MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HELD ON THE
3RD DAY OF APRIL 2007
The Commissioners of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco met in a regular meeting at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416, in the City of San Francisco, California, at 5:00 p.m. on the 3rd day of April 2007, at the place and date duly established for holding of such a meeting.
President Richard H. Peterson Jr. called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Mr. Peterson welcomed members of the public and radio listening audience, and asked that all electronic devices including pagers and cellular telephones be turned off during the meeting. Mr. Peterson asked members of the public who wish to address the Commission to fill out speaker cards, and to state their names for the record, and to limit their remarks to three minutes. Mr. Peterson stated that the appropriate time for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not on the current Agenda, but related to general Agency business, would be Item 6 on the agenda. This portion of the Agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff, and members of the public should simply state their business or matter they wish the Commission or staff to be aware of, and if they had questions, to follow-up with staff or Commissioners during a break or after adjournment. It is not appropriate for Commissioners to engage in a debate or respond on issues not properly set in a publicly-noticed meeting agenda.
1. RECOGNITION OF A QUORUM
The Commission Secretary announced the presence of a quorum with the following Commissioners present:
Richard H. Peterson Jr., President
Francee Covington, Vice-President
Ramon E. Romero
NOTE: The April 3rd Commission meeting was Commissioner Linda Cheu’s first
Joanne Sakai, Acting Executive Director and staff members were also present.
2. REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN AT PREVIOUS CLOSED SESSION MEETING, IF ANY. None.
3. MATTERS OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
4. MATTERS OF NEW BUSINESS:
4 (a) Approval of Minutes: Meeting of March 20, 2007
4 (b) Resolution No. 20-2007, Authorizing a fifth amendatory agreement to the agreement for disposition of land for private development with Access to Housing, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, to extend the term of affordability restrictions in connection with the sale of the Junipero Serra House Apartments located at 926 Fillmore Street to Junipero Serra LLC, a California limited liability company, affiliated with Mercy Housing California; and authorizing a subordination agreement with Fannie Mae, a federally chartered and stockholder owned corporation, and Junipero Serra LLC to facilitate the issuance of housing revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority; a California Joint Powers Agency; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
4 (c) Resolution No. 21-2007, Authorizing the application and acceptance of a grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a total amount not to exceed $1,430,000 to fund the Second Start Program, a partial rental subsidy and service program, as part of the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Special Projects of National Significance Program; Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program
4 (d) Resolution No. 22-2007, Authorizing a Third Amendment to the Personal Services Contract with Urban Strategies Council, a California nonprofit corporation, to increase the contract in an amount not to exceed $26,662, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $389,584, to provide additional technical assistance and outreach services to the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizen's Advisory Committee in connection with the formation of a quasi-public entity; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4 (a), APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2007 (MS. CHEU ABSTAINED), 4 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 20-2007, AUTHORIZING A FIFTH AMENDATORY AGREEMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSITION OF LAND FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESS TO HOUSING, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, TO EXTEND THE TERM OF AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THE JUNIPERO SERRA HOUSE APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 926 FILLMORE STREET TO JUNIPERO SERRA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AFFILIATED WITH MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA; AND AUTHORIZING A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH FANNIE MAE, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED AND STOCKHOLDER OWNED CORPORATION, AND JUNIPERO SERRA LLC TO FACILITATE THE ISSUANCE OF HOUSING REVENUE BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY; A CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS AGENCY; WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, 4 (c) RESOLUTION NO. 21-2007, AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,430,000 TO FUND THE SECOND START PROGRAM, A PARTIAL RENTAL SUBSIDY AND SERVICE PROGRAM, AS PART OF THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS SPECIAL PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE PROGRAM; HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS PROGRAM, AND 4 (d) RESOLUTION NO. 22-2007, AUTHORIZING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH URBAN STRATEGIES COUNCIL, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,662, FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $389,584, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OUTREACH SERVICES TO THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMATION OF A QUASI-PUBLIC ENTITY; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (e) Resolution No. 23-2007, Commending and expressing appreciation to Commissioner Benny Y. Yee for his services upon the occasion of his departure from the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco
Commission Secretary Erwin Tanjuaquio read the commendation resolution for Commissioner Benny Y. Yee.
President Peterson stated that he knew that Mr. Yee regretted not being able to attend the Commission meeting, because Mr. Yee was feeling under the weather, but that he was going to tune in the radio broadcast. Mr. Peterson stated that he had known Mr. Yee for a total of three years, two years on the Agency Commission and that Mr. Yee was a character of the first degree, and that Mr. Yee was very committed to the City and, in particular, the objectives of the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Peterson stated that he knew that everyone was disappointed to see Mr. Yee depart the Agency Commission, but that Mr. Yee would certainly have a lot to say on another City Commission in the near future. Mr. Peterson stated that he would miss Mr. Yee and that he looked forward to developing their mutual friendship in the coming years. Mr. Peterson thanked Mr. Yee for his contributions and his friendship.
Commissioner Singh stated that he would miss Mr. Yee very much and that Mr. Yee was a very good Commissioner. Mr. Singh put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (e).
Commissioner Covington stated that Mr. Yee was a bright light, a wonderful, marvelous and energetic spirit and definitely a “straight-shooter.” Ms. Covington stated that Mr. Yee was more like an uncle who was more than willing to give his advice, and that she had really enjoyed her time with Mr. Yee on the Agency Commission, especially the lunches and dinners because Mr. Yee was a very gracious host and a gracious gentleman. Ms. Covington stated that she would miss Mr. Yee greatly and that she looked forward to seeing him outside of the Commission.
Commissioner Romero stated that he hoped Mr. Yee was listening on the radio broadcast and that the commendation resolution said it all. Mr. Romero stated that he agreed with the part of the resolution which stated that Mr. Yee was never just a rubber stamp because Mr. Yee was just the opposite as he had very strong views and was not afraid to assert them. Mr. Romero stated that although he and Mr. Yee disagreed many times, he respected his views and that he knew that Mr. Yee respected his views. Mr. Romero stated that although the public may sometimes see that he and Mr. Yee were really fighting with each other during the meetings, that was not the case outside the Commission meetings because Mr. Yee was nothing but a gentleman, and that he would miss Mr. Yee very much. Mr. Romero stated he thought that Mr. Yee was a demanding Commissioner, which made everyone on the Commission better as well as Agency staff, in terms of responding to Mr. Yee’s requests for information and reports. Mr. Romero stated that he wished Mr. Yee the very best and that Mr. Yee was a kind man at heart, and that everything he did on the Commission whether people agreed with him or not, was done with the sincerity of good intentions for what he thought was the best interest of the City, which he loved dearly. Mr. Romero wished Mr. Yee the best and that he hoped that Mr. Yee would catch a lot of fish.
Commissioner King stated that he would really miss his old buddy and that although a lot of nice things were being said about Mr. Yee, he (Mr. King) had not heard them while Mr. Yee was on the Agency Commission. Mr. King wished Mr. Yee well and thanked him for his services and looked forward to seeing him soon.
Commissioner Covington seconded Commissioner Singh’s motion to adopt item 4 (e).
Commissioner Cheu stated that although she did not have the opportunity to serve with Mr. Yee, she certainly admired his dedication to the Agency Commission over the years. Ms. Cheu stated that in the last few weeks, she had the opportunity to interact with Mr. Yee and that he had been extremely gracious, welcoming and helpful to her during the transition. Ms. Cheu stated that she joined everyone in thanking Mr. Yee for his services.
Commissioner Breed stated that one of the things she respected about Mr. Yee was his consistent support for the public and the “underdog,” and that she was going to miss that because it was great to have Commissioners with diverse backgrounds and opinions that provided a way for others to see a viewpoint that may have not been obvious. Ms. Breed stated that she hoped other Commissioners would strive to set the same example as Mr. Yee did.
President Peterson stated that what he would remember most about Mr. Yee was his parliamentary and procedural jousts with the Agency’s General Counsel, Mr. Morales. Mr. Peterson stated that he recalled one Commission meeting where Mr. Yee was in total disagreement with the General Counsel on some procedural matter, and that he (Mr. Peterson) wagered Mr. Yee publicly, that he was wrong, and that Mr. Yee lost the wager and he bought dinner to pay for the wager. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Yee was a lot of fun and that he would be missed at the Commission and wished him the very best.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (e) RESOLUTION NO. 23-2007, COMMENDING AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO COMMISSIONER BENNY Y. YEE FOR HIS SERVICES UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, BE ADOPTED.
Items 4 (f) and (g) are related to the 1210 Scott Street property.
4 (f) Resolution No. 24-2007, Rescinding the motion adopted by the Commission at the closed session meeting of March 6, 2007 to instruct Agency staff to designate the property located at 1210 Scott Street for the development of affordable housing and to immediately issue a Request for Proposals for the development of 1210 Scott Street
4 (g) Resolution No. 25-2007, Authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of approximately 18 to 20 units of affordable homeownership housing at 1210 Scott Street (Block 0729, Lot 044); Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
Speakers: Patricia James, Noni Richen, Ross Snow, Margaret Verges, Ace
President Peterson stated that there was no disrespect intended when the matters were calendared for the April 3rd Commission meeting and that it was appropriate to continue the items to the next Commission meeting on April 17th.
Commissioner Covington put forth a motion to continue items 4 (f) and (g) to the Commission meeting of April 17, 2007. Commissioner Singh seconded the motion.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. COVINGTON, SECONDED BY MR. SINGH, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEMS 4 (f) RESOLUTION NO. 24-2007, RESCINDING THE MOTION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2007 TO INSTRUCT AGENCY STAFF TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1210 SCOTT STREET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO IMMEDIATELY ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1210 SCOTT STREET, AND 4 (g) RESOLUTION NO. 25-2007, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 18 TO 20 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP HOUSING AT 1210 SCOTT STREET (BLOCK 0729, LOT 044); WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 17, 2007 COMMISSION MEETING.
4 (h) Status report on the developer selection for the development of approximately 32 units of low and moderate-income first-time ownership housing at 1345 Turk Street; Block 756, Lot 001, Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
Presenters: Michele Davis (Agency staff)
Commissioner Breed stated that she disagreed with the notion of both developers working together on the development project, and that she thought that would prolong the process. Ms. Breed stated she thought that the developer selection for 1345 Turk Street should be calendared for the next Commission meeting in order for the Commission to take the recommendation of the Western Addition Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC). Ms. Breed stated that she had a problem with how the development would be done with one developer proposing apartment or condominium units and the other proposing townhomes because townhomes were not accessible to persons with disabilities, and that she recalled at the previous Commission meeting that she had requested a presentation from the Mayor’s Office on Disability to have a discussion about disability access for Agency housing development, and that the presentation should be calendared soon.
Commissioner Romero stated that the 1345 Turk Street project was before the Commission previously and the Commission did not adopt any resolution to select a developer for the project, and asked what options the Commission had in moving forward with the project.
General Counsel James Morales stated that the Commission had the option of (1) completing the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and selecting one of the developers that submitted a proposal, (2) the Commission could essentially toss the RFP process and start the selection process again, or (3) the Commission could toss the RFP process and consider a new proposal from a joint development team. Mr. Morales stated that the last two options would void the RFP process.
Commissioner Romero stated that during his time on the Commission, the Commission had not previously made a decision to select one developer and suggested a joint development effort, and asked if that was still within the Commission’s authority.
Mr. Morales stated that under the RFP, there was a provision that the Commission retained the authority to make changes to the RFP, which was a broad statement of the Commission’s authority to change the rules, but that the Commission should always act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary way when it changed the rules. Mr. Morales stated that the RFP in fact, granted the Commission a certain amount of authority to change or void the process, but that the Commission should be careful in doing so.
Commissioner Romero stated that it appeared to him that both development teams had played by the rules and did what they were asked to do by the RFP, and when the selection came before the Commission, it could not make a decision. Mr. Romero stated that he wanted to be fair to everyone and hoped that the selection would be resolved soon, before another developer came since the Commission had not made a decision to select a developer. Mr. Romero stated that he hoped that whatever course of action the Commission considered that it would do so decisively because he did not want to see any further delays.
Commissioner Breed stated she thought that by asking the two developers to work together on the particular project, the Agency was setting a bad precedent, and that the Agency not supporting the recommendation of the CAC would also set a terrible precedent, primarily because the Agency had a terrible reputation in the Western Addition and regardless of the three Agency Commissioners from the Western Addition serving on the Commission, there continued to be problems between the community and the Agency. Ms. Breed stated that when the Agency did not take seriously the recommendations of the community, then the Agency, she thought, was demonstrating that the Agency did not truly value their opinions and their time as volunteers, the same way that Commissioners serve on the Commission. Ms. Breed stated that members of the CAC spent a lot of time and did a lot of work on the project reviewing proposals from the developers, and that according to some members of the CAC, a lot of the problems with the selection process was with Agency staff, and that she was tired of hearing continued complaints about staff regarding the Western Addition, and that by supporting the merger of the two developers, the Commission was not using its best judgment to make a decision to support the people that live and work in the community. Ms. Breed stated that based upon comments from several CAC members, the Commission should say to the CAC that it would support their recommendation, agree with their decision and to move forward with the development project, because that was what the community wanted and what they thought was best for their and her community. Ms. Breed stated that she wholeheartedly supported the CAC and that when the matter was before the Commission previously, she was torn because as much as she wanted to support the CAC at the time, she was not aware of all the dynamics of why things happened the way they did, but now that she had the opportunity to look closely at all of the details and options, and had discussions with members of the CAC, she was confident in supporting wholeheartedly the recommendation of the CAC. Ms. Breed stated she thought the matter should not be delayed any longer and that a decision should have been made. Ms. Breed stated that the matter was last heard three Commission meetings ago and was delayed for two Commission meetings and now the matter was brought to the Commission as an informational matter when the Agency should be moving forward as expeditiously as it could. Ms. Breed stated that this was one of the complaints that had been expressed with other properties in the Western Addition, that the projects were being delayed when the Agency was leaving the Western Addition in 2009. Ms. Breed stated that with regard to the 1345 Turk Street project, she thought that the matter should be calendared for the next Commission meeting so that the Commission could make a decision on whether or not the Agency should support one developer or the other. Ms. Breed stated she did not think that the two developers should be forced to work together.
Commissioner King stated he agreed with Commissioner Breed because the Commission voted down one developer when it first considered the matter, and then the two developers were asked to work together, which was not proper procedure. Mr. King stated that he certainly agreed that the matter should be calendared at the next Commission meeting to follow the recommendation of the CAC, because the CAC represented the community and advised the Agency on such matters.
Commissioner Covington stated she certainly thought that the matter should be before the Commission for a vote fairly soon, but that she wanted to point out that the Agency did not ask the two developers to work together, and that it was Rev. Edgar Boyd when he addressed the Commission, that conversations had begun between the two developers about a possible joint development, so that was not initiated by Agency Commissioners or staff. Ms. Covington requested staff to provide more detail with respect to a joint development proposal as well as an estimated timeline for completing the joint proposal for consideration by the Commission.
Ms. Michele Davis, Development Specialist, stated that staff understood that it was the Commission’s desire for the two developers to work on a consolidated proposal and so the two developers had been working together to refine a joint proposal and to develop the best approach. Ms. Davis stated that as the Commission knew, the evaluation panel comprised of Agency staff and CAC members selected the Michael Simmons townhome design over the proposal for flats, and that they were at a point of developing a budget as well as figuring out the roles of the respective consultants from each development team with a consolidated proposal.
Commissioner Covington asked if staff anticipated that the negotiations would be concluded in two weeks for presentation to the Commission.
Ms. Davis stated that she had been informed that a budget would be provided to her within one week, and if that was the case, the matter could be before the Commission at its next meeting.
Commissioner Covington stated that she would encourage all parties involved to expedite the process.
President Peterson stated that Commissioner Covington had a good memory and was correct that it was not the Agency that proposed a joint development. Mr. Peterson stated that in fact, he made it clear that he did not think that the two developers should work together because it would cause more unnecessary delays and would likely be less efficient from a business standpoint, but that the Commission was happy to go along with Rev. Edgar Boyd’s wisdom as a community leader. Mr. Peterson stated that he had a good relationship with Rev. Arnold Townsend and that there was no rift in that ongoing relationship. Mr. Peterson stated that the Agency should very much take seriously what the CAC had to say in every case possible, but that if the Commission was going to continue to exist along with the CAC, he did not feel compelled to necessarily go along with CAC recommendations in every case. Mr. Peterson stated that he did not know exactly what his voting record was, but that he was certain that he had agreed with the CAC recommendations on matters, but that would not always be the case, and that he believed it was fair to have two bodies making separate considerations. Mr. Peterson stated he thought that it was unfair to the Commission that if there was a case where it disagreed with the CAC on a particular matter, to suggest that the Commission did not care about the CAC or the importance of having a CAC. Mr. Peterson stated that he would echo the sentiments of his fellow Commissioners to move forward in selecting a developer as soon as possible.
Commissioner Cheu stated that she echoed the comments about the timeline and process and that she would like to hear from the developers whether or not they felt confident of coming up with a workable project in the next few weeks.
Mr. Michael Johnson from Em Johnson Interest, stated that he and Mr. Michael Simmons had been working with Agency staff and the CAC to develop a combined proposal, and that their goal was to complete that in the next few days, but that he was not certain if they would have everything completed in time for the Commission’s consideration at its next meeting. Mr. Johnson stated that they would have to advise staff and the Commission with the status of their efforts.
Mr. Michael Simmons stated that he agreed with Mr. Johnson’s comments.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that the two developers were working on the townhome design for the combined proposal and that the CAC was supportive of that.
Ms. Davis stated that the evaluation panel had expressed a preference for the Michael Simmons townhome design and that was the design concept that the two developers were working toward in the combined proposal. Ms. Davis stated that the CAC had a general discussion about the combined proposal, but it was not an action item.
Commissioner Breed asked if the matter had come before the CAC since the Commission first considered the project.
Ms. Davis stated her understanding was that there was no reason to bring the matter back to the CAC.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to repeat what she had said previously, that there was a problem with townhomes and accessibility. Ms. Breed stated she thought that it was important to understand that townhomes were not accessible and that she would like to understand how disability access would be provided in either development option. Ms. Breed stated that as far as she was concerned, she would not support a merger and would only support the recommendation of the CAC, which was a reasonable recommendation, and in moving forward, she would like to see the option to consider the CAC’s recommendation on the next Commission meeting agenda.
Rev. Arnold Townsend stated that he wanted to inform the Commission that since the discussion of the merger, all that the CAC had was an update, and in that update, there was no discussion of the townhome design. Rev. Townsend stated that if the Commission would recall, the CAC made its decision because it was not in favor of the townhome design, and although the evaluation panel selected the townhome design, the Commission should realize that the evaluation panel was primarily comprised of Agency staff, and it was the staff’s desire that prevailed and the CAC had not been part of the negotiations or discussions.
Commissioner Romero stated now that Mr. Benny Yee was no longer on the Commission he would invoke his name and say that he did not consider himself a rubber stamp for anybody or any entity. Mr. Romero stated that the standard procedures for such matters involved an interview process with presentations and discussions at the CAC and following input from everyone concerned, the matter was brought before the Commission’s consideration usually with a staff recommendation, but in this case, there was no staff recommendation because the two proposals were considered to be so close and even. Mr. Romero stated that there was a position taken by the Western Addition CAC, and whether it was the CAC or a Project Area Committee (PAC) making a recommendation, he placed a heavy weight in considering their decisions as long as it appeared that they had done everything properly and followed procedures. Mr. Romero stated that even when that was done, and he did not think there was any question with the propriety of the CAC’s recommendation, the CAC’s recommendation was just one factor to be considered as well as staff’s input and other members of the public who may live in the affected community and are not members of the CAC or the PAC, these were all things that as a Commissioner, he had to consider in making a decision. Mr. Romero stated that he would not rubber stamp the CAC, staff or the PAC, and as Rev. Townsend pointed out at previous meetings, even the Commission made mistakes and so could the CAC and PAC, and the Commission had to make its own decisions based upon its judgment and not reverse its decisions when it made bad decisions. Mr. Romero stated that was why Commissioners had to exercise independent judgment and that was why they had to go through the political process of being appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Supervisors in order to see how Commissioners would exercise their independent judgment on important matters. Mr. Romero stated that when everyone was not able to make a decision, the Commissioners had to be decisive and that he would not always go along with the CAC 100% of the time, and although it was important to have the input, the Commission had to make the decisions not only because it had the authority, but also the responsibility to do so. Mr. Romero stated he thought that either developer could to a good job as well as a joint development and that he believed there would be a great outcome, but that he did not want the Commission to fall into a pattern of rubber stamping the CAC.
Commissioner King stated that all Commissioners knew that PACs were authorized under State law and that the PACs exist to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency. Mr. King stated that the Agency should follow the recommendations of the CAC because the members represented the community and they were the ones who worked and lived in the community and conducted community meetings about issues affecting their community. Mr. King stated that the PACs held elections every year to have representation from the community, and while the CACs were different, they still provide advice and recommendation to the Agency.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to be clear that as everyone knew, she had lived in the Western Addition all of her life and that she also served on the CAC before she was appointed as an Agency Commissioner, and that she had personally experienced the same concerns that CAC members had experienced with obtaining information from Agency staff and in many cases, not receiving information in a timely manner. Ms. Breed stated that her concerns stemmed from her personal experience and her desire to see the Western Addition become a better place, and that unfortunately, gentrification had done its damage and her family and peers could no longer afford to live in the community. Ms. Breed stated that she took her position as Commissioner and a life-long Western Addition resident seriously, but also took the recommendations of the CAC very seriously, and if there was ever a time when she believed that a CAC or PAC was acting inappropriately, or the decision was something she could not live with, or could possibly be detrimental to the future of that community, then she would have to make the right decision and that decision may go against the recommendation of the CAC or PAC. Ms. Breed stated that in the case of 1345 Turk Street, there were two qualified developers and the CAC for numerous reasons, chose one developer over the other, and that her own reasoning to support Michael Johnson had a lot to do with the CAC’s decision and that the units would be accessible, and that it was her desire for the Agency to empower the community and the CAC to give them the support they deserved. Ms. Breed stated that as a Commissioner, she was really tired of hearing complaints about the Agency and concerns from so many members of the community, and the articles she read about the Agency, and that the Agency’s reputation was really bad with community leaders, politicians and regular community people and even from wealthy developers. Ms. Breed stated that she did sit on the Commission to be a rubber stamp or to do anyone’s bidding and that she did not answer to anyone in particular except God, and that what she did came from the heart because she loved her community and it deserved the best, and in this particular case, she supported them wholeheartedly and that was why the matter should be calendared for the next Commission meeting. Ms. Breed stated she felt very strongly that by pushing a merger even though it was not suggested by the Commission or staff, she believed that would set a bad precedent in future development projects. Ms. Breed stated that the RFP should not be rescinded and that the Commission should weigh all of the factors in its decision, including community concerns, CAC recommendation as well as staff considerations.
Commissioner Covington stated that as a volunteer herself, she appreciated the hours, time, effort, energy and creativity that members of the CAC put into their deliberations, and that as a small business owner, she very much appreciated the amount of time, effort and money that people had to spend in order to respond to the Agency’s RFP. Ms. Covington stated that both of the developers were extremely qualified, but they are not Fortune 500 companies and they do not have the time and resources to respond to a RFP only to have the process circumvented, because the evaluation process was clear and the evaluation panel met and voted to select the Michael Simmons’ proposal. Ms Covington stated that she always asked for a level playing field as an African American woman and as a micro business owner and that she did not like it when people changed the rules of the game midstream because that would not be fair. Ms. Covington stated that Commissioners always complained about that, but that would be what the Commission would be doing if did not wait for the process of collaboration to conclude to see if would work or not. Ms. Covington stated that if for some reason, the collaboration did not work, then she would have to go with Michael Simmons because he scored the most points in the evaluation, and if there was a problem with the evaluation process and if it is flawed, then the Agency must correct the flaws moving forward. Ms. Covington stated that there had been a lot innuendos and complaints about what might have happened in the selection process, and that people had to be more forthcoming about what their actual complaint was about what actually happened, because there was no way the Commission could address the need for change without knowing what needed to be changed or who needed to be changed. Ms. Covington urged people to address the Commission and to be candid about their concerns.
4 (i) Considering a funding request from the Asian Heritage Street Celebration in the amount of $18,206.44 for the 4th annual Asian Heritage Street celebration along Howard Street between Fifth and Seventh Streets within the South of Market Redevelopment Project Area; South of Market Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Mike Grisso (Agency staff)
Speakers: Joyce Aldana, Al Perez, Helene Kim, Kathy Perry
Commissioner Singh stated that over 35% of San Francisco’s population is Asian American and that the Agency had previously funded other community events such as the Cherry Blossom and Juneteenth festivals, and the funding request from the Asian Heritage Street Celebration was within the South of Market Redevelopment Project Area, so it was important for the Agency to approve the funding request in the amount of $18,206.44. Mr. Singh stated that $6,889.44 would pay for the Department of Parking and Traffic’s services, $5,317.00 for the San Francisco Police Department, and $6,000.00 for community programs. Mr. Singh put forth a motion to approve the funding request in the amount of $18,206.44 from the Asian Heritage Street Celebration.
Commissioner Romero asked if the Agency had funded other fairs, parades and events other than the Juneteenth festival.
Mr. Mike Grisso, Project Manager, stated that he could not speak for the Agency as a whole and could only speak to the South of Market Project Area.
Acting Executive Director Joanne Sakai stated that since she joined the Agency in 2002, she believed that Juneteenth was the only community festival that the Agency had funded, and as the Commission was aware because of the sunset of the Western Addition A-2 Redevelopment Plan, the Agency was not continuing that funding.
Commissioner Romero stated that the Agency policy stated that the Agency would fund street fairs, parades, etc. no more than 75% of events’ total verified expenses in any one year and no more than 50% of events’ total verified expenses in year two, no more than 20% of events’ total verified expenses in year three, and that under no circumstances the Agency would fund 100% of events’ total verified expenses. Mr. Romero asked if the Agency had followed the policy with respect to Juneteenth.
Ms. Sakai stated that historically, the Juneteenth Festival had been funded by the Grants for the Arts as established under the Agency policy, and that to her recollection, the Agency had not funded 100% of the event, and in the last few years, the Agency had worked with the Juneteenth Committee to try to interject a matching funding component for their fundraising so that it could become more self-sufficient.
Commissioner Romero stated that the basis for staff’s recommendation to not approve the funding request was the Agency policy under Resolution 59-94, and that he wanted to make sure that the Agency was following the policy with respect to all events, parades and street fairs that the Agency contributed money for before denying a funding request on the basis of the policy. Mr. Romero stated that he wanted to make sure that the policy was applied equally for all such funding requests, and if that was not the case, he would suggest continuing the matter to the next Commission meeting until there was more information.
Ms. Sakai stated that as established in the policy, the Juneteenth Committee had been receiving funding through Grants for the Arts, and in addition, the Juneteenth funding had been included in the Agency’s annual budget or through previously allocated funds for the Western Addition A-2 Project Area, and the Agency had decreased the funding over the years in order to promote self-sufficiency. Ms. Sakai stated that in the past years, the Agency had never funded 100% of the events’ expenses, but on a reimbursement basis as provided in the policy.
Commissioner Romero asked how many years the Agency had funded the Juneteenth Festival.
Ms. Sakai stated that the Agency had funded Juneteenth for at least 10 years.
Commissioner Romero stated that the policy had a descending percentage of funding, and asked if that was the case with the funding for Juneteenth. Mr. Romero stated that he was asking the questions not because he wanted to pose any threats to Juneteenth because he thought that was money well spent for a great event, but that if the Agency was not following policy for one event, then that should not prohibit the Agency from funding the Asian Heritage Street Celebration event. Mr. Romero stated that was his position on the matter and that he did not see a limit in the policy for the number of years an event could be funded. Mr. Romero requested verification that the Agency could fund the event next year as long as the request was included in the Agency’s budget.
Ms. Sakai stated that if the policy was to be followed, the organization had to apply and obtain funding through Grants for the Arts and meet the established criteria and go through the Agency’s budget process with the South of Market PAC, and that the event would need to serve a redevelopment purpose.
Commissioner Romero asked how long the Asian Heritage Street Celebration had been happening without Agency funding. (Someone from the audience said two years). Mr. Romero stated that the event was being held in a redevelopment project area this year and that he wanted to find a way fund it this year, but at the same time, he was a little uncomfortable and he would wait to see if there was a second to Commissioner Singh’s motion.
Commissioner Breed stated that she had some concerns because the funding request was brought to the Commission just one month before the festival and the Commission was expected to approve it. Ms. Breed stated she thought that the request could be considered for the next fiscal year budget, and that she was trying to understand why the organization did not come to the Agency the previous year so that the request could have been included in the current year budget. Ms. Breed stated that in defense of Juneteenth, it was displaced by redevelopment and the event had been held in the same location, where the Fillmore Center was now located, with the rodeos and many other activities, and that the celebration would never be the same when it was supported by the community and there was a large African American population in the Western Addition. Ms. Breed stated that the Juneteenth celebration of today was very much different because of the way redevelopment had changed the neighborhood and the venues for the event changed every year. Ms. Breed stated she thought that this was the first time the Asian Heritage Street Celebration was being held in South of Market, and if the Agency was going to fund this festival for this particular location, that would open the door for other street festivals in other redevelopment project areas to ask the Agency for funding. Ms. Breed stated she did not think it was fair to put Commissioners in such a situation because it was not clear what the Agency had funded in the past in terms of street festivals and the policy was not clear about funding such requests. Ms. Breed stated that in this particular case, she did not think it would be a good policy call to approve a letter request for funding for an event that was happening in a month, and that she did not feel comfortable and did not think that the funding request should come to the Commission in the first place, and if the organization was organized, they should have sent the information a year ago to the Agency for consideration. Ms. Breed stated that as currently presented, she could not support the funding request and continuing the matter would not change her mind, and that more information should be provided to the Agency for funding consideration for next year’s budget.
Commissioner King stated that he did not see a difference whether the request was in the Agency’s budget or not because the event was being held in a redevelopment project area and that the policy was unclear with respect to funding such request. Mr. King stated he thought that it was bad precedent to favor one community over another and the request was for only $18,000 and that the Commission had the right to support such a request and it did not always have to be in the budget for the Commission to approve the request, because many groups had come before the Commission for funding and the Commission debated the matter and determined if was needed or not. Mr. King stated he thought that it was bad policy to reject the funding request and that the Commission should support the funding request from the Asian Heritage Street Celebration. Mr. King seconded Commissioner Singh’s motion to approve the funding request.
Commissioner Singh stated that he wanted to inform everyone that the month of May commemorates Asian Pacific Heritage month and that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Mayor’s Asian Pacific Heritage Committee, and that the event had been around for a long time and was not a new festival.
Commissioner Cheu stated that she felt conflicted and that she understood Commissioner Breed’s concerns about setting precedents because there were so many street festivals in San Francisco and that she actually ran one of them, the San Francisco International Dragon Boat Festival, and as the current President of the California Dragon Boat Association, a nonprofit that ran the festival, she was extremely supportive of the Asian Heritage Street Celebration, which started a few years ago, and Asian Week asked them to be involved and they jumped at the opportunity to participate. Ms. Cheu stated that the street fair was unique in that it was not neighborhood based and it brought all different part of the Asian community was and a very well-run event, and that she had a lot of respect for what the organizers were trying to do. Ms. Cheu stated that as a fellow festival organizer, she could appreciate the shock factor with the City services costs. Ms. Cheu stated that if the matter came to a vote, she would abstain from voting because Asian Week was the major media sponsor for the Dragon Boat Festival and she felt that she could not make an objective decision.
Commissioner Romero stated that he looked at the Agency policy closer and it appeared that the Agency’s hands were tied in considering the funding request, and that whatever the outcome of the vote was, he wanted the applicant to be given a copy of the Agency policy. Mr. Romero stated that in order to comply with the policy, they had to meet the funding criteria for Grants for the Arts Program of the San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund and to include the request in the Agency’s fiscal year budget for consideration. Mr. Romero stated that as people heard Commissioners’ comments, it was clear that there was support for the funding request and urged the group to fulfill the criteria under the Agency policy before the next fiscal year.
Commissioner Covington stated she thought that this was a wonderful Pan-Asian event and that she would really like to support it, but it did not meet the Agency’s funding guidelines. Ms. Covington stated that for next year, she would urge the group to come to the Agency for consideration.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MR. KING, TO APPROVE A FUNDING REQUEST FROM THE ASIAN HERITAGE STREET CELEBRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,206.44 FOR THE 4TH ANNUAL ASIAN HERITAGE STREET CELEBRATION ALONG HOWARD STREET BETWEEN FIFTH AND SEVENTH STREETS WITHIN THE SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND ON ROLL CALL, THE FOLLOWING VOTED “AYE”:
AND THE FOLLOWING VOTED “NAY”:
AND THE FOLLOWING ABSTAINED:
THE SECRETARY DECLARED THE RESULTS OF THE ROLL CALL VOTE, TWO (2) AYES, FOUR (4) NAYS, AND ONE (1) ABSTENTION.
THE PRESIDENT THEREUPON DECLARED THAT THE MOTION FAILED.
4 (j) Resolution No. 26-2007, Authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of tax exempt Multifamily Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Tenth and Mission Family Housing) 2007 in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $37,650,000; determining and prescribing certain related matters; approving and authorizing related actions and the execution and delivery of related documents to finance the construction of residential facilities known as Tenth and Mission Family Housing; Mid-Market Redevelopment Survey Area, Agency Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program
Presenters: Elizabeth Colomello (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (j) and stated that it was a good project.
Commissioner Cheu asked if there had been a source of operating funds identified for the youth center, and with regard to the retail component, if certain tenant types had been identified.
Ms. Elizabeth Colomello, Development Specialist, stated that Catholic Charities and Mercy Housing were just putting together the financing for the project and that it was a little early to get into the funding cycles of the City however, Catholic Charities had made an application to the Department of Children, Youth and Families and for the portion of the units set aside for the homeless, it was part of that pipeline funding for both service and operating funding. Ms. Colomello stated that Mercy Housing had not yet begun marketing for the retail component and that she thought the retail space could be used for a variety of uses, including a café or a similar establishment.
Commissioner Cheu seconded Commissioner Romero’s motion to adopt item 4 (j).
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (j) RESOLUTION NO. 26-2007, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF TAX EXEMPT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (TENTH AND MISSION FAMILY HOUSING) 2007 IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37,650,000; DETERMINING AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS AND THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF RELATED DOCUMENTS TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES KNOWN AS TENTH AND MISSION FAMILY HOUSING; MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA, AGENCY CITYWIDE TAX INCREMENT HOUSING PROGRAM, BE ADOPTED.
4 (k) Resolution No. 27-2007, Conditionally approving the combined basic concept and schematic design for a 129-unit, mixed-income residential project on Block N4/Parcel 3 in the Mission Bay North Redevelopment Project Area, pursuant to the Owner Participation Agreement with FOCIL-MB, LLC and adopting environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Mission Bay North Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Kelly Kahn (Agency staff), Michael Johnson (Em Johnson
Interest), Karyn Shore (Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning)
Speakers: Ingrid Merriwether
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (k), and stated that he wanted to compliment the whole team, Mr. Michael Johnson and in particular, the architect, for a difficult site to design. Mr. Romero stated that he had driven by the site and he could not figure out how one could come up with an attractive and livable building design, and thanked the team for a marvelous design.
Commissioner Covington stated that there were references made to a barrier, but that she could not visualize it and asked staff to point it out to her. Commissioner Covington asked what width of the units would be.
Ms. Kelly Kahn, Assistant Project Manager, stated that she used the word barrier to describe the I-280 off-ramp, which follows the curve on the rear of the site.
Ms. Karyn Shore, Architect, stated that the one-bedroom units would be 25 feet wide and the two-bedroom units would be 35 feet wide.
Commissioner Covington stated she thought that the colors were pleasing and it was a good looking project, and that she was relieved to know that the width of the units would be 25 and 35 feet rather than smaller because the standard width in San Francisco was 25 feet. Ms. Covington stated that she noticed on the renderings that there were a lot of balconies on the first floor, which might be accessible from the street.
Ms. Shore stated that the balconies would be at a height of 12 feet to address the safety issue.
Commissioner Covington stated that she also liked the shape of the center courtyard that mimicked the odd-shaped parcel, which was very nice. Ms. Covington seconded Commissioner Romero’s motion to adopt item 4 (k).
Commissioner Cheu stated that she noticed there were 88 parking spaces and 129 units, and asked how the parking spaces were allocated and if the affordable units would have equal access to the parking spaces.
Mr. Michael Johnson stated that their plan was to use stacked parking units in some of the parking spaces, so there would be 88 spaces and they put stacked parking units in enough spaces and still have a one-to-one parking ratio.
Commissioner Cheu asked if there had been thoughts about controlling increases in homeowners’ association fees.
Mr. Johnson stated that they had just gone through a budgeting process about homeowners’ association fees for the Fillmore Heritage project, and that the State did the assessments of homeowners’ association fees at the beginning of the project. Mr. Johnson stated he thought that in those instances where the fees increased, it was because there were no early assessments and planning to include reserves and insurance that would be necessary to cover unforeseen items. Mr. Johnson stated that for the Block N4/Parcel 3 development, they had minimized the number of amenities on the site as there would be no pool or large common area spaces that would escalate and increase the long term maintenance of the building, and that they believed they would be able to manage the fees. Mr. Johnson stated that for the Fillmore Heritage project, they were able to keep the fees at $460.00 a month even though there was a 24-hour door attendant for the building, and the fees would be lower for the Mission Bay project because there would not be that service.
Commissioner Breed asked how many of the units would be accessible to persons with disabilities.
Ms. Shore stated that 100% of the units would be accessible to persons with disabilities.
President Peterson stated he wanted to congratulate the development team and the architect for a great design, because in a lot of other cities an odd-shaped parcel may not be usable, but in this case, the development team had come up with a beautiful structure using very high design standards for a parcel adjacent to a very busy freeway. Mr. Peterson complimented everyone and stated that he looked forward to the building’s completion.
Commissioner Breed asked if the units would have special double-pane windows to help with the noise on the freeway.
Ms. Shore stated that all of the windows would be insulated and would be set perpendicular to the freeway so that the noise would not go directly into the units.
Commissioner Breed stated she thought that the building had a great design and that she liked the color scheme and landscaping.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (k) RESOLUTION NO. 27-2007, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE COMBINED BASIC CONCEPT AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR A 129-UNIT, MIXED-INCOME RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON BLOCK N4/PARCEL 3 IN THE MISSION BAY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, PURSUANT TO THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FOCIL-MB, LLC AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; MISSION BAY NORTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (l) Resolution No. 28-2007, Authorizing a First Amendment to the Partial Rent Subsidy Agreement with Catholic Charities CYO, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, to extend the contract term through December 31, 2007 and to increase compensation by an amount not to exceed $281,709, for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $1,915,709, to provide rental assistance for the third year of a three-year contract; Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program
Presenters: Pam Sims (Agency staff)
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MS. BREED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. COVINGTON ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (l) RESOLUTION NO. 28-2007, AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PARTIAL RENT SUBSIDY AGREEMENT WITH CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007 AND TO INCREASE COMPENSATION BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $281,709, FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,915,709, TO PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE THIRD YEAR OF A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT; HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS PROGRAM, BE ADOPTED.
4 (m) Resolution No. 29-2007, Authorizing the second year of funding for the Agency’s three-year contract with Arc Ecology, a California nonprofit corporation, to provide environmental outreach and information services to the Bayview Hunters Point Community in an amount not to exceed $283,500 for a total aggregate amount of $567,000; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Thor Kaslofsky (Agency staff)
Speakers: Arthur Feinstein, Marcia Dale-Lewinter, Jack Lendvay, Dr. Michael McGowan, Angelo King, Scott Madison, Sudeep Rao, Al Norman, Essie Webb, Olin Webb, Oscar James, Dr. Ray Tompkins, Saul Bloom, Dorris Vincent, Eve Bach, Jesse Mason, Ace Washington, Ruben Bunney, Anthony Marshall, Sheila Love
Commissioner Singh stated he knew that Arc Ecology was doing a wonderful job at the Shipyard and referred to the handout that Mr. Saul Bloom gave to the Commission, on page 9, regarding the conflict of interest section, which prohibits members of boards and commissions from contracting with the City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Singh asked the General Counsel for an opinion.
Mr. James Morales, Agency General Counsel, stated that the California laws apply to redevelopment activity and under those laws, a member of the CAC would be and is prohibited from voting and participating on a particular matter where they may benefit, and that his understanding was that Mr. Bloom had not participated and not voted on any CAC measure that would affect his organization. Mr. Morales stated that the reason why he would not have to resign was because he was an officer of a nonprofit organization, and if he was an officer of a for-profit organization that had a contract with the Agency, he would be barred from being a member of the CAC and could not then obviously, participate in deliberations. Mr. Morales stated that as a member of a nonprofit organization, Mr. Bloom would be able to remain on the CAC so long as he did not participate or discuss or vote on the contract for his organization. Mr. Morales stated that as he understood it, the City law did not technically apply to the Agency, but that it carried the same principle namely that, for certain City contracts, City officials, Commissioners and employees would not be able to participate or vote on those contracts, and if they were members of a nonprofit organization, they would have a narrow exception to remain on the advisory group or commission as long as they did not ultimately vote on the matter.
Commissioner Singh requested verification that there was no conflict of interest for Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Morales stated that there was no conflict of interest for Mr. Bloom so long as he did not participate in any discussion or vote on any matter as a CAC member related to the Arc Ecology contract.
Commissioner Singh put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (m).
Commissioner Singh stated that he listened carefully to the General Counsel and he was satisfied that there was no conflict with Mr. Bloom. Mr. Romero stated that he dealt with conflict of interest issues in his job as a lawyer for the California Teachers Association, dealing with teachers involved with school boards, and that he had heard the principles elucidated by Mr. Morales many times in his work. Mr. Romero stated that the conflict of interest issue was not before the Commission, but the funding of the contract with Arc Ecology, and that there was unanimity with the support for funding the contract and that was what the Commission should do. Mr. Romero stated that he wanted to thank everyone who stayed so late for the meeting and seconded Commissioner Singh’s motion to adopt item 4 (m).
Commissioner King asked Mr. Bloom he wanted to stay as a member of the CAC with the apparent conflict of interest.
Mr. Saul Bloom of Arc Ecology stated that he was lobbied to say on the CAC by members of Arc Ecology in order to maintain a level of participation in the CAC. Mr. Bloom stated that nonprofit organizations in San Francisco provided 70% of the services that the City dispenses to its residents, from homelessness to bicycle services and transportation, and if members of nonprofit organizations were banned from participating in those various committees, they would lose many skilled and valued members. Mr. Bloom stated that he had heard from people that by being a member of the Shipyard CAC, it ensured the participation and involvement of nonprofit organizations. Mr. Bloom stated that as Mr. Angelo King mentioned, the Shipyard CAC was at a critical point in its work and his involvement for more than 10 years hopefully, would help create thousands of jobs and gentrify the community from within, which was a different model from what had been practiced before.
Commissioner King asked if Mr. Bloom lived in the Bayview Hunters Point community.
Mr. Bloom stated that he did not live in the Bayview Hunters Point community.
Commissioner King stated that he recalled serving with Mr. Bloom years ago on the Bayview Hunters Point Community Development Committee, but that he (Mr. King) left the committee because it would have been a conflict with being an Agency Commissioner. Mr. King stated that Mr. Bloom was doing a good job with his work, but that he thought that Mr. Bloom should resign from the CAC because there appeared to be a conflict.
Commissioner Breed asked Mr. Bloom if he made a mistake in outreach efforts to the school of the Nation of Islam, because the school reported that they did not receive notifications about community meetings. Ms. Breed stated that she recalled Mr. Jesse Mason informing the Commission that he had provided flyers to notify the school and that she wanted to know if a mistake was made initially and if the mistake had been corrected.
Mr. Jesse Mason from Arc Ecology, stated he believed that Commissioner Breed was speaking about one of his outreach workers, Mr. Keith Tissdale who distributed flyers in the area around the school and that Mr. Tissdale did provide flyers to the Muslim Academy. Mr. Mason stated that the most recent outreach they did regarding the dust control, he took over 100 pieces of literature to the school as well as their offices on Third Street. Mr. Mason stated that they would be continuing significant outreach efforts in the community and as a local resident, he was happy to have the opportunity work with Arc Ecology to keep the community informed and involved.
Commissioner Breed stated that she had family and friends who live on Kiska Road and that she had received conflicting reports that some had received notifications and some had not. Ms. Breed stated that she knew that Mr. Mason was sincere and that she supported the contract for Arc Ecology when it was first before the Commission, but that she was disappointed to find out that there were problems with notifying the school and that she wanted to make sure that the people that did the outreach understood the importance of distributing the leaflets to all of the appropriate locations in the community as well as to all of the people affected.
Mr. Mason stated that all of their workers received orientation before notices or flyers were distributed and that they double-check the distribution.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to make sure that the workers understood the importance of notifying the people in the community especially families who are most affected.
Mr. Bloom stated that they took Commissioner Breed’s comments very seriously and that they did a proactive audit of their work and that he spoke with the outreach workers himself and that he was informed that flyers were given to the school about the dust control workshops. Mr. Bloom stated that he had also called the minister and met with the school, and in addition, they had also brought in the Neighborhood Jobs Initiative Roundtable to conduct more training for their workers and adopted new strategies to address the Commission’s concerns, including the open house, poetry jam, comedy night, environmental justice film festival and other creative ways of broadening the outreach to the community.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MR. ROMERO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. COVINGTON ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (m) RESOLUTION NO. 29-2007, AUTHORIZING THE SECOND YEAR OF FUNDING FOR THE AGENCY’S THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH ARC ECOLOGY, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTREACH AND INFORMATION SERVICES TO THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $283,500 FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $567,000; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
5. MATTERS NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA None.
6. PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEMBERS ON NON-AGENDA, BUT AGENCY RELATED MATTERS
- Kathy Perry, Oscar James, Brian Murphy O’Flynn
7. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT None.
8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- Acting Executive Director Joanne Sakai announced a special joint workshop of the Hunters Point Shipyard CAC and the Bayview Hunters Point PAC on Saturday April 7th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Earl P. Mills Auditorium, to discuss the integrated Shipyard and Candlestick Point proposed project.
9. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
- Commissioner Breed stated that the City should not vote on whether or not the Bayview Hunters Point Project Area should exist because the residents should decide that issue, and that she did not think that the City as a whole should be making that decision.
- Commissioner Breed asked President Peterson when a presentation from the Mayor’s Office on Disability would be made before the Commission as she had requested at the previous Commission meeting. Ms. Breed stated she had spoken earlier with Ms. Susan Mizner of the Mayor’s Office on Disability and informed that she had not received a telephone call from the Agency, and that she hoped to have a presentation to the Commission soon. Ms. Breed stated that this was an important issue and stemmed from her personal experience in the Western Addition where her grandmother lived in a townhome that was not accessible, so she would like to have presentation to the Commission on what the Mayor’s Office on Disability did to ensure disability access for all housing developments.
- Commissioner Breed stated that she also wanted to find out when the Executive Director’s performance evaluation was scheduled to be before the Commission.
- President Peterson stated that with regard to Commissioner Breed’s request for a presentation from the Mayor’s Office on Disability, he knew there was a request made and that he would follow up to make sure it was scheduled for a future Commission meeting.
- President Peterson stated that with regard to the Executive Director’s performance evaluation, that was being scheduled for one of the Commission meetings in May, about a month before the planned Commission retreat in June. Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission Secretary would be canvassing the Commissioners to schedule the date for the retreat. Mr. Peterson stated that Commissioner Breed could call him anytime if she had further questions.
- Commissioner Breed stated that when she spoke with Ms. Susan Mizner of the Mayor’s Office on Disability on another matter, she informed that she had not received a telephone call or e-mail from the Agency as of that day.
- Commissioner Romero stated that he wanted to be more fully informed about the funding of street fairs, festivals and other events. Mr. Romero requested an informational memorandum on the application process for the funding of street fairs, festivals, etc., and the criteria for funding of annual celebrations and parades as established by the Grants for the Arts Program of the San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund. Mr. Romero added that he wanted to find out why the request from the Asian Heritage Street Celebration did not satisfy the funding criteria and that he wanted to know what the process was for satisfying such funding criteria.
- Commissioner King stated he thought that the April 3rd Commission meeting should have been cancelled and asked President Peterson why the agenda was so long.
- President Peterson stated that he agreed with Commissioner King, but that several factors affected the April 3rd agenda with the normal ebb and flow of the meeting calendar, and the previous meeting on March 20th was intentionally light because of the anticipated lengthy debate on the Certificate of Preference workshop. Mr. Peterson stated that the April 3rd agenda was actually shorter as a few items had been moved to the next meeting and to compound it all, the April 3rd meeting started an hour later. Mr. Peterson stated that the Agenda-setting committee would continue to be mindful of having a balanced agenda and that there may be an additional special meeting scheduled in early May to accommodate matters in the pipeline.
- Commissioner Breed stated that she recalled last year’s budget process and that Commissioners were provided the draft budget right before the meeting, and that for this year’s budget, she would like to receive the draft budget in advance in order to have adequate time to review the budget. Ms. Breed stated that she wanted to welcome the Agency’s newest Commissioner, Ms. Linda Cheu to the Agency.
10. CLOSED SESSION None.
It was moved by Mr. Singh, seconded by Mr. King, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Erwin R. Tanjuaquio