~ sorry 4.4 million scare feet of office, biotech and research space which includes [speaker not understood] and hospitals and neighborhood serving retail as well as the public safety building which will host our fire department and our police department southern station. library, and 49 acres of public park. this plan also included a hotel for 500 units. this is the first time our board will be hearing any amendments to the redevelopment plan since our redevelopment agency was dissolved last year. so, it's interesting kind of to go through this same process. but as we near completion, there are changes that still need to be made to the plan that we put together over 15 engineers years ago. this new change being proposed ~ will allow the developer to have the option to develop a mixed use development which includes residential units as well as a hotel unit. after a study was done it was

determined that a 500 unit hotel development may not be appropriate for the site, but reducing it in half up to 250 units along with 350 residential units would be something that would serve this neighborhood better. the mission bay citizens advisory community has endorsed this change conveying that a smaller hotel and additional residential units is in keeping with a need for housing while the smaller scale hotel serve visitors to the biotech businesses and ucsf campus while l also pro serving hotel jobs providing living wage for families. a little more on the residential units. 50% of all the rental units will be affordable on-site and for the homeownership units that will be created, there will be a 20% off-site and that will be given. this is our first hearing as i mentioned on our redevelopment plan amendment, the dissolution. and i just want to thank the staff of the successor agency and the members of the citizens

advisory committee for reviewing these plan changes and developing a process which brings these types of amendments to the full board. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i didn't realize it's been that long, 1998, my goodness. just a couple things i want to discuss about this plan. one, it is the parcel that was put aside for or possibly a public [inaudible]. i know as the school board member, we had discussed and we brought it up -- in fact, when i first got in as school board member, the school district didn't even know about the parcel. what we realized was that the footprint of that particular parcel was going to be very small. i don't know where thing are in

terms of -- whether things are finalized totally or whether -- so, the question for me would be whether or not the possibility of expanding the footprint so that you can build a school there rather than squeeze everything into a closet basically for a school. i'm not too sure how to answer these questions, but the other concern i have is around child care, and i'm not real clear any more where that is at, whether or not there is any parcel put aside for child care. i don't know how many of the total 6,000 units will be for family. you're just talking about the affordable housing units, that would be almost nearly 2000 units of affordable housing in which you mention that it's going to be good for families

and seniors [speaker not understood] 1,000 units or families. and, so, this should be at least 1,000 through 1500 kids and which if you divide it up by age, you can have several hundred preschoolers there from 0 to 5. again, they have the impact in our very limited child care slots in san francisco, and i really want us to take that in consideration that, you know, we don't want to have those families -- which, again, with our city's philosophy of transit first, to have to have child care for a 1 year old or two-year old, 2 or 3 miles across town somewhere where it's going to impact those areas where it's very limited in terms of child care slots. so, i really want to get some

sense of where we're going with that because we're going to run into a lot of problems. and i mentioned this more recently when i realized that many of these waterfront development a they're talking about thing, they talk about housing. they're talking about retail. they're talking about a lot of other thing. what they don't talk about is actually providing child caron site and we're going to have so much development down there. i don't know where they think the 0 to five-year olds are going to be. >> supervisor wiener. thank you, mr. president. ~ >> thank you, mr. president. i support this project, very good project, but i will raise the issue that i -- actually raised a few times recently, and we discussed in committee, and that is specifically not just relating to mission bay, but to all the development going along the waterfront area

south of market street. we are not doing what we need to do in terms of investing and transit and making sure we have enough transit capacity to meet the needs of these new neighborhoods we're creating of all the new population and he economic activity that we are going to see ~ in this area of the city. i have the same concern with, frankly, with all the development in upper market street. it's good development, but we're not doing what we need to do to build transit capacity. and one thing that we discussed in committee, which we then got an answer to afterwards, is that for this particular project, i believe there are approximately $21 million in impact fees. and of that 21 million, none of that is for transit impact fees. so, we need to get, i just think, more serious in terms of

supporting the mta and its ability to really dramatically beef up transit service capacity in a lot of the parts of the city, but especially in the areas where we're adding significant new population. we don't have enough light rail vehicle capacity even to meet our current needs. and we're going to be putting so much more population along market street, along the tmen lines, and we're going to, we're going to have a real problem unless we, unless we really expand that capacity. i don't see us doing it right now. all that said, this is a very good project and i support it. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to appreciate both of those points that were brought up, and also to supervisor yee's question. it's certainly a question wet get a lot from our neighborhood, which is what is the development or the timeline for the school. ~ it is a small site and i remember from my time on the board of education it what

determined it could probably only fit a pre-k through 5 because of the footprint. the community had k through 8 or high school, but it looks like that wouldn't fit onto the site. we do have kathleen riley and tiffany here from successor agency to answer questions both on the school and the child care issue. we talk a lot about transit and affordable housing fees, but actually the fee that we never talk about is child care and tax fees. it is the lowest one we often have on a development that is certainly an incredible need in our city. i appreciate supervisor yee bringing up that issue. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. actually, i just wanted to, through the chair, ask a question to supervisor wiener. in the presentation, the findings and benefits, $21 million of one-time development revenue and impact fee, i was curious to know given what you said about fees for mta, do you have a proposal or have you given it some thought, do you have any suggestions?

i'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on that. >> supervisor wiener. >> no, i'm not going to try to -- this is an agreement that's been or development proposal that's been long in the works. i'm not -- i would have gotten involved much sooner had i wanted to make those kinds of changes. but i think that as -- you know, as these projects come to us and they do and we approve them, and we approve them and the planning commission approves them and we approve some, and while that's all happening we need to recommit ourselves to investing in transit and to significantly expend in capacity. it's not about changing this agreement. it's really about actually having that big picture in mind because, you know, once we do this, if we don't have that kind of expansion, everyone all across the city is going to really struggle to even have a train to get on. and, so, we need to fix that.

>> supervisor kim. >> i want to bring up kathrin riley from the successor agency to address some of the feedback and questions from the board. >> i know there are a couple folk that represent this project. if there are any other comments that you would like to make, this would be the time. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm kathrin riley from the office of community investment [speaker not understood]. the project manager for mission bay. specifically in response to the question about child care and the school site, for child care in mission bay, we've been proactive, recognizing it is an important issue for the community. the first affordable housing project, the [speaker not understood] which is a family affordable housing project, first one we did in mission bay. it includes a head start child care program on-site. affordable housing is under construction currently, 150 units again of affordable housing for families. it's going to be targeting the older age group, so, teens would be on-site teen activity

room. there is also two units which are being set aside for in-house child care. ucsf also has a child care center on-site and then also we've been working actively -- one of the big issues with child care and making sure we have adequate outside space. and, so, we've been -- as the new larger projects come in, for example, block 40 has a map actually, if we can do the overhead. block 40, here's block 40 is down south. you have the ballpark to the north, first street, 16th street. so, block 40 is one of the newest -- it's the newest office projects that we just approved the design for as part of the project we set aside for child care and design incorporate the outside space. also a the larger future project comes through, we're

actively working with them to identify locations with the needed outside affordable -- outside space to incorporate the affordable -- those child care. this project in mission bay is also subject to the city's child care [speaker not understood] and portion of that 21 million is going toward -- for the specific projects block 1 would go for child care as well as $172,000 estimated for child care. >> do you know -- can i ask a question? >> yes. actually, supervisor breed is on the roster, but i'll acknowledge you afterwards. supervisor yee. >> thank you, supervisor breed. in regards to the total number of slots that we're talking about, do you know what they are? >> i'm sorry, i don't know at this point. why not. >> it would be good to know because i'm glad that there's consideration for opening up some of the child care centers.

it's going to be a big difference whether it's for 18 or 36, you know. the capacity will determine how many people will be either working or living there. >> i'm sorry, was that a question to -- >> i asked the question, did she know how many slots we're talking about. she said no. i think you understand that -- >> yeah, i don't know the exact number. going forward we're hoping to increase t. what i can say is we're committed to pushing the developers for these large -- mainly the office because those are the ones that have the most opportunity for the outside space, to incorporate this in their designs going forward. because if you don't design for it up front, it's very hard to retro include those in.

they have been exploring the old navy. [speaker not understood], the old navy building which has one of the first buildings down there that had work -- rfp on the street to try to do child caron site because they do have some outside space. we're trying to work with the property owners down there to try and identify that outside space necessarily. so, we're not giving up with working with those existing builders, but we definitely know going forward new design is a lot easier to think ahead and incorporate it in. >> thank you. i appreciate your effort. is it possible to get a list of potential sites just so i can share that with that child care community? >> definitely. >> thank you. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i had a few questions. i mean, i had an opportunity to serve on the san francisco redevelopment agency commission. and i remember at that time when we were discussing mission bay and the actual property that was slated for the school board at that time, i recall

the commissioners making it clear that we had an expectation that there would be immediate dialogue with the school district and it was my understanding that that was already taking place, and that was several years ago. so, can you give us a clear understanding of what that conversation is and where you are with the school board as it relates to the proposed site for their use? >> yes. so, it's true -- nice to see you again. we've been working with [speaker not understood] mendoza in the past when she was with the school board. she's in the mayor's office. it's one of these [speaker not understood]. the project has land dedicated. so, the school district would get the land for free. part of the project, one of the community benefits, mission bay project will pay for the playground area. so, basically everything but the building will be covered.

but it still is a significant amount of money for the school district to come up with -- i forget the actual numbers. it's about 30 to $50 million and, so, we've been actively working with them to try and identify those funding sources. one of the good things especially with that 1500 is under construction in addition to the 3500 already completed out there. we have over 350 children primarily younger so it's very close to the community trying to get the school up and running so that we have a place for when those children turn 5 and enter into kindergarten where they can go to a local school. so, we'll continue to work with them. i don't have any more of an update other than a lot of it is just trying to identify funding and having part of the overall city discussion about [speaker not understood] funding for the [speaker not understood] and needs for the city-wide. >> i also thank you for that information. i also wanted to just ask about

the overall plan in terms of what's anticipated, for example, there's a new fire station there. there is a proposed school. i mean, we've actually in essence, we created a whole new community in san francisco and we virtually received the property for i think almost nothing. and there's a lot of money. there is a lot of housing, there's a lot of things being built. and i, too, along with supervisor wiener have concerns about public transportation, especially the p-3 line which will definitely be significantly crowded with several thousand units that once completely operational will definitely have an effect on public transportation. i also have a concern with now adding yet another fire station to the city's general fund responsibility and what that would mean in terms of staff

and new engines and what it takes to make a fire station up and operational. yes, it's great that we're moving in this direction and we're building this incredible community. i mean, just many of those projects i what fortunate enough to have the opportunity to approve and i was just down there over the weekend and amazed at how many buildings have gone up really, really fast. so, i'd like to see this become a great community, but i also would like to see more than of an investment of making sure that a lot of the transportation-related aspects of this project are just really implemented a little bit better than they seem to be. one muni light rail train, i think supervisor wiener may have a better number for me. what is it, 5 million? for one muni light train, to add, and it takes several years for any of those new light trains to be built. so, you know, i just have

concerns about -- i'm not going to delay this project. i do want us to move forward, but i do think the city as a whole needs to just really take a look and reevaluate some of these projects so that we are looking at keeping up with the demands in our public transportation system based on building significant numbers of housing developments which i don't think we had those kinds of discussions in the redevelopment agency. i mean, we did and we had transportation impacts. i don't think we put enough work into developing them better, adding more money to the transportation component because we were -- and i'll tell you from my experience, we were concerned with making sure we create this incredible neighborhood. we build this housing, housing was a big deal, economic opportunities, all of those things and transportation was at the bottom of that list. so, i do think that we need to figure out a balance so that we create this community with the kinds of resources that make it

a thriving community and not necessarily wait until after we build and then we're dealing with the effects of, you know, the success of what we've been able to accomplish with the housing component by not necessarily having appropriate transportation, which means, of course, more cars on the street, so on and so forth. so, i do want us to look at projects in that regard. and i also just had a few questions about the housing part of this project because there were 3,440 units of housing total -- >> constructed. >> excuse me? >> 3,445 units constructed in mission bay to date. >> okay. i'm looking at the resolution -- let me just go to the page because i just want to make

sure i'm clear. can you tell me what the total number of anticipated units will be for mission bay? >> if you approve the plan amendment, it will be 6,350. >> can you tell me where that is in the resolution? because i see -- >> let me grab [speaker not understood]. >> it says up to approximately and it has 3,440 in the resolution -- >> sorry that's for the south. that's correct. total is going to be 6,350. that number is for the southern portion. we have the mission bay north [speaker not understood]. >> i wanted to ask a question about the specifics of what it

means around low, low, and moderate income. and i know there are various median incomes that make that determination. and here, for example, it says 1,100 units of very low-low-income levels. and i just wanted to get a feel for what the moderate income of that particular total is. because it wasn't spelled out and i wanted clarity. >> the mission bay south, all the housing, affordable housing is provided on stand alone sites provided by the seii except for the block 1 which would have up to 15% of inclusionary. so, the block 1 would be allowed to be affordable up to 60% for rental of area median income. so, that would be typically what we consider low-income for our agency ocii projects.

so, the block 1 project, up to about 50 units maximum, they do 100% rental 60% ami. for the rest of our units [speaker not understood], capped at 110%, which would be considered moderate income. we typically build most of our units to 60% and below. so, for example, the current limits under construction, let me pull -- actually, that one has a few units dedicated to formerly homeless up to 20%. the remainder of the units are 50 and 60% ami. so, for the agency we look at moderate up to about 100 to 110%, 60% would be the low, and then the very low is typically 20, below 20%. >> and at one point did the agency change that amount to increase the ami to, i think in some instances, the project

specific or was it overall in terms of the agency? >> let me invite tiffany, executive director at ocii to answer that question. >> thank you, supervisor. tiffany bohey with office of community investment infrastructure. the mission bay owner participation agreements provide those definitions that ms. riley gave to the board. for other development projects and deals, for example, in the hunters point candlestick development, there is a housing ladder that is much broader because it includes both the public housing rebuild under hub sf all the way to working families all the way up to really the 120 to 160, which is not typically built in san francisco, but that was a required subsidy of that particular development. so -- >> and we don't have the flexibility at this point in this project to make those kinds of changes? >> no. as ms. riley describes, on average, 60 and below, but really the reality is because

of the direct access to housing, the lost units that the board recently approved throughout mission bay, transbay, we're able to get that on average at 60 even in mission bay, significantly lower. >> okay, thank you. i thank you for that information. i brought up these points mostly because one of my biggest concerns, of course, is affordability and i do know that we are in this city approving thousands of market rate housing that are not within reach of the average san franciscan, which is a real challenge. and i have some real concerns about how we're continuously moving in this direction and not able to do something like in the case of the bayview hunters point shipyard where

there was a staggered ami ladder that allowed for various mixed income uses within that particular project. and it's not necessarily a perfect solution to dealing with the affordability of housing in san francisco, but i do think that we -- and i know supervisor avalos has brought it up and others on this board in terms of looking at the larger picture of housing in san francisco and how we approach it because from my perspective, i do think that we're doing something wrong when we're continuing to move forward, build, and just change ami and not look at the policy as a whole. so, under the federal policy and the requirement to do this lottery, it's not as if we can basically allow just san franciscans to enter into this lottery because federal dollars provide subsidies and support to these projects. we're not able to basically --

in a lot of instances, you know, provide priorities to groups and we have to be really creative. even when we're providing housing for formerly homeless individuals. and, so, i do think we have to look at a different way of approaching housing, which could hopefully maybe include some changes in federal laws that could allow us more flexibility so that we are doing what we can to house more people in some of these new developments, but also we're not building moderate income housing. we're not building a lot of low-income housing. we're not even building just general middle class housing in this city. we're building market rate, market rate. and if we continue in this direction, i mean, already we are feeling the effects in my community and we just need to be a lot more aggressive about those changes. and i know that this is not necessarily the project to do it, but we do have to take a broader city-wide look at trying to implement some new

changes, trying to deal with these projects, and in some instances, we may need to slow down some of these projects in order to address some of those larger picture issues around affordability as it relates to housing in san francisco. so, i just wanted to make that point about where we are and i just appreciate the fact that this project is moving forward, but most of the folks i know can't necessarily afford to live there. and, you know, that's kind of frustrating even as a member of the board to not, you know, make this property available to people that you know need this kind of housing and deserve to have access to this housing, so, thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. a lot of really great points that were brought up by my colleagues. i really appreciate everything that has been said. and i know that many of our residents appreciate your points as well because this is something that we hear about a lot, both the need for school and child care, the need for

transit, and, of course, the need for affordable housing. and while we can be really proud that our redevelopment area plans require a higher number or percentage of affordable housing units, 30% -- we are definitely not building to the need. we have 8,000 units in construction currently that will be completed over the next two years and not enough of those units are affordable to san francisco residents. and i think that that does deserve a real conversation on this board about what we want to do with future developments. do we want to actually have a real conversation with developers about what they're building in our city. so, i'm really appreciative to that point. i just want to point out that in the most recent bond that was approved by our voters that is put out by san francisco unified school district, there s