at this point, let's try it, let's see how it works, let's learn from this and build some more mod draft income housing is that alongside and mixed in with market rate housing and affordable housing. thank you very much. >> any other speakers during public comment? please come forward. seeing none public comment is closed. is the executive director -- could you explain just briefly for the public what seawall lot 322 is. >> seawall 322-1 is a lot that is across the embarcadero from the water side. it was once upon a time subsequently there was a

proposal to build a hotel on it that has failed and the port has offered the seawall lot 322-1 as an affordable housing site as part of the overall need of the city but because it is a use that makes good sense within the existing neighborhood. did you want me to say something different? is that what you had in mind? >> yes thank you. >> you can phrase it more eloquently than i might. >> i doubt that. >> but i do want the public to know this is something the port cares deeply about and the port wants to be an active participant in the city in terms of creating more affordable housing in the city as the need has certainly been eloquently expressed. commissioner brandon do you have any comments or questions? >> thank you, i want to thank

ricky, sophia for a great presentation. we need to focus on the mayor's goal of affordable housing. i want to go back to the geographical distribution of sites. what percentage of this is overall rehab construction, meaning is this out of 20,000 or 100,000 or --. >> looking at that particular map? >> uh-huh. >> only about a third of that is -- roughly 5,000 of those units are rehab. if you're -- a lot of that is actually public housing that we're converting into private ownership and we're going to be rehabilitating those units for the next, for a long time because of our troubled housing authority. but of the balance

is all new construction. >> right, but overall, in overall construction. >> correct. >> not just for affordable housing. >> oh, relative to the rest of the housing production? i don't have the housing pipeline that the planning department has with me so i can't say overall. do you have it? i don't have it. we can get back to you. >> it would be great to know by district. >> sure, absolutely. >> thank you. >> from our two projects alone the 2,000 would represent -- well, our two projects are about 4,000, right? just from 337 and pier 70. >> then there will be approximately how many affordable? >> we're looking at 30 percent on pier 70 and we're still loorking on 337, but presumably at least the mandate of 33 percent. >> i want to say that number

for district 10 is pretty high. that's probably, what do you think? anyway, i don't want to get --. >> anyway, the number of housing units being build far exceeds what's on there. >> thank you. okay, thank you. i requested this report because i think we wanted to put it in perspective the housing needs of the city versus what the port can contribute. obviously we have a very specific low income housing project which has been approved and we have an mou, but i want to clarify. 30,000 units that are in the pipeline, that's all housing, new housing, of which 50 percent we are trying to aim for moderate and low income affordability. that's the definition. so when you asked the question, commissioner brandon,

if you are asking how many projects are on the board now, it's 30,000. >> no. >> so i'm not sure i understand this 30,000 that --. >> sophie hayward from the mayor's office of housing. the 30,000 is the total number of new or rehabilitated housing in the mayor's housing goal. it's not referring to the actual pipeline the planning department has. of that goal, 50 percent will be affordable. >> so what is the number i guess, i would concur with commissioner brandon to understand how much housing is being created regardless of how it's categorized. >> i'll have to get back to you from the planning department. i don't have the total number from the mayor's office of housing but i will get the pipeline number and get back with you. >> how is the 30,000 different from the overall? i understand the 50 percent but then i'm confused how is the 30,000 different from the overall

housing pipeline. >> i'm very hopeful that the 30,000 number, which is the mayor's goal for production by 2020, matches the pipeline. but it's an identified goal, it's not reflective of the pipeline as it --. >> okay, well then we get down to what you're saying on your slide 4, which is the 10,000 plus the 5,000 of i guess i'm interpreting accessible to working families as moderate income because then that means that we have 15,000. >> so we have the slade lock development was recently approved. we also have the hunters point shipyard homes that will likely be priced, those will be, the own rrship units will likely be priced at below 500,000 per unit. so we have pipelines coming that is not necessarily most of mocd's

portfolio but will still be accessible to working families. >> so if private developers are developing houses they are not necessarily within the 30,000 goal. >> the 30,000 is a mix of market and affordable. >> okay, so it did not give us what's going overall in construction of new housing units in the city that the planning department is processing one way or the other. okay, so we would like to know that number just so we can get a perspective on that. you mentioned, i think, one is the size of the mixed housing projects. what is sort of the optimal size in order to have a mixed housing project? >> i'm going to defer to teresa on that. >> i'm not trying to pin it down, i'm just trying to get a sense. >> in terms of sheer number. >> yeah, in terms of the

building has to have x number before it makes sense for affordable housing. >> usually we are looking at a mix, an overall portfolio, no matter the size of the project, 50 percent would be affordable, 30 percent would be market rate and 20 percent --. >> i'm just saying if you are a developer. you mentioned 322 is too small to do mixed income. >> it's usually more the aim of 200 to 300 units to be a more optimal size. when we looked at seawall 3221 the maximum density we would be allowed is only about 110 units. >> another question on the geographic units, treasure island is being developed.

>> treasure island and the shipyard, because there is still a challenge of having to finance those, those are probably longer term beyond the 2020 goal, housing goal of the mayor. so they are still trying to figure out how to deal with the financing of getting those housing units finished but they are still units within that overall 30,000 pipeline that are part of the shipyard. treasure island is a little farther out. >> seawall 322 is probably on your radar screen as what you have counted so far. >> yes. >> pier 70, because we are still working through with the 4 cities, that 30 percent number in terms of the number of units is it factored into your pipeline numbers now or not. >> we haven't factored in exactly those numbers so we're looking beyond those. >> thank you. >> piggybacking on some of woo ho's comments which for lack of

a better term in legal parlance are leading questions. one of the reasons we have called for this hearing is because we have some projects coming up on port property and we want to be good partners with the rest of the city as we work to solve the crises we are facing. so i wanted to follow-up on some of the questions commissioner woo ho was asking as we move forward so thank you for working with us on that. commissioner adams. >> i have a couple comments. i appreciate the report. you know, it's interesting to me and i heard what everybody here has to say today because i realized that we live in the most expensive city in the united states. we have surpassed new york now. and i don't know how long this bubble is going to last. every time you have a bubble you have a bust. i know the mayor started

and the board of supervisors raising the minimum wage. it's a shame people can work in this city but they can't afford to live in this city chl that's kind of troubling to me. i don't think we can put it all on the mayor, i think this needs a coalition of city hall. i think business, the tech companies, the citizens, i think we all have to have a coalition to work. this is a city-wide program. sometimes you hear it's up to the mayor, no, it's up to all of us. the businesses need to ante up, whether it's bonds, we're the best city in the united states, how can we afford to have senior citizens that lived their whole life here and not able to stay here any more. it's unacceptable. look at the homeless problem we have in the city, it's sad. you probably have more rich and wealth in this city than almost any city in the united states and we're having this conversation and just morally we have to do

something about it and put a task force and work with the mayor and get the businesses, even if it's a bond. i mean i look out here and i see a lot of the san franciscoa th., even though the average age is 67, one day if you live, you will be an old person. there's something about the freedom to live in this city and we have to do something about it. i just wanted everybody who came out today, i appreciate you coming out. i get it. i'm a working class guy myself. i'm a union guy. i'm blessed. but if i didn't make what i make, i couldn't afford to live in this city. i came from tacoma, washington, where your house payment is like $800 a month. there's such a gap in this city, i hope the port can do what we have to do but i would say, everyone, we need to be in a coalition with the mayor, the

board of supervisors and every coalition in this city and get businesses, they have to ante up too. these businesses make a lot of money in this city and you have to put something back into this community and build these kind of relationships so i'm really glad that commissioner woo ho wanted to have this and to see this and this is an on-going issue and this is something near and dear to my heart because last month we were talking about the homeless people on the waterfront. i run on the waterfront every morning and i see homeless people out there. i can't ignore that. it's in my face. and when i hear people here that have lived here their whole life and they are on a fixed income and they are going to have to move, how sat the city. this is troubling to me. we have enough wealth in the city to fix it and to put a coalition together, put bonds together to help the mayor, help city hall, help the poor, for every citizen to pitch in so we can bring our city up to the standard it needs to be where

people in this city can afford to live in this city and contribute. thank you. (applause). >> thanks to the beauty of cell phones i was able to reach the planning dregtor, john ram, and he reports there are 37,000 units which are in the pipeline which are entitled, a total of 50,000 units are entitled or in the process of being entitled 24,000, or half of that, are in three big projects at the hunters point shipyard, park merced and treasure island and of course the remaining balance is in smaller projects such as the port. >> i want to add my comments and thank the mayor's office on housing for coming over and doing the work. there's no one easy solution but i think it's deeply appreciated, the work that's been done and also want

to thank everyone who turned out today to express their concern. there really is i think a crisis that we're facing here in our city and i think all of us are touched by it. as we sit and try and look at some solutions, i just wonder if i can ask a little bit more specific. on slide no. 10, in terms of allowing developers to dial up their conclusionary requirements i wonder if you could speak to that just a little bit more. >> sure, this is sophie hayward again. right now after the passage of proposition c, the housing trust fund, when market rate developers produce 10 or more units they are required to produce 12 percent of units on site as affordable units or they can pay a fee or they can provide 20 percent of the units off site as

affordable. those units could be rental or ownership. if they are rental units they are rented at 50 percent area median income, or 55 percent area median income. so since i brought the chart i'm a little proud of myself for remembering it, i thought i'd just highlight that's for one person, 55 percent of area median income is $37,350. for a family of 4 it goes up to $53,400. that's what the rental target is. through the dial, which would require legislative change that we are pursuing a developer could provide a greater number of units, so more than 12 percent, but rent them at a higher income target so rent them for more money. and that dial up as high as 90 percent ami and that is 61,150 for a

single person household, $87,400 for a 4-person household. you can also provide inclusionary units that are ownership and those ownership units are priced at between 70 and 90 percent of area median income and the dial would work in the same way or similar ways. it's a legislative proposal so it will go through the full review process, but that's the concept behind it. >> may i ask a follow-up question for that? how much is in the housing fund as a result of this existing dial up in the 20 percent which if the developer has put that aside, how much of that fund has already been used to develop affordable housing. >> it's two different issues. the dial does not exist. that's a legislative proposal.

>> i thought the 20 percent already exists. >> the inclusionary program exists and that can be broken into 3 categories. you can fulfill your obligation as a market rate developer by paying a fee or providing the units on or off site. the fee goes into our city-wide affordable housing fund. i don't have the balance for that right now, i can certainly get back to you like that. this is in addition to the housing trust fund which was passed at the ballot which will go to 50so i can get back to you with the balances. >> just a question of how actively has already been tapped into as a future financing source. >> our affordable housing fund is critical to the development of traditional units. when i say we have a huge portfolio of units that are targeted at 50 or 60 percent ami, i tout often the power of leveraging through

state and federal tax credits but we still have to put in that one dollar that we leverage to put in two housings. that's what we've always used the fund for , so our affordable fund is in constant fund and the housing trust fund has been, it was legislated, it was created in 2012 and it's in use for programs as we speak. i can get you the balances if that's helpful. >> aren't there tax credits that are generated so if you have a nonprofit developer that can come in and they, in turn, can also lay off those tax credits to investors who are interested. >> that's correct. you can leverage using the tax credits and also take advantage of property tax exemption if you provide your uebts as a low income ami >> right. that is one way that the affordable housing has

been developed in the past. i wanted you to know that works. >> it does, and the fees they generate in addition to units. >> a couple other questions for you while you're there. again, further amplifying now on slide 11, when you say creating a density bonus program and then more specifically how would that potentially work with any of the sites that we have at the port, actually with the property. >> the density program is another incentive that we are hoping to develop on a local level to persuade market rate developers to voluntarily provide additional units. and the way that would work is that they would offer to provide above and beyond their base requirement in exchange for the right to exceed the density as zoned. so that could be in kupb -- conjunction with the

dial, it could be separate from the dial we're working with developers to model in advance how the two programs would be the most useful and produce the most units. >> i guess i would ask if you could potentially work with some of port staff to see if there's any scenario where that might be helpful in some of our upcoming potential projects and sites and similarly, the next item using public lay on sites for affordable and mixed use housing, i guess it's stating the obvious, but incentives there and obviously from the port perspective we like to strike that balance and we've worked on seawall lot 322-1 because we did want to have more affordable housing but we've got some constraints. again, i'd ask if you could work with our port staff to see if there's some added scenarios or ways there could be some support for some of the forthcoming projects we have.

>> commissioner. >> proposition k says mayor and board will fund strategy to preserve existing land, rehabilitate public housing. can you talk a little bit about that? >> i can. we are committed at the direction of the voters to find new ways to fund affordable housing. so that's to generate more dollars to go into our affordable housing fund but it's also looking at ways to crack the puzzle of the middle income gap and there is a gap. i alluded to some of the trouble we have meeting that as related to the fact that we can't use existing federal and state credits to fill that hole. so we've been working through the housing working group, and we continue to work -- i don't have an answer for you right now , but we continued to work with financial institutions and with market rate stake holders to find ways that we can crack

the middle income puzzle and one of those ways seems to be to, in looking at the public sites, for example, certainly as teresa alluded to we need sites that are large enough to support multiple income levels but we also need to be able to have a site that can support market rate units that will subsidize the milgd income units because the tax credits can't. >> and one other question, when will you be back? update what's going on, you will be back in the next 3 or 4 months. i would love to have you come back and just update us. i really appreciate this information. >> we're always happy to come back officially associated with seawall 322-1 we will be back in advance of the rfp being released but we're always happy to come. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you everyone for showing up and attending today as well. call the next item.

>> item 12a, information presentation and redistricted and fully restricted facility. >> wait just a moment so we can let the room clear.

okay. . >> good afternoon, president katz and port commissioners. i am winn i lee, engineer ftd port of san francisco. today i am giving a informational presentation on the port's load restricted and fully redistricted facilitied and will prothe port facility assessment program, also known as much of the port's infrastructure was constructed over a hundred years ago due to

limited funding port has over one billion in deferred maintenance. this program helps to prioritize the massive amount of required repairs. we inspect categorize and record the structural condition of over 350 structures under port jurisdiction. the program is used to determine capital funding for public safety improvements. this map shows you a snapshot of the structural rating for all the port facilities. as you can see in the picture, the color rating varies from green, yellow with green hatching and red for different port facilities. green rating is used for facilities with unrestricted use. these facilities are not perfect and may need some repair or minor barricading. yellow with green hatching facilities have reduced boat limits but are safe for occupancy. adequate load limit signage and

barricades are in place. please refer to exhibit no. 2 in your commissioner report for a list of these facilities. a red rating is given to unsafe facilities that are barricaded to prevent public use and access. please refer to exhibit no. 3 in the report for a list of red-tagged facilities. since our last presentation in 2013, there are no new red tagged facilities. i will now give you status of a few damaged facilities that need repair in the near future. these facilities have been on engineer's radar and we are concerned about them. the first project is at wharfj9, the photo on the left is looking at the wharf j9. some of the lagging has deteriorated. wharf j9 is a

critical structural support for the foundation of many fisherman's wharf along the seawall. further deterioration from the seawall to cause spill to go into the bay and buildings along wharf j9 to have settlement. port maintenance is anticipated to start construction sometime in fiscal year 2015-2016. the estimated cost of material for these repairs is $2 million and is currently funded. the next project is our pier 92. pier 92 is a very important pier at the port. this photo shows an example of a missing pile at pier 92. all of the wood piles at pier 92 have uncured dry rot. port engineers has created the 18 were you not repair design and the project is currently on hold pending the issuance of a

permit. the project material cost is $2 million and the project is currently funded with port capital funds. port maintenance will do these repairs. photo on the right shows a typical cruise ship call at fir 35. the photo on the left shows the underside of the peer. you can see the rebar corrosion from the caupb keet beams. port engineering has nearly completed the subtruck tour repair drawings. the port is exploring various repair opportunities and will start construction in the near future. the next facility klus the aprons around agriculture building. this photo on the left shows the deteer roted south and east apron around the agriculture building. the photo on the right is a close up of the east apron. both the south and east apron show significant deterioration. you can see spauled concrete and

exposed eroded rebar under the slab deck and concrete beam. the reinforced concrete is definitely compromised. the south and north apron are currently restricted to light passenger vehicles and no vehicles are allowed on the east apron. the estimated repair is $2 million and the repairs will insure unrestricted use of these aprons. a portion of the east, sought and north aprons are expected to be repaired as part of the future water transportation authority terminal expansion project. the aprons serve adjacent agriculture building. this photo is a close up of the slab deterioration under the agriculture building. again, the slab rebar is missing in various locations due to corrosion. just a brief primer on concrete damage at the port. the salt from the bay attacks the rebar bond in the concrete.