Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 13, 2015 8:00pm-8:31pm PDT

8:00 pm
rec center completely accessible to the entire neighborhood. >> the new rec center houses multi-purpose rooms for all kinds of activities including basketball, line dancing, playing ping-pong and arts can crafts. >> you can use it for whatever you want to do, you can do it here. >> on friday, november 16, the dedication and ribbon cutting took place at the sunset playground and recreation center, celebrating its renovation. it was raining, but the rain clearly did not dampen the spirits of the dignitaries, community members and children in attendance. [cheering and applauding] ♪ ♪ntlemen, this meeting will come to order, the regular meeting of the land use and transportation
8:01 pm
committee. my name is supervisor malia cohen, i'm the chair of this committee and to my right is supervisor scott wiener, vice-chair and to my left is supervisor kim, who will join us shortly. i want to welcome our colleague ms. julie christensen who will comment on an item on the agenda today. our clerk is ms. andrea ausberry and i want to recognize jennifer lowe and leo, who will be broadcasting this meeting at sfgovtv. thank you very much. madame clerk, do you have any announcements -- >> excellent, thank you very much. could you please call item no. 1. >> an ordinance amending ordinance no. 28-15 is construction emissions minimization plan. >> thank you very much. i am the maker of this
8:02 pm
ordinance and colleagues, so this ordinance includes some technical clean-up for amendments to an ordinance that the board passed earlier this year. this ordinance we passed required higher emission standardss and equipment for the city public works projects. at the time they passed this ordinance, there was conflicting language about the ordinance's application to current city contracts. at the request of the city attorney we have introduced this trailing ordinance to clarify these requirements. and also, we're introducing trailing legislation, just to clarify these requirements are not retro active. and they only apply for future contracts. so colleagues, if we could take public comment. i would like to ask for your support on this item. i don't think we have a presentation today from staff, do we? no, i don't think so. all right. let's take public comment on
8:03 pm
item no. 1, on this piece of legislation. seeing no members of the public wishing to comment on this, public comment for item 1 is closed. [ gavel ] i will make a motion to move forward with the recommendation. >> motion by supervisor kim and seconded by supervisor wiener. madame clerk, could you do a roll call vote? >> on the motion? are you recommending -- ? >> yes, i would like to make a request to move this forward with a positive recommendation, supervisor kim. would you mind amending your motion? >> i'm sorry, there was an amendment. >> no, she made a motion. >> i would like you to amend your motion for a positive recommendation. >> that was my motion with positive recommendation to the full board. >> this motion passes unanimously. let's move forward. thank you. madame clerk, could you please call item no. 2. >> item no. 2 is a motion rescinding the certification
8:04 pm
of the final environmental impact report for 8 washington street seawall project. >> we have christen jensen from the city attorney's office. ms. jensen, good to see you. nice to see you. i'm here mostly to answer questions, but to give a brief background. there were four different lawsuits brought against the city with respect to this project. we are here dealing with two of them, the challenge of the eir and related approval for the 8 washington project. after trial in this case, the judge upheld almost all of the eir, but found in one respect relating to traffic that the eir was deficient and therefore has ordered that the court rescind the eir, and any approvals that relied on the eir, which is what this motion is attempting to do. there is not a lot more to say. we do not yet have a new
8:05 pm
project proposal from the project sponsor. we anticipate one will come at the point and at which point the planning department will make additional review. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answers them. >> doesn't look like there are any questions at this point. thank you for your time. i'm going ask supervisor christensen if there is any remarks she would like to make at this moment? >> only that this cleans up a situation and clarifies our status with regards to the project going forward. we have a clean slate with regards to the eir, and we're going to take everything else as it comes from this point going forward with a new said set of reviews. >> thank you, supervisor. next is sarah jones from the planning department and also here to answer questions. no. colleagues seeing there are no questions from you, let's go ahead and take public comment. members of the public wishing to speak on item no. 2, please
8:06 pm
come up to the podium. seeing no public comment -- public comment is closed -- i'm sorry. my apologies. >> okay. sue hester, i sent a letter this morning to the clerk, and i think it was sent to the city attorney. i stated all of the motions that i thought were covered. i would like the affirmation or the denial of that letter and that list of motions and everything else. it was based on my list that i have kept, because there was the attorney who took this through the entire administrative proceedings. secondly, i would like squarely the planning department to be asked and the port, whether they have received any applications for new project by pacific waterfront partners, or their successor body? up until now, i have been told
8:07 pm
every time i have asked, that there is no new application. if they have a new application, they should get it in fast, because that is the understanding of what the proceedings had been until this point. so square question to the planning department, this year have they got any application for the environmental review or for the project? and similarly for the port, if they are here. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. madame clerk, do you have a record -- have you received a record from the previous speaker? >> yes, and it was forwarded. >> thank you very much. it looks like mr. city attorney. >> deputy city attorney job john givner, supervisor
8:08 pm
christensen forwarded the email yesterday. the email lists a number of approval actions taken by the board, the port and the planning commission. the motion that you have before you also lists all of the approval actions taken by the board, the port, the planning commission, and rec and parks commission. i believe ms. hester's list matches up with the list and motion before you. that list is all the approval actions that we're aware of and we're pretty confident is a complete list. but if there any other approval actions that any other city department or commission or board has taken in reliance on the eir, that we have somehow missed, this motion will void those approval actions by operation of law. so if there is some little approval action that somehow didn't make the list, that skipped our view and ms. hesters's view, that approval action would be void as well. >> thank you for that
8:09 pm
clarification. please [stkpwhr*-eufrplts/] thank you, chair. my name is lee radner friends of golden gate association. i have no problem per se with the house keeping resolution. what concerned many of our members was the lack of dialogue prior to submitting this resolution and with regards to the continuance of an 85' high-level on the [wrao-rpblt/]. i think we have spoke quite clearly that we want no walls on the waterfront and we had hoped that we would be discussing with our supervisor some other means of reducing this height limit, so it would be applicable to seawall lot 351 and also provide a project that would benefit not only our san francisco community, but the visitors alike. so we just wanted to go on record, that we
8:10 pm
would hope that we would have more dialogue with these procedures in the future. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on item no. 2? okay seeing noning public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> thank you, i just had one other question and i believe it would be to the port to clarify on ms. hester's question on whether any other applications have been submitted for the site or these sites? >> good afternoon. supervisor, sara jones, environmental review officer. i can't speak for the port, but as to the planning department, no application for future project on this site has been submitted to us. >> great. thank you very much.
8:11 pm
>> supervisor christensen. [ inaudible ] >> the lack of dialogue has been because not much is happening lately. i think everybody is waiting for this and other steps to wind their way through. i know with the summer breaks and what not, a lot of involved partis are not available at this time. this measure is not an attempt to a broader governance of the site. we certainly have recent propositions and other impacts on the height limits and eventual determination of the use for the site this. will all come, i can assure my constituency those discussions will follow. at the moment, this is a housekeeping step that brings city governance in alignment with the recent court decision and we have done that. as i said earlier, we can go forward from this point on, with further discussions with the use of the site and i look forward to those conversations >> thank you, supervisor christensen. supervisor wein. >> thank you, madame, i move
8:12 pm
that we forward the item with positive recommendation. >> all right. motion made and seconded. without objection, looks like this motion passes. [ gavel ] >> thank you. madame clerk, could you please call item no. 3. >> item no. 3 is a resolution endorsing a term sheet with the university of california of base rent of $180,000 per year. >> thank you very much. colleagues in 2013 the city convened a task force to explore the possibilities of constructing new, modernized uc sf research facilities at the san francisco general hospital. the buildings that they are currently housed are as we know are seismically unsafe. ucsf and our department of health has been work on a non-binding term sheet that sets forth the terms of the parties to begin negotiating on ground lease for development and operation of a new research
8:13 pm
facility at the general hospital. san francisco general hospital serves the vital safety net for more than 100,000 points a patients and year and having ucsf scientists in house helps to support the high-quality, care and research that takes place at this facility. in order for this level of care and research to continue, we need to assist ucsf in upgrading the research facilities on the property. we have a few presenters with us on this particular item. we are first going to hear from john updike, who is the director of real estate and he will present the details of the term sheet. we'll then hear from mark -- from the department of public health and we have an additional dph staff and ucsf staff here to answer any detailed questions. good to see you, mr. updike. >> good to see you, chair
8:14 pm
cohen, john updike, director of real estate. good afternoon. nearly three years ago we began negotiations on a project through an exchange of letters in the fall of 2012. that is a pleasure now to outline the key terms and conditions of in non-binding term sheet that is before you for consideration. first some technical issues i need to mention and that is this document establishes the fundamental terms and economic parameters for lease to be negotiated in good faith over the coming year. with that said, the term sheet does not commit the city to approve a final ground lease, nor does it foreclose the possibility of consideration of alternatives to the proposal offered here including not approving a final ground lease. the board will not take any discretionary action relative to the ground lease unless and until the health commission and the board of supervisors have reviewed and considered the
8:15 pm
environmental documentation prepared by the regents in compliance with ceqa, and adopted appropriate ceqa findings. so with that said, both the city and the regents commissioned appraisals of the b/c lot located on campus and i have an overall picture of that. >> thank you. >> so you can see the b/c map highlighted in red on this map. those appraisals determined the fair market rental rate to be charged under had a ground lease to facilitate a lab building of approximately 175,000 square feet. the final negotiated ground lease rent rate in the term sheet considered the highest and best use of the property. it considered the recommendations of the appraisers and adjusted for exchange space rent by the regents on the sf campus and for site conditions that we anticipate would create
8:16 pm
extraordinary construction cost and onlitor those that we thought were extraordinary in nature. the term sheet calls for annual base rent of $180,000 over an initial 75-year term. it also has a 24-year renewal option, which can be exercised in years 65-69 of the initial term. it has annual increases of 1.75%. and market value resets at years 21,46 and 61. and those recalculations of market value are capped at 5% per year on an non-cumulative basis. as the b/c lot construction is going to displace existing parking, the regents agreed to make a contribution to the city, that is equivalent to the mutually agreed cost to replace the lost parking spaces. which will include consideration of expanding the 24th street garage. the use of the lab facility will be for teaching, research,
8:17 pm
and public service, consistent with the regents and sf gh's respective missions. the project, to give you a look of the massing of the project, is a 5-story building. so the health commission approved the non-binding term sheet on their meeting of may 5th. and now that takes us to this day. i want to thank all of those involved from dp s, the sfmta, the city attorney's office and of course the entire team from ucsf. in this case it really did take a village to get us to that point. so mark is here to address any specific questions that you might have and also representatives from sucsf.ucsf.
8:18 pm
>> thank you. supervisor wiener, do you have questions? next presenter >> madame chair, supervisors, i will be brief. john covered the basic important terms. i think the excitement of having that research center here building on that 144-year history and for some of you in the audience at home that may not know it, the research component staying on campus is critical to the designation of level 1 trauma center and i know dr. carlisle is here you and other of her staff, that could expand on that and the relationship between the existing main hospital, and the research center. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. i would like to just open it up and see if there any members
8:19 pm
from ucsf, at this time i heard dr. carlisle is here. i don't want to put you on the spot, but if you would like an opportunity to speak, you have the opportunity. >> thank you, madame chair. i am very happy to speak in support of this project. as we have said for many years, we feel that having a viable research unit at sfgh allows us at the university to continue our 144-year history with the city in providing clinic services for the people of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you,. on that note, let's go ahead and open public comment and see what the public is thinking on item no. 3. any member of public wishing to speak on item no. 3 please line up behind the podium. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm aliena fuentes, chief of
8:20 pm
pediatrics at san francisco general and professor of ped pediatrics. i have conducted research at san francisco general hospital. my research is focused on risk factors for adverse pregnancy in latino women and child health. i have recruited women and children at san francisco general for my research studies. san francisco general is the only location in san francisco where i could conduct my research, given the unique nature of the population that we serve. the research infrastructure at san francisco general has been fundamental to my success as a researcher, and the proposed research building will allow academic researchers to continue to address important and unanswered health issues. thank you for your consideration of the proposed research building. >> next speaker, please.
8:21 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is neil poe, i'm a professor at ucsf and chief of the medicine department at san francisco general. we're the largest department at san francisco general. in addition to my administrative responsibilities there, i do research on health services delivery, population and health and health disparities. i came to sfgh six years ago because of the opportunity to work at a public hospital and combine my combined discovery and research with my clinical care of patients. it's been a marvelous journey and experience to work in the vibrant scientific incubator that we have at san francisco general. the department of medicine at ucsf is no. 1 funding by nih
8:22 pm
and $60 million comes from the national institutes of health every year. we do work on hiv and aid, tuberculosis, all diseases that affect vulnarable populations that we treat in the hospital and innovating through research to address these -- to address diseases that cut lives short or cause disabilities important for creating an environment that forward-thinking doctors like to work on. it's important that physicians have laboratories on-site to keep them nearby their patient and committed to the mission of san francisco general. when the mission bay campus opened several years ago, some of my faculty had an opportunity to go there, but didn't and continued to work in outdated and unsafe facilities. they wanted to be available to their patients and hospital leadership. so our work at san
8:23 pm
francisco general and research benefits the community in which we work. it benefits the city. and it's a beacon of innovation for underserved populations >> thank you. [thro-uts/] throughout the ute. united states. >> i'm sorry to cut you off, professors, preachers and politicians, i don't know what it is, but 2 minutes is hard for them. the general public gets it down. any other members of the public to speak on the item? seeing none, public comment is closed -- i would like to open public comment back up. please. >> my name is rachel royce and i will make it short. i just have a brief question as to whether this development will require 14b ordinance local business enterprise participation? >> i would like you to direct
8:24 pm
your question to john updike or the two gentlemen behind you would be able to answer your question. thank you. >> the exact terms of the ground lease will be negotiated and that full ground lease, which we'll get into details will come forward to the board in one year, but generally speaking i can say yes, the intent is that that will apply to this contract. >> thank you very much. okay, public comment is closed at this time. so colleagues you heard the tremendous importance that san francisco general hospital provides our community in partnership with ucsf and i would like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with positive recommendation. >> seconded -- >> can i make a comment? >> supervisor kim, please. i just want to reiterate support for which was just stated at public comment that i do hope what moves forward -- i know it's a public-private partnership, but we would like to see our minority and
8:25 pm
women-owned businesses to be able to participate in this project and i look forward to a resolution on that issue. and i will be supporting the motion to move this forward with recommendation. >> excellent. thank you very much. colleagues, i appreciate the support. looks like we have unanimous support on this motion. without objection, this motion moves forward with positive recommendation. madame clerk, could you please call item no. 4. >> resolution approving a [stkp-eps/] and reimbursement agreement with the treasure island development authority and treasure island community development. >> the mayor's office is the sponsor of the item and we have bob beck from the treasure island development authority to present. bob, why don't you come up and make your presentation.
8:26 pm
welcome. mr. beck, are you having some trouble? >> sorry? >> are you having trouble? >> , i have got it up. thanks. >> are you ready to go? >> yes. >> all right, take it away. >> thank you, chair and members of the committee. bob beck with the treasure island development authority. as you are no doubt aware, the entitlement and transaction documents for the development of treasure island were adopted in 2011. the development program calls for the development of 8,000 homes on treasure island and yerba buena island, 25% of which will be affordable. up to 500 hotel rooms. and about half a million square feet of commercial and retail and office space. it also includes a tremendous
8:27 pm
amount of public benefits, including more than 300 acres of open space, transit equipment for ac transit and muni, as well as transit operating subsidy for the ferry service that we'll come to and from treasure island. geotechnical improvements to treasure island and sea-level rise adoptions, as well as a range of public infrastructure. the agreement commits the city to form requested community facilitating districts and financing districts to help pay for the public benefits that will be constructed on the island and to issue bonds against the future revenue from those districts.
8:28 pm
the agreement also calls for treasure island community development to advance funds to the city to cover our out-of-pocket expenses, including special tax consultants, bond counsel, informing the infrastructure financing and community facilities districts and subject to reimbursement to the extent permissible by law from the proceeds of those districts. the infrastructure financing district is formed over a special geographic area for a period of 40 years and can be used to pay directly or to finance debt for the construction of public facilities with anticipated life of more than 15 years. and the cfd has a little more flexibility and formed over a specific geographic area. it's a supplemental tax on
8:29 pm
properties, whereas the ifd is a pledge of san francisco's share of tax increment over the properties. the cfd is a supplemental tax. it can be used to finance facilities with a useful life of five years or more and it can also be used to finance ongoing maintenance operations. in our case, the cfd in addition, to the community facilities it will finance is expected to be the long-term revenue stream for open space on the island. so just diagramatically, the ifd is financed through the san francisco share of the 1% ad valorem tax as indicated here in the blue.
8:30 pm
in anticipation of the first major phase of development beginning next year, the ticd and tida wish to move forward with the formation of the community facilities district and ifd over treasure island and yerb bruin yerba buena island for the developer to advance an initial deposit of $100000 towards the city's expenses in forming the districts. with this approval in hand, we would conclude the rfp process to select the special tax consultant and drafting boundary maps, and come back towards the end of this year, after validating the voting pool to submit resolutions ofip