redevelopment agency at the time in the proposal was to put it into a redevelopment area. it cannot be done without an amendment >> but it did get the zoning, right? >> when the plan-when the ballpark >> weather was planted on or read about what was the zoning assigned to the giant stadium? >> was a particulars zoning that was amended to include the boundaries of that particular site. so, because the boundaries were amended it was a particular zoning use for the ballpark. that was established. so it was unique and specific designation for that part out use. here, we do not have to do that because the site is already in the redevelopment plan and there are provisions in the redevelopment plan to allow for secondary use. such as this that would allow the

commission and the director to make a finding to about >> so as a redevelopment area plan it is distinct from our normal city process because you can utilize secondary use for changes-with some i concerned a change from the planted the me ask you this question. the balance of the sports arena were not compliant it in the original mission bay south plan. what was? whatsit of a change i can think of, of course, the imagine was not contemplated in the plan was the hospital. because that something that was developed that occurred later. what hospital consulate in the original mission bay south plan? >> supervisor kim that's absolutely correct. was to that neither the hospital nor the event center were contemplated in the eir. they were, however, allowed under the redevelopment plan as secondary uses, which i noted broad categories that some definitions that apply. for both the hospital and the

event center. but, we admit the eir do not look at the particular impacts of either the hospital or the event center . that's why we have the eir before you today and why was certified by the oci i to look at the specific impact. but that doesn't mean the plan to not allow for the event center. adjustment the particular impacts associate with the event center cannot been studied in 1998. that absence was cured by the environment of impact report that was done for the event center for the event ctr., joe certified and now spirit >> just to summarize the members of the public there's a precedent for this that within a redo government area plan but one significant one that most people would understand is the hospital itself. >> yes. the hospital clearly

was not contemplated. was the subject of its own separate remnants on knossos that the uc regents did to ensure the impacts of a hospital which are not, traded at a particular site studied and evaluated. the hospital itself, is a public use was not authorized either was not my second use and at that time. obama agency director made a determination that was an appropriate title use for the area. >> thank you. >> mr. murawski my up with the hospital pay any taxes or a transit impact fees? >> president breed that's a good question. as you recall, one of the concerns at the time the hospital was proposed that it would take property off the tax rolls because it's a public use, and the mission bay

redevelopment plan really only works through the generation of property tax to pay for public infrastructure, and affordable housing under the plan. so, the fact that the hospital would not be generating property tax revenue because it was exempt led to negotiations between the redevelopment agency and the uc regents to provide in lieu of payments that were equal to or exceeded the amounts property tax that would be-would've otherwise been available for both the infrastructure and for the affordable housing. in fact, the payments for the for the housing were quite significant and recently we have begun construction on the affordable housing. that was associated with the uc regents agreement to provide funding

that was equivalent to the property tax revenues that would've gone to before the house. so, technically, hospital does not have to pay the property tax upon which third redevelopment plan so heavily relies but came up with an alternative in lieu of payments that satisfy the redevelopment agency commission at the time >> in addition to the property they part purchased with the in lieu of fee we put on the board? later on? mean way after-this is after the success of agency? >> yes >> the one the more recently passed on the board level last year, i think it was? it was an in lieu fee of transportation attack? it was not a required tax attached to the property but they were necessarily- >> yes. we have determined that the event center is required

to pay that fee. >> i think it's a little bit of a different question but i think i get it. i'm good. supervisor campos >> i actually was can ask the question about whether or not the use was contemplated as a secondary compass, but actually mr. morales, could you cover that pretty well. i'm fine. thank you. >> with that, we are moving right along for the next presentation from the real party in interest to present for two tenants. >>? general counsel has the

appeal is about merit under the loss will not rehash those technical and legal arguments. however, we do want to note the commission data lines is not raised any new issues in this map appeal that were not already addressed in the ceqa appeal that darted been considered. essentially, they have not raised any issues related to the adequacy of the tentative map itself. i would just reiterate the warriors have worked hard with her future neighbors to ensure that all legitimate concerns are addressed and including those of ucsf residents and businesses inside the mission bay area. the support we received from the community from such residence businesses and ucsf is the result of the process of listening, learning, working together with her future neighbors. we request

you deny the appeal of the tentative map.? >> thank you. with that, we will open up to public comment for any members of the public who like to comment in support of the real party in interest. please come forward at this time seeing none, bubble, disclosed >>[gavel] >> finally the appellant would love to 3 min. for rebuttal. >> susan graham holly again. well, ucsf presents a good example as well as at&t park about the problems with this project that were not present there. ucsf is a public facility. what we relied upon in our argument is that you have to look at the plain meaning of the words of the secondary use category. there been strained beyond gradually. credulity. we believe that makes the tenor map unlawful.

the redevelopment respondents and reports the ucs of hospital was a lot of secondary use under a single category. a public structure or use when nonindustrial character. that is one category, not to be according to the reader government agencies own prior interpretation. that's what makes sense here. if ever what they're parsing here there's two categories of public structure or use of a non-industrial carriage. if, in fact any use of a nonindustrial character is allowed in this commercial industrial zone, it leaves your plan meaningless. you don't need any other kind of delineation of different uses. in terms of the nighttime entertainment, what the words are, dance all, discotheque private club or similar evening

entertainment use it. this is not under any reasonable interpretation of these words a similar use to that. if you look at the 1998 redevelopment plan, if you look at the ucsf document for any kind of consistency or logic, this does not fit. we learned just now that before at&t park it was not-the land was not fully encompassed in the existing redevelopment plan, so the plan areas expanded somewhat to encompass it and then there was a new designation put on the zoning so that it would fit. that wasn't necessary to happen. what i'm hearing is that it was probably a zoning already there that got changed. even a part of it was not part of the redevelopment., here, looking at the history of this in the redevelopment plan was

approved with the eir said and the plain words, the definition say, this simply does not fit and in order to go forward, we need to amend the redevelopment plan just as you do all the time. we heard that these questions have been asked and answered. that's true. the alliance, from the very beginning-what are coming in at the last minute saying something should've and then-from the very beginning of this process it's been months or something like that, you insane this does not fit into any of these uses and this needs to be fixed. >> thank you. with that, this hearing has been held and is now closed. >>[gavel] >> this item is in the board of supervisors and i like to recognize supervisor kim >> i just want to agree with the project sponsor that i don't believe the appellants have brought up any new arguments that we have not already listen to in the eir

determination appeal. i just want to say that i think significantly weakens the appellant's argument because they rest on this land use arguments. the very use of the institution that the appellant states they are protecting, the ucsf hospital, was also not contemplated in the original mission by south plan and i think that is also from a layperson's perspective is significant departure in terms of use as much so as this warriors arena. so, we make a motion to move forward with item 62 and to table 63 and 64. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to move forward with item 62 and table 63 and 64. is there a second? moved and seconded. and mcclure, please call the roll >> campos aye cohen aye

farrell aye kim aye mar aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye? the tentative map is finally affirmed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> madam clerk, let's get to the items-let's call items 65 through 68? item 65 resolution to adopt findings under ceqa in the ceqa guidelines including the adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program

in the statement of overriding consideration in connection with the redevelopment of the golden state warriors event center mixed-use development. the mission that 29-32 and mission bay south redevelopment plan. item 66 in ordinance to it establish a fund to pay for city services and capital improvements such as transportation and other needs of the community in connection with events at the golden state warriors event center. also to create an advisory committee to make recommendations about the use of monies from the fund and to adopt the appropriate findings under ceqa. in 67 the ordinance to delegate to director of public works authority to accept acquired public improvements related to the development of the event center and authorize the director of the real estate division to accept any future easements licensing grantees were led to the develop project and putting a public sidewalk easement and grant deeds and to adopt the appropriate findings under ceqa. item 68, mdm. pres. is a ordinance under the for

one of terry stormont or purposes and to offers of dedication within portions of the assessor block number 8722 and lot numbers one and eight within the mouse issue date south for the golden state warriors event center to authorize determination and other city rights and interest in the vacated area and to authorize the director of the puc and director property to execute a quitclaim deed for the vacated easements in vacation areas can provide a license agreements, retroactive extension of the previous execute agreements and the public use of the temporary terry a françois boulevard connector road and to adopt equip findings and make other probably find >> but start with item number 60 record supervisor kim >> i was talking with the city attempted we can vote on this item separately >> we call the item so we can

basically vote on it now based on a recommendation that you may make. >> i asked my colleagues identify make a motion on this item that's was appropriate motion to table we make a motion to table items 65. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to table items 65. is there a second moved and seconded. madam clerk, can you please call the roll on 65 >> on them motion to table 6 about campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim the i mar aye supervisor tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye >> this item was tabled. >>[gavel] >> supervisor kim to give any comments on the other items as well?

>> yes, i do. thank you pres. breed. first of all, completely separate the force today i do want to congratulate our undivided golden state warriors mbh image of team whose currently 23-oh. i don't know the last time i've seen this much excitement over 18. this early in the season before christmas and i think what's even more extraordinary is how his team is even stronger than the mbh image up we saw in the previous season. of course, completely separate from what is before us today. what is before us today, of course, was commonly being discussed as the lockbox legislation was establishing the mission bay transportation improvement fund. first of all, i want to say i'm excited that we are going to have an arena and entertainment venue in a few

years that mavis will be will to walk bike or take muni to get i want to knowledge the project sponsor along with the city has done to ensure the future arena will really be very different from arenas we see across the country. one that people will hopefully not be traveling as much by car but by taking alternative modes which i think is incredibly important and relevant as we talk about these items that are before us today. i also want of knowledge a couple of other points about this project. this would be the only nba arena in the league was entirely on private land. for which the construction is entirely financed by private investment. they're also paying the full value of the impact fee. both childcare. and taxes including the $2.25 ticket stadium admissions tax with no waivers for special treatment. the last five nba arenas to open in charlotte, orlando, oklahoma city, brooklyn and soon in sacramento, spent an average of

$235 million in public funds just for the hard costs of the arena construction. they been quite a bit of literature in academia criticizing public subsidies to private arenas and whether this is truly benefit funding public saturdays and proud san francisco be the first city to host 100% privately financed arena. the arena was also easily certified by the city of california's environmental leadership development project is both greenhouse gas net neutral and would create 3.2 acres of public open space and was now parking lot would trigger the construction of the much awaited 5.5 acre base line park admission may represent a district with the smallest and fewest parks in the city. i think this is a significant contribution. no, where san francisco is contemplating banning public dollars-i want to knowledge that that we are doing that to items before us today-is to mitigate the impact of this arena. the proposed

mission bay transportation improvement fund. this fund set aside a portion of the net revenue generated by the site to support transportation mitigation such as additional parking control officers, which i think incredibly important to do traffic management did something our residents are already asking to see more of in our neighborhoods without the arena. additional light rail vehicles, and of course additional muni services. the city would not touch any of the set-aside funds such as the children's fund, library fund, and 10% of all remaining revenues and up to an estimated $1.5 million each year will go to our general fund. what i will also note about the special fund, because of the critical special ones in the past, and gives me a little

more security, unlike some other special funds this fund will actually be subject to board of supervisors approval and appropriation each year. i think that is an important distinction am a that there will still be oversight and authorization by this very board every year. i think, likely, we would actually allocate those dollars for general fund anyway as we do currently for giants stadium. if you understand the concerns about specials on some set-aside. they do limit the board and may reflect flex ability to invest back public dollars based on needs and priorities of the city every year. however, i would likely support utilizing a portion of net new revenue to offset the mitigation of this project and this number of the public that earlier quoted me from a lenny study comments made about the super bowl l party. that comment and i want to distinguish the comment from what is before us today. because when we discussed the super bowl l party on monday we never discussed san francisco setting aside a portion of the net new revenue that the super bowl party would actually generate

them using that for additional services for the party. we were simply talking about setting aside general funds and not even having a sense of what the actual cost of the mitigation was. i think that this is distinct from that because we are actually looking at this project is generated. if not to state sf pd public works and sfmta mena incurred additional cost above and beyond what's been set aside these funds. i think given the fact we are to have a stadium the at&t ballpark , i am hopeful and optimistic that the city has done a much stronger job this time around in assessing the future predictions about the true cost will be of making sure that we can make the city run and have an arena and stadium in our city. i just want to note, again, the two major neighbors and institutions at ucsf mission bay cfc have unanimously endorses project up

colleagues, ask for your support on items 66, 67, and 60. >> thank you supervisor speaking. supervisor avalos >> thank you. so, i intend to support items 56 through 68. i'm sorry. 67 through 68 with my intend to vote against a not that i don't see that there's not real merit to what 66 is trying to do with its fun. i realize that even hearing our environmental impact reports and the appeal and the reason why-it covers many of the mitigation measures that were discussed that are actually being done by mitigating traffic that are in the fund getting new vehicles for light

rail.. that's adjacent to the façade. getting parking control officers to manage traffic in the intersections a little bit further away from the stadium. paying for police officers and dpw services as well. all these things are important i will acknowledge and will acknowledge the warriors work very well with the public even with the essential services that need to be accompanying the stadium. but my concern is not with the new vehicles and new services. my concern is really how over and over again i see how projects are supported with the general fund subsidy. this is a general funds of the because it's taking revenue that's coming from this project and instead of that revenue going to the general fund it's coming back into the special fund to pay for those services good it's

much like the america's cup event we had the america's cup we were told was going to be surmount of funding that would help to cover the cost of the city but then it turns out that revenue wasn't generated and then the city used the revenue that was generated from all the indirect revenues from the event to say that well, we were able to cover these costs with this rising revenue. in fact, it was a cost to the city that we bore. my other concern about this fund was, as we are seeing money potentially for the general fund will back to a particular project, it exacerbates the issue that i face in the southern part of san francisco mold we have not seen a lot of major development happening where we have not seen the dollars where development is happening. parks or new buildings were public buildings or transit as it was good we are not seen those types of projects with all the adjacent funds that come with them in district 11. to me,

what we've seen this great economic boom in san francisco, we're seeing my district get passed over. public other parts that are of san francisco that are passed over. we get the basics. i see often resold these projects because of the huge economic boom in the huge impact to our general fund in a positive way, that would have a benefit for all san franciscans, and i'm not going to indicate a believe this project doesn't have benefits for all san francisco, when it comes to these revenues that should be available for the entire city i don't see that happening that way. i know it's a big ticket item to ask the warriors to actually pay up to $8 million a year in these funds but to me, that would be probably more appropriate is that the impact created of having the arena are paid for by the warriors themselves. i believe it deal the giants have where there's a lot of the general fund dollars that could bid for traffic enforcement and police enforcement around the

stadium is not the best deal i do. i think that johnson should be paying more to offset the general costs are based on the events that happened around the ballpark. so, to me, i understand the interest from community and want to have such a fun but from my perspective where i see that that the moment is passing a sober and even the benefits are created in the moment often pass a silver in district 11. i can't put myself behind this fund. thank you. >> thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener >> thank you matter present. first, since we don't have the approval before us it was the eir pill and subdivision i guess is probably the best opportunity as supervisor speaking to talk about what an exciting project this is for san francisco and after all these years that were finally

at a point where this project is going to move forward for san francisco. it's incredible were able to welcome the warriors back home, but i think it is also poor and to keep in mind what this is going to mean for the cultural vibrancy of our city. that we will finally have a true arena for entertainment, for concerts, for all the things that help make a city a world-class nightlife is so important in san francisco. this is always been a missing piece. it will no longer have this missing piece. so, this is exciting and very happy to support this. i also want to talk illiterate about transportation. i decide to raise it now incident during the eir appeal hearing. that is clearly been think the biggest challenge around this project, dealing with

congestion. i respect the concerns at ucsf had raised previously and that others have raised him up but i also think it's important to look at the bigger picture here. that the congestion we are seen in san francisco and that we are seeing in this general area, it's not because of or won't be because of one arena. it's problematic now. it is so much bigger than any one project. it's because we have a city that's been growing and growing and has been for decades and is continuing to grow. there are more people here. there are more jobs here. there's more economic activity here. his many more cars. we have to really grapple with that as a city. and decide as a city much and also as a region, what we are going to be in or we can be the kind of place that tolerates the level of

congestion or make the massive, massive massive transit investments we have to make to get a handle on that. so, this fund is terrific. i fully support it. i think it's going to help him out to be cosponsoring it. let us also keep in mind that ultimately, it's the responsibility of the government of the city to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to invest in our transit system. to make sure that were getting the train all the way to the translate transit center and the were connecting it all away through the second translate to to the east they could sue a wonderful train service coming up the peninsula through mission bay and coming from the east bay to san francisco through mission bay and going south. only with that kind connectivity are we going to really address the investment issued. if the warriors arena disappeared

tomorrow at the warriors decided tomorrow the work to come to this location, we would stop massive congestion, traffic problems in this area would only get worse over time. so, i completely understand the frustrations of people in this area of some folks associate with ucsf. people in my district, all over, who are constantly talking understandably about how typical it is just to get around town in san francisco. that is because we have not done what we needed to do in terms of preparing for growth and transit investment, but it's not too late. we can do it. we a lot of things coming on the horizon. patient to go to the ballot in the next two years and we have to make sure that would make those correct choice. but i'm very happy to be supporting this today. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor yee >> thank you supervisor breed. first of all on going to say

i'm happy that this bus were the warriors will be coming back to san francisco. it seems like it's been so long i can't remember was it [inaudible] i think maybe both. at some point, you actually have to share the coliseum with the oakland. barbara going to those. so, what i want to say is that this is a special set aside and there are some issues that i think supervisor avalos brings up and i'm glad he brought it up . my district is faced with the same situation. were out in the west side of the city and a lot of the developments are built on this side of the city, and so some of the benefits that we

receive for the city seemed to be concentrated here. hopefully, there's some other benefits that we get out of it on the west side. so, i want to ask staff and maybe you have a answer me or maybe you don't. when i looked at the revenues that can be coming in, it looked like was stated was the direct revenues as a result of whatever happens right at the arena. i'm thinking that if there's a secondary or residual impact on other businesses and so forth when there are activities in this entertainment center. such as restaurants and people staying overnight. so, i am wondering if anybody did an analysis of data revenues would that generate? that might settle my anxiety about not having any resources to [inaudible]? suit

adam badwater of civil or forced to bauman. we graduate to economic advisers. to look at projected revenues from the event center. the easiest estimated on-site direct revenues. somebody goes and buys a ticket they pay to park. they buy a beverage. this more difficult as off-site and is an extensive debate the economic debate what to and what to not include that it is a mccullough substitution effect some is to go to a theater on curie street or basketball arena and it's not ready. so we took conservative estimates what we didn't include off-site. we do include parking tax revenue. we do include some sales tax revenue. we do include some transit kitty hotel tax revenue. but we try to will look at the lower

end of those ranges so we did not include somebody who's already in town in a hotel and happens to catch again but rather those who come exclusively for that game. so, the 14.1 million estimated in the revenues is all on-site and off-site and conservatively estimated. >> well, thanks for the answer i was hoping the that wasn't the end. they do left out some the off-site calculations >> were not estimating the indirect impacts of the employees will be on-site and they go out to lunch or their spending in the city. so, that is not included. so there's extra revenue that would be coming into the city. it is not contained in the 14.1. >>.a. that's a little bit other. thank you. >> see no other names on the

roster, madam clerk, item number 66, please call the roll >> my apologies. >> supervisor kim? after injury suitable technical merits which we can't out to members of the board. think city attorney i'm not sure. to summarize the technical armaments?? i would be happy to. deputy attorney john given her. the motion that the board approved 15 min. or so ago, upholding the tentative map included sql findings. dmm and that supervisor kim distributed in each of the three items 66, 67, 68 incorporate those findings sql findings that were in the tentative map portion. the moments-the documents that supervisor kim

hazard. also makes two additional moments in addition to sql findings. one, 66, there's a member of the advisory committee that will be appointed by the supervisor for district 6 and supervisor kim proposed amendment would require that that appointee listener neighborhood those in a half-mile of the event center. in item 68, the street vacation item, the proposed amendment would reflect that the puc took action last month concluding that the easements [inaudible]. >> supervisor kim, would you like to move the amendments >> yes >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend moved and seconded. for item 66, 67, and 60. colleagues can we take those amendments without objection? without objection

those moments passed unanimously. >>[gavel] >> on him number 66 is amended, , supervisor kim other common? >> no. >> on a item number 66" please call the roll >> soup's campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye supervisor tank aye wiener [inaudible] yee aye avalos no breed aye there are nine aye and one of no >> the ordinance past and as a mentor on the first reading >>[gavel] >> call roland sedum six or seven as amended >> kim where the minutes made

to 67 >> the minutes were made to all three arms. from my understanding >> yes. all three arms. >> campos aye speak: cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are 10 aye >> the ordinance passes unanimously as amended the double >> collies, for item 68. take this same house, same call. without objection item 68 passes unanimously as amended on the first reading >>[gavel] speed >> banker can we go back-thank you and congratulations. can we

go to item 34 through fifth team i'm clerk whose call 34-50? 34-50 r 17 resolutions for the department of public health. that approved amendment to the behavioral health service contract and expand each other like two years through december 31, 2017 except right ever. item 34 the contract without the family services increasing up 7.7 million for not to exceed 90 million. item 35 a contract to increase the conduct amount by $69 not to exceed the amount of approximately $85 million. item 36 a contract essential city hospitality house increasing the contract amount by 3.6 million not to exceed 90 million. for item 37, a project with committee awareness and treatment services or slight increase of 6.4 million for total amount not to exceed 42

million. for item 38, a contract approved amendment number two to the contract with conrad house with a corresponding increase of 16.8 million not to exceed amount of approximately 54,000,000. for item 30, it approves amendment number two to the contract with edgewood center for children and families to the corresponding increase of 19.2 million for total conduct not to exceed 56 million. for item 40, a contract of family services agency with a corresponding increase of 14.9 million for total amount not to exceed 60.59. for item 41, a resolution to approve amendment number two with a concept of health weight 360 with a corresponding increase of 22 million for total amount not to exceed 91.5 million. for item 42, a contract with high street

committee services the corresponding increase of 4.9 million the total not to exceed amount of 23 nine. for item 43 i'm a a contract with institute familiar-progress on increase of 11.99 for total not to exceed an amount of approximately 26 nine. for item 44, a contract the progress foundation. corresponding increase of 20.9 million for total not to exceed an amount of 121 nine. britain's 45 and 46, to conduct with the regents of the university of california san francisco, 45 is for citywide case management with 9.29 corresponding increase and not to exceed amount of 34 nine. item 46 single point of responsibility program with a 22.59 increase the total amount not to exceed 54.5 million. item 47 and 48, resolution to approve amendment number three to the project with the richmond area multi services

contract. item 47 increase by 9.7 million for total amount not to exceed 29.6 million. item 48 as a corresponding increase of 10.9 million for total not to exceed 34 million. item 49 results and to prove amendment number two to the contract with seneca center with a corresponding increase of 6.1 million for total amount not to exceed approximately 70,000,000 and item 50 is a religion to approve amendment number one to the public behavioral services with a west side community mental health center to extend the contract by two years the total amount not to exceed approximately 56,000,000. >> rollcall vote. >> on items 34-50. thank you. campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye peskin aye

tang [inaudible] wiener aye yee aye avalos aye the rate aye dara levin aye >> those resolutions are adopting soa >>[gavel] >> next item, please. item 51. >> item 51 is a revolution to approve the coronation agreement between the city of bike sharing operator bay area motivate a child and transportation commission and participating cities of berkeley, emeryville oakland and san jose for the expansion and operation the bay area bike share system for term of 10 years. >> avalos >> delectable myself down as cosponsor of this contract. >> thank you avalos. wiener

>> i was a briefly this very exciting step forward for having really extensive and citywide bike share in san francisco but this is him but we've wanted for so long. the pilot program was great but too small and really let people clamoring for better access in all neighborhoods. this allows to move bike share into all neighborhoods and so, i want to thank everyone who made this possible. >> thank you wiene farrell >> i like the cosponsor also >> campos would like to be added as a cosponsor as well and speed. collies can we take this-mar >> i want to thank motivate all the cosponsors and the mayor's office for the tenfold expansion i want to thank motivate and the and air

quality management district for prioritizing pretty concerned those income communities in the city to have access to bike sharing i know in phase 2 that's coming to one of the communities of concern to the richmond district, but i know as of the southeast part of the city really need it and looking forward to the phase 1 implementation but especially the phase 2 as we look equitably of concern. >> thank you collies, can we take item 51 same house, same call without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> anarcho please call item 52 >> item 52 resolution to authorize san francisco fire department to accept expand staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grant in the approximate amount of 8 million from the federal emergency management agency to either 36 new firefighters for the. jerry 23rd 2620 team.? same house,

same call? that objection the resolution was adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>" with an escape over item 53 for now and go to item 54. >> items at your resolution to rector are fully authorize this emphasis put on a public health to accept and expend a $517,000 grant from gilead sciences incorporated for program entitling during hcv in incarcerated patients for the period through march in incarcerated patients for the period through march 31, 2017 >> same house, same call without objection the resolution was adopted unanimously >>[gavel] ? item 55 >> item 55 is an ordinance to man planning code to establish the japan town neighborhood commercial district revising very clinical sections to make conforming and other technical changes revising the zoning to add japan town and city in making other appropriate findings >> just quickly, this is in the work that jim had time for many many years at like to thank the japan town has force and bob-for his. steve was a

met the planning department and all the members of the japan town community came together to make this possible. it's a major step in the right direction and colleagues i would appreciate your support. >> with academically take this item same house, same call? >> matter present, supervisor peskin >> it would add me as a cosponsor of alice abbey so onerous p2 thank you supervisor peskin. colleagues same house same house, same call without objection they were next passing answer stream >>[gavel] >> and 5062 item 56 amended restated grounds for the term of 99 years between the city and o'farrell towers associates property located at 477 o'farrell street for the rehabilitation of 101 units of affordable housing are low and very low income seniors. >> collies, jointed this item

same house, same call without objection is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> 'let's go back to item the item-which item was that avalos >> 15? item 15. item 15 has been called already. i just want to express to supervisor avalos that i will, at this time, support your amendment to the duplicated file. but this process has been going on for several years. there's been a lot of work get a lot of

amendment made. although i do still have some concerns about the technical details and some of the issues here, i would like to make sure that there is a very thorough discussion about the proposed amendment at committee and specifically, at the land-use committee. so, i would ask that you would possibly consider moving forward with the amendment to the duplicated file and returning it, the duplicated file to the land-use committee? >> i just want to make sure that this file can get back to the full board of supervisors. >> okay. there's a possibility that i'm sure-well i can't commit anyone's votes but i'm sure colleagues on the land-use committee will be open to that. >> given that makes more sense for legislative process, i will be okay sending it to the land-use committee? okay. so, supervisor avalos is made a motion to make these amendments to the duplicated file and send

it back to committee. so, was there a second? >> yes i second? thank you supervisor has funded an clerk on the moment for the duplicated file can you please call the roll >> excuse me supervisor wiener >> thank you. i won't be supporting this motion. for quite a few years we worked through and then [inaudible]. there was an enormous amount of back-and-forth over time. the transit committee was various city agencies with the development community and we ultimately brought it to committee and committee supervisor cohen and i supported an increase in the psf even beyond what had been negotiated and a while, believe me as much as anyone want to get as much money for transit as possible, you can always take the position that this fee is not high enough. the fact is, i think we did a good job

over a number of years producing something that is going to raise hundreds and hundreds of million dollars for transit in the city and respect my colleagues point of view, but i'm not prepared to support this to dick >> thank you supervisor wiener. before i return to you supervisor avalos i like to recommend supervisor campos? visibly know what i noted before which is the way it stands. any were getting significant amounts of time money for transportation were leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table. i think as it stands that the big giveaway to developers. it's appropriate for us to maneuver really are serious about holding them accountable for the impact they have on transportation to actually hold him accountable. that's what this is about. >> thank you. supervisor avalos >> i don't believe of the pointer we actually had made

many times throughout the process to make amendments to string this legislation to beam bring more revenue for transportation. either it comes to transportation we need to be as bold as we can be. we sell at the planning department saw what was going to be in terms of the cost of the impact of this development and were well below what busy covering the costs of development for noncommercial. we also saw their study showing was financially feasible and with even the two dollar increase i am proposing here in the grandfathering, were still very well below the threshold of making these projects before us , that would be before us, financially unfeasible. so, collies, can you make sense that we try and be as strong as when it's a community process. it's one we can continue on to make sure we can get the current facilities but the city needs desperately for transportation. >> thank you. i want to be clear that my support today for

the amendment is in no way my support for the legislation as a whole. i just believe it should go back to committee be given a fair opportunity to be discussed and studied and all the facts need to be put on the table. with that, colleagues farrell >> is a motion to amend this and then the original file are we putting up through the same ocean >> that were putting thursday >> organa do that after we finish of the duplicated file. >> maybe supervisor breed i know this was a long process before, i don't feel comfortable that i remain open to it going for. depend on how [inaudible] be voting for today though >> supervisor wiener >> i do want to note agenda because this is limited to commercial am i correct >> yes >> commercial has always paid for 35 years.. the tsf raises

what commercial pays young with her pain on the key idf and so we keep owing up and up which is great, but at some point you move forward we can keep raising this until the cows come home, but i think we with a good product. so i won't be supporting? thank you. avalos >> one other thing. we've actually seen one we had a recession that are inclusionary fees that were raised or lowered because supposedly projects the higher inclusionary fugate what might happen women of another recession in the future and the feet we establish that is a lower fee would try to get lowered even further. actually [inaudible] transportation needs or portion of our transportation needs in san francisco. further building a lower fee were going to see that can make even diminish further as we try and

contemplate how to support the development in san francisco. >> seen no other names on the roster mdm. clerk on the proposed amendment to the duplicated file to send back to committee, please call the roll >> campos aye cohen no, farrell no, kim aye mar aye peskin aye tang aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye there are seven aye and four? the duplicated file as amended will be sent back to committee. >>[gavel] >> with that, can you please call the roll for item 15 >> item 15 campos aye cohen aye

farrell [inaudible] kim aye mar aye peskin aye tang aye wiener aye yee aye avalos aye breed aye. there are 11 aye? the ordinance is passed unanimously >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk, can we please go to item number 53. >> item 53 a resolution to ratify the purchase and sale agreement between the city and 30 venice holdings the sales city owned property look at 30 venice ave. for $89. >> supervisor kim? project before us 30 venice is also known to this board is a grouping of projects coupled with 1660 mission and 1680 mission which provides a unique

opportunity for the city to develop new department offices with market rates. in affordable housing. as has been mentioned previously at this meeting, there's been two consecutive propositions that were passed by this boaters of san francisco both in 2014 and 2015. stating that it should be the city goal that 33% of all new housing should be affordable to 60% of the residence. at 50% of the housing should be affordable to those that are low and middle class. most recently in november, 75% of voters said they want to see one third affordable housing built on public land. 40 dennis before us today is publicly owned by the city and this is the first project to come before the board after the passage of proposition k. i want to talk a little bit about the

transaction that is before us, and appreciate many of the questions it, sticking out of budget committee last wednesday. i think there's certain the concern that the deal that is coming back to this board is $7 million less than what the board authorized back in july. that being said, i do think it was a positive that the discovery pain the transfer tax into mid-august and i understand the cost is impacted by the greater affordability those committed by the developer from 12% to 15% and i do think that is a good commitment but not a good enough commitment when were talking about publicly owned land. this is the reason why i think this incredibly important. we don't have site control over all the parcels here in san francisco. we have limited site control over number public parcels. boaters are stated, and this board has

stated, we need to leverage every opportunity to get to those much affordable housing and we have the opportunity to do that when we have control as we do in this project. it is not just under any land-use regulation. as market octavia plan would normally require a project to be 12%. we can go above and beyond that. i appreciate that the city has been working to buy back cannot put this on the developers tab the city purchase affordability within the site and get us up to this 32%. as of a couple of things that i've been disappointed by and i wish had been committed to by this point at the fullbore. one, at minimum the developers should commit from 80-target that said no cost to the developer. the task is. that is something that could've been committed today and has been alluded to that would likely happen, but that

commitment is not here but we take this vote. the second issue that i have is really with how we are buying the affordability back is an issue that's come up with this board and i thought of several times how low are inclusionary housing program fee is. it is a fee that we [inaudible] when you take inevitable we expect the developers and the mayor's office of housing, when they [inaudible] anywhere from 110,000 to 522,000 for four-bedroom, that is what we expect developers to pay to offset therefore the units of the mayor's office of housing build affordable housing. for the project as proposed, they're not to do any four-bedroom but it's a mix of studios that 35%, one bedroom at 25%, two bedrooms at 40%, on average if a off-site there are four units they will pay the mayor's office of housing

$284,589 a unit. breast to build affordable housing for them. i think what i find incredibly troubling in this transaction is that the city is paying the developer to build affordable housing. so, it's the reverse. we are paying almost double what we would expect the developers to pay. in this case, what is before us the city is going to be paying the developer to build our affordable housing, $533 per unit which would double what would expect that dr. davis agreed advanta currently problematic and i can't support the deal is it come before us today. i think there's a better deal to be had. i surely understand the importance of us move forward with the transaction given the fact. the good will project, and i agree we should be building housing office for city departments. i think is certainly a need, but i think given what the mandate we been given by the voters

whom i think affordable housing is certainly the priority that would like to see utilize public land. at minimum. while the city is committed to 33% among just not excited about how expensive that affordability is going to be for us to build on our own project. so, those are the significant issues that i see. i see couple of my colleagues also have comments to make. i do have questions but i'll wait until some of the comments are made. >> before i moved to the next name on the roster, is there a represented here from the mayor's office of housing? no? supervisor mar? restart as they cannot keep it as short as i humanly can. or think john updike, director of real estate for expanding the complexity of 30 then asked with the other sites the city is considering. i voted consistently against the project but i appreciate

his transparency and work it i viewed as surplus city property that should be considered as maximizing housing below market rates. it's an incredible transit oriented development probably the best in the city market and van ness. basil viewed this also as a key issue when 37 line dollars was the minimum or 39, was the minimum we approved and then? 87, supervisor >> and then mr. updike extremely 89+ the additional economic benefits but i still feel like we could write a better deal than i also feel maximizing the affordable housing on the site as supervisor kim is critical. i voted against the first emmy voting against it this time as well. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor yee

>> i actually have questions. [inaudible]. in regards to the 80-20 peace and supervisor speaking alluded to the fact that there seems to be no commitment towards that at this point, so i want to know for sure whether there's no commitment or there's a tentative commitment or is there a commitment chooses get the 20th this point?? >> john updike director of real spirit there is a commitment to move forward with its called an 80-20 project. as supervisor kim said. the difficulty and locking the commitment is that this is a prospective future events. pdf and 20 projects are dependent on certain federal regulations and certain tax credit available is. we have

structured the agreement to call for an 80-20 transaction here and a 20% minimum a sign of affordability provided by the developer as a developers expense if they pursue the current program or a program that is similar in nature to the current program. so, the only deviation from a full commitment is that no one in this room can tell us that in two were three or four years would make completed the entire process what an 80-20 program might look like it might be a different administration there could be different federal regulation that it's with that copy. but the commitment is there. we believe sufficiently earned into the personal sale agreement. >> there's a part of me that same, regardless of-and i don't believe that spot [inaudible] is can it go away but if you

did, it seems not asking too much to ask the developers to commit to it or not. i don't understand why-there pushing for affordability to go up to 40% at this point. and soon to be committing sosa doing that. to understand why this particular government is committed to be 20%? >> they are committed to do that 20% but committed to do that 20% of this continental program is available at the time. perhaps it would be helpful if i give you some background as to the give and take between the finalist candidates relative to pricing and affordability could maybe that would help this discussion if i can do that briefly >> this is all related., even

would say were looking for more at this point. i think when i supported it things have changed so much in that short period of time. i'd also like to see more, a lot more out of this than what we are seeing on paper. so, the question becomes who would never program that can get us to 30%, and the question is to paint for that, it seems that the city is paying for that. where's the money come from that? wiley paints a much for that? while being the difference if they've committed to having a [inaudible] felipe into $284,000. when we do the difference rather than paying for the whole 500? it's all

related somehow. >> it may address the question, the difference between the cost of the units on-site, we actually discussed this briefly when this issue came up some time ago in a hearing with supervisor campos called the sale of 30 then i stood up to this time if indeed it was not an office building and was truly a vacant ready for the roman site, why would the mayor's office of housing not pursue a 100% of portable project on that site? his answer, at the time, which was said the mayor's office of q&a to moment doesn't build 40 story high-rise residential units. because of the cost in doing so. so, the cost to

reduce what we all want on this rich transit orientated site which would be as much density as possible is more expensive than any in roof sites which are often have a destination of wood frame or something less than high-rise construction. further, this developer is committed to one entry at the site. this is not a case of affordable housing debts through a different door, which commonly known as the poor door. this is not the proposal from this developer. this single entry, all patrons of the facility come in through the same door and head to their units and the units are dispersed throughout the building. all of those things have a cost omen to them. the price per unit should be somewhat higher. much higher is a fair question. what we learned in our discussions with all the other respondents is, from the other development

teams, highly interested in this project that were rated to be finalist, that they are proposed costs onto permanent basis were even higher then the numbers you see today in this agreement from related california. that is yet another tell from the marketplace that this number is a competitive fair number of cost to purchase affordability. the source being are so. that's the source of funds. >> let me reverse that. if the cost is really 584 and that is to be done, can we ask that one of you give us 33% of the units that cost and will give it to the city and will build it ourselves? >> is your question will take

of funds and build it off-site or build on site? i'm not sure i understand >> i guess maybe trying to make a point that if it costs us the projection is 584, then when we give the city 584 for the number of units that would be considered 33% times 52 584 off-site funding. since they think we could build it at 280 something. >> i'm not sure that math works out to but that would be too high an amount for off-site number. we would negotiate a different transaction. i think you're looking at off-site but the direction i've heard collectively do everything we can for on-site affordability

because this is where everyone should be able to live in a transit oriented development. that's their fault focus on-site affordability. >> i guess the other part of the question is where did the money come from to pay for this? if we were to agree to it? >> ray. as supervisor kim mentioned, this is part of an orchestrated sale of properties .. the next two sales involve assets in the mission corridor. 1660 and 1680 mission. weaver,, and target of revenue from those sales combined with 30 then this that are in the pro forma for the overall development of one of our potential option by destination options, which was mentioned by the supervisor. the target

target, we believe will be exceeded. i will create additional unexpected revenues that can be put back into this project to purchase affordability. that's funding source number one. funding source number two is this development itself will generate two different fee structures that we have the administrative ability to reinvest in the property. again, it's overlaid by both the market and octavia plan in the market at van ness as city. those two funding sources provide an additional $15 million in revenue. we would dedicate those to purchase affordability as well. we believe, between those two sources of revenue, we've identified enough revenues that there's no additional general fund pressure to require a path to 33% based on today's numbers. tomorrow's numbers, the lower. i also want to remind the board, you structured this agreement give absolutely no regulatory relief to related california. so, if

there is a change in the dynamics of our regulatory role that changes the baseline affordability, and i know that's a certainly a topic of discussion in the community know, they have no relief to fun of. often meet that target. the subsidy from the city, if you are called from that comes in this transaction could go away is say 26% is the new 12% as an example. so i just want to remind the board of that fact that we built that into the agreement and that agreed to that. >> just less quick question. it can be 500 units were talking and i don't know how many [inaudible] that's a lot of units. i asked this very developments. are you planning to build a childcare center there? is in and of aye. do

you know the answer to that? >> that's a good question and a concern of ours. as you know the childcare center is a vital part of our proposed development currently in ceqa on the goodwill site separate and apart from this. here as well we've asked the developer to commit, without question, to a childcare center on promises. they have done so. so, we believe that would be a minimum size of most like 5000 ft.2 plus associated outdoor areas that would be on the second level terrace similar to what we are designing at the octavia site. we recommend and were pleased to deliver the commandments. >> thank you supervisor yee supervisor wiener? thank you. i have some more questions for you. >> i asked more questions for you. first of all, you alluded to this before but is this [inaudible]

>> at the present time, we have 150,000 ft.2 of office space occupied by the department of public works, deviation host of other city staff. this is only a asset that can be sold if there is a destination to which those hard-working city employees can go to. >> my understanding of the definition of surplus property has always been that property were not using. we have access property that's sitting there whether it's a piece of land or a building we are no longer using. so, we are certain policies but how we use that site or with the proceeds are used for.this is a city office building that is being proposed

for sale. so the proceeds can move a few blocks away to find another city project. if we don't have that money, or if we have a reduced amount of money because the economics of the transaction change then we will have less money to fund the city obligation on that other site about project two blocks away. i assume that from the will come from the general fund?? that is a fair assumption >> i think that's important presumably if we change what were asking the developer and assume that's a choice we have, we want you to do more below market rate units order that case may be, presumably that will affect the sale price. the building meaning the city gets less. we get less. that's less money to get transferred over to the goodwill site and then

we have to make up the difference from other city money. so, we are paying for it either way. i think it's misleading to suggest otherwise. magic money that falls down from the sky. so, if the sale goes through, what is deemed tiedemann process for this building?? as a measure would provide no revelatory relief to the developer so the developer would then have to engage in the entitlement process whatever outcome comes from that. the estimated density of 500 units is consistent with current rocket in octavia height limits of 400 feet on the site. so within market inactivate a likely can achieve that but we fully expect them

to other issues that might be outside the bounds of market and attribute in the have to go through that ceqa prosecute? desert acquired conditional use?? that's a good question that's unclear at this time. >> at a minimum this has to go ? unclear or he doesn't know the answer? >> supervisor peskin you have not been recognized. >> my apologize? supervisor wiener >> were not entitling the project and that entitlement is what is currently subject to what the rules are that the charter amendment which i assume there will be, next year that changes the baseline affordability levels. this will be subject to that change?? >>. that's cricket is to codify my statement is no design to mature design of the site. so it's unclear as to the rogatory process because it is unclear as to what the design would be precise.

>> your for to a height before. >> yes consistent with market activity we know how may stories the building could possibly have and can estimate best in market activity requirement for tower size, forbade size, units >> i do know the portion of market octavia in my district and upper market, there projects significantly smaller i understand the heights of god to conditional use process even though we don't have the planning department here it may be discovered through additional use but certainly be [inaudible]. so can you also just in terms of the number of -if this is built out to the zoning the maximum number of

units, need number of units is that?? were estimated 500 units? how many below market rate units? >> the commitment of the developer sitting 80-20 transaction which is a fair assumption here, that's 100 units of affordable housing. >> that if we don't to the increased to 33%?? we would have an ability to buy an additional 13% of additional units, correct. >> so, colleagues, i'll be supporting this project today. this is providing significant amount of affordable housing. this is not the 5m project if this is not mission rock. this is not surplus property. this is party that's being sold by the city so that we can use those funds to finance our and other project the city is doing a few blocks away. as i mentioned a few minutes ago, if

we change the economics, which absolutely if this boards to decide to change the economics if the developer agrees to, if we do reduces the purchase price of means would have less money to finance that other project. i think that the sale makes sense to be supporting it today. >> thank you. supervisor peskin >> thank you. sorry for that interjection a moment ago. first of all, let me say i very much appreciate the role that the city's department of real estate has played. i realize this is a new frontier for our department of real estate and is a departure from the normal day-to-day business of leasing and acquiring properties and this is a remarkably complex transaction could so, slight salute mr. updike and his colleagues in that department. but, respectfully submit to all of you, as somebody who has spent most of his adult life in

the business of real property sale and acquisition, that we respectfully are leaving a little too much money on the table. as i just said to the natural acquirer of this land and rc staff, if that number is 10%, that's an extraordinarily large number. the best way in real estate to figure out the fair market value is with a true auction. in this particular case, i was first exposed to the market rate was an offer that exceeded $90 million. subsequently, when was exposed to the market this body was told that $87 million would be the lowest bid, and

yet, what is before us in this contract today is almost 10% lower than that at $80 million. i appreciate the line of questioning through the president to supervisor wiener that you got done, but i think we actually need some legal counsel and while i used to play legal counsel on tv, i'm not a member of any bar although i've been to a couple. i look at exhibit b to the grant deed and specifically, the deed restrictions in section 2. to the president to the deputy city attorney that represents the board of supervisors, i have some concerns and counselor, if you might be able to respond to me and this body as to whether or not, if we enter into as a matter of contract, with a

prospective buyer, a deed restriction that limits the project to 15% on-site or 20% off-site. if subsequent as super supervisor wiener alluded to, this board were a charter amendment changes that would that obviate the contract that this city entered into as of today were this to be passed? >> john given her supervisor to understand the question, mike i can't answer off the top of my head. what you're suggesting is the contract itself would provide between 20% and give the city the option and sole discretion to purchase up to 33%. it conflicts with a deed restriction which sets the 15-20% provision. you're asking if there were a situation where the city wanted to purchase the extra of two of 213-18%, would

we actually have the ability to do that given the language of the deed restriction? >> or stated differently, counselor, if we, in good faith, sold to this company right now, this piece of property, subject to these restrictions, and we subsequent as a lawmaking body and rogatory agency change the rules to that game, with the buyer have a legitimate argument that if we or the voters change the percentage of affordable housing that the voters have mandated not once but twice, would they have a plausible argument that it did not apply to them because as a matter contract, as set forth in exhibit b that we in good faith sold to them for $89 without restriction and could not change the rules subsequent? >> again that's because the contract itself provides that

is the city and rogatory capacity increases the inclusionary affordable requirements. that will be binding. i'll be the new minimum but i does one make sure i understand the question. that conflicts the specific language of the key restriction? >> correct >> not something i think i can answer on the fly on my feet but i'll take a look and may not be something i can answer during this hearing frank rivera wantagh will write real estate colleagues? i totally respect that. i valvoline, colleagues, a number of what i believe to be incontrovertible fact. it's first exposure to the market wherein at north of $90 million was an offer. the subsequent representation to this body that $87 million would be the minimum bid. the actual number that is before this body today at $80 million.

i'm not interested in clearing this day. i believe i am a member, i believe we are all members of the board of directors of the municipal corporation and our fundamental job is to get as much for our shareholders, the people of the city and county of san francisco as we can. with all due respect to our department of real estate, i think we have not got that in this day. not only this side of the deal, the mission street side of the deal. through the president to supervisor wiener, if you analyze the 16-80 the goodwill side of the deal, and you look at what a few developer is making in this particular transaction at 5%, where there

is no risk and by the way there's no risk on the 30 van ness side on the deal is good in this business, it's all about risk. reward is a function of risk. on the mission street side, what is the average feed him and get into deal like this to percent. 2.5, 3%. what are we getting for our $80 million that require plow out of 30 van ness into 1680 mission? 5%. i have no animus towards the buyer, towards our staff, but i actually think we can sharpen our pencil and do better on this deal. even if we do the 10% better that was the original representation at 87 million, we pay for all of our salaries for the rest of our terms in office. i submit that

to you colleagues and respectfully ask you to join supervisor kim and myself in voting no on item 53 in its current incarnation. thank you for your time >> thank you. supervisor campos >> my office actually called for a hearing on this because-i'm glad were having this discussion because we reason we call for we went the extra step of calling for a separate hearing on this item even though it's an item in supervisor kim's district and we want to check with her because i really believe that this one the most important actions were taking around the issue of housing.. going back to what supervisor yee was saying i do feel this deal has gotten-well, i don't know if it's got better because it's not clear, but the question for me when i hear from supervisor

kim who is asking us to vote against this right now, is, what would happen this project were different. that's how i see it and i think you probably , if this weren't district 7, and you are to explain and justify to your constituents, is this really not even the best deal but is this really a good deal for the city, for artistic? i don't know if i could say that. if were district 9. what so disconcerting about this, and i have-am representing a district that includes the mission which is a neighborhood that has come to this board asking for more housing. what struck me about this deal is that here we have a property that we actually own, and yet, we are not actually getting from this developer would we would expect

from a property that is owned by somebody else. if any developer came to us with a guarantee along the lanes as was described by the department of real estate who would've rejected that deal because the 20%, even 20%, is not really a guarantee because there is a big if in there. the if it's the risk on us. can you imagine if the warriors had come to us and said, we are going to agree to all these things, if certain things are true. if the giants had come to that with that ask we would not have approved these things, and yet, here we are going down the path. then, given what's

happening to neighborhoods a commission. given what is happening to the african-american community, why are we actually pushing back on the property that we own to say, listen, we don't question the staff is working hard. mr. update is a smart decent guy. he's a hard worker, but this is not how we should maximize and leverage property we own. quite frankly, all and with this-i don't think this is just a mr. updike and his department. the fact of the mayor's office of housing is not even here is really problematic to me. because we just passed a bond of $310 million a big part of that bond policewoman from submission be purchasing land because we don't have land that we can build on and identify manned and worked with the department to figure out what we can purchase so we can build affordable housing and yet,

they're not really that involves in this deal even though they're looking at the piece of land including the mission. lakota messages that set in terms of how city agencies are coordinated? ring that's actually pretty scary. so, look, i really urge my colleagues to vote no on this. i think we allow this to go forward is one of those things in a very short period time we were to say what the heck were we thinking. so, let's send it back to the drawing board, with the understanding that you know what, if we don't do the right thing on this one, then what credibility do we have with private developers to do the right thing on property that

they own. >> thank you supervisor campos. i wanted to ask questions of a concern that i had because i don't agree of a representative from the mayor's office of housing to address the question. we don't? so, i want to put it out there, what is the biggest concerns i had is a clearer understanding exactly how much were specifically getting for each affordable housing especially when we are spending anywhere between 450 and seven or 50,000 to build affordable housing units off-site and more specifically, information i've got recently from the mayor's office of housing project in particular a long be van ness corridor were acquires the mayor's office browsing the overlay was on that site to pay

in excess of $950,000 per unit. so, i think my biggest concern is how much we are getting per-unit and what we need to get per unit, justin john. not wanting to cripple us in the future, especially for looking to increase the affordable housing percentage requirements of any property in the city. so, i just have a lot of concerns around the affordable housing deal as it relates to this particular project, and i think supervisor kim, articulated some of those numbers more specifically and i'm trying to get a better understanding of why that deal was made knowing that it won't even cover the unit? the affordable unit? >> if i may address that. although the mayor's office of comedic moment is not here represented in this room right now, that's not to say there were not a logical part of the

review team that took us through the 15 finalists down to the six, down to the floor down to three down to the one before you know. they been on my side throughout this process and consulting with her brokerage firm. this is not my do. this is the brokerage firms excellence work in their knowledge of perspective and the buyers in the marketplace. with respect to the pricing of our purchase cost, the affordability, that was vetted with the mayor's office of housing community development. they felt comfortable with the numbers presented or i would not be before you today with this transaction. that's considering the extraordinary cost of developing an iconic 40 story residential tower at this location. it's not an inexpensive venture. >> i guess what i want to hear because this is an issue of and working on directly with the mayor's office of housing and

knowing how much were spending in the city per unit has been really frustrating experience and has created numerous obstacles to actually getting affordable housing built faster because it is so expensive and so just having a clearer understanding of where this is coming from and why this was done and how is this actually going to help us advance our efforts but it's not enough money to pay for the unit. so, that's where i'm at a loss. that's where i've been at a loss with this in particular.? the pricing particularly for the additional 13% they be acquired by the city to get from 20-23%. we have prizes up to 120% of a mate and up to 100 for 50% 150% of ami. those range from four $50,000-$550,000 for each of those. that was reviewed by the mayor's office of housing committee develops and felt them to be appropriate however, i want to make it clear, the agreement sets forth a process

to determine those cost. there is a requirement of transparency by the developer. a true up of those cost. verifiable and agreed to by the city before any check would be cut back to the developer to pay for that affordability. so, we have those rights to open the books and ensure ourselves that the payment made is appropriate for the cost incurred. >> supervisor kim >> thank you. i actually want to compare apples to apples. i want to clarify a couple things. first my opening comments about my largest issues with this transaction which in the case where developer decides not to build in a affordable housing on-site we asked them to pay a fee for mayor's office of housing to build affordable housing instead

and i said that on average this project given the mix of units of the building studios-two-bedroom, that would amount to roughly $284,589 per unit. but in the reverse case where the cities asking the developer to build the affordable housing, we are going to be double that amount, $533 per unit. when it fails to mention in the case where the developer pays the mayor's office of housing were building units at for individuals making 55% of average median income. so that individual makes $39,250 e. those units require a lot of subsidies could in this reverse case where we are paying double what we'd expect it developer to pay the mayor's office of housing were letting them build hundred percent of ami. which requires far less subsidies than a unit for 55% ami. so, this individual is thinking $85,000. not only are we paying double what are developers they were letting them build much less subsides you get past the first thing.

the second thing supervisor wiener had brought up the definition of surplus property and he asked if the definition of surplus property is one that had [inaudible] those appropriate definition of utilized previous november 3 of this year, before we revise the surplus property owner ordinance in 22, that was how we define surplus property and how we would build housing for the family homelessness. what about legislation has good intent it was not powerful enough to for the city to build affordable housing. in fact, over 13 years and all the surplus property we likely had we only built two projects. 150 otis and [inaudible]. because of that many of the advocates claim-and we work with them to revise the surplus property ordinance-so we can make it a more powerful tool for the city to build more affordable housing on public lands. this past 75% of the vote a month

ago. we extended the definition that it's no longer just parcels that the city use. we would get city parcels that are underutilized. we also look at city parcels that 1% utilized that opportunity says. we also state for projects were building a high number of units that we can build at market rates because it can be difficult as the mayor's office of housing said to build 1% affordable housing when the building 500 units. winners in market rate units need to subsidize the below market rate units. so, 30 then asked balls under the definition of what has been passed by the voters this past november. dr. used to allow the to promise to allow the property to the board cannot determine what surplus property. in fact you will now require a list of all the real estate because we're fine

before they were actually hitting a lot of property over. is a very different scenario. now i want to get to comparing apples to apples. supervisor wiener had brought up we can expect a smaller development to build as much affordability as we would with a five in project or john's project we are building 600 units, 1000 units, it's a bit disappointed that's only going to build 500 units which is still fairly significant. october the project in our district were negotiating right now with developers building 391 units and that's 160 fulsome. so to slightly smaller projects in a single parcel both with public land involved. 164 fulsome is doing 391 units. that's a proposed 30 venice 502 160 fulsome that we've got a commitment of 40% affordable. here with 30 venice 33% affordable. in 160 fulsome

they're building homeownership units between 120% of ami. this project a little different. i assume the 13% will be 55% of ami and the rest the cities got plowed back will be only 120% ami. this is the biggest mistake of the city is their economy back into the once this -they're also building a certain percentage of the affordable and will be subsidizing them of that is were proposing this case. in the case of 160 fulsome ocii has worked out a deal where we are paying $252,000 per unit to build housing bill be affordable to residents and make between 100-1 harbors 20% of ami put in the case of 30 venice were building rentals at 101st 20% of ami pain over double that. $533,000 per year. so i know we can do better do. because were doing it at 160 fulsome. so, it's not hypothetical of can we do it in the smaller singular projects. we know that we can because were currently negotiating the deal is to come before the board in a couple of months. so, i think that for

multiple reasons what is before this board just is not good enough. we can do better. finally, to the supervisor norman yee whether the developer is committed toward percent yes the developer he stated he would like to build the 20% but if you read the actual real estate transaction, what it says the developer will build a minimum of 15% affordable. to say that electability toward percent is not the same thing as what is before the board today which only states a minimum of 15%. we could've put something in this duet said no less than 20% unless, for some reason, the market fall through but that's just not what's in the contract that is before us today. so, kali surmising we can do better. i think with another project that's moving through the process right now is good

indicated that we can do better and with that you can look like and so at this time i asked you not to support what is before us today. >> thank you. supervisor wiener >> mr. update, i want to give her sons to some of the issues that supervisor peskin and supervisor kim hebrides. in respect to the sales price of $89 supervisor peskin had mentioned was initially i think going to be 87 or $90 million and can you just explain how the process works and how $80 million was arrived at and whites 87 my dollars? >> happy to supervisor wiener. when we were before the last signatory to federalize this transaction, none of the firms i completed all their due diligence. that due diligence process resulted in the discovery that 30 venice's seismic condition and some other conditions were less

favorable than anticipated. in some ways invalidated staffs prior statements that we are if we remain at 30 venice were likely looking at a $60 million rehabilitation cost in order to remain at 30 van ness. please, understand the developer who's buying up property prices, where it is, has to look at the viability of the existing building. there is the chance, no developer might take place. we do-we can't predict exactly what will happen in the future so a developer doing the good work must do their diligence but their asset we are offering. so, that led to a decline in the pricing as a result of those discoveries. this particular transaction before you now has completed the due diligence period. that signed off. that means the money on deposit $7.5 million sitting in escrow reading reading the boards decision. that becomes available to the

city indo fault but were not there yet but that due diligence period is expiring few we have all knowledge, all faults of the building have been discovered and incorporated into this transaction. so that's the driver of that. >> thank you. in terms of the contract itself supervisor peskin raised the issue of whether the city would actually be up to change the revelatory requirements. for example, increase the required affordability to go back to the voters and say which imagine more likely do, change the charter and of whether that would be binding on the consideration of this consummation of this contract. noon edition of this contract. can you talk about what the contract provides in terms of future purgatory changes the

for this project is ultimately entitled because, again, as i understand it, we are simply approving the sale and it has to go through its entitlement process which is not a sure process in san francisco and a lot of requirements can be imposed on a project in the entitlement process and will be very surprising to me if there is sale of a property we were to somehow, i think would be impossible or very hard to find that entitlement process. because we don't know what can happen in that entitlement process in the whole point of that entitlement process is to hash out these issues. can respond to that concern about the contract binding? >> sure. i'm not pretending to be counsel on this item, but working with a real estate counsel, this language in the

purchase and sale agreement, section 3.2, was carefully crafted with the intent to give no comfort from a revelatory standpoint to the buyer of the property. it would be very easy for us before closing-i'm sure the prospective buyer here would agree, we can reiterate the terms and conditions of 3.2 in the cited exhibit, in the deed, so there's absolute certainty and no confusion about those. i want to consult with counsel on that we feel confident we can close that loop and correct that issue, if indeed it is an issue. i'm not saying necessarily it is but it could be very easily resolved prior to closing >> my question is when your negotiators understand you're not a lawyer but seems like you give instructions is what the negotiations and economics of the deal were. the deal you negotiated was that the regulatory-that the sale does

not anyway tied her hands to change revelatory skin, including affordability between now and it time that the entitlements are granted on this project. >> that is correct. >> thank you >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor peskin >> i realize it's getting close to wait but i like to reiterate what supervisor kim said and specifically, direct all of us to the words in the purchase agreement. that would be the agreement for sale of real estate 30 van ness. that would be the agreement for sale of real estate 30 van ness ave., san francisco, ca at page 2, section 3.2 that read it together. it says buyer acknowledges and agrees that city would not sell the property unless the buyer

[inaudible] agrees that if the property is redeveloped as a residential developments, buyout will develop the property in accordance with certain conditions and covenants as detailed women exhibit b the deed restrictions which are previously referred to which requires the provision on site of inclusionary units as defined in section 415 of the planning code a minister by the cities mayors office of housing and community development, which is not here this evening, for not less than 15% of the total residential units within the project. this is a 500 unit developments. i think we've turned the corner. i watched from a distance not as a member of this board was a member of the public, mdm. pres. and colleagues, as the 12% number has consistently been exceeded. it is exceeded here at anemic 15%. old makes this property different than other properties is it is a piece of property that is owned by the people of the city and

county of san francisco. if there's any place that we can insist on a higher level of affordability, if there's any place where this board can demonstrate its commitment to dealing with these housing affordability crisis, it is on this piece of property. it is real. it is meaningful. and it is symbolic about what this board stands for. i, again career eight, i appreciate the work that our staff has done, but i think we need to send a message this evening that that work is not good enough. i think all of you have been trying to deal with this affordability crisis, but the mandate of the election that happened in november is that we have to do more. this, colleagues is that opportunity.

>> thank you. seeing no other names on the roster, mdm. clerk can you please call the roll on the item. >> item 53 supervisor campos no cohen aye farrell aye kim no mar no peskin no tang aye wiener aye yee no avalos no breed know there are four aye? this item fails. >>[gavel] >>" next item. >> attic rec committee

reporting item 69 to 70 please call him together. >> item 69 to 70 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee ever read the meeting on thursday, december 3 at 1030 were considered by the government audit and oversight committee ever read the meeting on thursday, december 3 at 10:30 am and move forward as committee reports. item 69 ordinance to authorize some in a lawsuit filed by john russo industrial sheetmetal inc. during business as jr against the city for $2.1 million held on june 17, 2010 in alameda county superior court. item 70, ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by new cingular wireless against the city for approximately $3 million filed on may 27 in los angeles superior court. >> rollcall vote >> item 70 and 71. excuse me. just for clarification, 69, 70 and 71. campos aye >> not on seven.

>> 69 and 70 >> six 970 campos aye cohen aye farrell aye kim aye mar aye speed peskin aye tang aye wiener aye wiener aye avalos aye >>[reading] aye 11 aye >> that portis is passed on first reading >>[gavel] >> anarcho please call the item 71 through 73 together. >> item 71 resolution to approve a millsap historical property conduct between trust: league and charlene 722*street not pricing the planning director to execute this

vertical property contract >> item wizard to act between it was seven montgomery the owners of it was 7 montgomery st. and the city and authorizing the planning director and the assessor to execute the historical poverty contract. item 73 resolution to prove mills act probably contract between ardell josie san francisco the owner of 761 posted in the city and to authorize the director and the assessor to execute this vertical property contract. >> mdm. clerk, supervisor peskin >> effect as for one-week continuance on one supervisor peskin >> effect as for one-week continuance on one week 72 montgomery st. i have some questions i would like to ask of staff that are not here this evening and is in district 3. if i could just ask that promotion to continue that item one week to december 15. >> supervisor peskin made a motion to continue item 72 one-week to december 15. moved

and seconded. college, take this without objection. without objection, item 72 is continued to the meeting of . without objection, item 72 is continued to the meeting of december 12, 2015. >>[gavel] >> rollcall on item-actually can we take 71 and 73 same house, same call without objection the resolutions are adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> next item, please >> item 74 resolution to approve an agreement with nonprofit owners association administration and management of the seven property-based committee benefit district known as the europe of atlanta committee benefit through june 30, 2030 >> same house, same call without objection adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 75 >> and 75 resolution proven agreement with nonprofit owners

association to administration management of these thousand property-based green benefit district known as the dot that's in northwest the duracell through june 30, 2025. >> same house, same call without objection resolution adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 7062 and 76 resolution to approve the agreement with nonprofit owners association for ministration management the savage property-based committee benefit district known as the greater bank on hill committee benefit district for the period june 30, 2030 >> same house, same call without objection resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >> item 77 >> item 77 consumed by the land-use transportation committee and regular meeting on monday summer so that was forwarded as committee reports. it's a resolution to temporarily close the public sidewalk on second street two new montgomery said on june 11 5 pm-10 pm >> same house, same call without objection the resolution is adopted unanimously >>[gavel] >>