Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 14, 2011 9:00pm-9:30pm PDT

9:00 pm
languages to all employees. there are still issued -- issues we need to discuss with the city attorney's office to make sure whatever we do is complying with federal law. that said, i do think it is appropriate, given this is only the first time we have heard this in committee, for us to hear this again in committee. thus, i would support supervisor farrell's motion to continue and not second that we move this out at this time. i would suggest that we hold a hearing next week. i understand that supervisor campos and others are willing to consider ways to make sure the legislation is tailored. the committee is where work is supposed to happen, and i have heard from colleagues -- our colleagues -- across the political spectrum who want to make sure that we handle this legislation in committee. that is what committees are supposed to do.
9:01 pm
i do absolutely intend to support some version of this legislation. i just think we need a second hearing to do this right. supervisor campos: i have a motion to forward without a recommendation, so why don't we do a roll call on that motion. >> on the motion to refer without recommendation -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor chiu: no. supervisor campos: aye. >> we have two nos and one aye. supervisor farrell: that said, i would make a motion to continue. i could do it to the call of the chair, for a week, whatever the preference is. i am happy to do that on the most accelerated basis possible. i am would be happy to do that to the discretion of my colleagues. supervisor chiu: i would second admission that we were to do this next week, it would arrive at the board at the same time as was supervisor campos is
9:02 pm
suggesting -- as what supervisor campos is suggesting. >> is the motion to continue to next week or to the call of the chair? supervisor farrell: can we do it to next week? supervisor campos: to next week. supervisor farrell: ok. supervisor campos: do you have a specific date -- i think time. do we need to provide a time? supervisor farrell: at this point, giving -- given schedules for next week, i would be happy to do it to the call of the chair. do you have any issues with that? supervisor campos: ok, if we could have a roll call on that, please. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor chiu: aye. supervisor campos: no, and as i indicated, the motion passes,
9:03 pm
and it is continue to the call of the chair, and i will be introducing this at the next meeting on tuesday to have the item directly referred to the board of supervisors. can we call item two? >> item two, resolution authorizing the may cast ballots in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as owner of five parcels over which the board has jurisdiction, where this five parcels would be subject to assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district currently known as the bill more jazz community benefit district. >> good afternoon. i am year to present a resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the affirmative on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of five parcels over which the board of supervisors have jurisdiction, where these five parcels would
9:04 pm
be subject to an assessment in the proposed renewed and expanded property and business improvement district, currently known as the fillmore jazz community benefit district, to be renamed. the district is in the process of renewal, and right now, the department of elections has sent out all of the ballots to every property owner within the proposed renewed district. they have also said ballots to the city and county of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco could vote on the parcels in the proposed district if the board of supervisors were to approve this resolution, which is before you. a list of the parcels in the proposed renewed district are attached, and they include five parcels that total $12,000, --
9:05 pm
$12,747.82, representing about 3.40% of the wages within the district. if you have any questions about the ballots for these parcels or the resolution, i am here to answer your questions. supervisor campos: colleagues, any comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? please go ahead. thanks for patiently waiting on this item. >> no problem. supervisors, i am the president of the fillmore jazz community but the district, and i am standing to ask that you support the resolution before you. as you know, we are in the process of renewal. we are going through transitions and doing the best we can to make sure to take care of the
9:06 pm
safety, marketing, and cleaning of the area. a negative vote would basically hinder that process. we want to continue the process of making sure to keep that area safe, make sure to keep that area marketed, and make sure to keep that area clean, so we hope you all will support this legislation, and we are here for any questions. thank you so much. supervisor campos: thank you, sir. is there any other member of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there -- colleagues, this is an action item. we have a motion. can we take that without objection? >> i believe this item is going as a committee report. supervisor campos: change the motion to committee report, and we can take that without objection. call item three please. >> item 3, resolution of intention to establish the west for the community benefit district and setup a time and
9:07 pm
place -- establish the west portal community benefit district and set up a time and place for the hearing. supervisor campos: we have been requested to continue this item, but before we take action on that, if there is any public comment, please come forward. >> i appreciate the fact that you are continuing this. you must have 30% to go forward to initiate. there were 20 to return their ballots in 2010, and there has been a recent mail out to see if those people -- if their position was changed -- was the same period -- was the same. there have not been any response is, as far as i know, so i am glad you are continuing -- there have not been any responses.
9:08 pm
supervisor campos: thank you. any other public comment? >> i would like to offer my support of this resolution. i have lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, and i think everyone agrees the neighborhood has gone downhill. about the only improvement i have seen on west portal is that campaign office across from starbucks. this neighborhood in my opinion really needs this improvement. the whole district has been going downhill. if you look backwards, near new -- mayor newsom's famous triple play has failed miserably in all three aspects. i urge you to pass this asap. we do not need any further delays. we do not need any more delays
9:09 pm
on west portal. it is interesting that it will be delayed. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could have a motion. motion by supervisor farrell. we can take that without objection. is there any other business before the committee? >> no, there is no other matter. supervisor campos: thank you. the meeting is adjourned.
9:10 pm
>> all those in favor of approving the minutes? any opposed? the minutes or approved as a minute. item three, public comment on executive session. nothing? ok, executive session. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> approved. >> all of those in favor of adjourning to an executive session? any opposed?
9:11 pm
>> reconvene in open session. at second? >> i would also like to make game motion that there are two versions of the agenda. on some, item 13 was deleted, which was just adjournment. so i move to add at item 13 back on to the agenda, for adjournment. about a second. >> any public comment? >> all of those in favor of revising the agenda? the motion is carried. is there a motion regarding closed session? >> motion not to disclose? >> is there a second? any discussion? all of those in favor? the motion is carried. >> item six, please be advised
9:12 pm
that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, or similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting the chair may order the removal of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or similar sound-producing electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the port commission adopts a shorter time on any item. item seven a., executive director's report. >> good afternoon. board staff, and a member of the public. i have a brief executive director's report today. i am starting with another of our blue greenway planning and design guidelines workshops,
9:13 pm
this thursday evening, june 16, at pier 1, from 5:30 until 7:30. they will focus on improving it cited and the site furnishing. the meeting is from 5:30 until 7:30 at pier 1, and we already have a draft. his agent online at, and will be taking, it's on that until july. you can leave your comments on line. we welcome the comments. it is an exciting project for us. the next item is the final environmental impact report for the brannon street wharf, at long last heard by the city planning commission this thursday, june 16, and we sincerely hope that will be
9:14 pm
certified. this is the final eir for the project, which has spent 11 years in conceptual design. it is finally moving forward. banks to the generosity of multiple sources, including the bond measure, the project is fully funded -- thanks to the generosity of multiple sources. that is really exciting news for us and we are looking for to that at long last. as i think you already know, this week, the oracle racing has debuted to of their ac-45 vessels for the running of the catamarans. the ac-72's which are twice as tall, will be running for the calendar series in july, 2013, as well as the final match of
9:15 pm
the america's cup. this week, from 1:00 until 3:30, june 13 through june 17, is the running of america's cup 45, and they're testing out the courses. i think they have some fine- tuning, after yesterday's capsizing, as well as race management technology, all under the purview of john, who is the course designer for the america's cup management group, formally doing the same job for the st. francis yacht club. they're doing places all over the bay. -- there are viewing places all over the bay. the most scenic would be from golden gate bridge to pier 39, or the 1850 replica of the america's cup yacht race. or the 2003 challenger usa 76.
9:16 pm
those vessels are also out there, and hopefully everybody will get to see them. they're said to go about 30 knots, which is quite quick. very exciting. next is the development commission will be meeting on july 7. this is imported the port of san francisco is our joint application with the america's cup event authority with a commission to consider, the special area plan amendment to allow open activity in the water basin for the america's cup on the 34 -- for the america's cup 34. but it is at the water basin a little to the south of pier 32- 38. whose phone is ringing? that is where the key vessels will be brought during the match. the second place is the open water basin at the rincon park.
9:17 pm
the proposal is spectator yachts would be berthed in that open water basin. it the special area plan limits mooring to non-commercial vessels. the items will be held at the commission meeting on july 7, in the port commission room, in this building. there will be a staff report available, june 24. at this time, staff is only recommending an allowance for the brannon street wharf open water basin and not the rincon point open water base. at some more to come on where the super yachts will be berthed. and finally, i'd like to propose the port commission adjourned its meeting today in honor of the fallen san francisco firefighters, lieutenant vincent perez and firefighter paramedic
9:18 pm
anthony valerio, two college to we have lost 10 days -- two of our colleagues that we have lost. >> any comments on the executive director's report? ok. >> item 7 b., legislative updates. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jonathan stern with the planet -- with the port planning and development division. given that our legislative liaison was detained, he asked me to give you a brief update about the legislative agenda of the port and city at the state legislature. there are two bills that have been going through the legislature and i will give you a brief update regarding them.
9:19 pm
there we go. there are two bills, both about development projects. the first, ab-418, regards pier 7-0 and the trust status out at the pier, at the other bill is regarding the cruise terminal and the sites that will be in the america's cup. just as background, the port works with legislature, in conjunction with the city legislative committee. this is the group convened by the mayor's office, and generally puts together all of the specific needs that the city looks at, what is planning to move toward it at this time, and
9:20 pm
we are part of that process. ab-418 is really an administrative trust bill. it is a trust exchange mechanism. at this map shows the report that port staff that did a number of years ago about the trust status of the area components of pier 70. many of the pieces of property were acquired with the original grant. many of them were acquired afterwards, specifically the shipyard, which support purchased for $1. each of these parcels, some of them were filled land, some of the more i planned. -- some of them are upland. they have specific stories that
9:21 pm
affects their legal status. when we are going through our normal process, we have a couple options. we can sit down with staff and say this very specific property has this-and should be treated this way, and this is not in the trust, or because we are doing pier 70, we can try to all ligne trust status. this is the representation of three statuses we would like to see. the yellow are areas where the trust is lifted. almost 40 acres at pier 70 have other reasons we think the trust may not apply. the green areas would be in the trust. these are some of the internal streets. and then the historic buildings
9:22 pm
would either be in the trust, could be maintained by the port in or out of the trust. but i mentioned before, this bill is primarily an administrative bill. it is delegating to the state lands commission, making these trust exchanges. ultimately, there will be a lot of staff work and tidal research to verify the status and get them from this map to the second. this is not really a matter that needs to be written into state law, the mechanism where the land commission can address these issues as they go by. this is particularly important as we move forward with the development initiatives we have, the waterfront site that we're negotiating before the city development, and for the 20th street building. these are mechanisms that will help us finish those processedes.
9:23 pm
there are sort of two issues that we are looking at, that have to be resolved before this is finalized. they both have to essentially do with the trust money and historic buildings. the first is some of these lands seem to be non-trust land, but they're still held by the port, and the harbor fund is essentially a trust assets. so what happens with this money. at the land commission wants to make sure that we do not put general trust money, harbor fund money into non-trust properties. that is a nuance and the details we still have to work out. similarly, do historic buildings get held at the trust with use restrictions or are they held as non-trust assets that achieve the mission of the trust of
9:24 pm
historic preservation? again, there are some nuances that have to be worked out. it has gone all the way through the assembly, including the committee. it has gone to the senate side. it has been deemed to be non- revenue. it does not have to go through the appropriations process. is scheduled to be heard on june 28, and our hope is it will be voted in a positive manner and go to the senate floor for adoption and go through the confirmation process. that is the trajectory right now. ab-664 is another ifb bill. as you have probably heard, we have gone to the legislature a number of time, last six years, to strengthen the infrastructure of the finance district
9:25 pm
capabilities. this particular bill has to do with properties that are subject to the america's cup, and where the will be long-term improvements done by the event authority or short-term improvements, sites that might become better because they're touched by the america's cup. it is to create a district on these properties. we have gone to the state legislature to say that we've elected capture the ifb's districts. specifically, this is based on the misalignment of local investment and state-projected tax gains, based on the america's cup event in 2013. the report is expected to invest $55 million minimum of improvement for port properties. this will have the effect of
9:26 pm
having the port authority make those investments that offer long-term development rent credit to that effect. essentially it will be local investment. the city is also signed up to cover $32 million of the cost raised by the america's cup organizing committee or local taxes. what has been rejected is the $61 million of state revenue from the state from income taxes, sales taxes, etcetera, from the economic activity in 2013. based on those conditions, we have asked through the mechanism similar to what we did at pier 70 last year, that the city and port would be able to capture more of the revenue, the tax increment revenue through this mechanism. currently, we only have the ability to capture sixty-five cents of every tax increment dollar. it is generated through new development. in this district, that would
9:27 pm
raise it from 65 to ninety cents of every dollar tax capture. it has similar safeguards. the state has oversight. that would go through the state investment bank to be certain these are projects that are of statewide interest. anyway, this has also passed all the way through the assembly. it has deemed to be a revenue bill, as it should be. it is currently being heard at the senate rules committee schedule on july 6. after that, it will probably go into recess until august to go through the appropriation reviews process, and hopefully we get through that process this year. other bills ended up being two- year bills because of the
9:28 pm
additional scrutiny of the state is having with the tight revenue bills. that is a possibility. but also, the america's cup, everybody wants to pitch in. it is getting some traction, and we hope this bill could be potentially a one-year bill. that concludes my update. >> when you say you would be capturing more, what does that translate into total amounts that the port would be of the capture out of this? >> it is about 40% more. our current projections from just the development at 3032 and pier 30-32, the probable
9:29 pm
production capacities is about $27 million. that is an analysis we ran last november, december, and presented to the board of supervisors. if you add 40% to that, and is about $10 million, up $12 million on top of that. it is a significant wreck the new effect. -- it is a significant revenue effect. if additional development occurs on the other sites, the additional capital of the tax increments also. >> any further questions? and the public comment on the legislative update? ok, thank you. >> items on the consent calendar, 8 a.,