Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 8, 2014 5:30am-6:01am PDT

5:30 am
the maifkz mayor's office of housing. >> and they manage that part. >> yeah. >> and do we have a say in - does this commission have a say in the outreach and all of that and currently in the phase one of the shipyard it's called out in the process that's how the inclusionary units are are dealt with so - >> because the commission is working with the mayor's office of housing you're trying to create a smooth transition and once the project is turned over then the marketing plan continues. >> the marketing plan is clublgd because once the project is fully occupied the project is concluded and if there's a
5:31 am
resale at this point that limited equality program unit is they're to monitor and see the affordability issues arrest the affordability. >> at the end of the day, we have to sort of wind down over time and can't be here forest sadly to be monitoring all the inclusionary units. >> but the degree we're involved in before their turned over so those agreement are those modified with the mayor's office of housing what is our say. >> once the asset is transferred they'll have the ability to amend the document like maybe our enforceable obligation requirements they couldn't do something in conflict but we're transferring
5:32 am
the asset to missouri cd and our programs are consistent in how we deal with the inclusionary market rate unit so it might, you know, you know - >> sally i can help you got it. >> before i lose my train of thought. thank you for that the other piece it the minority contracting piece. i wanted to follow up i think commissioner singh raised that. so this pipeline this is a public document; right? >> right. >> anybody can access this is there a way you know how you have our thing is the minority contracting piece also added so we monitor the results. >> this is what's happening and where it's going to end but i
5:33 am
know the minority contract is one piece of the developer by the way, or by is there a way to be included we can see on one should not. >> first of all, those projects are pipeline prospective they've not reached that stage and to clarify the ociis program are before the commission providing additional information about the spe contractors are they minority or women owned businesses as wooech we've collected the data in all cases it's not available we can certainly incorporate those reports we've intended to do it let's say the funding so certainly was we gather the information we turned or turn it into you know a recap as part of
5:34 am
the production it's more easily to think of them as the production report we may want to focus on the production contract report we'll look at the that. >> i realize we look at those, you know, goals and where tell her as far as reaching the goals but there's so many and hard to track i thought it would be useful to have a spreadsheet so we don't have to terminate what project we're talking about. >> we can provide the sbe depending on where the prong is you may not know that until it's done so the pipeline won't have that information until all the issuing the contracts but we can
5:35 am
incorporate the sbe percentage. >> yeah. it would be helpful because if you wait until it's done i would like to look at that. >> okay i'd like to address to that commissioner ellington i'll get to you in one second. on the contracting piece i don't think this is part of the mou except in case of 2 hundred and 6 street we have to actually complement that before we transfer it, it's not for the county of los angeles but what might be helpful as part of the annual report we're coagulating things to put in a workforce summary and we've seen it for each project tables that's
5:36 am
helpful but commissioner mondejar great point it's great to see it overall i understand that's sometimes hard to get data an sbes and it's not also agency observable as you think that would be great to have the reports it is not part of the collaboration before we transfer the assets but that would be helpful >> commissioner ellington i'm sorry. >> i think she's being able to see correct me if i am wrong if mid project what's going on. >> but what's helpful when we hear about mid construction projects like block 49 or
5:37 am
hunters point they're in the process and here's the contractors they're using right now but that's hard to a visualize across so many projects that are in different parts of midstream so having a report like commissioner mondejar is asking for will be helpful in a different way we're asking for two things but they're both necessary. >> i'm sorry any other questions or comments. >> i would say we've asked for the comprehensive report on the contracting picture by the contractor ethnic and gender i thought we were going to get it. >> through the carry commissioners that's on our forward calendar for june 17th
5:38 am
the local hire will be presented this is important our client ray lee as started as of april 16th to certainly this is good information as to how we should present the data that is most useful to you and is public. >> excellent commissioner mondejar. >> the sxhunt has no input on that. >> i'm sorry mr. woods. >> they've made no changes to add other minorities to the list. they are (inaudible) she never once answered the question who makes makes the decision as perceived a certificate of preference and she never answered that she is (inaudible)
5:39 am
>> commissioner mondejar. >> you forgot your - >> just a clarification affordable and inclusionary housing what's the difference is it one of the same. >> affordable - there being a used interchangeably. >> the affordable is below a certain income and inclusionary is rental or homeownership rentals included in a larger market rate project and call our stand alone affordable it's one hundred percent they're all foornl they're all affordable but inclusionary or stand alone. >> right. >> i also get confused of that.
5:40 am
thank you. thank you >> i think we've listed out the actual mou against the certificate of preference program and the attachment we'll get to it later we have moot meetings have there any questions on the mou itself questions or comments i'd like to entertain a motion on this. >> i move we approve the mou. >> thank you very much. we are second >> seconded. >> mcallister call the roll. >> commissioner ellington. commissioner mondejar. commissioner singh. commissioner rosales. chairperson johnson. madam chair the vote is 5 i's. thank you very much can we recirculate the mou with the changes we've discussed thank you very much.
5:41 am
next item, please. >> next order of business is 5 e authorized the lease between this third and mission associate, llc and california limited liability company a nonprofit benefit corporation consistent with the terms of the 1990 for the position of lent for the private property at the 680 mission street for the project and the resolution number 34, 2014 madam director. >> commissioners i'm sure you're aware of the former agencies and ociis work program. >> next speaker. >> in the yerba buena it is one we are approved the
5:42 am
significant culture assets we continue to look at the culture institutions and yerba buena and this was an asset that was required for the urban renewable funds there's a content and your content is required pursuant to change the terms and conditions of the particularly lease with the nonprofit and related. with that, i'd like to ask tracey renaldz nodules the director for the changes. >> thank you. i'm tracey reynolds the manager at the real estate group at the assessor agency as the director mentioned i'm before you today to ask you to allow the executive director to content within been the
5:43 am
california historical social he and the developer of the high-rise on mission street. this action is consistent with the terms of a 1990 agreement for disposition of lands or the lda with the developer is an affiliate and under the lda and is a l s any changes must be in writing payroll as executive director mentioned the los angeles police department on which the paramount sits it was made with federal renewable funds and when the land was it sold the purchase price was adopted by one million dollars for the exchange of inclusion
5:44 am
long term nonprofit access. they entered into a non-lease for 15 thousand square feet space to protect the benefit in the project the agency required the developer to on the agencies content for any change in c h s lease termination. the agencies concept is american people attachment c h s is 99 years with the paramount they no longer want to lease the space and want to relinquish 2/3rd's of the development to the developer one relinquished the developer about release the development to other users. they've executed a lease maementd amended that reduce
5:45 am
that and laws the developer to release it in exchange for a beauty price of 2 hunters . point plus million. the lease all the time is attached to our memorandum if you want to see the full amendment ocii will receive a portion because the successor agency is goobltd to give to the developer for reserving the full 5 thousand square feet since the public benefit will no longer exist. the successor portion is 899 hundreds and $47,000 that's 2/3rd's of land discount in today's dollar the money will be transferred to the city for
5:46 am
grant income since it was purchased with federal urban funds and c h s are jointly seeking the terms and they've reviewed the lease and approve the terms. this is in process with the law and it is on conditions of the california department of finance the payments will be on the future roster that recognizes the payment to the oversight board and to the state for approval that concludes my presentation and here today representatives from c h s are here and we are here available to answer any questions you may have >> thank you any public comment on that item?
5:47 am
>> i have two speaker cards (calling names). >> good afternoon madam chair and commissioners i'm of the of the board of trustees for the historical social we're one hundred and 43-year-old nonprofit established in san francisco. we've occupied space on mission since 1996. when we bought our building immediately adjacent to the development sites on mission we knew we didn't fit and with respect challenged by your space so we welcomed the opportunity to lease space in the adjacent property that happened in 2003 i should be clear that the leased space in the adjacent space is
5:48 am
sub par on my levels it includes basement space it's not contiguous with floor levels in our facility and never designed to serve our perspires in that way unfortunately, we spent a lot of time deliberating studying how to occupy the third floor space we purchased an elevator during the construction of the adjacent property. we've determined after long study in 2009 we determined that that won't be feasible or appoint to continue to lease all the space we started the discussions with the affiliates at that time. i should state for the record i'm an architect and served as chair during the facilities
5:49 am
period. the action before you is a content to a lease amendment we've negotiated a rate the successor agency has been a participant since approximately 2009 in those discussions and it's taken a good long time to bring this action here today. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them but i can tell you on behalf of our board this is an important part of the future for the facilities need and we very much appreciate your favorable consideration today if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you rick smith. >> councilwoman and commissioners and executive director i'm rick smith a member of c h s i'm speaking not in a
5:50 am
captain but as a person that is in the yerba buena district i'm a founding member of the julie next to c h s and have seen their caring and contributions beyond their obligations to the neighborhood and public. i support the lease amendment to bring out the public benefit 0 into through the support certificate amazing c h s like the history of the railway and the block grant in san francisco and a thanks to the xhaifz and thanks to christen and tracey and the ocii partying and c h s for their conscious work please approve this resolution for the
5:51 am
content amendment >> thank you very much. okay. a okay. are there other speaker cards >> would you like to speak? okay. excellent so we have no more >> no more. >> thank you madam secretary. >> thank you. the gentleman with the bowtie commissioner mondejar why don't you ask the question it's your question. >> thank you for coming here just curious why you're initially said you leased the space and now your found out it
5:52 am
doesn't work so you won't have enough space what happened. >> robert channel on behalf of the c h s i'm happy to answer your question when we first purchased the building next door we did a facilities need assessment and determined we needed 40 thousand square feet so we welcomed the opportunity to lease space in the adjacent building, however, we are were not involved in the planning the adjacent building and that space is not at the same level as our space. we built an elevator that would require for us to open up the elevator we'd have to remove part of our galleries so we'd have to lose space that's critically important to your
5:53 am
livelihood to provide access to an elevator to go up 3 floors and utility the third space in the building we have a need for expanded facilities the bifurcation of space is not something we can tolerant in our daily operations we maintain or kinds of we couldn't have direct access to our archives it requires transferring electro did adjacent building so despite the fact the needs can't be met
5:54 am
by the 2/3rd's space in the adjacent building >> thank you for that detailed explanation. >> commissioner ellington. >> so you guys put together this need he assessment you moved into the building across the street from where you originally were and now you're planning to move out and i'm sorry. i'm a little bit confused about what's happening here you guys are leaving or relinquishing the 5 thousand square feet and the california historical society owns the adjacent building on mission we've occupied that this since 1996. as the development agreement was moving forward for development of adjacent property owned by an affiliate of the adjacent
5:55 am
company there was a translation that involved the c h s in the adjacent principally project in the former yerba buena redevelopment and i'm sorry, i think the question is you needed 40 thousand square feet it's not going to workout because of the lay out it's not amenable so what are you going to do now >> since 1996 we intended for the foreseeable future stay at our current facility we rent a lot of spaces we have off site fine art storage in oakdale and entered into extensive collection agreements with los angeles and the university of the southern california we'd rather have the materials on site at our facility we've had
5:56 am
to rent appropriate space off site so our needs are still large. >> that's part the separate long-range planning that didn't workout haven't gotten there yet. >> yes. and this tradition will help. >> thank you, very much my question is how this came boo about together that's a in time are challenged for space in the city despite the lay out issues i understand in the space they've gotten but 10 thousand square feet is pretty good for office space and reading space for good times so my question is
5:57 am
did we consider letting c h s not be the main nonprofit for the space son the side did we consider other options rather than, you know, paying us back for the price discount in the beginning. >> yes. tracey again, the problem is again with our restricted roll in the first obligations and see what the language says it didn't allow us to do what our suggesting it's specific to c h s and it's an incentive to changes to the c h s tendency but not allow for the subject e subsequent land use over the space but specific to
5:58 am
the c h s land use lease so through the dissolution less than we were required to content to the change and also given the fact in the past under the lda which is the enforceable obligation there's a connection between the money referring to the first obligation so we justify that but if we did anything in in addition it's a like a new exertion of authority. >> if we don't content what happens. >> if we don't content happens great question commissioner ellington. >> what happens is nothing c h s - right now, we're in this period because of dissolution we
5:59 am
were in limbo for several years and taken a while to get to the agreement to get the money for their operations and continue with their it's in their budget to continue with their program and the remaining space and also then the space is sort of unused in limbo theirs this existing lease in plays the developer is charging money on we need to get out of this this current situation is not a sustainable one. >> commissioner ellington. >> just trying the memory was a little bit confusing the description me off bp but the
6:00 am
continual waterways use for was what he are commentating to today instead of this space obeying being affordable. >> they've make a market rate. >> the lda had a requirement we gave the developer a discount to provide space in the paramount to c h s. >> yes. >> and c h s it was very specific you get the million dollar discount and there was an amendment and you provide the long term space but basically, their lease to c h s fulfilled that requirement we have no other authority other than commentating to changes to the lease between related and c h s and so what we're doing here today is because c h