CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOCOMMISSION ON THE ENVIRONMENTPOLICY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 11, 2008, 5:00 P.M. City Hall, Room 421One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Commissioners Johanna Wald (Chair); Ruth Gravanis and Jane MarieFrancis Martin
1. Call to Order and Roll Call. The Commission on the Environment Policy Committee meeting convened at 5:08 p.m. Present: Commissioners Wald, Gravanis and Martin.
2. Approval of Minutes of the January 14, 2008 Policy Committee Regular Meeting (Discussion and Action). Upon Motion by Commissioner Gravanis and second by Commissioner Martin, the January 14, 2008 Meeting Minutes were approved (AYES: Chair Wald, Commissioners Gravanis and Martin) (Explanatory Document: Approved Minutes of the January 14, 2008 Policy Committee Meeting).
3. Public Comments: Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. There was no public comment at this time.
4. Development of a Sustainability Plan for Redevelopment of Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point Project (Informational Presentation and Discussion). SPONSOR: Commissioner Johanna Wald and Director Jared Blumenfeld SPEAKERS: Jean Rogers, Principal ARUP; Tiffany Bohee, Project Manager, Office of Economic and Workforce Development; Saul Bloom, Executive Director, Arc Ecology; Kofi Bonner, President of Lennar Urban; Stephen Proud, Project Manager, Lennar Urban
Chair Wald reported that additional meetings would be held on this topic and requested that at least one meeting be held in the community. Director Blumenfeld stated that one of the City’s opportunities is to look at large parcels of undeveloped land such as Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point and ensure that community and citywide voices are heard to solve design problems and to build a sustainable community. Director Blumenfeld thanked the presenters for bringing the development of the plan to the Commission early so that the Commission and Department could have a role in shaping the plan.
Ms. Tiffany Bohee, Project Manager, Mayor’s Office Base Reuse and Real Estate Development, Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point Integrated Development Project, stated that this plan was at the start of the sustainability planning process. Ms. Bohee described the history and planning process for development of the plan dating back from 2005 to present. It was reported that in 2007, the Board and Mayor approved a conceptual framework for integrated development that set forth broad principles for these sites that include affordability, retaining the artists’ village, preliminary land use plans for a mixed-income community, housing, job generating uses, park uses, as well as transportation and access issues. Ms. Bohee stated that the Plan is now going through a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, and that a notice of preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was issued in August. It was projected that by summer of 2009, all documents would be finalized; e.g., the final Disposition and Development Agreement with Lennar, Redevelopment Plan amendments, Certified EIR, Sustainability Plan, and Affordable Housing Plan.
Mr. Kofi Bonner, President of Lennar Urban, thanked the Commission and Director for their leadership in assisting with the development of the plan. It was reported that the project team is in the process of thinking through the components to verify that this is the direction the City wants to take. Community meetings are being held to discuss the plan with groups such as the Citizens Advisory Group appointed to oversee the shipyard, the Project Area Committee that oversees the Bayview Redevelopment Plan, and other smaller groups such as the Bayview Neighborhood and the India Basin Neighborhood Associations. A community outreach schedule and four workshops have been finalized in order to provide input into sections of the plan to help improve the planning process.
Mr. Stephen Proud, Project Manager, Lennar Urban presented an overview of the Candlestick Point & Hunters Point Shipyard proposed project plan that includes planning to date, uses being considered, and general concepts under consideration (Explanatory Document: “Candlestick Point & Hunters Point Shipyard” presentation). Principles and concepts that would be incorporated into the land planning process were discussed; e.g., affordability of housing at both sites, vibrant, distinct, new walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, sustainability, transportation mobility, open space, jobs and development program. Mr. Proud reported that sustainability principles to the local ecosystem, global environment, integrated infrastructure, and green energy would be a focus of the development program. Presentation topics included:
· Development Area. Work is currently being done on the Hilltop and Hillside areas, where the first Phase of the Shipyard Parcel A is in development. Grading has been completed, infrastructure is going into place, and new housing will soon be developed in that area. The development area consists of 771 acres, approximately 495 on Hunters Point and 276 in Candlestick. · Land Planning in Distinct Characters Areas—how each of these areas are developed and how various sites work together. Important first element in the project at Candlestick Development program is to rebuild all of the housing that is at Double Rock and ensure that all residents at Double Rock Alice Griffith housing sites are not displaced. · Hunters Point Research and Development Program would include a Science and Technology Park to focus on clean and green industry that can accommodate biotech or any other research and development use. · Shipyard-Stadium--69,000 seat National Football League (NFL) stadium. A portion of the asphalt parking would be transformed into dual use turf fields so that when the stadium is not being used for NFL purposes, there is an opportunity for a regional-serving recreational use. · Non-Stadium Alternative is to expand Clean/Green research and development space that would include outdoor demonstration projects on new technologies. · Artist Experience—workshops and meetings were held with artists to determine their needs. · Distinct Character Area renderings were shown of proposed sites: 1. Candlestick Village Center that would be a mixed use, regional and local entertainment center where the current Monster Park site is today. 2. Candlestick South—density similar to the Marina District with a state park, small beach area, trail, housing along public promenade. 3. Hunters Point Village Center--neighborhood retail and artists studios and maritime heritage park. 4. Expansive Open Space Program in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point: 402 total acres: State Park, 134 acres; Waterfront & Urban Parks, 171 acres; Dual Use Playing Fields and Stadium, 97 acres. Opportunities exist to incorporate sustainable design elements into the park planning program, e.g., storm-water treatment, bio-filtration ponds. · Land Use Planning for Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard. A description was given of the mixed use, retail/commercial, low rise residential, mid high-rise residential, and research and development areas. · Proposed Transit Improvements and Neighborhood Mobility Transit Stations. Discussion of extending MUNI lines to and from the site; connecting to the 3rd Street Light Rail, CalTrain, and Bayshore station so connections can be made north and south. Transit improvements discussed included incorporating a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system into the development plan, creating a ferry terminal located at Hunters Point Shipyard, and express bus service. · Community amenities considerations to incorporate into the project: arena/performance venue, neighborhood grocery stores, community centers, day care center, arts and culture, health clinics, and educational facilities. A community benefits program is being worked on to determine what the community desires and is important to them. · Jobs and Job Training: Important part of the program that includes numerous job and economic development opportunities from regional retail, neighborhood retail, research and development center, science and technology park, performance venue, etc.
Director Blumenfeld introduced Mr. Saul Bloom, Executive Director of Arc Ecology, who has been instrumental in shaping the cleanup of Hunters Point Shipyard and in creating the Community Window on the Shipyard. Mr. Bloom, a member of the Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee, discussed the concept of sustainability in an environmental justice community and how the City has interacted with this community with its past and future issues. It was explained that another form of sustainability is the social justice component to maintain and improve the nature of the Bayview community. Mr. Bloom indicated that he was happy with the City’s approach to collaborate and improve on the development of the Plan based on community input versus “announce and defend.” It was reported that ARC Ecology would be providing consulting services on the Sustainability Plan.
Mr. Bloom discussed community concerns with sustainability issues that include protection of habitat, integration with the overall neighborhood, transportation, and the plan to build a bridge that could be used for vehicular traffic. “If we build it, they will want to use it.” It was explained that ARC Ecology was involved with a coalition of organizations including Clean Water Action, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and Bayview Advocates who seek environmental justice in developing an analysis of the Yosemite Slough south basin area as it is a complex area for wildlife--172 separate species of animals were identified in a year-long survey. It was stated that historically, this area was a rich, diverse biological area that was composed of an incredible system of wetlands, watersheds, and creeks. Additional concerns that were discussed included:
· Approach to building near wildlife habitats and whether the development of the original park land would impinge on the sustainability of that area. The planned bridge would be too close to one of the nesting habitats and may impact the sustainability of natural resources. · Friends of Candlestick Point’s concern with the changeover of park land to a parking lot, residences, and other planned development. · Ensure that the Bayview community’s vision to create a waterfront park all around the circumference of the south basin shoreline really happens. · Development proposed for the Shipyard area where ARC Ecology is working with the San Francisco Airport to develop a strategy for wetlands and storm water treatment facilities. · Purpose of the grassland pier unknown. · Not enough density in the research and development area; not enough “ladders” that would bring people into the economy that are not part of the economy; how people would develop ownership here as opposed to being facility workers; how the community would be integrated into the future of the site; the jobs-housing balance; transit linkages; and access points to freeways. · How the Plan would interact with the air pollution cap that the City agreed to in the previous 1997 EIR. · How open space is vegetated, natural plantings, how wildlife migration around the shipyard is going to be accommodated. · The outcome of cleanup for Parcel F and the Shipyard. · Transfer Agreement of Shipyard Parcel B as it relates to cleanup strategies. It was stated that one effective strategy is that the Navy will be responsible for the cleanup, and the City will be responsible for the recovery strategies. Concern was expressed with (1) recovery strategies as it relates to the community being exposed to pollution, and (2) what could be contained in the landfill, including underneath Monster Park.
Mr. Bloom stated that the developer has made a substantial community benefits investment, and the City is working hard to ensure that the Plan works. The importance of balancing all of these issues into one sustainable packet that works for everyone was stressed. Mr. Bloom extended an invitation to all interested parties to attend the Bayview Community Advisory Committee meetings on the second Monday of each month and invited the group to discuss the Draft EIR once it becomes available.
Ms. Jean Rogers, ARUP presented an overview of the initial process for developing the Sustainability Plan and future plans (Explanatory Document: “A New Sustainable Neighborhood Candlestick Point & Hunters Point” presentation.) Ms. Rogers described ARUP firm’s main focus to provide sustainability services. It was stated that the Hunters Point community faces many global challenges that solutions are being sought for. Challenges include social justice, environmental, integration of the community with the rest of San Francisco, transportation and accessibility, economic, and health impacts. Ms. Rogers stated that it is hoped that this Sustainability Plan can address many of those issues, particularly the health-related issues. Presentation topics included:
· Community Social Issues from 2000 U.S. Census Data figures: high percentage of children living in poverty; educational challenges, high minority population, high home ownership rate. · A Vision for Sustainable Development in the new community: commitment to the principles in the Urban Environmental Accords and creating a thriving and sustainable new mixed-use neighborhood that will provide opportunities for residents to live, recreate, job opportunities, good education, and a safe, affordable and healthy environment. · Incorporating sustainability into the Master Plan by providing (1) environmental stewardship (preserve natural resources) (2) social benefits (vibrant, compact, affordable community) and (3) economic vitality (job growth, new small businesses, resource efficient strategies to reduce household expenditures). · Sustainability Planning Approach Key Principles and Stakeholders. · Project Approach. Baseline assessment that was completed in 2006 for the Hunters Point project that did not include Candlestick Point will be updated. Sustainability Plan framework, draft plan and green building specifications, and finalizing the plan will be worked on in 2008. · Planning team (sustainability topics and lead firms on topics) that includes consultants and stakeholder input on sustainability topics. · Sustainability Plan to include vision and guiding principles, six focus areas, strategies and targets, key delivery partners, implementation plan, and design guidelines for infrastructure and buildings. · Sustainability framework objectives for each focus area—setting performance targets, strategies, key aspects of implementation, and a cost benefit analysis. · Goals of each focus area: to (1) ensure economic vitality (affordable housing, job opportunities, bringing green tech industry into the area); (2) strengthen community identity and cohesion (access to essential services, historical and cultural preservation); (3) enhance public well being and quality of life (recreational facilities for the community members, enhancing open space and designing to promote safe streets and cleaner industries); (4) improve accessibility and transportation (designing and promoting mode shift to bicycling and walking, new BRT routes, promoting car-share, carpooling, new roadway improvements, and ferry access); (5) promote resource efficiency (energy, water and waste strategies); (6) and protect the environment (mitigate contamination with Integrated Pest Management measures; restore ecosystems; protect biodiversity; preserve open space, parks, and wildlife corridors; plan for climate change), etc. · Sustainability Reference (1) Masterplan evaluation for LEED ND Certification and to support the intent of the Urban Environmental Accords; and (2) development of Green Building Specifications that will be applied to all new buildings that will be a condition of approval for building permits. · Implementation Plan: identify implementation partners, synch sustainability infrastructure with phasing of development, and develop key performance indicators and monitoring plan. · Tools for implementation of the Sustainability Plan: term sheet, green building specifications, design guidelines, construction documents, commissioning and operating documents, and development and disposition agreement.
Public Comment
Ms. Eve Bach reported that ARC Ecology prepared an open space study and produced a book, From Pollution to Parkland: Alternatives For A Waterfront Park at Hunters Point Shipyard that was distributed at the meeting and available at the ARC Ecology website. With Coastal Conservancy funding to look at the 1996 HPS proposal, ARC concluded that the narrow shoreline open space would not achieve what you’d get with a wider park. It was reported that the Mayor’s Office had funded ARC Ecology to study the economic development potentials for addressing the needs of the Bayview Hunters Point Community, and Ms. Bach had prepared and presented a draft report “The Economic Development Potential of a Waterfront Park at Hunters Point Shipyard.” The report topics include (1) a Shipyard waterfront park, a resource for community economic development; (2) conventional views of the economic benefits of parks; (3) Shipyard redevelopment planning history; (4) combating unemployment and poverty; and (5) leveraging the economic development potential of a Shipyard waterfront park with workforce development.
Unidentified Speaker reported on the confusion in the community as to who would be accountable for the cleanup, whether it would be PG&E, the Federal EPA, or other agencies. Ms. Bohee reported that there would be a number of cleanup efforts citywide--the Navy is responsible for the cleanup of the Shipyard through a binding conveyance agreement adopted in 2004 and is subject to oversight by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and a coalition of state and local regulators. Cleanup is also subject to appropriations from the federal government—$82 million to cleanup the next phase of Shipyard development, Parcel B housing and a portion of Parcel D. Ms. Bohee reported that PG&E is required to cleanup to residential standards which is subject to oversight by the City and additional regulators.
Ms. Jamie Ray, Director of San Francisco Rescued Orphan Mammal Program (ROMP), inquired if there would be open space for wildlife habitat that would not be utilized for human recreational use. It was stated that ARC Ecology’s report on Parcel E indicates that there is a potential to host hundreds of species and provides for a habitat-rich waterfront park. Mr. Proud stated that state park property would be the most likely sources of land for habitat use and reported on discussions with park planners and wildlife consultants on the Yosemite Slough area, bridge, and crossings over Yosemite Slough. It was stated that the area outside of the slough has not been mapped out yet, and Parcel E is not yet slated for development. Mr. Proud indicated that there are wildlife habitat opportunities on Parcel E and Parcel E shoreline that may not be heavily used for recreational uses.
Ms. Rebecca Evans, Sierra Club, commended Mr. Bloom’s discussion about environmental and wildlife habitat concerns. It was stated that the Sierra Club has concerns about impacts to wildlife habitat as a result of possible bridge uses. Ms. Evans was pleased to learn that the project would incorporate
Mr. Bonner stated that one of the promises of this development is to create job training opportunities specifically in construction. Development will be over a 10-12 year period and unions will be worked with through the City Build program. It was stated that the unions seem to be excited over the development as it provides for an apprenticeship program and employment over a 10-12 year period with good construction wages. Mr. Bonner discussed the opportunities for employment in the research and development area for people who begin the training process early. It was stated that the Bayview community has the potential to work in these fields if given the right educational opportunities and facilities. Mr. Bonner indicated that they would be working with the community to create the jobs and so that people could live and work in the community. It was reported that there would be up to 10,000 new homes and 22,000 new people, and through the stadium alternative there would be 8,170 permanent jobs, which does not include the construction site. Ms. Bohee reported that there would be a lot of other opportunities in the life, science, research and development, clean and green technology fields for people who go through the training programs.
Ms. Pam Hemphill inquired whether the green fields would contain astro-turf or natural grass. Mr. Bonner stated that the landscape architects have identified a process that contains natural grass. Speaker asked whether there were plans for health care facilities and police stations. Mr. Bonner reported that the community will determine what the most important and necessary community developments would be, and opportunities would be created for those facilities to be built. It was stated that health, education and safety should be priorities to pay attention to, and it is intended that programs be proposed to accommodate those programs through dialogue with the community. Mr. Bonner stated that the planning team would be making future presentations to the Policy Committee to show what is being negotiated. Ms. Hemphill spoke in opposition to the bridge plans for Yosemite Slough because of the impact on traffic and wildlife.
Director Blumenfeld requested a timeline of future activities. It was indicated that the Policy Committee would be holding monthly meetings from now until July to discuss the Plan, and a request was made to forward meaningful materials before the scheduled meetings. Director Blumenfeld wanted to know how the horizontal would merge with the vertical development. It was reported that the Land Use Plan is in the stage of being finalized. Mr. Bonner reported that the 49ers stadium would be on Santa Clara’s November ballot, and that the Term Sheet would be presented to the Board of Supervisors before November.
Ms. Emily Rogers, Legislative Aide, Supervisor Maxwell’s Office, requested additional details on stadium alternatives.
Commissioner Gravanis requested (1) that more attention be paid to biological diversity aside from the state park component; (2) alternatives to the proposed bridge be presented; (3) that the plan contain green building standards on landscaping and habitat values; and (4) maps contain bay trail locations. Commissioner Gravanis stated that she was pleased with resource conservation, waste reduction and stormwater improvement efforts and recommended that PUC be contacted to discuss decentralized sewage and stormwater treatment alternatives. Ms. Rogers indicated that she had received an excellent report from the PUC on alternatives.
Commissioner Martin recommended using areas in addition to those in the Recreation and Park program as opportunities · The nature of areas shown in white at midblocks, whether or not they were paved as the rest of the white areas are. It was explained that the areas were not intended to be paved. · The occupancy of the stadium. It was explained that there were 69,000 seats and 14,000 to 19,000 cars. · The balance of integration of the mixed uses such as in the Alice Griffith area, which is single use and encouraged inclusion of neighborhood-serving retail. · The role of cars regarding freeway access and storage of private cars for residences at the perimeter, an approach used in the Treasure Island Plan. · To address the treatment of edges in terms of integrating into the neighborhood, extend plantings across the boundary of the project to avoid a harsh distinction and questioned the placement and treatment of the waste facility as an example. · Requested that the project address light pollution, as is evident in project renderings. · Suggested that green building standards extend to include existing buildings, for example cleaning practices and commissioning standards.
Chair Wald questioned whether the Environmental Impact Report would incorporate the Sustainability Plan. Mr. Bonner indicated that the Draft EIR would not be available until approximately September and would incorporate the Sustainability Plan. Ms. Bohee stated that now is the time to receive the Department and Commissioner’s feedback, leadership, partnership and direction into the Plan. It was stated that the planning team would set forth the schedules and deliverables so the Committee and Department can review materials efficiently. Director Blumenfeld introduced Mr. David Pascal, Clean Tech Coordinator and Department staff members who could assist with sustainability efforts; e.g. construction and demolition debris recovery, sustainability efforts, selection process for educational institutions, etc.
5. Announcements (Discussion). There were no announcements made at this time.
6. Commission Secretary’s Report on Correspondence Received (Informational Report and Discussion) (Explanatory Document: Capital Improvement Project to Build and Operate the San Francisco Nature Center at the Sunset Richmond Treatment Site)
Ms. Monica Fish, Commission Secretary reported that correspondence had been received from Ms. Jamie Ray who is requesting the Commission’s support in sponsoring a Resolution to support the building of the San Francisco Nature Center at the Sunset Richmond Treatment Plant site. Ms. Jamie Ray stated that San Francisco is one of the few counties without a wildlife care facility, which means birds have to be transported to San Mateo County for care. It was stated that time is important for emergency care to make a difference in animal survival, and waiting for Animal Control officers to drive birds to San Mateo County or hope they are not short staffed to drive there often times results in many birds being lost.
Ms. Ray stated that she provides care for many of the wild mammals that are injured in this county through private home care with 40 volunteers assisting in this program. Ms. Ray stated that she would like a centralized facility for mammals and birds similar to the Marine Mammal Center or Lindsay Wildlife Museum, etc. It was stated that there is an opportunity to acquire land for this purpose and potential funding to build the facility. Discussions included:
· Adding an environmental education component to the nature center. The focus would be broader and would bring in the Department of the Environment and other organizations as a central place to offer classes, workshops, and presentations for the public to learn more about and become stewards of the environment. · San Francisco Rescued Orphan Mammal Program would be absorbed into a San Francisco Nature Center wildlife hospital and environmental education center to include birds and mammals. · Proposition A that was just passed by the voters includes $185 million in funding in which $5 million could be allocated in grants to community-proposed projects. · The nature center would be run as a non-profit organization with funding sources from public private partnerships, grants, donations, and memberships for ongoing operations and maintenance. Ms. Ray reported that she has identified granting sources. · Budget would be approximately about half a million a year. It was determined that it may cost about $1 ½ million to build 2500 sq. ft. that would include water, sewer, and LEED construction.
Commissioner Martin asked for quantitative data on (1) how many mammals and birds are not surviving because San Francisco does not have this type of facility; (2) how many are being transported on a daily basis; and (3) number of trips being made to other facilities. Ms. Ray reported that she would research current figures. Commissioners asked for additional details on the benefits received if the birds would not have to be transported; e.g. quantitative figures on how many birds could be saved if there were a city facility, etc. Commissioner Martin inquired about design plans and number of birds and mammals that could be accommodated. Chair Wald suggested researching information from the San Mateo facility to anticipate the number of animals the San Francisco center could accommodate, and how much space that requires, etc.
Director Blumenfeld inquired whether the Recreation and Park Department had agreed that the land could be used for a nature center. Ms. Ray indicated that the proposal had been provided to the Recreation and Park Department, but would require a Golden Gate Park Master Plan amendment and the Board of Supervisors approval. Ms. Ray reported that another possibility that may be a better location for the nature center could be one of the existing buildings at Lake Merced. It was explained that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has taken back the management of all of the activities besides the golf course at Lake Merced from the Recreation and Park Department, and there would be a meeting scheduled on February 14 to discuss proposals for buildings around Lake Merced. Director Blumenfeld asked to see a letter from the Animal Care and Control Department, Recreation and Park and Public Utilities Commission supporting the facility or suggested setting up a meeting with relevant agencies to seek support. Commissioner Martin indicated that she would support the concept of the center and leave out the location until further details are provided. Director Blumenfeld suggested using the San Francisco Zoo property as another possibility.
Commissioner Gravanis (1) expressed concern with the Golden Gate Park location as there may be opposition to more building in the park, and indicated that Lake Merced may be a better location; (2) requested input from the Audubon Society and from other rehabilitation hospitals; (3) expressed concern for the ongoing funding program, acquiring volunteers, and requested review of the Lindsay Museum or similar facility budget on maintenance operations and construction budgets; (4) supported the concept of having a City wildlife rehabilitation hospital, but questioned whether it should be combined with a composting facility or other activities and requested a discussion on the pros and cons; (5) asked for additional information on precisely how the space would serve the City’s wildlife needs; and (6) questioned whether it should be called the Nature Center and be committed to nature in general or be called a wildlife center or hospital. Commissioner Gravanis requested additional information about the proposal before making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Director Blumenfeld stated that usually people that request the Commission’s support already have a site, budget, and a Committee to help make that a reality. Then the Commission can be helpful by endorsing the project so fundraisers and other foundations can be approached. At this time, the project may change many times and if the Commission does not like the final concept, they would have already issued their support. Director Blumenfeld requested that Ms. Ray present a concrete budget and solid reasons as to why this facility is needed in San Francisco. Commissioner Gravanis stated that she would be in favor of writing a letter in support of the concept. Commissioner Martin encouraged that this vision be pursued and requested additional details on the facilities, a case study of one that is similar, volume of treatment of animals anticipated, and to flush out the vision more fully about budget and maintenance and who would be involved. Ms. Ray reported that there would be eight paid staff, two educational staff, two providing medical-care, administrative, development, and a volunteer coordinator. Director Blumenfeld requested information be provided on the before and after benefits—here is what we have now, this is what we will have in the future with staff and budget and how that would work with the funding investment.
Commissioner Gravanis suggested that Ms. Ray approach the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC) as a way to propose amendments to the Golden Gate Park Master Plan to include the facility. It was also suggested that other facilities such as the Randall and Lindsay Museums provide their recommendations on the proposal. Ms. Ray stated that they want all of those organizations in support in order to get momentum to receive the funding. Director Blumenfeld suggested setting up a meeting with Ms. Ray, the Public Utilities Commission, and the Recreation and Park Department to discuss options and recommended researching additional entities for location possibilities. The Commission would then discuss support of the proposal after commitment from either of those two organizations.
Public Comment: Ms. Pam Hemphill, an Animal Control and Welfare Commissioner, stated that it is evident that San Francisco does not have a wildlife rehabilitation center other than Ms. Ray’s. Ms. Hemphill reported that it takes birds sometimes a day to reach the proper facility for care. The Cosco Busan oil spill birds had to wait a lot of hours to be picked up from Animal Care and Control to go to an available facility and most of the birds died as a result. Ms. Hemphill felt that the proposal would do better in acquiring a space if it were initially just for the rehabilitation and wildlife center. It was suggested that additional programs could be added in the future. A discussion was held on offering a food concession as a revenue component. Ms. Ray stated that she would be providing a proposal with additional details to the Commissioners.
7. Election of Chair (Discussion and Action). Upon Motion by Commissioner Gravanis and second by Commissioner Martin, Chair Wald was reelected as Chair. Chair Wald accepted the nomination. Commissioner Gravanis stated that it would be useful to elect a Vice-Chair and the Commission Secretary indicated that she would check with the Deputy City Attorney as to how the Bylaws reflect this office and place it on the next agenda if appropriate.
8. New Business/Future Agenda Items. This agenda item was not discussed at this time.
9. Public Comments: Members of the public may address the Committee on matters that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction and are not on today’s agenda. There was no public comment at this time.
10. Adjournment. The Policy Committee meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Monica Fish, Commission Secretary TEL: (415) 355-3709; FAX: (415) 554-6393
** Copies of explanatory documents are available at (1) the Commission’s office, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., (2) on the Committee meeting website https://sites.google.com/a/sfenvironment.org/commission/policy-committee with each agenda or meeting minutes, or (3) upon request to the Commission Secretary, at telephone number 415-355-3709 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Approved: March 17, 2008
|
Policy Committee > 2008 Meetings >
