restored. this is another view of the buildings building 12 is right there in the center. this is standing right on 22nd street and looking at the pier 70. those challenges include the buildings the height of the story building the height and the cost of the building in the historic district and the environmental clean up as well as the impact fees. following those elastic and the ordinance given staff the ability to moved on this. we went back to the community to apprise them regarding the proposal. we found the two objectives

which is to develop affordable housing open the site and use the fundraising for that to help with pier 70 pr since then, the port and office staff have been moving forward with the direction in the legislation. i'm going to briefly go into the proposed terms of the mo u. it's for 3 year period with 12-month extension. the 12-month expectation is subject to the approval of the director for the port as well as the director for the housing office. the lease structure is for 75 years. on the condition that we will be

ref job tax credits. the mo u equally include the developer will be paying for the cost of the development so it covers construction and predevelopment and financing for the affordable housing. however, the port would be paying for the parking garage component as the parking garage is supposed to get done. the project approval itself the terms of the mo u the project itself is subject to public review and clearance and super clearance. prior to designating is the process to the housing office so on the port being the lead in issuing the rfp the mayor's office of housing will be

issuing the rfp for following the stand out on the customary process for slektd a nonprofit developer to do a affordable housing project. an affordable housing promise is rather complex because in order to make those units affordable they require a lot of layering of funds it's specialized and one of the reasons we let the housing office take the lead in selecting the rfp and determining the type of housing to be built. other terms of the mo u is a provision whereby the current housing of this mandate is to maintain the affordable housing stock for the city so when they spend a lot of resources and one

has to remain as part of it. so we anticipate the trust restriction that was lift for the affordable housing what will happen so we talked through this we will look at a strategy that will allow us to help them with the mandate may include going back to the legislation but we'll look at a way to address the issue. we, huh? we went back to the community and tell them all the steps and addressed most of their concerns so being inclusive and terms we have no control over those will be addressed during the design

phase of the project marriage will the parking garage be on the ground floor or if it's not good for the port we may not be able to do that and the developer has to do the analysis to make a decision with that. so to be responsive to the community we're going to select a working group to assist with the review and we went further to say we will allow a member from the community to be a working member that will help select the developer. this is part of the customary thing that the mayor's office of housing will find true we made an extra effort to address the effort in the mo u.

you approve this mo u the next step the mayor's office of housing will start on the rfp process and they will go back to communities and hold meetings to apprise them of the step in the mo u and, of course, they have to look for funding for this promise. starting you tell but finding of the fund for the development fund for the nonprofit developers to start progressing processing and analysis will be built on the site. of course, during the - he will use the agreement as an equivalent it will lay out the rules of the developer and the

other things requested of the developer and go through the process to get the sequa clears up and it will provide the opportunity for making sure the issuance of the project is addressed. and at the end we will come back to the to present to you the proposed project and the lease that goes with it for your approval. housing of the staff is here to respond to our questions. i believe my colleagues to help address any of your questions. thank you >> thank you. so - >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. we have public

comment first bob herrera. >> president and commissioners appreciate thank you for the opportunity to be here today. and my name is bob i'm president of the barbary coast association and speaking only today for the barbary coast association also known as as the b c n a we're one of 4 neighborhood groups that have sent a joint letter to the commission expressing our disappointment. we have endeavored to work constructively with the staff to provide input on the proposed project. when the staff nuntd either last summer or fall i considered in august they were serious in moving ahead we requested a

hearing with the public and with the community so the community could be apprised of the plans and what was then in store as far as what was boys and girls club being annoyed at that time. the b c n and we partnering with the telegraph folks at the meeting the agency staff was there to explain the status of the project and the public was able to provide input. if working with telephone graph hill and others we've analyzed the comments we've heard at the meeting and we've developed a list of concerns that were communicated to the stafdz and we fooevenl documented those comments to the two agrees that letter i know has been provided to you as of yesterday and we

assumed that is part of the record. if it is not then i have an extra copy i can hand in. in smufrm you, you know, the result is we have an n o u that didn't reflect this input over the last 6 months. in fact, it doesn't look much different than what was envisioned 6 months ago and because of that we respectfully request the commission not approve this mo u. thank you >> thank you. next speaker lee. >> president kate's and commissioners thank you for the opportunity. i'm lee radner friends of golden gate way we support what the

gentleman said about the march 10 letter concerning the enemy. i'd like to go one step further and ask you to table the mo u. i ask that you table it as once again we're enforcing a plan for overall waterfront development. but spot developing on one parcel. i might add in history doing this kind of spot developing has not been very successful on seawall lots. at this point, i'd like to change gears and thank diane for doing a fine report on the development of the waterfront. it seems like she's possibly been reading the community

vision for san francisco's northeast waterfront that we proposed back on november 13th once again to the port commissioners which was developed by agent design group for many community organizations. the a n d provisions plan is a serious in-depth effort to provide the corridor with revenue benefits to the port and many benefits to not only the embarcadero neighborhoods with you opens the waterfront to the entire city that doesn't know it exist. it helps with the needed income and maintenance open space, housing and transportation, parking, recreation and visitor designations within the height illicit's. it will enhance the visitors experience to the waterfront and

compliments the west side to the bay side. i once again urge the commissioners and staff with the help of possibly diane we can sit down with her group to make a serious effort to work with the community and acres and this opportunity to enhance our prized waterfront. we're all industries in this effort. thank you >> thank you. next speaker corrin woods. >> good evening corrin woods member of the central waterfront viruses group i'm here for the prospective to ask you to move forward with this mo u. i know how difficult it is to

put affordable housing forgot e together and i know how really critical this is as another piece of the puzzle to fund pier 70. and i'm sorry that apparently the northeast neighbors want affordable housing in their area it's a trims opportunity for the community to address the housing balance and to bring much needed housing to the port and i urge you to move forward >> thank you. next speaker peter cowen and >> good afternoon peter cowen with the housing organizations. i should just if the i'm here to

support the mo u. i'm not sure what the problem is about affordable housing if you look around the city developments by the affordable housing providers are some of the most attractive in the city and under an incredible amount of security many. it's for the entitlement process and, have as many meetings as you want i would love to see developers go through the ground. there's no request you're talking about the best projects in the city and those are families being serviced and youth and citizens who can't live in san francisco but for the kind of work on those sight. i'm not sure what the problem is if the folks are unwelcome in the city but those are standard things that go through any kind of entitlement process.

i also want to point out with the back story i read the staff report this is my understanding of the land transfer that is exchanged to support pier 70 pr we imported that proposal but the jobs housing limitation fee is a funding source for affordable housing we use through the city. the port said they want to have an exception in this is working well, for pier 70 they need that kind of transfer for funds but you get a site for affordable housing. it's a real win but doesn't come easily to exchange fund for land. this isn't just a little old thing it's a great project and i

hope you support that thank you >> thank you. any other public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners >> i think the last speaker probably did summarized the presentation and i know the focus today is not all the issues about the project itself but about the process and how boring 80 we're going to work with the mayor's office of housing. and i do believe that the last speaker just valeted there will be vigorous process with the input from the contingent with the concerns about what should be in the project itself. we're not agreeing to the terms of the project but to the process of how it's going to proceed i'll support of the mo u

it's a process of how to proceed and that's to be determined and to be presented after going through a religious process with the agencies in the city to be lead by the mayor's office of housing well >> i think it should be treated like any project in the city i'm all in favor of the housing. i'm concerned have we done the outreach that we really need to do like on other projects. so i'm a little not sure whether the mayor's office of housing has done that or not. i think all the stakeholders should be brought to a table whatever table and thrush this

stuff out >> john can you perhaps address commissioner murphy's what kind of outreach was done. >> thank you, president kate's and commissioner murphy. i thought i would stand up here in advance of the friends from the housing officer it's on a port process to reach an mo u it's a process document so i building going back to 2011 we've set the framework to begin a partnership with the mayor's office of housing to allow the hard work of an entitlement process for affordable housing to take place in the future. that's my view in 2011, we went to the eastern waterfront villagers e viruses groupings

group and i personally met with the board and other groups to before it went to the board of supervisors. mr. herrera is correct after working in the mayor's office of housing we met with the new folks several times. we fwlald participated and presented at the meeting the b c n a called jointly to address the project and we met individually with representatives of those groups and thought that was a good basis of coming up with an agreement of again, a process document. that being said i was part of the guidance from those groups and was about 3 pages long i read and came back with 3 bullets we know why their of concern and specifically those

ones about the final project mr. about underground parking and are definitely subjects of the entitlement process of any project let alone affordable housing project. i'll defer to my colleagues to the housing process and 32 had you they run their rfp process. we have a specific way of doing that and they have experience so they can talk about that going forward >> thank you. >> i actually one more comment when we go through the entitlement process and the question of avenue, i understand the linoleums to pier 70 but in terms of how the ports overall strategy for that neighborhood so i'm assuming that does get

addressed even though it's not addressed in this document. i think this is important. aside from its value >> i'd like to asking add the waterfront magnificent and use of this site the northeast embarcadero study the policy document that the planning did in 2008, 9 and 10 it has a lot of uses. since then we've golden gone to the state legislature and the new uses has helped to slold if

i >> right away we're getting 6 thousands of income from that parking, you know, singularly n.w. when this is built and how does the port gain. >> a that's a excellent question we have to meet citywide goals and the harbor fund so this project financially benefits the port theoretically in two ways. the first is the one that the gentleman went over to try to housing credits that can be used for pier 70 and that's a major policy goal that the commission has given us and that's shown in the estimated in the staff report that's about 7 to $8 million and again, if it can

be designed to do this continued public parking on the site there's one hundred and 45 striped spaces we don't know but to get a hundred sprapd spaces in the long run that should be a significant factor >> so that will be underground. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president brandon. >> commissioner president ho and commissioner murphy has asked a lot of questions. for me it's a little bit backwards we're issuing our own rfp by 0 now it seems like we're

giving a blank slate to the housing development corporation or office we don't know the details of the project. i know there is a 3 year mo u and come back once benchmarks are met do we know the beneficiaries or the process lettuce know what's going on with the project to get more public input and as commissioner murphy noted the revenue we're losing how and will that be reinstated through this project this is >> thank you this is starting with the project itself in the staff report we indicated that this is going to be a misuse project we've got affordable housing with x number of units on the second level and above

and the ground floor you're going to have retail and parking and other things but chooits chastises not known is the type of affordable housing is it for evens or protecting seniors we don't know that they will have to flush that out. in terms of the benchmarks. ones we're accrued the mo u they have to find the funding they have to go before citywide loan to start working on the promise and that process has it's on vesting process they have to go through to see it if it makes sense before they do the excuse

me. africa's in issuing the rfp they want to go back to the community of stakeholders to say okay. here's the rfp and this is what's going on so they have an opportunity to comment on the issues so the developer coming in knows the various issues to address. that's one major milestone to make sure that everybody agrees on the development and developer coming in so that developer knows what their paying. once that is done then the selection of the developer the housing office will go through that and we'll be working with them to make that happen. normally before a developer is selected maybe 234r tolerated the rfp the community will know the issues and say who is the

best group to do this project. that is where the community is empowered. the housing office will tell you which developer we'll come back to you to apprise you what developer we recommended and what the next step will be and once a developer comes on board we'll work through the process they've design it and the promise will look at different options and if parking is underground or above ground we'll review a at the same time we'll see whether the parking garage is visible or not. at this point we'll come back to the commission to apprise you thought plan. so there's a lot of opportunity

for the community and the commissions and the community member to see what's going on with the project. so in the times of timeline the housing office as expensive pipeline they took over the a lot of the affordable housing project the short is they hope they'll issue the rfp within a year for approval. once they issue the rfp it will take 2 years for the entire process because of the extensive process as you all know it's resourcefully up to two years to get a project up. that's the timeline. >> okay. so i guess what i want. what i - when i first heard about this project to make sure

that there was some kind of the port to recoup it's revenue and being to participate in the revenue participation of the project. i'm not hearing it sound like it's up to the developer if we are going to participate or not >> let me address that. unusually when you own a property you sell it you get your money and you're done but getting the fair market value of the prompt so getting the revenue from the parking is additional. wait a minute you're making you will say pay for this you have to pay something for the parking we may have 80 consider the land value to the parking to be