(♪) (♪)

>> good morning, and welcome to the july 18th audit and oversight commit. i'm jane kim and chair of the committeer and i'm joined by supervisor aaron peskin and a special welcome for our newest member, vally brant who is attending as a supervisor in her first committee meeting. and to recognize our clerk john carroll and thank the staff at sfgov-tv for making sure that our meetings are available both to the public and online. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk:? please make sure to silence your cellphones and complete the speaker cards and any documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. and itemmings will appear on the july 24, 2018 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor kim:, can we call item number one. >> clerk: to approve a

conditional land disposition and acquisition agreement with 2000marin street, for transfer of property at 639 bryant street for 2000marin street, for the public commission costs. and it's a conditional agreement under the california environmental quality act guidelines with closing conditions on city discretionary approve after the completion of environmental review. >> supervisor kim: thank you, mr. clerk and i want to invite our lead sponsor on this item which i'm a co-sponsor of to make opening comments. and i appreciate his diligence in working in my district and working to make sure that we could move forward with community partnership and compromise to work for all stakeholders. supervisor peskin before we go to mr. carlin. >> supervisor peskin: i welcome supervisor brown as her

first meeting as a supervisor though she's been around these parts for a long, long time in her capacity as staff to a number of my former and current colleagues. with that i want to start by thanking the public utilities commission, mr. carlin, and the general manager harlen kelly as well as the members of the commission itself and the office of economic and workforce development for finally bringing this to fruition. it has been a long time in coming. it is actually a remarkably complex, not only a land exchange that is before us, but is linked to the central soma plan and the land-use changes that are afoot in the central south of market area in san francisco. and as we all know and we'll hear mr. carlin and the p.u.c., the public utilities commission of san francisco owns a

relatively small piece of property in the south of market on branon and 5th street that has the same value as a piece of property in the district 10, commonly known as 2000 marin street, which would be an ideal long-term site for the public utilities commission for the yard and future uses that mr. carlin will describe. but there's an interesting twist. and that twist is that it will be an ideal location for the temporary relocation of san francisco's beloved flower market. which is also implicated in the central soma land-use decision. so i hope that if this all works out that we will be able to have new construction in the south of market by tishman at the old p.u.c. lay down yard.

and across street by kilroy where the market is located and it would be at 2000 ma are everyone in -- marin, and eventually when the project is done that the flower mart would move back into their brand spanking new facilities in the kilroy project. so that is the whole thing in a nutshell and i really again want to thank supervisor kim for letting me to meddle in her district. and the folks from the flower market, which is a complex organism in and of itself and the p.u.c. and with that, madam chair, i turn it over to you and mr. carlin. >> supervisor kim: i want to also recognize that rosanna russell for the p.u.c. is available to answer questions as well as lisa chen and john sowitski to answer any question in regards to how this interfaces with the central soma

plan which is also before the land-use committee currently. and then we'll go to the senior manager of the budget and legislative analyst report to offer his remarks. mr. carlin, thank you so much for being here. >> good morning, i'm michael carlin, the deputy general manager for the public utilities commission. chairman kim, vice-chair peskin and welcome supervisor brown to a very long complex negotiation. and i'm going to try to get through it rather quickly so that we can entertain questions. so this is an exchange between 2000 marin and 639 bryant street and it's a conditional exchange so it's not a done deal as of yet. this is 639 bryant street, about a 1.4-acre site owned by the p.u.c. and currently used by the power enterprise. supervisor peskin said that it was a very small piece of property but 1.4-acres in san francisco is actually quite

large. what we're looking at is actually -- and he's also mentioned that basically we are doing an exchange and the appraised market value for this 1.4-acre site is $63 million approximately. we also rent a site at 651 bryant street. this is office and warehouse space. it's a lease that expires in 2019, next year. we do have a 10-year option on the property. and the annual rent is approximately $300,000 a year with a 2.5% increase for the next year of the lease. and this is what we're talking about today is the 2,000 rent site. and it's about a 7.9-acre site and it's bound by caesar chavez and that's evan street that runs down one side of it. so ooh ideally located to our corporate facilities down in this section of the city.

we have our southeast waste water treatment plant down there and our water department yard in the same vicinity. and locating our power enterprise yard in that location with the idea that there would be further expansion of our needs for land in that area for our enterprises. it's much larger than the site that we currently use and it actually has a appraised value of $63 million as well. so that's really an important factor here that the appraised values done by the same appraiser with the same instructions under city supervision came out with those numbers. there are a couple key terms that we have in the agreement right now. one is that basically the developer will pay for what we call phase two environmental testing. this is to look at hazardous materials on the site of 2000 marin. we have a phase one report and there's a history to this site so we're going to do a much more extensive testing of the site to look at where the contamination

might be and what kind of contamination would be there. this is important to us because when we start programming the site we want to know sort of what the layout of the site could be. and they will cover our transactional costs and our relocation costs, power enterprise relocation to the 2000 marin site. so those are covered by the developer. we will reimburse the developer for temporary facilities at 2000 marin. we don't know what the long-term outlook will be and we have an opportunity to relocate the flower mart at the site. and so we would actually share the site for several years as we develop our long-term plans for this site. there's also what we call a hydrogen peroxide tank at 639 bryant street. and it's a chemical that we drip into the sewer system that prevents odors in the downtown area. and the developer has agreed to relocate this site either on the 639 bryant street or into the public right-of-way.

and we have that as part of the agreement as well. so we see that basically that we have a process that we go through. we don't clear our property surplus until the actual transaction takes place. so at this point we haven't declared it surplus but we will once this goes back to the sfpuc next year and we declare it a surplus and complete the transaction. we will save quite a bit of money by not renting a warehouse at 651 bryant street. over an 11-year period that is saving us substantially. and we tend to occupy the entire site of 2000 marin and we have lots of our enterprises located in that area. we have need for more space and we're allowing warehouses now and it will allow us to consolidate into one location. that concludes my presentation and i'm glad to answer any

questions. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. any questions from the committee members? seeing none we will move to our budget legislative analyst report. >> good morning, supervisors, dan gonshur with the budget legislative office. it approves the disposition and the acquisition agreement between the city through the public utilities commission and 2000 marin property l.p. which the commission would transfer ownership of the pars parcel at9 bryant street to 2000 marin property l.p. in exchang exchanr this. and as you can see in the summary on page 2, the first of which is that while sfpuc staff state that the property exchange at the existing city property at 639 bryant street or 2000 marin street is necessary for the future expansion of the power and water enterprises the reason and the scope of the expansion are not identified.

and we have recommendation to that policy consideration which is on page 11 of our report. recommendation number 3. which is to amend the legislation to request a written report from the public utilities commission general manager on the potential scope of the power and water enterprise expansions, including the potential increase in customer infrastructure, p.u.c. staffing, and other revenues and expenditures associated with the expansion. as well as the timelines for the expansion. our second policy consideration is that the appraised value of the property at 2000 marin street of $63.6 million does not account for potential environmental contamination. the property value could be less than the appraisal if the environmental site assessment finds that the property cannot be used for the public utilities

commission's intended purpose due to environmental contamination. and our recommendation to that actually -- we always point out on page 9 of our report that if the public utilities commission determines based on the phase two environmental site assessment results that the property is contaminated in a way that makes the property unsuitable for commercial development, that the commission may extend the time period for the exchange or terminate the exchange, or negotiate with the developer for an appropriate remediation strategy. according to the conditional land-use disposition acquisition agreement, the city's acceptance of the environmental condition of 2000 marin street will occur only after the public utilities commission has an opportunity to review and approve the condition of the property. our recommendation to that policy consideration is

recommendation number 4 on page 11 of our report, which recommends that the proposed resolution state that the board of supervisors policy is that if the phase 2 environmental site assessment identifies contamination that makes the property unsuitable for the intended use and occupancy of the public utilities commission and if the public utilities commission chooses to continue with the property transaction, the final property exchange transaction will provide for the developer to fully mitigate all environmental contamination, to make the property suitable for the intend the use and occupancy of the public utilities commission. and/or to reduce the exchange value of the property to fully account for the costs of the environmental remediation to make the property suitable for the intended use and occupancy of the public utilities commission. and our last policy consideration, which is again on page 2 of our report, is that the planning department is expected to request a waiver of

transportation sustainability fees charged to tishman spire, the parent company of 2000 marin property l.p. for the mixed use of the develo development which includes 639 bryant street. as consideration for the public park to be developed by tishman spire, the loss of these fees could potentially be offset by assessing such fees to other development projects or through another funding mechanism such as the central soma community facilities district special tax. our recommendation on related to that policy consideration is recommendation number 1 on page 11 of our report which states that we recommend that the board request that the planning commission to in considering the potential waiver of the sustainability fees for the future mixed use development of the property bounded by fourth, 5th and bryant street to want

include the reimbursements of $245,000 to the public utilities commission for transaction costs and calculating the fee waiver to consider the impact of the potential transportation sustainability fee revenues on bicycle, pedestrian street and transit projects in soma. and to consider the reasonableness and the feasibility of recouping the potential loss of transportation sustainability fee revenues through agreements with other private developers. we also recommend that the board request that the planning department to include the ongoing costs to the city to maintain the park and any agreement with the developer to develop the park. and our final recommendation is to approve the proposed resolution as amended as a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much for the report. any questions for the b.l.a. or for the p.u.c. -- o or the planning department --

supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: as to the phase two environmental assessment when do you expect that the p.u.c. will have that? >> we expect to have it probably early -- or late this year or early next year. >> supervisor peskin: what does the phase one seem to indicate albeit the phase two is not completed? >> so this is my interpretation of phase one and only my interpretation of phase one. it does indicate that there may be some pockets of contaminated soils. this was an industrial site over time. what we're looking at as we go forward in programming the site we'd like to be able to negotiate with the developer on what is the appropriate action going forward, rather than having the prescription that is contained in the recommendation from the budget legislative analyst report. >> supervisor peskin: and i assume that the current owner tishman spire has some recourse to the previous owner who would

presumably have some liability as the polluter and that would be the hurst corporation? >> actually, they do not have any recourse. so at this point in time tishman spire owns the site and they have purchased it without any recourse going back to previous owners. so we would have no way to go back to those polluters under the super fund act to -- to appropriate responsibility to each one of those. what we prefer to do -- again, when i talk about programming the site, i'm talking about what we put there on the site. and right now it is being used for commercial purpose for commercial transportation company to park their vehicles there as well as to have some of their offices and such. it's a large site. and so we're looking at it as what we use the site for and laying down areas for pipe and large pieces of equipment. we could avoid a lot of those

contaminated areas and that's why we want to negotiate with the developer on how we actually use that site in the future. what this says is that we don't have that ability to negotiate, we have the developer that has to remediate the site to whatever use we actually come up with in the future. >> supervisor peskin: and do you have the ability to unit unilaterally terminate? >> yes, sir. >> supervisor peskin: and then i guess to supervisor kim as it relates to the central soma district, i would certainly defer to you as to the budget analyst first and, second, suggestions -- i think that the third one relative to requesting a written report from the g.m. of the p.u.c. makes perfect sense. >> and i could address that in a certain way that. we actually do 10-year projections, what are our needs and, you know, what our customer

revenue will be. so that's very easily information that we can provide to you. >> supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor peskin. our office is currently working through valuing all of our key sites in the central soma plan, both the contributions and the conference of value and negotiating different things, including the contribution and what might be reimbursed as fees and what may not. >> supervisor peskin: correct me if i'm wrong, i was under the impression that tishman would bear the cost for maintaining the park at that location? >> supervisor kim: that is my understanding as of today. but, mr. chen, i don't know if you want to clarify. >> good morning, lisa chen with the planning department. so currently the thought for the maintenance costs, the ongoing maintenance costs for the park, is that they could be fundable

through the c.f.d. and we have $15 million allocated over the next 25 years for maintenance of various public facilities and parks. we have other funds that are set aside for cleaning. so we do believe that is a good stable source of funding for service needs. >> supervisor kim: thank you, miss chen. so at this time we'll open up for public comment on item number one. if you would like to speak -- i'm so sorry, i have a few speaker cards. sylvia burgess and laura windsor and mike tario and eileen tillman and vance uashia. if you would like to speak please line up on the right side of the chamber. and we will acknowledge you. >> okay, thank you so much. my name is laura windslor and i'm a floral designer and a small business owner here in san francisco. been in business for more than 25 years.

i've had the opportunity to speak to some members of this committee previously about our concerns for relocating the flower market. i'm here today to speak in support of the property swap that is being considered here. the 2000 marin site is really the only site that is feasible for relocating the flower market during the construction at our present location. and we are very excited that this property swap is going to take place and we'll have a temporary location to go to. in light of some of the comments regarding the environmental impact and possible contamination, i think that our entire community would urge the stakeholders to move forward as quickly as possible to determine what the site holds in terms of contamination, what needs to be done to remediate it, because the longer this is delayed the more difficult this situation is

going to become for those of us at the flower market who really need to find a new home. so anything that you can do to move that forward would be appreciated. and we very much appreciate all of your help so far. thank you so much. >> good morning, my name is eileen tillman and i have been a resident of soma for over 48 years. approving this swap agreement is an important step to bring in much-needed 40,000 square-foot park and 13,000 square-foot affordable housing site to this area. the lumber yard as we endearingly refer to it because of the history of the property, has impatiently awaited by the current neighborhood, made up of the baby center, the vision of johnson & johnson with over 200 employees, directly across the street from the park. and 100 loft units and the pons with condos and the multiple

smaller residences and businesses. all within one block of the proposed park. the proposed 72-unit affordable residential units will spill out on this park as well. this, in addition to the office buildings planned at 598 brandon and the proposed development will benefit from the park. the city and tishman spire have worked together to engage the community on park design that include playgrounds, a dog run, and space for the community to have events. tishman spire has committed to maintain the park to make sure that it's a clean and a safe place for local residents and workers to enjoy. the surrounding neighbors will also take an active role to support the safety and cleanliness of the park. and san francisco is in dire need of affordable housing. this development will provide 72 units to this need. thank you.

>> mike ontario with the trades council and a short timer. welcome to supervisor brown and good luck here. i have to say that this particular measure is a combination of luck and skill. luck in that the kind o synergis offered by this property exchange are rarely available in san francisco. skill in that that exchange is not without its complexities as mr. carlin and the budget analyst have each in his own way indicated. i want to thank supervisor peskin for his exercise of skill in this and supervisor kim for allowing supervisor peskin to tromp around in the flower beds in your district. and the staff of the public, tits commission and the city's realty department for their work on this and we urge you to approve the exchange. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i forgot

to acknowledge the department of real estate, you're hereby acknowledged and commended. >> thank you. supervisors, i'm advance oshios a resident in the san francisco flower mart. please excuse the tremor in my voice. we want to continue to urge you to move this swap forward as quickly as possible. we had a very difficult time finding a location in which the flower market can relocate. in the interim while the new flower market is being built. this location actually provides a great place in which it is easily accessible by our customers and is also a great place for tenants to be sustained during the relocation of the flower mart. i would like to thank

supervisors peskin and kim for continuing to move this forward and continuing to help us to find a location in which we can be sustainable during this period. thank you. >> supervisor kim: so are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on item one? seeing none, public comment is now closed. >> clerk: madam chair, i have a number of diminimus amendments that i have handed out to you that originated with the p.u.c. and its commission which i would like to move and adopt those changes, that include a reference to the fact that the central soma plan was recommended for approval by the planning commission to this board of supervisors on may 10th and it is awaiting approval by the san francisco board of supervisors. it includes an updated reference to the exchange agreements and the conditions which have been modified since the introduction due to the commission input as

well as a reference confirming that the developer's proposed lease to kilroy to meet the condition is subject to approval by the sfpuc commission as mr. carlin described. and that any lease will be short-term in duration as well as the actual appraisal values that have since been established and that is in a red line and clean version that i have submitted to you and to the clerk of this committee, mr. john carroll. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. so we have a motion to amend as supervisor peskin has articulated. can we take that motion without opposition? we can do that. colleague it's -- >> supervisor peskin: can we move the item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation? i would make that motion. >> supervisor kim: so a motion to move item number 1 with recommendation to the full board and we can do that. a second we can do that, again, without objection. mr. clerk, call item 2.

>> clerk: to execute amendment number 1 to agreement number cs247r, customer and administrative services for the program with calpine l.l.c., for continued support of the clean power s.f. and to authorize the general manager of the san francisco public urkts tilts commission to execute the agreement. and increasing the agreement by $14,030,000 to not exceed $19,630,000 and to extend the term of the agreement up to three years for a total term of november 1, 2015, through october 31, 2021, with a three-year option to extend the contract. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and we have mr. michael hiam, the director of clean power s.f. here to present on this item. >> thank you, good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of the clean s.f. program for the power

enterprise. i also wanted to welcome supervisor brown, we look forward to working with you. before you is a resolution to authorize the amendment to c cs247r, with calpine energy solutions to provide data management and billing and customer care services for the sfpuc clean power program. i have a few slides for and you some remarks and i can take your questions about this item. by way of background, clean power s.f. is san francisco's community choice aggregation program. authorized by assembly bill 117, and adopted by the board of supervisors and mayor. cca allows a city and/or a county to become the default electric supplier in its jurisdiction in partnership with the local investor-owned utility. by allowing the city to determine the source of its energy supply, and to direct more of its electric customers' dollars towards renewable and

clean sources of energy, clean power s.f. is a key strategy to meeting the city's goal to eliminate greenhouse gases from its well-being supply by 2030. by statute, cca is an opt out program. clean power s.f. began serving customers in may 2016 and we are enrolling customers in phases now until city-wide enrollment is complete. as of july, 2018, clean power s.f. has completed enrollment to approximately 30% of the eligible accounts in the city. and our program retention rate is over 96% to date. under this contract calpine energy solutions provides essential business services to the clean power s.f. program, including meter data management which involves hosting a customer information database and exchanging billing and meter data with pg an pg&e with proto.

and billing with hundreds of thousands of data points daily to ensure accurate and timely billing for our customers. and customer service for which calpine staff manages the call center. the initial contract was awarded in november 2015. it featured a three-year term and provided the city with options to extend for two additional three-year terms. with plans to enroll another 275,000 additional electric accounts over this fiscal year, clean power s.f. is in a critical stage of its development and growth. extension of this contract ensures continuity of essential clean power s.f. operations through the enrollment period and the initial years of city-wide service. to be successful during the upcoming enrollments, clean power s.f. will need sufficient call center resources. calpine has established a great track record to date. under this contract, calpine

provides expertise and resources that are not currently developed at the sfpuc for clean power s.f. however, i want to make clear that the sfpuc is working to transition call center operations in house over this next three-year term of the contract. and under the contract calpine will facilitate this with training of our staff. it will continue to provide the customer information relationship management systems to support call center operations. and the sfpuc is analyzing the feesibility of bringing billing and management tasks in-house as well. our initial analysis indicates a significant investments in i.t. systems that would be required. and these investments are not practical at this time to provide the services in the near term. the extension of this contract will provide time for the sfpuc to develop interim resources and capabilities. it will also allow existing

program staff to focus on other critical program operations to ensure the continued success of clean power s.f. during its enrollment period. supervisors, the amendment before you would extend the current contract term with calpine energy solutions three years to october 31, 2021. the amendment also increases the total contract value to approximately $18.8 million. this increase in contract value is due to the sfpuc's plans to complete city-wide enrollment during the contract period. the contract costs are based on the number of customers served by the program and supported by the contractor. we are anticipating that the clean power s.f. will increase its customer base from about 115,000 customers as of the end of this month, to 375,000

accounts served by july 2019. the sfpuc negotiated a price reduction as part of this extension that saves the program $2.2 million over the next three-year period. and that concludes my comments. i'm happy to take any questions that you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much and seeing no committee members we'll go to our budget legislative and analyst report. >> supervisors, dan goner. the proposed resolution will have the exercise of the first amendment to the contract between the public utilities commission and calpine energy solutions. the proposed amendment would extend the contract by three years to october 31, 2021. and the option of extending the contract for an additional three years to october 31, 2024. and increase the contract amount to not exceed $14,030,000 from

$5.6 million to $19.6 million. as shown on page 4 of our revised report or page 15 of the original report, you can see that the actual and projected contract expenditures to octob october 2021 total $18.8 million. including a contingency of about $1.5 million. a recommendations are including to amend the proposed resolution to not exceed $860,775. from $19,630,000 to $18,69, 225. and we recommend that the clarification of the final option to extend the contract by three years to october 31, 2024 is subject to future board of supervisor approval and approval of the proposed resolution as

amended. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and so at this time we'll open up for public comment on item number two. i'm seeing none so public comment is now closed. supervisor brown has a question or a comment. >> no, i have a comment. i'm just really excited that this has come this far. actually when i started as a legislative aide in 2006 this was one of the first projects that the supervisor had me jump on. and to see that it has come to this point i just want to thank the board of supervisors to get it through. also the mayor's office and p.u.c. and i'm really excited. so congratulations to everybody that made it this far. so, thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you supervisor brown and also i want to appreciate many of the supervisors that have worked on clean power sf. very excited that it's coming to my district although i'm already a super green customer.

so just great to live in a city where we have these options. so seeing no further comments or questions, can we take a motion to move this forward? >> supervisor peskin: do we need to clarify per the budget analyst recommendations the amendment to reduce the contract not to exceed $860,775,000 and to amend the resolution to clarify that exercise of the second and final option to extend by three years to october 31, 2024 is subject to future board of supervisors approval? >> supervisor kim: we do have agreement with the p.u.c. as well. so supervisor peskin has made those two motions. so we will take those motions without objection. and do we have a motion to move this forward? so we have a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board and, again, we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, call the next item. >> clerk: item three to have

the property lease of property to shoreline associates limited partnership and m.p. shorebreeze associated l.p. for a term of 60 years. with the base rent of $100,874 per year and with a 3% annual inflation factor to commence following board approval and authorizationing the director of property and/or the san francisco public utilities commission general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution as defined herein. >> supervisor kim: this is the p.u.c. day at committee. i want to recognize the deputy director of real estate at the san francisco public utilities commission who will present on this item. and i wanted to also let our committee know that peter divial of the corporation is here and available to answer any

questions. >> thank you, good morning, supervisors. tony vardo, with the p.u.c. the resolution before you is to approve the terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the p.u.c. to execute a new 60-year lease to m.p. shoreline associates limited partnership and m.p. shorebreeze associates l.p., as co-tenants. these two are affiliated with the housing corporation, and an affordable housing developer that has served the bay area for almost 50 years. the premise of consisting of a portion of the sfpuc right-of-way in mountain view known as parcel 201a and it's two acres in size. it's dilleniated in red here in the diagram. it's adjacent to the shorebreeze apartments, a 100% affordable housing complex that serves low-income families and

low-income seniors. and the current tenant under an existing 51-year lease that expires march 31, 2031. the p.u.c. parcel provides parking, landscaping, inaggress andand egress and emergency vehe access to the shorebreeze apartments. and as you all know there is a shortage of affordable housing in the bay area and in response to this shortage the city of mountain view decided in 2014 to rehabilitate and expand the shorebreeze apartments. in january of this year the city of mountain view amended its precise plan to add 15 net new affordable housing units at the shorebreeze apartments. and this is an artist rendering of what that redevelopment will look like.

the private and public funding partners have broad support of the development. and it includes the county of santa clara housing authority and the city of mountain view and the housing trust silicon valley, and the state of california. so the existing lease doesn't expire until march 2031, so one might ask why we're entering into a new lease today. that's because midpin housing funding partners require a 60-year term with pre-determined ground lease rent to meet regulatory requirements for tax credits and local funding. because the existing lease has only approximately 13 years remaining on the term, the p.u.c. agreed to a new 60-year lease to accommodate the tenant's financing program and also to refresh the legal provisions in the lease. the initial rent is $100,874 per year and represent an increase

of about 152% over what midpin is currently paying under the current lease. rent will increase every five years by 15.9% which equals an annual compounded rate of 3%. the stepped rent schedule is derived from the current fair market value determined by an m.i.a. appraisal dated january 25, 2018, by clifford advisory, discounted at 50%. the case for the 50% discount, the staff believes that midpin housing and its affiliates are entitled to a 50% discount because it will facilitate the expanded affordable housing program. we'll go over this consistent with the san francisco public utility commission's 2011 community benefits policy that seeks to better serve and foster partnerships with the communities and all of its service areas and to ensure that these public benefits are shared

across all communities. and in addition the co-tenants are controlled by midpin housing and all of the entities are non-profit organizations with a charitable purpose. and midpin's affordable housing programs are considered an important community benefit to mountain view and other p.u.c. service areas. and, finally, i want to make a comment about the long-term of the lease. typically the p.u.c. disfavors leases of this length. because of the potential cost to the p.u.c. of disrupting a tenant's use of the p.u.c.'s property in the event of a pipeline emergency repair or a pipeline improvement project. but p.u.c. is willing to enter into a longer term lease in this case to accommodate midpen's lending partners, but in return for this accommodation, the p. krumplet has -- p.u.c. shields the p.u.c. from any costs associated with the future disruption of midpen's use of the premises results from an

emergency or pipeline improvement project. and i will leave it with that and i won't go into the details of what the lease prescribes but it's safe to say that the p.u.c. is protected. that is all. are there any questions? >> supervisor kim: there are no questions from the committee members at this time. so at this time we'll open up for public comment on item 3. thank you so much, mr. vardo. public comment is now closed. colleagues can we take a motion on this item. >> supervisor peskin: i move that we move this resolution authorizing the lease of properties described by staff to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor kim: we have this motion and we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, can we call the next item. clerk: to approve the jurisdictional transfer of city property at the intersection of geneva avenue and san jose avenue, assessor's property block 6973, lot number 39 from

the san francisco municipal transportation agency to the mayor's office of housing and community development for $6,150,000. affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act and finding the proposed transfer is consistent with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code. >> supervisor kim: we have miss goram, the real estate division, presenting on this item and also i want to recognize ray robolese with the development manager facilities with the sfmta. and amy chan from the mayor's housing and community development. >> good morning, supervisors. before you for your consideration is a resolution authorizing the jurisdictional transal of the city-owned property at the intersection of geneva avenue and san jose avenue. commonly known as the upper yard. from the san francisco municipal transportation agency to the mayor's office of housing and community development for the construction of approximately 130 affordable units.

back in november 2012, the sfmta board of directors unanimously passed a resolution supporting this sale of the yard and the director of transportation to work with moe and other agencies, including real estate, to advance such sale. the property is currently used as a parking lot for employees. and shortly after that resolution an appraisal was completed and valued the property at $6.15 million. and that was conducted in november 2012 when the departments got together to try to negotiate an m.o.u. the m.o.u. was finalized back in 2014 after several due diligence and whether moe could actually build and who would be funding it and how it would be funded and who would be the contractor. the parties came to the m.o.u. and the terms and the final price of $6.15 million.

and although an appraisal wasn't done by code it was done by agreement of the parties. after the negotiations were completing, a new m.o.u. was made in 2016, i believe, -- or 2014, just to continue the due diligence by moe. and including coming to terms with bart which is right next door on a 30-foot no fill easement that moe needs to be able to construct all of the units that it would like to get to on the land. those negotiations are continuing today but almost final and moe believes in the next few months they'll have an agreement with bart. the agencies now wish to transfer jurisdiction based upon the fact that moe is now pretty clear on the direction that it's going to go and what it can build and if you have any questions on the underlying program as the chair indicated, we have representatives from

sfmta and m.o.h. >> supervisor kim: seeing no questions from the committee members we'll move to the repo report. >> supervisors, the proposed resolution approves the jurisdictional transfer of the upper yard located at geneva avenue and san jose avenue from the san francisco municipal transportation agency to the mayor's office of housing and community development for a transfer fee of $6,150,000. and the proposed resolution affirms the planning department's determinations that the jurisdictional transfer is not a project under the california environmental quality act and is in conformity with the city's general plans. on page 19 of our report at the bottom, exhibit 1, you will see the funding makeup of the transfer fee, includes about $3.7 million from the city's affordable housing fund as well as $2.5 million from the community development block grant. we recommend approving the

proposed resolution. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and at this time we will open up for public comment on this item. >> and we have a major shortage of housing for low-income and very low-income bracket people. so for you to order a transfer of funds that is targeted for that class of people and move it to another area of the city which is not as vulnerable and doesn't have the type of emergency of homelessness and people with mental and physical disabilities and people in wheelchairs and our veterans, that is an insult and disingenuous, scandalous, and in my view seriously professional misconduct. it's showing a total disregard for the people who are in most

need and you have been neglecting them. then you turn around during the campaign season after you make an announcement on the offices that you're running for and the first word out of your mouth is that you want to keep your promise to take care of the homeless people. it's disgusting. this is another example of it. how could you even propose a measure in that manner where you are taking funds from the organization that is supposed to be helping people? the organization is supposed to be helping is not even managing the funds right. then when you get a housing opportunity for low-income bracket people you don't include the inclusionary law where you're to include people. mission rock, for example. supposed to be 15s for for low income and very low-income bracket people. and it's 1,500 units and that means 250 units is supposed to be for low-income and low-income bracket people and you don't even follow the rules and the regulations to house those people who are eligible. which is the very people who are

in the street and going around and talking about how they want to help. when are you going to quit this willful misconduct? it's disgusting. you've got the most amount of money you ever had in your life because of tax cuts and because of the president of the united states and you're still not... >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and any other members of the public that would like to spook on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues can we take a motion on this item? >> aye. >> supervisor kim: so we have a motion to move this forward with recommendation to the full board. and we can do that without objection. thank you, mr. clerk, call the next item. >> clerk: agenda item number 520 authorize the approval -- authorizing and approving the lease of telecommunication facilities on the roof the mobile net of california limited

partnership for an initial continue-year term at a rent of $60,000 for two five-year options to commence after approval by the supervisors and the mayor on their discretion. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. oh. so -- >> this is josh keenan from real estate. >> supervisor kim: okay, great. >> i would keep this brief and i open to any questions. but this is verizon atop 1 south van avenue. and thi we're trying to facilite the relocation off the donut shop at one oak. it's a 10-year deal with two five-year options subject to approval. $60,000 a year accrued to the city. any questions?

>> supervisor kim: i do not see any questions from committee members and we appreciate your very brief presentation. so seeing no other presenters or questions or comments from committee members we will open up for public comment. seeing no public comment public comment is now closed. colleagues can we take a motion. >> supervisor peskin: i move to the full board with recommendations. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion and a second and we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, call the next item. >> clerk: agenda item number 6 authorizing the sublease of 19,975 square feet at 1735 mission street with healthright 360, a california non-profit corporation to implement a new electronic health record initiative for the department of public health for a three and a half term to commence july 1, 2018, through jeopardy 16, 2022 at the monthly base rent of $52,135 for an annualized initial base rent of $625,617 with a 1% annual increase on

each january 17th. reimbursement up to $764,498 to landlord for tenant improvements and additional charge for utilities and services per month. >> supervisor kim: so we have miss goram on this item and i recognize greg wagner back in chamber with the san francisco department of public health and lisa ziax-chan, all with the department of public health, here to answer any questions if the committee members have any. >> thank you, good morning again. before you for your approval and recommendation is a short-term sublease of 3.5 years for the department of public health. as stated approximately 19,975 square feet from the current tenant healthright 360 at 735 mission street. the sub-lease will facilitate the staff training with d.p.h.'s health records initiative that

has it all under one record system. it will provide job training programs that serve the community, the broader community and provide space for d.p.h. community and non-profits for public training such as medical, c.p.r. training and whatnot. approximately 67% of the space will be for nine training rooms. the remainder of the space is for office use related to the i.t. staff and swing space for other d.p.h. staff that will be coming out of other rented or leased spaces at various times during this short-term lease. and ultimately although the staff will be going to laguna honda in approximately 2022. and if necessary d.p.h. can provide more detail but generally d.p.h. will be providing training to over 1,000 staff clinicians and clerks and others per year in these nine various training rooms. there's also seven other training rooms, five locat