the comments of davis, wright and tremain. verizon wireless was not a litigant in this case. i understand the litigants were made aware of this new legislation but frankly we did not become aware of this new legislation until this week and i understand at&t the other large wireless providers here in san francisco also did not become aware of this legislation until the last couple days. we believe this legislation is a mistake since not filing suit against the city, verizon wireless has worked hard to develop tier 1 and tier 2 facilities, you saw pictures of them that are going to go on the poles. after 3 years of development we feel that the rug is being pulled out from under us and putting us through the tier 3 process. we might as well have built enormous and you can gli facilities. all i'm asking is to be allowed to meet with bill sanders and talk to come up with a workable system and not

rush into this legislation. we have been working with other cities, the city of los angeles for their bureau of street lighting for putting facilities on street lights is exempting local facilities from these permits, that's because the bureau of street lights, just like the public utilities commission, will have full authority as a landlord to do whatever they want in terms of what goes on those poles including any modifications you may be concerned about under 6409. if you exclude city-owned properties you don't have to worry about 6409, you don't have to worry about the telecommunications act. we encourage you to step back, look at this legislation, don't create more legislation that's going to create more litigation. do it right this time. you need to know every one of these poles can come before you on appeal under ceqa already because of noticing. send this back and allow us to meet with the city attorney. thank you very much, any

questions? i think that's the last commenter. this legislation has been crafted knowing what federal law is, which gives us very little latitude to do a lot here at the local level. we've taken just a small part of that latitude to be able to create some standards around aesthetics for putting wireless facilities up in san francisco. so i do believe that we are, as i'm told, we are within federal guidelines and i appreciate that verizon has been working with our current system, but with the litigation we've seen and with the actual practice of installing wireless facilities we saw that the past legislation wasn't actually meeting what was the reality of how wireless facilities were being installed here in san francisco. and i think even with the new one tier system

that we're putting forward, the work that verizon has done will fall within that system and the work that you've done in creating, you know, aesthetic guidelines that meet what the city has put forward is going to work with what we're putting forward today. so i don't think that has all been in vain. i'm not sure with the city attorney or any of our staff have any comments in relation to what was just stated, but i really feel we are ready to go forward and would like to motion that we move this item to the full board with recommendation. puc, if you or your staff wish to comment you are welcome to come up. okay, i have no specific questions, that's fine. by the way, i want to make sure there's nobody else in public comment. all right, public comment is closed. okay, supervisor avalos made a

motion. yeah, i will move we support this ordinance. motion by supervisor avalos, we will send it forward without objection. item 7, resolution authorizing the acquisition of real property from claire a spencer for the purchase price of approximately 15 million and adopting various findings. okay, mr. updike, you are back. welcome. i am back. john updike, director of real estate. so this is the item continued to call of the chair, 1995, evan street. the committee asked us to go back to ownership, seek further price reductions if at all possible. we did that, had a discussion with ownership. actually we're working with the son of the widow in ownership

as trustee. there was not a lot of movement, to put it mildly. it's reflected in the documents before you today so we did, however, secure a waiver of the amount of rent that would be due for the month of january, that's $70,000. that is not recoverable through the go bond so real pure general fund savings that we did exact. what we all did was took another look at the market place because i think there's just some grave concerns about the disparity between our amount of the transaction at now an effective price of 15,405,000, and the appraised value. so let me speak to that briefly if i can. the property's a little over two acres of land but more importantly, and i think we may have lost this in our discussion last week, the property has 44,000 square feet of improvements. that's by

right entitlement of improvements in a community where we just don't have a lot of volume of industrial sales. that has tremendous value. and in looking at this purchase price at a little over 15 million dollars, that equates to 348 dollars a foot for improved space. on that trick that is used in the industrial market place in comparing properties. so we are at $348 a foot. i'd like to show you a chart of the current san francisco market place, which i had right in front of me until i walked up to the podium, my apologies. here we are. industrial data is difficult to find in san francisco. there's lots of data on office, there's lots of data on residential. there's not a lot of industrial and again that's because we

just don't have a lot of volume of industrial. so this chart that i have up on the board shows san francisco highlighted. you can see we're very low on the list, this is by volume of transactions. this is from the first quarter of activity in 2014 so this is almost 9 months old. at that point the average sale price of industrial properties in san francisco per that chart was $337 a square foot. we are at $348 a square foot. i think that overall metric helps validate this price as being fair and reasonable, not withstanding one appraiser's opinion of the value. secondly i'd call your attention to a particular sale we think is very comparable which was not in the appraiser's report and thus was not a driver of price and it may have been because the transaction was still not quite closed at the time the appraiser was doing their work. again, that's a backwards look. appraisers have to look

at closed transactions. it's now closed, 268 alabama, a 38,000 square foot former printing location. this is a 44,000 former printing location. very comparable. sales price, $579 per square foot for the improvements. has less land. we have excess land. so, if anything, this shows we're within a range of price. i'm trying to reiterate the fact that we do believe we are at a fair price. ownership has given everything that they believe they can rightfully give so we exacted what we could from them. they also made it clear that if we don't acquire at this point then we are on a month to month basis for our current occupancy so we would need to find a location much more immediately than anticipated for our storage needs so that's certainly problematic. we are using the property currently and do not have new destinations for that

use queued up until spring of 2016, transactions that will be coming before you soon later this year. lastly, from a budget standpoint, this transaction is under the proposed budget, under the amount allocated in the general obligation bond, under the amount shown on the web page from day one of this project before the electorate voted on the bond, under the $16 million allocated. so it is actually a savings. then also want to note that the ownership does desire to still close the transaction if we can this month and we would be on a path to do that with the committee's recommendation to move it forward. we can still effect a closing before february 1 and we are prepared to do that if we have the green light from

you. thanks, mr. updike. colleagues, any questions right now? okay, mr. rose, could we go to your report, please? mr. chairman, members of the committee, based on the latest information that mr. updike has provided and we have not analyzed this latest information so we could consider it to be a policy matter. we would emphasize, though, that going forward our recommendation, which is shown on page 23 of our report, is to request the director of real estate to include language in future purchase option agreements to require appraisals and other due diligence procedures prior to negotiating specified purchase prices for the city. okay, thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? okay, at this point we'll open up for public comment. seeing no public comment, no members

of the public at all, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos? i think it's great we got something a little better, $70,000. it's actually, you know, a very small amount of money and i guess given an amendment from the budget analyst looking at prospectively at what we can do to have appraisals done before we get to this point, which i'd like to accept. so i'm going to hold my nose and go forward with this. i don't think that it will be, we've done probably a lot of work already looking at other sites and, you know, this is approved by the voters to erect these facilities and they are a big part of our public safety effort. i'm going to go forward with

motioning that we approve. okay, thank you, supervisor mar. this is a hard one, i was expecting we would have more of a chance to sit down and come closer to that gap of $4 million, not just $70,000. i don't know if there are options of continuing this further for more time but if colleagues want to move this forward i will be voting no on this. okay. all right, my preference will be to vote here and appreciate the comments. i could modify to move forward without recommendation. you can still vote against it if you'd like, that's up to you. but i think having a recommendation would be strong for me but i could support it

when it gets to the full board. i can support it without full recommendation, just have to tag it as something i'd like my colleagues to look at as they consider it for the vote at the full board. that sounds fine. supervisor avalos made a motion to move it forward. do you want a roll call vote? that's a prospective thing we'll be working on with the department of real estate. mr. updike. we would be able to build in the recommended process issue from the budget analyst into our admin code changes that you are going to be seeing soon at the full board during the spring. so i think we have a path to be able to make amendments, where appropriate, in the code. so that will give you that certainty of process in the future. great, that would inform the

amendment. great. supervisor avalos made a motion and we can take that without objection. madam clerk, do we have any other business before us? item no. 8, ordinance appropriating approximately $200,000 through the public works operating budget in order to support and maintain portable restroom facilities and way stations in fiscal year 2014-2015. okay . we had a presentation last week on the program and this is appropriation to be able to continue it, which i think would be a worthy thing to do. it went from supervisor kim's office, i'd like to propose that i would be supportive. we don't even have to have comment but clearly there's a huge need to be able to put these bathroom facilities up in the

tl to enable this program to continue. they can use it as a model for other parts of the city. unfortunately this type of service is needed in a lot of places in the city and there could even be places in district 11 where this could be something that could work. just how widespread people who are homeless and don't have access to bathroom facilities are in the city. okay, first let's open this up for public comment. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. can i have a motion to move this forward? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, now do we have any other business in front of us? no, mr. chair. okay, we are adjourned..

>> it seems like everyone in san francisco is

>> we're on. at least our pictures are on. >> it's almost ready. >> okay. >> now you're getting spoiled. >> i know.

>> [inaudible] >> commissioners we're back on. >> thank you. thank you. the commission has concluded its closed session. there is nothing -- no action item to report. please call the item item. >> the next order of business is item 11 adjournment madam chair. >> i don't think we need a motion for this. the commission meeting is adjourned at 3:44 p.m. [gavel] thank you.