re a health care conditioner and create mental illness issues for people i also want to say that i know that part of plan to put a transgender pod in the new jail will help to keep transgender people save as a transgender woman i want to say that will not keep us safe what keeps us save is access to community and things outside of jail jails will not keep us safe. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon. i'm harriet davis a member i appreciate you giving mia chance to speak first, i wanted to say wes we don't need an increased space for the jail part waive we need is increased services for youth and prison to school pipeline i want to say

i'm an person of color and our family a people of color we know our jails are filled up with people of color as well as many formally incarcerated people are attacked by racism and oppression leading to homelessness and instead of increasing the jail facilities some of the programs will include substance abuse and housing and training and i think we could better use our money for that i'm also a registered nurse had to go to court to advocate for members of my family and community would how substance abuse problems and have gotten into programs instead of going to jail that was what the district attorney and the counties were trying to

put into so i i've seen perp how those prediversification programs have helped thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> hello, i'm kamal i want to kind of pout how the narrative is drown drawn in the city about a weeks ago a black person overheard the chief of police say that was the sheriff's fault for why the woman was killed along the pier that was a 15 minute conversation i'm pretty southern certain it was intended to be approve that man stood there and talked about how the sheriff is responsible for the pier and hillary clinton said this is a

sanitary city any friend said anyone involved in the jail site is for the jail other than the sheriff she tell me no there are a really big disconnect about what is going on in front of us and the rest of the city the fact that the place is vibrant we shouldn't be a sanctuary city we need 4 hundred more cops which they turned around and gave to the police chief that can't solve a single crime and now apparently the sheriff is responsible for solving crime and not the sheriff that is going to make us save i want to point out how that narrative is being drawn and the whitesupreme

itself. >> hello, i'm angela scott i've been a citizen of the bay area my whole life and angela district attorney's office wrote in her book in our society if we are progressive we have some prison and jails obsolete we have to imagine this word. >> society can provide without things institutions like this that house people that don't rehabilitate people shovel people of color and transgenders and people with disabilities into boxes and leave them there and cause the society to foresight about p them we don't know how people are treated inside that's not how i want to

deal with people in the society that have been hurting and hurt we need to prevent those hurts and heal our communities i oppose this new >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> good afternoon, supervisors farrell supervisor tang and supervisor mar i work and pay taxes in san francisco i'm as a policy director with parents with children's and seek to mitigate those harm's having lived in san francisco for years i know that the public dollars are needed for the public survivors e services like public healthy and through the presentation the option presented for constructing a new jail range between quarter billion dollars and over half billion dollars i know from living and working in san

francisco we need that money to educate our children and provide health care for our families i understand from the presenters here today the city budget includes millions of for jail construction but more needs to be allocated and there's a deadline next month to provide for corrections for $80 million more in order to rebuild the county jail i'm here to ask the board of supervisors not approve the jail construction project this committee not refer this item to the full board of supervisors or that we refer the item with a negative recommendations to encourage the board of supervisors to the to approve the jail rebuild in total and ask that we reserve those scarce resources for the tax dollars for the services that san francisco needs and not spends that money on a jail

construction project in san francisco residents have openingly opposed we look forward to further discussion with the board of supervisors tomorrow for the alternatives and thank you to the board. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> >> hi, i'm rachel i'm also a citizen of san francisco i'm also here to oppose replacing the unsafe parts of hall of justice with a new jail i think the reality is rear clearing that is stated that we don't need more jail cabinet in san francisco whether 60 or 75 percent whatever the number there is not a full jail right now why create for i appreciate supervisor mar and supervisor kim for asking about

the mental health and speaking about jail reform to get people to afford bail this is an opportunity what the san francisco-based programming to solve our social projects problems we don't need more jails and police so i also time to say quickly i moved back to san francisco i was in another place and county with resisting they're new jails especially in northern county that makes it difficult for mothers to see their families so on california we know the solutions for the community and it is not jails we're opposed. >> thank you. next speaker. and i'm jose perlz we don't need

more jails you should put to money for affordable and support housing so, please support more housing we don't need more, more are jails. >> anyone else wish to comment on item 2 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor mar i just wanted to allow chief friedman to respond to questions about the outdoor exercise area in title 24 the states rentals under title 24 i saw facial expressions but there is not an outdoor exercise ore era that was proved by the commission how to make sure there facilities. >> what i can tell you

supervisors i'm at architect and not prepared to explain in detail exactly the form i can tell you bans the extensive research the jail team did and all the conversations we've had are the corrections the plan we've proposed to them we've advised them how we will build the recreation space for the inmates in r d f will go forward and the rfp will not be deretailed but what we're proposing at all. >> sir. >> as additional note key issues the access i believe to proper have you been to air and the project is not fully designed an opportunity to

recalculate and we believe there is an opportunity to provide the proper ventilation within the context of the project as currently proposed and designed. >> no outdoor recreational space and there will be access to natural ventilation with the multiple story building difficult to have an outdoor yard open to the sky. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay colleagues any firefighter questions or comments on item number 2? >> okay. i would first of all, i want to thank from my prospective thank you to you all the members of the public that spoke in public comment and otherwise and for staff i think obviously there is a lot of discussion around the jail and building that and so forth i

know there is more hearing we'll have a ceqa appeal next week in this is the steps along the way i think i'll save my broader comments around the jail when we start doing ceqa and other things going forward i'll say from my prospective today doing on application to get additional funding from outside the city of 71 san francisco is a no brainier we should do this on all projects i'll be very much support this resolution and cumber my supervisors to do the same and supervisor tang pursue i want to thank everyone for in their comments actually, i plan a lot of a agreement with public comment i absolutely agree with the pretrial diversion project and the need for more substance abuse services outside of jails and more housing services

need to build for the future community based on alternatives however, we fundamentally disagree with the need for more jails we need to house people that pose a danger to the community that is where we are different i appreciate we have brought the numbers down and we will be creating for space for rehabilitation for the people whether their inspiring currently in or exiting the jail is there any public comment system that provides an opportunity to provide the facilities for those who need it the most i agree with a lot of the comments but the reality is we need to move forward with the building so i know we have a ceqa appeal before us as well i'd like to recommend we send out the resolution without

recommendation to the full board. >> thank you supervisor mar. >> thank you. i wanted to say i'll be casting a dissenting vote to my colleagues i'm in total all the time with the coalition and feel that our city needs to put-down more effort into looking at alternatives to incarceration i see he need to rebuild and renovate the facilities but in support of community and in addition to the sheriff's and other dpsz we're rep but i'll be casting a dissenting vote. >> a motion pie supervisor tang i'll second that roll call vote. >> supervisor tang supervisor mar no supervisor farrell there are 2 i's and one no. >> the motion passes. >> madam clerk call item 6 please. item 6 ordinance authorizing the

sale by public competitive bids of city owned property on van ness avenue for not less than $87 million thank you, madam clerk. >> staff and members of the public we please leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for iteme please leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for item please leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for itemplease leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for itemlease leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for itemae leave the chambers we have mr. updyke for itemleave the chambers we have mr. updyke for item

6. >> thank you for your patience supervisor farrell while we address technical issues john updyke director for releasing we're here to present the sale of thirty van ness shot of building there at the corner of van ness and math the current city owned and current city utilized property a one hundred and 80 square feet

building built in too phases the first in 1908 and 3 stories on top of 4 stories a fascinating structure we have the opportunity here for a number of potential great things to happen the transit oriented development the market octavia area plan death penalty some years ago about the market crashed which provides entitlement to 4 hundred feet development and a revision this building has reached nearing the end of its i'll have life with significant capital improvements if we continue to occupy the building in 2012 this give us a sense of

the dynamics 43 and a half million dollars we'll speak about the numbers we're talking about today it gives an indicator of the rapid acceleration of the marketplace our objectives are manyfold we heard loud and clear in the hearing not too long ago regarding in property the desire to maximize wherever possible the hours yield we have an overarching goal related to a strategy to find alternatives office locations it is affordable housing issue we've been working or able to blend into this project we're pleased with we'll get into those details an opportunity to take advantage of the transit ordinary opportunity here at margaret and van ness to create

better connections with the van ness station and the proposers recognize that we see great potential. >> it's a chance to maximize the value of this asset we're at the peak of the marketed we feel that and this is the time to sell this proposed if ever a time and as i mentioned we've got a building that is really at a critical juncture with critical money that is invest here or elsewhere this is a long term strategy we're deploying so i want to speak briefly about a way why way to compare that property with the my name is articulated the fact we'll not

building hundred percent affordable units project not in their portfolio or brings the efficiency, however, we've asked users if it was an affordable housing project sole hundred percent what would be that's roughly 2 hundred units in the project that is a high-rise but not to the extend o stent so we want to provide you that comparison what does it project bring to the table before you today. >> what could that alternative the choices the city is making as you can see the costs involved we have debt onion the property we have to acknowledge that we owe $32 million we have to pay off the note we're in occupancy we'll detail later the departments with the department of public works hard at work

staff you saw with the public works is housed at that location this is where we build our facilities that is the duplicate department of public health is located we have to replace that use and there's a development costs hundred percent variable project we need a funding source estimated by the xhaimz at $250,000 a unit that brings you to a total cost of this project we leave van ness and do a hundred percent it is hundred and $42 million graphically it is a method of comparison we believe we have krachtd the translation that will yield 2 hundred affordable

units 6 hundred overall unit in the future developments after we leave van ness this is a method of comparison to the alternative i've tashgd articulated on the last slide and the cost savings in preceding in the fashion we've crafted here we'll get the affordable housing but address those critical issues for the structure for example this is a critical current asset in use we have a lease back loosz also in front of you the template in our attachment we need a designation first before we leave there's a ancillaryy effort to address that need and in the meantime the department of public health and others will stay ointh until

the end of 2018 when the lease is back that's the approximation of the continual project a holder of contingency if we run into issues so we have afforded users or ourselves the time we've structured the lease back we know this building better than anyone else in a way the city maintains the building we insure the conditions for the employees are to our satisfaction and because there is motivation by a buyer who will anticipate demolishing it not to invest we wanted to take that incentive off the table so it brings us here today with those proposals this follows a lengthy process of prep the project o property to the sale and hiring the brokerage team to

binge they're now 4 finalist bidders by our brokerage team and this particular item moved with authorization to do one last round of best and final offers from the finalists as long as they meet the terms and conditions before 9 ordinance before you and we moved with the closing the escrows thereafter reason for this approach is really on the advice of the brokerage team and the concerns we've heard from not only the if not but the participants not unique to the city and county of san francisco but any public agency and the desire is for certainty and with certainty will coma better deal for the

city quite frankly so we're suggesting the structure and remind the committee that is consistent with the approach on octavia boulevard so long as we meet the conditions of sale the pricing issues economic issues and a few other matters so we're following i believe a successful methodology on octavia an actual model trying emulate that to speak about the recommendations if the analyst report we're better served as a seller in that marketplace by taking the approach of final authority and moving with the

finalists i'm available to answer any questions thoughts on that. >> thank you mr. updyke anything else is this is the end the presentation. >> yes. and supervisor mar. >> i wanted to thank you it thank mr. updyke and the budget analyst for their upcoming suggestions i feel suspicious anytime we're giving up to waive a state ordinance at the local level and giving up the boards authorize o authority i want to say my understanding of the legislation before us is that the real estate office wants to get the best bank for the buck of valuable transit oriented sites connected with

the gll site i'll be asking for a better explanation of this complex deal i know also in my framing we have the worst housing affordability crisis and any public parcels to be used for affordable housing or mixed use for the prop k housing balance of 50 percent of affordable housing we should be doing everything possible and coming up before the november ballot is surplus policies for initiate i have questions how that factors in i know that mr. updyke walked us through the one hundred percent affordability and the cost that that are challenging for a citywide like ours i want to ask where would we

wave the city's ordinance for this if you could explain that mr. updyke. >> so in this case we have an active use for a lease back so let's step back into the normal course of finding a surplus and offering that with the plus ordinance that is normally unproved land or vacate vacant and it is straightforward to follow the as much as policy act if not available for onsite then prudent to pursuance to the ordinances the sale if i understand go to affordable housing in the tersely as articulated in the ordinance the difference we don't have a supplies asset we have age asset that is delipidated that needs

future capital investments that's an option another option to seek a respect of that asset elsewhere without that replacement asset and the funds to secure that we can't vacant van ness that's why i maintain that in terms of if we don't have a place to go and not funds to provide that replacement facility which needs to be generated from the sale of the property we don't have a sale we'll remain where we are and pit additional capital into that project with that said we've creatively constructed this translation to facilitate as much affordable housing as we can possibly yield out of the site and meet our fiscal needs to have a replacement site. >> mr. updyke i'm not following

that logic i know the site well, i used to eat there often you're saying it is not surplus property not residential i'm not understanding why not surplus property. >> it is not because we're using it fully utilizing it there is no vacancy in the building 5 stories with retail on the increasing and above 4 levels all city occupancy work hard as we speak that is not a classic asset that is vacant it is an improved active facility without a replacement we can't leave the facility department of public works has to do their work somewhere to the only logical fund is from the proceeds of the sale to focus the replacement. >> i'm wondering if maybe you