wonderful addition to increase outreach but i think it's important for all port staff, and commissioners as well to give us notice we can distribute to our various contacts and folks as well, as water advisory groups, i know for myself, are paying more attention to the waterfront, than previously had that connection and expressed interest, how they want to get involved that would give us broader distributions as commissioner adams, is points out we can post it on facebook and other thing on the pages as well on the application form, please feel free to distribute

this form to others, >> that is a good idea >> i'm not getting into the weeds on sub part two, indicate the working group, sub advisory team indicate one or both but indicate your preference if you are selected for one, so we add more clarity people can apply to do both. >> can you also clarify are you going to accept everybody who applies >> i don't think we can make that commitment -- >> i'm asking the question to know. >> no we were not anticipating, we would be able to accept everybody unless we had fewer number of people express interest than we thought. >> i think that is important, when you put this out, that not everybody applies, they're

automatically on the team will you be looking through backgrounds and resumes if you have too many of one representation of one region, or be expertise to put it out there, so people don't complain about it later >> good point thank you very much. >> thank you. >> item d, inferringsal presentation on the mixed use development project for seal wall lot 337, and pier 48, bounded by china bay son channel. third street mission rock strategy, and san francisco bay ar adjacent to at and&t park.

>> good afternoon commissioners and president of the port for develop management -- in accept of 2010. sea wall lot 337, are also known as the giants have negotiated a nonbinding term sheet with financial term for the lease and development of the site as you recall the board of supervisors and commissioners, enforce doersed the sheet in the spring of 2013 as described in the term sheet, they have mixed use neighborhood, to create a vibrant, walkable physically feasible parks and space in june of 2014, voters, passed

proposition b, existing exceeding height limits will require approval in addition to the standard regulatory approvals for sea wall lot 337, you will hear today, will be under this requirement -- po over the past six months, the giants have re-examined the proposed heights for the site, and jack bear will present an update of the project to the voters in november he and i will be able to answer any questions you may have. jack? >> good afternoon commissioners, jack bear with the san francisco giants,

baseball time, with sea wall lot 337. i will get to the matter in hand after the passive of proposition b, last june 2014 we decided to take our time take a hard look at our project and not go directly on the ballot. so since june of 2014, we have conducted a series of focus group and polling and discussions with community leaders, and most importantly many meetings with the port and mayor's office staff, to discuss revisions, to the plan that phil mentioned, to receive unanimous, endorsement back in 2013. the polling and the focus group suggested there was a heighten interested in heights along the

waterfront obviously as an outgrowth of the washington project and campaign. at the same time, there say recognition of tradeoffs in the city, for example, housing on transit corridors, and involves increased heights, and the tradeoffs that come in terms of parks and open space. so the focus groups p polling were encouraging to us the residents and respondences to the polls did recognize various issues. after this process we did sided that we should put the measure on the ballot for 2015, the plan we're putting on the ballot is very consistent with the eight

year process when we started with commissioner bran ton and commissioner lazerous hey had a commission to determine what should go on the site, they established a lot of values, what the port and the communities wanted to see in the development so we -- to change any of the values moving forward. reducing heights to several of the buildings, but staying within the term sheet parameters we negotiated with the port. i will go through slides real quick, you can see visual representation, the parking lot is a surface parking lot now. lot a, this shows 11 different sites on parking lot a, it parking will be collapsed into a

structure on south side of the site. also there will be parking underneath mission rock square which is in the middle. so some of the values, one, parks and open space, from the beginning of the process, it was determined we should have a major waterfront space in front of the china bay son channel. it will continue to evolve as we move forward, and features a lot of component tell us, the community and neighborhood would like to see in the open space. it features a square in the project, which can serve as the neighborhood hub, if you will. back to the values of parks and open space, also a value is creating a place within mission bay, if you talk about value, you talk about 24th street you

talk about fill more street, with residents, and workers near buy can can get their dry cleaning and grab something to eat. in mission bay, we have not had that yet. we -- we want to create something this is an opportunity at this site to do this. the square is meant to be the social hub in mission bay and surrounded by retail and restaurants and serving as a public gathering space. this rendering, depicts the feeling and atmosphere of the district to make it walkable, much more intimate our building sites are half to 1/3 the typical size of mission bay, there are different heights and diversity of building types and

walkable urban experience is what we're advocating, we also had to find a use for pier 48, we're excited to be working with anchor brewing and distilling at petero, hill they're going to expand their operations to pier 48 and keep all of the jobs, in san francisco anchor is the largest manufacturing business and it will grow with this move as well. i talked about the diversity of building heights and types you there is a map you can see the site plan is largely the same as it was in 2013, the only difference is the heights some of the buildings have changed in the positive direction d one was created which is housing that is along third street of the parking garage to the south of the site, then seven of the

other sites, have had height reductions so the site f for the ier process, is 380 feet, reduced to 240 feet, site a, f, and d, are proposed to be 240 feet, any building above 190 feet. is all housing, the housing is anticipated to be rental housing and will have inclusionary, affordable at 43%, the building is up to 240 feet, constitute 3% of the site itself all of the other buildings are 90 feet or less and from [inaudible] boulevard are 100 to 90 feet, we're happy

how this is shaking out, with the goals of job creation open space we set out to achieve from the beginning. so today, the initiative is being circulated the signature gathering is under way and we're in the process of meeting with groups all over the city we met with the mission bay, advisory commission, and the advisory group, and the [inaudible] in june, and we will be meeting with groups, in political clubs and stakeholders throughout the city as we launch this campaign effort i will stop here and answer any combe questions, thank you. >> thank you. public comment? please come forward. >> hi marie -- the city

contracted with spur homes, in november 2013, to do a feasible study on the mission regarding, rising seas that will be up in november -- i was hoping ha somehow that report or whatever the results are, could be wound into this project. that's my question i haven't heard what is going to be in the report i think the timing is a little off i wanted to mention that. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing -- come on up. sorry. >> good afternoon commissioners,

my name is car rin, woods, i'm co-chair of the port central waterfront advisory group, and the mission bay advisory committee, i have been working on this for years i think the plan is consistent with what we have done over the last eight year the giants think it's financially feasible for the port. that is the key of course. i do support the project. i think we should move forward hopefully the voters will agree in november. on the issue of sea level rise the spur mission creek pilot projects that the engineers have been involved with i heard from spur last week we're supposed to get that report in

the next month. but i know the giants have been at the table during those discussions and they have addressed what they consider the key issues that we're going to have to be looking at on sea level rise in this project. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner woo ho? >> thank you jack nice to see you, thanks for the presentation update i guess in contrast to earlier housing is more than it used to be could you expand more in terms of the number of housing units, and the type of housing in the new plan, even with the lower tides, >> we expect about 1500 units to be involved on-site, there is

availability here depends on the size of the units, and flex parcels, in the presentations it could be commercial or housing, depending on how we organize those sites which are h, i, and j, the housing can fluctuate from 1000 to 190 units we think the suite spot would be 1500 units, with 500 affordable, so we're gaining on d one and lost square footage, with height but we're still at a level that is significant for the site. >> could you comment in terms of the reduced footage height in terms of the overall impact? you think on the financial aspects of the projects now, both from your perspective and the ports >> okay the term sheet

parameter was about 3.6 million square feet overall what we began to analyze in the eir, is a little more than a million square feet so we're down close to the 3.6, used in the term sheet, the parameter we thought is politically realistic as we went through the process if we didn't stand for an i lex, we still have to go through the whole city process, we believe there is going to be changes in the heights that were inevitable in the process, what we have put on the ballot is in excess of 3.6 million square foot that is one of the things we felt dear to. >> it sounds like then at this point, we're not impacted based on the term sheet at least, it's within the parameters of the

term sheet >> we want to achieve more height, we did a lot focus groups and polling to determine what was politically acceptable here we're attempting to solve for a lot of different issues on-site one of the most important of which is the port is receiving the rent and the economics, it expect also to address the housing, issue open space affordable housing issue, so we're trying to thread the needle with all of those, in the end, we what presented to you s a smart and thoughtful proposal that does achieve all of those goal, but also puts a nod or response to the atmosphere that exists in our city right now >> i guess in the open change there is no change in terms of the open change, i think it's the same as a five acre park? >> yeah, it's eight acres,

because the park on the waterfront edge, there is also between pier 48 and 50 which will be an important open space in the project >> the last question we had is on the parking structure, i know we had a discussion on the number of stories and number of spaces given since the last time we have talked traffic and parking are big issues in the right now, has anything changed? >> it's larnly consistent what we have been showing you, we had the ballpark need to take care of, we also have the needs that are created by the development itself, so we have to have a responsible amount of parking to address those uses. but at the same time not an excessive amount of parking we don't need, our goal is to manage the parking resource so we have two spaces, on game

days we can manage different ways, we can price things differently with our lot, we have computer parking on lot a for game days the vehicle has to be out by six or they get charged for the game rate as well. people don't want to incur the additional charge and move their car by six, we have the 2,000 spaces now for the ballpark -- will create the number of spaces for the ballpark and manage the need that is on-site development, and the parking structure you can remind me but dozens of meeting with mta and parking design firms talking about how the structure can operate opt matly, right now

on lot a, we have two entrances and exits where you can get into the lot, we have five in the structure, so we think the structure will operate as efficiently as the street system will allow as we leave events, we think the new development itself, when people leave ballpark events will serve as a distraction in a good way so we don't have as much crunch for the event >> that reminds me how is the pop up going? >> it's going well the weather is not as good in may as it was in april so it's weather dependant some of the other components are doing extroemly well, it relegal depends on the weather, the community has embraced it there are people that live or work nearby i think it's been a really welcome

addition. >> thank you. >> thank you jack for the presentation. i think commissionerer woo ho, has gone through my list. i think you covered it all. [laughter]. thank you. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> jack, with prop b maybe you can tell me, pier 74 said they went to the voters i made the reference to the willed beast and the saringeti one gets -- so the rest can go across. did you think about that before the city the did that i appreciate you having the political courage to go to the voters, because they will tell

you, i think they will do the right thing there is some strategy, when you are thinking when that happen or you just wasn't ready at the time. >> partly, this is a period of time, this was not the right period to put something on the ballot prop b, passed and there's a lot of sensitivity, our project is to achieve more height, when you think of the the pier 70 project was with lower heights we follow after a lot of pain staking analysis with the plan we have. >> we thought you just wanted to win another world series >> that becomes a little of a good distraction at times, overall, we want to take our time and go through the process and think hard about this before we semented something, and put it on the ballot, if we had done it in november of last year, we had to

throw it together fairly quickly not knowing the outcome of the election. if you think about it. that is in june, you have to turn in the signatures in july we had to anticipate of what the outcome with prop b was going to be and what the environment would be in november, we thought it would be more prudent to wait, touch base with more people and proceed when we're ready to proceed, this is the next possible election to move forward in i think we're ready for it. >> one other question, on the last election meeting, affordable housing is at the forefront of our discussion we had duffy here san francisco, people have lived here their whole life. i think commissioner woo ho said something what is the percentage of the proximate

units? i get confused, when people talk about the affordable housing is it for the poor is it for the working class is there a certain income level? i'm trying to get that so i can quite understand it i think people live here their ole life. generations and families we have a lot of income in this city but there has to be a balance i city think regular people ought to be able to live in this city and the city should offer something for everybody >> we agree. we're doing the apordable housing on-site. so the wealthier tech worker is living next to the single parent that is struggling to make ends meat. what we have defind afford housing, is going to 140% of ami traditionally it goes up

to 120% ami, the mayor's office, many stakeholders, have talked to us including teachers union, raising it to 140, right now, the teachers can't afford to stay in san francisco, they can't afford their rents, they also don't qualify for any subsidy with affordable housing what we did with the chicagos is left it open ended, we didn't want to rule out or turned our back on anyone we wanted to afford it to would still qualify around that formula. >> that is my question the definition of affordability. thank you for your presentations. i had two questions i know we

talked about the phases, has the sequencing changed at all under the new proposal in terms of we will start first -- >> no it hasn't, we're not sure of the sequencing we're responsing to the market to a certain degree, we're both taking risks together as we go and joint decisions as we go with us and the port about when to move forward on a site or parcel what we anticipate is the northern part of the site that fronts on the park will be the first phase the parking structure will be built early as well. we have to juggle the parking needs, the ballpark will continue to operate without this process we will need the structure earlier rather than later i will suggest to you we will see a groupings of buildings with the park go up

in the early phase near the china basin channel, then the structure is built, and the rest is filled in between in later phases, >> then kor rin pointed out in previous meetings, and other times the importance of height diversity, i know you have talked about capping some of the commercial buildings, has that taken into account, the way it will look aesthetically but in terms of the impact in open space, with diversity in the height >> very much so, this has a site that has buildings, range 40 feet, in terms of pier 48, 90 feet for several of the commercial buildings to 120-260 to 290 feet. there are various of heights,

and having different architecture firms designing different buildings, so it's not home moj monthing homoginze d. building -- the heights have been reduzed, but height does provide you the ability to have more open space we can reduce the heights of the project if we eliminated some of the open space, but i guess we would have more square footage and lorer heights the community and focus group and polling suggests to us they don't mind heights that are productive especially

when it's paired with -- that people believe in >> the number of housing units has not significantly changed? >> no, it hasn't, we added to site d, we have subtracted to other sites, it's within the range we have been talking about. >> great. thank you. and we're ahead one zip. [laughter]. thank you next item. >> item 12 a, authorzation to issue a request for proposals, for three years with 2, 1-year options, to reknew for three surface parking lot at