide with the feeder agreement. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay, mr. rose. after a few hours, can we go to your first report, please? >> absolutely, mr. chairman, members of the committee. on page 10 as shown in table 4 and that's on pablo 11 of our report, the total estimated reimbursement by the sfmta to bart over the sinstion year term of the proposed agreement to continue this to provide muni fast pass riders with the bart option would range from

52.8 million to 63,0 48,9 26. and on page 12 of our report the report -- because the sfmta fast pass program results in estimated net cost to sfmta in fiscal year 13-14 of approximately $4.5 million and will continue to result in estimated net costs by the sfmta over the entire six-year agreement, we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a passing matter for the board of supervisors. however, we do recommend that the amend the proposed resolution to provide for a six-year total not to exceed reimbursement a.m. or cap of [speaker not understood] payable by the sfmta to bart under the proposed fast pass agreement. as the department testified, there is a cap, an annual cap, but there is no total six-year cap and that's why we made this recommendation. >> thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for mr. rose or staff? okay, we'll move to public comment. thank you very much. anybody wishing to comment on item number 4?

yes. i'd like to comment on this because you know even with the -- i'm juicy edmond. and even with the reform of the ellis act that's going on, [speaker not understood], people in s-r-os or low-income in san francisco need this fast pass where you can ride the bart. we had this eight years ago, six years ago you could ride the fast pass we get over here at ga. you got on social security and you could ride to balboa park within the city and i think that should really be restored. i hope that's what this is about because really san francisco citizens need to be able to get around on the buses. we have buses coming, ac transit, transpass, golden gate. we have many buses that come here run better than muni,

especially at midnight. so, this would be ideal because this would help go to city college, you can take civic center and get to balboa and get to campus. this is something that should and it's already in the things bart federal money we should be able to move through san francisco as well as people come in here on this bart train. so, this is a good thing for the residents of this city, especially low-income people like me. even if you stay in a tndc or [speaker not understood] s-r-o hotel. a lot of people in my building never get to go out because they have no money or they're on drugs. so, you know, they never ride a bus. they never go to sunset and see the 29. they never go out to sandoval area. muni can give them a lot of tick he is and we come in just from not having that ticket. so, this is ideal and it should go back. i remember when i first got here, i never knew what a

[speaker not understood] was. we would sell our bus passes to elderly chinese lady. she would give us money. you see what i'm saying? >> thank you very much. saul needs to be returned -- >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, we have amendments in front of us from the budget analyst. >> move. >> motion and second take it without objection. [gavel] >> and the underlying amendment? >> approved. >> motion and second we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> excuse me, mr. chair. i would like to request that the department provide us with the amended legislation to offer [speaker not understood] tomorrow morning. >> okay, madam clerk, can you please call item number 5. >> item number 5 is a resolution approving the first amendment to the amended and restated towing agreement and property use license for towing, storage and disposal of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles, between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and tegsco, llc, dba san francisco autoreturn, for a period to

commence upon board approval through july 31, 2015. >> welcome back. >> good afternoon, supervisors. steve lee again. the item before you is to amend the agreement with autoreturn. sfmta views this really administratively in nature. we moved autoreturn, the long-term toll facility from pier 70 back in may of 2013 to the new site located at 265 0 bayshore. during that move it cost autoreturn a range of about $100,000 to make that move of moving over 1200 vehicles and setting up the operation, having dual security at both locations. and then also to the one that we're looking forward to provide to autoreturn is to

cover the incremental operating cost because of the distance between the downtown area and the new facility. so, the amendment before you is really for two thing. it's to allow us to change the contract that would require a $2 million performance bond moving from a $1 million performance bond and a $1 million letter of credit, and then also to provide or return a rent credit of approximately $6,000 over the 27 months that they're occupying bayshore. >> okay, thank you. colleague, any questions? okay. mr. rose, can we get to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman. members of the committee, on page 18 of our report summarized in table 4, and that's on page 19, the sfmta is projected to receive a total of 3,9 26,870 in rent and that is

net of 168,150 in rent credits over the 27-month term. of the proposed agreement. we recommend on page 20 that you amend the proposed resolution to reflect that the subject new license agreement at 26 50 bayshore boulevard in daly city would be retroactive may 1st 2013 to july 31st 2015. we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. >> okay, thank you very much. colleague, any questions for mr. rose? okay, we move on to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. chair, i'll move that we amend this to make it retroactive. >> okay. >> second. >> motion, we have a second, we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> the underlying motion is [speaker not understood]. we can also take that without objection. [gavel]

>> madam clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6 is a ordinance retroactively authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $150,000 from the humboldt state university sponsored programs foundation to host the san francisco small business development center for the period of february 1, 2014, through december 31, 2014; and amending ordinance no. 160-13 (annual salary ordinance, fy 2013-14 and fy 2014-2015) to reflect addition of one class 9775 senior community development specialist ii grant-funded position (0.17 fte) in the office of economic workforce and development. >> okay, thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. jordan kline with the office of economic workforce and development. so, this legislation would authorize owed to accept grand from the federal small business administration awarded through their northern california intermediary humboldt state university. this grant will enable the city to become the local host of the san francisco small business development center. spdc is a national program that provides specialized technical assistance to small businesses that are seeking to launch or

grow or stabilize or transition their small business. sbc has long been an important partner of the city as we seek to effectively serve the city's small businesses. formerly the program was hosted here in san francisco by city college of san francisco. when city college was at risk of losing their accreditation, they dropped out of the program and humboldt state issued an rfp seeking a new local host. oewd with the support of small business commission decided to apply and was successful. so, we've been awarded $150,000 grant for a nine-month period. we expect this grant to be renewed annually for $200,000 and there is a local match requirement that we have been able to [speaker not understood] existing investments in office of small business so there are no new outlays required. this legislation creates one new fte that is grant funded for a position to direct the sfpdc. that person will work closely with the existing case managers at the office of small business

to expand the city's small business services. >> okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? supervisor mar. >> yes, mr. cline, does city college have any involvement at all in administering this given their history doing this? >> city college is no longer involved in the program to the extent that it's appropriate, we'll continue to work with them if they seek to get back involved. >> okay, thank you. >> colleagues, any further questions? okay, thank you very much. we have no budget analyst report on this item so we'll open up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item number 6? ray juicy edmonds. i guess since this is a check payment from chase bank from 239 for tndc ambassador hotel rent, i would like to donate this to the small business because you know this would be a good idea that at least we donated money back into having small business for people who

reside and [speaker not understood] hotels like the tnc is not really doing a great job at chp. so, i want to donate this check for 239 to the small business. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member of the public that wishes to comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, item 6 is in front of us. could i have a motion to send this item forward to the board? >> so moved. >> take it without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number p? ~ 7? >> item number 7 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant of $130,679, for the period of july 1, 2013, through june 30, 2033, from the california department of parks and recreation's habitat conservation fund to support the development of the creeks to peaks connector trails project in twin peaks and glen canyon park. >> good afternoon, committee members. my name is toni moran. i'm with the san francisco recreation and parks department.

the legislation you have before you is an accept and expend retroactively a california state parks habitat conservation fund grant in the amount of $130,679. this grant will fund -- provide funding for the creek to peaks project which will create a trail connection between glen canyon park and twin peaks park. the improvements are on the [speaker not understood] park property. the enhancements are basically the construction of 2700 linear feet of new trails. also, we will be restoring about 22,000 square feet of existing trails and de commissioning 640 square feet of unsafe [speaker not understood] trails which are contributing to soil erosion. we are working with the mta and dpw on creating safe crossings along the new pathways and we

will be installing park plantings in the entrance. this particular grant program requires we enter into a deed restriction for the portion of the property where the improvements will take place and that deed rehe distribution will last for about 20 years. also, this is very common for all state [speaker not understood] state funded projects. i'm asking that the committee make a recommendation to the board of supervisors to retroactively accept and expend this grant. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay, thank you. we'll open this up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> i move support of this resolution. >> okay, we have a motion and we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item number 8? >> item number 8 is a resolution authorizing the execution and performance of a transfer agreement between the city and county of san francisco and 1500 page street, llc, a california limited liability company, for the transfer of real property and improvements located at 1500 page street, for the development of 16 units of affordable housing for persons with developmental disabilities

and one manager's unit; authorizing the execution and performance of an option to ground lease and a ground lease between the city and county of san francisco and mercy housing california 57, a california limited partnership; adopting findings under the california environmental quality act; and adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of the planning code, section 101.1. >> okay, thank you very much. why don't we go right to mr. rose on this one. >> good afternoon, supervisor. we talked about supportive housing this morning. this is a supportive housing project. the item before you is a transfer agreement option to ground lease. it is a way for us to, one, get the property back from the current owner of the property, payoff an existing indebtedness on the property, create an option to lease so that the mercy housing corporation can apply for a low-income housing tax credit and create 17 units of housing for the -- for those who are developmentally challenged.

this project has had a long history in the office. it predates a lot of the staff who have worked on it, and this is a project that in its original incarnation was going to be more like an rcsci or residential care facility for the chronically ill. clearly, that original proposal was not successful, in part, because of the inability to secure financing. and through this process of trying to create a project from that original project, we were able to identify potential funding through mercy through the 81 1 program to fill a need here in san francisco for this type of housing. mercy, mercy housing and the arc are here and especially the

arc can talk a little bit about the demand for this type of housing, the scarcity of this housing and how this housing will really add to their ability to serve their clients in san francisco. in terms of this particular transaction and the recommendations of the, of the budget analyst, the question about the budget analyst has raised some questions about the likelihood of alternative funding for the section 81 1 project. mercy has a commitment for the section 81 1 project and one of the questions we have are what are the urgencies we have in terms of this project. just getting through this process so we can make an application for the low-income housing tax credit program. the low-income housing tax

credit program, it is allocated by the state of california on a geographic basis. san francisco is the only county in this geographic region, so, we have great assurances that we understand the queue. nobody else is going to be applying ugg. and this project won't get the low-income housing tax credits which are so important to not only this type of project, but to all the projects that we fund in san francisco. so, there is really no uncertainty as it relates to this or this particular funding. obviously if we don't get the low-income housing tax credit for whatever reason, you know, a late application, a flat tire driving the application to sacramento or something that has happened to us over the past 30 years, we will -- we will then reapply and the credits would rollover and be available to us. but it is -- we're doing this

at this time, in part, to ensure that we can retain the section 81 1 financing. the section 81 1 financing is both capital and rent subsidies. and as we all talked about earlier in the session, the importance of the rent subsidies to making sure that this is truly affordable supportive housing. so, the benefit is really tremendous in terms of this particular program overall. and, again, providing this type of housing for extremely needy population. the other part of the budget analyst recommendation was the procedures about evaluating appraisals. for the past 2-1/2 years, the mayor's office of housing has moved to a public land trust model of financing affordable housing. and through that process we are obligated with the public land trust model to provide for the appraisal. so, if our appraisals in term of the value of the land will

have to be reviewed by the department of real estate because, in part, we are accepting and sometimes buying land and then leasing that back out to the nonprofit or the limited partnership that's utilizing the low-income housing tax credits. so, that, that procedure is in place today. it was not in place in 2006 when this project initially started. it was the public land trust model in 2006. so, the -- so, we would respectfully disagree with the budget analyst recommendation on that item also. so, again, the item before you is a supportive housing project. again, i can answer some questions from the board about the history of project and how it gets here -- how it got here, but it is a worthy project. it's a project that will create

additional supportive housing unit. >> thank you. supervisor breed. >> thank you, colleagues. i just have a few amendments to the resolution before you. i handed them out. the first amendment is on page 1 line 4, i think that's 4 or 5, in the amount of 4.5 million which expires on june 30th, 2014. there is also an additional amendment to line 9 through 13 which is underlined and highlighted, and a few other clerical changes. and i wanted you to take a look at those and make a motion to accept the amendment to the resolution, which are mostly clerical and mostly inserted in order to meet the requirements of the grant application. >> okay, thank you very much.

colleagues, these recommendations. mr. rose, why don't we go to your budget analyst report, please. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor breed, on the bottom of page 29 we state that the estimated project cost to rehabilitate 1500 page street, [speaker not understood] mercy housing is available funding sources total 10,341,519, which is 16,639 more than the estimated project costs. and table 5 on page 30 of our report shows the various funding sources [speaker not understood] for mercy housing 1500 page street project. on page 30, bottom of page 30, we report that the average cost per unit for constructing the 1500 page street affordable housing project for developmentally disabled adults is 6 07,346, which is 49% higher than mohcd's average of

408,98 4 per unit. on page -- the bottom of page 32, we he report that if the city purchases 1500 page street, pays the balance of the private loan by east/west bank, [speaker not understood] gives the city's outstanding loans to [speaker not understood], the net loss to the city is 3,0 58,269. however, this loss is 5,1 94,[speaker not understood] 38% less than the 4,65 3,0 90 that the city would incur by not purchasing 1500 page street and this is shown in table 7 on page 33 of our report. we have a recommendation on page 33, mr. chairman. i'm not sure if the department is stating that they don't want to report back to the board of supervisors. our recommendation, and i'll read it, we he recommend that you amend the resolution to request the moch -- mochd to report back to the board of

supervisors during the june 2004 budget process on the reliability of financing sources for the 1500 page street project, alternative financing that will be available if the project is not awarded to low-income housing tax credits or other major source of financing and the impact of the 1500 page street and other pipeline projects on the city's access to future low-income housing tax credits and mochd's procedures to manage project costs once the project receives the funding and proceeds to net the accuracy of the appraisal and purchase of the property and further mitigate the risk to mohcd the gap in affordable housing such as requiring identifies i believe back up financing plan, we recommend that you approve the pro prosed resolution as amended. i don't see any [speaker not understood] i say only good in the department reporting back to the board to let the board know about this project which has had problem after problem over the years. >> okay, thank you, mr. rose. supervisor breed. >> yeah, i wanted to add this

project has been vetted by the community and is widely supported by a number of groups in the haight/ashbury area that are traditional at odds with one another. it is an incredible project. this were mistakes made in the past and i've been working with the mayor's office of housing to make sure that we put safeguards in place to ensure that we don't run into those situations in the future. sadly, more money would pay for the properties than the property appraisal should have -- from the mayor's office of housing should have caught that the property value was appraised higher and the loan that was given was a lot more than what it should have been. but at this time it's better that we move forward with the project and not walk away because we he stand the ability to not only lose a significant

loan because we have no way to recoup it, but more importantly the opportunity for this particular housing for developmentally disabled individuals, we have a great partner with the arc. we have a great plan for this property with mercy housing and i think we can really make this work. and unfortunately a higher dollar value than anticipated. so, i'm not very happy about where we are and the mistakes that have been made and the dollars that are going to be lost as a result of this, but it's better to move forward with this project than not. >> okay, thank you, supervisor breed. any comments on the budget analyst recommendations for [speaker not understood]? mr. lee, maybe i could ask your perspective. >> clearly we will keep the board informed. in term of the progress of our project, and we'll be happy to do that as part of our budget

presentation for our office. i think the question was just whether we would have to have another hearing or would written communication to the board be sufficient. but if the board would like additional information as we present our budget as part of the mayor's office, we'd be happy to do that. >> so long as it's part of it i think your overall presentation we're fine. >> okay. >> if that's already going to be part of the plan anyways. >> we can make it part of the plan. >> okay. colleagues, if no further questions we'll open this one up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item 8? larry juicy edmonds. [speaker not understood]. i know that mercy house is very great. they are better than tndc. and i know this by true, by experience. mercy housing knows how to work with people or help people with

aids, people that are gay, people who are not racism. mercy house has a history -- i don't know anyone in this city who complains about living in all the mercy housing buildings whether it's the one on 10th and mission or the one that they built at the ballpark in the mission valley. great. so, i think this is a good thing for the [speaker not understood] because, remember, there was a time when the walgreens wanted to move up to haight street. they burned it down. [speaker not understood] the people come together to feel good about this. i think this is something that needs to go ahead. and like you say, most of mercy [speaker not understood] marvin gay would say, mercy house does not do bad things for habitat for humanity and people's lives. this has to be a good 37 or 17, probably 1500 page. that sounds good. i think it's a good thing.

and you can bet that people will have some type of [speaker not understood] humanitarian habitat and humanity if they're living there. not the way we survive at tndc ambassador. thank you very much. >> thank you. anybody else wish to comment on this item? yes, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ken dunn. i'm from mercy housing. so, i just wanted to say that mercy is really excited about this development. mercy, as many of you already know, is a nonprofit housing organization that builds -- manages affordable housing, about 30 properties in san francisco. mercy is really excited to be working with the arc of san francisco. as you know, this property will serve a population that is low-income and developmentally disabled. the arc approached mercy in

2011 about this huge need for this particular population. [speaker not understood] has no other options in san francisco. mercy went to the mayor's office of housing in search of sites to fill this need. they referred us to the owners of the property at 1500 page. as the previous proposal had not been able to be financed. the arc and mercy found that the site was really well suited for the needs of the arc tenants -- residents and the neighborhood, as you know, has been very rich in resources, amenities, transit rich, et cetera. since that time, mercy has succeeded in securing that $2.3 million grant for