upper left there, the tower and the podium and we've done the splits between market rate and below market rate and the green color there where we have 65% and 35% market rate and below market rate which is the redevelopment guidelines, but with the opportunity if with went with 400 foot scheme you can increase those percentages in the tower up to 20% and increase the overall number on the same parcel of land, utilizing it to increase that affordable component. and so again, unfortunately the perspectives are a little squat, but this will show you a few quick slides we did show you the other buildings in the redevelopment and the other buildings across the street there at 350 feet, 400 feet are the existing that carl just mentioned to show the

current building as proposed would fit in exactly with those rotating around. so then we have some of the renderingings. this includes both buildings that are underdesigned or under construction to show you what it might look look as all the parcels are developed this is a 300 foot and you see the 400 foot. we are looking at these slides to analyze the impact on the shadow and neighbors and other parcels an with all the other towers there isn't a difference to go from 400 feet. and thank you very much for having us today and we're here for any other questions. >> thank you. >> now back to the eshgna.

ena. the item you're considering is to negotiate the terms development of the site. of the ocii parcel, which is 14.7 million with a 300 foot tower and 19.2 million with a 400 foot tower. they'd make a $500,000 ena deposit that will be used for

staff and legal costs. it will include 76 units of affordable housing. under the ena $275,000 per unit or up to a total of 21 million for the sale and other sources as nesz. the ena also stipulates that all affordable units will be sold through the equity program in order to ensure that the units will be permanently affordable. as you can see t ocii subsidized units will be priced between 80 and 100% of ami. if these units were sold today the price would be between 212 and $290,000. the developer subsidized units will be priced at 100% of ami. next homeowners association dues. as we all just saw with 181

fremont, market rate hoa dues can have a big impact on lower income households. in order to avoid these impacts both projects would include a separate hoa for the affordable project and the affordable units. the structure is dependent on the california real estate and the budget. regarding the proposed hoa structure but unfortunately bre's approval of the structure doesn't actually take place until much later and during the construction of the building. to safeguard against any problems that may come up, staff will work with a developer during the term of the ena to explore the potential to convert some or all of the units to rental units could it be determined that the proposed hoa structure doesn't work or is not financially feasible.

the developer's proposing to provide parking for the ocii on affordable project at a ratio 0.25 parking spaces per unit, which is consistent with ocii affordable units like transbay. for the city's inclusionary housing program parking must be provided at parody with parking for the market rate units which can be parked with one space per residential unit. subsidize at the same 0.25 ratio as the ocii affordable project. the ena does stipulate that parking for the developer subsidized units be provided for the market rate units but allows ocii to consider other approaches such as the provision of a transportation benefit in lou of providing parking parody. for example the developer could fund a reserve to

provide transit passes for units that do not have a parking space. some additional key terms include support and participation in the facilities district and the transit senor community district which are both currently in the formation stage. if either the cfc or cbd did not go into effect the developer is agreed to contribute the am other due under each district. finally, compliance with all of ocii's policies, including the sbe program and insurance requirements. to change the allowed height of the tower from 300 to 400

feet in early 2015. that concludes the presentation. staff as well as representatives from the development team are available to answer any of your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we have any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards. >> no speaker cards. any member of the public like to address the commission on this item? seeing none, commissioners? >> so i have a question just -- i wan to be very clear. the affordable units will be on site so people will be able to actually enjoy the amenities of this building and they'll be no separate elevators for the affordable housing units? everybody's equal, same size units all is -- >> yes, they're all on site on a separate elevators and yes, the units will be comparable

>> that's great to hear. a lot of your folks are from chicago. the architectural firm is in chicago. i mean, are you going to be working with people locally here? >> all of us from are here in san francisco have been -- you know, i've been with the ferm for 17 years in norther california. most of these people have been here 14, 8, 3. you know, we have a long standing tradition of having a team here. we hired studio gang because we think they're outstanding architects. we will use local firms for most of the other consultants. we got an sba -- you want to talk for two seconds about your team and your efforts? >> hello everyone, i'm

working with transbay block one and to specifically answer the question with regards to sbe professional services and the rfq that's going to hit the streets tomorrow, there's an opportunity for an associate architect so that's been very much pulled out in the rfq in the strategy of promoting and having strong san francisco participation is the heart of how the professional service procurement plan has been developed, working closely with george and the development team as well. >> that's great to hear and just by the past work you guys have done, we commend you for being a good partner in san francisco. you know, i've seen the design of the building in chicago and have always been fascinated with that building and i just want to tell you, i love this design. it really stands outd. out.

to me, it'll be part of the iconic landscape of san francisco and i want to commend you on that. you know, i would love to continue to work with some of our local folks, that's a big deal, at least for me. again, you heard it, whether it's through art, or through architecture or through even construction workers, to give san francisco citizens an opportunity to help build their city is, like, one of the best gifts you can give this great city is that investment, both in terms of sweat equity and the beauty of the city so i want to thank you for that. i mean, the whole idea of it being a little higher, i think higher in this case is a little bit better because it is such a great design that the more people can see it from wherever they are throughout the bay area the better. i'd like to move this item.

>> before we entertain a second i think commissioner mondajar and i -- no, no. >> i just have a question about hoa. and you had a suggestion here that in order for -- you had a suggestion that all affordable units will have a separate hoa. i like that idea but at the same time i'm just wondering has this ever been done before, a separate hoa for affordables and a separate hoa for market rate. >> i don't know if we were able to find an example of separate hoas for affordable versus market rate, but there are examples of market rate projects that have multiple hoas within them. i think the idea is you would

have a market rate and affordable that are separate, but at the top you'd have a master hoa that would coordinate on issues that affect the entirety of the project. . it's very creative, but is there any experience or history that we can look back? i'm just looking at the competitiveness of what affordables are negotiating versus the market rate and what our homeowners are looking at so i would be interested in looking at what other buildings or organizations have done, but i think this is one innovative way to be able to have the below market homeowners to be able to live in a very beautiful building like what you have. i really love your building. looks look you're flying or you go with the wind. and so this is -- i thought a

very creative solution, but i'm interested in what the history has been or a background has been about that . >> i mean, millennium at 301 mission created three separate hoas for a different level of service for people within the building an the mutual goal between us and ocii is to provide permanently affordable ownership housing. but we want to minimize the dues in the affordable hoa so that they stay affordable long term and we have shown that we can build these projects and do the dues in an affordable level on a stand alone basis. what runs the hoa dues up, quite frankly, is staffing and so we want to be able to have two separate hoas so the market rate, the staffing that goes with the market rate hoa

isn't a burden for the people living in the affordable project. all of the owners will share in all of the physical architecture. it's about the level of service and we think and we're working proactively with both ocii and bureau of real estate to make sure we can do there and there's a provision that if we can't then we'll go to rental houseing, but it's my hope and commitment that we will be able to provide these as affordable long term ownership units and make sure the dues are low enough so they're affordable long term. >> thank you. i really appreciate that. do you live in san francisco or chicago? >> i did recently until my life got fed up with the weather but we lived here in the bay area. we live here in marin. >> because of the weather and

also this innovation an i wish we had the opportunity for this other project two weeks ago, a month ago. but anyway, that's done, that was passed and i wasn't here, but thank you, that was really my only question. just one clarification, all the materials, the units are all the same for affordables and below markets? they're not because of the hoa differences we're not compromising in quality of materials and quality of the units themselves? >> sure, they don't have to be identical, but they have to be comparable in finishes and size and all that. >> thank you. >> we're really commit today making sure that there are lots of two and three bedrooms so designing those appropriately to be long term affordable units in the base of the building makes sense. >> thank you for doing that

because that really addresses the affordability of living in san francisco and also not contributing to the rise of the millionaire residents in san francisco, that in fact there's an opportunity for those who are making so much only to afford to live in a great city so thank you for that. thank you. >> yes, i want -- yes. i'd like to take a couple questions. i want to comment, the design is spectacular. when i saw it reading, when any design jumps out from the paper and you look at it from all the angles and say wow, that looks pretty amazing, i have to congratulate you. you get a visual sense of how this building would fit within the skyline of san francisco.

thank you for that. i have some technical questions and not many. but because i don't know the requirements or regulations of the california bureau of -- and maybe -- bureau of real estate and hoa fees, can someone give me a very short version of why we need to talk -- >> sure, the bureau of real estates is a consumer protection agency that makes sure that when developers sell condominiums, sell ownership units that we set a physical therapy and appropriate budget to make sure that the hoa has appropriate money for operating expenses for clean tg sidewalks and maintaining the elevators and having lights, but also appropriate reserves for long term replacement, for roof replacement, for long term

capital items. so we, working with a consultant l produce a budget and will submitted to bureau of real estate and in sacramento, and they review it to make sure that it is including everything that needs to be included, that we aren't skimping on things that the homeowners will need to pay for long term and that budget is very thorough and goes through a process and is reviewed by the bureau of real estate and when we get our white report to close the units that says that the bre has signed off. we will work proactively with ocii and the bureau of real estate to make sure that that budget is in line with the guidelines which, really quite frankly, are based on what we have just done with the ndc at 1400 mission. but we're highly confident that we can do that and they're really there as a

check against us to make sure we're doing the right thing. >> so it is a regulatory compliance requirement so it's not -- it's a matter -- >> they're there looking out for the best interests of both the market rate and affordable homeowners to make sure the budget is set appropriately and there will be enough funds to address the capital items in the building long term. >> thank you. one question i had and i just want to understand it a little bit more is on the parking. from the presentation, the way you described it and the way i read it, the affordable units are not going to enjoy the same parking privileges as the market rate units. is that correct? >> the units in the ocii of stand alone affordable project the proposal is to have 0.25

spaces per unit so that's consistent for our projects and i think it's to keep the subsidy down for those projects. on the developer subsidized affordable units, the ena reads that that parking is to be provided at parody with market rate units. meaning that if the market rate units have one to one, then the affordable units would have one to one. the developer has request td they be allowed to provide that same 0.25 ratio for their affordable units as are being provided for the ocii affordable units and what the ena says the the transit path was one of them instead of providing parking in parody so i think the ena, again, sets the standard it should be in parody, but we can consider

other options during the ena process if the develop does want to pursue less than parking in parody. it doesn't set in stone, but gives the option for considering other alternatives. >> my concern is, you know, obviously at least from my perspective being a san francisco citizen and native born, in matter how transit first the city is, everyone has a car and if they don't know how to drive they learn how to drive because you need a car in the city and while i understand that this is a transit friendly and easy accessible location, it suggests that the affordable households are ones who may not need to have access to the same parking privileges and conversely, that someone who is buying a market rate unit likes to drive and doesn't instead like to bike or take other forms of transit so i'd like to have more egalitarian

methods, if you will. that might make more economic sense for the affordable households in the developer side of the project, but we are committed that unless we reach an agreement otherwise, and ocii's soul discretion, we will provide parking parody on either side of the project. >> thank you for that. f >> i want to add to that. i mean, i -- families, especially there's a lot of two, three bedroom units.

families, especially low income families most often have a car. you go grocery shopping you take your car wherever you go so i think by having it equal to what the market rate units are going to get i think is very, very important. i think, you know, we're going up another 100 feet and i think it's fair to say that -- i would rather have it be equal to what the market rate so my motion would be that we approve this project with not waving the provision of going to -- yeah, basically i would love for it to be equal so that people have an opportunity -- because parking in san francisco is very expensive so if you can get a unit with a parking spot, right on. and i think it's important so that would be my motion.

be >> i want staff to address the potential financial impact if there were complete parody on the units, but just to be clear it's 0.25 on the affordable podium and the 0.25 is on the tower component for the affordable so maybe if you could address one. how many units are we talking about, and you can pick 300 or 400 and any financial impact, just for the commission's consideration for commissioner bustos' motion. >> so a couple of things as director mentioned, the proposal we were talking about was just parody in the

inclusionary units in the developer units. our policy on those stand on the affordable would still be 0.25 parking spaces per unit. and then what we're talking about on the market rate uniting developer subsidized affordable units, we're talking about 36 units in alternative one or 65 units in alternative two so so about a $4 million delta between providing the parking at 0.25 versus providing up to 1 to 1 for the project. that would be the impact on the developer subsidized affordable units. >> so what does that mean in regular laymen terms? >> it just means that the cost to the developer to provide these additional parking

spaces instead of 0.25 spaces and provide one to one is about $4 million. >> 4 million. >> [inaudible] there are 36 developer subsidized units, of which, in what we were asking for, we would provide nine, but 27 might not get parking spaces, but there would be $4 million that would be available to buy transit passes or otherwise provide solutions for the people in affordable housing. as i said before, we will build the full 46 if that's what you the commission and the ocii staff, but we see that opportunity of that $4 million as a fair amount of money to buy bus passes and do other things, but again, if it's your preference that on the tower side they be a parody we're prepared to do that. >> that would be my preference, because $4 million with the cost of muni goes

quit. quick. >> the other piece of this, being part of the parking, particularly if it's done on a valet basis, which is likely given the soil conditions and the density of this project, it's a fairly significant operational cost to run the garage so opting into the garage will cost roughly 100 a unit a month to provide the valet. close to 200 without any subsidy. that's very significant portion of the overall segment of that affordable owners housing payment. so we can do it, it's just -- and i understand that families need parking and families need cars. we're just trying to build in some flexibility, to look at other solutions. this is clearly an area that's

changing in san francisco . >> i guess my suggestion, not necessarily recommendation, was not to decide it now, but to basically look at options. i mean, egalitarian way of addressing the issue because i don't think frankly that every market rate owner necessarily owns a car or wants to own a car in that area of san francisco. they may do other forms of transportation, they may have uber, chauffeur, someone that drives them. >> [inaudible]. >> the flexibility to come up with something, absolutely. okay. >> i just have one other question. >> i think our executive director wants to say something. >> i think i was just going to recognize that staff through this ena process if approve wd the commission's motion would review and study options. i think as you heard staff say our goal is to provide a

middle income housing project. if it all can't work because of bres, because we can't cap the affordable hoa cost an we saw them go but to the extent that overall project costs go up, operating costs, it brings it back up so we want to -- we've got all these considerations to take into account and i think more time through the ena process to really study them and present options to you would be helpful. . >> right. i think what we're saying is what we want is the owners of the affordable units to have the choice. if they choose to spend some of their money on the parking side of it an do something else to come up with that should be on option available if it can be made available

on an egalitarian basis, but obvious talk about it more. >> i have one question. we talk about cars, what about bikes? i don't see anything from the presentation. >> we forgot to mention that. the redevelopment agreement, i believe is 110 is the minimum for what we have, but we are certainly going for far more than that. we don't have final numbers on that, but we are looking throughout the low grade parking levels about where we can put those throughout the building so there will be in excess of 110. >> that's a lot of bikes. >> yes. >> i was going to say, as a native san francisco citizen, i don't think i know anyone other than my son who rides a bike. >> i don't, but it's the trend. it's a trend. >> you ride a bike? >> there we go. >> at your own risk. >> you have to go with a trends