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