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 was $15 million allocated to the build out as a mission bay school, plus that's orctionv ~

only part of the need. ms. riley said we need up to $30 million for the construction. but sfucf has made that commitment. and our office will continue to push and engage several of our budgets recently requested a meeting with our office at usc to get that going. i'm interested in the child care unit as well. if you forward that to supervisor yee, you may want to send that to the entire board. i think those are -- oh, one last point that i'll bring up. this is the only neighborhood in the entire city that has evening parking meters, with the exception of port property. and those fees go up to $7 an hour on friday night. so, i certainly hope that some of those dollars are coming back to the transit needs of mission bay. people have been asking about the 22 coming to mission bay and certainly the t-line is something i think are unanimously from most folks that is not a great line and we

certainly can do more to invest in that. okay, i know there are some members who may want to speak in public comment. so, if there are no public comments, i'd like to move in that direction. thank you. >> okay, thank you. thank you, supervisor kim, and everyone for your comments. and also if there are any presentations to be made, let's go to public comment on this item. ♪ [speaker not understood] across the mission bay bed stay mission bay stay stay because the mission bay night is still ahead your bed may be dirty, but your redevelopment's clean and it's the best city that you've ever seen do-do-do-do

lay redevelopment, lay it on down stay mission bay, stay stay 'cause the night is still ahead and we're gonna look ahead, too ♪ >> next speaker. i'm not quite as entertaining. [speaker not understood] with the san francisco travel association and in my capacity on the hotel council public policy committee here representling the hotel council. good news is when it comes to the hospitality sector we are quickly becoming a victim of our own success. in 2012 san francisco attracted the highest or one of the highest levels of visitors we've ever seen in san francisco. we're seeing all-time spending records and we're experiencing some of the highest occupancy rates. with this success, we're hearing from convention, meeting and leisure clients

that the overall supply of hotel rooms in san francisco is at risk of quickly becoming inadequate. consequently we're at risk of losing business due to this limited supply and this could become exacerbated as we complete the expansion of moscone center. the block one hotel development provides much needed additions to tourist hotel rooms and the capacity of tourist hotel rooms to help us meet this demand and this is particularly important in this neighborhood. it's particularly important because it provides options for travelers who are visiting residents moving into the neighborhood and it provides lodging options for visitors conducting business with the companies we hope that will locate in this area. finally, some community perspective, it will help us spread the value of and benefits of tourism through this new growing neighborhood. for these reasons we support the amendment. >> thank you. next speaker.

supervisors, ian lewis, local 2 service hotel food workers union. i can't believe i'm agreeing with the hotel council. it's a rare day, but this is a project that helps make that happen. yeah, i want to call two things about this project. one, it comes with guarantees that workers get to form a union if they want to, which brings with it real guarantees of living wages, affordable health care, decent retirements without having to fight years and years and years to win them. the developers of this project [speaker not understood] very early on and assured us of that from the outset. secondly, this project comes with affordable housing commitments above and beyond the 30% which is the landmark commitment for the redevelopment area as a whole. it is a real standard, i think, for projects of this sort in the city.

because of those two things, the guarantees that workers get to join a union and that affordable housing, it is real for workers in our hospitality industry, an industry where in the last five years over a thousand families have been squeezed out of our city because of rising rents. those are real meaningful guarantees that the people who worked to sustain our cities, number one, private sector industry, can get to go on living here and being a meaningful part of the city's society and politics. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm [speaker not understood] chair of the mission bay citizens advisory committee. you all are echoing the subjects that are of main importance to the cac. first of all, we do support the amendment of the redevelopment plan. the mixed use development,

block 1. i ask for any reference to 1000 channel street be stricken because that's what planning department showed it as and that is an incorrect address. it's actually the 100 block of channel street. i do want to mention that we're working with supervisor kim to learn more about the school. we hope to get a meeting going in the next couple of weeks to pursue that and hopefully get it built. we have a lot of small children living in mission bay, and i don't want to see their parents have to leave when it comes time for them to go to school. day care is always a huge issue for the cac. every time a development is proposed, we try and figure out a way to include day care. the tough thing is the outdoor play space, you can't cross the street to get to. so, all of these things make it

a little more complicated. yes, we have metered parking in the evenings, but we also have at&t parka round the corner. and transit, supervisor wiener, thank you. we've been trying to get the 22 there since before mission bay started. we'd love to get the e-line with direct service to fisherman's wharf. we're desperate to get better transportation in mission bay south bids out and we're hoping that the mta's waterfront transportation assessment will help us evaluate what the need is [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisors, michael [speaker not understood], san francisco better infrastructure trades council. i do appreciate the concerns of the broader mission bay plan, but the immediate concern of this hearing is block 1 and stratus project on block 1.

in that regard, i have heard from other hotel developers completely independent of strata and this project that it's difficult to make a hotel project pencil out in san francisco right now. that's having a residential component is one of the things that makes it pencil out. to that end if you want a hotel in the mission bay project area, [speaker not understood] combined residential seems to be the way to go. but with regard to the broader plan, we ourselves have had an agreement in place since 1993, renewed in 2003 with regard to mission bay. that is not a per agreement. we had our druthers, we would improve on it. however, if it has functions basically in a very helpful way to us, and i think also mission bay plan was arrived at years ago. functions basically in a very helpful way to the city. that's not to say that [speaker not understood] should not be available to you some point in the future, but i ask you to bear that in mind as we go forward. thank you. >> next speaker.

mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen, when all is said and done, i have not heard for one moment seniors and seniors with disability mentioned in this room. my question to them [speaker not understood], what has happened? are they inclusive in the proposal or are they not? [speaker not understood]. seniors are being left out.

let us not forget, mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, that seniors when they were able to work, they made their valuable contribution to the he economics of this country ~. the more i see, the more i learn. they are not inclusive enough situation that there is a benefit. [speaker not understood]. don't wait till election time comes [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] now so they will see that you will be worthy of their vote. thank you.

>> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors, and happy [speaker not understood] week also. i'd like to say thank you for the different issues that was brought up because they need to be brought up because it's just common sense politics, i think, very much common sense. if you want to add a bunch of people, work on transit. worry about the child care, because i'm a very big supporter of open space, especially in my neighborhood. build, build, build, but no parks, nowhere to sit. so, really remember that because we need some open space. the kid need somewhere to play. you know, next we're going to build further out into the bay, i don't know what's going to happen. i don't know what was brought up, you know, even before the mission bay thing. but the thing is remember the children. they need somewhere to play. adults need somewhere to sit. the t-line as slow as it is

anyway, so [speaker not understood] make it slower. just use common sense politics when you vote on this. thank you. >> all right. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in this hearing? okay, colleagues, any final comments or questions to any of the parties? all right. at this time this hearing has been held and filed. [gavel] >> item 33 is in the hands of the board. colleagues, can we take a roll call vote on this item? >> on item 43, supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this ordinance is passed on

first reading. [gavel] >> colleagues, why don't we go back to our first 3:00 p.m. special order, i'd like to invite back up the representative from dpw. >> thank you. we had an opportunity to meet with property owners who came and requested [speaker not understood]. we are striking from the record five properties from the list. i will read them off to you. 1750 la salle avenue. 29 53 22nd street. 285 st. charles avenue. 1380 newcomb avenue. and 28 45 cesar chavez. we'll be meeting with the property owners in regards to their concerns and to address them properly. >> thank you. colleagues, any final questions

to dpw or any other members of the public that wish to speak with regards to this hearing? okay. at this time without objection, this hearing has been held and filed. [gavel] >> and with regards to item 41, first of all let the record reflect that without objection, the underlying report of assessment costs will be amendeds as our dpw staff has just recommended. colleagues, can we take this resolution and pass it unanimously same house same call? without objection, this resolution is adoptsed with the underlying report as amended. [gavel] >> and at this time why don't we go to item 31 -- i'm sorry, item 34, madam clerk. is it fair to say this item was not called out of committee? >> this item was considered at land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting on monday, june 24th and was not forwarded to the board as a committee report. it will be heard at the july 9th meeting. >> thank you. so, this item is not in front of us at this time. why don't we go now to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor yee, you're first in roll ca f