tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 17, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
of the original agreement in the r.f.p. understanding is the extension is because of construction in the terminal. there will be new solicitation process prior to the terminate nation of the lease. -- termination of the lease. we showed the minimum guaranteed rent to be paid under this lease in table 1 of the report and we recommend approval. >> supervisor safai: any members of the public like to comment on item number three? public comment is closed. you like to make a motion to move to the full board with positive recommendation. thank you very much. please call item 4 and 5 together. [agenda item read]
>> chair fewer: thank you very much. we have the director of real estate here. >> good morning chair fewer, supervisor walton, supervisor mandelman. i'm the director of real estate. i have with me jamie from the office of public finance who will speak to you as part of this presentation going to the details of the c.o.p. financing. i'm seeking your recommendation for the two resolutions before you. it would authorize the purchase of real property located at 814 through 820 bryant street and
476th street. gained lots are approximately 24,000 square feet with a single use mcdonald's building consisting approximately 2000 square feet. do we have the slides? thank you. the purchase price is $11,520,000 or $480 per square foot. with transaction cost and site preparation, the acquisition cost is not to exceed $12 million. in january 2016 the board of supervisors gave oral direction to the real estate division to negotiate the acquisition of some of the parcels on this block which is adjacent to the
h.o.j. and anticipation of a future rebuilding of the hall of justice. you can see in this slide here, the acquisition that is currently before you is outlined in red. in june 2016, the board of supervisors approved the acquisition of 456 street of $2.4 million. with the acquisition of this current site combined with the prior acquisition we would now have a development site. long-term use of the site is replacement of administrative building to consolidate criminal justice functions currently decamped from the hall of justice in lease space or those that have been relocated to the east wing of the hall of justice. i would like to thank mayor breed, along with the cot sponsors, supervisor haney and
supervisor peskin and support in this legislation. i like to thank the b.l.a. for their hard work and recommendation. with the review appraisal and approval of the c.o.p.s that the b.l.a. will support this tumitem item. with chapter 23 there was an appraisal and review appraisal and both confirmed that the purchase prices at or below market value. like to turn it over to jamie who will walk you through the c.o.p.s. >> thank you. good morning supervisors. as mentioned in addition to authorization to acquire the bryant street and sixth street properties. it authorizes the execution and certificates of participation and commercial paper notes to finance the cost of the
acquisition as well as costs demolition and site preparation work. also before you today item 5 to you a compan-- appropriating ths the certificates and commercial paper note in order to finance the acquisition and site work as just described by the director of real estate. the certificates will finance the 11.5 million in acquisition costs and approximately 19,000 in closing fees. director of real estate estimates $642,000 will be used for demolition. the total approximate budget is $12 million which will makes up the entire not to exceed project budget. the certificates and commercial paper notes are expected to be executed and delivered in the not to exceed $16 million which is sufficient to fully pay the costs the $12 million project but also include additional
$3.5 million for delivery costs associateassociated with the isf the certificates and commercial paper notes. the not to exceed authorization and appropriation amount also includes 465 thousand dollars contingency for such issuance costs to allow for market fluctuations in the market conditions during the final sale of the certificates. the current plan of finance using the city's commercial paper program which was established in 2010, to finance the initial project cost. the office of public finance uses commercial paper as an interim financing tool which will be paid for by the issuance of the certificates of participation. in order to use commercial paper as an interim financing tool, the board of supervisors must first authorize a long-term repayment source. based on an approximate 5% of all interest costs on a $16 million certificate of
participation, office of public finance estimates maximum annual debt service will be approximately $1.23 million per year for a term of 20 years. the incremental debt service associated with the certificates are assumed in recently adopted 10-year capital plan and complies with the city's policy of limiting the general fund debt service payments at or below 3.25% of the general fundiefunddiscretionary revenue. in order it use the city's commercial paper program, the office of public finance will return to board of supervisors prior to the final sale of the certificates of participation to seek the board's approval of all related financing documents. including lease agreements, trust agreements, notices of sale, continuing disclosure certificates and preliminary
official statement which closes the city financial information to investors. at that time, our office will present on the current interest rate market anticipate the structure and discussed proposed city-owned asset. i'm available to answer any questions related to the financing. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions? supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: quick question. if this approve, will we be able to purchase by the may time line? >> thank you supervisor. the answer is yes. we have negotiated with the sellers to give us little bit of flexibility. we're prepared to deposit $1 million into escrow in may. that along with the approval of the board of supervisors will buy us some time to finalize the
transaction. if we need to go past may date, we have flexibility. >> chair fewer: i wanted to know whether or not -- i see on this map that we are purchasing the surrounding area of current hall of justice. i'm sorry, there's no page number on here. >> i think that's page 3. >> chair fewer: that's correct. we're hoping to consolidate the functions of the hall of justice and the personnel into one site together that is the plan. this is the acquisition part of that. is that correct? >> thank-- that's correct. this acquisition gives us more flexibility than we had before. instead of having to relocate and rebuild on the existing hall of justice site, we're growing
the pie little bit. that give us swing space to build a larger and better hall of justice facility. it give us flexibility to shuffle personnel around during the construction period. >> chair fewer: i see there are other sites also that round out this whole block. are those other parcels that are adjacent to what you are requesting funding for? are any of those other lots available? >> can we pull up the slide? yes as i stated previously, outlined in green is a site currently owned by the city outlined-ioutlined in red is tht acquisition. if you look to the right of the red, you see two parcels. one is the credit union and the
other is an s.r.o. those are not site sites that ae contemplated part of the h.o.j. rebuild. you will see one parcel that is represented by a long building that is just above the green box. that is a site that we have had often with discussions with the property owner. if we can resolve our negotiations successfully, we might acquire that site. however, with this acquisition, acquiring that last site is not required. we have a developable site. we can move forward with this site with or without that last building. >> chair fewer: i'm thinking it might be prudent to see how much property we can actually buy in that area. if it's for sale. i get there's an s.r.o. there. i believe it's not the sheriff's credit union but it's the police
credit union there. i'm a member there. >> i mess smoke. >> chair fewer: that's fine. s.r.o. site is not for sale either? >> to acquire the s.r.o. who require significant amount of relocation expenses because of the residents there. also the politics of displacing low income units made that site less desirable. >> chair fewer: that parcel on the side adjacent to the green what it used for? >> we have been in communications with the owner. i don't want to go into details on public television. they have been reluctant in the
past, we hope that renewed efforts will bear fruit. >> chair fewer: all the properties being actually in central soma and western soma is the last place we were able to purchase land. >> i concur. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions? can we hear from the b.l.a. please? >> yes, supervisors. item number 5 actually approves the acquisition of the two parcels adjacent to the hall of justice. item 4 approves appropriations of the funds. if you look at page 18 table 2, it shows the acquisition cost up to $12 million and the total cost for the certificates of participation up to $16 million.
she explained the process. she explained the board would need to approve subsequent legislation associated with selling the certificates of participation. the city does have a debt policy. there's a limit of 3.25% of discretionary general fund revenue for outstanding debt. that does not include general obligation bond debt. it would be within that policy. when we wrote the report, we have not received the appraisal review. we did receive the appraisal review last night. it does confirm the purchase praise of this property at $11.5 million. i believe the board approved the capital plan yesterday. we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much any members of the public like to comment on item 4 or 5? good morning mr. wright.
>> i don't have any objections, i want to highlight that this is the person that you want to talk to as far as property owned about the city in order to build affordable housing pertaining to my demonstrations where apartment buildings is being built for $56 million which is the lowest rate out of all buildings of the developers that's building businesses in san francisco. supervisor walton and we did a comparison and contrast on the projects that he's working on and we came up with a total of $66 million saving by using the idea of a developer on a project that's being built in mountain view and same type of result took place when we looked at another apartment building complex that was being built in san mateo.
i would like to point that out, any land available you can consult with the director here to take care of the homeless problem and housing people in low income and very low income brackets. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment. public comment is now closed. i like to make a motion to prove items 4 and 5 to the board with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? yes, thank you very much. please call item 6. [agenda item read] >> chair fewer: we have pat mulligan. director of office of labor centre enforcement.
>> thank you supervisor fewer mandelman and walton. this is the annual submittal before the board of supervisors for approval of prevailing page provisions. this includes the approximately 63 classifications identified with about 200 subclassifications. it includes the 10 classifications that are unique to the city and county of san francisco. some changes in this year's submittal you may have noticed, it's thinner. we consolidated some of the information to make it more consistent with both the california department of industrial relations and united states department of labor. also with that, we were able to in the same manner that the state and fed does it, we're able -- we were able to post rates that may come available in the future. say if they come online next year or year after, based on
what collective bargaining agreements we have available to us. >> chair fewer: thank you mr. mulligan. colleagues no questions? could we have a b.l.a. report please? >> this is the annual approval by the board of supervisors of the prevailing wage rates. the board has discretion to approve these rates or other rates they may be necessary. page 22 of our report shows the classifications and contract services that would be covered by the prevailing wage rate as we always say in our report. the actual fiscal impact is a unknown because we don't know the impact any of these rate increases would have on specific contracts. they only have impact on the contracts come up to bid. attempt attachment 2 gives genel summary how the wage and benefits will be revised under
the prevailing wage rates. we consider approval to be policy matter for the board. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any comments? any public comment. any members like to speak on this item? hello mr. wright. >> this flows with my previous demonstration pertaining to the exempt employees who work for the city and county of san francisco from 5 up to 25 years that's doing the same type of work as the coworkers but yet know don't get medical benefits, annuity and retirement plan. as far as this prevailing wages is concerned, it's the same type of situation. you doing the same type of work as other people that's employed by the city but not making the same amount of money. you want to point out that, that's a violation of federal law pertaining to employment
discrimination law title 7 of the united states of america's code service. the u.s. attorney general's and the lawyers edition. that's federal law pertaining to the 2000e-series, unequal pay act violation. will be in violation of constitutional law too pertaining to the 14th amendment pertaining to due process and equal protection under the law. that's not equal protection by having a set of employees do the same work and have one set get paid more money than the other set when they doing same type of work and same amount of hours per week. it flows with my early demonstrations and derivative. i move to have you incorporate it and have prevailing wages granted. >> chair fewer: thank you very much mr. wright. mr. mark gleeson, you like to give public comment?
>> good morning supervisors. mark gleason with teamsters joint coun counsel 7. great appreciation for everybody who worked on this projects. we want to extend our appreciation, thank you so much. >> chair fewer: thank you very much mr. gleason. mr. mulligan, i have one question for you. pertaining to 21c, is this legislatiowill apply to parking attendants? >> it will apply to parking attendants and workers on parking structures both in the
city and county of san francisco proper and s.f.o. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. seeing no comments or questions. i move this with a positive -- oh. public comment is closed. i like to move to the board with a positive recommendation. thaethank you very much. do we have any other items before us today? >> there are no other items. >> chair fewer: this meeting is adjourned.
commissioner moss is excused. we have a quorum. next is item b. the oath. will all parties giving testimony today stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. i want to announce for the audience. the department will present it goes case first. each side has seven minutes to present their case. then public comment and members have three minutes to speak and then there is three minutes rebuttal time. item c approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for a meeting held on march 20, 2019. >> are there any corrections or
comments on the minutes as posted? any public comment regarding the minutes? seeing none, i move they be accepted. >> second. >> all in favor. >> thank you. the minutes are approved. next item is item d. continued appeal case 6857 at 334 bowdoin street. the appellant has withdrawn this case. >> thank you. are there any members of the public here to speak on that item. it is withdrawn, not continued? >> yes, it is withdrawn. i believe the case was abated. >> thank you. next item is case
6,859,306,116th street. owner's representative. action requested to place in abeyance for nine months. would the staff like to come forward? >> good morning. i am the chief building inspector for code enforcement. for this case a complaint was filed february 12, the contractor was doing work without permits. there was a permit active for remodeling of units. the inspector visited the site and found there was work. a notice was issued february 20, 2015. over the course of this the
owner failed to comply but the permit was never completed. even the original permit was not completed. there was only three inspections as we found on the permit history. the case was referred to code enforcement on april 10, 2017. a hearing was held 8, 21, 2018. the notice of abatement with 60 days for final inspection and approval. staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment costs. >> can you explain the what the exceeding the scope was in what
was that? >> the original permit to comply with complaints. there was numerous complaints before that. there was the original complaint. the permit was over-the-counter with no plans to replace cracked plaster with 5/8 drywall and add required doors. remodeling bathrooms in community kitchen. the inspector found they gutted the rooms where he asked for revision, and the revision was obtained with plans to do that. >> when was that last permit issued? >> that permit was issued in 4/29/2016. >> thank you.
>> good morning, henry representing the owners of the property. history. it is a history neglected for many years. in a sketchy area where it is located. the owners' intent was to remodel the property with the tenants living there. that didn't work out. when you come to lath and plaster, you get cracks. the only way to do it is to go ahead and tear that out and start brand-new. they started doing this and they should have gotten permits. they did withdraw. they are now putting in bathrooms in every room. this was a residential hotel with a common bathroom with no community kitchen. this was done withdrawings. it took a month to get the drawings done to get the permit.
the 10nants were -- tenants were to vacate the building. we had inspections on plumbing, electrical, building, we need to finish off the rest of the work. we also had a permit for soft story. that is the other one that came up. that was issued and completed on 5/25/2018. again, this is a major renovation, not just a simple putting chewing gum on it to make it look pretty. with that being said they are close to being finished off. there is a matter of funding the project. it is not cheap today. we know that. it is not $10 an hour stuff it is finding the contractors to do the work. at the end of the day it is
vacant. we hope to get inspections shortly, but we are waiting for more money to finish the project. we are asking for nine months. it is not going to take nine months. i don't want to get stuck for whatever reason down the road and what do we do after that? it is a good effort to create a good place for your low income housing and eventually what these folks are doing is leasing it back to the city. the city benefits from this. they are investing in the property. we will all benefit from it. could you please approve. >> commissioner walker. >> this was originally a motel. >> a residential hotel. >> residential hotel? >> yes. >> it went through the planning process to convert it to
something else? >> no, no. we just didn't have the bathrooms in it. the residential hotels have a community bathroom. >> they are also because of that cheaper. i am curious how you went from, i guess not probably part of this discussion, but i think that the exceeding the scope was the one where you were tearing out the drywall. is that the case where it was meant for just a straight remodel of what existed then they added bathrooms without permits? it is just an issue because of the economics of it so the intention here is to lease it back to the city? >> that is what they are looking for towards, yes. they have new programs they are
putting out that i'm working on with the city for leasing these hotels. in the past you would only lease hotels of 50 rooms or more. now they are accepting the smaller hotels, too. >> that is great. is the requirement for those partnerships that each unit have its own bathroom? >> no, that isn't. again, this is what they decided they wanted to do. it would be a better quality of life. >> it is interesting. there is conversations in the community that actually are asking for more cooperative type housing because it keeps the cost down. you know, there are two sides to this. i am concerned when this happens because you have the most expensive or most inexpensive
housing u upgraded exceeding the scope of permit. i don't know how planning weighed in on this or if they did. doesn't it seem like a change of use? >> probably not, but anybody from the department able to speak whether it is a change of use? it seems not to be to me. >> maybe the city attorney. the issue is residential hotel ordinance. >> i think inspector reardon may have thoughts. >> from what i see it is interior work within the shell of an existing building so in cases like that, planning generally don't get involved because they don't have anything of substance to look at. there is no change of use or occupancy. >> the issues of the difference between the residential hotel and the apartment house are not
in the building code? >> the only thing i see here first they talked about remodeling bathrooms. now, i hear they are adding bathrooms. i don't know that that would be anything that planning would look at for change of use or occupancy. i don't see anything in the documents that would suggest that planning would be reviewing this for what it is. >> were there any change in number of units? >> no, no. >> same number of units now instead of community bathrooms they are individual bathrooms and there is a community kitchen? >> it was signed off by planning. it was application to construct the community kitchen and add 25 bathrooms to the residential hotel. >> just checking to see how we look at that.
>> we want to go by the book at this stage of the game, of course. >> what happens to the tenants? >> they vacated eventually. again, it is hard to work around when you have tenants living in the place because you have dust, discomfort. i am not sure if a lot of them just moved out. >> do they have first right of return in that situation? >> i am not sure. i wasn't involved in that. i know that there were agreements made with the tenants to vacate the property so they could do the major remodel. >> i just want to make sure we followed the rules around that. maybe we could check with housing to make sure, you know. thank you. >> commissioners, any other
questions? rebuttal? >> public comment first. any public comment on this item? seeing none, department's rebuttal. >> so the reason it went through planning process, there was re-write planning. the only concern is if you look at the complaint data sheet, we did provide enough time for the owner to complete the work. the scope of the work is actually interior work. the evaluation of the work is $393,000. we are not talking about a $2 million worth of work that is going to take three or five years. if you look at the whole track history of the complaint. the complaint started in 2015. the order was issued in 2018. we have worked with the owner in relation to complete the work.
>> are they actively engaged now? >> the last inspection that i have was a reinspection required back in 2017. >> that is the last information i have on the file for that revision. that is the last inspection i have. >> okay. thank you. >> any other rebuttal? >> i just want to repeat. this is a very expensive project
at the end of the day. we did have a funding issue to finish everything off. we are at the point now to hopefully finish off soon, but that is going to be the hold up. we didn't expect to get into the major renovation. they are upgrading the property to provide better quality of life and it will be a win-win for everyone. i urge you to please allow this. >> commissioner walker. >> are you actively involved in the work being done right now? >> yes, commissioner, i was there the other day. we will go over to get inspections rolling again in a matter of the next week or so and start winding it all up. >> you have looked at the status currently and nine months is your wish. what do you need, really?
>> i would hope that we are finished in 60 to 90 days. wwe might not find people to coe to do the work to finish off what we need finished off, small things. >> you aren't actually involved in doing the work right now if you are still looking for people to do the work? >> we are trying to get folks to finish off loose ends. we are calling for inspections to get that done. >> i am very interested in what you said about leaseback to the city. where are you in terms of that negotiation? >> at this stage until we get together with the city to find out the time when this will be finished off and be able to negotiate with them on the new program that just started so i have to follow back with them to see where they are at. that is what we are looking at right now. it is a fairly new program. >> it is your intent to do that.
>> yes. >> thank you. any other comment? yes, commissioner walker. >> are we talking about it now rather than asking questions? >> yes, we can move to discussion. i assume you could like to start. >> i have a question because it has been entered as evidence that there is a, you know, this might become part of our affordable housing inventory. is that now a condition of this approval? i guess i'm asking the city attorney how much weight we can give that or condition we can make that. >> city attorney's office, that is not part of what is before you today. you are hearing an appeal of an abatement order. you can't make it a condition of
the abatement order that they enter a lease with the city for the lease of the building. >> i had a similar concern, the intent is obviously good and that would be a great outcome for this. if there is no way to condition it, that is one thing. the other issue was being sure the right of return for the former residence is being properly administered. is there any ability to, you know, if not condition, emphasize that full examination of right of return be done through the housing? >> that is also not before the board on this abatement order appeal. i mean, you could express a desire that they comply to the
extent they are required to do so. we don't know what happened to the tenants, whether they were evicted or if they have a right of return or if they have some sort of buyout. we don't know. they are under an obligation to comply with whatever law is applicable to the way the tenants were removed from the building. >> they can be recommendations, they cannot be anything enforceable. >> any other comments or discussion? all right. i will start off. i mean asez this i -- i share commissioner walker's concern about affordability. you know, we love the idea that properties are upgraded. here we have seismic, enhancement with bathrooms and common kitchen. these are all desirable things
in terms of quality of life residents of the building will have. it obviously comes at a cost so it has got to be paid, and the affordability issue, of course, will present itself. i see no way to get around that. the owner has made these investments. i find it disturbing that this has been going on for so long and so many violations have occurred, but it appears we are sort of in the final phases of what is generally a favorable outcome, and at least to my mind, granting some extra time even though the department's citations are all correct could be in the general good. i would like my colleagues'
opinions. >> thank you, commissioner. one of the things this brings up is an issue that we dealt with with some of the smaller buildings that the owners were in a situation where they couldn't afford doing the work, and it really isn't what we deal with here. we did create a program, fund a program through d.b.i. i think it is the mayor's office of housing and community development that administrators it to offer low interest loans, but i think it is restricted one to four units. it is smaller. it was a million a year and that goes quickly in this kind of project, but i know it is not part of our discussion, but it
is something we should think about as we look at these things. there are situations that are coming up with a.d.u.s and a lot of stuff we see where the landlord is put in a bind and we have created programs to help and we might want to look at that to see how it is working and talk about how we can help in these situations. it is a restrictive thing. you can't -- money doesn't grow on trees. anyway, i think that it's good we are creating more housing. i have the same concerns about afford ability. i hope you listen to those concerns. if we are having them, other people are. i have always said the most affordable housing is the housing that exists. the more we change that as we reoccupy it.
we find to find ways of stabilizing that. that being said, i agree with your concerns. i probably would make a motion to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 90 days, uphold costs. we have had a lot of time here for the owner to deal with it, and there is a need for more time clearly, but nine months is a long time. it seems like what is left is doable within a 90 day time frame. that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> i would second. >> a motion and second. >> would commissioner walker like to provide a basis for the motion perhaps that the order was properly issued? >> yes, the order was properly
issued and all evidence supports that. >> again, we are urging that the option with the city and full investigation of rights of return be investigated. >> thank you. roll call vote on the motion. (roll call). >> the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item e general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the agenda? the next item is f adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? we are now adjourned at 9:39 a.m. we will reconvene promptly at 10:00 a.m. for the building
itself 12 year of music in the incredible golden gate park. >> this is just the best park to come to. it's safe. it's wonderful and such a fun time of the year. there is every kind of music you can imagine and can wander around and go from one stage to another and just have fun. >> 81 bands and six stages and no admission. this is hardly strictly bluegrass. >> i love music and peace. >> i think it represents what is great about the bay area. >> everyone is here for the music and the experience. this is why i live here. >> the culture out here is amazing. it's san francisco. >> this is a legacy of the old warren hel ment and receive necessary funding for ten years after his death.