tv [untitled] October 21, 2012 9:00pm-9:30pm PDT
ried mac and cheese? >> was that the best twinkie? >> would you say you had the winning male? >> definitely. >> no. >> you are the "chompion." clair has won. you are the first "chompion." >> they know it iwas me because i got a free meal. and check a map on -- check them out on facebook. take a peek at the stuff we have
the valley and tenderloin area. to convert stores and experience doing this in bayview hunters point. we have funding for one store in bayview and our offense of economic and workforce development has a facade improvement grant. the small business assistance center provides one and one assistance to all merchants help provide them access guidance, resources, incentives and tools that are available. in the future workforce development will select up to five commercial corridors to do a deeper assessment of the needs and opportunities related to fresh food access for that community. as needs are discovered, oewd will use the tool s available.
there are fixed resources available for community development work and the needs are great, whether they are streetscape improvements, ada improvements, grants for facade enhancements, small business loans or technical assistance. a holistic approach that addresses the diverse needs of merchants and neighborhoods is one that is going to be more likely to be successful and i know you will agree with me when i saw that we want our commercial corridors to be successful. access to healthy food is something that is important to all san franciscans and i want to express to you my commitment to addressing this need as part of the invest in neighborhoods initiative. thank you. >> i will ask the next question. and this is a question that is often posed to many of us frequently which is the fact that our city is facing a $4 billion retiree health care liability, mr. mayor, what is your administration doing to address this challenge? >> thank you, supervisor chiu
and thank you for raising this important question today. in our retiree health care obligation is something that i care deeply about and a challenge we must all tame take on together. this year the city will pay for the health care of our current retirees and while that number seems large and it is we have a more significant issue on the horizon, the unfunded cost of paying for health care for our current employees once they retire. the last time the city assessed our retirement health care obligation was in 2010 and the estimated unfunded liability was $4.36 billion. we have taken a number of important steps since then to begin to address our structural budget issues in 2008 the city passed proposition b, a charter amendment that lengthed the amount of time an employee must
work for the city in order to receive city-sponsored retiree health care benefits. and requires that both the city and employees gradually begin to contribute to the funding of the cost of the retiree health care. as a result, approximately 7,000 employees are making contributions to fund their retiree health care costs, and retiree health care trust fund, which was an initiative by proposition b now has $20.5 million set aside for these costs. in 2010 we worked together with labor and the business community to pass proposition c, a measure that required city employees to begin to pay their share of pension costs. this effort saved us more than $40 million, helping balance the city budget. this is yet another example of the value of working with people for solutions to the challenges that we faced.
most recently we have begun to work together on health care and employee wellness. working with the health services system, i have create a wellness leadership council consisting of department heads and supervisor carmen chu and other representatives. our key goal is to develop a comprehensive wellness plan to address risks that can be modified through behavior change and to encourage participation and engagement. by working along side labor representatives, we begin to build solutions that everyone can buy into. and this is a key pillar of my philosophy for governing. in particular, i would like to recognize supervisor mark farrell for his outstanding leadership and collaborative approach in addressing this key issue. and i know that as we did with pension reform, we'll be able to work together to overcome
this challenge and develop a plan that will address our long-term challenge of sustainably funding the commitments we have made. as well as developing ways to proactively address rising health care costs. as a final note while we can and we should and we will focus on consensus measures to address this challenge, i would also like to suggest that the board of supervisors is able to take measures now to address this issue. it is tempting to commit the entirety of today's resources to today's problems. but we also need to take into account the needs of tomorrow. saving isn't the most thrilling thing to do, but i know that you value the long-term fiscal health of our city, supervisors just as i do and you will make decisions that benefit the city today, as well as in the future. thank you. our final question by
supervisor campos. thank you. thank you mr. mayor. it's good to see you. i believe i'm not alone with my colleagues on the board of supervisors as i respectfully submit to you today that mayoral question time is not as useful as it could be. i certainly would appreciate the opportunity to engage with you about important policy issues facing my district and facing the ebb entire city and county, but i respectfully submit that i do not believe that the current structure allows for meaningful dialogue some of you would like to see. so my question is mr. mayor would you submit restructuring question time in order to allow members of board of supervisors to ask follow-up questions and engage in a dialogue about the critical issues facing our city and residents and i would simplied into restructuring in any way that we can figure out together that would be
meaningful. thank you. >> thank you for your questions, supervisor campos. i have to respectfully disagree with the assumptions that you make with that question. first i do find these monthly sessions useful. they may not be as entertaining to you as some of the other items on board calendar, but my goal is not to come here and grab headlines. every month i got questions that deal with a wide variety of issues. muni, public safety, today for example we have questions from supervisor mar and chu about neighborhood fresh food choices and alternatives and our retiree health care system. when these questions are committed i spend time with my staff and department heads to review relevant data and craft a response. the benefit of having questions in advance we can do this work before the board meeting so i can come here and provide details, statistics and facts, so that your constituents, as
well as others know we're working hard for them here at city hall. there is nothing stopping you, supervisor, from asking more specific policy-based questions and i would be happy to answer them at these monthly meetings. in addition, i have always made myself available to you and members of board to discuss issues outside of these more formal public sessions. furthermore i believe that the current structure of questions does allow time for structured dialogue as the voters required in the charter amendment. you know the voters did want a discussion about formal policy matters and meaningful discussion and while it might not be dramatic, i feel we satisfy those criteria. i also strongly believe that a gotcha game between myself and the members of board could do little to elevate the substantive exchange that voters deserve and would erode the respectful dialogue that i worked hard to develop with all of the board of supervisors.
for example, just last week i believe that we saw that disrespectful dialogue and treatment of people degenerate in this very chamber on an issue where there remains serious disagreement and i know a number of board members have expressed their deep regret for allowing this to occur. colleagues, we have a structural government in the city, that affords us different responsibilities, but we share an obligation not to entertain, but to do what is in best interest of our constituents. i do not believe the voters want or deserve monthly question time that risk evolving into a showdown between us and therefore i will try my best to work with you to move into more substantive dialogue about policy and budget issues facing our city. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. mayor. with that, that concludes today's question time. madame clerk could you read our
consent agenda. >> items 2 and 3 comprise the consent agenda and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. if a member would like a matter removed and discussed separately. >> colleagues, would like to separate the vote? roll call vote. (roll call ) there are eleven ayes. >> the resolution is adopted and ordinance is passed on the first reading [ gavel ] . next item. >> item 4 ordinance amending the administrative code to repeal provisions extendsing the expiration date of the 2003 [phao-eurpl/] and local women
business enterprise ordinance. this passes. item 5. this neurons is passed. >> ordinance 6 modifying requirements for application to the inclusionary affordable housing program. >> same house, same call. this ordinance is finally passed item 7. >> item 7 ordinance amendmenting the planning code adding a new session to increase the fee rates revise the exemptions and credits and clarify the implementation and collection >> supervisor wiener. >> i would like to move to continue this item until the 20th. >> colleagues without objection this item is continued to that date. item 8. item 8 ordinance amending the
police code. >> same house, same call [-rbts/] this ordinance is finally passed. >> item 9 is an ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by brocrasmusence against the city for $175,000 filed january 11th in the san francisco superior court. >> same house, same call, this ordinance is finally passed. item 10. >> resolution authorizing the lease of warehouse office and parking lot space in daly city for the san francisco municipal transportation agency car operations and other transit-related uses . >> supervisor chu. >> thank you. this came before the budget and finance committee and was continued for a week so we can review additional information provided by the mta. this item did not come without recommendation. we thought this item was one that had a lot of questions for it and it's something that i think all of us have to think very deeply about whether we want to support or not.
in a nutshell it authorizes the mta to executive the lease with an initial term of 20 years. there is also two 5-year options to extend the lease. it represents roughly 12.7 acres of space with 255,000 square feet of rental space. this process was initiated because the current 13 acres site where the mta's operation exist at pier 70 is planned for development work, but also to another extent because of the space at pier 70 is not increasingly a space that is ideal for the operational needs of the mta. i think there were a lot of really great questions that were raised by the committee members, but also i think supervisor campos was at one of the meetings with us and raised a lot of very legitimate questions. some of the concerns that were raised i just want too flag for
folks, had to do with the mta's long-term space and planning needs. the mta's operations are very extensive. the mta was able to come back and share with the committee its final real estate and facility analysis. they were currently finishing up a draft and were able to share that information with us and plans to present a fuller conversation around that facility planning need and the results of analysis and consolidation recommendations in the future. so that is something that is coming before us. i do think that the mta shared with us what their long-term plans were for space. there was some questions about the mta not being proactive about purchasing the facility. where site is a few years ago ago a believe a year or two years ago, they went on the market and purchased that facility for $21 million. they did this however through a
quick closing transaction. they paid i believe with cash and had a land swap deal associated with in order to close that deal. probably wasn't a deal that the city could have competed with very quickly because of our extensive public process and approval process as well. there were larger questions how we manage real estate and deal with planned needs in the city and that is a legitimate question that we have for the mta, the port and the school district and the general fund. it's a larger and separate issue than this item before us. so the item before us as a budget analyst has pointed out does see an increase in rent to the space compared to what we see at pier 70. though the mta would say it's a much more preferred scenario with more usable office space and more ideal to its operations. in addition, pier 70 is not
able to be used on a long-term basis due to the development work. so in weighing the decision, i will be supporting this item. it's not a perfect transaction. it's not a perfect agreement, but some of the reasons why i will be supporting it. again it's unlikely that the mta would be able to continue its operations at pier 70. so we do need to find space for the mta's operations and this is not a small space. this is 13 acres of space that we're looking for in san francisco and as you know a 13-acre space is very hard and difficult to come by in san francisco. they did review some alternative sites and confirmed few properties were available that meets the size, zoning and price requirements and transit requirements among the other nodes needs that the mta has.
so this is a long process in coming and finally, some of the information that we have presented shows that the independent appraisals shows that the net present value of the current lease that is being proposed is comparable, if not less than what we may see in the open market today. because of these reasons for the operational needs of the mta, i would be supportive of this item going forward. thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you. thank you, mr. president and good afternoon colleagues. i just wanted to bring to your attention i have received a couple of questions from residents that live in visitation valley and the little hollywood neighborhoods. i would like to call up sfmta cristen, if she here to answer a couple of questions that i will put forward. thank you. it's good to see you. so i was
just going to give you three questions that summarizes some of the concerns that i have heard since our meeting. how will this use be compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods? what is the schedule and the nature of the tow operations? what will it be? what are the traffic impacts and what role will our neighbors have addressing the site or access employment opportunities on the site? >> thank you, cristen mcgeary. we received the questions from your constituent and i'm happy to answer them. the impact on the adjacent neighborhood is that it's just over the border in daly city. daly city went through an extensive planning department
and council review through ceqa and there was a traffic study done. so all of those documents are on file with the city of daly city. so the traffic impacts were studied in comparison, for instance to the former post office facility that was there. and found that the uses which are planned to be the towed cars, and other mta uses. for instance our training facility, possibly enforcement and other vehicles to be stored there. were actually similar impacts and spread over time. for instance the tow-trucks -- the towing facility starts behind the hall of justice. so that tow customers are able to pick up their cars there within the first 24 hours. then they are towed to -- at this current time -- to pier 70. they would, if this lease were approved be towed to 2650 bay
shore, which is accessible by the t line and the 9 and 8 ax muni routes. while they operate 24 hours a day, they receive only 25 vehicles a day that would be put into long-term storage at the facility both inside and out. they will have weekly auctions, which they currently have at pier 70 and it's approximately anticipated 300 people would attend, but the cars, approximately 100 sold each wednesday 8:30 to 2:00 p.m. would be picked up at alternative times. if it's enforcement, those are the people who give the parking tickets, they would be moving there and operate 4 hours a day, 7 days a week with 9 different shifts. but it's unclear at this point if they will be relocating there. the new operator training and
maintenance training and refresher courses would occur in offices and training rooms on a routine basis with approximately 300 to 350 employees spread out on rotating shifts for training on vehicles and maintaining them. so the traffic analysis was done as part of the ceqa process and that is available online, if you would like. i could read you some statistics and information, but otherwise, that is all available through the city of daly city. >> i'm sorry, which statistics did you say you have? >> the traffic analysis that was done. there was a special traffic report done for the ceqa analysis. >> if you could please read it into the record.
that would be create. >> the warehouse area is 250,000 square feet approximately and the uses would employ both the in-house in the building parking, as well as outside the building parking for the tow vehicles and other mta uses. the office area is approximately 38,000 square feet and that would have the enforcement officers, as well as for auto return. the enforcement office is for mta. the training and administrative officers and in addition, we would probably have a simulators that would help our new operators learn how to train on vehicles without actually being in the vehicles, but it would be a mockup of the front of the vehicle, so they could learn how to drive. the parking area exceeds 1030 parking spaces including parking both in the build ing and outside of the building. we would