tiffany, my name is doris vincent. i'm lived in bay point for 52 years. homeowner for 43. i appreciate the team that came before you, everything they've told you was presented to us, i appreciate the nakt they listened to the concerns of those of us who sat at the sharet and other meetings and i wish you to approve both 50 resolution -- resolution 2013 and resolution 51, 2013. they've done excellent job listening to community. so let's move this.

>> the next speaker is washington. >> good afternoon. my name is ace washington. and i'm quite sure everybody's really saying what is he going to say now. ladies and gentlemen after years and years of coming to these meetings and video taping the documents, i'm tired. you won't hear much of me complaining anymore because my theory now is it's no mystery. all you got to do is just check the history. that's what part of i'm about now. i'm meeting with city department head, developers overall the city. i'm throwing in the towel. basically what i'm doing is do what i do best is document for generations to come or for even

people that plan to live in places like this. we're in 2013 right now so city and county has over decades done studies on african american nigros and it comes out to negligence and conspiracy. i want to preserve someone for our african communities for whatever is built because i'm convinced the train is moving either i or people who have been coming for 20 years are going to stop anything from san francisco. basically my whole theory is the preservation of the african american nigros black in san francisco. so whoever builds it that we'll be apart of it, however small our population is, so what am i

saying, i'm saying is my blessing of whatever goes on and i'm praying for whatever happen but when i come with my paperwork and bring it to the developers saying this what i want to do and bring it to the younger generations and document i hope i have corporation. we have case and point on this side. ladies and gentlemen i have put together a mechanism to say well, what are you talking about. with technology, push the button. let's see what you're talking about. you have a new theory and a new concept for the ace washington. my name is ace and i'm on this case. so that's all i got to say right now.

>> jackson. >> good afternoon jackson. i see 2 minutes and 30-seconds so i don't have the full 3 minutes. i would like to say with the discussion i've heard so far i'm not here posing -- what he's talking about because i went to the meeting. i want to talk about the fact that i'm

a certificate holder. this is a certificate. and i would like to start being a certificate holder, you talk about affordable housing and i've been saying for the last 15 years, affordable to whom. it's an affordable to the people who live in my community. you should check that mia because of the fact i'm on social security and a lot of us have been here have been. our income is low. we don't make $30,000. i get less than $15,000 a year so how are you going to have housing for those persons that has been there for many years, those who has been moved. i put together a list of the housing and what you need to do. i'm not saying don't pass on what the consultants have done, they

have done a great job, but to staff that the people that live in the area you need to go to south of market, most of those people there was replaced when they start rebuilding and guess what, they're not able to come back. >> on this certificate i have, this is need to be discussioned because it says they're going to be out 2016. and they're saying also that the session 8 vouchures aren't going to be there. so that needs to be a

discussion for those throughout this city. a lot of the people didn't get their certificate. they did not get their certificates because they're supposed to be lost or burned and for all of this madness that is going on, i guess the only way we're going to get justice, maybe we have to go to court again because nothing can be built and i remember meeting with a couple of the commissioners and giving you information about the lawsuit that was filed against the environmental report that was presented and that loss is still in place. the judge has not removed that so nothing can be built at the shipyard, not as of yet. so i hope you take into consideration what i'm saying and redo the mia for the people that actually live in

the community and not going any place. thank you very much. >> dr. veronica. >> yes, good afternoon chair johnson and commissioners and executive director tiffany bohe. i'm dr. veronica. on behalf of the cac and i wanted to make sure that this was noted on the record, we urge approval of the combined basic conceptual schematic designs for block 49. as you have heard we had a wonderful [inaudible] in which the community had an opportunity to get input through the design and there were many people from

various areas of the community who came together for the sharet. the event yield good wonderful and positive results which are reflected in the design you're scrutinizing. we're looking forward to the initiation and the completion of this project, this block 49 project. it's a wonderful project and a beautiful project and it will certainly add value to the rest of the development that is going to take place in the shipyard. thank you very much. >> okay. do we have anymore speaker cards. >> no more speaker cards. >> thank you very much. i like to start this discussion with a quick point. on our agenda today we also have a discussion coming up on the replacement housing obligation and

certificate program. any questions that are mostly about how those programs work and what the replacement obligation is, and how the program works and the lottery works, please reserve those for those discussion items. i want to focus on items directly related to the schematic design and the overall design on project 49. i have a number of questions but with that intro i like to start with any other fellow commissioners who have questions about block 49 project. >> yeah. >> thank you chair. i have a couple of clarifying questions but first i want to thank you guys for just the community process that you have displayed. it's great that you're partnering with y cd. i

ask that this process can continue through the entire phase of the project through construction and finally when these units are complete. so thank you for that. my first question is about the -- you mentioned something about the wind, mitigating the wind. can you explain -- maybe someone from the design team can explain what the plan b would be if the impact of when. >> we've done a number of projects, first of all the current circulation is open bridge way. one thing that gives us a greener project in terms of when you close those you have to ventilation which is a burdenen on the development and uses energy. we've done a number of these projects with the open

circulation. we personally haven't had issues on those projects. if it does become an issue we've talked about introducing a baffles, basically wind screens as part of the railing system so baffle the wind if it does become a problem between the two buildings, but based on previous experience it hasn't been an issue on past projects for us. >> got you. it's a minor fix. >> yeah. >> it's not a change. >> no, it's not a change in the design. >> got you, okay. >> not by any means. >> got. >> that's it for now. the project was pretty straight forward. >> do you have other questions. >> commissioner singh. >> i saw lots of pictures of the children. there's a children's play area. >> yes, sir accident that's our

intention. >> intention of what? >> in the main court yard we would do a creative play what they call in terms of the forms that we're introducing into the landscape, not a true play structure per se. >> how big is the area of that? >> it's -- >> approximately how many feet? >> the main court yard on the upper level would be this large area as you see on the screen here. the overall landscaping, i think square feet is 5,000 square feet in terms of the landscaping on this site. >> it's for the children? >> yeah, partly children, partly some seating for families who might be doing their laundry to watch their children play. >> i'm asking about the open

area? >> the open area for children? >> yeah. >> would be probably -- based on past project, we haven't designed it specifically in terms of 20 by 20. >> how about this room? that's not big enough. >> it's good for this type of project. also we have in the community a pocket park next door as part of open space in terms of the shipyard development as well. >> go ahead. >> i like to mention that block 49 as part of a bigger development and we have a network of small parks in that area and we also have a formal player ground in its court which is basically two blocks

down the street where it will be place structures for kids of different ages. >> how far is it from this area? >> approximately two blocks. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. rosales. >> i have questions and i want to follow the amendments of the dda. i see in the resolution that phase 1 of the dda is the 5th whereas clause in our resolution says that the first phase of the dda which was authorized in december 2013 obligated lanard to construct

infrastructures and 5 percent is affordable, do you see what i'm talking about? >> yes. >> when e deal was struck, the affordable housing obligation was inclusion natury. >> it provides 15 percent of all units that are available at an affordable level of 50 percent or 80 percent of bmi. they're going to be included in the market rate. >> inclusion natury for sale and requirements for sale housing. >> through each one -- okay. ary for sale and requirements for sale housing. >> through each one -- okay. >> it provided 15 percent

affordable units hasn't changed. what the 6th amendment did was allow for the 50 percent mia units be located on block 49 and not inclusionary in the market rate development but the overall unit count hasn't changed. >> is there a reason why we're taking or -- >> yeah. i'll answer that question. commissioners, rosales part of the reasoning had to do with the construction schedule and the way in which we would get the affordable units as the phase 1 project was built out. there were a number of reasons but one the main ones is we would get the units sooner if we place them all on one block. >> in addition the developer, there are certain issues to have affordable units, the

financing comes easier to group them together. but the moderate income or work force housing units are still inclusionary throughout the project. >> and sales for rent? >> yes. >> i wanted to make that clarification and make sure i was understanding what was in front of us. thank you. >> okay. so thank you everyone. we're not done yet if anyone has questions raise your hand but i have a few to go through. so i'll start with the resolution itself and that first item on having any potential sort of issues of quality of life or discomfort by the residential design team. the way we're operating is once it's completed it will be transferred to moh. who are

the resident supposed to go to if they are -- they have building management, i guess, but who is the building management supposed to go to get an amended design through. is that moh planning department. how will that work this work? >> they'll go to the building management and building management will go to the office of commission infra stuk structure and we'll work with mow. mow would be the probably owning the property at that point in time because we have to transfer all of the affordable housing sites to moe upon completion, so it would have to be both agencies working together. >> my question is further to that is what i thought, moh is

part of the mayor's office, right. and so do they have a separate process for amending their designs and implementing that development than we do so we know the successor a we're pretty independent in approving designs and approval development agreement and contractors, and the mayor's office works through the housing development to get things done, so my question is, is that true and i sort of question the ability of that part of the resolution to really be affective. i would kind of think why don't we just evaluate right now that design would have any quality of life issues and if they do fix it

now rather than waiting to have the building management who will have to go to moh and go through the city to implement anything? >> so we have discussions with the design team on this and kevin's point is i believe there won't be issues concerning quality of life, discomfort of the resident, however we felt since there wasn't a full study conducted, we want to have the possibility to still require minor adjustments should that be the case. so if you ask the design team at the moment they will say that there are no concerns anticipated based on their experience with similar developments. >> okay. and i hate to be labor this point. i'm very

cranky about having resolutions that make sense and are enforceable so if the project transfers to the mayor's office of housing, we can't impose a further requirement that the architectural designers do, can we? if a project is built and people lives there, which means that hoh is the city project owner, can we actually enforce through this resolution the architect adjusting their design implementing a new design development because the resident are unhappy. do you know what i'm saying? i'm sure if that were the case and building management went to moh and said this is terrible, they can do something anyway but i'm not sure that element of the resolution impacts that ability for moh to change a finished

project. >> regardless of who owns the property or the improvements built on the project, so this 60 housing development, the design is still in affect and any conditions that are imposed pursuant to those transaction documented and land use documents so for the commission to determine a condition of approval, the fee owner will have to coordinate with our staff and if it requires changes if it's substantially different than the schematic design you approve which i think is one of commissioner ellington's question, there's some body of jurisdiction over the shipyard and affect some affect if that changes.

>> i guess i bring it up because this seems like the type of thing that would come up in other resolutions for the project and that's why i want to deal with how we think about these things, like having outstanding issues that will approve a design and the reason i have an issue with this is that i think it sets up a gray sort of circle because the project is finished and the building goes to moh and it's super windy and i'm bringing groceries home and my eggs are flying overall the place and moh is overwhelmed, i don't think this agency can do anything about that. yes we have land use authority in the ground lease but we don't own the project. do you know what i'm saying? i feel like i have an issue with having wording like that in a resolution that sets us up to be in a position

where we can't help or do anything. does that make sense? >> can we take it out. >> i say take it out. >> do we have an mou with mayor's office of housing. >> we do not. it's in progress and it will be the subject of consideration at a future commissioner's meeting. >> i mean, i guess. if mou says here's how we will work to transfer properties and here's how we will work on development with moh, but it doesn't say what happens when moh owns the property which is happening with law and state. i guess what i'm saying is i would actually say strike that piece in of the resolution. if there is a resolution, the building can go to moh and work with them like they would with any other project to make it better

for resident. >> i'm sorry. hello. >> developer, madam chair. i appreciate the comment. i don't want to speak to your concern about the precedence and the resolution itself, but given the extent of the discussion, i didn't want to go without saying as owner and operator, regardless of the resolution and moh or ocii, we would want to correct the situation regardless of oversight or whatever is in the resolution. we need to make sure we have a high quality of life within the complex and we provide housing for our resident so i would say regardless of the concern you're raising i think it's an issue -- beyond that with regard to the resolution i'll let you work that out but i didn't want to go without saying we will want to correct

this issue regardless of governmental oversight. >> and i appreciate that and my next comment hopefully this won't sound too negative but it's a rental property so if people aren't happy they can move and the next people will move in and they'll live there until it's too windy for them and their eggs are blowing overall the place. it's a little bit of a different circumstance, although i appreciate your stance that you want to have a community where people aren't moving out every six months because it's a horrible place to live, but i don't want to belabor this. my point is -- my suggestion for the resolution is to strike number one from the conditional -- the conditions of the resolution on page three in

case the resident raise concerns, notify icc and the design shall be implemented. either strike it or change ocii to moh. >> for the chair on that point, i think vice chair rosales can pose a question, could this be resolved through the mou and could ocii delegate it and the question is yes. it may not be necessary, certainly you can consider -- it sounds like you have a motion from your colleagues. we can handle this type of concern through the mou. >> great. i haven't seen an mou, but that's what it says. >> question. i understand your sentment. i wouldn't feel comfortable taking this out completely but i like adding the housing successor agency to

the end of -- >> oci and the housing. >> okay. >> we haven't taking a motion. i'll make that a change to the resolution that instead of having the building building operator notify occ, it should be the housing successor agency and we'll have an mou with moh and that will cover the transfer for making this happen. >> really quick because it's going on 3:00. i saw that -- i wrote this question down. so on the parking, what is the decision on the one car share spot? >> the design can jump in.

including a car in new development is a new planning code requirement so we make sure that the design team follows that and they have basically followed the requirement by including one. there will probably be more car share throughout the development, maybe partially on the street or in buildings but for now specifically for block 49 we have this one. >> okay. that was my next question. this is about the car share and the bike parking, i think the bike parking is pretty significant. 60 spots for 60 units but just for people who don't live in the building on street, this is a procedural question, i think dpw handles the parking on the street. >> i believe