Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mission Bay Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues Mission Bay infrastructure acceptance after subsidence and liability questions
Summary
The committee paused an ordinance to accept Mission Bay South public infrastructure into city maintenance and liability, requesting additional geotechnical studies and legal analysis about subsidence, costs and whether a $20 million tax‑increment set‑aside is sufficient.
The committee on Sept. 14 took up an ordinance to accept public infrastructure for the Mission Bay South redevelopment into the city's maintenance and liability responsibilities. Department of Public Works and OCII staff described a package of roughly nine blocks of streets, sidewalks, lighting, sewer, a pump station and other infrastructure proposed for city acceptance.
Staff said construction began in 2002 and that prior geotechnical work informed design. Khalil Hennessy of Public Works and Mark Slutskin (OCII) described a roughly $20 million tax‑increment set‑aside intended to cover potential repairs related to subsidence, and noted that PUC video surveys of utility lines had identified areas needing attention. Supervisors repeatedly pressed staff for geotechnical reports, projections of future subsidence, and an analysis showing whether the $20 million estimate (with CPI escalation) would be adequate over time.
Deputy City Attorney John Malamet said the tax‑increment fund amount was based on a current‑cost snapshot with CPI indexing; he said he was not aware of long‑range projections of subsidence and recommended further study. Chair Peskin said he was not prepared to accept unknown long‑term liability without additional documentation and moved to continue the item to the call of the chair. The motion passed unanimously among the three members present.
Committee members requested follow‑up briefings and documents from Public Works, PUC, OCII and the city attorney to provide the board with geotechnical reports, cost projections, and a legal analysis of acceptance options before the committee recalendared the item.
