continual waterways use for was what he are commentating to today instead of this space obeying being affordable. >> they've make a market rate. >> the lda had a requirement we gave the developer a discount to provide space in the paramount to c h s. >> yes. >> and c h s it was very specific you get the million dollar discount and there was an amendment and you provide the long term space but basically, their lease to c h s fulfilled that requirement we have no other authority other than commentating to changes to the lease between related and c h s and so what we're doing here today is because c h it didn't

want all the space no more we're saying we'll content only if we get the money back from the developer they got the discount for the nonprofit space we want it back and i think commissioner mondejar said it the idea of office space and the need for affordability right now is something that's on my mind at least when looking at this definitely the other commissioners. >> commissioner mondejar i was asking a point of clarification who are the original our of the nonprofit idea. >> yeah. >> so if it's the agency i understand i mean, if the agency is the promoterer of the nonprofit space is it consistent

to actually content to revert to market or commercial space is is that it. >> yes. >> i don't know the answer to that question. it was a while ago it was before me i don't know the answer to that the staff that was involved overwhelming are not here no more. i know it was no the in the original lda and done when in time space was at the premium in the city so i don't know exactly but like i said, the agreement did not does not provide for the ongoing oversight of the tendency in the space whether that's a drafting error but it didn't allow for the ongoing

oversight and also i think we were feeling again looking at it through the dissolution less than - lens unless specificly called for we weren't going to get involved in the project >> sorry. >> i presume my follow-up question is the developer wants it to market it as commercial space i presume. >> oh. >> for another nonprofit. >> it's possible i'm not speaking well, i'll separate p that i've been in the space it's not a great space but really the

driver is the historical society and i don't think related, you know, they've been it's not like their itching to rent it to twitter that that's not in the street and kind of back that's why it kind of - at least in the original plan it mitigate make sense for back office space by it didn't workout that way. >> commissioner. >> before we vote on this i want more background on the amendment and what kind of the process was because if one amendment was made other one can be made i want to to make sure we're exploring our options. >> commissioner mondejar one

second and commissioner ellington there's one, two ways to get to that it's an action item i think other than that postponing it so commissioner mondejar. >> understand that c h s wants to get out of this but at the same time the space can revert back to the developer indeed they'll pay a couple of million dollars to dhs and not affordable so they'll have the potential of profiting from this so i, you know, i'm following up from commissioner ellington's question and comments that i'm not sure you've gone through a lot of potential destructions of

how to go along with this you i feel like because of the affordability of the space and create for that that we should continue and continue with commissioner ellington's suggestion of looking into potential solutions this is the first time this is brought up. >> we can definitely look at that. and see if there's anything in the agreement that might louse allow us to do that but like i said, i think if islam i'm hearing i correctly by putting a further restriction on was nonprofit space i will just i will have to look at that to see if we can look at that asia

enforceable obligation under the dissolution law >> i'll add further to commissioner mondejar's suggestion we're looking at negotiations they don't have one outcome we're hearing one outcome that doesn't necessarily meet the goals for the affordable space affordability for commercial space not for residents so the result of the current negotiations has met our objectives as an agency that's what we're hearing. that's its not up to you as improving land use authority i think i don't necessarily know

we're knifer of the current negotiations with the developer >> i meant only that we're in the restrictive role of implementing our obligation as opposed to changing them i have to go back and look at the lack in the lda to see if we can do what you're suggesting under the dissolution law. >> can i suggest oath suggestion (laughter) perhaps rather than imposing our will has anyone asked the developer to be open to another nonprofit use if we grant consent. >> we put another nonprofit they'll give us the 2.2 millions

- >> we quota to one end of the path but that's not the end there are other ways to getting something more in line of our objectives. >> right. >> so i'm suggesting rather than imposition another way. >> commissioner. >> who's the developer so i would like to ask c h s is this a major imposition and also is there a financial implication. >> you know where we're going with that. >> we've been in talks for approximately 5 years on this subject. i don't believe with with all respect everything is a

wonderful i don't believe there's any resolution that will yield another nonprofit use of the space speaker from our that, of course, prospective we have a lease agreement between the california historical society and the affiliated copies. the way we read the amendment and i'm not an attorney but the way we read is your consent shouldn't be unreasonablely withheld we've been in negotiation with the successor to the company with 5 years to get to the point i'm standing here today. it effects our budget and we've been monitoring the situation for 5 years once we made a

decision to amend the lease it's critically important to the soft advance of our organization we're a hundred and 23-year-old we've provide important community benefits through our collections and through the events we're a statewide organization and managed out of our small facility adjacent to this prompt it's critical important we be allowed to move forward i urge you not to withhold your consent to the lease agreement. the discussion as tracey reynolds said with respect to the agreements we can't open any of that up those are in the past i don't believe there are options. as well meaning as those might be let me assure you the

california society will be a statewide nonprofit and continue to operate out of our facility for the foreseeable future and do important work. the funds that are deprived from the lease amendment will help to do our mission it's important and i urge you to take a positive action today >> okay. i understand that. the unreasonable consent is real technical terminology that doesn't apply here. i think i've read the agreements that's not in there and it's unreasonable we heard about this 3 days ago. the commissioner has left the room i think he'll be back in a

moment >> i'll entertain a motion to continue. >> yeah. i mean commissioner. >> you can continue to the to the call of the chair. >> it are strikes me that related is one of our partners with this transaction. >> through the chair commissioners ms. reynolds described and tried to articulate post dissolution the authority of the commission and staff is limited this is a consent item we believe within the four corners of the consent not to be unreasonably withhold he was articulate and this is one of the last few projects that got catch up in dissolution

we've been talking with the historical society for 2 years it took one year to get the commission formed they were patient perhaps resulted in with many of our nonprofit partners were. and have been working in eternity with us and san francisco transportation authority finance committee with myself and certainly with supervisor kim they provide important benefits to community and i recognize this is happening today but they've been eternity and asking in good faith for many, many years over 5 years. i'll say in order to change or amend agreements as ms. reynolds talked about you're asking for the an amendment to an existing obligation we know the central

standard time standard is extremely high it must benefit the tax amenities the standard is high we know the reason action you took to amend did mission bay documents the state as pulled their approval but we sometimes forget we've been able to amend projects but it's not the norm but the expectation to the rule that everyone in the state looks like the standards for review. so it is important we're mindful of that. and but i still think there are unfortunately, it's hard to get a read out but hearing the outcome it becomes the what we're trying to consent to today

it doesn't strike me as plausible there's no outcome that doesn't have some benefit for the tax amenities and still allows for nonprofit us use of this space and not something on the open market. i maybe a couple of conversations we need to have to get the understanding i don't feel like the commissioners feel we're in the process before a couple of days in between before today. so i understand we don't want to inreasonably withhold consent but this is an outcome that's inconventional even within the reduced role of land use authority. with that, we'll definitely continue that item we'll not be voting no on consent and have it

on our next meeting. i think the two conversations will be good >> do we need a vote on that. >> no? >> i'd like to continue this item to our next meeting in may. slept arrest madam secretary call the next item >> the next items on agenda items 5 f through j which will be called together with a simple staff presentation presentation it will include 5 k through 57 o. public hearing for changed procedures recommending to the city and county of san francisco community district 67. hunters point shipyard improvements and hunters point item 5 g adapting a resolution

calling a special resolution to amend the restated awe apportionment of the city and county of san francisco community district 7. hunters point shipyard phase one project for the resolution 35, 2014. item 5 h adapting a resolution declaring the results to change the special tax in the city and county of san francisco community facilities district 7 hunters point phase one improvements hunters point shipyard redevelopment project 2014 arrest item 5 i adapting a resolution for the proceedings for resentment agency for the city and county of san francisco district 7 hunters point phase one improvement and hunters point shipyard project resolution 2014 and item 5 j to

adapt the ordinance levying taxation within the city and county of san francisco community facilities district 7 hunters point improvements and resending ordinance number 12008 hunters point shipyard project ordinance 1, 2014 >> madam director. >> madam president i voted yes. >> we continue the item we didn't take a vote we - >> ma'am, boo he. >> thank you pardon me commissioners, thank you to the members of the public i appreciated our continuing to stick around for this item as you heard those ten items the public hearings the resolution and the ordinances those are implementing actions under the terms of the f d da and is

financing related actions you've taken a number of steps related to cf g 7 and open park maintenance and those are important implementing steps related to that and time is of the essence the letter of credit expires in september and those are a series of steps along with other items the oversight board take into account the dennis pulled the approval the bond issue especially and it was pulled for review it's a 60 day review but nonetheless it's important to get through on the subject commission reviews those next 10 related items so with that, i'd like to ask the

hunters point shipyard project manager to present this item we have under writing team present and available as well as the staff to answer any questions you the public may have. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the hunters point shipyard. today, the commission is considering 8 actions to the facilities district 7 and 8 cf ds including holding elections of the shipyard and conducting the reading to cover taxed. it will cover the shipyard and taxes >> items 5 f through g j it is related to the public hearing

under which the commission will hear any hearing the reapportion and g and h are the elections after the election it will conclude the presentation to the commission on april 1st. and item j will be the final act it is the levy special taxes. items 5 k through o are the same actions but it will venezuela have an effect under that f d. those actions are in phase one of the shipyard project it will be developed under two phases 3 were excused in 2003 and 10. those cover the same geological

boundary those are $35 million in bonds to pay for streets and parks for phase one of the shipyard and in 2008, that was amended to update the documents to reflect the program at the time and increase the bonding. also in 2008, a cf d was formed. on april 1st and 15 of the this year, the commission approved the reflection of the affordable housing and the affordable housing block in the project and to adjust the taxes for an overlay amount of taxes that was authorized to assist staff in the refinancing process and select an underwriter and escrow you purchase agreement and

lastly the commission authorized the $40 million in a bond issuance they must be paragraphed by the oversight broadway board so they gave their approval. in addition to the r m a changes on april 1st the futuristic adjustments are noted to the parks are exempt and the second to administratively change the affordable housing parcels in phase one in the effect or event they wish to make changes in the future. the oversight board approved several changes in the month of april and today we'll they'll hold an election i've described earnestly. following today's reading it will also follow on may 20th and

in july we'll follow that to call up a line of credit a to issue the bonds. this concludes the staff part of the presentation we'll go to the election >> thank you very much we're going to move on to the public hearing we'll start with any public comment if there's any on changing procedures cf d number 57 questions or comments protests from anyone. >> there are no written protests madam chair. members of the public i'm looking for the speaker cards i have to speaker cards dr. espanola jackson and corbin woods

>> thank you. what we truly are looking at is i want to advocate that you're not doing a good job but i'm advocating that the community must be involved. must be involved we're the impacted community. we got nothing out of this. we got nothing. and being the impacted community i've listened to everyone that came up here and boy they soft shutd a lot of hard questions in

terms of participation, decisions that be made behind the voucher system and everything it is something that their need to be more sensitivity on the mayor's office of housing, it sound as if you're staff is dictating to you instead of you dictating to your staff i think this is your staff and their dictating to you yes. you listen to them it's all right to listen to them by be wise and smart enough to ask the hard questions and get the right answers instead of it being soft shutd bach balk to you where them they will not

give you a commitment that gives them more power once the project gets implemented because i don't know what they're going to do. i've seen western edition fade-in the 60s and 70s i was living in the western edition i see the same thing happening in bayview hunters point the message is still the same there's no place here for you and you're doing that by limiting them from the process of pitting the business together to participate in the process. making decisions at table is one thing by participate as an active member that's doing some

of the work that's the pony right there. obviously what's going to happen it's already happening the justification is happening in bayview hunters point and it's based on the decisions that are being made right the day or even before the day is coming out of the mayor's office of housing and by you all passing things over to them. they're already made a decision on how they passing out the dollars and projects. thank you >> any public comment on that item? >> there are no speaker cards. >> any questions or comments on this. >> i want to know the

underwriters. >> commissioner singh the bond underwriters is not present we didn't ask them to come because the bond issuance meeting is on the 15th. >> what's the bond. >> we're seeing the market as 5 and a half percentage but we'll know more in july when we had had bond issuance. >> i know that how - >> i'm sorry. >> they lent out the bond. >> 50 years. >> thirty years. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you questions or comments excellent madam secretary what is our next action. chair is the consideration thoughtful on resolution that calls for the