Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 7, 2018 6:00am-7:01am PDT

6:00 am
is that nexus still in place, and i says well, how many restaurants are there now? you know, there's, like 13, so it had nothing to do with the realities of that current situation. so let's find out the information, and then see what -- see what else can be done. >> and then, what about the building department in regards to the -- >> i think they have a representative. he should be doing his job. >> i'll drop jeremy. >> just a point of clarification, does that -- that just keeps the status quo, though. that doesn't help us -- >> it doesn't help you because they can't sell right at the moment. but i -- i don't think we need that much time, do we? all right. madam director. >> clerk: okay. >> wehere should i move this t?
6:01 am
>> clerk: may 23rd or june 13th. we're still pretty busy may 23rd, but... >> pretty congested, huh? >> yeah, an suppression of new
6:02 am
licenses and suppression of new tau ba tobacco licenses in her district. i think that the district supervisor prefers to step back and let the community speak for itself. >> i agree. >> thank you. >> this is an ongoing hardship
6:03 am
for this family, and every month is a hard month. >> yeah, thank you. >> does the 23rd -- may 23rd work for both sides? health department and appellant? >> clerk: we'll put you first. you guys deserve the first slot. >> if it works, we will have you first on the calendar. >> i'm sorry, sir. i am -- i have a family trip on -- starting on the 22nd. i'm returning on the 29th. could we do this on the 30th? >> no, there's no meeting on the 30th. it would have to go to june 6th. >> we have nine appeals on june 6th. possibly the 13th?
6:04 am
>> how about may 6th? >> no meeting. there's no meeting next week. >> so it's either the 23rd or the -- >> june 6th. >> clerk: or june 13th. >> the google should be short. >> i'll google that. >> the 6th or the 13th. >> okay. let's move onto juit to june 6 >> 6th? >> okay. >> do we have a motion. >> motion to allow the health
6:05 am
department to conduct a density report analysis to june 6th. >> okay. we have a motion from president fung to continue this matter to june 6th to enable the department of public health to gather further data on their density cap analysis. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes, and this meeting is adjourned. thank you.
6:06 am
>> welcome to our land use committee meeting of april 30, 2018. i'm katy tang. supervisor kim. and supervisor safai. and we would like to thank sfgov. madam clerk. any announcements? >> clerk: please silence any cell foepz and any paperwork is now with the clerk. >> supervisor tang: can you call item one? >> clerk: yes.
6:07 am
ordinance amending the planning code to allow the owner of premises leased to the city and county san francisco. >> supervisor kim: i don't have opening comments. just want to bring up planning department staff to present. >> the planning commission heard this item on april 19 and voted to approve the ordinance with modifications. it's my understanding that supervisor kim has those changes in the draft. they are largely clerical in nature the commission supports the legislation as it aligned with the general plan and facilities policy for police facilities that will help with police functions and reduce the risk presented by the most vulnerable structures. and provide assistance to reduce
6:08 am
risks. >> supervisor kim: can we open it up for public comment? >> supervisor tang: any members? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> supervisor kim: i have one amendment to make. we need to change c4 on page 5, lines 4-5 to c1. is that correct? >> deputy city attorney, john givner. the document circulated has a number of amendments. with the additional clerical tweak that you just mentioned, so if the committee would adopt a motion approving all of the amendments that reflect those. >> supervisor kim: yes. i would like to make a motion to
6:09 am
amend the language as has been recommended and distributed to committee members. >> supervisor tang: without objection? all right. thank you. can we get a motion an the amended item? >> supervisor kim: so moved with positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: without objection. item 2. >> clerk: the resolution responding to the recent proposal to expand the private marina located in clipper dove. >> supervisor kim: thank you. members of the community and of the public here on this item in regards to clipper cove on treasure island. this discussion has been with our office a little over the last two years as we've been working to convene a discussion with both the project sponsor/developer as well as treasure island authority and sailing center and many stake holders that care so deeply about clipper cove.
6:10 am
this proposed marina has been through many iterations since we first started discussing the development on treasure island over 20 years ago and has gone through many proposed it eeiters from the project sponsor as well as expectations of what the marina would serve. over time as we've been spending time with the stake holders, it's become increasingly clear to me that clipper cove is best served as a space for as many members of the public as possible. and the current usage, both with the sailing center, which partners with many of our schools, as well as many of community organizations, provides the greatest access for so many families and youth and a great way to get to enjoy the
6:11 am
bay. and while it's certainly a need also for us to create slips for large boats, it's my preference that we keep our commitment to public recreation and education and environmental protection in this public open space, so that's the resolution that i've submitted to the board of supervisors. so at this time, i would like to open up for public comment on this item, unless there are other questions or comments from committee members. >> supervisor tang: is the director of tida here? >> supervisor kim: yes. he is available to answer any questions, if needed. >> supervisor tang: i think it would be helpful. i've been getting emails from many of you sitting here about clipper cove and what's going on there and tried to reach out to treasure island to understand what is going on. a lot of the comments or concerned that i receive are around use or sailing and so
6:12 am
forth. so i want us to have a clear understanding of what is actually happening. so if you could do a brief presentation on that, that would be helpful, again, because this project is roughly almost two decades long and some of us were not around when that was developed. >> thank you, chair tang. yes. the project -- well, the planning has been in process for more than two decades. and last october, the title board unanimously approved long-term leases for the expansion of the marina and programs of the sailing center. these leases, which will come to the board of supervisors for approval were not developed out of the blue. it's a continuation of more than two decades of work for the former naval station treasure island. the base was listed for closure by the department of defense in 1993.
6:13 am
in 1994, the city formed a citizens reuse committee to study proposed development plans for the island. that committee drafted the original base reuse plan, which was endorsed by the board of supervisors, planning commission, the mayor in 1996. the reuse plan identified opportunities, constraints, policy goals and recommendations and has served as a framework for planning efforts the 1996 plan included, expanded and re developed the marina as part of its proposals. in 1998, the authority issued an rfp to redevelop and expand the marina. in 1999, the authority entered into an exclusive agreement with treasure island enterprises. this was followed with a term sheet and layout for 400-slip arena the authority entered into a
6:14 am
lease with treasure island sailing center and the continuation of those programs and expansion of the arena have been the subsequent planning for the cove. >> supervisor tang: director beck, you said last year the tida approved the long term leases for the sailing center. how long does that go? >> 66-year leases. there's a 66-year limit to leases on that property. the size and proposed layout of the arena did not change from the time of the 2001 term sheet through 2015. the plan was evaluated in the 2006 e.i.s./e.i.r. for the development of treasure island and development plan rejected by the board of supervisors and
6:15 am
mayor as well as 2010 updated development plan, which was unanimously endorsed by the board. finally, in 2011, the -- the 2011e.i.s./e.i.r. assumed an expanded, 400-slip arena, but did not re-evaluate because the scope was unchanged. by 2015, litigation challenging the ceqa analysis had been forwarded. the proposed developer of the marina began planning for the design, permitting and construction. the first step in the process was to sit down with treasure island sailing center and look at plans necessitated by the
6:16 am
navy's work and the reconstruction of the causeway from the island to yerba buena. between 2015 and 2017, treasure island enterprises met to refine the proposed layout including discussions facilitated by the board of supervisors and their staff. the discussions resulted in the compromised layout of a marina of 313 slips. the long-term leases approved by the board of supervisors have relied upon this compromised configuration. we've brought them to the board of supervisors so both programs can proceed with financing and permit promises through the bay conservation development commission and joint aquatic resources application processes. so that provides background on the cove. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that helpful timeline. at this point then, what is -- not before us, but at least the
6:17 am
proposal as far as 313-slip marina instead of the 400 originally contemplated? >> yes. >> supervisor tang: and then, again, with the sailing center, a 66-year lease that was just approved, so that program will not be jeopardized. >> yes. that's for the land sign facilities as well as central and outer portions of the cove. >> supervisor tang: okay. i just wanted that clarification because i'm not sure why all the emails i received were around this program going away. is there any square footage or anything being reduced? >> the proposed marina will occupy a larger footprint within the cove and that requires some modification. obviously, with the smaller footprint, the sailing center has used all of the cove, but in the process between 2015-2016,
6:18 am
the sailing center identified their needs, first a 1,600-foot program area, where they could conduct their classes with offsets from pier 1, the existing pier out there, and the stronger currents at the outer portion of the cove, as well as an offset on the inner side of 2060 feet to eliminate wind shadow from the marina facilities. >> supervisor tang: what was the offset? someone was coughing. >> 1,600-foot-diameter program area and 500-foot offset from pier 1 as well as 200-foot offset from the marina wave attenuator to prevent wind
6:19 am
shadow to boats anchored in the marina. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. i have seen correspondence dating back to another board where it seemed like there was an agreement reached with the sailing center and treasure island. and so maybe when we hear from public comment, i don't know if anything has changed, but again, i was a little alarmed about the number of emails i received about clipper cove. i think we all agree in the sentiment in the resolution preside president erving -- preserving the sailing program. >> yeah, the focus has been on
6:20 am
the sailing and s.t.e.m. programs that they conduct with san francisco unified and other schools. so that's been the focus. >> supervisor tang: that will continue? >> that will continue. there were some race layouts for colleagiate racing that happened, my understanding is, twice a year, as well as some high school race layouts in conflict with the current layout, but we can look to those occasional uses and see if there's another course configuration. >> supervisor tang: my last question -- the colleagiate and high school racing, how often are they using it? what will change as a result? >> those are interim uses accommodated in the cove over
6:21 am
many years. the historical layout of the coaling ing ing ing ing ing i colleagiately has been twice a year. the focus in the project has been to continue the programs of the sailing center and expansion of the marina, as has been the case since '99. >> supervisor tang: okay. >> supervisor safai: thank you to supervisor kim for bringing this resolution forward, because there's a lot of important issues brought forward here. i've heard from a significant number of constituents from my district as well, particularly around the issue of -- as it pertains to s.t.e.m. and unified
6:22 am
school district and the thousands of children that use the marina on an annual basis, but there's a lot of really important environmental issues that are brought up in this resolution. and i know that there was 2006, 2011, and those environmental impact reports, some of the things -- how were the issues of the impact to the natural resources and discussion of dredging. this is something i've heard from eel grass beds. i don't know what it is, but i know it's important to the cove. how were the issues addressed and were they talked about in the environmental reviews? >> yes. eel grass was identified in 2006 and 2011 e.i.r.s and the development of the marina is required to be -- to preserve and not jeopardize those beds.
6:23 am
and then the other issue that's discussed extensively in the resolution is sedimentation and dredging. all of those issues will be -- the next step beyond securing our lease for the program will be for the applicant to go to the bay conservation development commission and the joint aquatic resourcing project that includes the army corps of engineers and department of fish and wildlife to do the initial analysis on an interactive basis with those bodies to demonstrate both the dredging activities as well as the speed of boats are protective of the eel grass beds. but the eel grass beds, as i said, was identified --
6:24 am
>> supervisor safai: and that has to be written into the lease agreement prior to the lease agreement being executed? it has to be worked out with bcdc? is that what you said? >> no. the opposite. we anticipate treasure island enterprise needs to get the lease in place to move to the next stage and financing and permitting with bcdc. so anticipate bringing the leases to the board of supervisors and then with the lease in place, the treasure island enterprises would move to bcdc for that next stage of the process of permitting. >> supervisor safai: what i get from a lot of the emails and the resolution put forward is there is consternation about the size of the marina and impact it will have on existing uses and the
6:25 am
environment. i don't know if i heard you clearly, but will the existing educational uses be impacted by the size of the marina? >> i don't believe the exist existeducational resources will. it may affect future expansion plans. >> supervisor safai: so if it's -- would it be okay if we call up the person from the sailing center? >> supervisor tang: yes. we have several members of the public that are available to answer questions. carissa harris and avery whitmarsh, sailing center. and red jipson from u.s. sailing. i think i need to clarify, director beck. i think supervisor safai is
6:26 am
asking, if we move forward with the program, would that impact the current educational program? >> it is my understanding that it would not. >> supervisor tang: so we can greatly expand the slips and size of boats in clipper cove and it would not impact the educational programs offered today? >> that is my understanding. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> supervisor safai: through the chair, can we call someone from the sailing center? >> supervisor tang: absolutely. harris adamson? if i did call your name, if you don't mind sitting in the front row so you can be available for questions, that would be great. >> i'm dr. adamson, for the record, chair of the treasure island sailing center. >> supervisor safai: thank you. sorry.
6:27 am
juggling a lot of things today. i wanted to hear from your perspective. supervisor kim asked the same question to director beck -- i've seen emails. i don't know if it's from you in 2011, but, we've come to an agreement. we agreed on something. i care deeply about the educational programs and i know a lot of the children, family and educators, and it's a phenomenal resource. do you believe the proposed development impacts the current uses for educational opportunities. >> thank you for having me up to clarify and i understand your interest and support of the programs. i really do. just for the record, i have been with the organization since its inception. i was the first instructor at treasure island sailing center.
6:28 am
i've been on the u.s. sailing team three times, so i'm very aware of what kind of space requirements are needed for beginner sailing as well as all the way through to advanced sailing. the current marina plan does have a negative impact on our current programs. i can clarify specifically which ones those are. our youth beginner program requires new sailors to sail up to the beach, to be able to practice in lighter winds. the current marina plan makes it very difficult to do that. that's a fundamental change. so that's -- >> supervisor safai: is that for children specifically? >> yes. we start at age 6 and go up to 18. that particular use would be difficult for very beginners and the primary ages for those students are typically in the 7- to 12-year-old range. >> supervisor safai: because
6:29 am
they would shift to an area that's not as calm? >> the area they would be sailing in is windier and deeper. a and, again, access to the beach is what is critical for capsize drills, etc. so we would have to tow a boat up there and they would likely not be able to sail there themselves. >> supervisor safai: this is not a game of gotcha, but because i've only been getting up to speed on this more recently. there's an email from 2016 that -- from you to the board that you said, you are happy to say that you have come to an agreement on the size of the footprint. so is that more of a -- >> well, i can clarify. >> supervisor safai: is that what you felt at the time but you are not 100% happy -- >> i can clarify that. when we were faced with the new marina proposal that was not
6:30 am
shared with us necessarily proactively at all. so it was actually submitted as part of a meeting. someone told us about it. we found it, identified it, realized it was different than what we had seen prior. and, you know, we were faced with potentially having to shut down. so when we say we were happy, we were happy to continue our foundation that we've been building over the last 20 years. >> supervisor safai: is this a-25c footprint something you were presented that is not what the 400-slip marina -- is it different or the same? >> i will have to -- we presented three marina configurations. there was a minimal impact, which was our preference, moderate and maximal.
6:31 am
they went with maximal. it allows us to continue most of our programs in the sense that -- some shade of it, but it certainly eliminates the access to beach. >> supervisor safai: the point is -- >> it limits drastically the beginners getting to the beach, our set-sail-learn program as well as high school and college sailing. >> supervisor safai: okay. so it sounds like there were plans that were presented to you, multiple plans, but the one going forward presented today, has the most impact on -- the one we have in front of us, the 400 plus, has impact. >> it's a 313-marina plan. >> supervisor safai: 400 was previous. 313 is before us today. >> correct. >> supervisor safai: and it has significant impact from your perspective. >> less than 400, but
6:32 am
significant still. >> supervisor safai: thank you. i don't have any other questions right now. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. are there any other questions? >> supervisor kim: going through the resolution, because it was packed with quite a few things, environmental or ceqa-related or the financial, fiscal feasibility of the project. this would probably be a question for the director or if the project sponsor is here. there was a -- i had received some -- an email or a couple saying that the project sponsor did not have -- was not able to demonstrate fiscal feasibility for the project. and i wanted to know if we can reconcile that fact.
6:33 am
>> the project sponsor, treasure island enterprises, is also here to speak to that. i believe that comment refers to -- referred to the deliberations with the division of boating and waterways regarding a $4.2 million loan that was approved to finance the marina expansion. but i think it's worth noting that they did get that loan approved and we fully anticipate when we bring the leases to the board of supervisors working through with the legislative analyst a thorough vetting of the project and any problems that may arise. >> supervisor tang: thank you. can the project sponsor come up and weigh in on this?
6:34 am
in particular, i will paraphrase from email correspondence that i received, that a financial feasibility study on the current marina proposal published in april last year finds that the developer proposal failed to account for the costs of of theed -- the costs and maintenance and finds that it increased the risk of project default and so forth and underestimating revenue and expenses. if you could just respond to that, that would be great. >> certainly. thank you, madam chair and fellow board members. i'm jay wallace.
6:35 am
first of all, before i answer the question, i want to say a couple of things. one, we're really very delighted and pleased over the support we've seen from the board of supervisors. supervisor kim, her predecessor, supervisor daly, they're home-base supervisors. we've had great relations with the board of supervisors and our district supervisor and for that, we want to thank you. i want to share supervisor kim's earlier comments. we, too, want to protect the cove and make sure that the kids are safe and that the program continues, which is why we engaged in good faith negotiations for close to two years with the sailing center to try to accommodate all of that. as to the specific question, madam chair, we had three meetings with the division, boating and waterways. many people that are here today were at those meetings. hunter and i -- you will probably hear from hunter -- chased each other around to
6:36 am
sacramento, long beach and i think san francisco, so we covered the state. we were required as part of the granting of the loan to come up with a dredge reserve to take care of this issue. it was something that is very unusual as i understand it in the marina business, but it was a requirement imposed on us. and as a condition, a mitigation measure, there is -- and i don't remember the dollar amount -- i think it is $250,000, to have a revolving fund for at all times. nonetheless, there's a requirement in the division of boating and waterway loan that we have a dredge reserve to cover these issues. i hope that answers the question. >> supervisor tang: supervisor safai?
6:37 am
>> supervisor safai: did you say something about the depth of the cove? >> i did not specifically. i said we're required to have a dredging reserve fund to take -- to be in place so that in the future should there be a need for additional dredging, so we're not looking for available funds. >> supervisor safai: you are required to have a financial reserve designated specifically to deal with the issue of dredging and depth of the cove? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: it's in the lease? >> i believe so. bob, maybe you can help me, but it certainly is a condition of the granting of our loan. i think it is in the lease actually, as i recall. >> supervisor safai: the reason i ask that, because it's specifically called out here in the resolution, so i wanted to make sure if that's something that you guys were already dealing with.
6:38 am
>> yes, i believe so. >> supervisor safai: and what about the issue that we just heard from the san francisco sailing center about the impact to existing programs? you sent us a letter with attachments and talks about that there was agreements, but it sounds like there was multiple plans presented. can you talk a little bit about that? >> certainly. to reiterate quickly, '96, the marina was conceived as a reuse plan. 2006, approved as 400-slip arena. it was approved 11-0. 2011, master development came up. supervisor kim, you were part of that vote. it, too, was approved 11-0. between 2011-2015, there was a
6:39 am
ceqa lawsuit that was defeated. so in 2015, we decided, like the sailing center, to move forward with our plans to finish up the permitting and the financing. in 2015 at the end of the year, i received a phone call -- and by the way, during 2006 and 2011, the 400-slip marina, which was 2,200 linear feet long, now it's 880, so you can see we shrunk 1,300 feet. in 2006 and 2011, nobody in this audience opposed the marina, including the sailing center. and they were well aware what we were doing. we were coordinating with them. to this day, we support all the activities of the sailing center, of their youth programming. 2015, i received a phone call through bob beck at the sailing center, wanted to meet with us. we immediately decided to meet with them. we spent most of 2016 and a
6:40 am
little bit of 2017 in conversation with the sailing center, members of the community, hunter cuttings participated in those conversations. board of supervisors offices convened several of those meetings, yes, we went from 400 to 380 to 360 to 330 and ultimately settled on 313 slips. we did that with the help of the board offices. we did that with good faith conversations with the sailing center. we believed, as bob beck indicated, that our compromise from 400 down to 313 slips, compromise on the length of the dock, and the wave attenuator, all complications conversations, but we shrunk and shrunk and shrunk because we had one goal
6:41 am
in mind -- that the sailing center's programs could continue and the kids could be safe. there may be some questions about that today, but in october, early november, when we were called in, i was there, my business partner, hunter cutting, we thought we had reached a deal that would accommodate the sailing center's s.t.e.m. program. when we -- and so to hunter's credit, he didn't agree. so he didn't agree. he was in the room with us. but we felt like the sailing center had agreed because their programming would be kept intact. i don't want to put words in their mouth. you heard from carissa. but we certainly felt like in good faith we sat down and negotiated. we butted heads. we fought a little bit, but we came upon a compromise that not
6:42 am
everybody got everything they wanted, but most people got most of what they wanted and we think that's good, public policy. >> supervisor safai: did you codify that in a written document? >> we didn't other than the email that carissa harris sent to me and my business partner, to bob and so supervisors avelos and kim and their staff and the supervisor wrote back and said, great, happy to see that. >> supervisor safai: that was -- that was the extent of the codification. >> supervisor tang: i also saw a press release from the sailing center. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i should say, that this board has not weighed in on clipper cove. there may have been an agreement by the treasure island sailing center, but the board has not put forward a proposal or an agreement. and i want to clarify -- mr. wallace, you stated that the
6:43 am
board of supervisors passed an e.i.r. 11-0 in 2011 and the e.i.r. studied a very large marina, 400-slip marina, is that correct? >> bob said that the 2011 e.i.r. incorporated the 2006 study of the 400-slip marina, so, yes, it was part of 2011 but not a new study of the marina. we relied on the old study. >> supervisor kim: thank you for the clarification. i want to think of a time when we've viewed an e.i.r. as an agreement to a plan versus it just studying a plan. >> i agree. e.i.r. is not approval of a plan. that's why we're here today, because we're getting ready to approve the lease. >> supervisor kim: we try to study the most expansive version of a program or project so when we review a project, it has been study in e.i.r. if the proposal is smaller, than
6:44 am
at least we know that the e.i.r. has covered it. but in no way, it should be implied that the board of supervisors has approved anything because it approved a study. >> in 2006, there was a project-specific approval of the marina and it was a program attic approval of the master development. in 2006, there was the big programattic e.i.r. that allowed the transfer to happen and the transfer development, and i'm part of that as well, but in 2006, within the e.i.r. and e.i.s., there was a project-specific, 400-slip marina. >> supervisor kim: study. >> but not approved. when the board approved 11-0 the 2006 e.i.r./e.i.s. -- >> supervisor kim: the study.
6:45 am
we didn't not approve a 400-slip marina. >> you approved the study of a 400-slip marina. >> supervisor kim: i think that's a very important clarification and distinction to make. i have spent a lot of time on these large-area plans and we frequently overstudy what is finally proposed because we want to be sure that we study the highest impact project area plan or project possible and then at the board we finally approve a project that's often smaller than what is studied in e.i.r. it's important for members of the public and the board to understand that in no way is approving a study an approval of a proposal. >> that's absolutely accurate. when we came back in 2017 with the smaller project, as you are describing right now, we were able to rely on the larger study
6:46 am
that had been approved, not the project and for point of clarification, as you know, supervisor, but for the rest of the folks, there was a good reason why the project wasn't approved in 2006 and 2011 and that is because the city didn't control the property. the land disposition has not taken place, as bob beck indicated, until 2015. so there was the inability to approve the specific project, but i agree with everything you said in terms of sometimes the project gets smaller and that gets approved. that's what we would like to see happen in this instance. >> supervisor tang: thank you, mr. wallace. supervisor kim, i was trying to do research on when the board weighed in. but did we ever as a body weigh in on the overall treasure island-yerba buena project? >> supervisor kim: the housing or the marina? >> supervisor tang: all of it. did it include the marina as
6:47 am
well? >> supervisor kim: no. in 2011, we certified the e.i.r., which studied the housing plan plus the marina. and then we passed and approved the development and disposition agreement with the project sponsor that covered specifically what we were building on the island itself, which is treasure island and yerba buena. so this is the approval of the plan that approved the land and the office and the -- by the way, we spent a lot of time studying this issue. i don't want to go back on my word or the board of supervisor before my time. part of the reason why this has taken so long to weave its way through -- i want to make sure that this is something that even within our discretion to put forward. it's one thing for the members of the public to advocate or for
6:48 am
me to say, this is a better plan. now we do have an opportunity to weigh in in terms of what we think is the best proposal to move forward. it's true that there's been a discussion of a larger marina, 200- 300- 400-slip marina, but at no point did the board of supervisors come to a final approval, regardless of what the treasure island sailing center may have said two years ago. >> supervisor tang: okay. a lot of questions and answers. sorry. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: one point of clarification, and thank you, supervisor kim, for clarifying that for the public. the real area of the definition and scope and final analysis of what we're talking about today will be finalized in the lease agreement, correct? >> correct.
6:49 am
>> supervisor safai: so that's not come before us yet. >> correct. >> supervisor safai: so there is an opportunity -- this resolution talks about some goals for that conversation and it sounds like there's going to be more conversations going forward between you and the sailing center and the treasure island development authority before the lease agreement comes back, is that correct? >> certainly can happen, absolutely. >> sounds like that would be an important part of the conversation. >> if i may, supervisor. as you know, we made a request to continue the matter so we could have that kind of conversation. there's very much in this resolution that we agree to. we want to protect the eel grass. we worried about the eel grass. we thought about the eel grass. there are a few items we don't agree on. that was the purpose of our request for continuance so we could sit down with the
6:50 am
department. our door has always been open to the sailing center, as has theirs backward to us. and there's no reason -- i think there's no reason why we can't continue to have a dialogue to resolve some of the issues. >> supervisor safai: what it sounds like, you have the district supervisor, who has put forward a resolution that's well thought out and set parameters for the conversation, but the final agreement is the lease agreement, right? that's really what -- and that has not come before us yet. >> that's correct. >> supervisor safai: based on what i'm hearing today, although we haven't had public comment yet, there is more work to be done and you are open to that. >> supervisor tang: director beck. >> i wanted to clarify. the proposed lease sets an envelope for development of the marina. ultimately, the final footprint of the marina would not be
6:51 am
finalized until they've gone through the bcdc process. and that bcdc permit process might further limit the size that the marina could develop. >> supervisor safai: so lease agreement -- what would happen if -- it talks about the scope but not the final footprint. say that one more time. >> it talks about the scope and it describes real property based on the current layout. it proposes up to 313 slips and an envelope for development. >> supervisor safai: when you about to bcdc -- would the lease agreement be amended once bcdc weighs in? >> it could be amended if it affects the economics. >> supervisor safai: would that come back to us again? >> it would come back to you again.
6:52 am
[please stand by]
6:53 am
>> supervisor tang: i just called the first ten cards, but i do have more after that, so if the first ten speakers could come up after that, that would be great. >> good afternoon. my name is robby dean, robert dean. i'm a former executive director of the civic center sailing center. i just wanted to come here and express to you further how important the center is to the san francisco. the sailing center has thousands of kids who come through the program. you know this, and that access to the beach is very important. i'm also an international race -- being able to adapt to the new marina plan is not --
6:54 am
the access up into the cove where the slips are proposed to be is the windward area where we train and do our racing, practicing for racing as well as the four or five events for the year that are major events for that racing. sailing up into that cove is very important, and course configuration really cannot be adjusted to accommodate this. the marina's a huge impact on the treasure island sailing center programs, and i strongly urge you to support the resolution for clipper cove planning, 180331. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is ramel barrientos. i taught at t.i.s., 2013 and '14 as a full-time instructor
6:55 am
and also as the full-time race officer. besides the youth program, the adult program, there's also the visual impaired people that i've taught thiere, and to tak that area away from them would be a big loss. because i train them for the paralympics, and it's just a safe place to train beginner salors. so if that's gone, it's pretty hard to find a place to teach on the bay. i just want to let you guys know that. so if the marina's there, the safety's gone. thank you. >> paul zingaro. i'm a slip holder at treasure island marina presently. i see lots of youth sailors
6:56 am
every day day, and i'm glad to see that happen. i just want to point out that this venue is unique in san francisco bay. there's no other place like it. small boaters will really have no other place like it in the bay and it should be preserved. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. >> hi. my name's paul heineken. i'm here as the volunteer cal berkel berkeley sailing coach. i'm also a retired physician at san francisco va medical center, and eight years ago, when i cutback there, i started coaching at cal. i have a lot of experience there with youth, if we can call the college kids youth, and with the kids that come to practice with us. as robby said, we need a windward cove. it can tolerate a slightly
6:57 am
margin margin -- larger marina in the windward side, but it cannot be made into a giant marina parking lot. i would say over the years that agreements have been made, but i think from an outside sort of view, it looks like t.i.s.c. has been involved in i symmetrical negotiations. so agreements that were made in the past were not necessarily done symmetrically. the races that we do for sailing are important, but there's also drogagon boat rac that use the entire length of the cove, and i think it's important that all the users who use this cove have access to this unique area. we are a maritime city, and we
6:58 am
need to teach that to our youth. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is valerie santori. my husband dave, we've lived in san francisco, our family, since before '47 in the same house, and we've come along and done some sailing activities, worked with high school sailing programs. i've been at volunteer at t.i.s.c. several times. and having run a high school program, i can tell you i've been envious of the facilities, even though they don't have running water and there's some other things they could use. they have the space that they need and the safety that they need in order to run a successful program and they've really made the most of it. this is important because kids in these sailing programs learn to trust each other, and they learn to overcome all kinds of
6:59 am
fare fears, fears of water to start with, and pulling all the people together. my high school kids were like that. too. we put high school kids with mission kids, and they're still bonded after all these years. it's the foundation of our community in san francisco. if you want to represent the community, then you need to stand behind the community programs and not just sell out to some pretty boats. thank you. >> supervisor tang: i will call a few more speaker cards, then. jonathan delong, eileen boken. hunter cutting, sonny allen. drain eaton, rebecca evans, paul manning, and hans wu. >> hi. my name's connie chanon.
7:00 am
i'm here to support a much smaller configuration of the marina that's proposed. i've been a boat holder, a slip owner-holder at t.i. marina for the last eight years, and we sale on a 36 foot boat. every weekend, there are boats coming in, anchoring out from other parts of the bay. we typically have to come in and out of the cove, maneuvering around the t. -- the sailing center's boats, and we have a small boat configured -- you know, comparatively. right now, the marina's proposed -- there's eight slips in the last iteration i saw of it, at 30 feet, and the rest are 40, 50, 60, 70 foot megayachts, coming into the small cove, sharing the cove, depending on the time they come in with the sailing center's boating situations, when they're running races or doing their programs. so -- which seems to me presents a