to express our gratitude to the cac and staff who recommended us to let you know how excited and truly we are to be part of this project and be a part of the mission bay community and i want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of jim white and panama #2k78 -- pam simms and we are here to answer your questions. thank you very much. >> any other speakers cards? >> no other cards. >> we'll close public comment. any questions? >> commissioner singh? >> i have the same question

mr. decosta said, who is going to be in charge of these homes? >> >> the process will follow procedures that we have for outreach and marketing and lease. we will be doing it in unison with the mayor's of housing development. it's a very transparent process and we can review that process when that financing gap comes in. >> do we have a list of the people who are responsible for this? >> it will be maria benjamin's team and our developer. >> we don't have our own list . we are giving away $2 million. we have no say? >> commissioners you set a policy in the mission bay agreement of

establishing a precedent for certificate holders and certainly we have the former agency spent great effort into reviewing that list trying to expand that list as you are aware we have entered into a contractual arrangement with the mayor's office of housing to help us administer that program that our staff along with their staff participates on along with certain other preferences. so step 1 in terms of the marketing preferences of the certificate holders. next, to the extent feasible, the ellis act preferences which you recently approved on a project by project basis but there is only a certain amount set aside and you established a precedent for residents, workers and

population. and working in concert with our resource partner, the mayor's office of housing and community development, certain refinements, there are a number of people, limited avenues for people to apply as you have recently seen in the press and papers and particularly in mission bay as you saw. so there are refine ments that you as the commission have referenced us to work with housing for this portal that is not quite ready for primetime to make it easy to apply 32 you the chairs. the chair has previously requested an update from our resource partner on the mayor's office on housing and we have those unrestricted and middle income housing, the 80 percent of ami and 50

percent and we'll be working with the housing community development to bring that forward in the new year. >> thank you. >> i would like for your information you need to know this, your staff here. i am a certificate holder, okay, but your staff, what is his name, i get so angry with this man. he has sent out notices. i received a notice. i can bring it to you where he is saying that 2015, my certificate won't be any good anymore. who gives him that authority. please, baby please. >> dr. jackson i don't want to be disrespectful. because i

respect my elders. >> when she says certificate holders. i know what has occurred in the last two 2 years. olson lee has did this. how you all give him the power. thank you. >> thank you. do we have more questions and comments? >> i had a question regarding the parking. 41 off street, 34 residents and 5 commercial for the tennants, and two carshare spaces. why are we giving two for carshare and not given to the commercial tennants? >> thank you, commissioner. actually when the developer came up with their proposal we have seen it at mission bay and the need for carshare

especially when you are not providing one for one parking is in high demand and that is because families need the carshare to do grocery shopping on a rainy day or a sick child. so the carshare was thought to be the best use of those spaces. >> i have some reservations about that. i think those spaces should go to the tennants that are residential or commercial tennants. >> we can take that into consideration. >> that would be awesome. >> do you have any questions because i have a couple. i was interested in understanding because actually dr. jackson an i think alike. how was the

ami established. >> jeff white, program manager. that's a great question. a tiny bit of history. the tax credit program, in order to obtain tax credits you have to set an ami at 60 percent or less and the history in san francisco and i can't i identify who set the policy but we practice selling ami on projects that we fund at 50 percent or less. i think the thinking behind that was folks at 50 percent have furious -- fewer housing options than higher income. with that we have precedent where we have set ami's in a tiered fashion where you have some percentage of a building at

60 percent ami or less and you set another percentage at 50 percent or less something like that. >> within the same project? >> yes. that gives some flexibility. like i said before both in the mayor's housing of community development and the practice was where we typically would set the ami to 50 percent or less. we are acutely aware of the issue of somebody that's been, out of 150 units there is 3,000 foebz -- folks in a lottery and somebody is selected and they are at 51 ami and that's heartbreaking to have something like that happen. so on the other hand, even if you set it at

60 percent you are still going to have that same situation where somebody is at 61 percent. but given the folks that at 50 percent ami, a family of four, the rent is about $11 hundred and 50 50 percent is $800 and the market is 8,000 . for this project we are looking to any tiering but the way we wrote of in rfp at a percent. as we go forward and as we look at financial feasibility and subsidy, that will absolutely consider a tiering approach and we'll come back to you.

as you know in block 7 west in mission bay we have the ami set at 60 percent, at 474 toma we have at 60 percent. that's maybe a little bit of a long answer to the question. >> no, it was a full answer and i appreciate it. i guess my question is the percentages i understand what you are saying, but it's hard for me and maybe this is part of a report. it's hard for me to gauge what percentage of that applies, and in my tenure as a new commissioner are there any data points for a target population with various income levels. we hear there is need at every income level other than market rate. obviously there are plenty of folks that can afford market rate affordable housing, but the

affordable levels, what is the target population how many are at the 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 percent ami because 50 or 60 seems artificial to me unless there is data points. do you understand what i'm saying? are you addressing a need at that level, is there a greater need at 20 percent than 50 percent or 60 percent? >> we have data, i just don't have it with me at this point. there is no question. it's like where do you draw the line as far as what your comment about it being arbitrary. one thing i mentioned 60 percent was a tax credit. the entire affordable housing industry exist because of the tax credit. that's arbitrary and the affordable housing world, you know 60

percent and low is considered very low and below 80 is just low, above 80 is moderate. it's the industry at some point set these parameters. i don't know the history of exactly why those got set. it was 80 instead of 85 percent, something like that. >> so would we be able to perhaps maybe it's not appropriate for this item but to get more of an education, at least i would appreciate more of an education. i did ask this in the mayor's office of housing when we worked at the workshop of mou that we were funding that first year. i asked for some demographics information as well basically the population in need and we did get some. my recollect -- recollection going forward on

family size how many are at risk. all of those data points i think i asked the mayor's office of housing and we got some and i was told going forward it was going to be tracked later for reporting and i'm saying i would like to get more information back from them and perhaps there is another workshop from them to answer some of these issues. >> we can do that. >> before i continue, do you have any other questions. commissioner mondejar? >> yes, since we are talking about ami here and i was going to take it during the commissioner matters and questions but since we are discussing the topic, i know i have been approached to explain ami and i think that was one of the larger questions that dr. jackson has raised and i was

wondering if there is a session that our ocii or the mayor's office of housing can conduct to explain these terms. i know i have been asked the last couple of weeks as a matter of fact what that means and it was quite hard for me to, difficult to respond without going through i know i have to learn it myself and the other piece is who sets it. when does it get put out, annually and in your selection about setting rentals or home ownership of 80 percent, 100 percent, whatever, i know there is history around that. i was wondering if at a certain point we can have a workshop in reference to that and maybe invite the public so we can refer them for those who would like to

understand and how these things are set, not just the ami piece and who sets that and how it is applied and the matter of projects setting at 50 percent, 60 percent levels that you have. and also when they do apply, is it the ami of the current year which i'm assuming it is, or when the application is made and of course the selection process. so i don't expect you to have a long answer now or explain it now. i just want you to bring it up because i have been approached with all of these questions which has been raised in public comment also. >> absolutely. i can wrap that up with the information we are going to pull together. thank you. >> any other comments or

questions? i just want to note the non-profit organization of 826 valencia, i would love to know more about the organization. i think it's a wonderful idea to have included it. i think it shows proactive thinking. thank you. i don't have any other questions. does anyone else? no? >> commissioner bustos had a question about the parking and with that many units, what are the other people going to park? >> thank you, commissioner. again, we will revisit the parking

ratio and look at that. and the reasons for the certain amounts for parking in different populations. >> only 34 parking with that many units. >> 135, right. >> the other people can't have the car then? >> correct and/or have it in a different lot. there are transit options too and we have pretty moderate weather? in san francisco and we have a lot of bike access. >> that's a broader discussion, i think. some of us have issues with the transit system and the whole bike thing. so there are families that have cars and we shouldn't penalize them if they have a car they

need to take kids to school or whatever. it's a big issue. >> those are the issues we braved at the last commission meeting with a different type of development. so i this i the -- think this staff has heard us on that issue. >> i would really like to have more parking in the building. 100 households won't have a garage to park. how many people don't have a car in san francisco? >> >> that's what we said at the last commission meeting when you weren't here. you are exactly right. the hills are a challenge especially if you have little kids. >> it's a bigger issue and i think we need to have a discussion with the nta commission on parking and i know there is a lot of movement to take away parking throughout san

francisco which many people in the communities especially in the mission district are concerned about. so maybe we can set up a time to have a conversation with our colleagues on the mta about this issue of parking and people should not be penalized for having a car. people need cars. >> i think the larger issue also is how do we retain families in san francisco if they can't have a car, housing is one issue and they finally get housing and there is no parking space, it's an additional cost. >> we are calling for units that have more than one bedroom. i remember a while ago we talked about building when we looked at affordable units coming through this commission we wanted to have 2-3 bedroom

units for the same reason of how do you keep families in san francisco. staff has done a great job of working with developers bringing before us units that have more than one bedroom to it. so maybe now that this issue around parking and folks who like to ride bikes, it can be a heated discussion and a heated issue depending on who you talk to but making it user friendly for families who may have 3-4 kids who may not be able to ride a bike is something we need to talk about with another commission meeting. >> yes. another separate item. do i have a motion on this item? >> yes. i want to move this item. >> commissioner mondejar moves the resolution. >> i will second it.

>> commissioner bustos seconded. city clerk: commissioner mondejar, yes, commissioner singh, yes, bustos, yes, four ayes. the recommendation is adopted. the next item. city clerk: item 5e. adopting environmental review findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act conditionally praufg the major phase application amendment for a residential project on block 56 and 57 generally bounding by coleman street on the western boundary hill drive on the northern boundary hilltop park in the eastern boundary with hps

development. granting a density bonus and requiring three additional below market rate housing units on-site for a total of 132 housing units at blocks 56 and 57, the punctuate hunters pointers point shipyard phase 1. >> back to 2013 you approved a multiple block for these two blocks 2 blocks on the hill top of hunters point shipyard. they are coming back for a major phase amendment to increase density construction cost as you know is rising and we certainly encourage the developers to maximize entitlement. with that, i would like to ask the shipyard manager

to present this item. >> thank you, director, bow he, president more morales. you will be considering an amendment previously approved on block 56 and 57. this will increase the density on this block, density bonus. to face ilitate the coordination we'll give you project detail and project next steps. precisely your action is amending the blocks 56 and 57 to increase the amount of units to increase to 132 units. 15 of those will be

inclusionary units bmr, below market units. you will receive updated package which includes horizontal performance and data table combined with schematic designs and development agreement. the commission will also be making environmental findings with ceqa. ship yards context and history. the development will be done in two phases with the hunters land shipyard itself totaling nearly 800 acres. the first phase of the shipyard was approved in the development agreement fl 2003 and the second one approved in 2010. the mixed use development program for 12,000 housing

units. the location block 56 and 57 on the hill top portion of the phase area on the upper portion of this slide here. as i mentioned the commission approved these designs initially to make it more feasible the background on the previous approval on july 2013. for 98 housing units 12 of which are bmr units in the entire package units for designs and vertical dda. under the phase 1 dda the developer has 12 months to execute an article dda or seek an extension. they can grant that six 6-month extension

and they did and this extends to january 2015. this is allowing the time to complete the project design. so the key changes that are being proposed through this amendment, first to increase the height of the building to four floors and it allows four floors but initially went up to three floors, to address the fourth floor, the materials and facade was updated as well. the third revision to apply for density bonus to increase the number of units from 98 to 132 for increase of 22 percent. 12 of them will count to overall 10 1/2 percent bmr's requirement and the other three will be additional bmr units

density bonus units in addition. also at this stage of major approval will be 519th unit with 89 of those being inclusionary units. as a result the six hundred 600-unit to meet the bmr requirements. so what's a density bonus? >> it's a way to increase affordable housing in locality by allowing a developer in exchange for additional bmr units. the state law or government code authorizes this kind of approval and it caps it at an increase of 35 percent and provides formulas for calculating the required number of additional bmr units that are required. housing redevelopment plan also allow for density bonuses but caps maximum at 25 percent. ahead

of these rules provides a framework of density bonus. so moving to the design portion of the item. here is a high level site map of the hill top in phase one as you see block in 56 and 57 depicted on the bottom right. they are around the square park. before i go any further i want to introduce the lots 56 and 57. please stand when i call your name. mr. ian batchel and adams, and aaron spyingey, rosh core. >> the name again? >> rosh core. i practiced that one earlier. so here you see a

summary of the development housing data with a proposal today before you. the unit counts have increased in the 1-2 bedroom categories. here you can see the blocks have a mix of 1, 2, 3 bedroom units. they have an average square footage of 1025 square feet to over 1200 square feet. before i call mr. batchel, i want to highlight a feature adjacent to these blocks. you can see the parks at the center of the drive there. there is a closer view of it. the parks feature play equipment designed with a maritime theme. it also features a public art funding by the economic

development administration. the play equipment is consistent with the land station requirement that parks and jurisdiction have a maritime educational component. you will see that in the parks coming in phase the as -- 2 as well. this is an angle of a ship's captains net and the shipyard. with that i want to invite mr. spige to say a few words. >> good afternoon, thank for having me, my name is anye spooige the manager for the block 56 project. there is a number of slides that are