not at this time when the market is so hot, that we are seeing a rise in evictions and displacement. and people said, well, what are we going to do? these things are mutually exclusive. we heard even a tic owner who is working closely on this legislation saying that there is a lot of skepticism about getting where we could achieve both goals. i will not say that it is magic, because i witnessed the brilliant minds and commitment aamong so many that worked on this, including chiu and yee to craft something that low and behold, allows tic owners to convert, sooner than the

current system would allow, and also preserve our stock and also, has an enforcable lifetime lease provision so that the current tenant woulds not be evicted. >> and i am surprised as to why everyone is not jumping on board because it is the great compromise that everybody is looking for. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, ted, san francisco tenant union we have been hearing a lot about soaring rents and rising evictions during this dot, com crisis in an ideal world we will be sitting here or standing here and talking about a ten year moratorium just to cool off the market and to take a step to see what we can do about all of this.

and we are willing to work with the people in the real estate industry and some supervisors to craft a solution to the problem that some tic are having in a way that they can see the speculations and conversions addressed in the future, it is very important that a keystone of this compromise is that ten-year moratorium and we need to preserve that. it is important to give us room to be in on working on the ellis act and we are seeing the movement towards a moratorium tenant legislature and so this ten years is extremely important to us and we urge the supervisors to move this to the board and to pass it out to the board without changing any of

key components. and thank you for your work >> is there any additional public comment? >> yes, welcome? >> good afternoon. supervisors. i'm joy bounce and i am with the fta, senior disability action group and i was faced with eviction and i was fighting for one whole year. and i won my case. and i am still living there with the help of support systems like the senior disability action and i would like to say that in my building of 48 apartments and 7 storefronts. they are taking a one bedroom and making it into a 3 bedroom.

and without permit and making a studio, which is 400 square feet and making it two a two bedroom or a one bedroom or whatever you want to call it and it is totally, ridiculous, and i could not even fit in there and i know, that mr. weiner would never be able to fit in this house. >> you would be surprised. >> this system that is going on is ridiculous, because you have to be a pretty small person to fit in there and there is no place to put your clothes. but aside from that, i support the moratorium. and i thank the supervisors for doing it. and i hope to see that you

understand the situation. >> is there any additional comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and just in the hands of the committee, is there any commentary? supervisor or president chiu? >> thank you. again i want to thank all of the members of the public who have taken part in this lengthy discussion over the years and the months and i want to take a moment to thank the tenant advocates who i do think have come around to what i think of as a really novel and a well thought out way to move this difficult discussion forward. the fact of the matter is that we have over 2,000 folks who are currently in the lottery, and it would take them under the current system over ten years to convert. and what the tenants have agreed to is over the next two years, everyone who is currently in the lottery, can go through and convert their tic into a condo. and at the same time, doing

this, with the protections for tenants and i do this in a way that is hopefully going towards a number of folks today to cool off the speculative market so that we could right and over the next ten years we can continue all of the work that we have been doing on the affordable straggy to make sure that san francisco is affordable to all. i look forward and i would like to make a motion at this time to move this legislation in front of us out to the full board with the recommendation. >> supervisor kim? >> i will second that motion and i do not want to repeat everything that has been said. this item if anything, we have heard many, many times, i think that this may be the 7th hearing on this. i have not been able to keep track. >> it is going to beat ceqa. >> so. no position on this has been clear since the beginning.

if we could address what the tic owners are going through and the housing stock which impacts the current tenants and to find a way to support that. and i do want to acknowledge many of the advocates that works for weeks and days and hours trying to find a solution to this and i think that what we have before us is quite an elegant solution. the goal was to figure out a way to remedy the current owners and not encourage more ownership in the future. and we also want to help people that actually owned and occupy the units. if this really is about encouraging home ownership, we want the folks that actually live in those units and not just using it for rental properties themselves i will be supporting this, it is a compromise from my perspective. because most tenants never want to touch this lottery process. this was viewed as a compromise from decades ago. and so, allowing this bypass

was viewed as kind of a, an alm in some ways to the current owners which i think is actually a step in the right direction, but in the future, i think that we have to be thinking if home ownership is something that we as a city want to support and encourage for the middle and the middle and upper class familis in san francisco, then it has to be affordable, it has to be housing production. we can't pit folks that want to be owners against tenants that can't be the dynamic that we set up. and people have said that this is not about helping one or the other. but we are creating a system where we are pitting those two groups together, when we allow tic as an option for home ownership. and so looking forward to, and i hope this conversation does not end today in terms of the home ownership conversation. because it is clearly not just about tic. but happy to support these amendments and send it out with a positive recommendation. >> thank you, supervisor kim.

>> so, i want to thank everyone who spent a lot of time in negotiations around this. even though i am a co-sponsor of the legislation because of the brown act and president chiu's involvement i was unable to participate in those discussions consistent with my obligations under the open government laws which is unfortunate because i wanted to be involved in negotiations and the discussions. you know, it is this, and however many other hearings that we have had have really brought to the forefront a lot of the very, very legitimate and understandable anxiety across the spectrum, in terms of home owners, fee owners and tenants about the affordbility crisis in our cities. unfortunately and this is not true for many of our public

commentsers, but we have some commentary about this legislation on both sides. where the other side gets demonized. tenants are viewed in a certain way, tic owners are viewed in a certain way. and you know, the fact is that whether you own a tic or a condo or a single family home or a tenant we are all san franciscoans and as i said in the past hearings, many of the tic are long term renters who manage to scrape together a down payment to purchase a home. whether that was a wise move or not a wise move, that is what we have. and i appreciate the sentiment to help these tic owners and that is a sentiment that i share. and of course, we have our fundamental problem in san francisco, that we don't have enough housing, for the people

who want to live here and it drives up the prices and it has been interesting to hear some of people who are maybe against this legislation, also saying that they don't want to see any housing built unless it is affordable. even though that would be great, that we could spend our good chunk of our budget on building affordable housing. and we would not be building nearly enough. we also you know, see a lot of resistance to any different ways of looking at the kinds of different kinds of housing, in terms of sizes, and we see the resistance to legalizing inlaw units and i think that is a huge mistake for our city to not acknowledge the importance of inlaw units. so we see a lot of people talking about we want to have more affordbility and more options but every option has the pile on and it gets dragged

down and so here we are with a market that is not working for anybody in this city, unless you are a home owner who bought a long time ago or a renter who is fortunate enough to have rented a long time ago. >> i am hope to the changes to the lottery once it resumes again. i do not believe that we should be making changes that impact the current tic owners, which i think that those occur under the current legislation. it is one thing to have something where changes are purely prospective and i don't think that is what we have today, and i also do believe that it is a moratorium should be key off of the actual number of people who participate in the bypass because we do not know what that exact number

will be. and i think one of the final speakers talked about that and one has nothing to do with the other and we know that the moratorium has to be a minimum of ten years under the current proposal and can be higher than that depending on how many people participate in the bypass and so the two are link and i think that they should be linked and i don't think that there should be a minimum as there is today. so, i am hopeful, that in the next few weeks, there can be a continuing dialogue, i don't think that it is going to take a lot to get this into a form where i can support it. i think that there are a lot of good things that were put into this legislation as a result of the amendments last week. and but i can support, i can support all of it. so colleagues we, have two choice and do a roll call vote and put it out with no recommendation and i am open to either option. >> president chiu?

>> this is not... i think that i would like it to go out with recommendation if that is possible, just so that folks know that there is real support for this. i do understand supervisor weiner your concerns and had also heard from which you were ferrill's comments a lot of the same concerns, but i do think that given how many problems this legislation does address, i think that it is important to go out with some sense that there is real support from this committee, but i certainly appreciate the perspective that you raised. >> i would say given that if the motion is with the recommendation i will be voting against it, i want to be clear that that does not mean that there are not changes that can be made and perhaps not necessarily revolutionary changes but there are changes that can be made that i think would earn my support. also supervisor ferrill and i are co-sponsors of this and we agree on a few things, people should not assume that we agree

on everything. and so, with that said, if there are no additional comments, madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> on the motion, item three as recommended. chiu. >> aye. >> chiu. >> kim. >> aye. >> weiner. >> no. >> we have two ayes and one no. >> the motion carries. >> madam clerk will you call item four. >> the resolution finding the development of sea wall lot 337 and pier 48 adjacent to at&t park, feasible and we will wait one second to allow everybody to clear the chambers.

>> we are on item number four and just i believe that my understanding is that we will need to continue this to the call of the chair and then president chiu will be transferring this to the budget committee to the termination of this hearing. >> that is my understanding from the conversations that my staff has had with the project sponsor and with the city departments >> thank you. >> and so, we will turn it over to phil williamson from the

port. >> phil williamson, (inaudible) 48 development opportunity. and i am pleased to be before you today and thank you for having us and to make a presentation to you about our see wall lot, 337 development project. my job today is to give you a brief overview of how we got to this state. introduce the team and layout for you what you will be hearing over the next 15 minutes. >> recognizing the hour and how long you have been here and we will try to keep this as short as possible and turn it over to questions and public comment >> this started ten years ago when the port looked at its needs and its assets and came up with a plan for developing some of our water front sea wall lots. there was a great deal of public process to come up with a combined rfq and rfp process for this site. many have come up with the objectives for those rfq and p,

processes selecting 337 associate with llc and in 2009 entering into a exclusive agreement with that entity to begin working on a two-phase, ena that we are almost at the end of phase one. and which will culminate in the board's hearing of the term sheet and the fiscal feasible in the coming weeks. once phase one is complete and we have that term sheet in hand and the feesbility in hand and we will commence the entitlement phase of the exclusive negotiation agreement and we anticipate that to being a two to three year process and we entitled the project and continue to meet with the public and continue our out reach to hone the out reach and to be responsive to what we are hearing from the community and all of the while fulfilling the port's goals for this site, a unique site and positioned to generate revenue and badly needed by the port to fulfill

our capitol needs and need the city needs and basically to be responsive to the needs of the community. going forward from here, i would like to just talk briefly about our team, and we have as you are aware, been working with the office of economic and workforce development along with the developer and initially it was a unique partnership but i think that it is becoming more common as we proceed with big projects on the water front to make sure that they are done in keeping with the city's needs as a whole. and today we have myself representing the port, mike martin, representing the office of economic and workforce development and the developer represented by jack bear and fran wilder from the giant's teams. and i would like to hand it over to talk about the structure and the development team after that.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors mike martin, office of economic and workforce development like mr. williamson i will try to keep my remarks brief and we are excited to be here today and you will hear more detail from the developer on the specific ideas that are put together as part of the proposal that is before you. i wanted to say a brief word about my office's involvement and the office of economic and workforce development has been assigned led by jennifer to work with the port on three key developments pier 332 and 337, we have come to the table a few years after the beginning of this effort as phil mentioned this is a long running, partnership between the developer and the port of san francisco, they have done a great deal of community out reach as well as a lot of really good thinking about the development itself with a lot of consultants and a lot of leaders and a lot of people that really want to look at

this very strategickly important site at a neat and exciting cross roads on the water front and see what it can be in emitting the different developments what our office has been able to do and it has been an exciting partnership from our perspective is to take the lessons learned from the large city developments that are taking similar master planned approaches to development. and looking at, for example, the development led by the former redevelopment agency, and also, mission bay, the neighbor to this development which is the development wants to speak to and enhance in addition you have treasure island that has a lot of the sustainability goals that you will see in the presentation before you today and so all of those lessons we are trying to take into this project at this outset and really create hopefully a nice recipe for success that not only can show that steps forward that we need for this location and also the water front and the city as a whole. and these range from the issues

to do with infrastructure as i mentioned and also the transportation and sort of urban design, and bringing a new neighborhood forward that helps the neighborhoods around it see a new opportunity on the water front. and so, i just want to share with those general i guess, excitement for this development and the partnership that brought it forward and with that, i will be around to answer the questions later but i will hand it over for jack and fran well for the meat of the presentation, thanks very much. >> thanks, mike. thanks, phil. my name is jack bear and for the last 20 years i worked for the san francisco giant's baseball team and my client wells is here today and we have colleagues that support us in the audience but in view of the hour we will keep it as brief as possible. the next one.

this site, this slide shows the history of the site. so you can see it on the left side, this site was uppeder under water in the 1800s and move to land and the graphic on the right shows mission rock, a rock formation in the bay and just off of the coast and that is what the project was named after and that is what the street is named after. mission rock. sorry, there is a delay in the technology here. okay, this slide shows you what is there today. a large surface parking lot that is used for commuter parking and for the ballpark. and pier 48 which is also used for the parking in the storage of election of equipment and the small sliver of the parking on the edge of the boulevard.

>> as you know, as an enterprise agency within the city, the port has adopted a list of capitol needs which it must fund in the portfolio and it has many historic piers and disrepair and environmental needs and so on. the port has valuable water front real estate and much of it under utilized and realized ten years ago that it could use these assets to fund the needs. as part of the port's straggy, to revitalize the water front and to generate much-needed financial resource to address these capitol needs, the port identified several key development sites within its portfolio, many of them sea, wall lots. 337 is one of these sites. and in the mid 2000s, around 2007 prior to commencing any sort of developer as phil outlined earlier, the port

conducted a very extensive process and engaged the stake holders and the community to arrive at several land use objectives for the site. this process with hundreds of meetings with the community members and neighbors and stake holders outlined the sight that called for the urban mixed community with the significant housing and receipt tail and open spaced uses, in particular a focus on open space and public area along the water front. and this vision that was established by the port and the community, in 2008 remains very much alive today. and created a roost for the land use plan that we are presenting to you today. >> this is the sight plan for the proposed mission rock project. and it totally transforms the site. and it finds a permanent use pier 48 and introduces two space and collapses the surface parking lot into one parking

structure and created ten sites that can be used for the development of housing resources and commercial in san francisco to grow and attract new businesses and new jobs for the city. it also if you look at the site plan, it has retail concentrated on the parks, the shore line water front park on the north and the mission rock square in the middle and then there is a street that parks up to the south where the retail is concentrated and in total it is about 3.6 million square feet of built space and a great opportunity for san francisco. and now let's go to the components. >> pier 48 itself, the aprons are not passable and it needs some work as we indicated it is used for parking resources in the storage of equipment, but

fortunately, our friends, the largest manufacturer in the city and county of san francisco, want to occupy pier 48. and this rendering shows you how you could be in a restaurant in the front of the pier and look through the glass to see the house in the body of the pier and an elegant solution that we think is terrific. by the way the giants are the largest consumer of the product in the world. there is a connection between the organizations. >> the park we will go through this really quickly and there are a lot of components of the park and it is meant to attract a diverse array of people and you have places where you could enter the water with a kayak adjacent with pier 38 and we

could accommodate in the park and in the middle and where you see the restaurant and the edge of the junior, giant's baseball field as more meant to appeal to family and children and it is meant to be a very active park space so that it feels comfortable at times and also a meandering walkway that brings in the water and provides great views and some porch wetlands for wild life and we will talk about a couple of good precedents for this park and the first one comes from new york madison square park and those of you who have been to the shake shack know what i am talking about it is for all of those in manhattan and those to take an afternoon break. and the one in san francisco, is the highlight on one's run or the walk to the golden gate bridge.

>> in is a picture where you have the concerts and gathers and so with the park along the water front, we were able to create a great space and one that will have the great deal of visibility and the great view and serve as a great amenity for the three buildings that front it and not only will the buildings have great water front views but be on the park itself. now, in the middle of the site, is mission rock square. and in this square is the square is very important because the buildings in the interior site need to have an address as well. they are not on the water with dramatic views but we are on a park and that creates a great environment for the people who can live and work in this location, it feels like an urban campus environment and again, there say great precedence with washington square and jackson square and the best in new york with

bryant park in the middle of manhattan, which is the home to a lot of activities and the people go there every day and it is almost a tourist attraction in and of itself. >> and this slide is an interesting one it comes from copenhagen in denmark and shows how housing can interact with the park. so that the people that are in the housing feel like they are in the park and the people that are in the park see the people living there and creates a incredible diverse and interesting environment. >> so jack mentioned how the parks and open space are going to create a central hub for the bay and water front neighborhoods and we feel the same way about the retail and the importance of the place making in the retail and the streetscape. and at pier 48 it will be the first step in creating the experience for the pedestrians but importantly, and different from other developments that you hear about we are also