Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 18, 2014 9:30pm-10:01pm PDT

9:30 pm
revenue sharing. >> so how do we anticipate that if we don't know what the investment's going to be? >> you want to talk about the port review? >> as part of that clarify we will still receive the rent we're currently receiving so we'll be net neutral and we'll just do revenue sharing after the costs have been recovered. >> exactly. the way the lease we're operating under, it recognized that early on. the lease site was approved two, two and a half years ago. it required at a minimum these special events, these longer terms, we meet that requirement i mentioned earlier about minimum parameter rental. so if you took the square footage for this site, 18,000 square feet, and used the minimum parameter rental that the commission approved every year, that's the $77,000 number we
9:31 pm
talked about. the port is guaranteed that number. >> right now we're getting $70,000. we're guaranteed 77,000? >> it's the greater of those numbers. >> so we'll be getting 77,000. >> at a minimum. >> so where does the 150,000 come from? >> fran worked with the parking lot operator who operates this lot on behalf of the giants and looked at the park's past performance of this site to generate a per space revenue number and then looked at potential increased patronage to the site and if somebody drove to the site to go to the beer garden or one of the retail shops how long would they stay. there's some assumptions made behind that number but i think fran could speak to the conservative
9:32 pm
nature of that number. >> as phil mentioned it's largely about increased patronage and parking lot revenue increasing because people will be coming down here on other than a dwaipl -- game day to use this site. we believe it's conservative, the 150,000, particularly we budgeted for 12 special event program festivals a year and we anticipate doing more than one a month, probably more like every few weeks once we're up and running so we do think that $150,000 projection on increased parking revenues for lot a is conservative. but as phil mentioned the lowest amount the port would receive
9:33 pm
is $77,000. >> how are we paying back the investment? >> the cbbc is making the up front investment so the question is how is the port paying it back? the port is not on the hook to pay back all our up front investment, the tenants will be paying rent to us. we additionally may have some revenues from the special events that happen on site, but it's largely through tenant rent. >> okay. so there is a possibility that we'll never recognize the 25 percent participation. >> that is a speculative profit sharing upon break even, yeah. >> so can we talk about, and i understand this is a very hot potato in terms of understanding, but since this lease expires in 2017, let's take two areas. let's assume we didn't think there was a prop b and you were going along with your development plans for lot a as originally envisioned,
9:34 pm
you would be wanting to renew this in 2017 for how many more years, and if we do have prop b, which says maybe your timeline will have to be extended even further, what's the intention at the end of 2017? >> commissioners, commissioner, it's march of 2017 when the parking lot lease expires. so if we are in the same situation as we are today as far as the project my inclination or my guess, if you will, is that we would come to you for an extension of that parking lot lease. i think we recognize the parking lot need, parking need, for the ballpark. so we would probably come back to you for an extension of that lease or renewal of that lease at that point in time. if the project itself were on its scheduled performance, making all its benchmarks, the
9:35 pm
larger project, that, as you may recall from some prior presentations, that project envisioned a master lease scenario where the whole parking lot becomes a master lease and then as the larger project is developed by parcels the parking lot kind of shrinks down. i think the beauty of this temporary installation is that it can move if it's successful and doing well and the port is finally participating in the upside it can be relocated on the site to continue operating into the future assuming again that it's successful. does that answer your question? >> sort of. phil, so one way or the other we would hope that -- because it sounds like in the first 3 years the chances of any participation on our side is truly a question mark, but we would have to look in the outer years. i'm just saying under either scenario, whether the larger project survives as planned or whether there's more delays because you have to go through more approvals under the current
9:36 pm
ballot sort of scenario that we are facing that most likely, i guess i'm asking you is your intention to want to extend. and you'll have to necessarily say for how long because there's so many uncertainties and variables that we don't have the answer to at the moment, but the intention would be to extend? >> correct. our intention would be this special event would be in use for all of the term under which our parking lot lease is happening. so regardless of the reason for the parking lot lease happening, i think it's important to -- we believe this is not part of the overall development, this is part of the existing parking lot lease. but if the parking lot lease were extended or renewed, our intention would be to keep the special event and that is where you get more of the profit
9:37 pm
sharing potential. >> yeah, i think it's a very nice project. food court, beer garden, all wrapped up in one. i think it would be great for getting young people and families together, i think it's a great addition to that area. i'm sure you'll let us know when you figure out your expenses and all that where we're at at that time. you said you're not prepared to tell us that now. >> maybe you can tell us the timeline when you think you will have that answer and we would like to get an update on it. >> under the timeline phil indicated we have to start construction by july, so hopefully we'll know the cost of that before then. so we are working hard, fast and furious, i'm spending all day tomorrow with the contractors, we anticipate by the end of may we would have that budget more
9:38 pm
tightly defined and as i mention we will be sharing that with phil and port staff. >> so we could request monique sometime at another commission meeting in july to get a report. >> we only have one meeting in june, so it would be july. >> i would like to suggest a solution, if you will. again, the master lease gives us a lot of guidance how to operate special events at this location and the master lease requires revenue reporting, there's a methodology in place already where the port does review special event revenues that are conducted on the site. so we would sit down, i think to your point we would make sure we have a methodology in place that specifically addresses the expense being made, tracks the revenues coming in from the tenants at the site to properly identify the point in time when they have recouped their investment and at that point forward the port would participate. so my
9:39 pm
understanding is, and i would suggest that the existing lease provides the structure it accomplish that goal. that said, we can still come back to you with an update. >> well, i think we're just trying to understand what the investment is and the forecast, it's not so much questions, it's so we get a better sense. >> so is your policy direction to proceed or do you want to hold off? >> no, i think we would like to proceed but we'd like to know once all the variables are nailed down that we understand that. >> just responding to fill -- phil's idea i think that's a great one. >> thank you again, i think it's a great idea and a very welcome addition to a rather barren area right now. it's a great location right by that little strip of grass there,
9:40 pm
too, so it will hopefully activate that a bit more. thank you for coming up with this and i look forward to hearing more about it. i call for a vote on resolution no. 1434, all in favor. opposed? passes. resolution 1435, all in favor? opposed? that passes. thank you, commissioner. >> item 13 a, request approval of memorandum of understanding m15747 between the port of san francisco and the san francisco municipal transportation agency for use of a portion of seawall lot 354 also known as 1399 marin street for general office, general warehouse, storage, related parking of sfmta staff vehicles, maintenance and repair of sfmta busses including fueling and
9:41 pm
washing of same and for incidental directly related uses and for no other purpose for a term of 7 years and a waiver of the security deposit. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i want to add my congratulations and thank you for 10 years. i haven't been here all that long, i have been here 7 years and you have been an ipbs administration, a guider, a teacher, a mentor, and thank you very much for everything that you do for me and the real estate department. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> and i promise to make this quick. so first of all i'd like to thank kirsten and ted from sfmta who are here to answer questions and also rich berman
9:42 pm
and shipping shannon who have worked closely with mta to get us to this new mou. sfmta has occupied 1399 marin street since 2001 and we have had an mou and what this request before you is today is a new mou for the continued use of 1399 marin street. and they use this for general office warehouse storage, parking, repair of sfmta busses. and you'll notice that washing is stated in the use, it's not
9:43 pm
a current use and rich will work with sfmta to get approved. the reason this is before you today, the rents are all according to the commission approved parameter rents. we will continue to get rents. what we are requesting today is rather than our standard 5 year term, this would be a 7 year term. we are also asking for a waiver of the security deposit as this is another city department and typically the controller doesn't like us to hold huge amounts of funds between departments. we will be asking for our standard environmental deposits for any mitigation of bills or toxic
9:44 pm
problems that arise over the next 7 years. the estimated rent per year will be approximately $746,000 and that will increase 3 percent annually. we did bring this before the southern waterfront advisory committee and also as a benefit of this on going use, rents from this facility will contribute approximately $40,000 per year to the southern waterfront community benefits and beautification policy. and i'm here to answer any questions as is the sfmta staff and the environmental staff.
9:45 pm
>> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? seeing none, commissioners? >> no, i was going to say i guess our convention when we're dealing with another department is to say mou versus lease? >> yes. >> and this is he is essentially continuing what's already there and my big concern, given our earlier item when we're looking at ensuring that water doesn't -- construction toxins don't get into the bay i'm assuming the washing does not take place there and measures are taken -- are in place to assure there's no flow of oil or other items into the storm water system or anything else there. >> currently there is no washing being done there. if
9:46 pm
they do, they have be required to have a washing station that separates the water and separates the oil so it will not go into the water. >> commissioners? >> can you just tell me a little bit about the beautification efforts that are going to go on there? >> well, as you know, as part of our southern waterfront beautification policy, we capture parts of the rent. >> i think she's asking specifically what are the beautification improvements. i think the commissioner knows very well how the process works, in the interest of time. sorry, susan. >> david duprey, planning and development. as susan indicated we anticipate about
9:47 pm
$40,000 a year to go toward the beautification fund. we haven't identified specific projects but mta as part of their adjacent facility, helped us in the emergency removal of the copa crane. >> thank you, david, i really appreciate that but i'm speaking specifically at what's in the staff report where it says around the area, what are they going to do to beautify the area and there are other things like use of machines in premises, low emission diesel equipment, clean air, program, i'm talking about more of those things. it's a great list of things that can be done but i'm asking specifically what are, are there any plans in place?
9:48 pm
>> okay, here's kirsten and ted to help fill in those spaces. >> good afternoon, i'm kirsten mcgary, senior manager for sfmta thank you for taking time to hear about this proposed extension of the mou. we at the mta produced a real estate and mta vision for the 21st century. we are bringing our fa sits, three of which are more than 100 years old, into the 21st century. to do this we need to do what's called the shuffle, bring things out of the facility, rebuild them and prepare for a bigger fleet. we're getting bigger busses beginning next year so this facility at 1399 marin will be one of the key linchpins will
9:49 pm
be key to having a reserve fleet which serves in emergencies and special events. we have a new facility, as you know, across the street which we have built as part of the islas creek project. we have a new public park available as well as the open space already facing on the south side of the 1399 seawall lot. so ted is here to answer questions about uses. our islas creek project will be a brand new bus maintenance and operations yard. it now has a fuel and wash facility and it will have an operations and maintenance building as part of its phase ii project. so we will not be washing busses at 1399 marin, we will be doing that across the street and at our other facilities. if you'd like to find out any more questions about the operations --. >> are there any upgrades planned for this facility in terms of planter boxes,
9:50 pm
pedestrian walkways, enhancements --. >> there's a whole list of things you say are going to be considered for this site. >> page 3 of the report. >> what you're reading, commissioners, is the text of the policy. those are examples of different things that can be done. but nothing specific other than setting aside the funds to improve the southern waterfront, there's been nothing specific negotiated yet that calls out specifically what they are going to be doing. >> that's what commissioner brandon is looking for, what is going to be done? obviously that hasn't been done. >> i think there's some confusion here. i'm confused now. there's a difference
9:51 pm
between what the port sets aside from our rent to the southern waterfront beautification fund. when i asked what sfmta was doing, that was the response. but i think what you are saying is, no, this is the basket what we would be doing. what is sfmta doing? >> that has not been --. >> has it even been broached. it doesn't sound like kirsten even knows there's supposed to be beautification on the site. >> we can talk about oots things but nothing has been penciled into the mou that says this is specifically what's going to be done. but it's not going to be ignored. >> if we were to approve the extension i would want to, i think, see, have you or someone else come back and talk about specifically what will be done to, pursuant to what looks like
9:52 pm
requirements here and maybe not but that creates a bigger issue to beautify or at least upgrade that particular site. you know, looking at the pictures now it looks pretty dismal. i read it too that something was going to be done be it greening along the sidewalk, putting up trees or at least do something so you are not looking at a maintenance shop there. >> we will --. >> but not with the southern waterfront beautification funds. there's two different things. one is the southern waterfront beautification funds. the other is what the tenants do. i'm not clear there's an anticipation -- kirsten, do you anticipate that sfmta has been asked to do this stuff? >> not yet. >> commissioners, i would like to put this item over. >> okay. >> i apologize for the
9:53 pm
confusion. we'll come back to you with a more defined vision. thank you, commissioner brandon. >> thank you for coming. >> no, we're done, thank you. >> item 14, new business? >> we have a lot of new business, commissioners, do you want me to regurgitate? >> no, thank you. thank you for that. anything else. >> public comment? any other new business? just one last item, as you've probably started gathering, monique, there is a gathering outside briefly. >> i meant to say we have our budget hearing tomorrow at the board of supervisors so that was my work plan for tonight. but i did want to make sure that you know that tomorrow morning we will be in front of
9:54 pm
the board of supervisors. i mentioned that at my ed report the last meeting, i meant to mention that in new business again, i apologize. sorry to interrupt you, commissioner. >> joining us for a moment of cheer. >> thank you so much. very generous. >> monique, were you planning to recap what you heard were new business items, or not? >> i heard you say a lot of new business. >> yeah, and the commissioners -- i'm sorry, the commissioners felt that i probably had the list but i'm happy to regurgitate it. are you wanting me to? very quickly, we have the controller report to ask the city controller to come report on their contracting best practices report when it is ready, to go back to the drawing board with the bar pilots and i'm not really sure what we're going to do there yet, that's on my work plan for
9:55 pm
this evening. to come back with the seawall lot 337 pop up list of infrastructure expenditures and more of a pro forma, i guess, is how i would interpret that comment and to bring this item back after we have concluded our discussions with sfmta on beautification of the 1399 marin site. and i think that was it. and then we'll be back with the action item on the metro contract for piers 27-29, there were a lot of follow-up items on that one which i didn't enumerate. did i miss anything? >> that was what i had. so is there a motion to adjourn our meeting in memory of john legnitto. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? meeting is
9:56 pm
adjourned. >> thanks again for the recognition. >> it's not over. >> i have a $100 million budget tomorrow, that's my highest priority. (meeting adjourned).
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
9:59 pm
. >> welcome to the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is john avalos the chair of the commission. joined to my right by commissioner london breed and to my left eric mar. the clerk of the committee is alyssa miller. thank you for your work and broadcast by sfgtv staff.
10:00 pm
thank you for your work. i would like to make a motion to excuse commissioner campos who couldn't make it here today. do we have a motion? okay. we will take that without objection . madam clerk can you call the next item. >> item two is approval of the lafco minutes from the date regular meeting. >> colleagues you have reviewed the minutes. any questions? i see know none. we will go to members of the public. there are no members here and we will close public comment. >> i move approval. >> moved and seconded without objection. item three. >> item three is the community choice aggregation activities