as a mixed use opportunities site, and eight potential uses were identified, including five that were part of the plan, and this includes residential housing, parking, retail job generators, and recreational enterprises. we are deeply concerned with -- not -- reuniting the city. the current plan removes the wall and makes it possible for residents and workers from the nearby neighborhoods to access the waterfront. this may be the most important long-term feature of the plan. according to my personal priorities, i will list the benefits. pedestrian opening of jackson and pacific to the waterfront once again. affordable housing during a time of diminished resources. funds to repair historic buildings and running -- rotting

piers. things for children. and, of course, the construction. as you listen to testimony, they appear to be the driving force in the efforts to terminate the project. in general, the heights and views are not protected in the planning code. this rises above the waterfront with no stepping down to soften the image. this very tall building will be separated by eight washington. in fact, everything will load jackson street is above 85 feet. you will find that the average wage is 37 feet. the eight washington project consists of a team of aesthetically driven architects and planners who will provide the city with a remarkable development which will make us all very proud. there also accepted -- since -- acceptable of other things.

we expect the same high-quality of washington -- of 8 washington. i am here to give you this binder full of letters, and i would like to read to you this is support -- to read to you the support. the san francisco bicycle coalition, the carpenters local 22, the chamber of commerce, a city car share, the american institute of architects, and there are many more local businesses, merchants, and businesses in these binders, which i will leave with you. >> mr. chair, mr. president,

members of the committee. prior to my years of experience with national issues, this was also as a 25-year member of the planning department and a five- year member of the planning group, so i have had considerable background there, and i currently keep my hand in as a quote interested citizen on the northeast waterfront advisory group, and as such, i have had the opportunity to participate in the planning of east of the embarcadero steady and many presentations and many comments pro and con of this project -- the embarcadero study. one thing i would like to say, i think that the members in this room are probably very concerned about the testimony they heard about the golden gate towers and how it has been finding ways to avoid paying higher taxes on the

property and to get around the city rent control board, and i would hope that the city would find this legislation in this regard. also, having said that, as was indicated, the golden gateway owner is not the developer for this project. the developer for this project has done a tremendous job on the east side of the embarcadero. they did a project that no one could have believed came out as good as it did. i do not think there is anyone in the city to has applauded their work -- who has applauded their work. providing retail that activated the waterfront. they had the primary financial backing from the california state teachers' pension group, and clearly, the teachers are not part of the 1% that people

are concerned about, reaping some of the financial benefits. i am a planner. i think from an urban design point of view, a transition from the golden gate towers towards the waterfront, these projects would provide, would be a very desirable thing. the urban design plan never contemplated the removal of the freeway. my first day at the planning department, coming to the planning commission meeting, we are going to be doing something historic today. the planning commission adopted a plan that day, in the planning department has carried it forward with the northeast embarcaderos study -- embarcadero study, so for these

reasons, i support the project, and thank you for your time. >> i have a couple of points and a couple of observations. this was one of seven suval lots that was the reason for supervisors request for a study. the six other lots are north of broadway and have a 40-foot height limit. this was in the dancer area. i have been on the citizens advisory committee from the beginning representing the preservation committee. and been through this project from the beginning of that i was against it originally.

until the configuration of a building and i joined forces because it was a nice project for the site. this is a developable site. i question shadows. maybe i am not informed well enough. this project is north of washington, the park is south of washington. is not the son generally not in the direction of casting shadows? one of my main causes and as a preservationist i am concerned about the port's billion dollar plus a list of creating on it sound. this has poured revenue like crazy.

a comment about the rush parking. 255 will service the ferry building. which brings up another lot. this is a fine development and this is the same development. i hope that in fact this does not become a problem. it is a terrific project for the city. thank you. supervisor mar: is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. supervisor president chiu,

, any closing remarks? >> thank you. president chiu: as i said at the beginning, i thought it was important to hold this hearing today in part because there have been numerous public hearings with other city agencies. and planning, the port commission, we have not started that conversation here. the most recent public meeting was last thursday when the planning department voted to initiate a process to consider the site. i thought we have had not an adequate consideration of the community with issues that have been at the heart of the debate over 8 washgin -- washington. when i came into office the discussion at that time was

whether and 84-foot proposal was an appropriate proposal versus what i think many folks in my district wanted which was to seek a rezoning -- see a rezoning. i think a lot of letters in this book provided by the sponsor of the project are in support of what had been that 84-foot height project. we're talking about a project that is 136 feet. it is a different project and will have more conversations. these are issues i think we need to start earlier. within a few short weeks we will be considering this project in front of the board. there has been discussion about the planning department, the report did put out. while placer electric -- appreciate the work that was done by staff, i did not think it reflected the input of many members of the community that participated and i did support a

separate process that is embodied in the community vision report that has been circulated. there are a lot of interesting ideas in this division that have not been part of the process and the project we're talking about. i thought it was important for us to begin this conversation. we're going to continue it in the coming weeks and i want to thank you and everyone for this conversation. this not the end of this, just the beginning. thank you. supervisor mar: if there is no other comments, let's continue this item to the call the chair. are there other items? >> no further matters. supervisor mar: with no other items, meeting adjourned. thank you. [gavel]

[horns honking] [siren wails]

announcer: big dreams and goodrades aren't enough to get into college. there are actual steps you need to take. finding someone who can help is the first and most important. for the next steps, go to knowhow2go.org. oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha!

[snortg] >> good morning, and welcome to the transbay joint powers authority meeting for thursday, december 8. >> i would like to know the directors have conflict that will not be present. with that, director lloyd. boyd present. metcalf present. -- lloyd. madam chair, you do have a quorum. supervisor kim: item number

three, communications. >> item four? >> good morning, directors and members of the public. today is our last meeting of the year. i have to say we are ending on a very good note having accomplished a number of milestones. over 55,000 hours of layer without any injuries or issues. having started construction of the new facility. i would like to take the opportunity to thank all of our staff, consultants, contractors, and the men and women who work so hard on our construction site for all of their heart and good work this year. i would like to remind everyone that at 1:00 today, john o'connell high school is having the ribbon cutting ceremony. i will be there and other

members will be there. we're very excited about that. i would like to also mention that as part of my report, i would like to have the san francisco redevelopment agency, might gristle, given update to the board on the most recent bid we received on one of our parcels. as you know, the state department of transportation transferred 12 acres to the city of san francisco for the purpose of developing and using the proceeds to fund the new transit center. most recently the redevelopment agency put out a bid for block 6 and 7, and it was very successful. i will have mike report on that. >> thank you, and good morning, directors. and i am senior product manager of the redevelopment agency. as maria said, we issued and rfp

for two of the parcels i will show on this map here. block 6 and 7 of the transbay redevelopment project area. they are right here. block six and walked seven. -- block 7. these of the first market rate developments we are proceeding with on folsom streets. it is a very large site. a total of 550 element units. included among that are 136 agenciey-subsidize affordable units. in addition to the proceeds from the land, we have another requirement from the state that we have to build 35% of the units affordable housing. these blocks here are all going to have a significant affordable housing component, but most importantly the goal is to

generate the most money that we can from the market rate component of all of these parcels. each parcel has a distinct market rate project and affordable project. they are financially set -- separate. we have a market rate project consists of 300 ft residential tower, and a bank of town houses along a new clementine tha stre the highest purchase price for that market rate component, as well as a proposal for the affordable component of the project. as maria said, we issued an rfp back in july. i want to thank the staff for their cooperation on that. we received proposals back in october, and this past tuesday of this week, the redevelopment commission approved the

selection panel recommendation of a team of collop realistic corp. and mercy california to proceed with negotiations for them to develop the site. the main factor in this election was their purchase offer. they offered a price of $30 million for this. this is a great offer. let me give you background on how we got there. first of all, we issued an rfp's about three years ago for a different parcel. that was back in 2008. we had to suspend the rfp because market conditions were so terrible and offers we got we felt were not worth pursuing. fast forward to 2011. we issued an rfp with a minimum price of $18 million. that was higher than any of offers we received on block 8,

even though block 8 was the site that was much larger in terms of the market rate portion them walked six and seven. there would have been more units possible, but the market trips were so bad and offers were so low, i think we made the right decision. we get where we are today that not only did we achieve the minimum price, but far exceeded that with the purchase offer of $30 million. the list to say, we were very pleased with that offer. the call-up team submitted a very ambitious and exciting proposal. i've brought images of that here. you can see the 300 foot tower. just briefly the features it includes our sky gardens, a very innovative site plan with a lot of through access of the sals oo

clementina street. a lot of great features of this project. we are obviously still in the conceptual stage, so there will be a long detailed review time before the project is ultimately reviewed by the redevelopment commission, but we're excited about this put in a lot of work to their proposals. these were giant documents that required a lot of time and investment, and we're very thankful to the teams that submitted. the call-up team proposal ended up getting the most points. -- gollup team proposal ended up getting the most points. these are on several podium buildings, as well as the buildings on block 7 north of where the tower is. the agency will be subsidizing those units, in part with the

housing set aside from the tax increment that is generated by the parcels that are also generating revenue. mercy housing is developing that. and they came in with also a very excellent plan, and the goal was to minimize the affordable housing subsidy the agency would have to provide. in this case they requested a subsidy of $186,000 per unit. just wrapping up, the team for the proposal is to local firms. solomon, court well, and santos press thought. mercy housing is a local housing developer that i am sure you are familiar with. -- sanots presscott. they have experience in europe. this would be their first san

francisco project. they have committed to having local staff working full-time on the project, but it is also exciting that we have attracted new investment to san francisco, but obviously the most important thing we have emphasized is they need to have as much local participation and local members of the team as possible, and they have done that. all the other members of the team are local and they will have a permanent presence in san francisco as a result of the project. with that, we will proceed with negotiating an ena, we will take to the redevelopment theme early next year. as you are aware, this approval is contingent upon a supreme court decision, which will be coming down soon about the future of redevelopment agencies. depending on what the supreme court decision is, it might affecting -- might affect the timing of the ena.

this is for what might happen if the redevelopment agency is not able to enter into one. the city of san francisco will work closely. we wanted to make sure the election of this developer was completed before the supreme court decision came down so that whenever agency takes over process will at least have the devil -- developer selected in can proceed to negotiations. -- and can proceed to negotiations. i think that is it. again, we are excited about the proposal. we also have members of the team. if you could stand up, gentlemen. that concludes my update. supervisor kim: thank you. any questions on that? >> i just want to commend you guys on the market timing

decision you made. that took a lot of courage to say no to the previous round of bids. you have really helped this project get the money it needs by making that decision. the project looks great. could not be happier. supervisor kim: any other questions or comments? >> how many parcels to we have for the transbay redevelopment area? >> let's put that back up again. all of the number of parcels that you see here, block 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. there is one more off the map here. about 12 he parcels and what we call zone 1. -- 12 parcels in what we call

zone 1. there is also a surplus site that is freed up by the new configuration of the transbay transit center reappear yet up to 13 sites we will be rid of -- we developing over the next 13 years. supervisor kim: how many of those have been bid out? >> 6, 7, and 11. in block 11 is 100% affordable project. it is affordable housing for formerly homeless. supervisor kim: congratulations again on the bid. it is nice to see we reduce so well in this market. and i do continue to look for project sponsors that are here locally in san francisco and hope we can continue to try to work on that for future parcels. >> would like to have sarah

report on the quarterly financials. >> good morning, directors periods their agi. sarah gillete. the first fiscal year, everything is in budget and expenditures are in line with where you would expect them to be through first quarter. the second report is the status of the contracts, and i would like to note a couple of our contractors that are doing very well on the participation exceeding any goals they have in the contracts or targets they have in the contracts. the program management consultant is up 44% participation. the architect and engineer on the bus storage facility is that 23 percent signed, where as the goal was only 16%. -- 23%, where aeas the goal was

only 16%. take a they have consistently been well over the target, which is 20%. you can see of the report they are at 29% participation. the third report is the investment and earnings report. it shows the cash balance at the end of the quarter and small amount of investment earnings. the third report is the revenues and expenditures for the life of the program. i am happy to answer any questions. supervisor kim: questions? before we have the ark of jollity presentation -- archeology presentation, i want to say it has been very well attended. we're very excited about it. i have seen a number other

articles pop up on the east coast about their own archaeology sites. with that, i would like to have a briefing on the site. >> good morning, directors. >> i go back to the previous speaker? >> director ortiz has a question for sarah. director ortiz: what happens when they have not accomplished anything? like the transportation group had 30 percent signed, and nothing has been -- >> the advisory has been 30 percent signed, and right now they are at 0 because they're not setting out any work. they're just supporting the design team with the train box extension, so there is