To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

MINUTES

Thursday, June 12, 2003
6:00 P.M.

1800 Oakdale Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94124



I. Call to Order

Commission President Millard Larkin called the Thursday, June 12, 2003 meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. in the Alex L. Pitcher Community Room at 1800 Oakdale Avenue.

II. Announcement

Commissioner Larkin read the Sunshine Ordinance aloud and welcomed everyone to the meeting.

III. Roll Call

Present: Commissioner Millard Larkin, Commissioner Bobbrie Brown,
Commissioner Kim Nguyen, Commissioner Ronald Person,
Commissioner Willie Kennedy

Not Present: Commissioners Enola Maxwell and Louise Jones (excused)

Staff Present: Robert Bryan, Deputy City Attorney; Joseph Tham, PUC Real Property Officer;
Toye Moses, Exec. Dir. SECFC, Annette Price, SECF Commission Secretary; Nancy Rodriguez, Clerk Assistant

IV. Approval of Minutes

Commissioner Kennedy moved and Commissioner Brown seconded to accept the minutes of Thursday, May 8, 2003. Motion passed to accept minutes as presented.

[There was no meeting on May 27, 2003 due to lack of quorum].

Due to the late start of the meeting, Commissioner Larkin moved Item V. Public Comment and Item VI. Communications further down the agenda and moved directly into Item VII. Presentations.

Commissioner Larkin prefaced Mr. Jim Jefferson’s presentation by reminding the audience that as part of the mitigation measures proposed by the City for expansion of the sewage treatment plant in BVHP, the Southeast Community Facility was erected along with the greenhouse adjacent thereto. Mr. Jefferson was involved with this project from its planning phase up and through the conclusion of the project.

Commissioner Larkin then read aloud the Commission’s Statement of Purpose and went on to say that an advisory group would be appointed specifically to investigate exactly what was agreed to in the mitigation process and what recourse could be taken to rectify the disparity.

Commissioner Larkin welcomed and introduced Mr. Jim Jefferson, President of Primus Industry, who distributed handouts and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Jefferson stated his presentation will focus primarily on the governance of the facility, but first he would go into the background as related to Southeast.

VII. Presentation

Mr. Jefferson stated the mitigation for the expansion of the sewage treatment plant occurred when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) threatened sanctions against the City, up to $80,000 a day if corrective measures were not taken to stop the runoff from the sewage treatment plant. To address the problem, the City created the San Francisco Wastewater Program, which later became the Clean Water Program. The City’s remedy was to expand the treatment plant. The City encountered major opposition to the expansion and a lawsuit was filed by the community. Thereafter, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) reached an agreement with the Community that some form of mitigation would be funded and used to offset the impacts that the treatment plant would have. The mitigation that the City first considered was to build a park, which was flatly rejected by the community. The Community asked for something that would bring greater benefit to the broader community in the way of employment, training, and economic development opportunities.

Mr. Jefferson stated his company was hired to carry out planning, design and construction of the facility in 1978. He worked with several community activists and the Wastewater Committee to bring this facility into fruition. As part of that plan and with input from the community, several alternatives were called for resulting in the combination of uses that you see here today, the multi-purpose community facility. Although the state/federal government financed the operation, they would not provide any funding for operating the facility, which is why there was a need of revenue-generated income. Funding for the facility took 10 years and after a special act by congress in 1984, the USEPA was directed to allocate $15 million for construction of this facility (total cost $21 million - Feds 75% vs. City/State 25%). To support the economic viability of the facility, it was determined that an operator was needed, which was vital to its success. It was recommended at that time that a non-profit community-based economic development organization be established to run this facility composed of eleven members appointed by the mayor, which was never done. It was also recommended that the greenhouse be used not by a private operator but again a community organization, non-profit, and that the revenues be used for the benefit of the community through the support of scholarships or other activities that the community might deem appropriate. These commitments were never fulfilled.

On the issue of governance, it was clear that this Commission was established by legislation in 1987 as a full commission. The original legislation does not mention PUC nor does it mention DPW, which is where Clean Water was at the time under the Dept of Public Works. Referring to a letter of February 26, 1981, to Mr. Harold D. Madison from the State Water Resources Control Board earlier distributed, Mr. Jefferson stated his interpretation of that letter was that the facility should be viewed as a Public Works facility and supported by the general fund. The concept/theory was that it was a mitigation project, which meant it was supposed to benefit the community.

In response to Commissioner Person’s question regarding recourse, Mr. Jefferson stated that it is a political issue as to asserting one’s rights. SECFC has a very strong case in every respect from a legal standpoint. The community needs to get organized and bring pressure to the powers that be downtown to rectify the situation.

Commissioner Kennedy thanked Mr. Jefferson for his informative presentation and suggested that possibly Attorney Bryan could re-visit and come up with some type of legislation that demands those changes be adhered to through the Board of Supervisors or the State. Attorney Bryan responded that if the Board of Supervisors opted to amend the legislation, that would be one way to change these requirements. He stated he was unsure whether compliance with the State was at issue, but certainly if the Board of Supervisors wants to request change in legislation, he would draft that legislation.

Mr. Jefferson suggested that he could obtain an independent legal review and bring it to the Commission for their information. Commissioner Larkin responded that the Commission would hold up on that given that there are some other actions that this body plans to take. Mr. Jefferson emphasized that it should to be pursued on a political basis.

Commissioner Larkin opened the floor for public comment/questions (limited to 3 minutes).

V. Public Comment

Mr. Andrew Bozeman announced on June 18th @ 6:00 p.m., the Dept. of Environment (DOE) will be holding a meeting to discuss air quality in the Milton Myers Gym located at 195 Kiska Rd. The City has been gifted with a loan of an air quality monitor that will be placed somewhere in BVHP to measure air quality for 1 year which will be monitored by the State. DOE will ask for input from the Community as to where the monitor should be placed.

Ms. Espanola Jackson announced that a project called “The Living Classroom” sponsored by Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ) is to be built at Heron’s Head Park on Cargo Way 20 feet from the PG&E power plant. She asked that the community and the San Francisco Port Authority not support building this classroom at that site due to its toxic environment.

Commissioner Larkin asked that Item VII presentations be re-visited to answer more questions from the Commission.

Presentations (continued)

Commissioner Person asked who had the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the items that were stated in the ordinance were to be carried out to the fullest and would it make a difference with reference to making someone accountable.

Mr. Jefferson stated all of this construction took place under the auspices of DPW, so the CAO had the primary responsibility to ensure that everything done related to this facility was consistent with legislation and the law. Commissioner Person wanted clarification whether there was an advisory committee set up that would be responsible for the running of the facility. Mr. Jefferson responded the San Francisco Wastewater Community Advisory Committee predated the SECFC, which was established to work along side his company and the City while plans/construction were taking place. Some years later that group was eliminated in favor of the establishment of the SECFC.

Director Moses thanked Mr. Jefferson for bringing some clarity to some of the confusion of this issue and asked whether Mr. Jefferson feels the legislation is obsolete and should be revised since Southeast is now under the PUC and not under DPW as mentioned in the legislation. Mr. Jefferson responded that any legislative issue can be re-visited at any point in time, but the key thing is to first have someone put together a case so that it can be clearly presented based upon the law and the facts. Then use that as the basis to make any new proposals that you might want to make. One proposal could be to maybe re-visit or revise the legislation further to achieve some of your current objectives.

Commissioner Larkin opened the floor to the community for comment/questions.

Mr. Francisco DaCosta had concerns regarding the capacity of the sewage treatment plant and stated although the previous commission did not adhere to some of the standard operating procedures and mandates laid down in the legislation, it is time to involve the PUC directly with the support of this institution because they are benefiting form the rent payers of Southeast.

Ms. Espanola Jackson stated after the split from DPW to Clean Water, the community was told 5 yrs thereafter the funds and rentals would come back into this community. She also urged the commission to oppose the digester project until such time as the community attains what was promised, i.e., money; and that it should be retroactive

Commissioner Larkin remarked this is a very serious matter and we have to look at how it came about. Therefore, at the pleasure of the Chair, I will appoint a Community Advisory Group (SECFC/CAG) that is diverse, knowledgeable of the legislation and has a legal understanding of the issues involved to further research the matter on how we should proceed. Mr. Jefferson has also stated that he would be more than happy to refer a legal advisor to research this matter as well and I ask that that person be directed to this advisory committee.

Commissioner Kennedy moved and Commissioner Person seconded to accept the Chair’s appointees for the SECFC/CAG Advisory Committee. Motion passed unanimously to accept SECFC/CAG Advisory Committee appointees.

Commissioner Larkin thanked Mr. Jefferson for his informative presentation and also for shedding more light on issues that have been of great concern in this community.

Mr. Jefferson closed by advising the Commission to be clear of what their goals/objectives are at this point. And once decided, put a plan in place to accomplish those objectives. Also, there are still massive environmental issues in BVHP area that relate to waste and waste treatment. PUC has plans to spend almost $1 billion in an attempt to address these issues citywide. And because sewage still backs up at the treatment plant, that is contributing in a negative manner to the environment quality of BVHP.

[Commissioner Larkin called for a 15-minues recess]

Commissioner Larkin called the Southeast Community Facility Commission back to order at 6:55 p.m.


After acknowledging Commissioner Nguyen’s arrival, the President moved on to the next presenter, Mr. Don Capobres, Senior Project Manager of SFRA, who will update the community on new developments at the Hunters Point Shipyard.

Presentations (continued)

Mr. Capobres thanked the commissioner for the opportunity to present and distributed handouts of his overview of phase one “Conceptual Framework for Development”. He stated there are two sets of negotiations taking place: 1) the transfer of land by the U.S. Navy to the City; and 2) land development by Lennar to create parcels of property that can be sold to build homes, commercial buildings, etc. Mr. Capobres noted that no development would occur at Hunters Point until the state and federal regulators declared that it is safe to do so from an environmental standpoint. Mr. Capobres then focused on the “term sheet” stating that SFRA has a conveyance agreement/contract for transfer of the property and that that contract will be brought to the commission for approval sometime this summer. He stated 500 acres occupies the Hunters Point Shipyard. The first phase covers 93 acres, enough land to accommodate 1600 residential units (32%-44% affordable), 300,000 sq ft of commercial space, 6 acres of community development, and 34 acres of open space and shoreline improvement. No general fund dollars will be used for the infrastructure but will be funded only through land sale proceeds and public financing that does not tie into the City or the Redevelopment agency. All excess funds will go to the developer, agency and community. Mr. Capobres said the City has valued the land at $30 million. Lennar is bringing $20 million in commercial redevelopment cash and Lennar’s overall rate of return will be 13.5%. Land sale revenue will be $39 million, which will be put back into the shipyard and into the community through the community benefits fund. Mr. Capobres outlined the affordable housing benefits and concluded his presentation by urging the community to get involved and make sure their voices are heard regarding this new development.

Commissioner Larkin asked whether or not Lennar has ever asked for money from SFRA? Mr. Capobres stated they have come before the Agency and spoken about an operating cross budget but that Lennar and not redevelopment funds it. Commissioner Larkin was also curious as to whether there was anything in writing guaranteeing housing opportunities for community residents as opposed to others? Mr. Capobres stated under the fair housing policy, homes cannot be set aside for certain residents but noted that Redevelopment is trying to be as creative as possible within the legal confines when putting documents together.

Commissioner Person asked what does “Robust” affordable housing mean? Instead of the customary 15% of affordable housing that is built in San Francisco, SFRA will have anywhere from 32%-44% of affordable housing.

Commissioner Larkin opened the floor for comment/questions.

Ms. Espanola Jackson stated since 1998, the Redevelopment Agency has given approximately $13 million to Lennar, although it came under the name of LLC. Ms. Jackson also commented that in 1989, the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) that ensures EPA involvement with the clean-up of superfund sites came to San Francisco to monitor the shipyard and she requested that the Commission invite representatives from the RAB board to come and present before the SECFC to get an update of their progress.

Dr. Harrison Parker commented knowing the history of what has happened in the past with regard to affordable housing, how can we be assured that we’re going to get our fair share of housing. We must be suspect because of so many broken promises.

Commissioner Larkin thanked Mr. Capobres and stated he would like him to keep the community concerns in mind when he goes back to Redevelopment.

VI. Communications

There were no communications to the Commission.

VIII. Directors Report

a) Director Moses reported the budget has been reduced by $13,000 in the General Fund.

b) The childcare centers will be greatly impacted by the budget cuts.

c) Decorative Plants is requesting a 10- 20-year lease. PUC Real Estate is working on the draft lease and once complete, they will bring it before the commission. The annual report will be ready the 1st week in July. The report will be presented before the Commission for approval and then go to the Board of Supervisors.

d) Staff is still working closely with Dean Hunnicutt concerning the fitness workshop and will report on that at the next commission meeting.

Commissioner Larkin inquired of the progress on the website. Director Moses stated the draft for the website is ready but that we are waiting on the photographs the photographer took of the new Commissioners. We should have all information ready in a month or so.

Commissioner Kennedy moved and Commissioner Person seconded to accept the Executive Director’s report. Motion passed unanimously to accept report as presented.

IX. Introduction of New Business

Commissioner Larkin asked that staff send letters to Decorative Plants requesting their quarterly employment reports. He also requested that letters be sent to the SECFC/CAG appointees.

X. Announcement

Commissioner Larkin announced that he plans to visit both Commissioners Maxwell and Jones soon. They have both been out ill but that he hopes to have a full commission back as soon as possible. Our prayers are with them both.

Ms. Espanola Jackson announced that there would be a meeting on the 17th of June at SECF from 6 to 8 to discuss housing on the Hill and why BVHP residents are being asked to leave.

XI. Adjournment

Commissioner Kennedy moved and Commissioner Person seconded to adjourn the SECF Commission Meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
Commission Secretary