tv [untitled] May 5, 2014 8:00pm-8:31pm PDT
"intent" and leaves me on edge a little bit, right? >> right. >> and i want to make sure and i'm glad that you answered my question. >> thank you. commissioner rosales. >> i had a question along those lines and thank you for that explanation. the staff memo indicates that one of the possible uses will be office and retail uses and i'm just interested in understanding if the retail uses are kind of what compatible to what we see near the parnassus campus or talking about a different retail use? >> i will have laurie answer that, but these are all incidental to the primary educational core mission. >> i understand that. i was curious, what are we talking about when we talk retail? >> so since we need to devote
most of our space and facilities to our core mission, it would not be appropriate for us to rent out our space to a destination retail tenant such as -- i don't know -- home depot or whatever. but as you know, at parnassus and at mission bay we do have smaller food operators and tenants, as well as we have a walgreens pharmacy, for example, on our parnassus campus. so when we talk about "incidental retail," it would be primarily for the convenience of our employees, as well as for our patients and visitors. and that would represented a very small portion of the total space that we plan to develop on this site. >> thank you. >> at the same time, we do understand this agency and
commission's desire to try and promote neighborhood retail whenever possible. so in our planning process, we will work closely with your staff to ensure that whatever retail we do develop is compatible with the rest of the mission bay area. >> great. thank you. >> commissioner mondejar. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> so on your 5th opa amend it releases sales force from certain obligations of the south opa and are there any other obligations that they have released on? can you expand on that?
>> i will ask kathrin riley to help me on this one. the main ones that we discuss ready being let go, but i will have kathrin answer. >> i just want to find out what other areas of obligations that are still there, that are pending? >> the short answer, they are released from everything. >> from everything? >> yes, the process that mission bay goes through you have the master developer entered into the owner participation agreement. the opa travels with the land. so each time you sell property from starts with the master developer and in this case they sold it to alexandria real estate and the master developer retains the parks and other infrastructure. and then those development rights transfer along. so sales force is now selling to ucsf. the reason we're doing the release is that the opa states that if you are going to sell
the property, you need to comply with certain obligations. and so sales force wants to make sure because we're doing the owner participation agreement and because we're allowing ucsf to be exempt from opa, and be subject to mou, sales force wants to make sure that they are covered and that they have a document that recognizes that we as an agency focil as the master developer and everyone on the same page that they are basically out of deal. that is more a technical legal term, but the short answer that they will basically be released from everything. ucsf will take on certain obligations through the mou and the master developer retains those infrastructure, parks, other requirements that they retained when they started selling off this parcel. >> okay. through the chair, i would just add this assignment assumption release agreement is very typical -- that the way mission bay was designed and the reason we don't enter into
multiple development obligations mission bay with many different affordable housing developers and through this assignment assumption release or this series of transactions in the case of uc, as a state agency, mou, opa and release agreement from the transfer of sales force. very typical in mission bay. >> all right. a couple more questions. i will start with the easier one first. the first one is the mitigation measures as part of the fseir process? it says that ucsf is going to do their own development and mitigation measure and then the executive director's responsibility to look at whether or not those were equivalent mitigation measures
to what is in the fseir. so my question is more about process. so does the determination of equivalency, is that with the executive director or have to come to the commission? do we have to make new findings of equivalency? is that something that i just made up or should we do that? >> i'm going to have the document being check in the background. >> you want to tell us where we are looking at? it's in the mou, section 333, mitigation measures consistent with the fseir. page 16. >> thank you. it's been a week since i have
read this one. so the concept is we are relying on the mission bay eir. ucsf has not done any additional ceqa for this project, unlike their campus or the hospital. so for the commission to be able to make findings through ceqa, you need to rely on a ceqa document and you need to rely on the mission bay document with the mitigated measures. in the future ceqa allows to you transfer out findings if they are found to be equal or better, basically. ucsf has requested -- they are in the process of doing a long range development plan eir. they are going to be looking at 33, 34 as well. and there is -- most of the mitigations that uc does in mission bay are pretty much the same or equivalent to what we do for the rest of the projects. both their original eir and the mission bay eir were completed.
so the majority is similar. some like the transportation management plan where all of the private projects in mission bay are required to participate in the tma. uc has a similar process where they have their own shuttle system and they are own tma-based program, which is very successful. so this is one example where ucsf may come back to us and request that instead of participating in the mission day tma, that they replace it with their tma. but because we don't have those findings, we weren't able to clear it as part of this approval process. we did write into it that basically you would delegate to the executive director to review the mitigation program and findings of equivalency. but also that no change could be made if it would affect the infrastructure plan. in this agreement it is written
such that you would delegate to the executive director to make those findings and the thought process behind that, there will be very few that uc will come to us requesting. and the ones that they have, are the ones that we have already accepted and passed with the exist agreementwith the hospital and the campus such as their tma program. >> thank you. which leads me directly to my next question and thank you for leading it for me. i was going to ask about the transportation demand management program that ucsf has? that is where i was going with the eir question. because that is a finding of a mitigation of transit impacts and what not. so my question is are we considering transportation infrastructure part of the infrastructure that could be impacted by the eir? let me say, what i am getting
at, in the next section talks about them potentially expanding that to include the volume that would be in blocks 33 and 34 with people going there. would that inclusion of that volume and potentially an increase of transportation management program, would that impact the transit strait strait of infrastructure? >> no. >> public transit? no. it's all separate. it would not affect the public transit and, in fact they are writing a letter of support to support the city's tep program for tiger grant to ensure additional funds for line 22 and to ensure that we have public transit in there.
at this point we're looking at the private shuttle service which is privately funded, where there is basically it would be just a different connection with a shuttle service. instead of using the mission bay shuttle service and paying to them, they would expend and service this area with their sales result shuttle service, which is also open to the public. >> okay. >> again they need to prepare findings and we need to be able to find it's as good or better. so if they come back and their findings show that switching from private tma would provide work service and would affect our ability to comply with the original ceqa, they would have to be as good or better and those are the findings that we would look at. >> last question from me, i
kind of struggled with some pieces of that. i guess my main question is first on when you talk about additional development rights transfers, and if that were to occur, there is a section that says, "additional payment to the successor agency to account for the impact of that transfer one housing program and related bonding requirements." does that payment -- is that basically saying if there were additional rights transferred to another third-party, that there would be a payment made through the agency again as compensation for loss of pilot? pilot money? and who would be paying it? >> so this is 3.4.3 right at
the end? >> yes. >> so the background on this exchange of property rights similar with mission bay, we don't have -- unlike other areas in the city where you buy a property and have a floor area ratio and basically one allocation to the property. mission bay has a pot of development rights. so under the existing -- even if uc was not to purchase this, similarly talking about sales force. sales force purchased pool of development rights through a planning process that then assigns it. you could have 400,000 square feet, 500,000 square feet, there is not a specific maximum/minimum. so the
mission bay plan allows flexibility and ucsf requested similar flexibility within the sites that they control. so they have campus site, which is the land that was donated. it's the hospital sites two phases. x3 where they purchased land from catellus and from other owner. and then also know 33/34. campus site was kind of the original deal. for the hospital site, ucsf as we reviewed earlier last year had entered into agreements to address loss of property taxes for infrastructure and affordable housing. 33/34 similarly we have the one-time payment. so we're okay with them transferring some property or some allotment between those parcels, because we have already addressed affordable housing and infrastructure. if they were to purchase other property in mission bay, and we're starting to lose property, so this is probably not going to happen. say they bought some of the
remaining sales force land. that property is subject to a pilot. we would want to make sure that they -- we're basically saying that once you have cut a deal with us for affordable housing infrastructure we'll allow some transfer of development rights between those parcels as along as you can see show there is not a negative impact. basically it's as along as you are not creating an environmental impact, i.e., throwing 2 million square feet into a single little parcel. so this section what it's achieving once you have cut a deal for affordable housing and you are part of the original campus site, you can move stuff around as along as you are not creating a problem your neighbors with regards to kind of your ceqa. if you are going to purchase a different additional property, you are going to need to come back to us and talk to us about your affordable housing and infrastructure before we'll
kind of throw into the pool with your other sites. thank you. >> i have a question on the local hiring and workforce development programs. i am looking over the proposed mou and i see lots of language on local hiring, and prevailing wage and focused on the labor aspect of it, which is great. i think i see mission hiring hall present; that is fantastic. i don't want us to overlook the small minority and women businesses and i see a good-faith effort, but i'm always a little nervous when i hear "good-faith efforts." if something could explain that to me. >> i will have someone from the uc staff address that question for you.
>> so daman lu is here to address your construction workforce program and then i can address some of the other programs that we have in place. >> great. >> hello commissioners i'm daman lu and it's my role to manage these programs at ucsf, including community workforce. ucsf as a state entity we are prohibited from mandating quotas and goals around local hire, but what we have done is voluntarily stepped in line with the city's program. actually partnered with mission hiring hall for the last three years in which they provide outreach and referral services to us.
since we entered into the program in january of 2011, since that time on the mission bay hospital, when we implemented the program, our goal was 20% of the construction and we feel that construction hours is a better barometer versus headcount. since that time we achieved 21% of work hours performed by san francisco residents since 2011. 16% of the headcount on the hospital has been san francisco residents as well. across the street, another project that we started in 2013 is the mission hall global health and clinical sciences building. so since that project started in 2013 our target goal was 30% of the construction hours. since march of 2013, we're tracking at about 22%. so we do have some work to make up to try to reach our targeted goal of 30% by fall, equating to
roughly 41,000 hours of construction by san francisco residents. moving forward looking at blocks 33 and 34, phase 1 will begin approximately 2017 and our voluntary goals increase 5% each year to maximum of 50. so by 2017 we'll shoot for 50% of construction hours performed by san francisco residents on those projects. >> thank you. good. >> daman is also responsible for the program that we call "excel." which is a program that provides internships for residents of low-income neighborhoods. and that translate into permanent jobs and permanent employee. so it's a training program for people who are at-risk. and that excel program has been
very successful in helping neighborhood residents get permanent jobs at ucsf. now with respect to the language in the mou that talks about coordination of hiring programs,, as well as making good-faith efforts to ensure minority and women-owned businesses have opportunities to compete for contracts with the regents. so in our advertising of contracting opportunities, particularly in the construction area, we ask bidders, if you will, to submit information about both the number of women, as well as minorities in their companies. and so that information is reported to as parts of their bid proposals and submittals. and those are taken into account. i do want to note also that the university has a diversity and
outreach office that is headed by vice chancellor for diversity and out reach and that vice chancellor is responsible for not only ensuring that the university has a diverse workforce both in faculty and at staff-levels, but also doing outreach of types through our university partnership programs and other programs that work with the community at-large. so the university has, also, i think, as part of its responsibilities for reserve grants research grants with the federal government is responsible for reporting some of its hiring practices as well in compliance with federal law. does that help you? >> well, i get the part that is missing. i know we're in a proposition 209 state, but nonetheless, if
you have a small business program, focusing on the actual solicitation of businesses, i understand your point that you are looking for businesses that have diverse workforces and i think that is very laudable, but i am also interested do you have a policy that sort of mirrors or is similar to either the city's local business program? i understand that it wouldn't have a geographic limitation, but our small business program? >> let me see if daman or his colleagues in the community relations office can speak to that? so at this point, i don't have an answer to your question as to whether we have a formal outreach program for businesses. >> even regional businesses, businesses that are inclusive of minority and women-owned businesses. they can't be exclusive. >> right. so rather than give you a wrong answer, i would
like to confer with my colleagues and then provide the information to your staff. >> okay. >> great. we'll definitely make sure to follow-up with staff maybe at our next meeting. okay. thank you. other questions? if there are no further questions, i would like to entertain a motion on this item. >> madame chair, i moved that. >> thank you. >> i received one more speaker card during the presentation. >> for public comment? >> for public comment. >> we'll have to take it for public comment or non-agenda items. >> it's for 5a. >> we already closed public comment. >> it's your discretion. >> for item 5a. okay. let's do this, we have a
motion. we have a second. and let's hear -- commissioner? >> yes, i don't know if you were here, but in 1997 when uc was looking for someplace, and others called the mayor's office and they are looking for a place of some acres. i was called into the mayor's office and he told me you can get someplace? i said i don't know, you know? he said, why don't you ask them? he said at that time, uc is the second largest employer of the city. and we don't want to let them go. they were offered a place in
brisbane and alameda. and we actually negotiated this and we got 30 acres from catellus and 13 acres from caltrans. they asked us at that time -- i think it's fantastic that they stayed in san francisco. so i think we should be happy. >> oh,yes. i am a happy person. yes, we have a motion and second. thank you, commissioner singh. we'll take the one public speaker. let's take the one public comment item and i want to hear it before we take our formal vote and then we'll take the
vote. >> chester williams. >> very quickly. i had two issues. one that had to look at the fact that from what i heard and what is in the major proposal and that kind of pulls back to mara's question on retail and small business. another concern that i think uc should pull up and i say this because once again, my sophomore year in college i worked at uc in the langley-porter institute that had to do with aging -- it's coming back. >> and health, i thought. >> yes, i remember. what i found is that the project that we did was at that point in the fillmore and the reality was that we were looking at certain things that were causing a
negative view on minorities -- at that time it was majority black -- so my reality as i looked in the bayview and look at other communities, if there was a way in which some of this property could go towards what i call "support services." that would deal with the needs of the community and if they need help, now you have got ucsf right there, with the facilities and the professionalism to be able to help them directly. because one of the things that i am pushing in the community now is trying to develop people to understand that a majority of our low-income people need mental health. they do need help and the reality is some of the things between the drugs and all of that that is moving it's not touching them and there is nowhere to go. there aren't agencies out there that are making that work. ucsf is one of the top. they have the professionals and
i have seen them and walked them work. he think it's something that we could move directly and if they could find somewhere, maybe not in this pocket of land, but somewhere to add support services like mental health and other issues that communities need. we really, really need it. the other part was on the hiring. if in that hiring section that with the mission bay and the mission hiring center, excel is excellent. what i am concerned about and maybe they could answer and maybe they can't, because you guys are ready to vote. i don't see young people getting advancement. i only see them doing low-menial jobs and i don't see a place they can be educated to get in higher jobs. i am hoping that that could be added in somehow, to somehow make a career, rather than just be passing out signs and stuff like a lot of them do. i want them to really learn
something. thank you. >> thank you. okay we have a motion and second. and madame secretary, please call the vote. >> commissioner members please announce your vote, ellington? >> aye. >> >> mondejar. >> aye. >> (roll call vote? madame chair the vote is 5 ayes. >> ly check back with the answer to commissioner rosales's question at our next meeting. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is public comment on non-agenda items. >> do we have any speaker cards. >> oscar james. >> oscar james again. i won't take up too much of your time. unfortunately, i have missed
several meetings. i have been taking care of my mother. she had a stroke and i have been taking care of her and a lot of times i have to do the feeding tube with her at 12:00 and i have my other brother who is sitting in today. anyway, some of the information that was done on the last commission meetings, i would like to try to get some of that information, if possible? tiffany? >> yes, sir. >> okay, thank you. and you guys are doing a good job. but i still can't hear you on the radio. >> that is true. thank you. because i like listening to the chair. >> itunes radio it's available. >> oh, really? itunes radio. thank you. >> next speaker card. >> ace washington. >> i think he left the room. no other