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

or the da can talk about potential exposure to legal risk i know with the lake merit property in oakland there is a da legal opinion from oakland that includes there maybe significant legal liability for that oakland private developer with a mandatory power i'm wondering if i can get answers on the legal litigant ape great question supervisor mar one perhaps we have not been transparent with the board we've actually been following the state surplus act before it became an act our standard process before we offer and bring to this body a sale of any property we offer it to state and local agencies for either

affordable housing, parks use or other public uses so we check that box early on retail to serving van ness we're in compliance with that particular requirement under the surplus property act mr. gibner and john gibner, deputy city attorney just to give earlier mr. updyke was talking about the city surplus property ordinance and by ordinance through this legislation the board of supervisors can determine that this prompt is subject to the restrictions of the city property ordinance the oakland that was made reference supervisor mar involves a different but similar law that employees e applies to the city that mr. updyke said we've filed with the procedural steps under

the property steps ordinance we're evaluating to what extent it statute applies here and if we determine that it does apply here the state surplus property will be sure to follow all the mandates. >> i think i'm following what is happening at oakland's and here could you explain the interpret trooen relationship between the selling of this site dynamic convinced we have to sell it how that intreendz with the gll site and where the various departments about go into that new site how this fits in. >> certainly as the board unanimously adapted last spring

and fall your moving forward in ceqa for a project at 15 hundred mission and van ness for the construction of an office building of approximately 4 hundred and 60 some thousand square feet a one stop permitting center and a co-location of many other expirationy staff functions from human resources to design and engineering of all the public works be located in this public building that's an option we're pursuing that is still in a ceqa process many onyx we are looting in the in the marketplace so should that go forward and a purchase

and sale agreement that needs to be returned to the board later in 2016 post ceqa for ratification that creates a designation location. >> thank you. i know that our time is running short i wanted to ask i see that from the slides hundred percent of affordable housing alternative has there been a 33 percent alternative that is in with our prop k housing balance as approved by voters? that is exactly what is before you today the intent is that this transaction will produce be onsite 33 affordable so we believe that through the developer commitments we'll sure in the sale agreement and other

financing mechanisms that will flow in later to help to buy in high affordability so those are over ages from receipt to the sales of this property where we're beating our metric to have a pro forma be released for the project at mission and van ness and the eventually sale that will happen later this year at 1680 mission we are dictating to go i don't do the affordability f this the clautsdz with the office of economic workforce development >> thank you. i wanted to say i'm appreciative of the responses i still feel that we need a legal analysis regarding the legal risk of this land sale

and also my feelings similar to many from the community that as we face our cities housing crisis we're looking at every opportunity for a hundred percent affordable so i know for transit oriented development not only for those who can afford luxury laura's housing ambassador for everyone that needs to be housed in hundred percent affordable housing developments our city needs i feel uncomfortable about waving our city's policies for surplus property use for affordable housing but i'm appreciative of all the analysis you've done i still think that more analysis of this complex project is critical i'll wait for the budget analyst report and the public testimony as well thank you. >> okay. thank you very much

mr. rose, can we go to your report please. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee let me simplify your report we're recommending approval of the sale of thirty jean e van ness in fact, all the exemptions of the ava policy matter for the board of supervisors we believe that everything that he's brought to you is in the best interests of the city except the relinquish time to approve the final deal if you had the authority to approve the final deal you could weigh in on the exact number of affordable units in this prospective i can weigh in on the exact price the city gets and the proceeds

specifically on page 24 of our report to amend the recommendation to require subsequent authorization to sell thirty van ness including the respondent developer, the sales price the city's mr. updyke mentioned the lease back we totally agree the departments need to stay there shouldn't the board of supervisors look at the provisions of those lease back provisions how much rent the city will be paying you'll have that opportunity if you accept our recommendations mr. updyke is stating he's going to immediately report back to the board of supervisors once the financial sale supervisors that is a done deal he's reporting bogging back to you but at this point you have no authority we feel strongly our recommendation is responsible and that is you

should maintain our final authority to approve this sale. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i appreciate the budget analyst report and for pointing out what with w he stated in terms of the board notice having further ability to take any further action i want to clarify whether there is another path i don't know if mr. updyke perhaps a compromise to move forward final final action taken with this transaction. >> thank you, supervisor we would certainly be willing to accelerate the transparency of the final transaction once and have a final round with the finalists and secure the attachment to the purchase and

sale agreement you could amend the legislation to require the immediate delivery of that information and that would give the board an opportunity if there were a grave concern over the terms and conditions i want to make the property to produce something consistent but should you have concerns there will be a due diligence period that follows the execution of the sale agreement and the final that's an opportunity to intervene as mr. rose would say a done deal a real estate deal is a closed transaction i'll certainly be willing to afford the board the opportunity to weigh in and be creative. >> so i know you have a rough timeline here just consideration

the board will look at the objective can you shed light on that given the recess. >> sure we didn't frankly expect to have a situation where we can execute and this is in my ordinance to really end all of this once the clock concludes for up the effectiveness period so that signature date is late august and that leaves the entirety of september for due diligence and closings period; right when we are in session every week. >> mr. chairman. >> mr. rose members of the board i understand what mr. updyke has said nothing changes the, in fact due diligence yes one or more members of the board can raise questions but not a vote by the board of supervisors on

the final deal that remains the same it takes a majority of board to change the deal from the board of supervisors disregard with the castle in any way by the way i agree with mr. updyke i have the highest respect he's bringing a good deal we would say if you brought a good deal obviously we would recommend approval we're all for this but mr. updyke has proposed is not addressed our question of the board of supervisors relishl the final authority for the deal. >> if i may follow-up through director updyke there are issues and you excess the thirty day window could we change any components of deal how does that work so speaking to mr. rose's

concern the board effectively doesn't have a last say. >> that's a fair question supervisor tang how we might word that amendment and so i would certainty entertain the thought of creating not just this floor of requirements but something more robust then just the ability to intervention and stop a process i'd like to have an opportunity to discuss how that wording would be so we don't run into complications of types of legislation to unduo do the prior legislation and be honest about the opportunity for the boards input so if you would allow us to the opportunity to take a stab at what that might

look like. >> sure it sounds like you're open to have that again that meaningful input into that process potentially in september. >> we are i want to reiterate it's not an issue of me not wanting direction from the board of supervisors i'm taking my cousin from my good friends and colleagues that are representing us their job to maximize this transaction to the best interest of the city their concern from those interested in buying the property is that a city can change it's mind and there's going to go full forward and give us the best possible deal that's the only provision i'll ask we can survive a process that has a check g back in with you that is not preferred i think that will be a little bit less than what we can get for you. >> supervisor mar. >> i know the challenges of

continuing to bring that back bra the board that is our job to look at carefully at the implication not only the goals and outlooks of that but the goals of affordable housing and using every single opportunity opportunity for surplus proposed to be used for the city i know you're looking at contributing to the housing unit but i have a question about you how to build into this ordinance that affordability mandates we have assuming that will happen if you have any ideas i still want to know more about the potential legal risks and how we insure that affordability is part of this ordinance as well. >> supervisor mar the challenge with respect to certainty given

the fund sources includes two prospective saddles that will not occur before the end of 2015 and 2016 the proceeds from van ness and others that will be difficult to mandate certainty when we don't have the sales yet so i have the same struggle how close to certain we can get on this yield of 33 percent affordability so i'm not sure we're hundred percent certain on that and the other thing i'll add of we have the funding source locked in this is a redevelopment subject to market conditions; right? we the city have to vacate the property in a timely manner we don't know what the marketed cycle looks like in 2019 when

someone puts their stack in the ground so i want to be honest about there will be a level ever uncertainty give a redevelopment project we are here to deal with that first the transaction. >> okay. colleagues if not other questions open up for public comment i have a few speaker cards (calling names). >> anyone else wishes to speak line up on the side and get going. >> i'm fernando with the housing organizations i was welcomed hearing referenced back to prop k the mayor supported and we got

behind in september 2nd/3rd's of the voters voted for it it mandate 33 percent of our housing here and into the future be low to moderate heirs and 50 up to middle-income housing you may remember that recently the giants made a proposal before the voters saying the same thing from mr. updyke 33 percent wait, wait, wait the mayor said the voters said 50 percent of our housing in the future should be affordable to a range of income levels the important thing that is not going to happen on all private sites market rate affordable housing it is not going to happen when we have public sites the only way to reach the mandate for the voters is to dictate our public sites to the

standards set out by prop k one thing i've heard mr. updyke say we don't want certainty certainty is a good thing not deal with the board of supervisors the ability to change something we've agreed it with the development partner we want certainty oh we don't want certainty in writing into the legislation how much affordable housing should be developed when developers go before any proposal they know what their commitment and googdz and fees that needs to be worked into her 50 percent prop k voters have spoken thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon. i'm jose perez i wanted to put out there the sale of thirty an van ness is being rushed by the mayor's office to be a full board vote

on the 21st so the mayors rushing this so you guys to vote so we like i said reneed affordable housing for low income families and kids thank you. >> thank you is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, public comment is closed so colleagues i'll weigh and we'll have a vote on that item any potential amendment discussions from my prospective first of all thank you mr. updyke for working on this and mr. rose our report and analysis and you're clear differentiation of the issues from your prospective i think the goal for everybody here when we talking about i understand the surplus discussion i'm compel comfortable the goal to maximize

the value it accrues to the affordable housing and that's the intent the question from my prospective how do we go about doing that i appreciate mr. rose's prospective i also understand that prospective of you know developers in the city not thinking or wondering if they approve a project if they come back to the board of supervisors if they have to increase some type of affordability payment we have all the right in the world and doing our duty as a board of supervisors to set perimeters i have no problem asking ourselves to do that up front we can mandate whatever we want to and discuss but setting it up front i agree would increase the value of final dollars is smart policy

i understand we haven't done that before, however, i surely appreciate that prospective and this is something i will consider doing for other projects again, this self-wave the way our ability as a board to weigh in here and set perimeters for price or anyone else but all of ours to maximize the dollars i do subscribe to the fact that is the best way i'm very much going to give mr. updyke and his team the ability to do that supervisor mar. >> just wanted to say i'm appreciative of the report and the suggestions from the budget analyst i feel be have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the the city ordinance to this parcel i think we need a legal analysis of the potential risks

and the ordinance affordability andstasis statistics by the public in avenue, i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> we have any by supervisor mar a second. >> no second to that motion the motion fails. >> supervisor tang thank you. >> hold on a second apologizes. >> you guys were a 3 person committee you don't need a second a roll call vote. >> madam clerk a roll call vote. >> on this condemn to the call of the chair supervisor mar supervisor tang marry no supervisor farrell no motion fails. the motion fails supervisor tang i want to reiterate the compromise that might workout in

this situation that allows for the where had to see what the deal is and still have the opportunity to weigh in without continuing the item i know that mr. updyke will have to work out the lack with the city attorney's office but to amend something and forward this anti to the full board if possible >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> so mr. updyke and i spoke about that the concept we're talking about on the side i think goes along what with you suggested supervisor tang that at some point the thirty days before the closing the director of properties to the board about the deal then if by a certain date the board adapts a resolution rejecting the deal then the director can't move forward we need to i think play with the

dates. >> what works and exactly how that process can happen i'll recommend i understand your intent coming up could you u coming out of committee but tuesday to nail it down and write it so everybody knows exactly what it looks like when you vote on it. >> mr. gibner would it be substantive. >> no. you make the amendment on tuesday and still pass it. >> so i will taylor reserve that for tuesday, i understand the challenges supervisor farrell statistics it i understand the changes the director is dealing with with the reality of the market although i'd like to see the final deal proposed before us i will make a motion to forward out this with a positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> motion pie supervisor tang

madam clerk a roll call vote. >> supervisor tang supervisor mar marry no supervisor farrell two i's one no. >> the motion >> okay. thank you everyone madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> we're adjourned thanks.

>> good morning welcome to the finance county transportation authority i'm commissioner avalos the president of the committee and supervisor kim and supervisor cowen and joined by supervisor campos and supervisor mar our clerk is ste