DOCSLIB.ORG

55 Laguna Street Draft EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
55 Laguna Street Draft EA CONSULTING STRUCTURA REPORT L ENGINEERS RICHARDSON & WOODS HALLS SEISMIC REVIEW PREPARED FOR MERCY HOUSING & A.F. EVANS San Francisco Telephone 415 693 1600 Facsimile 415 693 1760 Internet Address www.holmesculley.com 130 Sutter Street Suite 400 Date: June14, 2004 Project No: 04033.10 San Francisco Prepared by: Reviewed by: CA 94104 USA Offices in John Hare, P.E. Denny Kwan, P.E. New Zealand PRESIDENT SENIOR ENGINEER Australia PAGE i Executive Summary Holmes Culley has completed a phase 1 seismic review of 4 buildings at the UC Extension Laguna Site, for the purposes of a possible lease to Mercy Housing and A.F. Evans for housing purposes. The buildings are: · Woods Hall · Woods Hall Annex · Richardson Hall (in two parts – the main building and the annex) · Middle Hall Gymnasium The buildings are all of a similar age, having been designed and constructed during the 20’s and 30’s. They are generally of one or two stories in height, and most with partial basements. The construction of each is similar. Typically they have clay tile roofs, supported on wood sheathing and steel or wood trusses. The main structure below roof level is reinforced concrete, either load-bearing walls or frames. The foundations are typically either concrete pads or strip footings, for columns and walls respectively. The buildings are generally in good condition, and well maintained, although there is some cracking in the north side of Woods Hall, and some water damage, in particular in the basement of the Middle Hall. Seismically, the roof structures of all of the buildings are deficient, due to the lack of strength of the sheathing and its connection to the supporting structure. This may be mitigated generally either through steel cross-bracing or the installation of a plywood ceiling diaphragm. Richardson Hall has severe deficiencies in the discontinuity of the concrete shear walls below the north floor, in both the north wing of the main building, and the entire annex building. There is also a horizontal offset of the north wall of the west wing, above the second floor. These are potential life safety and collapse hazards. There are also some non-structural hazards comprising mainly the hollow clay tile partitions (which should be removed, encapsulated, or strengthened; and possibly the chimney of Richardson Hall, which requires further assessment. Mitigation measures have been proposed for all of the conditions above, and broad cost estimates have been developed, based on an earlier report prepared for Richardson Hall, by Degenkolb. These cost estimates are presented below, excluding any allowance for architectural upgrades that may be triggered by this work. These cost estimates are for preliminary budgeting purposes only, and should not be construed as a final estimate of the overall cost of strengthening. They exclude any allowance Richardson & Woods Halls Seismic Review File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2004\04033.10\WP\04033.10RT_FINAL.DOC Project No: 04033.10 Date: Tuesday, 15 June 2004 PAGE ii for soft costs. It should be noted also that this assumes that the main structures of each building are compatible with any envisaged uses. If significant alterations are required to the structure to incorporate new uses, there may be significant cost penalty. In particular, it is apparent that both Woods Hall and Richardson hall have internal shear walls that are likely to conflict with future planning requirements. Partial or total removal of these walls will add significant cost penalty to the project. These costs are generally in line for what might be expected for similar levels of seismic upgrade for buildings in the San Francisco area, with the exception of the Richardson Hall Annex, which is distorted by the amount of work required at both foundation and roof level, for a single story building. It is recommended that further study is completed to develop a more comprehensive preliminary design for cost estimating purposes. Table 1 : Preliminary Cost Estimates Building Overall cost Unit Rate cost $,000 $ per sq. ft. Woods Hall $1,401 $55 Woods Hall Annex $516 $48 Richardson Hall $2,234 $64 Richardson Hall Annex $790 $235 Middle Hall Gymnasium $737 $60 Sub-Total $5,679 Overhead and Profit, 10% $568 Contingency, 15% 852 Total $7,098 Richardson & Woods Halls Seismic Review File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2004\04033.10\WP\04033.10RT_FINAL.DOC Project No: 04033.10 Date: Tuesday, 15 June 2004 PAGE iii CONTENTS Executive Summary............................................................................................................i 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2. Scope of Work ........................................................................................................... 2 3. Limitations.................................................................................................................. 2 4. Statutory Requirements............................................................................................... 2 5. Earthquake Loads ...................................................................................................... 3 6. Documents Reviewed ................................................................................................. 3 7. Building Evaluations................................................................................................... 3 7.1. General ............................................................................................................ 4 7.1.1. Site Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................4 7.1.2. Building Types ................................................................................................................................4 7.2. Woods Hall....................................................................................................... 4 7.2.1. Existing Structure...........................................................................................................................4 7.2.2. Seismic Assessment .......................................................................................................................4 7.2.3. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................4 7.3. Woods Hall Annex ............................................................................................ 4 7.3.1. Existing Structure...........................................................................................................................4 7.3.2. Seismic Assessment .......................................................................................................................4 7.3.3. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................4 7.4. Richardson Hall ................................................................................................ 4 7.4.1. Existing Structure...........................................................................................................................4 Richardson & Woods Halls Seismic Review File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2004\04033.10\WP\04033.10RT_FINAL.DOC Project No: 04033.10 Date: Tuesday, 15 June 2004 PAGE iv 7.4.2. Seismic Assessment .......................................................................................................................4 7.4.3. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................4 7.5. Richardson Hall Annex ...................................................................................... 4 7.5.1. Existing Structure...........................................................................................................................4 7.5.2. Seismic Assessment .......................................................................................................................4 7.5.3. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................4 7.6. Middle Hall Gymnasium ................................................................................... 4 7.6.1. Existing Structure...........................................................................................................................4 7.6.2. Seismic Assessment .......................................................................................................................4 7.6.3. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................4 8. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 4 9. Cost Estimates............................................................................................................ 4 Appendix A – Detailed Cost Estimates..............................................................................22 Richardson & Woods Halls Seismic Review File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2004\04033.10\WP\04033.10RT_FINAL.DOC Project No: 04033.10 Date: Tuesday, 15 June 2004 PAGE 1 1 . Introduction Holmes Culley has been engaged to perform a structural review of the existing Richardson and Woods Hall buildings (including the Woods Hall Annex and the Gymnasium) at the UC Berkeley Extension Campus site, bounded by Herman, Laguna,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report
    SAN FRANCISCO 2nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report Historical Asking Rental Rates (Direct, FSG) SF MARKET OVERVIEW $60.00 $57.00 $55.00 $53.50 $52.50 $53.00 $52.00 $50.50 $52.00 Prepared by Kathryn Driver, Market Researcher $49.00 $49.00 $50.00 $50.00 $47.50 $48.50 $48.50 $47.00 $46.00 $44.50 $43.00 Approaching the second half of 2014, the job market in San Francisco is $40.00 continuing to grow. With over 465,000 city residents employed, the San $30.00 Francisco unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, the lowest the county has witnessed since 2008 and the third-lowest in California. The two counties with $20.00 lower unemployment rates are neighboring San Mateo and Marin counties, $10.00 a mark of the success of the region. The technology sector has been and continues to be a large contributor to this success, accounting for 30% of job $0.00 growth since 2010 and accounting for over 1.5 million sf of leased office space Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 this quarter. Class A Class B Pre-leasing large blocks of space remains a prime option for large tech Historical Vacancy Rates companies looking to grow within the city. Three of the top 5 deals involved 16.0% pre-leasing, including Salesforce who took over half of the Transbay Tower 14.0% (delivering Q1 2017) with a 713,727 sf lease. Other pre-leases included two 12.0% full buildings: LinkedIn signed a deal for all 450,000 sf at 222 2nd Street as well 10.0% as Splunk, who grabbed all 182,000 sf at 270 Brannan Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • Mbtma 2017 Annual Report
    Mission Bay Annual Report 2017 Executive Summary Mission Bay is will be largely completed by the end of 2019. As of December 2017, all residential units originally entitled are completed and occupied. Over a third of those units are affordable housing which prioritizes seniors living on fixed incomes, formerly homeless, and low-income families with children. Mission Bay’s residential population now tops 14,000. The Mission Bay project area is also entitled for 4.6 million square feet of commercial office and retail space. Approximately 2 million square feet is completed and occupied and the remainder is under construction. One 600,000 SF commercial property, The Exchange, will open in mid-2018. The 18,000 seat Chase Event Center started construction in 2017 and is on a fast track to open by Fall, 2019. A 200+ room hotel, and the remaining commercial properties (UCSF on Illinois Street, Uber headquarters on Third Street, and the Chase Center office towers) all have similar 18-to-24-month construction schedules. Over 15,000 people now work in Mission Bay. Approximately one third work in commercial buildings which are associated with the Mission Bay TMA and are located along Mission Bay Boulevard, Terry Francois Boulevard, Illinois Street and Owens Street. Two-thirds of workers at Mission Bay are employed by UCSF. Mission Bay’s diverse employment base includes everything from high tech office to medical research and corporate headquarters to non-profit organizations and government offices. The neighborhood’s growing ‘ground floor retail’, restaurants, and the new hotel will also bring hundreds of low income service workers to the community.
    [Show full text]
  • RFP Appendix F.Pdf
    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SEAWALL LOT 337 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY Appendix F Transportation Demand Management Program Submittal Requirements Introduction The Seawall Lot 337 Mixed Use Project offers great opportunity to develop thoughtful, effective, and integrated strategies for managing transportation demand, which should serve as a model for Mission Bay and other major mixed use development areas. There has been and continues to be major planned public investment to expand public transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian access to AT&T Park, Mission Bay and along the waterfront, with numerous nearby connections to the regional transit network. As expressed in the RFP Objectives, Respondents are required to include a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), that presents a comprehensive and integrated approach to planning and managing transportation demands associated with this Mixed Use Project, and addresses transportation and parking needs associated with AT&T Ballpark. This document provides direction on the issues and elements that must be addressed in the TDMP submittal. A TDMP alone cannot result in transit-oriented development. The land use plan must incorporate smart land use measures such as clustering residential development around neighborhood-serving retail and transit stops. The design and placement of these uses should make alternative transportation a convenient and efficient way to travel to and within the SWL 337 and Pier 48 area, with attractive and comfortable amenities. Fortunately, SWL 337 is a large development site which affords many ways to configure land uses, and design buildings, public spaces and streets to prioritize access and use of public transit, walking and non-motorized circulation as a means of everyday transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT the Role of Shuttle Services in San F Rancisco’S Transportation System
    FINALAR S 08/09–2 • JUNE 28, 2011 • PAGE 1 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 TEL 415.522.4800 FAX 415.522.4829 EMAIL [email protected] WEB www.sfcta.org FINAL SAR 08/09–2 STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT The Role of Shuttle Services in San F rancisco’s Transportation System Initiated by Commissioner Dufty APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY BOARD JUNE 28, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT SARS: PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT Strategic Analysis Reports (SARs) are carried out at the re- ABOUT SARS: PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT 1 quest of the Authority Board, to frame current issues of concern and to inform policy development regarding spe- INTRODUCTION 2 cific transportation issues which may not be adequately ad- dressed by existing regulations or policy. This SAR, initiated I. BACKGROUND 2 at the request of Commissioner Dufty, analyzes the topic of shuttle services in San Francisco, and seeks to determine II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 how best to integrate the growth of shuttles into the overall transportation system, and to manage their operations, in a III. POLICY ANALYSIS 10 way that continues to realize their benefits while address- ing their impacts. Data for this SAR was gathered through IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS 14 literature review, field observations, and extensive outreach to various stakeholders involved in the shuttle landscape BIBLIOGRAPHY, CITY DEPARTMENT STAFF including providers, operators, users, public agencies, and CONSULTED, STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED 15 the general public. The study finds that, while shuttles play a valuable role in the overall San Francisco transportation ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 16 system, policy guidance and improved management are needed and warranted in order to improve operations and APPENDICES 17 minimize impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • VII. Variants to the Proposed Project D
    VII. Variants to the Proposed Project D. Variant 3A TABLE VII.D.3 ¯ ESTIMATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS FROM VARIANT 3A TRAFFIC IN 2015 BAAQMD Threshold Project Variant 3A Pollutant Ob/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 80/a/ 865 860 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 80/a/ 1,324 1,371 Particulate Matter (PM~0) 80/a/ 1,968 1,958 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550/b/ 12,228 12,163 Notes: a. The BAAQMD regards this amount of emissions as a threshold of significance for a regional impact. b. For carbon monoxide, the BAAQMD does not regard 550 lb/day as a threshold of significance, but rather, an indicator to perform microanalysis. Source: EIP Associates. Based on modeling using the California Air Resources Board’s URBEMIS version 5 model. TABLE VII.D.4 ¯ ESTIMATED LOCAL CO CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS IN 2015 FOR VARIANT 3A Proposed Project (ppm)/a/ Variant 3A (ppm) Intersection One-Hour Eight-Hour One-Hour Eight-Hour Third and 16th Streets 11.0 6.3 10.9 6.2 Third and King Streets 13.6 7.6 13.4 7.4 Fourth and Bryant Streets 8.3 5.3 8.4 5.3 Notes: ppm = parts per million. a. Refer to Table V.F.5 and associated text in "Criteria Air Pollutants" under Section V.F, Air Quality: Impacts. Source: EIP Associates. 96.771E VII.31g El!’ 10073 MISSION BAY SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 VII. Variants to the Proposed Project D. Variant 3A In this variant, the decrease in overall traffic would slightly reduce toxic air contaminant emissions from mobile sources.
    [Show full text]
  • V. Environmental Setting and Impacts E. Transportation Impacts Passenger Trips
    V. Environmental Setting and Impacts E. Transportation Impacts passenger trips. Following the BART strike in September, 1997, AC Transit transbay ridership increased substantially, and has stabilized in recent months at a higher level than before the strike. The expected growth in passenger trips, however, has not been reassessed, and the 9,000 to 12,000 additional trips represent a smaller proportion of the revised current ridership. Therefore, expected growth between 1997 and 2010 yields a growth rate of 80% to 110%./82/ AC Transit’s growth estimate assumes that the additional capacity BART will gain with smaller headways will consist primarily of trains traveling on the Dublin/Pleasanton Line. This would mean that a large portion of transbay travel demand growth to the northern part of AC Transit’s service area could not be directly accommodated by BART. However, BART’s Short Range Transit Plan suggests that it will be able to accommodate more transbay demand growth than AC Transit predicts. Therefore, a total cumulative growth rate of 80% was assumed over the next 13 years for AC Transit rather than the larger rate. This corresponds to an annual growth of approximately 4.6%. Currently, there are no plans to increase the number of buses or transbay bus runs in the future. Continued growth in demand may prompt a reevaluation of the service provided. An 80% increase in cumulative passenger trips during the p.m. peak hour would increase the current 83% average load factor to 150%. If all eastbound transbay buses were equally loaded, a load factor of 150% would translate to approximately 23 s’tandees per bus.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Appeals, City & County of San Francisco
    BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Appeal No. 1S..187 Appellant(s) vs. Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on November 19, 2015, the above named appellant(s) filed an appeal with the Board of Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco from the decision or order of the above named department(s), commission, or officer. The substance or effect of the decision or order appealed from is the ISSUANCE on November 10, 2015 to GSW Arena, LLC , of a Place of Entertainment Permit (for a mixed use event center open seven days a week from 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM, with proposed entertainment to include family shows, professional basketball games, collegiate athletic events, and concerts, and with food and beverages served on-site, including alcoholic beverages) at Mission Bay South Blocks 29 & 31. PERMIT NO. EC-1352 FOR HEARING ON December 09, 2015 Address of Appellant(s): Address of Other Parties: Mission Bay Alliance , Appellant GSW Arena, LLC, Permit Holder c/o Thomas Lippe, Attorney for Appellant c/o Mary Murphy, Attorney for Permit Holder Law Offices of Thomas Lippe Gibson Dunn 201 Mission Street, 12th Floor 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105 BOARD ()F A.PPEALS Date Filed: OV 1 9 'ut:J CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO APPEAL# / ~~t n BOARD OF APPEALS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF APPEAL I I We, Mission Bay Alliance, hereby appeal the following departmental action: CONDITIONAL GRANT of a Place of Entertainment Permit by the Entertainment Commission which was issued or became effective on : November 10, 2015, to: GSW Arena, LLC , for the property located at: Mission Bay South Blocks 29 & 31.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Timetable for Development of the Proposed Phd Program, Including Enrollment Projections
    PROPOSAL FOR A PROGRAM OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN GLOBAL HEALTH SCIENCES LEADING TO THE PHD DEGREE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO GLOBAL HEALTH SCIENCES (GHS) September 24, 2014 PhD Program Director: Sally Rankin, RN, PhD, FAAN Faculty Associate Global Health Sciences Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing [email protected] GHS Directors: Jaime Sepúlveda, MD, MPH, MSc, DrSc Executive Director Global Health Sciences [email protected] Molly Cooke, MD, MACP Education Director Global Health Sciences Professor, Department of Medicine [email protected] Colin Boyle, MBA Deputy Director Global Health Sciences [email protected] Lead Administrative Staff: Karen Nelson, MA Special Projects Global Health Sciences [email protected] 1 Table of Contents SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Aims and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Historical Development of the Field .................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 UCSF Global Health Sciences ......................................................................... 7 1.3 Timetable for Development of the Proposed PhD Program, Including Enrollment Projections ............................................................................................................................11 1.4 Relationship of the Proposed Program
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF Brochure
    Presented by the Division of Clinical Epidemiology of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine University of California San Francisco EVIDENCE-BASED Advanced Workshop on DIAGNOSIS: Evaluating and Using Medical Tests for Clinicians, Educators, Editors, and Policy Makers 3 1 0 2 , 1 2 - 0 2 Y A D I R F e - Y A n D S R u U H T J China Basin Landing COURSE CHAIR 185 Berry Street Michael A. Kohn, MD, MPP Lobby 3, Room 6702 Associate Professor of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, San Francisco, CA University of California, San Francisco; Attending Emergency Physician, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center COURSE CO-CHAIRS Thomas B. Newman, MD, MPH Chief, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Professor, Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Pediatrics; Attending Physician, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco Christopher R. Carpenter, MD Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis; Evidence-Based Diagnostics Section Editor, Academic Emergency Medicine China Basin Landing EVIDENCE-BASED DIAGNOSIS: 185 Berry Street Advanced Workshop on Evaluating Lobby 3, Room 6702 San Francisco, CA and Using Medical Tests for Clinicians, Educators, Editors, and Policy Makers June 20-21, 2013 Medicine today relies increasingly on diagnostic, prognostic, and ACCREDITATION screening tests. We spend vast resources on testing, and new The University of tests are being developed and marketed
    [Show full text]
  • Fred Blackwell, Executive Director
    102-011.12-002 Meeting of July 5, 2011 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Agency Commissioners FROM: Fred Blackwell, Executive Director SUBJECT: Media Clippings from 06.16.11 to 06.30.11 Enclosed is a collection of supportive and positive newspaper/media clippings that refer to the Redevelopment Agency or an Agency-related project or program. (Originated by Gia Casteel-Brown, Executive Assistant) Fred Blackwell Executive Director MISSION BAY / TRANSBAY / SOMA / BVHSP: Attachment 1: SAN FRANCISCO Business Times: "Last Mission Bay commercial site hits block," June 22, 2011 Attachment 2: SAN FRANCISCO Business Times: "Salesforce CEO: approve our HQ plan, or else...," June 23, 2011 Attachment 3: SAN FRANCISCO Business Times: "Salesforce campus to transform blight into bright," June 24, 2011 Attachment 4: SAN FRANCISCO Business Times: "Will Alexandria be a buyer again in Mission Bay," June 30, 2011 Attachment 5: Cbe examiner/sfexaminer.com: "Checkout time is near for San Francisco's Hugo Hotel," June 16, 2011 Attachment 6: SFGate.com: "S.F. police brass in way of 6 th Street substation," June 23, 2011 Attachment 7: SAN FRANCISCO Business Times: "Update: Transit center foundation work begins," June 24, 2011 Attachment 8: Email from Linda Green, SFRA Staff: Mighty Men of Valor at South Beach Harbor," June 16, 2011 102-011.12-002 Meeting of July 5, 2011 Media Clippings Page 2 Attachment 9: SFGate.com: "Bayview Third Street revitalization has way to go," June 20, 2011 Attachment 10: Zbe Qxaminer/sfexaminer.com: "San Francisco supervisors to hold
    [Show full text]
  • Oc2()1.1 .. Calendar Item No
    MINUWM This Calendar ~em. No. was approved as Minute It.em No.~ by t~ California State Lands __ ~ion by a vote of~ to:::Q-at its 'l meeting. CALENDAR ITEM 65 A 13 08/26/97 G11-01 s 3 D. Plummer B. Stevenson CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 6702 (b) REGARDING A GROUND LEASE AND LEASE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THROUGH ITS PORT COMMISSION, AND THE CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY LLC BACKGROUND~ The San Francisco Port Commission (Port) has requested the California State Lands ".Commission to find that the lease for a new San Francisco Giants ballpark is consistent ..- with the public trust, and to make the determinations described in Public Resources Code Section 6702 (b). The lease property, shown in Exhibits A and B (attached to this calendar item and incorporated by reference), is comprised of filled tide and submerged lands and other lands which, following their purchase by the Port, will become subject to the Burton Act. The Burton Act is the legislation through which the Port administers tide and submerged lands granted to the City and County of San Francisco by the State (Chapter 1333, Statutes of 1968, as amended). The parties to the Lease Disposition and Development Agreement (the "Lease ODA") and the Ground Lease are the Port and the developer of the ballpark, the China Basin Ballpark Company LLC ("CBBC"). The CBBC supports the request made by the Port to the State Lands Commission. Further discussion of the Port's request is includ_ed below under the heading "Section 24 of the Burton Act." " - The Port has submitted all significant transactional documents to the Commission to support its request.
    [Show full text]