we have an obligation to make sure we are fulfilling that. the port does provide a great deal of economic activity that is an engine for the city. i believe we have a responsibility to make sure we can revitalize that as much as possible. we are doing a lot of that through work around the america's cup and the park bond that is going forward this november, which i will expect to co-sponsor. there are a lot of things we are doing. i do not see that this project is yet at the level we need to have, in terms of the public benefits. i am concerned about, when it comes to the public benefits around development -- we have 5 million that is going back -- $5 million that is going back to the developer from the port.

i believe that should come to the port, in terms of public benefits. i am concerned about the transfer fees. we are looking at the second sale of condos that is going to be triggering the transfer fee. i believe it should be the initial sale, similar to what was discussed around the america's cup discussion. i do have concerns, like supervisor came, about parking. i believe there is still a lot to get worked out about parking. it is great to hear there is some openness around lowering the amount by 20%, and consideration of an additional parking fee. it has not been settled. i would feel comfortable if we would keep this here while we heard a real sense of where the direction is, in terms of discussions between the project sponsor and the port around that and other benefit issues. the thing that really drives me

most -- makes me most concerned, is the levels of affordability for housing. there are projects around san francisco where we have done incredible up zoning to build luxury housing. but we have had mitigating factors of public benefits that go along with that development. i am thinking about ring: hill, which had a stabilization fund attached to it. there were fees for inclusion in rehousing that went forward, as well as additional levels of affordable housing on top of that. i am not seeing something similar to this project. i believe it behooves us to get as much as we can.

i believe there is a lot more that we can do. $11 million for the housing trust fund is a big portion, especially when there is nothing in there right now. in terms of this project, we could get a lot more out of it. i feel we should err in that direction rather than not. i would like to propose we keep this in committee to hear back answers on where things are at, and further discussions about the benefits, the policies. i would also like to get clarification between what the budget analyst has recommended, has noted, in terms of public benefits, versus what the port has. i would not say the difference is extreme, but it is very different, how the port presented their peace and how the budget analyst presented theirs.

i do not feel forward me -- a comfortable moving something forward, based on that discrepancy. i would like to have that discussion here in the budget and finance committee before moving forward. my support for this project is going to hinge on public benefits, especially since we are moving away from what is typically expected of projects developed in this part of san francisco. i would like to motion -- do we have a budget meeting next wednesday? i would actually be ok if we wanted to do two weeks from now. i would motion that we schedule this to the call of the chair for either next week or the week after.

chairperson chu: i know there is a standing motion. there is an amendment to the hole that the port has introduced that should be on our desks. this is cleanup language. there is nothing that substantively changes in this. if i could ask the port to come up and to explain the components. >> thank you. the amendment of the whole makes some factual changes in the record of circumstances that have occurred since the resolution was first submitted. it memorializes the ceqa appeal that was heard before the board and the see you -- the cu appeal. it memorializes the court approval of the document on january 9. it memorializes resolution changes in the trust agreement

with the land commission. finally, it adds some language regarding puc interest, specifically along easements in jackson st., for facilities they have in that right of way. that is one of many reasons that corridor is being preserved. chairperson chu: thank you. this amendment is not substantive. they are merely technical, and in some components to reflect what has already happened. do we have a motion to accept? supervisor kim: motion to accept. chairperson chu: without objection. i think there were a number of -- i think supervisor kim spoke about unresolved issues with regards to the parking lot, and regarding a fee that would be charged on parking. that is something that would

have to continue in conversation. there was a minimum annual guarantee rent to be included in the contract, and also the additional payment for the offset of lost parking revenue. is the port and the developer amenable to those changes? >> i believe there are changes that could be made to the underlying documents in the file between now and when the board of supervisors considers this item that will satisfy those changes. chairperson chu: it sounds like there are four very specific issues, including of the fee at the parking lot, the minimum annual guarantee, and the lost parking revenue. is that correct? ok. these would all be amendments to

the underlying document, correct? ok. colleagues, any other thoughts? supervisor avalos has indicated a desire to continue this item. any other thoughts about this? supervisor kim: my understanding from the budget calendar -- is there another budget committee that is scheduled for the month of june? chairperson chu: at this moment, there is not. we purposely left the first two weeks of june open, so the budget analyst would be able to work on the budget deliberations of the last two weeks of june. we had not anticipated a subsequent meeting next week for the budget and finance committee. i would like to hear from folks about their thinking. on the one hand, there are unresolved issues that we articulated. at the same time, i do not want to drag this out further.

i think we could come to resolution within the time it goes to the full board. i am not sure what a new meeting would do. i think some of these details could be hammered out. just like to get some thoughts. supervisor kim: i would be comfortable continuing this item, given unresolved issues. but given the calendar before us, i have faith that we will resolve these issues brought forward. honestly, i think if they are not resolved, there will not be the votes needed to support this project anyway. i think there is pressure on both sides to come up with something that is going to work, in terms of creating a package which delivers public benefits to the city. actually, there are three issues that were brought up. one is the parking reduction, 20%, or 55 spots.

the second is a parking surcharge in perpetuity that would go toward st.s -- streetscaping. i will suggest a 1 mile radius. i am open to debate. this will be impacting that neighborhood, and i want to make sure the benefits impact that neighborhood specifically. the benefit to connecting the city to the waterfront -- this could help facilitate that. we talked about whether we could consider a private club to be a public benefit. i would argue that you cannot consider that a public benefit. we are able to address some of the gap we have. it is a requirement in public schools that you pass a swim test. i would like to see that

hammered out. golden day wait is a beneficiary of this deal. -- golden gateway is a beneficiary of this deal. i would like to see them put some skin in the game and offer their pool for public use as well. i will have more when it comes back to the full board. i understand a lot of what the members of the public have said on this project. i would not characterize this deal as generous. many of the benefits that we are talking about in this deal are benefits that are mandated in order to build on this site. when we look at other luxury housing developments in this city, and our office and a lot of time looking at other benefits in district 6, whether

it was the millennium -- but we can argue about whether the watermark is luxury or just market rate, or 1 rincon hill. what is being offered in this deal is fairly comparable with the watermark. with millennium, we built 20% off site. rincon hill was a very different deal, so it is hard to compare those. there are clear public benefits that came along with building that luxury. an unfortunate truth in the city is for us to do public benefits, whether it is open space, we generate it from the market rate developments in the city. something i am very happy about is we can wonder about how much

$11 million benefits in terms of affordable housing, but we are talking about a very small project. !you can generate a lot more public benefits from much larger projects. we are talking about a very small project. $11 million -- you can say it is not a lot of money, but it is high above what any other developer has committed to affordable housing. we are talking about continued development on the waterfront, whether it is with the warriors arena or others. another point i think was valid is who is our waterfront for. i think the lancet street was an incredible -- i think delancy

street was an incredible project. i am pleased to see the port is committing to the developments for affordable housing, but in order to build on that site, we need revenue into our public trust fund. i know we cannot pre-commit where these had to go, but i think it makes sense to ensure that some of the funding goes to building affordable housing on the waterfront. that would be very exciting. last, the issues around parking, which i brought up, and how we can work with golden gateway -- those are benefits i would like to see being put in.

this is a project that is moving forward. i think it is fair. i feel comfortable moving forward as we work out these outstanding pieces. i look forward to working with the port to ensure that. chairperson chu: that is a motion to send the item forward without recommendation at this time. supervisor avalos: i withdraw my motion and will probably just vote against the motion to move forward. i think it makes sense that we keep it in committee, but i do not have the votes, it looks like, for that. i want to put out a caution for $11 million being adequate for this project. the examples we have from other projects show a much greater level of community benefits,

well above mandatory. i think that is something we should be aiming for in this project, especially the estimates i have seen of the overall revenues from the project, a parts of $400 million. that, to me, makes the most sense, knowing that we have real benefits that we see. i do not think that, since we are making allowances for this project, that we should go above what is statutory. i withdraw my motion to keep in committee, but i will be voting against the movement to the board without recommendation. chairperson chu: that movement has been withdrawn. a few thoughts, and then we will take a vote. i think the port and a developer has orders regarding

be developed and areas that need work -- regarding the development and areas that need work. i think this motion allows it to move forward, but with a pressure to come to resolution on some of these items. you probably will not have the votes to do this. it is a good place to go. on the parking, the surcharge issue, there are budget analyst recommendations. before tuesday comes, i would like to direct our budget analyst to reconcile the numbers. what i would like to see is the same apples to apples comparison of what you are indicating, and why there is a

discrepancy -- i think it is important to the public to understand that. in some of these areas, which is right or wrong? on the ifd calculations, is it right to say 30 years of vs 45 years? -- 30 years versus 45 years? it is of public benefit to lay out what those numbers are. provide that to members of the board of supervisors in advance of the tuesday meeting. i would like the city attorney to take a last look at the enforceability of the transfer fee component, because i think that is important to come to terms with. finally, with regards to the ifd conversation, it is not a

finished conversation. it is simply allowing us to form an ifd. as to the value of what gets transferred to the port, i think that is still an open question, but i am willing to have that conversation at a later time. the board of supervisors still has the appropriation authority and the ability to designate funding. i am not completely satisfied with the proportion yet. i do understand the significant needs for the port, in terms of capital. i understand that part of it. i am not sure what is fair, in terms of a share. i am looking forward to that conversation. colleagues, we do have a motion to send the item forward, be amended item.

supervisor kim: one last request. hopefully, we can get this resolved by the end of the week. getting information on tuesday morning does not give us time. i brought up these issues prior to this budget meeting, so hopefully that will give us enough time to resolve this by the end of the week. i am glad we will continue to have a larger discussion, split between the general fund and port improvements. chairperson chu: there is a motion to send items 7 and 8 to the full board, item 7 as amended, the amendment of the whole, and item eight as is, without recommendation. do a roll-call vote on that? supervisor avalos: no. supervisor kim: aye. chairperson chu: aye. >> the motion passes. chairperson chu: thank you.

do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda for today. chairperson chu: thank you. we are adjourned.

>> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks.

beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that

they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that.

it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many

different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest.

after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪

>> kids with special needs have access to a venture on may 5. over 25 businesses and nonprofit organizations build the music concourse with free refreshments, games, and bluegrass. access to a venture is part of sf rec and park's year-round activities in partnership with activities in partnership with families.