CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 15, 2007 COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HELD ON THE
1ST DAY OF MAY 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 4:00 p.m. on the 1st day of May 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 4:00 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
London Breed
Linda Cheu
Leroy King
Ramon E. Romero
Darshan Singh
Marcia Rosen, 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:
CONSENT AGENDA
4 (a) Approval of Minutes: Meeting of April 17, 2007
4 (b) Resolution No. 37-2007, Authorizing the Executive Director to apply and, if awarded, to accept $5 million in Residential Development Loan Program funds from the California Housing Finance Agency for use in the development of affordable homeownership housing; all redevelopment project areas, Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4 (a), APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2007, AND 4 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 37-2007, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO APPLY AND, IF AWARDED, TO ACCEPT $5 MILLION IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP HOUSING; ALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, CITYWIDE TAX INCREMENT HOUSING PROGRAM, BE ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
4 (c) Workshop on the Agency’s Fiscal Year 2007/08 Budget
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Speakers: Ace Washington, Angelo P. King, Rev. Arnold Townsend
Affordable Housing Program (Sally Oerth):
Commissioner Covington stated she noted that a half-time position was proposed for the Certificate of Preference Program and asked staff to provide a breakdown of the $100,000 designated for the Certificate of Preference Program
Executive Director Rosen stated that the amount was to be expended as the Agency begins to develop the enhanced outreach efforts discussed at the previous Commission workshop. Ms. Rosen stated that staff had estimated the amount, but that had not been finalized in a budget line item so that there could be input from the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC), Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Commission, and to have the funds available for that purpose.
Commissioner Covington stated that she was glad to see that there were funds in the proposed budget for the Certificate of Preference Program because this was something she had pushed for, but that she would also like to see the outreach efforts to include some provision for an ombudsman for the program as the certificate holders seemed to be having difficulty interfacing with the Agency. Ms. Covington stated that she was not sure that a half-time person would be able to help find the more than 3,000 people with certificates that the Agency had lost contact with, and asked staff to review that. Ms. Covington asked Ms. Sally Oerth to speak more about the proposed 20 housing units for the youth at the Octavia and Haight parcel.
Ms. Sally Oerth, Senior Development Specialist, stated that was Central Freeway Parcel U, which was owned by the Agency and currently used as a surface parking lot, and that staff was anticipating releasing the Request for Proposals (RFP) within 2007. Ms. Oerth stated that staff had identified some State funds for supportive housing for youth as a funding source for the project and the hope was to time the project to avail of the State funds. Ms. Oerth stated that staff had not yet drafted the RFP, but that the site had been identified for the potential use of youth housing.
Commissioner Covington asked if the proposed housing was intended for any youth or formerly homeless youth or emancipated youth, and if the housing would be a group home.
Ms. Oerth stated she understood that the proposed housing would be transitional housing for youth aging out of the foster care system, and that she believed the age range would probably between 18 and 24 years old and the funding for such programs targeted this age range. Ms. Oerth stated that the proposed housing would be individual supportive housing units, probably studio units.
Commissioner Covington asked if there would be supportive staff onsite.
Ms. Oerth stated that all of the supportive housing projects included supportive services onsite, and this would be required for this project.
Executive Director Rosen stated that on these types of housing, the Agency planned with the Department of Public Health and the Department of Human Services and the Mayor’s Office of Housing in identifying the needs, and staff would provide information to the Commission describing the process before a RFP was issued. Ms. Rosen stated that the proposal was still at the discussion stage, but that the Commission would be kept informed.
Commissioner Cheu stated that with the lower housing budget proposed for the upcoming fiscal year, asked staff to provide an explanation as to why the housing budget was lower and also provide information on the previous year trends on the Agency’s housing budget.
Mr. Mario Menchini, Senior Financial Analyst, stated that the amount he indicated in his presentation actually did not incorporate the additional $8.5 million that the Housing Division would like to add to the proposed budget, and that would probably be the second or third highest housing budget for the Agency.
Commissioner Cheu stated she knew that San Francisco had a really strong record of exceeding the mandatory tax increment affordable housing set-aside required by State Law, and asked what the set-aside percentage was for the upcoming fiscal year.
Mr. Menchini stated that he had not yet included the $8.5 million in the calculation, but that without that figure, the set-aside was 40% of tax increment allocations, and probably at 45 to 50% with the additional $8.5 million.
South of Market (Mike Grisso):
Commissioner Breed asked if the proposed budget for South of Market included the funds set-aside from the previous year for the Bindlestiff Studio.
Mr. Mike Grisso, Project Manager, stated that the proposed budget for South of Market did not include funds for the Bindlestiff Studio as those funds were in the current fiscal year budget.
Transbay (Mike Grisso):
Commissioner Covington stated she noticed on the Transbay map that the blocks were numbered 1 through 9 and then skipped to number 11, and asked if there was a block number 10.
Mr. Grisso stated that block number 10 was actually the block next to block number 9 and that the reason why block number 10 was not identified on the map was because the block has an existing building on it and there were currently no plans to demolish the building or to redevelop that block. Mr. Grisso stated that the numbered blocks, 1 through 9 and block 11, were identified as development blocks.
MissionBay North and South (Amy Neches):
Commissioner Covington stated that Ms. Neches mentioned new soccer fields within Mission Bay and asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the soccer fields, or if they would be turned over to the City’s Recreation and Park Department. Ms. Covington asked how many acres of parks had been developed in Mission Bay.
Ms. Amy Neches, Senior Project Manager, stated that there were soccer fields planned for the Bayfront Park right along the Bay, and that all of the parks in Mission Bay were managed by the Agency and the funding was provided through special taxes assessed against the privately-owned properties in Mission Bay and not the Agency-owned affordable housing parcels. Ms. Neches stated that the Agency had a contract with MJM Management Group to manage the parks including the soccer fields. Ms. Neches stated that the total public park lands in Mission Bay that the Agency would be responsible for would be a total of 43 acres, and that to date, there was approximately 6 acres that had been completed and approximately 3 more acres under construction and the soccer fields were still a couple of years away from being constructed.
Rincon Point – South Beach (Amy Neches):
Commissioner Breed asked once the funding for the Rincon Point – South Beach Project was depleted, what the plans were for the South Beach Harbor Services building to become self-sufficient.
Ms. Neches stated that the South Beach Harbor Services building was operated through the South Beach Harbor, so the building was paid for through South Beach Harbor funds, and that the Harbor generated more than sufficient funds to operate the building. Ms. Neches stated that the Agency would continue to operate the harbor, the services building and the adjoining park for the time being, and that the Agency had prior and ongoing discussions with the Port of San Francisco about possible long-term re-disposition of the property, but that at this point, the Port had asked the Agency hold on to the property and continue the improvements and operations, but the services building was self-supported by the South Beach Harbor without the use of tax increment monies.
YerbaBuena Center (Amy Neches):
Commissioner Breed asked if there were any plans to improve the entries and exits for the Jessie Square parking garage, because it was a little tricky getting in and out of the garage.
Ms. Neches stated that she agreed with Commissioner Breed that it was extremely difficult to get in and out of the parking garage on Stevenson Street, but unfortunately, during the original planning of the garage, it was determined by the Department of Parking and Traffic that there could not be an entry on Mission Street, only an exit onto Mission Street. Ms. Neches stated that staff had periodic discussions with the Department of Parking and Traffic as to whether the entry and exit flow could be reversed and enter on Mission Street to make it more accessible, and at this point, they felt because of the City’s transit-first policy and the desire to keep the buses moving (along Mission Street), reversing the entry and exit flow would not be possible, and that the access to the parking garage was restricted on Stevenson Street.
Commissioner Breed stated that her concern was for disabled patrons because the exit was a distance from the entryway.
Ms. Neches stated that once someone parks in the garage, they would come up the elevator to Jessie Square and right now, there was a long walkway to Mission Street, but that once Jessie Square was completed, the elevator would take the patrons right onto Jessie Square that would connect to Yerba Buena Lane, and the pedestrian access would be very good.
Commissioner Cheu asked how long the multi-year funding for the Museum of the African Diaspora was, and what the total budget was for the museum.
Ms. Neches stated that the multi-year funding agreement with the Museum of the African Diaspora would go through 2013 and would provide $500,000 a year until the last two years, which would be $400,000, and the reason why the funds were being accumulated in advance was because the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan would expire in 2010, and the Agency was reserving tax increment monies in order to meet the Agency’s legal requirements. Ms. Neches stated that the museum’s budget was a little under $2 million.
Commissioner Cheu asked if there were any updates on the proposed Mexican Museum and if there were funds associated with it.
Ms. Neches stated that the Agency had been in a long-term disposition agreement with the Mexican Museum to develop a museum on the site, but that the project had lagged many years largely because of organizational difficulties within the museum and difficulties in fundraising. Ms. Neches stated that the project was very challenging and the amount of money that had been budgeted on the Agency’s part, which was substantial, were not nearly enough to complete the project as construction costs had increased so dramatically in the last few years. Ms. Neches stated that the Agency was reviewing the project in its entirety and looking at other ways to bring the project to fruition and staff would bring a plan to the Commission as soon as it could.
Commissioner Breed stated she read in the staff report that the Commission was going to be asked to transfer excess funds from the Yerba Buena Center budget to be used for citywide affordable housing development including the Western Addition, and requested verification that there were excess tax increment funds in Yerba Buena Center.
Executive Director Rosen stated the debt capacity of the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area had been used for supporting the Agency’s citywide affordable housing, and as the Commission knew, under the State Redevelopment Law, the use of tax increment for affordable housing was the only exception to the rule. Ms. Rosen stated that in prior years when the Agency had excess debt capacity, the Agency had used Yerba Buena Center tax increment to support the Agency’s citywide affordable housing debt. Ms. Rosen stated that Commissioner Breed was correct that in recent years, citywide housing had been the source of funds for the Western Addition affordable housing developments, because there was limited tax increment available in the Western Addition. Ms. Rosen stated that Commissioner Breed may be recalling that before the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan expires on January 1, 2010, that the Agency would likely propose a SB2113 redevelopment plan amendment similar to the one that the Commission recently approved for Rincon Point – South Beach, so that the Agency could continue to collect tax increment past the expiration of the redevelopment plan and to use those funds to replace housing that was lost during the years of urban renewal prior to 1976.
Commissioner Breed asked if the excess tax increment would be used specifically for affordable housing or could the tax increment be used to assist with some of the museum projects.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the Agency would use Yerba Buena Center’s tax increment to fulfill the redevelopment plan goals first, and to the extent that it would be required to complete the redevelopment plan on parcels owned by the Agency, it would do that first, and then look to affordable housing development.
Commissioner Breed asked if the Agency would be able to complete the planned Mexican Museum.
Executive Director Rosen stated that there were already funds budgeted for the Mexican Museum, and that the Agency was working with the museum, the Mayor’s Office and adjacent property owners to see if there were other ways to achieve a Mexican Museum in a more economically sustainable way, so all alternatives were being explored.
Commissioner Breed asked if there was ever a San Francisco Museum considered along with all the other museums in Yerba Buena Center.
Ms. Neches stated that there was not a plan for a San Francisco Museum within the Yerba Buena Center Project Area, but that there was the San Francisco Historical Museum that was being planned for the San Francisco Mint, which was just across the street, and although it was not with the project area, it would function as part of the cultural facilities in and around Yerba Buena Center.
Commissioner Breed asked if that was the reason why the San Francisco Historical Museum was not included in the Yerba Buena Center Project Area.
Ms. Neches stated that was not the reason as the Yerba Buena Center plan was put in place long before the idea of a San Francisco Museum had advanced at that time, when the other museums were being planned.
Western Addition A-2 (Gaynell McCurn);
Commissioner Breed asked if the proposed $100,000 for streetscape repairs would be adequate, and what the estimated cost of sidewalk repairs was. Ms. Breed stated that she did not see funds budgeted for the Blue Bridge and asked if there were any plans to allocate more money for improvements to the bridge, and if there were any plans to remove it or just repair the panels.
Ms. Gaynell McCurn, Project Manager, stated that the $100,000 was from tax increment funds and there was a current estimate of $50,000 to do the streetscape repairs. Ms. McCurn stated that there was no new funding request for the Blue Bridge as there was still $108,000 remaining in the current fiscal year budget designated for the bridge. Ms. McCurn stated that the damaged panels had been repaired, but that the panels had not been replaced because in discussing the matter with the CAC, there was a concern that the new panels may be damaged again. Ms. McCurn stated that the CAC had asked the Agency to work with the Arts Commission and the artist to determine where the bridge artwork could be relocated.
Commissioner Breed stated that if the decision was made to relocate the bridge artwork, additional funds would be needed to make improvements on the bridge.
Ms. McCurn stated that if the bridge artwork was relocated, funds would be needed to either replace what was originally installed or to follow up on some of the suggestions from the Commission.
Commissioner Breed inquired about the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Muni substation parcel and requested verification that the $1.6 million was for the seismic repairs.
Ms. McCurn stated that staff was still working with the CAC to complete the draft RFP and the Commission would have the opportunity to review the RFP before it would be published. Ms. McCurn stated that the $1.6 million was a new funding request not only for seismic upgrades, but also for consultants and outreach expenses.
Commissioner Breed stated that she was concerned about spending that much money for the Muni substation parcel. Ms. Breed stated that she would like to see the $5,000 budgeted amount for the CAC increased because that would not even be enough to pay for the meeting facilities. Ms. Breed stated that $200,000 was budgeted for the South of Market Project Area Committee and only $5,000 for the Western Addition CAC, and that she would like to see that amount amended based upon the CAC’s actual costs.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she would like to point out that the Agency had different amounts budgeted for different CACs in areas where there was a CAC, and as the Commission knew, there was about 20 years of significant funding for the Western Addition Project Area Committee when it was funded. Ms. Rosen stated that the Agency had a statutory limit on the amount of money available for the Western Addition, and if the Commission chose to budget more of the statutory limit for CAC costs, there would be less money available to complete projects in Western Addition. Similar to the Mission Bay or Transbay CACs the Agency staff did a lot of the administrative work in order to keep the costs down, but that the Commission had the discretion to amend the budget, and absorbed administrative costs as part of the Agency’s administration budget.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that the funds for the proposed position for the Certificate of Preference Program were coming out of the Western Addition budget.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the position would be funded from the Citywide Housing Program budget.
Commissioner Breed stated that she understood that the position for the Certificate of Preference Program would be a full-time position, but that now it was proposed to be a half-time position.
Executive Director Rosen stated she thought that Mr. Olson Lee budgeted the position as the equivalent of a half-time position, but that the position might be full-time for a shorter period of time, and would be a limited-term position. In addition, the $100,000 would be a budget for the other costs that the Commission had identified to augment the outreach efforts.
Commissioner Breed requested staff to prepare a realistic budget for the Western Addition CAC so that she could look into options of possibly amending the budget to reflect that before the next Commission meeting.
Ms. McCurn stated that there was about $2,000 remaining in the CAC budget in the current fiscal year budget for meeting space and food costs.
Commissioner Breed asked if she could have prior to the next Commission meeting, a realistic budget for the CAC and any possible carryovers from the current fiscal year budget.
Commissioner Covington asked for an enumeration of support staff for the South of Market Project Area in addition to Mr. Mike Grisso, the Project Manager.
Executive Director Rosen stated that there is a part-time Assistant Project Manager, and part of her responsibility was assisting in the South of Market Project Area, and that the administrative support staff for the Project Management Division worked as part of a team to cover the administrative support load of the division.
Commissioner Covington stated that she noticed on page 71 of the proposed budget, under Personnel Positions and Salaries, which listed five Project Area Managers, but only four Project Area Assistant Managers, and the one area missing an Assistant Manager was the Western Addition, and that was the area that needed an Assistant Manager the most. Ms. Covington stated that the Agency had a year and a half left in the Western Addition and the Commission would like to finish in fine form and to have just one staff person seemed inequitable.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she previously provided the Commission with an informational memorandum responding to some of the questions, and that one of the points that was made was that the Western Addition had less development activity than a new project area like Mission Bay and had an experienced Project Manager devoted full-time to the Western Addition, whereas the other project areas (except for the Hunters Point Shipyard), had project managers that worked in more than one project area. While there was not a specific assistant project manager devoted to the Western Addition, if the Commission looked at the budget and the amount of staff time spent on the Western Addition, staff from all divisions, including Development Services, Architecture and Engineering, Legal, etc., spent far more time on the Western Addition spread between different personnel, compared to the time available from one assistant project manager position. Ms. Rosen stated that the Agency did devote a great deal of the Agency’s administrative personnel budget to Western Addition work. The Agency did not have the support of the Mayor’s budget office to increase the number of full-time equivalent positions, and the Agency did not have the resources in the Western Addition budget to support, with Western Addition funds, another full-time staff position. The Western Addition workload was handled with the devotion of a single-purpose project manager supplemented by a great number of hours of a great variety of Agency staff from all divisions and that staff believes it is covering the workload adequately with the resources available.
Commissioner Covington stated that with the Agency’s available resources, she wished that she was as optimistic as the Executive Director, because she did not think that the Agency was not handling things in the Western Addition as well as it could. Ms. Covington stated she thought that the Western Addition was not being provided with adequate personnel and that something had to be done about it, even if it meant a Commissioner or two speaking with the Mayor’s Office about the issue because she thought that this was a critical need and the need would not go on for 10 or 12 years, but for only 18 months, and that she thought the Agency should find the money for the additional personnel as well as money for the CAC. Ms. Covington stated there was a lengthy discussion about one of the projects in the Western Addition and recalled that there was a call for the CAC meeting minutes and there were no minutes taken because there was no money for staff to prepare the CAC meeting minutes, and that she did not see why that could not be done for the Western Addition when that was done for other areas. Ms. Covington stated that the Agency had 18 months left to put its best thinking and resources forward for the Western Addition and the Agency had to find a way to do that because there was still a lot to be done. Ms. Covington stated that she would like a closer look at the Western Addition budget and that she would encourage her fellow Commissioners to do the same. Ms. Covington referred to page 20 of the budget under Personnel Costs, and noted that the personnel costs attributed to the Western Addition was $2.3 million, and asked how that could be possible when there was only one full-time staff position assigned.
Executive Director Rosen stated that because of the restrictions on tax increment financing pursuant to State law, the Agency kept records of what work was being done for each project area and the project areas were billed for that time, and that personnel cost was based on actual time sheets of people working on the project area and that figure was the cumulative amount of Agency staff time working on Western Addition matters as reflected in their time sheets. Ms. Rosen stated that for example, when any of the Agency Architects was reviewing plans or going to meetings, or the Agency’s real estate division was working on the streetscape or an owner participation agreement or a private development in the Western Addition, their time was billed to the Western Addition. Ms. Rosen stated that the summary of personnel costs on page 6 of the budget, showed the cumulative personnel costs for each project area based on billable hours for Agency staff.
Commissioner Covington stated that if the Agency was spending $2 million in personnel costs attributed to the Western Addition and there was only one full-time person for Western Addition, asked why the Agency could not shift some of the $2 million for a dedicated staff person for the Western Addition instead of a piece-meal approach. Ms. Covington stated that from a management point of view, one full-time person for the Western Addition handling a $2 million budget would require that person to manage a lot of administrative tasks spread out through a lot of different departments, and that was not the way to get the best of the Agency’s manpower.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the $2.3 million was actual staff time of actual employees already in the Agency’s budget, so it was not a pot of available funds and it was reflecting the work actually done by employees.
Commissioner Covington asked what leeway the Agency had to get the resources it needed in the Western Addition, so that there was not just one person doing everything.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the Project Manager’s job was to assemble and coordinate the work of other Agency staff across disciplines who were working within the project area.
Commissioner Covington stated that was the job of every other project manager for the other project areas, and each had an assistant project manager supporting them.
Executive Director Rosen stated that in terms of managing the budget, the budget for the project area was managed by the project manager. In addition, a lot of the work for any project area was affordable housing and the affordable housing budget was managed by the Housing Division, with overall budget oversight by the Agency’s Finance Division.
Commissioner Covington asked what needed to be done to get a full-time assistant project manager for the Western Addition for the next 18 months.
Executive Director Rosen stated that if the Commission includes the assistant project manager position in the proposed budget that would mean that there would be fewer Western Addition resources to fund the actual work program in the project area within the statutory funding cap.
Commissioner Covington asked what the statutory funding cap was for Western Addition.
Mr. Menchini stated that there would be approximately $600,000 in tax increment under the statutory cap of $270 million beginning with the 2008/2009 fiscal year.
Commissioner Covington asked if there was money available that could be used for a staff position.
Mr. Menchini stated that any money used in the next fiscal year would have to be deducted from the $600,000 that would become available otherwise in the 2008/2009 fiscal year. Mr. Menchini stated that it was a fixed amount of money that could used either at the front or spread out through two years time.
Commissioner Covington stated that the money was needed up front because it was needed for a long time. Ms. Covington requested verification that when it came to housing, the Agency could use tax increment money from anywhere in the City for the Western Addition.
Mr. Menchini affirmed that the Agency could use tax increment money from anywhere in the City for the Western Addition.
Commissioner Covington requested verification that the tax increment money was not being impacted by any staff additions or changes.
Mr. Menchini stated that the Agency could use tax increment money from any project area to fund affordable housing development.
Commissioner Covington stated she thought that her fellow Commissioners were clear as to what she wanted to see happen in the Western Addition.
Commissioner Breed stated that she totally agreed with Commissioner Covington with regard to the staff position and it appeared that the Commission could make that happen based upon the proposed budget. Ms. Breed stated that she would also like to see a full-time assistant project manager position devoted fully to the Western Addition in addition to an increase in the CAC budget. Ms. Breed asked if there was any possibility of using some of the proposed $1.615 million in seismic work for the Muni substation building for paying for the assistant project manager position and to increase the CAC’s budget.
Executive Director Rosen stated that staff would look into the matter and report back to the Commission.
Hunters Point; India Basin Industrial Park (Lisa Zayas-Chien):
Bayview Hunters Point (Lisa Zayas-Chien):
Commissioner Breed referred to page 58 of the budget under project summary, and asked what was meant by the term “at-risk housing?”
Executive Director Rosen stated that the term “at-risk housing” meant it was housing that was subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was at risk of going to market-rate housing, and that the Agency was not actively working on any such housing in the Hunters Point Project Area at this time.
Commissioner Breed asked for the individual project areas that had a budgeted amount for personnel costs under the housing program, which Executive Director Rosen stated that was based upon each department’s billable hours, and since there was a separate housing budget, if those amounts overlapped. She asked for an explanation of how the Housing Division would bill for a certain neighborhood when there was a separate housing budget.
Executive Director Rosen stated that all Agency staff were required to bill all affordable housing staff time to Citywide housing, not to the project area personnel costs.
Hunters Point Shipyard (Nicole Franklin):
VisitationValley (Tom Evans):
Commissioner Covington asked how large of a facility was planned for the community grocery store.
Mr. Tom Evans, Lead Planner, stated that initially, staff was looking at a full-service grocery store of between 40,000 to 50,000 square feet that had been scoped in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Evans stated that there were plans to locate a grocery store within the Bayview Hunters Point as well as in Daly City just south of the Bayview, where they were planning to locate a grocery store on the Cow Palace parking lot, and that with these other plans, staff was looking at options to provide a smaller scale about 20,000 square feet, grocery store within Visitacion Valley.
Commissioner Covington asked if marketing efforts had begun to attract a grocery store operator in Visitacion Valley.
Mr. Evans stated that staff had been in active discussions with the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development who had been conducting grocery store solicitations for the entire southeast quadrant of the City and had met with the large operators such as Albertson’s and Safeway as well as smaller operators like Harvest Market and Trader Joe’s in order to determine if there was interest in coming to the area. Mr. Evans stated that in addition, staff had done site plans that could facilitate the introduction of either type of grocery store, either as a stand-alone grocery store or part of a mixed-use project. Mr. Evans stated that Agency had planned the space and would rely on the Mayor’s Office to do the outreach to bring in a tenant.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that the Cow Palace was in Daly City and asked if Agency staff had consulted with Daly City about their plans.
Mr. Evans stated that the Cow Palace was primarily within Daly City boundary, but a small portion of the surface parking lot was within the San Francisco boundary. Mr. Evans stated that Agency staff met extensively with San Mateo County planners, both in Brisbane and Daly City to look at not only transportation issues, but also everyone’s commercial expectations so that the commercial capacities were not overestimated.
Mid-Market (Lisa Zayas-Chien):
Commissioner Covington stated that she did not have any questions about Mid-Market, but that she would like to see a line item on the proposed budget for a parliamentarian for the Commission. Ms. Covington stated she thought that the Commission would be well served to have a parliamentarian for the Commission meetings so that there could be more clear and transparent Robert’s Rules of Order. Ms. Covington stated she understood that in the past, the Commission had a parliamentarian and that she would like to see a budget line item for the coming fiscal year.
Speakers: Ace Washington, Angelo P. King, Rev. Arnold Townsend
Commissioner Breed stated that she would like to see an accounting of the $2 million in personnel costs in order to understand how the work hours were billed and also if staff time attending CAC meetings were billed.
4 (d) Resolution No. 38-2007, Authorizing a letter agreement with the Department of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for planning services for alleyways improvements; South of Market Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Mike Grisso (Agency staff)
Speakers: Ingrid Aquino
Commissioner Breed asked if staff was aware of the planned improvements to Jessie Street to plant trees and do major façade renovations around the San Francisco Mint area. Ms. Breed referred to the South of Market map and asked why Jessie Street between 5th and 6th Streets was not included in the proposed alleyways improvements. Ms. Breed stated that alleyway was not kept up and needed a lot of improvements.
Mr. Grisso stated that the South of Market map showed the project area boundary, which was established when the project area redevelopment plan was adopted in 1990, and that the alleyways improvements would be for Natoma and Minna Streets within the South of Market Project Area. Mr. Grisso stated that as the Commission could see, most of Jessie Street was not in the South of Market Project Area, and therefore, was not included in the proposed alleyways improvements. Mr. Grisso stated that Jessie Street was within the proposed Mid-Market Project Area.
Commissioner Breed asked if there was any way to include that portion of Jessie Street between 5th and 6th Streets in the proposed alleyways improvements, rather than waiting for possibly years, before Mid-Market gets underway. Ms. Breed stated that the Agency had done the same thing with the Blue Bridge even though it was outside of the Western Addition A-2 Project Area.
Mr. Grisso stated that staff could certainly look at including that portion of Jessie Street between 5th and 6th Streets in the proposed alleyways improvements. Mr. Grisso stated that for example, the area along Sixth Street between Stevenson and Market Streets was outside of the South of Market Project Area, but when the Sixth Street improvements were done, they were extended to include that area. Mr. Grisso stated he thought that would be the burden of proof to show a primary benefit to the project area, and staff could take a closer look to determine if that would be possible.
Commissioner Breed asked once the alleyways improvements were made, if there were any plans to regularly maintain the alleyways to keep the area sanitary and free of debris, and if there were any plans to bring in portable toilets.
Mr. Grisso stated that there were no plans to bring in portable toilets, but that there was a plan that included steam cleaning, street sweeping and graffiti removal on Sixth Street, and that once the alleyways improvements were completed, the street cleaning services could be extended to include the alleyways. Mr. Grisso stated that the primary goal for the City was to ensure that the alleyways were easy to maintain and that eventually, property owners could do the maintenance themselves, but that for the initial two to three years, it would be appropriate for the Agency to continue the street cleaning services provided by the MJM Management Group along the Sixth Street corridor. Mr. Grisso added that with the planned alleyways improvements, it may warrant extending the street cleaning services as the South of Market had already requested that.
Commissioner Breed put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (d). Commissioner Romero seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BREED, SECONDED BY MR. ROMERO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (d) RESOLUTION NO. 38-2007, AUTHORIZING A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000 FOR PLANNING SERVICES FOR ALLEYWAYS IMPROVEMENTS; SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (e) Resolution No. 39-2007, Conditionally approving the Streetscape Schematic Design for Phase 1 of the Hunters Point Shipyard and adopting environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Thor Kaslofsky (Agency staff), Steve Moreland (Lennar), Kevin
Conger (CMG Landscape Architects)
Speakers: Brenda Henry Kittrell, Eddie Kittrell, Marcia Dale-LeWinter,
Debra, Regina (no last names provided), James Bryant, Alexander Ealy, Veronica Rodriguez, Sandra Turner, Antoine Fitch, Lamont Rothschild, Gregory Williams, Rev. Arelious Walker, Marcellus Prentice, Evan Wallace, Marcus Duty, Oscar James, Minister Christopher Muhammad
Commissioner Romero stated that he was confused because the item currently before the Commission was item 4 (e) and the last 15 speakers spoke about the next items on the agenda and the Commission should stick to the matter at hand.
President Peterson stated that once one member of the public spoke on the next items related to the Hunters Point Shipyard, other members of the public were compelled to speak and that he wanted to give them the opportunity to address the Commission.
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (e). Commissioner Cheu seconded the motion.
Commissioner Covington asked what percentage of the plantings proposed would be native, and what percentage would be deciduous.
Mr. Kevin Conger of CMG Landscape Architects, stated that he did not know what the exact percentage of the plantings proposed would be native and deciduous, but that perhaps, 10% would be native and for the trees, about 50% would deciduous and the shrubs would all be evergreen.
Commissioner Covington stated she was asking about the plantings because it seemed that the Bay Area was entering another drought cycle and the water consumption and conservation was of concern to her, and asked what the plans were to keep the plants watered and maintained in the event of an extreme drought, and for the deciduous trees, their leaves would clog the drains in the Fall that could lead to problems like street flooding and debris.
Mr. Conger stated that the planned trees and shrubs would be adapted to the area climate and that they would require little or no irrigation after the second year of planting even during a drought. Mr. Conger stated there would be an automatic irrigation system that would be part of the overall streetscape maintenance plan. Mr. Conger stated that he wanted to clarify that deciduous trees would not necessarily drop more leaves than evergreens as the deciduous trees would drop their leaves all at once, and that the 50% ratio of deciduous trees would not be certainly more than what would be seen in other areas of San Francisco, and that deciduous trees were proposed because they would provide not only beautiful color, but also provide more light on the sidewalks during the winter months.
Commissioner Covington asked if the street lights proposed would be taller than the trees, because particularly on Innes Avenue, it looked as if there would be a dense canopy of street trees and that she wanted to make sure that the sidewalks would be safe and that trees would not block the street lights.
Mr. Conger stated that the street trees and lights would be spaced appropriately and that the street lights would be lower lights and of pedestrian scale, and when the trees matured, they would be taller than the street lights so there would not be conflict.
Commissioner Covington referred to Illustration 5.10 of the proposed Streetscape Schematic Design and noted that there appeared to be a wide spacing between the street lights along Innes Avenue compared to the other streets, and that she was concerned with public safety.
Mr. Conger stated that the street lights were laid out by an engineer that conducted photometric analysis where they looked at what the different levels of light would be on the ground areas, and the street lights had been placed using Department of Public Works light standards and code requirements and were spaced accordingly.
Commissioner Covington asked if the public works light standards were related to safety or function, because her concern was related to public safety.
Mr. Conger stated that the public works light standards were both related to safety and function to provide both pedestrian and vehicular safety.
Commissioner Covington stated she thought that the streetscape schematic design was very pleasing to the eye and lent her support for its approval.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (e) RESOLUTION NO. 39-2007, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE STREETSCAPE SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR PHASE 1 OF THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
Items 4 (f), (g) and (h) were presented together and acted upon separately.
4 (f) Resolution No. 40-2007, Endorsing a conceptual framework to guide the City and County of San Francisco, its Redevelopment Agency, Lennar/BVHP, LLC, and Lennar Communities, Inc. in planning an integrated, mixed-use project at the Candlestick Point Area of the Bayview Hunters Point and the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Areas; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area; Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area
4 (g) Resolution No. 41-2007, Approving a memorandum of understanding with various departments of the City and County of San Francisco to facilitate the planning for an integrated, mixed-used project at the Candlestick Point Area of the Bayview Hunters Point and the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Areas; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area; Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area
4 (h) Resolution No. 42-2007, Authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Amended and Restated Exclusive Negotiations and Planning Agreement with Lennar/BVHP, LLC, a California limited liability company, to: 1) revise the existing negotiations agreement including its schedule of performance for the development of the remainder of the Hunters Point Shipyard; and 2) provide an option granting Lennar Communities, Inc., a California corporation, additional exclusive negotiation rights for the proposed development of an integrated mixed-use project at the Hunters Point Shipyard and on City-owned property at the Candlestick Point Area of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area; Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Michael Cohen (MOEWD)
Speakers: Marcia Dale-LeWinter, Reiko Muranaga, Saul Bloom, Joshlyn
Norman, LaRonda Smith, Al Norman, Franklin Ross, Oscar James, Archbishop King, Minister Christopher Muhammad, Angelo P. King, Rev. Arelious Walker
Commissioner Romero stated he thought that by adopting the three related items, the Commission would be able to establish a framework that could address all of the concerns raised. Mr. Romero put forth motions to adopt items 4 (f), (g) and (h).
Commissioner Cheu asked if there were any plans for supporting the nonprofit infrastructure in the Bayview Hunters Point as part of the proposed conceptual framework.
Mr. Michael Cohen, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Base Reuse and Development, stated that one of the comments from the Hunters Point Shipyard CAC that was reflected in the documents was a specific acknowledgement that many of the programs included in the first phase of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) should be carried forward into the next phase, recognizing that the means of delivery would get better, but that the results would need to be reflected moving forward, and that there would be the creation of real opportunities for jobs and economic development working at the business incubator and small business level and working with the existing communities, both to build capacity and for the folks who have the capacity, to make sure that they would have the priority on the proposed development. Mr. Cohen stated that one of the things that did not get a lot of mention in the first phase of development because the vertical development had not yet begun, was that about 42% of all vertical development would be done either directly or through joint ventures with local community builders, and that was a program and an opportunity that the City intends to put forward. Mr. Cohen stated that in addition, there was a much larger citywide effort called Communities of Opportunity, which Mr. Dwayne Jones had been running out of the Mayor’s Office, and that they had been very active in their discussions with Mr. Jones and others to make sure that they were integrating the opportunities at the Shipyard with City programs like City Build to ensure that people were getting the right job training for the right jobs. Mr. Cohen stated that both the Shipyard CAC and Bayview PAC have business and economic development subcommittees, so there were a lot of forums to discuss these opportunities.
Commissioner Covington stated that Mr. Cohen stated that the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) sets forth the ground rules as it related to milestones that Lennar had to meet with the development partners, the Agency and the Board of Supervisors’ approvals, and asked if the ENA delineated the level of corporate responsibility that was expected in terms of public safety and health concerns.
Mr. Cohen stated that what the ENA would do was to incorporate the conceptual framework, which was the policy document and that one of the objectives from a project like this, would both be a figurative and literal physical healing of the land, and that what would happen through Brownfields development would be to take an environmental scar in the community and transform it into things like parks and other things that would bring huge improvements. Mr. Cohen stated he believed that the principle that the proposed project with Lennar and the City’s participation would have to yield real tangible benefits, including those that would make the community a better place to live environmentally.
Commissioner Covington stated that it would be helpful to have specific language in the conceptual framework policy document because there were continuing problems about the School of Islam and the school children that had been discussed in at least five Commission meetings regarding the dust control issue at the Shipyard. Ms. Covington stated that perhaps, language could be included in the ENA or another binding document that would spell out in some way, what the expectations would be as well as the consequences for failure with respect to the community’s welfare. Ms. Covington stated she thought that would be helpful because the problems were ongoing with no resolution in sight and that was very unsatisfactory to the Commission.
Mr. Cohen stated that there was a provision in the ENA that if Lennar was in default under its obligations for the Phase 1 development, their exclusive negotiating rights would terminate, so the Agency and City have that condition that Lennar had to be a good partner on the Phase 1 development or they would not continue to operate in Phase 2.
Commissioner Covington asked if the unmet milestones with respect to public safety were clearly stipulated under the Phase 1 agreement.
Mr. Cohen stated that the Phase 1 DDA was quite clear on what everyone’s obligations were and that at the urging of the community, the CAC and a lot of environmental advocates, one of the things included in the Phase 1 DDA that was unique was an extremely rigorous dust control plan that had all the levels of monitoring and it was interesting that sometimes the City/Agency would fall victim to the rigor of that monitoring protocol, because of the number of shutdowns that Lennar had and the number of violations, but that was a function of the fact that the project was under incredible scrutiny under Federal, State, local, public health and regulatory bodies. Mr. Cohen stated he believed that the environmental obligations of Lennar under the Phase 1 DDA, were clearly laid out both in Article 31 of the City’s Administrative Code and under various sections of the DDA, and that if Lennar was found to be in default under the Phase 1 DDA, the City/Agency would have the right to terminate their exclusive negotiating rights for the Phase 2 development.
Commissioner Covington asked for more information about the lawsuit against Lennar and if the Agency was a party to the lawsuit.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the Agency was not a party to the lawsuit, and all that was known was what was reported in the newspaper, a copy of which was provided to the Commission, that two employees of Lennar sued Lennar related to their employment relationship and to her knowledge, there had been no findings or court hearings scheduled.
Commissioner Covington stated that in Mr. Cohen’s deliberations with the City’s leadership, it really would be helpful if Mr. Cohen could help the Commission grapple with the dust control issue and the school because it needed to be solved. Ms. Covington stated that the City needed the jobs and the school was also needed and that above all, good health was very necessary, and that she would really appreciate any productive feedback form Mr. Cohen to help the Commission come to an understanding about the issue.
Commissioner King stated that he would second Commissioner Romero’s motions to adopt items 4 (f), (g) and (h). Mr. King stated that he wanted to point out that the State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had jurisdiction and provided training for the workers at the Shipyard in addition to the Department of Public Health to ensure the health and safety of not only the people working in the Shipyard, but also the adjacent community. Mr. King stated that there were people in the Agency including Commissioners who did not have a thorough knowledge of health and safety issues, and they should trust the authorities who are experts in their field. Mr. King stated he thought that Lennar was doing everything it could to address the issues and that there were regulatory bodies that governed the monitoring of the dust in the Shipyard.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to echo Commissioner Covington’s sentiments that the second phase should move forward, but that she wanted some clarifications on what the plans were for the artists in the Shipyard, and asked how many of the artists were from the Bayview Hunters Point area.
Mr. Cohen stated that he did not know how many artists were from the Bayview Hunters Point community, but that they had been working with the artist community for some time going back to 1997 when the redevelopment plan was being formulated, that the artists would continue to be an important presence ion the Shipyard. Mr. Cohen stated that they had committed to work with the artists on the planning and integration of the artists in the project, but that they had also been very clear with the artists that there would be consultation with the various community groups and that the ultimate decision and policy maker was the Redevelopment Agency Commission. The City/Agency would have to balance a lot of community needs, including the rebuilding of the Alice Griffith housing development, which was a very important public benefit that would cost a lot of money. Mr. Cohen stated that the City/Agency was committed to keeping the artists in the Shipyard, but that expectations needed to be managed in terms what costs would be involved, and that the artists recognized the need to reach out better to the surrounding community.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to know how many of the artists were native residents of Bayview Hunters Point and if there were any plans to increase housing resources for the artists.
Mr. Cohen stated that he would obtain the information and provide it to the Commission. Mr. Cohen stated that what had been committed to was that as the new Shipyard was redeveloped, the existing artist population would be accommodated, and whether the artist community would grow or not would be part of the two year planning process.
Commissioner Breed asked where the existing artists would be relocated during the development stage.
Mr. Cohen stated that what was articulated in the conceptual framework was that it would be similar to the Alice Griffith situation where the project would need to be phased in a way that the artists would not be asked to leave until there was a new place for them to get into.
Commissioner Breed stated that with regard to the dust mitigation issues, she wanted an explanation about Minister Christopher Muhammad’s statements that they were not informed about the recent dust control violation.
Ms. Amy Brownell of the Department of Public Health, stated that an informational memorandum was sent to the Commission that detailed the situation that occurred on April 12th. Ms. Brownell stated that in the normal course of work, Lennar had another asbestos exceedence on April 12th, and as previously explained, it takes 24 hours for the sample results to be analyzed and for the results to be received, and the results were sent via e-mail at 7:00 p.m. on Friday (April 13th) evening. Ms. Brownell stated that her commitment to the school administrators was that she would inform them about the exceedences and the shutdowns that would occur the next day. In this case, the shutdown did occur on the next day, Saturday (April 14th) as Lennar was required to do under the plan. Ms. Brownell stated that she did not receive the information about he shutdown until her return to work on the 17th and informed the school at that time.
Commissioner Breed stated she understood that there was no construction work on weekends.
Ms. Brownell stated that they sometime worked on Saturdays, and on this particular Saturday, the work was shut down, but that she informed the school as soon as she received the notice. Ms. Brownell stated she wanted to add that as previously reported, the Department of Public Health had conducted over 40 inspections of the site since the end of January 2007 and that they had not found any problems or violations in the inspections.
Commissioner Breed asked if a representative from the School of Islam could tell the Commission if there was a noticeable cloud of dust on April 12th.
Dean Muhammad stated that on April 12th, he informed the contractor that the water sprinkler system was not functioning and that it was not until 2:00 p.m. that afternoon that the sprinkler system was repaired and was operational at about 2:20 p.m.
Commissioner Breed asked if Dean Muhammad contacted the Agency or Lennar.
Dean Muhammad stated that he contacted Ghirardelli, which was who he was told to contact.
Minister Muhammad stated that he wanted to let the Commission know that the information did not come to them from the Department of Public Health, but rather from people that worked for Lennar.
Commissioner Breed asked Mr. Kofi Bonner how the Agency could move forward on the Shipyard with the continuing problems with the dust control, and that she needed some reassurance from Lennar and its plans to address this very important issue.
Mr. Kofi Bonner of Lennar, stated that obviously, this was a very difficult situation for everyone concerned, and that as mentioned earlier, the mutual Shipyard project should move forward not only with respect to the issue of jobs and economic development and affordable housing development, but also the health and welfare of the entire community. Mr. Bonner stated that they absolutely believed that they were committed to the transformation of the community to improve upon the health of the community by virtue of the removal of the contaminants that existed currently. Mr. Bonner stated that Lennar was governed by the environmental science in addition to the Department of Public Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and they provided to Lennar what it could or could not do, including the levels under which they must shut down the construction activity. Mr. Bonner stated that the fact of the matter was that there was no proof given to them and that as he understood the regulations, Lennar had not done anything that could have possibly created any long term illnesses in the community. Mr. Bonner stated that Lennar was doing everything it could under the direction and guidance of the City, the Agency and the various regulatory bodies, to ramp up its controls and increase the monitoring, and that many of the things that Lennar was doing currently, were not even stipulated as necessary under Article 31. Mr. Bonner stated that he knew it was very difficult for the Commission to have to hear that Lennar was constantly doing something wrong and that it was also very difficult for him to hear that Lennar was doing something wrong.
Commissioner Breed asked if there was anything that Lennar could do differently that had not been done moving forward.
Mr. Bonner stated that as reported by Ms. Brownell, there had been over 40 inspections with no findings of violations of protocol and that clearly, Lennar had improved significantly. Mr. Bonner stated that he would guarantee that if something happened, Lennar would fix the problem as their commitment was to continue to do the right thing.
Commissioner Breed stated that she would like to see this phase of the Shipyard to commence, but that in moving forward, she would like to continue to convene meetings to get to some resolution of the dust control issue, because it was not being resolved to the satisfaction of the Nation of Islam and the school. Ms. Breed stated that both Minister Muhammad and Mr. Bonner are well-respected individuals and that she really wanted to figure out a way to resolve the issues, and that she did not expect to hear continued problems after all that had been done to establish protocol, install additional monitors and all the other things that she and Commissioner Covington had worked so hard. Ms. Breed stated she would offer her time to help convene meetings and work toward resolving the issues.
Commissioner Romero stated he wanted to thank Mr. Bonner for his comments and that he (Mr. Romero) agreed with Mr. Bonner to the extent that Lennar was under the scrutiny of all the regulatory agencies, which had been ongoing for several months and that it was obvious that Mr. Bonner had devoted a lot of time and attention into addressing the situation, but that during the course of the past months, he (Mr. Romero) still had not yet seen any proof or evidence that anybody had actually been harmed. Mr. Romero stated that there had been a lot of allegations, but that it was important to note that the Shipyard project is a very big project with a lot of contamination for many years, and that it would be unbelievable that anyone would argue that the City and the Agency should leave the Shipyard that way, which would be worse than not cleaning it up. Mr. Romero stated that it was similar to having surgery like removing a cancer where there would be some initial pain, but that in the long run the person would certainly be better off. Mr. Romero stated that there would be a lot of people affected by the Shipyard project, and that it was important to keep the big perspective in mind. Mr. Romero stated that if anyone had been harmed, he would urge them to come forward and provide proof, and if not, the project should move forward. Mr. Romero stated he thought that Lennar, the Agency and the City had done a very responsible job in trying to address the allegations, which he thought so far, had proven to be completely baseless because he had not seen any evidence. Mr. Romero stated he would like to call the question on the motions on the floor.
Commissioner King stated that he just wanted to remind that there was a recent discussion about the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) plant in the Bayview, which was finally closed down, and that a lot of people from the community had many illnesses because of the plant in addition to the sewage treatment facility in the same neighborhood, and that he wanted to point out that the health problems in the community were not just a result of the work at the Shipyard that Lennar had been doing, but that at least, Lennar was trying to address the issues the best way they could based upon the scientific procedures established by the regulatory bodies. Mr. King stated he would like to call the question on the motions on the floor.
Commissioner Romero put forth a point of order and stated that two Commissioners had called for the question, and that the Commission should vote.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to make it clear that each individual Commissioner spoke for themselves, and that she wanted to go on record that the comments from her fellow Commissioner were completely out of line and rude.
Commissioner Romero stated he just wanted the Commission to vote, and that he spoke for himself and would stand by what he stated as would the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Covington stated that after the question was called, there was one Commissioner that was allowed to speak, so therefore, all Commissioners should be allowed to speak after one Commissioner was given the opportunity to speak.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MR. KING, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (f) RESOLUTION NO. 40-2007, ENDORSING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ITS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, LENNAR/BVHP, LLC, AND LENNAR COMMUNITIES, INC. IN PLANNING AN INTEGRATED, MIXED-USE PROJECT AT THE CANDLESTICK POINT AREA OF THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AND THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MR. KING, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (g) RESOLUTION NO. 41-2007, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO FACILITATE THE PLANNING FOR AN INTEGRATED, MIXED-USED PROJECT AT THE CANDLESTICK POINT AREA OF THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AND THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MR. KING, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (h) RESOLUTION NO. 42-2007, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDED AND RESTATED EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS AND PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR/BVHP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, TO: 1) REVISE THE EXISTING NEGOTIATIONS AGREEMENT INCLUDING ITS SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REMAINDER OF THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD; AND 2) PROVIDE AN OPTION GRANTING LENNAR COMMUNITIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION RIGHTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED MIXED-USE PROJECT AT THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD AND ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT THE CANDLESTICK POINT AREA OF THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT 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
- Ace Washington, Minister Christopher Muhammad, Willie B. Kennedy
7. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
- President Peterson stated that he wanted to inform his fellow Commissioners that earlier in the meeting, on agenda item 4 (e), there were some folks that had spent three hours waiting for the Shipyard items hoping to address the Commission, but that one person decided to address the Commission following item 4 (e) before the three related Shipyard items were called and presented, and other speakers decided to follow. Mr. Peterson stated that he knew what was going on, but that he allowed the speakers to speak because he felt that it was important to give them the opportunity to speak, and that he did not think that the speakers took advantage of their time. Mr. Peterson stated that it was important from time to time, to provide opportunities for the public to address the Commission especially with a meeting that could go on for hours and try and respect people’s patience.
- President Peterson stated that with regard to the parliamentary procedures, he was aware that there was a motion and a second on the floor, and that the question had been called, but that he tried to give Commissioners the opportunity for some exchange in the deliberations, and in that spirit, he would sometime allow continued debate, but that he thought that was important so that each Commissioner could say what was on his or her mind before the vote was taken.
- President Peterson asked the Commission Secretary to continue canvassing the Commissioners on available dates for the Commission retreat, and to inform the President so that he could help facilitate the retreat.
8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None.
9. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
- Commissioner Breed stated that she agreed with President Peterson that members of the public should be given the opportunity to speak and address the Commission on a project or issue that affected their lives, and that the Commissioners were given the opportunity to engage in dialogues during their deliberations. Ms. Breed stated that she knew what she was getting into when she decided to be a Commissioner, that Commissioners would spend long hours in meetings listening to the public and to each other, and that the Shipyard items were to important to be easily dismissed, and that she wholeheartedly supported President Peterson’s decision to allow the public testimony to be extended and his decision to allow the Commissioners to engage in debate, even if it meant staying longer because that was part of the job of a Commissioner, and that Commissioners would be doing a disservice to its constituents if they did not engage in productive dialogues as they made important decisions.
- Commissioner Romero stated that in his nine years as a Commissioner, he had not missed more than five Commission meetings and had not left a meeting early, and although he did not necessarily enjoy staying late, but that unquestionably, the need was there and so he would stay. Mr. Romero stated that his concern about the parliamentary procedures of letting people speak on an item before it was even presented was not for the Commissioners, but the people who had the patience to wait until the item on the agenda was called. Mr. Romero stated that when people spoke about an item that had not yet been presented, they would be making comments on an item they have not heard yet, and that did not make sense because their comments may changed once the item was presented. Mr. Romero stated that it was not fair to the people who do wait for the items to be called before addressing the Commission. Mr. Romero stated that the rules for parliamentary procedures evolved over a long period of time on what actually happened in public meetings, and that there were always exceptions to the rules because he was a past Commission President and had allowed people to speak over the time limit or let somebody speak out of turn once in a while, but that for the most part, the Commission should really try to follow the rules. Mr. Romero stated that these were just suggestions for improvement to the President especially on difficult situations where there was a lot of emotions involved, and that was when it was important to follow the procedural rules.
10. CLOSED SESSION None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Ms. Covington, seconded by Mr. Peterson, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erwin R. Tanjuaquio
Agency Secretary
APPROVED:
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 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 4:00 p.m. on the 15th day of May 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 4:05 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. Mr. Peterson requested that members of the public and press to stay within the designated public seating area behind the speakers’ podium and not walk or stay in the area surrounding the Commissioners’ dais. Members of the press are requested to film or record the Commission meeting from the side area of the designated public seating area (opposite the meeting room entryway), and that the filming or recording equipment should not interfere with the public’s view of, and participation in, the meeting as well as presentation materials for the Commission. Mr. Peterson stated that these guidelines are in the spirit of promoting open and orderly public meetings.
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
London Breed
Linda Cheu
Leroy King
Ramon E. Romero
Darshan Singh
Marcia Rosen, 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:
CONSENT AGENDA
4 (a) Approval of Minutes: Meeting of May 1, 2007
Commissioner Breed stated that in reviewing the meeting audiocassette tapes and the meeting minutes, she found inaccuracies in the minutes and would like the minutes to be thoroughly reviewed so that the minutes would reflect what was actually stated at the meeting.
Commissioner Breed put forth a motion to continue the May 1, 2007 meeting minutes until the Commission meeting of June 5, 2007. Commissioner Romero seconded the motion.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BREED, SECONDED BY MR. ROMERO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 4 (a) APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MEETING OF MAY 1, 2007, BE CONTINUED TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2007.
At this time, approximately 4:12 p.m., the Agency Commission recessed to consider items on the Financing Authority Agenda.
The City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Financing Authority met in a special meeting at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416, in the City of San Francisco, California, at 4:12 p.m. on the 15th day of May 2007, at the place and date duly established for holding of such a meeting.
1. Election of Officers (calendar year 2007): Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Board Secretary.
Commission Secretary Erwin Tanjuaquio stated that traditionally, the same officers of the Redevelopment Agency would also be elected as officers of the Financing Authority.
MR. ROMERO NOMINATED RICH PETERSON FOR THE OFFICE OF BOARD CHAIRMAN. MR. SINGH SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ELECT RICH PETERSON AS BOARD CHAIRMAN.
MR. ROMERO NOMINATED FRANCEE COVINGTON FOR THE OFFICE OF BOARD VICE-CHAIRMAN. MS. BREED SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ELECT FRANCEE COVINGTON AS BOARD VICE-CHAIRMAN.
MS. COVINGTON NOMINATED ERWIN R. TANJUAQUIO FOR THE OFFICE OF BOARD SECRETARY. MR. ROMERO SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ELECT ERWIN R. TANJUAQUIO AS BOARD SECRETARY.
2. Matters of New Business:
Items 2 (a) and (b) were presented together and acted upon separately.
2 (a) Resolution No. 1-2007, Authorizing the issuance of the 2007 Series A Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (San Francisco Redevelopment Projects) in an initial aggregate principal amount not to exceed $69,600,000; approving forms of an Indenture of Trust, Loan Agreements and Official Statement; authorizing the competitive sale of the bonds, and authorizing and approving other matters properly relating thereto (Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area, South of Market Redevelopment Project Area, and Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area)
2 (b) Resolution 2-2007, Authorizing the issuance of the 2007 Series B Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds (San Francisco Redevelopment Projects) in an amount not to exceed $178,000,000; approving forms of Indenture of Trust, Loan Agreements and Official Statement; authorizing the competitive sale of the bonds, and authorizing and approving other matters properly relating thereto (Merged Embarcadero-Lower Market (Golden Gateway) Redevelopment Project Area/South of Market Redevelopment Project Area/Federal Office Building Redevelopment Project Area), Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area, India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area, Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area, Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2, and Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area)
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Board member Romero put forth motions to adopt items 2 (a) and (b).
Board member Covington asked staff to introduce members of the consultant team.
Mr. Mario Menchini, Senior Financial Analyst, introduced Mr. Steve Melikian of Jones Hall, Mr. Gary Kitahata of Kitahata and Company, Mr. Alex Chiu of the law firm of Alexis S. M. Chiu, and Mr. Vincent McCarley of Backstrom, McCarley and Berry.
Board member Covington seconded Board member Romero’s motions to adopt items 2 (a) and (b).
Board member Singh asked what the interest rates were for the bonds, and requested verification that the Series B bonds would be tax-exempt.
Mr. Menchini stated that if the bonds were sold today, the Series B Tax Allocation Refunding Revenue Bonds would probably sell in the low 4%, at about 4.15%, and the Series A Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds would probably sell in the mid 5%. Mr. Menchini affirmed that the Series B bonds would be tax-exempt, but that the Series A bonds would be taxable because the Agency would utilize those bond proceeds to make loans, which was not an allowable use of tax-exempt bond proceeds. Mr. Menchini stated that most of the Series A bond proceeds would be used to fund the Agency’s housing program.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 2 (a) RESOLUTION NO. 1-2007, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2007 SERIES A TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE BONDS (SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) IN AN INITIAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $69,600,000; APPROVING FORMS OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, LOAN AGREEMENTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE COMPETITIVE SALE OF THE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO (RINCON POINT-SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND YERBA BUENA CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), BE ADOPTED.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 2 (b) RESOLUTION 2-2007, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2007 SERIES B TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $178,000,000; APPROVING FORMS OF INDENTURE OF TRUST, LOAN AGREEMENTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE COMPETITIVE SALE OF THE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO (MERGED EMBARCADERO-LOWER MARKET (GOLDEN GATEWAY) REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA/SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA/FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, INDIA BASIN INDUSTRIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, RINCON POINT-SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, AND YERBA BUENA CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), BE ADOPTED.
2 (c) Resolution 3-2007, Approving amended bylaws of the City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Financing Authority
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Board member Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 2 (c). Board member Singh seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MR. SINGH, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 2 (c) RESOLUTION 3-2007, APPROVING AMENDED BYLAWS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY, BE ADOPTED.
3. Adjournment
It was moved by Mr. Romero, seconded by Mr. Singh, and unanimously carried that the Financing Authority meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
The Agency Commission reconvened at 4:28 p.m. to consider the remaining Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
4 (b) Resolution No. 43-2007, Awarding contract RPSB 01-07, South Beach Bike Hut, and authorizing the execution of a construction contract with Great Wall Contractors, Inc., a California corporation, in an amount not to exceed $75,080; Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Kevin Masuda (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (b). Commissioner Covington seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 43-2007, AWARDING CONTRACT RPSB 01-07, SOUTH BEACH BIKE HUT, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GREAT WALL CONTRACTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,080; RINCON POINT - SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
Items 4 (c) and (d) were presented together and acted upon separately.
4 (c) Resolution No. 44-2007, Authorizing the execution of loan agreements in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $69,600,000 relating to the issuance of 2007 Series A taxable tax allocation revenue bonds (San Francisco Redevelopment Projects) by the City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Financing Authority; approving the final official statements relating to the bonds, and authorizing and approving other matters properly relating thereto (Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area, South of Market Redevelopment Project Area, and Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area)
4 (d) Resolution No. 45-2007, Authorizing the execution of loan agreements in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $178,000,000 relating to the issuance of the 2007 Series B tax allocation refunding revenue bonds (San Francisco Redevelopment Projects) by the City and County of San Francisco Redevelopment Financing Authority; approving the final official statement relating to the bonds, and authorizing and approving other matters properly relating thereto (Merged Embarcadero-Lower Market (Golden Gateway) Redevelopment Project Area/South of Market Redevelopment Project Area/Federal Office Building Redevelopment Project Area), Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area, India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area, Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area, Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2, and Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area)
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero put forth motions to adopt items 4 (c) and (d). Commissioner Cheu seconded the motions.
Commissioner Covington asked if the memorandum for items 4 (c) and (d) was a précis of the loan agreements or if there was something significantly different from the memorandum for the Financing Authority bond issuance items.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the memorandum for the bond issuances under the Financing Authority, was the same memorandum for the corresponding Agency loans.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (c) RESOLUTION NO. 44-2007, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LOAN AGREEMENTS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $69,600,000 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF 2007 SERIES A TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REVENUE BONDS (SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY; APPROVING THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO (RINCON POINT-SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND YERBA BUENA CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), BE ADOPTED.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (d) RESOLUTION NO. 45-2007, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LOAN AGREEMENTS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $178,000,000 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2007 SERIES B TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING AUTHORITY; APPROVING THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE BONDS, AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO (MERGED EMBARCADERO-LOWER MARKET (GOLDEN GATEWAY) REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA/SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA/FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, INDIA BASIN INDUSTRIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, RINCON POINT-SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, AND YERBA BUENA CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA), BE ADOPTED.
4 (e) Resolution No. 46-2007, Authorization to re-affirm authority to invest Agency funds with the Local Agency Investment Fund and related actions on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (e). Commissioner Cheu seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (e) RESOLUTION NO. 46-2007, AUTHORIZATION TO RE-AFFIRM AUTHORITY TO INVEST AGENCY FUNDS WITH THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND AND RELATED ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, BE ADOPTED.
4 (f) Resolution No. 47-2007, Approving the proposed budget for the fiscal year period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, that includes General Fund Loans to fund planning services in the amount of (1) $160,000 for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Survey Area C, and (2) $303,000 for the proposed Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan; and authorizing the Executive Director to submit the Budget to the Mayor’s Office and to enter into amended loan agreements and promissory notes pertaining to (1) Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area and Survey Area C and (2) the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Survey Area
Presenters: Mario Menchini (Agency staff)
Speakers: Ace Washington, Rev. Arnold Townsend
Commissioner Romero stated he thought that this was the third time, perhaps the fourth time the budget had been before the Commission, and that there had been tremendous amount of input on the Agency’s proposed budget from the public as well as reflections from Commissioners, and that he thought that the adjustments described by Mr. Mario Menchini reflected efforts by staff to accommodate the concerns brought to the Commission by members of the public and Commissioners. Mr. Romero stated he wanted to thank staff for making the adjustments and that he hoped that the budget adjustments satisfied everyone’s concerns. Mr. Romero stated he thought that the budget was fair to everyone in the City that would be affected by the Agency’s activities. Mr. Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (f).
Commissioner Breed that for the record, it was her understanding that this was the third time the budget was on the agenda and that the first time it was calendared, it was not discussed and was continued, so there was only one other meeting where the budget was discussed. Ms. Breed stated that the administration budget for the Western Addition had $534,000 and the overall Agency administration budget was $3.2 million, and asked why a significant amount of the administration budget was allocated to the Western Addition.
Mr. Mario Menchini, Senior Financial Analyst, stated that the administration cost was apportioned based upon direct personnel costs as reported on staff time sheets.
Commissioner Breed stated that she understood the administration costs were things like rent and supplies, and that she was not speaking about personnel costs.
Mr. Menchini stated that the administration cost was prorated across project areas based on direct personnel charges as reported on staff’s time sheets, so the higher direct billable hours for a particular project area would absorb a higher portion of the Agency’s entire administration cost.
Commissioner Breed stated that she still had not received the breakdown of the $2.3 million of personnel cost spent for the Western Addition.
Mr. Menchini stated that he apologized for not getting the breakdown completed, but that he should be finished in a couple of days.
Commissioner Breed stated she noticed that in each of the project area budgets, the Western Addition budget was extremely high compared to the other project areas, in terms of personnel and administration costs and asked for an explanation.
Mr. Menchini stated that the personnel cost was based upon hours reported on staff’s time sheets and if there was more staff time reported for Western Addition work, that would reflect a higher personnel cost in the Western Addition, which would then flow through a higher administration cost as well.
Commissioner Breed asked if staff attending the Western Addition Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings was billing their hours for attending the meetings.
Mr. Menchini stated that he would presume that staff members attending the Western Addition CAC meetings were billing their hours for attending the meetings.
Commissioner Breed stated that she had heard previously that staff members attending CAC meetings were not paid and she wanted to get some clarification.
Executive Director Marcia Rosen stated that Agency staff doing Agency business must keep track of their hours, and that most professional staff were not entitled to overtime pay, but kept track of their hours and would be entitled to compensatory time off. Ms. Rosen stated that Agency staff had been directed to bill their time to the Citywide Affordable Housing budget, not to Western Addition, if they were working on affordable housing development projects in the Western Addition, and that would be the case when attending CAC meetings to present or discuss affordable housing projects.
Commissioner Breed stated that she had a serious problem with the proposed budget as it related to the Western Addition and the personnel costs charged to the project area compared to other project areas, and that she was not sure how comfortable she was in moving forward with the proposed budget. Ms. Breed stated that she would like the Fillmore Blue Bridge project to be included as part of the goals and objectives for the Western Addition and to address the matter within the coming fiscal year. Ms. Breed stated that she would also like to see the Safeway parking lot project to move more rapidly and within the coming fiscal year. Ms. Breed stated that at the previous Commission meeting, Ms. Gaynell McCurn mentioned that there was $2,000 in reserves for the CAC, but that Mr. Menchini just mentioned that there was $32,000 in general funds and requested clarification as to what the funds were allocated for.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she reviewed the Western Addition budget with Ms. McCurn and that the amount that was in the ongoing budget from prior years appropriations that would be available to meet specific expenses of the CAC was a total amount of $32,000. Ms. Rosen stated that the amount was budgeted as a line item potentially available for CAC-related costs.
Commissioner Breed asked how it could be guaranteed that the $32,000 would be earmarked for CAC-related expenses.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the funds were currently earmarked for CAC-related expenses and that would have to be changed, which would be brought to the Commission, but that there had not been identified costs that were not funded.
Commissioner Breed stated that the project description for the India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area stated that 9,000 jobs were created as a result of redevelopment activities, and asked how many of the jobs were local.
Executive Director Rosen stated she thought that the information was previously reported and was repeated in the proposed budget. The redevelopment activities for the India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area had been completed and the recent SB2113 Plan Amendment would generate tax increment only for the development of citywide affordable housing.
Commissioner Breed stated that she would like to know how many of the reported 9,000 jobs created in India Basin were for local Bayview Hunters Point residents.
Commissioner Breed stated she thought that the Certificate of Preference Program position should not be an Agency staff position and should go out to bid to an independent group to do outreach and locate certificate holders, and that this task should not be done in-house. Ms. Breed stated she would propose amending the budget to make it clear that this would not be an Agency staff position and to allocate money for outreach efforts to locate certificate holders.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the $100,000 would be for outreach-related expenses that may include contractors or consultants. Ms. Rosen stated that Agency staff thought it most prudent to have the position in-house because the data base needed to be cleaned-up to maintain the accuracy of the information and the person needed to be under the direction of Agency staff. Ms. Rosen stated Agency staff believed that a person was needed to work with staff within the Agency for the administration aspect of the program and for the interaction with other governmental agencies to ensure accurate information. Ms. Rosen stated she would request some time to adequately develop a more precise proposal for the Commission’s consideration about how to operate this aspect of the Certificate of Preference Program.
Commissioner Breed stated she did not think that $100,000 would be adequate for a staff position with the fringe benefits costs associated and there would not be enough for outside contracting for outreach efforts.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the $100,000 would be in addition to the personnel cost, because there would be a limited-term assignment for a staff with the salary and fringe benefits budgeted.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that the matter regarding the full-time Assistant Project Manager for Western Addition had been included in the proposed budget.
Executive Director Rosen stated she was proposing to appoint someone within the Agency staff that would be assigned to work as Assistant Project Manager for the Western Addition and work with Ms. Gaynell McCurn.
Commissioner Breed asked if someone else would be hired to do the job of the person assigned as Assistant Project Manager.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she was not proposing an additional staff person, but a reassignment of staff and redistribution of that staff person’s work to other staff within the Development Services Division.
Commissioner Covington stated that she really wanted to commend staff for listening to her comments at the previous Commission meeting about the Certificate of Preference Program and making a full-time staff person available for the program. Ms. Covington stated that as everyone knew, the Certificate of Preference Program was near and dear to her heart and that she planned on monitoring the program closely throughout the coming year, and that it was tremendous progress to have a full-time person instead of a part-time staff. Ms. Covington stated that she also mentioned previously that the Western Addition CAC should have some parity with other CACs and PACs, and now that $32,000 would be made available for its needs, thought that was tremendous. Ms. Covington stated that the Western Addition Assistant Project Manager, which she also requested at the last Commission meeting, was really vital and that she was happy to see that included in the budget. Ms. Covington commended staff for listening to her strong suggestions and that she thought the Agency was making tremendous progress.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. CHEU, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (f) RESOLUTION NO. 47-2007, APPROVING THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2008, THAT INCLUDES GENERAL FUND LOANS TO FUND PLANNING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF (1) $160,000 FOR THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA C, AND (2) $303,000 FOR THE PROPOSED VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT THE BUDGET TO THE MAYOR’S OFFICE AND TO ENTER INTO AMENDED LOAN AGREEMENTS AND PROMISSORY NOTES PERTAINING TO (1) BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND SURVEY AREA C AND (2) THE VISITACION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (h) Resolution No. 48-2007, Authorizing an Amended and Restated Personal Services Contract with C.H. Elliott & Associates, a sole proprietorship, to increase the contract amount by $90,000 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $150,000, and to extend the contract term for one year, resulting in an aggregate term of three years, to provide real estate and fiscal consulting services in association with the implementation of the Disposition and Development Agreement Hunters Point Shipyard Phase 1; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Nicole Franklin (Agency staff)
Speakers: Dorris M. Vincent
Commissioner Singh asked if Mr. Collin Elliott had worked with the Agency before.
Ms. Nicole Franklin stated that Mr. Elliott had worked with the Agency since the inception of the Hunters Point Shipyard project, but that he was originally a member of another firm, Jones Lang LaSalle.
Commissioner Singh put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (g). Commissioner Breed seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MS. BREED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (g) RESOLUTION NO. 48-2007, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH C.H. ELLIOTT & ASSOCIATES, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $90,000 FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000, AND TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM FOR ONE YEAR, RESULTING IN AN AGGREGATE TERM OF THREE YEARS, TO PROVIDE REAL ESTATE AND FISCAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE 1; HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (h) Resolution No. 49-2007, Authorizing a First Amendment to the Personal Services Contract with Willie B. Kennedy, a sole proprietorship, dba W. B. Kennedy & Associates, to increase the contract amount payable under the first 1-year extension period by an amount not to exceed $65,000, for a second-year contract amount not to exceed $240,000 and a total aggregate contract amount not to exceed $590,000, to provide increased administrative support, outreach and information services to the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee; Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Nicole Franklin (Agency staff)
Speakers: Dorris M. Vincent, Oscar James
Commissioner Breed put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (h).
Commissioner Romero seconded the motion, and stated he thought that Ms. Willie Kennedy is a very valuable asset to the Agency at the Shipyard, and that she had been very helpful to him when he had been to the Shipyard and that he appreciated her hard work.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BREED, SECONDED BY MR. ROMERO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT ITEM 4 (h) RESOLUTION NO. 49-2007, AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WILLIE B. KENNEDY, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, DBA W. B. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES, TO INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER THE FIRST 1-YEAR EXTENSION PERIOD BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $65,000, FOR A SECOND-YEAR CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $240,000 AND A TOTAL AGGREGATE CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $590,000, TO PROVIDE INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT, OUTREACH AND INFORMATION SERVICES TO THE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE; 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
- Oscar James, Charlie Walker, Willie B. Kennedy, Ace Washington
7. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT None.
8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
- Community workshop on Saturday May 19th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the Earl Mills Auditorium on Whitney Young Circle to discuss the planning for the investment of the Agency’s share of land sales proceeds for the community benefits for the Hunters Point Shipyard. For more information, please contact Ms. Nicole Franklin or Mr. Thor Kaslofsky of the Agency staff.
- The Board of Supervisors earlier (May 15th) approved the resolution endorsing the Conceptual Framework for Candlestick Point and Phase 2 of the Hunters Point Shipyard.
- Supervisor Sophie Maxwell (also at the May 15th Board of Supervisors’ meeting) requested a hearing on the environmental issues related to the construction activities in the Hunters Point Shipyard. A date for the hearing had not yet been scheduled, but the Commission would be kept informed.
- The Agency’s SB2113 Redevelopment Plan Amendment for Rincon Point – South Beach was finally approved by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on May 8th.
- Obituary for Rev. Hamilton T. Boswell, who was a tremendous leader in San Francisco and whose funeral was earlier (May 15th) at Jones Memorial, and thought that the Commission may want to adjourn the May 15th Commission meeting in his memory.
9. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
- Commissioner Breed stated that with regard to the Agency’s policies about funding street fairs and festivals, she had concerns about using Agency funds for street fairs and festivals, and although the Agency had funded festivals like the Juneteenth Festival in the Western Addition, which was funded because of displacement due to redevelopment activities, the Agency should consider adopting a policy to not fund street fairs and festivals. Ms. Breed stated that such policy should be considered by the Commission in the near future before the Agency was inundated with funding requests for street fairs and festivals from other project areas.
- Commissioner Breed stated that she was often asked about employment opportunities in the Agency given the high unemployment rate in the Bayview Hunters Point, and that it did not make sense to her that the Agency touted the creation of jobs all over the City, but yet, there were so many people unemployed within the Agency’s project areas. Ms. Breed stated that for a lot of the project areas, it was said that the Agency created jobs for the residents of the project areas, so she would like to know specifically, a breakdown of exactly where the residents came from, the total number of jobs created, what was local and not. Ms. Breed stated she recalled that at the last Commission meeting, there was a lot of public testimony about availing of job opportunities as a result of the Shipyard project, but that people should not have to wait for the Shipyard project in order to have job opportunities. Ms. Breed stated she thought that the job opportunities provided should be citywide and people should be able to take advantage of the employment training programs and be gainfully employed as a result. Ms. Breed stated that she would like to have a breakdown of what jobs redevelopment had created.
- Commissioner Breed stated that with regard to the Agency’s Certificate of Preference Program, which was suggested to be reviewed by the Bayview Hunters Point PAC and the Western Addition CAC, she would like to see the matter calendared in an upcoming Commission meeting to discuss possible amendments to the program in order to provide an opportunity to generate more certificate holders that could benefit from the program. Ms. Breed stated she did not think the Agency should wait until the dedicated staff person was assigned, because additional funds had been allocated and the Agency should be prepared to move forward with improving the program. Ms. Breed stated she thought that the Agency should be thinking about the effects of redevelopment on the Western Addition and to understand that although the Agency’s Certificate of Preference Program was unique and more generous compared to other cities in California, the program just did not do enough, because in the case of the Western Addition, people had been waiting for over 40 years, and generations of people should be able to benefit from the program, the same way that Commissioner Covington had previously suggested where houses were passed down from generation to generation.
- Commissioner Breed stated that the Agency Commission should consider developing a strategic plan for the Agency in order to set goals for the Agency, because at the present, the Agency’s goals seemed to be established by staff, and since the Commission had not done a performance evaluation of the Executive Director, it was not necessarily clear to her that the Agency was being led by the Commission, and thought that it was important for the Commission to determine the direction taken by the Agency. Ms. Breed stated that in addition, the Commission needed to make sure that it was clear that the Commission Secretary was directly responsible to the Commission. Ms. Breed stated that the Executive Director’s performance evaluation, the Agency’s strategic planning and the Commission Secretary’s responsibility to the Commission would be items of serious discussion with ample time allotted at the retreat.
- President Peterson asked Commission Secretary Erwin Tanjuaquio about Commissioners’ responses to scheduling the Commission retreat.
- Commission Secretary Tanjuaquio stated that he had heard from all Commissioners except three, Commissioners Breed, King and Singh, but that he was expecting to hear from them soon.
- Commissioner Covington stated that when the Commission first discussed the Certificate of Preference Program about a month ago, she had suggested updating and revamping the program as needed, and that Commissioner Breed suggested that the Western Addition CAC and Bayview Hunters Point PAC have the opportunity to review the program and its scope and be brought back to the Commission. Ms. Covington requested clarification from Commissioner Breed as to how the Commission could expedite the process of amending certain elements of the program.
- Commissioner Breed stated that she would suggest a Commission workshop to provide opportunity for public input in order to move the process forward and for the Commission to provide directions. Ms. Breed stated that the Certificate of Preference Program had been discussed sometime ago and in the interest of time, the process needed to move forward, and since the Western Addition CAC and the Bayview Hunters Point PAC thus far, had not met to discuss the program, and the Western Addition CAC had no plans of meeting in the near future, thought that the Commission should move forward and receive input and recommendations.
- Commissioner Covington stated that she concurred with Commissioner Breed’s suggestion to conduct a Commission workshop on the Certificate of Preference Program.
- Commissioner Covington stated that it was a pleasure to attend the Agency staff’s Cinco de Mayo luncheon where the food was good and the company was great.
- Commissioner Covington stated that she was very proud of the Agency’s work in the Yerba Buena Gardens, and that she attended the opening of the Yerba Buena Gardens Festival, which featured the Marcus Shelby Jazz Orchestra and their wonderful work in progress, Harriett Tubman Bound for the Promiseland, and there was a wonderful array of fantastic local talent, including Marcus Shelby’s parents who were thrilled to be at the world premiere event.
- Commissioner Covington stated that she wanted to encourage the radio-listening audience to spread the word about the Agency’s limited-equity homeownership program with a number of open houses being held in different parts of the City for a wide range of income brackets for affordable housing. Ms. Covington stated she would really encourage people to visit the Agency’s website, www.sfraaffordablehousing.org to avail of affordable housing opportunities. Ms. Covington stated the Agency in the last two weeks, had a studio apartment at One Federal Street, which was a sizable studio of 838 square feet, with a maximum income of $60,000 per year for one person, and the required down payment was less than $10,000. Ms. Covington stated there was also a home at 12 Garnett Terrace that was a two-bedroom condominium with an affordable purchase price of $201,000, and another one at 49 Bauman Court, a two-bedroom condominium with an affordable purchase price of $270,000. Ms. Covington stated that this was the kind of work that the Agency was doing and that Certificate of Preference holders receive first priority, so she would encourage people to visit the Agency’s website, call the office and if people thought they were eligible for the Certificate of Preference Program, to call Ms. Gwen Sebay of the Agency staff at (415) 749-2478.
- Commissioner Romero stated that he had expressed the view that the Commission had conducted retreats before and that they seem to not do any good, but that he was happy to participate, and when Commission Secretary Tanjuaquio requested Commissioners’ available dates, he (Mr. Romero) provided his available dates. Mr. Romero stated he would urge his fellow Commissioners who had not yet provided available dates, to do so as soon as they could, because he knew that everyone had busy schedules.
- Commissioner Romero stated that he wanted to go on record that he always voted his own judgment and not vote for what staff wanted, and that Agency staff was not leading the Agency and it is the Commission leading the Agency, because the Commission is the decision-making body and if it seemed like the staff was the leader as opposed to the Commission, then the Agency was really dysfunctional and a retreat was desperately necessary, because even the suggestion that the Commission was not leading the Agency, was disrespectful to all of the Commissioners. Mr. Romero stated he knew that it was not intended that way, but that everyone needed to be reminded that there were very serious issues facing the Commission, and that he wanted to go on record that he would never rubber stamp anyone.
- President Peterson stated that with regard to scheduling the retreat, he believed that the dates for the month of June were no longer available and that the retreat would likely be scheduled in July.
10. CLOSED SESSION
(a) Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(b): Conference with Legal Counsel regarding anticipated litigation: one potential case.
11. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Ms. Covington, seconded by Mr. Singh, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erwin R. Tanjuaquio
Agency Secretary
APPROVED:
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HELD ON THE
5TH DAY OF JUNE 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 4:00 p.m. on the 5th day of June 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 4:03 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
London Breed
Leroy King
Ramon E. Romero
Darshan Singh
And the following were absent:
Linda Cheu
Marcia Rosen, 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:
CONSENT AGENDA
4 (a) Resolution No. 50-2007, Authorizing a First Amendment to the Personal Services Contract with New City America, Inc., a California corporation, to extend the contract term from June 7, 2007 to December 31, 2008, in connection with establishing a Community Benefit District in Japantown; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
4 (b) Resolution No. 51-2007, Authorizing renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement through DELL, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $65,000 over three years
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MS. BREED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4 (a), RESOLUTION NO. 50-2007, AUTHORIZING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH NEW CITY AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM FROM JUNE 7, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2008, IN CONNECTION WITH ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICT IN JAPANTOWN; WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, AND 4 (b) RESOLUTION NO. 51-2007, AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT THROUGH DELL, INC. AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $65,000 OVER THREE YEARS, BE ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
4 (c) Resolution No. 52-2007, Authorizing a Personal Services Contract with the San Francisco Housing Development Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $285,000, for homeowner assistance and housing development activities; Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program
Presenters: Chris Harris (Agency staff)
Speakers: Regina Davis, Ed Donaldson, Julian Davis, Rev. Arnold Townsend
Commissioner Breed stated that the San Francisco Housing and Development Corporation (SFHDC) was a real good example of an organization that reaches out and works with folks step by step to ensure that they understood all of the details of the complex affordable housing opportunities. Ms. Breed stated that she wanted to especially thank Mr. Ed Donaldson for his support for numerous friends and people she had referred, and that she whole-heartedly supported the organization and its work. Ms. Breed stated she thought that the Agency should explore possible revisions to the homeowner assistance program and hoped that SFHDC would step up to the plate and make some recommendations as to how the Agency could make the program more user friendly in the future. Ms. Breed put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (c).
Commissioner Covington seconded Commissioner Breed’s motion to adopt item 4 (c).
Commissioner Romero stated that he had always support the SFHDC and its work and that he intended to vote for the contract, but that he would caution everyone about rhetoric that went over the line and to say that there was ethnic cleansing here in San Francisco really detracted from the true facts. Mr. Romero stated that ethnic cleansing happened in places like Yugoslavia and Nazi Germany where hundreds of thousands of people were exterminated and that did not happen here in San Francisco, and thought that was an overstatement. Mr. Romero stated that as a person who studied at the International Institute of Human Rights, he thought the statement went a little too far. Mr. Romero stated that he would vote for the contract and that he knew of the good work that the SFHDC did regardless of the rhetoric.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BREED, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. CHEU ABSENT), THAT ITEM 4 (c) RESOLUTION NO. 52-2007, AUTHORIZING A PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $285,000, FOR HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES; CITYWIDE TAX INCREMENT HOUSING PROGRAM, BE ADOPTED.
4 (d) Workshop on possible amendments to the Certificate of Preference Program
Presenters: Olson Lee (Agency staff)
Speakers: Bob Hamaguchi, Rev. Arnold Townsend, Ed Donaldson, Joe
Clay, Dorothy Clay, Regina Davis, Dorris M. Vincent, Espanola Jackson, Ace Washington, Bobbie Webb
Commissioner Covington stated that the Agency’s Certificate of Preference Program was near and dear to her heart and that she wanted to thank Supervisor Mirkarimi for bringing the matter to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Covington stated that Mr. Olson Lee’s presentation was very good and was very telling because she was taken aback by the figures of people that the Agency had lost contact with, that she brought the matter before the Commission and that this was the third time the program had been before the Commission and would at least come back to the Commission when it would consider the proposed amendments to the program. Ms. Covington stated that this was a very important matter to her because it had taken over 50 years for people to have some options to use the Certificate of Preference, and the homes of people were taken, but the Agency had a misguided notion at that time where the emphasis was placed on building rental housing, which was not what people wanted because they wanted to continue homeownership or have new opportunities for homeownership. Ms. Covington stated that the Agency was a point where the few remaining parcels would be developed and people would have the opportunity to have affordable housing. Ms. Covington stated that she was happy to see the suggested amendments and that there were a lot of good ideas that Agency staff had been working on and that she appreciated their efforts. Ms. Covington referred to slide number 22, Current Program Administration where originally, the head of household was the eligible member and in 1998, the program was modified to include all occupants listed on the Site Occupant Records (SORs). Ms. Covington asked how much of an increase in numbers was generated by expanding the pool of eligibility.
Mr. Olson Lee, Deputy Executive Director for Housing, stated that the SORs had a list of individuals who were either part of the family and others who were not, and the Agency did not have an accounting of every single individual who was listed on the SOR. Mr. Lee stated that the Agency knew from third party data that 62% of the people displaced from the Western Addition were single individuals and 38% were families. Mr. Lee stated that at the time the program was amended, Agency staff assumed that the number of eligible individuals would increase by a factor of four to five times, which was incorrect because the Agency assumed that there were five members in each household, which would mean that the 5,000 displaced homes would generate 25,000 individuals, theoretically. Mr. Lee stated that the number was actually lower, but that the Agency did not have any way of calculating that number without going to the original SOR cards.
Commissioner Covington asked if the Agency still had the original SOR cards.
Mr. Lee stated that the Agency still had the original SOR cards.
Commissioner Covington asked Mr. Lee to detail the Agency’s outreach efforts the last time it attempted to contact certificate holders.
Mr. Lee stated that in 1999, the Agency placed ads in various community, local and regional newspapers and leafleted all of the affordable housing developments in the Western Addition and Bayview Hunters Point, informing about the Certificate of Preference Program. Mr. Lee stated that the Agency also contacted local social service organizations and churches to spread the word and ask if people knew of certificate holders.
Commissioner Covington stated that it was a good idea to establish a down payment assistance program and asked how staff arrived at the $1 million figure, because she thought that it may be under-funded.
Mr. Lee stated that staff believed that the $1 million figure was a substantial amount and would be a starting point to see how much demand there would be for the program, and that if there was demand for more than the initial $1 million, staff would bring that to the Commission’s attention.
Commissioner Covington referred to slide number 28, which stated that “For all certificate holders a certificate is exercised upon success in leasing a rental, purchase of a cooperative share, or purchase of an Agency assisted home,” and asked if certificate holders could move from rental housing to homeownership housing.
Mr. Lee stated that the original program structured in a way where individuals were able to exercise the certificate only once, but that the program was amended to allow individuals to improve their housing condition by either moving up to a cooperative or into homeownership housing.
Commissioner Covington stated that was great and that it would be helpful to a lot of people if they knew that was an option. Ms. Covington requested verification that the proposed independent hearing officer would be part of the City’s Rent Board.
Mr. Lee stated that the Agency would contract with the City’s Rent Board, and the hearing officers would be assigned to hear matters regarding eligibility for the Certificate of Preference Program. Mr. Lee stated that the Rent Board, which conducted rent arbitration hearings, also provide administrative judges to assist other City departments to arbitrate disputes.
Commissioner Covington stated she thought that staff had made a good beginning, but that she had mentioned in the past that if a person could inherit real estate and the certificates represented a form of real estate, the children should be able to inherit the certificates whether or not the parents bought the house before the children were born or after. Ms. Covington stated that it concerned her that people were forced out of the Western Addition while families may have been young and maybe had only one child at that time, but had four of five children subsequently. Those children would have ordinarily been the beneficiaries of whatever property the parents owned, and therefore, should be the beneficiaries of whatever changes would be made to the Certificate of Preference Program. Ms. Covington stated she felt that she should be able to come to the Agency with her birth certificate, which would indicate the names of her mother and father who are certificate holders, even if she was not in the household at that time, because she is their child and that she could prove it. Ms. Covington stated that this was something she would like the Agency to look at, and since it had take the Agency so long, it should investigate the feasibility of extending the eligibility to grandchildren to allow inheritance of certificates or the ability to obtain their own certificates, because there should be a direct link from the grandparents to the grandchildren. Ms. Covington stated that the secrecy surrounding the list of certificate holders was a puzzle to her, because the State had just been sued for its “check vault” program, where people moved and forgot they had bank accounts and years later, the State would come and take the money because it was considered abandoned, but if people could actually go online and check the “vault” for the State, then people could check to see if they were certificate holders. Ms. Covington stated that the Agency should figure out how to get in touch with the 3,000 people it had lost contact with. Ms. Covington stated that increasing the certificate validity to 10 years was a good start, but that she would like to see the certificate validity increased to maybe 25 years, because the list had been dormant for many years. Ms. Covington stated that she would like the Agency to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for extensive outreach to find the families that would include advertising, talks on KPOO radio, and a photocopy of an actual certificate as suggested by Mr. Ace Washington, so that people would know what the certificate looked like. Ms. Covington stated that she had already mentioned that she would like the amount of the down payment increased, and that although it was a good idea to have independent hearing officers, she would still suggest an ombudsman to interface between certificate holders and the Agency, and that the ombudsman would serve as additional eyes and ears at the Rent Board, should the Agency utilize its services. Ms. Covington urged Mr. Bobbie Webb to see or call Mr. Olson Lee with questions about the program.
Commissioner Singh stated that he agreed with Commissioner Covington’s remarks about making the list of certificate holders public and asked what was meant by cancelled certificates.
Mr. Lee stated that certificates were cancelled upon the death of the holder or if there was a duplication.
Commissioner Singh asked if the certificates could be transferred to the children and grandchildren of the certificate holders.
Mr. Lee stated that would be part of an action that the Commission could consider in amending the Certificate of Preference Program.
Commissioner Breed stated that she agreed with Commissioner Covington’s suggestions and that she was happy to see the proposed amendments to the program made by Mr. Lee. Ms. Breed stated it appeared that certificate holders had access to only low-income housing developments within project areas as they would be low- and moderate-income households, and requested verification that certificate holders would not have priority for market-rate housing developments.
Mr. Lee stated that the Agency had applied preferential marketing for certain market-rate housing units and that it depended upon the specific agreement for a certain development, but that certain agreements with developers required them to do pre-marketing notice for all certificate holders regardless of their income qualifications, so that if there was a market-rate certificate holder, they would get advanced notice.
Commissioner Breed stated that the policy seemed to be redundant because on one hand, the policy states that a person would have to be low- and moderate-income, and on the other hand, it quoted the California State Redevelopment Law, which state that the Agency could not discriminate against anyone based on their income.
Mr. Lee stated that the Redevelopment Law permitted the Agency to provide preferences to low-income people as part of the redevelopment plan, and that the Agency could not discriminate against low-income people, because they would be the people with less resources to avail themselves of market-rate housing opportunities, so the State legislature had permitted low-income people as a targeted group.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that certificate holders, if they were qualified, would have preference for housing units, whether or not the units were low-income or market-rate.
Mr. Lee stated that would depend on the source of financing for the housing units, and if the units were financed with tax increment or the Citywide Affordable Housing Program funds, then the units would be limited to people who were income eligible, and the Commission had determined that the eligibility for homeownership units under the Agency’s limited equity program, the maximum income would be 100% of the area median income, so if the certificate holders’ incomes were below that, they would qualify for the housing. Mr. Lee stated that he wanted to clarify that the only lottery that certificate holders would have to be in was their own lottery among themselves and not with non certificate holders.
Commissioner Breed asked if it would be possible for an average income earner to utilize their certificate for the market rate units at the Fillmore Heritage project as an example.
Mr. Lee stated that for the Fillmore Heritage project, the Owner Participation Agreement provided for advance notice of the opportunity and so certain certificate holders would qualify.
Commissioner Breed stated she had concerns that there were limitations on housing opportunities for certificate holders regardless of their incomes.
Mr. Lee stated that would be true especially for developments assisted with low- and moderate-income funds.
Commissioner Breed stated that was her concern, because she believed that for developments where the Agency was involved, certificate holders should be able to exercise the use of their certificates regardless of their incomes. Ms. Breed stated she understood that the Certificate of Preference Program would not apply to private market-rate developments such as the one on Buchanan and Eddy Streets.
Mr. Lee stated that the project at Buchanan and Eddy Streets included some below market-rate units, so the Certificate of Preference Program would apply, for the low-income units.
Commissioner Breed asked if the Certificate of Preference Program included businesses and if they had to fall into the low-income category.
Mr. Lee stated that there was not an income requirement for displaced business, but that the difference between the residential and business certificate program was that there were greater opportunities for residential than the businesses.
Commissioner Breed stated that she agreed with Commissioner Covington’s recommendations on the outreach efforts and that she wanted to add that public service announcements could be done on Channel 26 in between the Board of Supervisors’ televised public hearings. Ms. Breed stated that she would also like to see grandchildren added to eligibility list and hopefully, there would be recommendations to the Commission as it considered amendments to the program. Ms. Breed stated that the forward calendar provided to the Commission indicated that the Commission would consider amendments to the program at its June 19th Commission meeting, but that additional time may be necessary before the Commission could act on amendments because she thought that there should be input from Supervisors Mirkarimi who was in the midst of budget hearings and he was the one who called for the initial public hearing about the Agency’s Certificate of Preference Program. Ms. Breed stated she did not think it would be fair to the Supervisor to rush the amendments to the program and that she really appreciated the hard work of staff, and looked forward to seeing an overview of the proposed amendments before the Commission considered action.
Commissioner Romero requested verification that an individual would have had to be displaced by the Agency and that the property would have been purchased by the Agency in order to qualify for the Certificate of Preference Program. Mr. Romero asked if the properties were acquired by eminent domain or voluntary purchase agreements.
Mr. Lee stated that the property would have had to be purchased by the Agency and directly displaced by the Agency in order to qualify for the Certificate of Preference Program. Mr. Lee stated that acquisitions were likely to have been a mixture of both eminent domain and voluntary purchases.
Commissioner Romero asked when the most recent certificate was issued by the Agency.
Mr. Lee stated that since the program was amended in 1998, the Agency would have issued a certificate as recent as in the last month, for a Residential C certificate, which was any individual listed on the SOR and not a Residential A certificate, which would be the listed head of household.
Commissioner Romero stated he assumed that a certificate was a piece of paper and if a holder lost their certificate, they would still be on the Agency’s list and they did not have to present the certificate and they could prove their identity, they would still be eligible.
Mr. Lee stated that was correct and that the list of certificate holders was maintained by the Agency.
Commissioner Romero asked what the process was for notifying certificate holders to keep the Agency informed of address changes and what staff did to maintain an up to date list.
Mr. Lee stated that staff tried to follow-up with certificate holders to keep their contact information up to date and staff worked very hard to update the information about the program on the Agency’s website and had recently created a dedicated link on the website about the program to keep people informed. Mr. Lee stated that the planned expanded outreach efforts including the recent public hearings about the program provided notice and advertisements about the program and to make the program more widely known. Mr. Lee stated that staff was hopeful that the proposed amendments to the program and the additional outreach in the coming fiscal year would provide more exposure about the program and generate more certificate holders.
Commissioner Romero asked when the earliest certificates were issued.
Mr. Lee stated that the earliest certificates were issued probably in the late 1960s, and that some those had not been exercised.
Commissioner Romero stated that he had no problem with adding grandchildren to the eligibility list and thought that made sense because someone who had not exercised the certificate for over 20 years may want their children or grandchildren to avail of the housing opportunity. Mr. Romero asked how the Agency would find grandchildren of original certificate holders when it could not find the children.
Mr. Lee stated that was one of the key issues about expanding the outreach efforts while expanding the eligibility to children and possibly, grandchildren.
Commissioner Romero stated that with regard to the outreach efforts, there were many companies that specialized in searching for missing people, including those used by financial institutions, and that might be more useful than just leafleting or even advertisements in newspapers. Mr. Romero stated that may be cost prohibitive and asked if there was money in the Agency’s budget to do that.
Mr. Lee stated that staff had looked at the possible use of internet-based search and spoke with a consultant who had a lot of good tips as to how that could be done. Mr. Lee stated that there was money included in the Agency’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007-2008 to conduct the expanded outreach to certificate holders.
Mr. Romero thanked staff for the good suggestions on possible amendments to the program for the Commission to consider.
Commissioner King stated that staff had good suggestions on improving the Certificate of Preference Program and asked if the Agency had been offering housing opportunities to certificate holders.
Mr. Lee stated that for every new housing development, the Agency did mailings to inform everyone including certificate holders about the housing opportunity and staff continued to update the Agency’s mailing list to ensure that there was as much notice to as many people as possible.
Commissioner King asked if the Agency notified housing developments like Loren Miller, Freedom West and Martin Luther King, Jr. about the Certificate of Preference Program.
Mr. Lee stated that all of these housing developments had the Certificate of Preference obligations, but that he would need to verify that the specific Owner Participation or Land Disposition agreements were still in effect and would let the Commission know.
4 (e) Resolution No. 53-2007, Public hearing and Determining that a formula retail use proposed by 99¢ Only Stores for 1336 Post Street is consistent with the Western Addition A-2 Redevelopment Plan, as implemented by the Agency’s Formula Retail Policy; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2
Presenters: Alicia Bert (Agency staff)
Speakers: Rev. Arnold Townsend, Tania Burcham, Geraldine Pulsifer, Clifton Reeves, Fred Nabi, Gus Harput, Jerome Berg, Jeff Wong, Ace Washington, Susan Colton
Commissioner Breed stated that she walked past the area almost everyday and that she noticed homeless people along Gough Street and also a security guard on the property and assumed that was because the store was closed and the property was vacant. Ms. Breed stated that based upon her knowledge of the neighborhood and the area in general, she did not think this was the right store for the neighborhood and that the property was not the right space for a retail use unless it was a smaller store. Ms. Breed stated that there is a Walgreen’s Drug Store around the corner and that she noticed a lot of cars driving along Franklin going into that parking lot, which created a lot of traffic. Ms. Breed stated that she used to go to the Cala Food Store when it was at the property and that it was difficult to find parking. Ms. Breed stated that another use should be explored for the space and thought that a 99¢ Only Store or any other large operation would not be appropriate for that area, because a lot of seniors live in the area as well as office workers from Cathedral Hill and that the area should keep its quiet and peaceful surroundings. Ms. Breed stated she thought that any large store in that area would take away from the business on Fillmore Street, which had a lot of small business and restaurants that should be patronized. Ms. Breed stated she understood the concept of job creation, but that often times, when developers or business operators made commitments to create jobs in the community, local residents did not benefit from those promised jobs, and that the only business that made good on local hiring commitment was Powell’s restaurant while other businesses did not. Ms. Breed stated she just did not think it was a good idea and that the proposed use did not fit the neighborhood, and that the proposed use should be reviewed and considered by the folks that live there, the Western Addition CAC and Japantown Task Force and a reasonable recommendation for a retail use should be brought to the Commission for its consideration.
Commissioner King stated that the proposed use should be referred back to the Western Addition CAC for its review. Mr. King stated that he lives one block away from the property and that he did not see a lot of people from the community at the Commission meeting, so the matter should be reviewed by the CAC.
Commissioner Singh asked where another 99¢ Only Store was located and how many parking spaces were at 1336 Post Street.
Mr. Wil Judy of 99¢ Only Stores, stated that the closest 99¢ Only Store was in San Leandro. Mr. Judy stated that there would be 68 parking spaces at 1336 Post Street.
Commissioner Singh requested verification that there would be 50 jobs for the proposed store, and stated that Commissioner Breed was correct when she stated that most developers or businesses would make commitments to hire locally, but that local residents did not really benefit.
Mr. Judy stated that they hired all of their employees from the neighborhoods they operated in, because it did not make sense to import employees for their business.
Commissioner Singh asked if 99¢ Only Store would provide its own security.
Mr. Judy stated they would have their own internal loss-prevention security and that they would evaluate the security situation as needed and that they required their stores to be a safe shopping environment for their customers and employees, and that if security was necessary, they would provide uniformed security officers at the store.
Commissioner Singh stated he thought that he agreed with Commissioner King that the matter should be sent to the Western Addition CAC for its review and recommendation to the Commission.
Commissioner Romero stated he thought that the Commission should let the matter die by no one making a motion to adopt the proposed resolution, because based on the information provided to the Commission, it was being asked to determine as a matter of policy that the 99¢ Only Store satisfied the purposes of the redevelopment plan and the exact standard that the Commission should look at was whether the proposed use would promote a satisfying and urban living environment that would preserve and enhance the unique social, cultural and aesthetic qualities of the City. Mr. Romero stated he thought that the proposed use did not meet that standard, and although he wished 99¢ Only Store the best, he did not think this was the appropriate location and did not think that the store would be appropriate for the City, let alone the Western Addition neighborhood. Mr. Romero stated that without a motion to adopt, the matter would simply die.
President Peterson asked what constituted the majority of the sales for 99¢ Only Store. Mr. Peterson stated that one of issues brought up was the signage and color of the store’s exterior and the awning and asked how the store would work with the homeowners at the Sutterfield homes.
Mr. Judy stated that 60% of their sales represented food items, another 20% for household goods, 10% for party supplies and 10% for consumable goods like junk food, soda and water. Mr. Judy stated that with all of their stores, they would comply with the local zoning for the approval of their signage and color schemes and that not every store at every location was the same, and that in the case of 1336 Post Street, they would comply with the City’s sign ordinance as well as the homeowners’ association guidelines.
President Peterson asked if the homeowners’ association’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions covered signage and color. (The response from the audience was inaudible.)
President Peterson asked if 99¢ Only Store sold liquor and cigarettes.
Mr. Judy stated that they would not sell liquor at the 1336 Post Street location, because they heard loud and clear from the community that was not desired, and that they would not be selling cigarettes either.
President Peterson stated he thought this was a tough location and that he was sensitive to the concerns of the residents of Sutterfield and that he was familiar with the location because he had shopped there before and when he used to have a food company, they used to do food demonstrations at the location. Mr. Peterson stated that to be fair, for the people who purchased originally at the Sutterfield, there was a grocery store at the location and so he was not sure what the residents were expecting when they purchase homes above a grocery store. Mr. Peterson stated he thought it was a tough location and that the Agency was a bit challenged because it had a 32,000 square foot space and thought that everybody would agree that something needed to go into the space, but that he was sensitive with regard to the determination of consistency with the redevelopment plan, and believed that there were serious issues with the proposed retail use. Mr. Peterson stated that for all of the people who came to voice their concerns, to keep in mind that some retail use would have to go into the space, and that he thought that the area could use some other affordable grocery options.
Commissioner Covington stated that Commissioners King and Singh had suggested that the matter be sent to the Western Addition CAC for its review, and asked if the CAC had been meeting on a regular basis.
Ms. Alicia Bert, Assistant Project Manager, stated that the next CAC meeting was scheduled for June 14th, but that she understood that the CAC had not been meeting on a regular basis.
Ms. Gaynell McCurn, Project Manager, stated that the CAC did hold a special meeting on May 24th, which was not its regular meeting. Ms. McCurn stated she believed that the CAC met three times in the month of April and that one of those meetings was a special meeting to discuss the Muni substation. Ms. McCurn stated that the CAC normally met on a monthly basis, and the two sub-committees of the CAC (Budget and Finance and Planning and Development sub-committees) normally met twice a month. Ms. McCurn stated she thought that the CAC was back to meeting on a regular basis.
Commissioner Covington stated that she wanted to make sure that if the matter was sent to the CAC that it was meeting on a regular basis.
Commissioner Singh put forth a motion to continue the matter for one month.
Commissioner King seconded the motion.
Commissioner Romero stated that he did not understand the reason to continue the matter and asked what the purpose of the motion to continue was. Mr. Romero stated that if the matter was continued, it would come back before the Commission at a later date for its consideration and vote.
Commissioner Singh stated that his motion to continue would allow for additional time so that the Western Addition CAC could review and make a recommendation to the Commission.
Commissioner Romero stated that he would vote against the motion to continue and that the matter should die without a motion to adopt. Mr. Romero stated he thought that the Commission should not reconsider 99¢ Only Store going into the 1336 Post Street location.
Commissioner Singh stated that he was not sure what could go into the 30,000 square foot space and asked how long the space had been vacant.
Ms. Bert stated that the space had been vacant for almost one year.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MR. KING, THAT ITEM 4 (e) RESOLUTION NO. 53-2007, PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINING THAT A FORMULA RETAIL USE PROPOSED BY 99¢ ONLY STORES FOR 1336 POST STREET IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WESTERN ADDITION A-2 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE AGENCY’S FORMULA RETAIL POLICY; WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2, BE CONTINUED FOR ONE MONTH, AND ON ROLL CALL, THE FOLLOWING VOTED “AYE”:
Mr. King
Mr. Singh
AND THE FOLLOWING VOTED “NAY”:
Ms. Breed
Ms. Covington
Mr. Romero
Mr. Peterson
AND THE FOLLOWING WERE ABSENT:
Ms. Cheu
THE SECRETARY DECLARED THE RESULTS OF THE ROLL CALL VOTE, TWO (2) AYES, FOUR (4) NAYS, AND ONE (1) ABSENT.
THE PRESIDENT THEREUPON DECLARED THAT THE MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM 4 (e) FAILED.
President Peterson stated that he still had not heard a motion to adopt item 4 (e).
Commissioner Romero stated he did not think a motion to adopt was needed, but that if it was necessary to make a motion to deny the item, he would do so.
President Peterson stated that he was giving Commissioners the opportunity to make a motion to adopt item 4 (e) and hearing no such motion, the matter died.
General Counsel Morales stated he believed that it would be preferable although it was clear that it would be the Commission’s prerogative to have an affirmative vote one way or the other, so that the project would not be in limbo, and that there would be a final decision.
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to disapprove finding that the 99¢ Only Store is consistent with the Agency’s formula retail policy.
Commissioner Covington raised a point of order and stated that if there was not a motion to approve the project, and no second, the matter would die. Ms. Covington stated that the Commission did not have to vote on the proposed project pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order. Ms. Covington asked if Commissioner Romero would withdraw his motion to disapprove.
Commissioner Romero stated that he listened to the General Counsel that it would be a clearer statement if the Commission would vote to disapprove rather than letting the matter die without a motion to adopt.
Commissioner Covington stated that she understood why Commissioner Romero made his motion, but that she disagreed with General Counsel because it was proper parliamentary procedure under Robert’s Rules of Order, that without a motion to adopt, the matter would die.
President Peterson stated that he concurred and that without a motion to adopt, the matter died.
NOTE: The Commission did not vote on item 4 (e).
4 (f) Resolution No. 54-2007, Authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate and enter into a personal services contract with EIP / PBSJ Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the combined Hunters Point Shipyard / Candlestick development project and redevelopment plan amendments, including Bayview Hunters Point Area C, for an amount not to exceed $700,000; Bayview Hunters Point and Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Areas
Presenters: Stan Muraoka (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (f). Commissioner Singh seconded the motion.
Commissioner Covington stated that she was particularly happy to hear about the three interns that would work on the project, and that she would encourage the consultant, EIP/PBSJ Associates, to use as much as possible, the Bayview Hunters Point PAC in letting people know that such employment opportunities were available.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MR. SINGH, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. CHEU ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (f) RESOLUTION NO. 54-2007, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH EIP / PBSJ ASSOCIATES TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMBINED HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD / CANDLESTICK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AREA C, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $700,000; BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AND HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, BE ADOPTED.
4 (g) Resolution No. 55-2007, Authorizing a Second Amendment to the Maintenance and Management Agreement with the Port of San Francisco for maintenance and management services for Rincon Park, extending the term from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010; and approving an operating budget for July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 in an amount not to exceed $285,000 for a total aggregate amount not to exceed $1,622,514; Rincon Point – South Beach Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Patricia Maitland (Agency staff)
Commissioner Romero stated that he remembered when the Agency first contracted with the Port of San Francisco when the GAP headquarters building was built along with the Rincon Park across the street, which was a beautiful park that is very much used by the community. Mr. Romero put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (g).
Commissioner Breed seconded the motion.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ROMERO, SECONDED BY MS. BREED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. CHEU ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (g) RESOLUTION NO. 55-2007, AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR RINCON PARK, EXTENDING THE TERM FROM JULY 1, 2007 TO JUNE 30, 2010; AND APPROVING AN OPERATING BUDGET FOR JULY 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2008 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $285,000 FOR A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,622,514; RINCON POINT – SOUTH BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (h) Resolution No. 56-2007, Authorizing changes in the terms for forgivable loans authorized under the Six on Sixth Street Economic Revitalization Program for certain properties in need of substantial rehabilitation; South of Market Redevelopment Project Area
Presenters: Mike Grisso (Agency staff)
Speakers: Andrew Harris
Commissioner Breed put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (h).
Commissioner Covington seconded Commissioner Breed’s motion. Ms. Covington stated that Mr. Mike Grisso mentioned the newspaper article from last year, but that he did not mention the newspaper article this past Sunday (June 3rd), with a huge photograph of Ms. Jenny McNulty and three wonderful businesses, but there was no mention of the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Mike Grisso, Project Manager, stated that he would pass along Commissioner Covington’s sentiments to Urban Solutions.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she had asked Mr. Grisso to prepare a letter to the editor explaining the Agency’s role in the revitalization of small business on Sixth Street.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BREED, SECONDED BY MS. COVINGTON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. CHEU ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (h) RESOLUTION NO. 56-2007, AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN THE TERMS FOR FORGIVABLE LOANS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE SIX ON SIXTH STREET ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN NEED OF SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION; SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, BE ADOPTED.
4 (i) Resolution No. 57-2007, Authorizing a Predevelopment Loan Agreement in an amount not to exceed $2,753,291 with Community Housing Partnership Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and Mercy Housing California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, for the development of up to 120 units of very low-income supportive housing on Central Freeway Parcel G, southeast corner of Fulton and Gough Streets; Western Addition Redevelopment Project Area A-2; Citywide Tax Increment Housing Program
Presenters: Erin Carson (Agency staff)
Speakers: David Schnur
Commissioner Singh asked if the funding request was a loan or a grant.
Ms. Erin Carson, Development Specialist, stated that the funding request was a loan.
Commissioner Singh asked how the loan would be repaid.
Ms. Carson stated that like all of the Agency’s tax increment loans, the loan to Community Housing Partnership would have a similar structure with a 3% simple interest accrued and would be paid on residual receipts.
Commissioner Singh put forth a motion to adopt item 4 (i). Commissioner Romero seconded the motion.
Commissioner Breed stated she noticed that the memorandum did not indicate whether or not the Western Addition CAC approved the project or not, but that the project was before the CAC on two occasions.
Ms. Carson stated that the project itself was before the CAC twice, but that when staff was trying to go before the CAC on the funding request, the CAC were not conducting meetings at the time. Ms. Carson stated that the development team had outreached to each community member and had spoken to many of them on the telephone, and the CAC was sent a copy of the staff report.
Commissioner Breed stated she understood that the CAC was meeting and that there was only one meeting that did not occur.
Ms. Gaynell McCurn, Project Manager, stated that Commissioner Breed was correct and that the one meeting that occurred in May was a special meeting with no Agency items on the agenda.
Commissioner Breed asked why the Central Freeway Parcel G funding request was not calendared on the CAC agenda and if the CAC was aware of the funding request.
Ms. McCurn stated that the chair of the CAC set the agenda and had chosen not to put the matter on their agenda.
Commissioner Covington stated that the project was presented to the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association and asked if the association endorsed the project and if there was any feedback.
Ms. Carson stated that the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association heard the presentation, but did not take any action and was just listening to the progress of the proposed project. Ms. Carson stated that the feedback was quite supportive and that there were questions about supportive housing in general, and Mr. David Schnur of Community Housing Partnership attended to respond to specific issues about management and operations of supportive housing and suggested a tour of some of their facilities for interested residents and business owners from Hayes Valley.
Commissioner Covington asked if the suggested tour had taken place.
Ms. Carson stated that some members of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association were interested, but that the tour had not been scheduled.
Commissioner Covington stated that the project sounded wonderful to her, and that the Agency had opportunities for community endorsement, but the project had not received such endorsement.
Ms. Carson stated that there was endorsement of the project and support for the exclusive negotiations with Community Housing Partnership from both the CAC and the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association.
ADOPTION: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SINGH, SECONDED BY MR. ROMERO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (MS. CHEU ABSENT) THAT ITEM 4 (i) RESOLUTION NO. 57-2007, AUTHORIZING A PREDEVELOPMENT LOAN AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,753,291 WITH COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, AND MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 120 UNITS OF VERY LOW-INCOME SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ON CENTRAL FREEWAY PARCEL G, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULTON AND GOUGH STREETS; WESTERN ADDITION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A-2; CITYWIDE TAX INCREMENT HOUSING PROGRAM, BE ADOPTED.
4 (j) Workshop on the HOPE SF Taskforce Recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors
Presenters: Fred Blackwell (MOCD), Naja Boyd (SFHA), Doug Shoemaker (MOH)
Commissioner Covington thanked Mr. Fred Blackwell, Ms. Naja Boyd and Mr. Doug Shoemaker for coming to present the HOPE SF project, and stated that this was a very exciting opportunity for the City to replace each an every unit of public housing in the City, and there would be no loss of public housing and at the same time, adding market-rate and affordable homeownership so that people could move from one level of housing to another as their careers developed and as families grew. Ms. Covington stated that the HOPE SF was just a wonderful idea, especially in light of the fact that federal dollars had dried up for public housing and that at every meeting, it was her pleasure to a part of the task force and recalled that there were residents of public housing who never missed a task force meeting and showed great enthusiasm for the concept. Ms. Covington stated she thought that this concept was a real estate deal with a heart and a vision and that she was so excited about its prospects. Ms. Covington stated she hoped that as matters come before the Commission for consideration that the Commission would lend its support along with the Mayor’s support as well as Supervisor Maxwell who represents 7 out of the 8 public housing developments. Ms. Covington stated that also attending the task force meetings were several members of the granting community as well as representatives from various foundations, so there was definitely some foundation interest on the proposal.
President Peterson thanked Commissioner Covington for her efforts and hard work on the HOPE SF project.
Commissioner Breed stated that it was not clear to her whether or not the proposal was to rebuild or rehabilitate the public housing units and seemed there would be both activities.
Mr. Doug Shoemaker, Deputy Director for the Mayor’s Office of Housing, stated that the majority of the 8 public housing sites as part of the HOPE SF, would be a phase redevelopment. For example, for the Hunters View project that was currently underway, the idea would be that as part of the site was redeveloped, torn down and rebuilt, there would be rehabilitation of the existing units on site so that folks would be relocated within the existing development.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that overall, once the project was completed, there would be new construction of the housing units.
Mr. Shoemaker affirmed that there would be new construction of the housing units.
Commissioner Breed stated that security is a major issue at the Plaza East development and that she was trying to understand what would happen with the new developments, because there would still be confined spaces during the phased development that would not change the security issues with the public housing units, and asked if there was a plan to address the security issues while the properties go through the planned development transition.
Ms. Naja Boyd, Housing Authority Deputy Executive Director, stated she thought that the security issues would be part of the predevelopment activities and the planning for the various projects that would include addressing the safety issues for the long term.
Commissioner Breed asked how the Housing Authority was securing the existing public housing developments, in particular the Plaza East development.
Ms. Boyd stated that currently, for most of the Bayview Hunters Point sites, the Housing Authority contracted with the San Francisco Police Department through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) where 16 police officers are assigned to the Bayview Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley areas. Ms. Boyd stated that for the Plaza East, 4 police officers were recently assigned at the request of Supervisor Mirkarimi. Ms. Boyd stated that in addition, the Housing Authority had private security at the sites.
Commissioner Breed requested verification that the private security services were for only certain times and not 24 hours.
Ms. Boyd stated that the private security service was for 16 hours and that the Police Department covered the sites from 9:00 in the morning to 9:00 in the evening.
Commissioner Breed stated that she still had concerns because the exteriors of the public housing developments may look good, but that the culture inside the developments had not changed much, and that was her experience living at Plaza East and the security was still a serious issue. Ms. Breed stated that in moving forward, she would like some assurances because she was still not completely satisfied with how security was being managed at that particular development.
Mr. Fred Blackwell, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Community Development, stated that they recognized that while the proposal was exciting, the development process was actually some time away and that the Housing Authority had some immediate needs that needed to be addressed. Mr. Blackwell stated that one of the things they were working on in the Mayor’s Office was to develop a partnership between the Housing Authority and the City as a whole that would address maintenance, safety and human services issues. Mr. Blackwell stated that as Ms. Boyd mentioned, the Housing Authority had a MOU with the Police Department and there was also a MOU with the Department of Building Inspection, all in an effort to be more coordinated in addressing the public housing issues.
Commissioner Breed stated that the security was really important for her as well as the appearance of the developments, and although there was some recent rehabilitation of some of the developments, they still did not look appealing to the eye, and so she was excited with the plans to tear down the old buildings and rebuild new ones. Ms. Breed stated she recalled that when the old Plaza East buildings were torn down, they were well built and really strong buildings with very thick walls, and remembered that during the 1989 earthquake, she did not even notice the earthquake, but that now, the newer buildings seemed to have been built with thinner walls and people walking up and down the stairs could be heard. Ms. Breed asked what plans were being made to address the noise and sound issues that had not been addressed in all of the HOPE VI project sites that had been completed.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that they had been talking to the residents from Plaza East, Bernal Heights, Valencia Gardens and North Beach and were trying to figure out what went right and what went wrong. Mr. Shoemaker stated that one of the things they were trying to do as Commissioner Breed mention, was that many of the developments looked a lot better, but that they had not actually addressed all of the issues they had intended to address. Mr. Shoemaker stated that some of the projects would come before the Agency Commission and they would make sure that the design issues would be addressed and that they were not planning the cinder-block type construction that had the great sound attenuation features, but that he did not see any reason why the sound and noise issued could not be addressed in the design phases.
Commissioner Breed asked what was being expected from the Agency in terms of financial assistance because she had not seen dollar figures for estimated costs.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that they did not have a specific budgetary request for the developments in terms of annual basis, and that he did not think there would be an annual funding request. Mr. Shoemaker stated that the proposal included 8 developments, four of which are located in the Bayview Hunters Point area and the other four were outside and that what the Mayor’s Office and Housing Authority would expect, if they were able to get the funding from the Board of Supervisors, that there would be some competitive process as the decision had not bee made as to which project would be funded, and depending on which projects were within the redevelopment project area, that would have a significant impact on how much money the Agency might be able to invest. Mr. Shoemaker stated that for example, when the Hunters View project is done, the cost would be in the neighborhood of between $15 and $25 million for the affordable rental and homeownership, and there was no specific request of the Agency to fund that amount and there had been no commitment of Agency funds.
Commissioner Breed stated that with all of the problems surrounding public housing particularly in the Bayview Hunters Point, asked how realistic the Mayor’s Office thought would people buy into the idea of a mixed-income community.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that was one of things they were most focused on, because there would be no guarantee especially in the case of Hunters View, with Westbrook Apartments next door and Hunters Point right over the hill, that folks would necessary feel that was an ideal place to buy a market-rate condominium for $500,000. Mr. Shoemaker stated that as they spoke to other folks in other cities, they learned that security and schools were big issues that either drew or pushed people away from buying a home in these areas.
Commissioner Breed requested a copy of the task force report. Ms. Breed stated she knew that for Plaza East, the issue of maintenance was a problem in terms of the plumbing fixtures and bathroom floors and their quality, because she knew that residents continued to have problems with repairs, and that she hoped that would be taken into consideration by the task force to try and provide the best quality materials for the housing units so that maintenance would not be that big of a problem. Ms. Breed stated that she did not support the concept of residents moving, because her experience in growing up in public housing with her grandmother and other folks, was that they enjoyed living in their units and that they did not want to move around a lot, and that she would be interested in hearing the input of the residents from the affected public housing developments. Ms. Breed stated that she would assume that residents would be able to remain in the same unit and not have to move.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that residents would definitely be able to remain the same unit, but that one of things they heard from residents was that given the economic opportunities that would be available in the community as part of the proposal, people asked what housing options would be available to them if they no longer qualified to live in public housing as their economic situations improved.
Commissioner Breed stated that she wanted to ensure that the residents of the developments would have first priority and trained well in advance, before the development begins in order to have employment opportunities within the developments.
Commissioner Singh requested verification that the U.S. Congress was going to authorize $600 million nationwide for the HOPE program.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that was their hope and that was what the U.S. Senate had proposed and that this was the first time in years that someone had proposed something of that scale.
Commissioner Singh asked if the appropriation was authorized, how much of the $600 million would go to San Francisco, and based upon previous experience, how well would San Francisco do in receiving grants.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that San Francisco had been more successful than any other city in the country and that the Housing Authority and its partners had secured five HOPE VI grants, which they had completed, which had not been done anywhere in the country, and that spoke volumes about San Francisco’s very successful track record. Mr. Shoemaker stated he thought that San Francisco would be very competitive because of many factors, including significant amount of public investment, the concept of mixed-income neighborhoods, and highly leveraged developments. Mr. Shoemaker stated that they have read the draft legislation and they thought that San Francisco had one of the most competitive programs in the country.
Commissioner Singh thanked Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Blackwell and Ms. Boyd for their wonderful presentation to the Commission.
President Peterson stated that he would imagine that the market-rate housing proposed would be pioneering in concept and that the housing would be a better product for the money.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that when they say market-rate, they were talking about homes in the neighborhood of $500,000 to $550,000 and would be significantly below compared to the median priced home in the City, and that one of the goals of the task force was to provide family-sized housing consistent with the existing family-sized public housing and provide a lot more house for the money.
President Peterson stated that the Carter Terrace project is very attractive and asked if there was some anecdotal information about the pricing of the public housing, and asked what was there before the project was developed.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that the Carter Terrace project was not public housing, but affordable rental housing and was funded with tax credits.
Executive Director Rosen stated that the land was vacant before Carter Terrace was developed.
Mr. Shoemaker stated that Carter Terrace was not an example of rebuilt public housing, but was of the same scale and similar topography that might be done for the public housing sites.
President Peterson thanked Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Blackwell and Ms. Boyd for a very nice and informative presentation. Mr. Peterson complimented Commissioner Covington for her time, devotion and energy on the project.
5. MATTERS NOT APPEARING ON THE AGENDA None.
6. PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEMBERS ON NON-AGENDA, BUT AGENCY RELATED MATTERS
- Raymon Smith
NOTE: Mr. Smith reported to the Commission that there were problems with the street tree wells along Sixth Street.
President Peterson asked the Executive Director to look into the matter and to contact Mr. Smith.
Executive Director Rosen stated that she would ask Mr. Mike Grisso, Project Manager, to get in touch with Mr. Smith.
7. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
- President Peterson stated that he was happy to hear that there was a confirmed date for the Commission retreat, on Tuesday July 24th.
- President Peterson stated that on behalf of the Commission and staff, he sends condolences to Commissioner Linda Cheu and her family on the passing of her mother.
8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None.
- Executive Director Rosen reported that at last week’s regional meeting of the Pacific Coast Builders Association, the Mission Creek Senior Community won the highest award in the best mixed-use project category, and was actually nominated in three categories and received honorable mention plaques in best senior housing and best affordable housing.
- Executive Director Rosen stated that she wanted to inform the Commission about an informational memorandum regarding the dust control matter at the Shipyard, which staff updated based on notification at about 2:00 p.m. earlier in the afternoon from Treadwell and Rollo, the Agency’s environmental consultant at the Shipyard, about supposedly an exposure in exceedence on June 4th, and staff learned later that there was a miscalculation and that there was not an exceedence on June 4th. Ms. Rosen stated that there was an event on June 1st, but that the June 4th reading was only at 2,000 and not at the 19,800 indicated on the informational memorandum. Ms. Rosen stated that in order to keep the record clear on the dust control matter, she would ask staff to redo the memorandum with the correct information for the public record and provide it to the Commission.
9. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS None.
10. CLOSED SESSION None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Ms. Covington, seconded by Ms. Breed, and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erwin R. Tanjuaquio
Agency Secretary
APPROVED: