Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Real Estate Acquisition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supervisors pause purchase of 1995 Evans Street after appraisal gap raises questions

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee · January 7, 2015
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee continued a proposed acquisition of 1995 Evans Street, intended to house the city's crime lab and traffic investigations, after budget analysts flagged a $4.1 million gap between the negotiated purchase price ($15.475M) and a CBRE appraisal ($11.36M). The committee instructed further negotiation and continuation to the call of the chair.

John Updike, director of real estate, told the committee the city had negotiated a purchase price of $15,475,000 for 1995 Evans Street to relocate the crime lab and traffic investigations from seismically vulnerable facilities. Updike said due diligence, including soils testing and CEQA, did not reveal extraordinary soils issues and that the negotiated price reflected give‑and‑take given limited alternative sites.

Budget analyst Mr. Rose told supervisors the negotiated price is about $4,115,000 (36.2%) above the CBRE appraised value of $11,360,000 and presented four options, including continuing negotiations (option 2), exercising eminent domain, not approving the resolution, or approving the proposed purchase. Rose recommended continuing negotiations to seek savings while recognizing time and cost pressures tied to bond timelines and prior investments in due diligence.

Deputy City Attorney John Gibner explained that eminent domain is a lengthy process with statutory steps — city appraisal, owner appraisal, a formal written offer, and potentially litigation with jury determination of just compensation — and that it may not be practical for this GO bond timetable. Supervisors debated market conditions, lease costs (the city is paying daily lease costs to hold the site) and the risk of losing option rights.

After discussion, the committee voted to continue the proposed resolution and request further negotiations; the motion passed on a roll call and the item was continued to the call of the chair.