Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 12, 2015 9:00am-9:31am PDT

9:00 am
you know how. prapz participates have we transferred to the mayor's office of housing since this ordinance has come into play. >> right after the ordinance was adapted a fairly aggressive search for city inventory and assets were identified as transfers to the mayor's office of housing that went through the cac for review and many of them move forward to the board for jurisdictional trevor in hindsight after olsen lee staff committed a rigorous review many were unvenerable or seriously challenges to the opportunity some have moved many were deemed not to be appropriate for housing and difficult to market
9:01 am
for sale surplus housing ordinance was two pathways once a property is declared surplus it what be solid or developed start affordable units so i'm speaking whether it was venerable we have a lot of surplus assets that are either unvenerable or hostage to a property because of their access requirements and utilized constraint you name it so on releasing website were the properties that were reviewed by the malice and the cac regulated for housing prudent persons but moved towards a disposition process to yield revenue, however, those on the site were
9:02 am
down to the shriver's of property only a neighbor would be interested in quasi that's typically what we have in our vibrant. >> how many properties in the inventory. >> i'll say 35 or so on our current list we'll get you that exact list i object to get that. >> i don't expect an exact 94 number how many have we sold and used the affordable fund. >> we will have to get that number back to you supervisor the best examples of the surplus properties was a surplus property under the jurisdiction of - it was development for
9:03 am
affordable housing for vets but you know the ordinance was passed prior to my arrive arrival at the malice the second time around i don't have that information but exactly at hand but we'll get that information to you. >> since the package of the ordinance many 2002 mr. lee you're only aware of one property that was developed for the housing for the formally homeless and not aware of the properties soda with the proceeds - >> i'm not personally aware i'll have to talk about to any staff about the properties discussed. >> now that has the process this is a question for mr. updyke or mr. lee mr. updyke mentioned the process when the ordinance passed in
9:04 am
2002, the rigorous process the hard looking forward look at the properties what is the process now i know the departments have to summit a list to the zoning administrator and it is submitted to the mayor in july of this year what's the process now and what was the last time at cac met. >> i'll let olsen talk about the cac status with respect to the current process after that first rigorous review it is important to know that a lot of time and energy was spent in multiple staff and departments immediately after the ordinance was passed to review all the city's properties and going forward on an annual basis it a self-reporting process the city reports to the real estate of the availability for assets for sale we've had sales of property not to say we haven't
9:05 am
and in 2007 we sold i think it properties through public auction procedures went to affordable housing some of which didn't but that was another behest of the board on occasion you'll be prepared with an ordinance instead of a resolution for the sale and the purpose of the sale to dedicate a funds at the discretion of the board and so that's a self-reporting process we're spending more time one of the budget requests for a staffer person to be dedicated to not only undercover but moving forward with the disposition of surplus assess i know there are more out there that are not being recorded i'd like to put into our inventory and return it if it is not
9:06 am
suitable for affordable housing but into mr. olsen's budget and move forward with that ordinance. >> maybe not a question appropriate for today since the zoning administrator is not here i'm curious with the actual set of ice and the city zoning administrator, what say you? is able to push back when they apply properties to this list i'm curious of the process and mr. lee the question on the cac - and this is a question i'll have to get back to you on i'll talk to my staff on the level of activities of the cac i i do not recall being noticed for the cac meeting in the recent history but i'll get that information back to the board. >> i don't think since i've been on the board in 2011 the
9:07 am
cac met i wasn't aware until i right it last time i'd like to work with the mayor's office of housing. >> family going back to the property so why not declare this property surplus? >> because it is not supervisor fully utilized for the office functions but for the creation of the designation for the property it - you make a valid point at inspected we're entertaining a sale the board will be on the specifics of the sale and at that time the question will revise arise in if the funds are deemed to return
9:08 am
to the project the recreation of the replacement of office space that becomes a matters for the boards discretion i believe that's our intent and our intent in the presentation to the board this fall as part of the financial performer for the overall project. >> legally thank you mr. updyke can you begin the sale of property before you declare it surplus. >> we've done that in terms of the notifications to all city agencies as well as state and federal agencies we follow the act and advise there's an opportunity of an asset to be placed out for sale and in this case, we didn't receive any questions for responses to negotiations we followed the process if it is a vacant property the same and for the
9:09 am
city attorney through the chair legally is this how it is supposed to work that you can sort of put a property for sale before you declare to surplus. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> in terms of the mechanics i'll prefer to mr. updyke and the city attorney's office the board on occasion adopts an ordinance including that this property is not subject to the surplus city property ordinance i think mr. updyke was saying that is a step further down the road and that's when the board commits to approving the sale you can sell this prompted for this property with connection of the city offices and for policy
9:10 am
reasons this sale will not be subject to the city ordinance. >> thank you, mr. begin in her this property on the market do people know we haven't clarified a surplus i assume it is possible that the city can site it isn't. >> the offering and rip from our brokers in representing the city and county of san francisco is clear about the ultimate decision lies with the board of supervisors and mayor's office and everyone in the antenna understands the public transaction has that caveat. >> and final question in terms of i mean do you think this is a question for mr. lee do you think before action is taken by the board there should be some review from the citizens
9:11 am
advisory committee on who this should be surpassed or what's your thoughts in terms of how you're going to proceed with that that seems like the cac has not met so - >> you know this is a - the city zoning administrator, what say you? and the department of real estate are operate within the letter of the current ordinance and under the current ordinance probably not surplus and part of it is the notion that is again as mr. chin said this is about creating office buildings office space for the city in addition to creating affordable housing and get the locations so i think that you know it is a call for the department of real estate but clearly the deadly
9:12 am
weapons feels they're operating within the property ordinance itself. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues unless you have any questions or comments i'll open up for public comment. >> i'm sorry, i had a couple of questions back to the surplus the list of properties on the surplus property list you i think it was director updyke the properties are inevitable or difficult to sale can you give us an example what that looks like. >> so we have a number of properties that were required you'll believe it or not find it for road widening purposes and limiting their slivers of
9:13 am
parcels not vegetableable ever one thousand feet or less and it is a conversation we should be having with the adjoining owners we don't have the resources to do that discussion but hopefully return those slivers for property yard space others are hillside maybe slope concerns or less square footage once you consider a slow vehicular assess the parcels have they don't ended up yielding much and that effects the sale of the properties. >> thank you very much so yntd open up for public comment any public comment on this item? please forward. >> i'm john the president of
9:14 am
the taco could group i'm astonished to hear if the department heads and say we understand that last fall the voters approved prop k and set a standard for the affordable housing in san francisco and on city owned property they're about to or they're proposing to make a deal to law a 40 story luxury high-rise story and only 34 of oversee units be chrgs housing i'm stond i understand for the goodwill site that was 2014 and this is 2016-2017 and prop k has passed i'm surprised they have not said also we are
9:15 am
going to going going and reopen the negotiation for 53 percent average for 80 that high-rise the city has to walk it's talk as i say i'm surprised a long road of approving the projects it is not a slam dunk we're going to fight those projects if the city didn't answer the challenge of prop k on its own property hsa how can you expect the owners of other properties to do the same it is hypocritical. >> good afternoon. i'm with the council of housing organizations i want to make a couple of remarks there were two
9:16 am
affordable units olsen lee talked u talked usher talked about one other properties that are underdevelopment 7 by 7 and fulsome when the puc never declared as a surplus property or the upper yard in the balboa park station had the mta never declared a surplus property but 94 now their moving i'll read the surplus it should be not required to fulfill the agency with jurisdiction or control of such a property i guess if you are not required to fulfill it in 5 years it didn't count and also underutilized property mr. updyke clearly said that was an underutilized proposed so what does the splur ordinance say number one is it should be used for affordable housing for people homeless or people earning
9:17 am
epilepsy 20 percent of medium income and other onsite services so for homeless people and affordable housing for people earning less a medium income but executive director may say it is you think suitable maybe too good for poor people you might determine that must be used designated use of the procedures of such sales or leases for air force in san francisco i believe that the city attorney has said you have to write a new ordinance you'll go against an ordinance in place you need to follow did ordinances in place and that is one way to meet the proximate cause. >> thank you if i may i wanted to see if there is anyone else from the public seeing none, public is closed i said to have a couple
9:18 am
of follow-up questions family one question i had for any of the gentlemen have we done sort of an audit about the compliance of surplus properties tennis e since the ordinance was passed in 2002? >> supervisor not specifically to that ordinance they have been budget analysts reports i'm thinking about 4 years ago and two civil grand jury reports how we reports on the status of our properties and integrate that with the planning process a process that is maturing we have action steps ahead of us with respect to some of the reporting but much has been approved the fact we issued our first annual report this year in real estate
9:19 am
partially in response not having enough transparent we've made strived to improve. >> it might be about time to ask mr. rose to do on audit with the splur property owners and the other question is really an important point with the package of prop k where we are telling me private developers to build at least 33 percent affordable is there an intent to do the same on the green goodwill and van ness property? >> supervisor with respect to the goodwill property it was a transaction negotiated a lot of a year and a half going went to
9:20 am
the board in 2015 it was a complex two acre site joint development at the time of the discussion some uncertainty with the acquisition is from a third party i'll give you a flavor of the negotiation that informed the final financial performer on the sides with the project i think having said that that got us to the point an agreement was brought forward to the board and approved by sideboard a reopener is troubling from any prospective in that we reopened that issue allows other issues to be comploementd on the other side to make it difficult i'm not sure that's a viable path forward we are happy to have a
9:21 am
discussion with our development partner but at the end of the day with respect to thirty van ness we are out in the marketplace i don't know the offers we'll see and how we'll be able to balance the tension between those needs between a high financial return and robust be affordability we want to see both i have ever intention of bringing forward options that lets you change that dial we will have several variations and themes to taper but a little bit too early in the process to be precise you'll see that. >> on the first piece on the goodwill property s this is not a done deal i'll encourage you to consider living up to the intent and spirit of prop k but a final question
9:22 am
on the thirty van ness the rfp that went out i imagine the rfp we referenced the prop b language that was something we're asking the private developers i imagine and included that if the sale of our proposed i imagine that's included in the rfp. >> it was included as a clear statement of the expectation of the community the existing code is a place to start but not a place to finish we've made it clear that any developer should expect we is a have a high priority set. >> let me ask we've referenced prop k. >> we didn't make a specific request to that proposition i'll be disappeared any major developer who is capable of tackling the complexity of that
9:23 am
development is totally aware of the issue. >> my suggestion for any city agency that is interested in sort of what happens here that that to the extent this is policy that was sported by the board of supervisors by the mayor that we should as a matter of policy walk the talk and if we're asking private developers to follow the intent in the spirit of prop k that we should do the same when it comes to property we are trying to sell i'm surprised i'll leave it at that supervisor wiener i think had a - >> yes. thank you supervisor campos i have a question if we're going to talk about the surplus property issuance i know that is splur property or noted i agree it is one of the
9:24 am
ordinances that i think is we hear about a lot but i don't know how often it is really put into action one thing i was reading the surplus property ordinance it has been a while since i've read it in prop k for example it is about 33 percent of low or moderate zero to one 20 if i'm not mistaken and growing desire in the city to have affordable housing for low income and moderate income is gets harder and harder for middle school to stay in the city this indicates the number one prioritized how it is used surplus property let me make
9:25 am
sure i got this right the top priority for people making zero to 20 percent of ami zero to $14,000 for a single person and zero to $20,000 for a family of 4 am i right about that sir. >> i'll keep going the second priority is for to use the property for services for homeless people and then the third priority which will be hard to imagine getting to the third priority for people making up to 60 percent area income so the surplus appropriate ordinance seems geared towards extremely low income before we held the formally homeless to provides the resources for
9:26 am
people at the low end of the income spectrum but have this massive, massive need for people who are just sort of working class and the to 50 percent and up to the a hundred percent the - it didn't speak to that pretty large and struggling demographic am i right? >> you're nodding your head other people a am i correct. >> we'll agree you're correct it is focused on that zero to 60 percent. >> and well, it is zero to percent you're not going to get down to this priority unless we have important surplus property than we released so you want to
9:27 am
be clear i think when you talk about prop k for example there is a massive desire in this city for affordable housing at all levels very low for formally homeless and at poverty level for low income that are working and for moderate income that was what prop k was about san franciscans saying we want affordable housing at all levels not just one level and not the other so the surplus property ordinance is one piece of that i don't know if surplus ordinance should be revisited to make it more flexible the dollars or the property more flexible in meeting all the needs if we're going to talk about using property that's been intended
9:28 am
perhaps is an office building and talking about taking that out of the use into affordable housing as a broader conversation for the needs of the city xhid for the folks that are retail store manager at to 50 percent of ami or a family at 70 or 80 percent of ami struggling in the city. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you just toptsdz thank supervisor campos for calling for this hearing it is important to hear and dive into the discussion of van ness before the parcel comes greatest board of supervisors to get a better understanding of the cost and the benefits of us be able to build this office building i want to express my support we
9:29 am
need to consolidate a building and it is appropriate but we have a lot of different policy priorities at the board we have to balance i understand that but you know affordable housing is one of the top priorities and as we move forward with our properties that we are considering for sale i do really want to emphasize the important of prop k in general those 3 properties actually those 4 properties sit within the market octavia plan our office has been in discussion about reopening the eir for the district of portion of the market octavia plan and looking at just updating the zoning and heights in exchange looking to choufr 33
9:30 am
percent of affordability we obviously need a transit friendly for workers and residents and make sure we are planning for this neighborhood with the appropriate open space and other infrastructure it is needed for this neighborhood as we have more developers looking at the site and now we've set a goal of 33 percent it is important we achieve that i think our city properties should be the role model for the private developers to insure we hit the goals i want to emphasize that i really i will support supervisor campos in doing another look at the implementation of our surplus property ordinance this is certainly an important one and i think that we just want to make sure we're a he mom and pop a