tv [untitled] July 30, 2014 1:00am-1:31am PDT
no questions, there's no budget analyst report here. so, we'll move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 18? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> i move approval. >> okay. we can take it without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item 20 to 24 together, please? >> item number 20, ordinance appropriating $106,095,000 of the 2014 series earthquake safety and emergency response general obligation bond proceeds to the department of public works in fiscal year 2014-2015 for necessary repairs and sigh mike improvements in order to better prepare san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disaster. item number 21, ordinance appropriating $57,840,000 of the 2014 series earthquake safety and emergency response general obligation bond proceeds to the department of public works in fiscal year 2014-2015 for me repair and seismic improvements in order to better prepare san francisco for a major earthquake or natural disaster. item number 22, resolution authorizing and directing the
sale of not to exceed $106,095,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds, series 2014d; prescribing the form and term of said bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication, and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related to said bonds; providing for the manner of sale of said bonds by competitive sale; approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell bonds; approving the form of the preliminary official statement and the form and execution of the official statement relating to the sale of said bonds; approving the form of the continuing diskale you're certificate; authorizing and approving modifications to documents; declaring the city's intent to reimburse certain expenditures; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting general authority to city officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of said bonds. ~ 2014 d. item number 23, resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $57,840,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds, series 2014c; prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication, and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establish ~ 2014 fees. item number 24, resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed $400,000,000 aggregate principal amount of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication, and registration of said bonds; providing for the levy of a tax to pay the principal and interest thereof; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; adopting findings under the california environmental quality act, the ceqa guidelines and san francisco administrative code, chapter 31; finding that the proposed project is in conformity with the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1(8), and with the general plan consistency requirement of charter, section 4.105, and
administrative code, section 2a.53; ratifying certain actions good morning, nya. >> thank you for having me here today. i'd like to thank devin for getting this done in such short time. i am nadia [speaker not understood] from public finance. you have before you four legislationses. the first one is ~ with regard to the esa 2010. the board is approved $112.3 million in 2010. this will be the fifth issuance an amount not to exceed $57.8 million. we are proposing to sell only $55.17 million. the need for that higher amount is to be able to address any change in market conditions. the proceeds will fund various projects under the access safety emergency bond program. it includes the number of emergency fire water station system, neighborhood fire stations, public safety buildings as well as cost of issuance. we have [speaker not understood] from the department of public works who can give specifics on the project. there is also a 2.6 million that will be reserve spending
from the sale of the bond. we expect the annual did the service to be approximately $4.4 million. we also anticipate that interest rates if we were to go to market today would be about 3.45%, even though what was recently proposed the document you have before you shows 5.02%. that said, this will be amortized over 20-year. the federal debt service for the 2010 will be $87.6 million. there is also an appropriation for the present amount. the other piece of legislation is in regards to the [speaker not understood] emergency response bond for 2014. the board just approved that june 2014. this will be the first sale from that bond authorization. it's $406.1 million and an amount not to exceed, [speaker not understood] 101 million and would also fund similar projects. it would include the district
filling stations, traffic [speaker not understood] and forensic services division as well as a component for the medical examiner facility. it would also [speaker not understood] and we are also proposing that we put 5 million aside on the [speaker not understood]. the annual debt service for that would be $8.1 million. [speaker not understood] over 20 years. the impact of the home ener, 5,000 homeowner [speaker not understood] 12.5 million and for esa [speaker not understood] is 22.96 million. both transactionses, as you know, the [speaker not understood] imposes a limit of 3% of the assessed valuation ~. this issuance would bring it to 1.21% which is way below that capacity that is allowed under the charter.
additionally, as you know, the capital plan also imposes a limitation of not exceeding the 2006 tax rate level, and this maintains that policy. in addition to that we've also included various documents that include the official notice of [speaker not understood], notice of intention to sell, the official statement as well as an appendix a, which is included in the official statement. the official statement is updated through march of this year. we still need to update to reflect the information that's been recently released including the mayor's proposed budget, the controller's revenue letter as well as the most recent election results. by approving this you're delegating the authority to the controller and staff to update to reflect that. due diligence is scheduled for appendix a next week and we have meetings with all three rating agent if.
we hope [speaker not understood] lehman market sometime in august. thank you. >> congratulations for getting to this point. no question right now. we'll move on to our budget analyst report. >> yes, mr. chairman and supervisor mar. on the bottom of page 69 of our report, we report that for the series 2014 c bonds owner with a residence of [speaker not understood] would pay average annual additional property taxes of $12.54 per year. for the series 2014 d bonds, this is on page 70, the owner of a residence were an assessed value of 500,000 assuming the owner exemption of 7,000 would pay average annual additional property tax to the city of $22. per year. we recommend you approve the proposed resolutions and ordinances. >> okay, thank you, mr. rose. supervisor mar?
>> yeah, i wanted to thank deputy chief [speaker not understood] for being here, former police captain from the richmond. i think that the bond will really help with the upgrade through the district police stations. also the relocation of the medical examiner facility and the upgrade to the traffic company and forensic services division. but i just thank you for being here and were appreciative of the voters impacting the bond. >> okay. we'll open this to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on items 20 through 24? seeing none, we'll close public comment. [gavel] >> i want to thank supervisor mar for his comments and [speaker not understood]. can i have a motion to approve these item? we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item 25, please? >> item 25, resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $375,000,000 for 1500-1580 mission street; authorizing and directing the director to direct the controller's office to hold in trust an amount not
to exceed $100,000 in accordance with cdlac procedures; authorizing the director to certify to cdlac that the city has on deposit the required amount; authorizing the director to pay an amount equal to such revenue bonds; approving, for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, the issuance and sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds by the city in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $375,000,000; authorizing and directing the execution of any documents necessary to implement this resolution; and ratifying and approving any action heretofore taken in connection with the project as defined herein, and the application as defined herein. ~ mission street. >> okay, thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. joan mcnamara, senior project manager, mayor's office of housing and community development. i just ran 30 blocks. [laughter] >> the resolution before you is a resolution regarding qualified mortgage rates new bonds for 1500 mission street. a residential housing development sponsored by related california. although the resolution authorizes the director of mocd to submit an application for the california debt limit allocation committee for permission to issue -- >> ma'am, why don't we give you one second to catch your breath. thanks for running over here.
we don't want to do harm on a budget item, number 25. [laughter] >> i think i'm fine. >> at your discretion here. >> although the resolution authorizes the director of mocd to submit an application to the california debt allocation committee to issue such bonds, the primary intent of securing the bond's approval now is to declare the intent of the city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of the future bond indebtedness. once the project has been fully approved by the city, we will need to return to the board of supervisors for permission to actually issue the bond. currently, related california is proposing approximately 565 housing units, 80% or 452 units will be market rate and 20% or
113, will be affordable. as with all residential bond issuances, the city will need to comply with city contracting provisions as well as standard loan cd affordable housing guidelines for the affordable unit. and i'm not sure it's related -- not? okay. so, matt wood of related california is available to answer any questions you have as well as you can answer -- ask any questions of me. this concludes staff reports. and i'm so sorry i had to run. >> no worries. thank you for being here. much appreciated. we have no report on 25, right? okay. no questions at this time. we'll open this up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item number 25? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> so move approval of the resolution. >> okay. we can take it without
objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can you call item 26, please? >> item number 26, resolution approving an exclusive negotiation agreement and letter of intent with related california urban housing, llc, for the potential city purchase of an office building to be developed at 1500-1580 mission street at an estimated purchase price of $253,000,000 and authorizing non-refund amount payments of $1,000,000 toward land acquisition costs and up to $250,000 toward schematic design costs. ~ mission street. >> thank you. thanks for sticking around, mr. updike. >> it is my pleasure, chair farrell. >> we'll call your item next time. >> this item is well worth waiting for. so, greatly appreciate your time on this. we might be one of the longer presentations, but we are a couple of minutes before the lunch break. so, if you don't mind. so, quick overview here. this is a 2.5 acre site located at van ness and mission and, actually, i believe we need to tee up -- there we go, thank you. just currently owned by good will. our partner in this venture
related to california would be the acquiring agent of the property and there would be a subsequent transaction between related and the city. we'll get into the transaction details a bit later, but i want to give you the overall context of why the city wants to move forward with this and why this is an important project. it's a partnership. a public private partnership, not perhaps the most classic sense, but nonetheless it is a privately delivered project that fulfills the city's space needs well into this coming century. it also is a mixed use development. and mr. woody will speak to that if a moment as well and why this is important to related. out of this will will come an office building that suits the city's needs a we try to consolidate our presence in the civic center and try to stabilize our cost, but most importantly this provides
efficiency of city operations and provides efficiency of service to our constituents. so, i'll speak to that briefly. this is a consolidation of staff out of number of properties, 30 van ness, portions of 1650 mission, portions of 1660 mission, 1680 mission, and 1145-55 market street. this provides proximity to transit. so, it's great to have public services on this property. as you know, we have a strong foothold on the block at 1 south van ness at the corner of van ness and market that strengthens the foothold of city services. most importantly it provides a robust one-stop permit center that we have long sought in this organization. it's not just dbi and planning. if you can imagine a permit the city issues, it will be issued from this location.
constituents will go to one address and not be shipped around the civic center trying to figure out which office they need to go to. we will service them here. and service them quicker. additionally with dhr currently located at 1 south van ness, there is a training element as part of the space plan for this location, but also it's an opportunity to consolidate our other employee services, retirement and health services, creating a one-stop city employee location as well. so, that's the overall strategy that we have been looking to accomplish for many years. we think this is one of those last opportunity sites, so, we're excited to be able to present this to you. you know the city's presence in the civic center and where they are located. we do have a desire where possible to move into ownership. this accomplishes that.
i'll speak briefly to the transaction after mr. woody. i want to note that because it's a privately delivered project we have a very aggressive timeline. we feel confident we're going to be able to meet that timeline. we have a very aggressive pricing. i'll speak to that in a moment as well. it's really because it's a [speaker not understood] turnkey project [speaker not understood] upon completion. if i can ask mr. woody to come up and present you some other details and related perspective, and then i'll close. >> yes, good afternoon. i'm matt woody, partner with related california housing. i want to briefly walk you through the concept that we have developed working collaboratively with john updike's department and also with city planning. this site, as john indicated, is a unique site in the civic center, market octavia
district, slightly over 2-1/2 acre site at least in our search for an opportunity to develop multi-family housing, feel it's really one of the most unique or one of the best sites we've come across. also one to provide a true partnership between us as a private company and the city. we [speaker not understood] has a long track record of doing very important civic buildings as well as housing, to work with us. and mr. updike's department. and have come up with a ken except tail plan that has been reviewed with city planning. the site divides the [speaker not understood] in half. the northern and eastern portion of the site basically would become a build to suit for the city of approximately 4 62,000 square feet. i'm going to walk you through the initial massing concept for that in a second ~.
importantly, this portion of the site is contiguous to a building that the city already owns. it runs south van ness. so it really is literally and figuratively a consolidation of the city departments. one of the objective of the master plan we've been working on is to give the city a presence on van ness, and also to accommodate a programmatic requirement, very large well played -- something very hard to do. ~ anywhere in the city, but particularly this part of the town. and at the same time, create a project that would be a good partner or good neighbor to the 565 units of residential that we are building on the south and western portion of the site. as this slide shows, one of the fundamental pedestrian objectives of the property was to make it easily accessible for any member of the public or staff that were coming to the building either through mass
transit on market and many muni lines that run there or if you were trying to keep the cars off 11th and mission, off of 11th which is a much quieter street. another objective of the site plan was to enliven the intersection of south van ness and mission which took it away moved it away from the current vehicular oriented, very busy almost freeway-like condition to where it is more pedestrian friendly. essentially to draw pedestrians down from market street to mission street, i'm going to walk you through in a minute, we have the potential to influence that and maybe remake the condition of that very busy intersection, which is pretty much pedestrian unfriendly today, by putting pedestrian-oriented retail along the south van ness and mission street. next slide. so, what you see here in blue
is the ground floor permit center john was referring to a minute ago, which will have access from van ness from 11th and also from mission, which really i think will open up what is right now a much more difficult function or series of functions to access. and from a bird's aye perspective, this gives you an overall configuration of the city, l, pedestrian concourse from south van ness to 11th. ~ bird's eye image of that, residential shap complexion with the tower at south van ness and two wings going up south van ness and mission. and in the middle approximately a half acre landscaped one level up garden space that both the office building and the residential units will look into. and this is, again, a very
conceptual master plan massing model. it gives you a sense of the scale. what we tried to do here was break up the pieces so that it did not appear as massive as a project of this scale which is approximately a million square feet in total would otherwise look. so, if y'all prefer any questions? >> supervisor mar. >> yeah, i was just going to add that i think it's great that department of public works, dbi, planning, they will gradually be moving to that more centralized location to create that triangular spot of where all of many of our city departments have closer access to city hall and the courts. i wanted to ask about the units of housing. i will miss the old good will store and i know that's the central location, but what are the plans for good will for the future? that would be helpful for me.
for housing what is estimated to be affordable and/or below market rate? >> so, i mr. woody to address where we stand now on affordability. i think we're coming strong out of the box with the affordable element on-site ~. and we also have jane bond available from the board of good will to answer questions directly. >> so, at this early conceptual stage we are envisioning 20% of the units being permanently affordable, essentially 8% more than the code requires. and this is an approach that we've taken on other projects we've developed here in the city, including a project of similar scale at mission corporate paramount which we built in the early part of the decade and still own. >> i'm jane [speaker not understood], chair of the board of good will. you asked about our retail site.
actually, that site not only contains our retail store, but our headquarters office. we have warehouse, we do training in our e-commerce. unfortunately it is too tight. [speaker not understood] that is the reason we're selling it because we need to buy, acquire much more modern facility mutt a much larger facility. we use the proceeds [speaker not understood] hopefully with ground floor retail within close proximity to this location. [speaker not understood]. and then we will look for warehouse space that is in excess of 100,000 square feet. the proceeds of this sale are very much needed by good will for us to really move forward, expand our mission, we have to have much larger, much more modern facility. just to put my good will plug
in. everybody thinks it's a place to drop off your clothes, the retail store, that's not our mission. that's just a means to accomplish our mission which is to take the chronically unemployed, former inmate, former drug addicts from poverty to a sustainable job. we can only do that if we expand our business. so, we're really invested geting proceeds from this thing. thank you. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to thank ms. bond for providing the information about good will's mission and the 1,000 employees and the level of training of no wage and low wage worker to get them some skills for better jobs in the future. in the hundred year history good will has had with san francisco. i just wanted to adi hope good will workers will be able to afford the new housing that's
built and 20% of affordable or below market rate. i guess i have a question of whether that can be increased, especially given the long history with good will so there are more opportunities for the workforce of good will or low wage workers that are trying to rise the economic ladder would have access to stay in the city in a transit oriented development like this. but i think 20% sounds very low to me given the huge needs of housing and low-income families in this city. >> i think it's fair to say, supervisor mar. [speaker not understood]. they're doing the best they can. this is a little complicated, little over 2 acre site. so, every effort is being made and i think that's reflected in the fact we're already looking with the prior item to set the
stage for as much affordability as possible. so, we're going to do everything we can. right now we're at the 20% stage. if you don't mind, chair farrell, i'll give you some of the metrics of the transaction and we can move on. >> please. >> and, so, the budget analyst report currently articulates both the particulars on who would be occupying this site. this is very preliminary. we're going to have a number of meeting and discussions on exactly how we stack or occupy this facility going forward. the item before you today is a ratification of a explicit negotiating agreement and letter of intent. that is the item that's before you, nothing more than that. that includes [speaker not understood], a classic way of participating in a public/private partnership agreement, as well an obligation to create up to
$250,000 towards schematic design. and that will help inform our ability to understand exactly how we best populate this building so that when we return to you -- and i'll outline those returns in a moment, we'll have much more detail. so, we needed that flexibility to expend some schematic designs to move this project forward. as in the report you can see it is estimated -- this is the city's part of the project. this is for the office building, around $253 million. that translates to $52 1 a square foot in delivered space ~. that's a total hard and soft costs along with the allocation of the land loss. to put that in perspective, $52 1 square foot cost, of a brand-new lead certified building with seismic conditionses that are beyond
standard and with day care facility and with open space. so, that $52 1 would be compared to -- i'll give you the last five transactions in the city and county of san francisco of like buildings in terms of size. 600 a foot, 6 20 a foot, 750 a foot, 725 a foot, 590 a foot. that's not new building. that's existing building. we feel this compares favorably with other opportunities in the marketplace. [speaker not understood] the civic center operations are important as well. so, that's the bottom line that the loiena that's before you now. just want to remind you you're going to see a lot of me between now and the time that the doors open in late 2018. so, we'll have a number of trips. the next one coming up will be in the fall. we'll come to you with the purchase and sale agreement. that will be informed by that
schematic design effort i mentioned. at that point we'll begin to commit additional fiscally -- fiscal objectly gaytions, but also begin to move forward with the ceqa process. this is all subject to ceqa's completion and analysis of options with respect to develop then we'll come back to you, you'll see it on your [speaker not understood]. that could be in the fall of 15, early 16. after ceqa approval, then we would return for ratification of the purchase and [speaker not understood] agreement. [speaker not understood] as we approach completion of construction and move in late 2018. so, hopefully that schedule helps, give you some context. there are a number of amendments that have been proposed by the budget analyst. we are happy with those amendments and would intend to return this fall with the
additional information requested in those amendments. >> thank you, mr. updike. supervisor mar? >> yeah, i wanted to just comment to mr. updike, i'm realizing also in reading the budget analyst report, reviewing it more closely, that it not only department of public works building inspection and planning, but it looks like it's also the retirement department and health service systems that would be consolidated into more centralized location. and given how much the rents have been increasing commercial property i'm seeing the tremendous benefit to the city for those. i did want to ask, the head of mayor's office and housing is here. i know the 550 units proposed and 110 below market rate is cited a a goal. and i know that we're looking at middle income residence as well. but i'm wondering if you can comment on the tremendous need for below market rate units and what you're doing to ensure that we're going to have enough
to that, for example, workers from good will would be able to afford to live in the building they used to work in. >> supervisors, olson lee, director of mayor's office of housing. as director updike mentioned we're very early in the process, and the level of affordability specified in these agreements are related to the use of taxes and bonds for the financing of this development. so, these units will be affordable. at no greater than 50% of median income. so, they're going to be relatively affordable. and i presume that the workers of good will would be income eligible for those, those particular units. one of the questions is, you know, are they, in fact,