and one absent. >> the motion passes. please call item 5f? >> 5f workshop on the july-december 20 [#20*-/] 15 reports on ocii's small business enterprise >> tuesday, january 19th, and local hiring goals practices, 2016. welcome to members of the discussion. public and happy new year. madame director. madame secretary, can please >> commissioner >> how are we on time? >> we're having staff check. call the first item. >> thank you, madame chair, the there is conflicting first item of business is information no. 1, roll about the ethics commission. call, commission members please it's canceled online, but there is respond when i call your still an agenda posted. name, commissioner intel pentium maybe we'll have a check-in pimentel. >> commission singh? >> yes. >> commission mondejar is from absent. >> commission bust os. lucinda. >> present. >> ray are you going an introduction? that would be >> made chair rosales. great. commissioners this is our

twice-annual report, really reflecting the significant item 2, announcements, a, input from you and engaged stakeholders the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on february2nd, 2016 at 1:00 and thank the public. p.m. at city hall, room 116. this is a workshop and look ahead and look-back, actually, have we have b announcement of done. i will first turn it over to prohibition of sound producing electronic devices raymond lee, the manager of our during the meeting. contract please be advised that the compliance division and the ringing presentation will be turned and use of cell phones, and over from there. >> good afternoon, pagers and similarly sound-producing electronic devices are rayleigh, prohibited that the meeting. contract compliance supervisor. please be advised that the thank you, director bohee chair may order the removal of the and chair from meeting rose rosales and commission room of any person responsible for the raining or use of a cell phone, pager or other similarly sound-producing electronic members. devices. c, announcement of time i would to you introduce you allotment form public comment. please advised a member of to ms. mckinney, who has been with the public has up to 3 minutes to make pertinent public comments on each agenda item unless the commission adopts us a a little over a year and will

shorter period on any item. present the information over the it is strongly recommended past six months and certainly i will that step up members of the public, who on occasion to provide some wish to address the commission fill out further detail and color to what the speaker card and return to the prior commission secretary. the next order of business commission requested in terms of information. >> great. is item 3, report on the actions taken >> good afternoon, president rosales, commissioners, at a previously could closed director session bohee. my name is kashicka mckinney meeting, if any. there are no reportable actions. the next order of business is item 4, and i will provide an update on the sbe matters of unfinished business. contracting and workforce there are no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item 5 activities matters of new business, from july-december, 2015. consisting of consent and regular agenda. first the consent agenda. i will begin with just three 5a. approval of minutes for the things that ocii considers when determining special meeting of november 3rd, if a firm can be considered an sbe? 2015. made and m chair. >> do we have any speaker cards for this item? >> not for the minutes, no.

>> commissioners do we have i'll go back -- step back. any so first i will discuss the sbe comments, edits, motions regarding the minutes of november 3, 2015. >> i morph that. program overall. >> commissioner singh has and there is a 50% goal for sbe moved. contracting. with a good-faith effort to commissioner bustos second. please call the roll. ensure >> please announce your that sbes have an vote when i opportunity to call your name. >> commissioner pimentel. compete for and participate >> hay. >> commissioner mondejar is in agency-assisted contracts. first consideration goes to absent. >> commissioner singh. the >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. project area sbes. >> yes. >> madame chair rosales. followed by san >> yes. francisco-based sbes. >> i have four ayes and one and as i started to explain, absent. >> minutes are adopted. there please call the next item. are three things we consider when determining if a firm is considered a sbe? we look at ownership and control. we look to see that they have a license to actually perform >> the next agenda item 5b the type of work that they are looking to perform. we also look at the size. and 5c and we use a 3-year average related to the transbay of annual redevelopment plan amendment will be gross receipts to determine that they heard together, but acted on meet the ocii thresholds. separate lymph and in july of 2015, the 5b approving the report to

the board of supervisors on the commission amendment to the redevelopment plan for voted to actually increase or raise the transbay redevelopment the thresholds to mirror that of the city of san francisco's. so project area to increase the maximum you'll height limit see the information on the from 300' to 400' on block 1 ocii sbe standards listed in the of zone 1 of the transbay chart. in addition to these three redevelopment project area and authorizing things we also look to make sure that transmittal of the report to the firm the has been certified, and ocii board of supervisors. transbay redevelopment has of project area march, 2012 no longer discussion and action, certifies within in-house at the agency, but we resolution no. 12016 and 5c adopting do recognize certifications environmental from cmd, review findings pursuant to the california environment the contract monitoring quality act division in uniapproving the amendment san francisco. to the redevelopment plan for the transbay redevelopment project area next you will see a slide to increase the multnomah that details the summary of the contracts that were awarded july 2015 maximum height limit from 300' to through december 2015. and this is a summary of all 400', referring the redevelopment plan to of contracts including the the planning commission for its number of projects from this time

report and recommendation on period, and the commission for its report the total dollars in sbe and recommendations on the redevelopment credits. plan amendment and conformance with the general plan and recommending the and total, if you look at the bottom redevelopment plan amendment to the board of supervisors for approval. transbay redevelopment is $201,816,365. project arguing, discussion and action resolution no. 2016. madame director. the next slide details the >> >> good afternoon six-month activity for the type of [kpha-eurpbgsz/] good afternoon to the members of the work and we public. thank you so very much for broke it down between joining us. commissioners as you know professional services, and construction the transbay redevelopment plan and was adopted about a decade ago, supplies. you will see the total and one of the primary goals is to dollars for professional services and below it, provide the total dollar amount for housing, especially housing at the construction and supplies. deepest income-levels for and just as a quick note, we both rental and ownership opportunities just want note that the and we're well-underway in the transbay area in construction supplies category continues doing that in so-called zone to be an 1 or the aggregate total of all of land within your jurisdiction. the construction activities due to the way the bid information is you adopted an exclusive received

from construction subcontractors, and negotiating agreement or authorized that generally it's a lump-sum in the fall of 2014 for a proposed basis and project on transbay block 1. not separated, or we have made some substantial changes disaggregated for to the proposed terms of the contract and the supplies. this practice is also exclusive negotiating agreement that consistent with provide the federal reporting for additional public benefit, one of them to provide greater affordable practices. housing on-site, that is 40% overall and we'll work through the components of that as part of a revised temple sheet term attached to your the next slide shows the six-month activity for professional materials. staff will present the urban services. and it provides a breakdown design basis and again the affordable housing and what would be of provided on ethnicity and non-minority a project, should you female, as authorize this plan amendment to move well as non-minority male. forward. and the first category we we would bring subsequent to you and the board of supervisors have a development total for asian-pacific agreement that would authorize the transfer. with that i would like to ask our senior real estate americans of 7,528,951. for black or development specialist in ocii's real estate division to kick off this african-american,

1,761,888 dollars, latino presentation. $877,210. other 1,032,370 and >> good afternoon, subcontinental asian, 1,469,520 and executive director bohee and good afternoon non-matt madame chair and members, senior real minority female and lastly estate development specialist with non-minority male. ocii and staff is recommending an amendment to increase the high limit on block 1. my presentation will include the reason for the plan amendment, background on block 1 the total of 24,512,788 dollars. benefits of the plan amendments, a summary of the proposed block 1 development project terms and amenities, a review of the and the next slide similar ocii's urban design analysis to the previous for professional and environmental review. services gives a breakdown for community outreach conducted construction and supplies. to-date and ocii's responses to concerns and finally present the and in asian-pacific requested american commission actions and category listed $2,331,178.

review next steps. black or african-american, the redevelopment plan adopted in 2006 divides the project area into two zones and establishes $9,800 [#4*-rbgs/] 441, latino, the land use controls for each zone. in zone 1 the development $5,299,088. controls define development is it standards and in zone 2 the san non-minority female, francisco planning code applies. $480,638. the redevelopment plan provides for a maximum highlight limit of 300' on block 1 and would increase block 1's maximum height limit to 400'. the plan amendment would non-minority male, et cetera. help achieve goals and objectives and provide public benefits including the creation of affordability and market-rate housing opportunities and community identity and built form the next slide provides that ensures high-quality architectural and urban design again a breakdown given by ethnicity standards. and as you can see in this map, non-minority female, non-minority it male, with some additional details zone 1 and zone 2 analyses on the distribution of and the contracts. circled area on the map is and now i'll go ahead and block 1. turn it which again is the only over to raymond lee block affected by the plan contractor compliance supervisor to amendment. elaborate on

block 1 is located on folsom street between main and spear the analysiss and address streets. this redevelopment plan specifies the block 1 land use as downtown commissioners' previous questions. residential and provides for >> there were questions a maximum height limit of 300' about look the the number of firms that on block are getting contracts, along 1. the reason for the plan with the availability of the firms amendment, ocii owns land within block 1 and are and utilization that these particular firms? working towards abagreement what i have provided here is to develop the property as a chart that shows the awards to mixed income homeownership housing. sbes and the in 2014 the commission authorized an percentage of small business exclusive negotiating agreement or awards. looking at the distribution ena with two project alternatives: of how those particular dollars one was a 300' tower and the were distributed within the other ethnic/gender was a 400' tower. categories. that is what is reflected in ocii has determined that had the third column. what is next a 400' tower is the preferred shown are the number of firms that alternative and therefore, recommending received plan amendment which allows for contracts during this past consideration of the six months. so just to read off proposed block 1 very quickly as an example project featuring 400' high-rise asian-american businesses, there were building increasing the oriole number of housing unit from 318 to approximately 15 firms that received $9.8 391. million.

increase the overall project 15 firms of black affordability from 35% to 40%. and allow for a taller tower african-american and so forth. the distribution by that better compliments the percentage within downtown skyline and provides for a the ethnic/gender categories more elegant design. 12% represented by asian-americans in requirements for a plan terms of getting awards. amendment: and then the availability of state redevelopment law specifis a number of requirements for redevelopment plan amendments. sbes that is gathered from the staff is prepared the required report to the board of supervisors, which city's lbe database and for those that contains background information on are not fully familiar with the the plan amendment. city's program, the city has a ocii in consultation with local the planning department, has business program, which prepared an tacks on to addendum to the 2004 that small business environmental report for the transbay criterias. while much of what we redevelopment project. the notice of today's focused on are commission our local business hearing was sent to project enterprises with area our contractors and with our property owners and occupants, 30 days prior to the hear, and consultants, we encouraged the them highly to use the city's lbe hearing notice was also published in database. so we looked at the examiner for three the city's consecutive database as being the pool weeks. the commission will consider approving the report to of available firms, along with that are the addition of outside board and plan amendments and if approved by bidders, that the commission, the planning we have gathered over the commission would consider the plan period. so

amendment in its conform [kwra-pbgs/] with the general plan and in aggregation of that, in the bdr look at sbe availability, and i want would conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of the to quantify that by saying that plan amendment. board of supervisors's the hearing will be notices in the same total lbe database is about manner as the commission's hearing n. this map you 1300 firms. can see the current it's roughly 1296, i believe. what we have done, we have taken a look at parcelization, lot 0p 27 to the north is specifically the type of disciplines owned by that folks have bidded on ocii and former agency purchased the property in 2003 for your contracts and have received contracts. so these are affordable housing purposes. the remaining parcels are specific to architects, engineers for professional services as an owned by fisherman spire and the example, block square along with cad, footage is nearly 54,000 square feet. environmental consultion, environmental assessments, a number of things. along with that are the comparison of the two construction alternatives with the 300' tower and 400' areas being both general engineering contractors, building tower. as i mentioned before the contractors, b and c licensed contractors 00' tower includes3 18 homes of which and suppliers within the san francisco area. so the distribution 112 that is shown on the far right two

would be affordable. columns are availability and in the tower would be locate percentage of in the distributions within that. the attempt here is really first three-levels. not to conduct any type of the alternative with the 400' tower increases the number of availability utilization study per se. it's certainly by no means units to 391, to the of which 156 or 40% would be extent of a disparity study, affordable. but at least gives staff an idea also the affordable runts in where the the tower would be interspersed dollars are being awarded to? throughout floors 1 through whether there have certain 26. so discrepancies that we needed to pay the 400' tower alternative particular attention to? i results in know one thing that has been talked 73 overall more housing about nast units, 44 -- in the past are the more affordable units and 5% low figures of latino-owned business more affordable and bmr units interspersed through floors 1-26. utilization. we can do better, but for the six months to tackle that con straiting on the 400' head-on, in terms of looking at what are the specific deficiencies that we need to pay attention for? alternative, combined for these past six months it affordable and looks market-rate homeownership with 39' like in terms of the awards tower on eastside of block of contracts it's distributed 16789 there are two with on a fairly -- i wouldn't say

residential podium equitable buildings between 65-80' basis, but on a pro rata tall and south and west tidesides of the board. basis one there is a shared should expect given the availability underground parking facility. there is of firms. that is what is attempted just over 9,000 square feet of retail with this particular slide. on the ground floor and all amenilities will be shareded equally by all residents. you can see the layout of with that said, i'm going to the proposed development program go ahead for the and have kashicka walk you 400' tower. through the remaining slides and spear street to the east, i'll be back up to give you additional main street to the west and folsom to the south. this is the site plan for color. the proposed 400' project. retail space is in orange. the townhomes are in blue the next slide is an overall and green and area on the left points summary from july 2015 to december to the -- the arrow on the left pointeds to podium entrances and the 2015. and other indicates tower entrance. details the number of

this slide shows project dollars towards the 50% goal and images, to the left we have a view of details professional services at the 400' tower. and top right, street view 105.4 million and construction and looking towards the northwest. and over in the lower right, supplies at $485.1 million. the street view towards the gap "pacific seasonings' building. proposed term of disposition and development agreement: the developer would make a $2 million good-faith deposit upon commission approval of the opdda and the land will be transferred at no less than fair market value and value formality ocii owned property is estimated to be $19.2 million. under the ena, the partis and next graph, so you can agreed that the developer would pay the see the land percentage and any price in cash at the close escrow and ocii provides a total fluctuations and changes and professional services continued to exceed the sbe goal and construction and supplies is

subsidy of $20.9 million in the proposed terms the developer will construct the 76 36.5%, very slight change from units without a subsidy from ocii. over the the construction of these course, but again, given units will some of the constitute payment of the fluctuations in the market, land price. this was this will result in a net to be expected and is not really savings of $1.7 million to ocii. alarming to us. [kpwh-epbs/]ment commencement of the project would begin in january 2016 and completion no later than 40 months from commencement. >> the next slide speaks to focusing on affordable the prior commitments and in housing, the terms of payment information, we have proposed terms all of the affordable units sold through ocii's done an analysis in terms of the limited equity program to ensure systems. that the units will be permanently their collection of payment information and how that is affordable. 76 ocii affordable units gathered located n and triggered? there are the podium would be some affordable to barriers collecting monthly households 80-100 area ever payment information with respect to area median income and sample relations. the system was built with the expectation that payment is price for initiated by a public entity or public

two-bedroom -- $311,000 at agency. many of our contracts were 100% ami and developer affordable not the units locate direct awarding body, so we in the tower and townhomes would be don't actually make a particular payment. we oversee the particular priceded at 100-120% of ami. projects. and along with that are a at 100% of ami, sample sales number of security measures, in terms price is $384,000. note these prices are in of how the projects are created 2015 dollars. within the system. so in short, the collection of payment information the homeowners' association structure, the projects dues directly through the system posess a for the barrier. what we're looking at is hoa for bmr $00-$750 per certainly the continued practice and unit per month and for any bmr unit we're still gathering payment information as the contracts are completed. at 80% of there is no doubt about that, but in ami, with hoa dues above terms of looking at the gathering more timely payment $850 per month at unit closing the information, vern will set aside an amount to cover we're still exploring that. we know that a lot of excess hoa dues over the period of contractors use

tex tura, as an example. 7.5 years. it's an proposed amenities in the industry-based cash-flow lobby and management open space, all residents system for construction have equal access to amenities contractors. so what we're look at is including outdoor cord yard on level 2 of the possibly getting monthly reports from podium and outside roof garden at level 5 these contractors that use textura the roof of the townhomes and shared access to the lobby attendant and 5th and also looking at possibly putting floor lounge area. in terms of parking, there textura as maybe a contractual requirement or will be something to that effect? 300 underground parking and we're not certain as yet. 344 we're certainly continuing spaces of parking six to explore car-share that to see how we can stalls and 10 electric effectively and efficiently gather payment information? but as it currently stands, vehicle the administrative requirement charging stations and 150 to gather bicycle parking spaces. monthly paper information is parking parity between mr not feasible. and bmr is 1 and to gather within the :1 ratio. park ing available to bmr at elation system doesn't seem workable that the particular point. so what a blow-market cost of the lesser of 1/2 market-rate or operating we're

looking at possibly check cost. alt this time i'm going turn register the presentation to josé campos, printouts or preferably who is the manager of planning and within design review for ocii. and he is going to present textura. with that said, what has been the urban provided in shslide are what has been design analysis and the awarded and committed to environmental review. >> thank you. >> thank you, marie. two projects based on what we heard from the commission at the end of my name is josé campos, as 2014. marie we began collecting in the munson mentioned and i'm the early part of 2015, two projects that manager of planning and design were completed and award review for ocii and i would like to commitments for these two particular share with you how the staff came to projects are shown. with respect to the the conclusion that we would recommend a 400' tower versus the 300' tower that was originally designed in percentage, for 1180 4th street, 24.4% what the transbay design for development was was process. to understand that, i think actually reported within their payments. we need to go back to the beginning for block 50, it was 53% that was of the committed to at the onset. transbay program and its in the final payments were community planning effort. 58.2%.

the transbay design for there were substantial changes within that particular project in development terms of document was adopted and the construction. published in 2003, and this was two years prior to the plan adoption. it was through a one thing that has been asked of staff in the past also was community process that we -- the our outreach activitis? what is agency -- decided that this part of san francisco should see shown here are outreach activities for the additional high-rise development, and past six months really in the creation of a new terms of the particular numbers that residential high-rise district in you see. first and foremost, each of transbay. so our contractors and consultants it was over ten years ago that this happened. do utilize direct and since then, many things have notifications, email changed. notifications to relevant first, to the south of the small businesses, and again, we district, encourage specifically the use of the within the rincon hill city's lbe database. advertisements are made in area, we have general media and also in sbe-focused media. seen higher heights. a perfect example was the these heights include towers small business exchange. that are each of the contracts that nearby this site just across folsom street.

as well, significantly increased heights on top of rincon are hill. publicly advertised and up to 550 and above. solicited on the office of contract administration and where ocii is on block 1, we thought that essentially listed as if it was another city agency within the city's overall a 300' height limit at time of plan procurement system. what is good about adoption in 2005 would be appropriate that is because that when con contractors we didn't understand the growth that the city's skyline would do witness. north of the transbay zone 1 subscieed to the rss fee and area, which is along folsom street i'm not technically savvy to know in 2012, what rss means, but basically when the transbay -- i'm sorry, contracts are advertised there is notification the transit center district plan that it's pushed to the corn was adopted and including tractors who subscribe to these heights as high as 1070' which is sales particular fees to get timely force tower. notification of i will show some bid opportunities. visualization studies that we did to help determine what kind of impact this we have attended 23 pre-ed proposal would have to increase the by -- height from 300' to 400' on the preproposal meetings and city's skyline, as well as on the each contractor is required to neighborhood, as vieweds as hold these meetings before accepting bids. those are typically held two

weeks before bids are accepted, to allow sufficient time for contractors to respond. on an ongoing basis we do a pedestrian or resident in the district. these are basically the and have met with a number of groups, height maps that show the existing structures surrounding block 1. block 1 is in the darker and a number of bayview blue. but you can see in front of subcontractors and held some general contractor block 1 we have the gap building, focus groups and the national which is association of minority contractors we basically ranges in height have been engaged with and the from 90' president is at podium to 240' at the here today. so a number of steps that we have taken certainly to get highest floor and approximately our projects be made aware 289', that is and known the block between block 1 to the contractors community and the embarcadero roadway. and specifically the small if you look to -- i'll show you business here with my cursor -- if community you look directly to the south of the block 1 project you have the infinity project, which has a tower >> now i'll go ahead and here on move on to spear street at 400'. the workforce program. and also one at 350' here. and similar to the 50% sbe and the luna project about contracting

to open has a tower of 400'. goal, we also have a 50% and 350' here. goal for the kind of heights that the workforce program. we're seeing and there is a good-faith in the district to the south effort to of what employ san francisco we call transbay 1 in the residents. so 50% of the total workforce and this rincon hill is on a contract-by-contract district were not anticipated at the time we established the design in the redevelopment plan. the height of the rincon basis should be san francisco tower is residents. first consideration is given labeled here at 550'. to residents of the project and, in fact the actual area for hunter's point shipyard. height, when you consider the 10% and we currently have three allotment that the planning code allowed is major project areas. 605'. that is the hunter's point because that tower is on top shipyard of a candlestick point, mission hill, the perception of bay and height is much greater. and now to the north, in transbay. ocii actually has an 2012, the transit center district plan was adopted. and that covered the entire agreement with transbay redevelopment project area, oewd, who administering the the portion that is north of program and handles referrals to san folsom street, but also francisco residents and incorporated a lot deals with larger area. the day-to-day compliance. and even though we do have the northern portion of the this area was agreement in place, ocii rezoned to increase the compliance staff works very closely

height significantly. so we have the sales force tower under construction, which was always to be seen as the with oewd staff and city staff to make sure tallest building in san francisco at that the good-faith efforts the point in time that we had are being created the design for development made and that compliance is document. being at that point we were looking at followed. 550' as the highest, but in the next slide details the addition, the transit center district ocii work performance for july 2015 plan through december 20 15. increased heights 850 and this gives a total work 700' on several parcels many of hours for local workers for san which are nearby between mission street and howard street. so i just wanted to share this with you, so can francisco a you see the context in the sense 330,794 hours that is out of that things have changed. when we created this new high-rise district in transbay, 1,206,107 hours. basically the context was much different. for a total of 27.4%. it was lower -- we had lower heights and we were pushing and below that is a detail the envelope. and at this point, we're now of the breakdown by project area. considering how to make sure for the local hours, as well that what we doing now in this as a total hours in that project -- not area with the percentage as well.

final, but mid-stage of implementation of transbay fits in with the context of the rest of the downtown area? so how we did that was by conducting an urban the next slide gives a design amion. breakdown by ethnicity of the total work hours for analysis and wanted to see local residents. that was performed from july what the impacts on not just the 2015 to december 2015. skyline or image of city, but the neighborhood and how it looks like from public spaces nearby? that is a total of 1,206,107 particularly rincon park, which is close and have open spaces hours. as a pedestrian you experience it in a different way than the skyline. next you will see we did analysis of the information on all skyline from afar and am analyses of how active projects with a total local workforce hours at 1,310,668 the tower height increase would impact the local environment, the neighborhood environment? so i will hours. that is out of a total of share with you some of these analyses. i wanted to tell you we looked at the 4,884,003

hours and that say total of same vantage points from 26.8% of total for active projects 2000, from the very popular and and that is a slighting increase of .2% well-known vantage points and vistas that you have in the city, from twin peaks, as the from the top of dolores park other slide detailed below this, you will see a breakdown on the and bernal heights and telegraph active projects as well by project hill, et cetera. we found the 300' height area. tower was barely visible and even the 400' tower was really not visible or barely recognizable for most of these vantage points from the south, and from the west of the project. the next slide givess a now the biggest impact really on the skyline is the view from the breakdown of local resident by area. water, from the bay. you will see the percentage , in fact, it's really from treasure island where you probably of total have the biggest impacts as someone hours by project. actually on land, looking at the skyline. it's looking towards the downtown from treasure island, where you have the largest, most

significant impact of how the building height we should also just discuss some of would increase, would this increase in the workforce challenges. building height would impact because some of the project basically the image of city? areas had a slight decrease, even though others from yerba buena island we have remained pretty have a great vantage point from the constant, and area and workforce challenges sounds i wanted to share with you bad, but it's actually not a bad some of thing. the viewpoints. because that means that a this image is actually a lot of people are working, and that photo taken from yerba buena island, is what we're hearing from city adjacent to treasure island, looking at san francisco skyline as it is build and today. oewd is that we're getting a the site, you will see if lot of people to work on our you follow my cursor, you may be able to distinguish the gap building projects. so i which is currently at the embarcadero and behind the gap building is basically where the proposed tower for have heard from many of them block 1 would be located. that the halls are empty because in order for us to really determine people are working. how the city is going to there is a limited pool for look like with a 300 or 400' tower to local residents to perform the work and see how again, that is a good thing, the proposed projects the mean interesting that meaning high-rises

either under construction or that the soon to people are working and the be under construction will city is look? so we wanted to see the future also facing similar of the city's skyline. so this is challenges to what ocii is facing. the future of downtown san francisco. you can see from yerba buena island, the sales force tower at its peak basically demarcating the some of the corrective transit hub of san francisco and the measures to increase and get more people region. you can also see just how working is closely monitoring the rincon hill gets filled out in some of contractor's performance. and as ray mentioned the transbay parcels such as parcel f or block 5, which is under earlier, ocii staff, the compliance staff, we attend a lot of pretty much construction. and parcel 4, which you really can't all of the pre-bid meetings. see is basically shaping the and when the contractors are skyline into the lower valley around brought on, we are there to remind them and to make sure that they folsom this. is with the 300' understand that this is something that tower and we take the gap barely see behind very seriously. and that we're looking at building here. if you look at it from the how they perform and that we'll point of view of a 400' tower you can continue throughout the life of the project to make sure that they are see how

the 400' building starts to making these good-faith efforts and cap off assisting with or crown the gap building. contractors for referrals and work you can see that does have an impact. closely with city build and you can start to see it, but other community organizations that really is minimal as far as shaping may be the referring workers. skyline. we assist city build and another impressive view of san francisco is when you are on a conducting additional outreach. vehicle driving across the i know that city build i bay bridge and looking at the city's believe had added some additional classs to try skyline. to get even more people from this vantage point, involved and from the bay qualified to go ahead and begin bridge, again, the most dramatic impacts that this tower will working. have on the image of san francisco is coming from the water n. this case citybuild is our industry and coming from the bay and looking community partners to work with them to build a pipeline that is straight at the skyline. stronger than the one we already have. which you see is the embarcadero frontage and rincon park quite clearly and the gap building so now we'll move on to next was actually designed to step up steps. to the edge of the city. and sbe participation in and the rest of downtown san professional services is lower, but as i francisco as you see it mentioned, we do expect some today in this fluctuations. section of downtown. the continued efforts to

increase sbe this is a rendering of how participation in the future construction with downtown will look, with outgoing efforts to minority some of the and future development super women organizations and ethnic chamber of commerce and sbe imposed on this project, including 75 networking events. howard, the sales force tower, parcel f at continuing efforts to its current massing and continue local workforce participation, educating height and promoting lbe proposal and the 300' certification, that building that is something that we do at you see right behind the gap. all of the that was the original pre-bid/pre-proposal conferences and we do ask and give information about proposal in 2003 as far as the heights. becoming certified, if they qualify this shows a little bit of as an sbe. the and then the semi-annual proposed architecture, that reports that we can talk to you further about we provide and updates. and will review as part of an approval of the project at a later hearing. but we showed you what that i will turn it over to proposed raymond, to architecture would look like at 300' and then at 400'. that is how the impact would be as you are driving across the add any comments. bay bridge. >> pat mulligan from the that is what you would see differently than with a 300' oewd citybuild is here as well to answer tower. any questions about the we feel that the workforce. so we'd be happy to answer

any questions that you have. stepping-up, that >> we'll take public you have heard about and comment first. >> i do have one speaker that i will mention from the waterfront card for up to the mr. oscar james. downtown and to the high-rises of the downtown still works with >> good afternoon again. the 400' tower. you see that the gap oscar james. two concerns. building creates that edge of the city and the tower one is minority contractors behind it, which is the block 1 project fits in within that and their pay, being paid within the view point. 45-days so we also wanted to share with they can pay their staff and what have you? if you want you a perspective if you were on a minority boat. contractors to become actually if you were on a boat or self-sustaining, to pay coming on the ferry, looking their at the payrolls and build a good skyline and this is probably record, they have to pay on-time and the most they have to pay their employees dramatic view you would see, directly on-time and their insurance and what in front. most of the have you. the other concern is that my brothers viewing of this and sisters coming home from property will not be the penitentiaries and from the jails. we need to set a special accessible unless you are on the water, either project up on the bridge or far way as for them. a lot of them come home you saw and they have trades under from yerba buena island. their builts. if you happen to be on a some of them are architects. water vehicle and approaching the some of them are plumbers

gap and they have other skills. and you need to have a building, approaching folsom street, special program set up for them to this is what you see today. help them this is what you will see in get in these unions. the future as the buildings there are 261 operating engineers and being approved or approved what have you? are those are some of the getting built and the programs that proposal at 300'. we found many, many years and here you have the ago before we started young community proposal at 400'. as you can see, similar developers and hiring hall to get these heights of the buildings across the street at unions folsom at infinity and luna to help people pay their union dues and what have you? i know development and also see that the development on rincon hill and financial district, the transbay area, transit center area manpower has a program, where they help people south of get in the unions, different market are much taller. this is just another image unions different trades once they that we wanted to share with you. complete this is done by the their projects. i would ask them to ask you architects, to ask studio gang and you can see them to extend that to the outline of the architecture people who are coming home and cannot pay of this proposed block 1 tower, union dues and get into the unions, even though they have these skills about 300', and at they come when they come home? we need to help our brothers 400'. so we also wanted to and

make sure sisters and basically i'm we were studying how it thinking of the african-american and looked in the neighborhood? if you lived in rincon -- near rincon park or on mexican-american that the rincon hill on transbay district, what would be the impact be as a pedestrian walking around? we took some views from rincon park and this is existing. young kids 18, 19 beyond years old, and here is what is proposed standing on corners and will get off those corners when they see their development, the 75 howard mothers project on and fathers coming home and the right. getting work and they can see a and some additional buildings on rincon hill. parent setting an example. this has the 300' tower they come home and go to behind the work that will help those kid goes to gap building where it's not visible, work also. i see a lot of my people really. still standing on the corners, with the 400' tower from even though we have young community rincon park, developers and commission hiring hall it starts to become visible. and the impact as a pedestrian, different trades. as you would see the 400' tower from nearby neighborhood this. is one they still need to have vantage someone who point. we wanted to show you one on has been away, come home and folsom street this. is looking want to work and go to work. towards folsom street. this is just a more dramatic okay? so help those

brothers and example of viewing this building sisters who are coming home from the open space, and from the from jail get into these programs and get into waterfront. the unions. here is existing. i ask for something separate here is with the proposed to be development said for them -- you have and 300'. and then there is the tower minority contractors and you have all at 400'. of these other contractors and have as you can see it matches a separate program for them. heights in thank you very much. the vicinity, but also follows the rhythm of the skyline as >> good afternoon, heights are commissioners. higher in the north and also happy new year. look forward to working with to the you south atop rincon hill. folks this year again. looking from folsom street, first of all, i wanted to this is folsom street today near thank a essex, i couple of things. believe. looking straight towards from last year i saw the reports of contracting for minority contractors yerba buena island at the terminus of -- i'm focusing on minority construction and the beginning of the contractors especially based project being built. what in san francisco, as we call it lbe it would look like once the projects certified. are completed is that. so this and also, minority suppliers.

is folsom with the transbay we have quite a few of them redevelopment project's built that has in the bayview. but before i go there, first been approved to-date. and then it also shows 300' of all, i wanted to thank raymond tower at the end of folsom street. and his team for collaborating. and you'll see what the we had some success with difference is minority contractors. so that is a between 300' tower, which my good sign of things that are moving cursor shows this is block 1, and forward. in reference to one that is the 400' tower. particular that is the impact from contractor presidio builders, whereby folsom street he was not able to win some walking towards the bay. of the projects in the bayview, come to find out that he had signed a and closer up, this is the existing conditions with the gap contract with one of the general building, the rear portion of the gap contractors. thanks for the help for building. this is block 1 and maybe these folks the best meeting with the general view of what it looks like today these are the small one-story buildings that would be demolished as part of the project when the contractors and utilizing local lots get consolidated, the tower and contractors and to continue to build on that podium structures would sit there. success to reach those 50% goals at 300', it would look like that ocii has. 50% for minority contractors that and and from an urban design suppliers. it would be great to

perspective, once you are beyond 85' separate them, because suppliers wear different hats. walking you they are non-union. don't really see it and no they spend their money impact with the exception of perhaps some buying shadowing. so that can be materials from manufacturers. they, in fact, act as a seen even banker. they don't get paid in 30 probably more informatively through a video that i would like to days by share with contracts. most of time you. contractors pay suppliers 45-60 days and that category definitely needs to be separated. on the one hand, these are we did a time-lapse video of union contractors who pay their how the building looks at 400' as dues, based in san francisco and hires workers. one walks and we do, too and the across the embarcadero suppliers as well. as it increases, suppliers adjacent to rincon park, at 300' and at will hire more workers for deliveries, for 400'. sourcing and procurement here it is at 300'. so this types of work. so there is balance is a in both ends to look into. i would definitely like to time-lapse. work with that is the building at 300' ocii staff to help them implement some of the programs that walking the length of rincon park could and at some benefit both sides, the point it's just completely

general contractor, the suppliers hidden behind the gap building. and also the small minority contracts. and then it reappears. because it's time for us to now bring but as you can see at 300' it to another level. with that said, the structure, it's not that tall. percentages that at 400' it becomes a little i looked at still is smaller compared to a small business. because when you are a small bit more evident. business, you are certified the architecture behind the it's a gap buildion and from folsom you self-certification. have a sba. so anybody can be a better view of the entire small business. building . whereas for minority-owned companies we need to pay to get and from this vantage point, certified as a it's not such a big impact on the minority-owned company to the entities. in self-certification, anybody can be a small business and i would waterfront. encourage ocii to look at these types of certification? because we have to spend money. in order to be a supplier in san francisco and have lbe certification, you have to have a warehouse with those materials in stock. excuse me, as i bring up the otherwise you won't get that certification. so there is

a lot of investment done on behalf of the power point presentation. contractors and suppliers to i mentioned to you impact be looked at. that a tall to solve some of these tower could have that we take very seriously is required to be issues and problems, what we have done and i studied have been meeting with many pursuant to the california environment quality act. minority contractors and suppliers, it's part of our we're just about to launch an environmental review we studied the shadow impact and wind organization that impact would be of a taller is going to consist of a tower? large minority gec and a developer. to go after a lot of these projects under the ocii, it's pretty much as oust outlined and consists of close to 100 minority contracts from the san francisco market area. so we're looking at northern california. because if we don't step up to the plate as a trade association and help minority contractors succeed, we still will be subcontractor, many of them for a number of years and go after smaller projects. we're looking into if we can the block 1 project was

studied as part of the development scenario for manage large contracts, large projects under the ocii, we can hire all the entire redevelopment area under minority contractors. the environmental impact we will meet 100% goals. report certified by the commission that is what the criteria is. prior to adoption, certified in 2004 because we have been struggling and and plan fighting against the general adoption happened in 2005. contractor, large the analyses that was done contractors, it's time that we decided that we in that environmental impact report was that should do this, and as soon as it's higher intensity of land use than what is currently being proposed in the development of block 1 all approved, and all our now. you might wonder why is that certification the case? if the building is and license agreement we'll actually surely taller? well, basically, let you know. thank you. >> great. thank you. when we did the environmental analysis we maxized development to the point that we wanted to make sure that we no more cards? >> no. saw the >> okay, this is a workshop. impacts of really maxing out commissioner singh, you had a on number of units and square question? >> thank you, madame footage of retail? at the point in time of president. developing mr. lee, page 7 of this the development [krao-upblz/] refinements on building massing and making the tower even more presentation you have, i see the minority slender, the ultimate result even with a higher height we have less units than

what was studied in the eir. we have less total square male and female is 25 million to only footage than what was studied in the eir and also less retail square footage than 480,000? what was studied in the eir. all of those, the impacts >> that were studied in the eir were for in slide 7, the figure that is shown uses and is $43 million total sbes of intensities greater than what is currently being proposed. so what we which minority and female would be the looked at really following difference between $43 and ceqa was the project that was before $25, roughly $18 million. you today, which is the increase >> yes, why is there so in height from 300 to 400'. so much difference between male and following ceqa, we prepared female? >> oh, no. an addendum, and we looked at i think i want to make a the impacts of that increase in distinction. height and we determined those the non-minority female is impacts that needed to be studied were $480,000 and you are saying that the shadow and wind. the addendum that you have vast before you difference between non-minority also studied or discussed female and non-minority male, why is there such a vast difference? transportation and aesthetics, but with respect to ceqa, what we really >> why where the men required to look at was the getting $25 million more? >> that is the $9 million impact of the physical structure going

higher 100'? we did a very thorough question. >> thank you, commissioner shadow study singh for pointing that out. >> that is the big and did wind analysis that question, of determined course. there were no hazardous this is specifically in conditions resulting from the increase construction. in height and that the pedestrian getting female participation comfort-level in construction has been a on all points that were challenge. studied were satisfactory to the planning it's still a challenge and code's we foresee it still continues to be a challenge. basically we need more women requirements. i want to share with you entering into the union workforce for some details about the shadow analysis, that we feel is very important. construction trades and coming out of as mentioned we did a very that as business owners. >> i wanted to make sure rigorous study and took very that we increase that from 430%, at seriously the impact that the tower increase height could have to the whole least one percent if not more? shadow shed area, which is an area that >> as you can see from goes as far as the transit center non-minority female professional services, those figures are different. -- the >> yes. transit terminal itself and >> there is a much higher city park that will be located above it through participation of non-minority female in professional services. rincon park. we studied six parks in >> the other thing is who

general. we had a very deliberate certified this? >> i do want to address the analysis of impacts that maybe wouldn't comment about certification? have been required to have been done, >> yes. >> ocii no longer but we made sure that not only did certifies, but that doesn't mean we take self-certification. we do require that the firm we apply san francisco planning code is certified through a section 295, which is basically prop governmental entity and that is important k and the sunlight ordinance, in a because with certification programs what you want to do, you want to weed way that really isn't required. but we decided to do it because it's important and we wanted to make sure that we measure adequately out essentially fraud firms that the shadow are by impacts. appearance manage d by a we also looked at parks that were not figure head, developed yet. but in actuality, being that is not normally the performed by methodology, but we wanted to make sure someone else. that we we require certification understood the impacts on through governmental entities the transbay park and city park because the programs look at control and do look on top of at owner ship control and the terminal. what the study conclude is that the maximum management of a firm before increase in shadow over an affected certification. so what we have basically done, park will never exceed what is called

we have basically for a lack of -- well, 0.49% of theoretically staff resources passed that onus to another governmental entities and i'm sure other governmental entities probably don't want to hear this, but we would accept their certification, available sunlight, which is the provided that they certify the firm. measure that planning code section 295 as an example, we do accept describes certification that is in analyzing what kind of potential certified by shadow a building could have the california on an open space? what it public utilities commission basically does is it measures the full area wmbe of the clearinghouse program, a park, of the open space in certification process that takes place there and we do accept question, and it's a factor of the amount of sun that could potentially certification through the department of general services, office shine if there were no buildings around it, given the sunlight that of small disadvantaged/disabled happens from sunrise to sunset on an business and they go through a certificatio process in that respect. annual basis. we certainly accept the the shadow analysisdemed california unified certification program, which is the u.s. department of transportation disadvantaged business enterprise program determined certifications. that the worst impact was at and they undergo a rigorous certification process there. the one thing that we do this level .049% decrease in look at among all of the

potential sunlight, in this case it was in the certification programs is the caveat that spear street plaza, which i will show you on a map. the firm's revenue meet the size and standards established by this here in this table you can commission. so with the see these are the six parks that we clearinghouse program is an example, studied. the california public you will note that we looked utilities commission program, there is at not a size limit to that. so we different factors of the shadowing. we wanted to know how many days the park could be shadowed confirm/affirm size and standardss by looking at and requesting potentially? even just a small increase their in shadow as a result of this height three-years' tax returns, so increase, we can take the average and ensure as you can see and i'm going it meet ours size and standards. >> it used to be a long to focus on rincon park, there would time ago, we be 28 actual days per year when used to be certified by the new shadow would occur. what we saw in rincon city and park and also at the spear then we started our own. street terrace was that the biggest i don't know why we can't do shadow impact wasn't during the winter that now? solstice. there is more around the >> certainly if i may, through the equinox, spring and fall. what we chair, it's more than just a lack of resources. also for the small business, noticed was the bottom row, you'll whether professional services or

see that the additional construction, that small duration of shadow on the day of the business or micro-lbe/dbe would be absolute maximum shadow was no certifying many, many times, producing greater in tax rincon park than 45 minutes. returns for the city and as you'll see in the video county of san francisco and producing that i'm that same go showing you, that impact set of certifications to get happens in the late afternoon certify somewhere the feds. same documentation to get between 4 o'clock and 5 certified with state and on top of it, o'clock in the afternoon. we were asking for that. we have found also through i mentioned to you earlier the what we feedback, yes, we used to do call "theoretically available annual sunlight." and with the certification and quite case of rincon park, the study showed that burdensome from owners, who said they the increase from 300' to just produced that information 400' would actually add only this much from the 0.34% of annual shade hang shading city and county and you. than the >> some people that could a 300'. you can see in order of don't depreciates educated and magnitude how kind of hard for the commission the shadow impacts the park

and there should be an easy way and usability of the parks when looked at on certain days of the year. than we should initiate that. >> well, certainly when we talk to businesses that are seeking certification we courage them to seek the city and certification permitted the services we try to answer the this video was produced by our consultant that did the questions it is burdensome and shadow unsewer mobile with the amount analysis. and it starts with the of paper but certainly something summer solstice june 21st and shows that you can that a small the affect around the equinox business owner puts if would be and also shows you the efficiently we have a certification background in any winter solstice, when shadows are longer, prior occupation do you know and last longer around the certainly converge folks to do a city. what they can to streamline the the difference in basically the 300' certification maintaining copies and 400' shadow of this and director bohe mentioned tower is having to produce the same readily visible in the video documents for the certification and the darker shade indicates 300' is burdensome so certainly

massing maintaining a current copy to be and lighter blue -- if you follow in the video that used by multi abates entities incremental works and certainly to provide lighter-blue shade, you'll see how them the combines as far as who the increase would result in to talk about to in the entities certain shadows on certain parts of the project area, and the open cuts through the mystery of the spaces that we discussed. you'll also note that we have certification. >> planning specialist i want to included some shadows of existing buildings, and then for the follow up with commissioner pipeline projects, you'll see that singh's question we working the buildings that we think will be developed, we have outlined in just a closely with ryan young the light-gray outline. it doesn't really impact the certification manager shadow, but you can visualize what so we are constantly checking in the with him to see if someone has cumulative effects could be once those buildings are built on submitted a certification or the the certification it up with him and general shadow on these open spaces. with that information, i'm going to show you the video. vice versa and catholic church owe on the thresholds for the so here is the summer solstice and size standards with wards to it's time-lapsed. those outside this city we'll you can see actually the ask for tax returns if we are

increases is not sure of the program so the the darker blue. you can see the height increase represented by this city and county of oakland very darker-blue, that currently you cannot see on they have a pb program they may public streets. and this only shows the shadow on not necessarily meet the side - public streets and open spaces. you can see around 3 o'clock so we'll get the textbook that a returned and the database that portion of folsom street is slightly information is not in the more shadowed and on the day database we have those tax of the summer solstice it starts to returns and meet the impact barely the embarcadero certification sized standards. around the end of the day. >> thank you. this counts for both spring and -- >> yes commission do but have any plans to try to oops -- here again, you see lighter-blue is the actual reach for female contractors for tower. and 300' and increment is example, like working with the organizations i know that local represented by the darker-blue as it 261 have a group of women a impacts spear street plaza which is construction group. >> we i'd like to context with the local units and attended the a privately-owned space. the shadow on rincon park women's fairs so we the try the

enters in outreach to begin in the moment it the afternoon and exits over the restaurant buildings towards the end of the day. this is the in construction. >> on the outreach slides what winter other teaches advisement do you solstice. you can see how it tracks do like the reporter or what the gap building. you can make out the shape kind of strategies are you doing of the gap building and this increase to cast a wider net and do a in height adds some shadow to the northern portion of rincon hill in grassroots outreach for the early participation and sure that's a afternoon -- i'm sorry, rincon park good question the outreach that in the early afternoon. is certainly partial listening a lot of it depends on the general contracts and the developer in terms of the advisement but certainly when we do that on the contracts that is direct if ocii we do it is in ethic so we were concerned about these impacts of this height increase. parishioners as i mentioned the there were community meetings at which this project was discussed, and sometimes, the bayview here is a listing of them. publication the world journey

for chinese language, the culminated in the final meeting that we had recently at transbay spanish papers where respect to citizens advisory committee, where we the developer and the general showed some of the information that we have contracts lennar has been good from the shadow studies, our addendum with advertising it the paper and basically the analyses of the urban design as seen from but other contractors there is the city's skyline or from the neighborhood. not a specific requirement they and the citizens advisory advertise with all the committee recommended approval of the particular medias so with their plan amendment after that discretion looking at the direct presentation. recently we received more advisement to the relevant and concerns in the form of letters from small businesses through e-mail members of as an example and also to you the community and they are asking about the same sorts of things that know the appropriate focus media we initially had concerns about. their concerns are about the small business exchange broadly impact that this higher tower would have on focused. >> do you have any questions. the city skyline on the feel >> i mean they've been asked of neighborhood, and on shadows on rincon park? they mentioned that this plan and answered by the businesses

amendment would require variation in how long they've been around san the development controls of francisco and asked for the transbay design guidelines and development controls. biography information about the and it also mentions in some businesses ms. wilson in here of these letters that we received, that we presentation earlier got up to didn't do an adequate look speak talked about the number of at the environmental impacts. so i years that the services have wanted to share with you some of our responses to these concerns: been around remember we said to make sure that san francisco businesses get the benefit from the first concern was that it adversely those opportunities impacts the urban form and inconsistent with city plans so i would highly encourage that and policies. you know we have gone this far this is in relationship to the general plan and the urban design elements, which is often as the commission pushed for the quoted in these protest letters. boundary we push for more there is a portion of the information on those businesses general plan that guides urban we hope those opportunities go to san francisco businesses that design and one have been here a look at and principle in that portion, which is the urban design element, survived you know they're describes how heights of buildings are skilled and you know should be better on the tops of hills to benefiting from there. create -- >> and you know going back to to accentuate.

what commissioner singh and everyone else is talking about we need to make sure we give equal opportunity for women to benefit from those opportunities as well that's why these programs are put in place to begin with to balance and bring equality to opportunities and so to look at the general plan who thinks maybe by businesses element and basically realized these principles. participating in this program in the case of transbay and in this and getting a contract it may area we have the difference in context that i described actually help them to take their initial. where you have the higher businesses to the next level heights on the hill atop rincon hill at they'll hire more people more people from to so there's a 550', really 605' at the peak of rincon hill that is accentuated tribal effect that happens we appreciate your - >> just a comment about the biography not as the projects are up to considerations but to the grade and north of market and more the extents we can aggregate it we'll certainly do that and prominently south of market

the provide additional column in towers. we have the two areas those slides. basically to the north, immediately >> and share with the project adjacent and to the south also immediate sponsor you know your desire for that. >> oh. >> you know they know. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so i have some short adjacent at folsom boulevard and transby. questions the slide that i think basically that edge of the downtown interests me is slide 8 really creates a definitive downtown skyline. the edge of the downtown with the waterfront is different than perhaps the kind of edge you would see in the central waterfront or areas that are more low-scale. we believe that the tower as proposed at 400' on block 1 actually does create the stepping-down. because of the fact that along the waterfront, along the the one that is 6 months of embarcadero we activity got the availability have the gap building and information and want to make sure i'm understanding it correctly that is both professional services and construction combined. >> that's correct it is explosion and in the sp e recently looked at the 75 howard available numbers from the local business certification information from c m.d. street. but other structures that >> that's correct spell your are in 200' last name for the record in the height range, that serve as c m.d. database with the basically the forecount forecourt of contracted we've awarded but not

very significant. the >> someone certified work on waterfront and behind the gap building that you have seen throughout the visual representations in our view does create that the jobs in the counts. accurate and adequate stepping down >> yes. i believe if any memory serves me about 50 in from the downtown mound, and from the higher totality we added in the heights from rincon hill. so we believe and we felt when we database. basically >> okay. >> but thought c m.d. database started to look at more closely this increase in height, that the did i hear you correctly to say urban design element was, in fact, being from the ones that the special adhered to in this specific part of the urban design, the stepping-down to the waterfront was being adhered dance germane to our contracts to. obviously not everyone in the databases it is one thou three hundred and 75 hundred from the database. >> that's correct. >> and the non-restricted a variation is basically the minority female the white caucus agency's ability to change the rules women because there should be i for a presume a minority of women. certain development control,

>> that's correct the minority meeting certain findings. in this case, what we are women's are cross with the proposing as a plan amendment. so the plan amendment will actually category. >> okay. so i guess the two change the rules fully on this block. the plan amendment is going percentages that jump out at me to increase the height from 300' to 400' and therefore, we would not come to needing attention when you look the commission and request a variation. because at the point in time at the availability you know if this plan amendment is approved, we have versus let me see if i the development proposal before you understand the number of firms in the schematic design and also percentage where is the amend the development percentage of total really the controls and design guidelines for sort of what you expect the transbay to be in accordance with the market representatives of those redevelopment plan. one of the concerns -- i groups 17.1 of the sp are think one of the biggest concerns we have heard from members of the public is just the increase in shading on the open spaces, on the public open asian-american. >> that's correct. spaces >> what we are looking is. such as rincon park. we have shown through the analyses that we presented to you, >> column 3 the distribution through the videos, through the shadow of the total dollar amounts. studies and through our environmental review; that the impact is really >> column 3. >> distribution so this is the minimal. the impact that you see on

total vertebral 17 are asians the park is in areas in in -- in rincon park and 14 and a half in terms of -- are in areas that are hard-scaped or also aboved the roofs receipts. >> correct. >> there's program for asians of the restaurants. so we and a lot of rooms for really cannot agree with the idea african-americans oh, african-americans are it's available at 6.5 so - yeah, so impacting substantially the enjoyment and recreational use of the park. the african-americans are the other mention was some participating well, it looks of the environmental impacts were not like. >> there's a lot of effort in considered in our addendum and two in engaging the local businesses in particular were pointed out. one was hydrology and the the bayview hunters point for the particular projects. >> okay latinos are almost on other was traffic. the question of whether or par it looks like not flooding because of sea-level rise or yeah. i caution this provides a good flooding along the waterfront in a storm event, what would that impact picture at some point but i be? well, the addendum caution not a full disparity analyzed the increase in height of the >> yeah. i know just a general idea a picture of when you got tower. the city requires us to to the bottom line those are the actually comply with ordinances that wellness ones that non-minority would result in the block 1

males small business firms not development having to make sure that large but small business it's resistant to certain load floods. companies owned by caucasian we have looked at maps and the maps they're receiving 51 percent but laid out in the city ordinances by on 43 percent of marketed and puc and fema maps and city that's correct. >> i'd like to understand that ordinance requires that within the dynamic how is it nancy people 100-year existing flood zone has in the market the numbers route in a small business under a floods small business lens the white man continues to benefit almost resistant. in any case, we would be disprorpts. required, if >> i didn't do it broke down this development were in a continue professional and flood zone, we would be required construction i permitted some of or at least recommended and we the distribution of number of would firms you'll see that this the definitely move forward with ensuring that the building is flood resistant non-minority males is probable and there are certain measures that we're looking at to ensure at the level in professional that would happen in the case of services what stands in flooding. now with respect to traffic, as i construction and quite frankly a mentioned to you earlier,

the amount of development on this site is few construction firms that actually less than -- the intensity of land use is less than probable have been scooted this what was studied in the eir, and as a number and has to do with with result, the traffic generated would be less than what was originally the type of firm and where authorized and cleared in the original they're based what i'm getting eir. so at it basically some of the more i'm going to pass it on to successful construction firms are not in san francisco because marie munson and it you have of the cost of doing business questions with and the cost of land and so respect to the environmental impact report, the author of our forth addendum from the san francisco in terms of of the non-minority planning department is also present. male i looked at that briefly we >> thank you, josé. have a few large non-minority i just wanted to provide a list of future opportunities for all of san francisco contracts. >> in construction. >> in construction community input: planning commission hearing specifically and that's with the will be in february. 10 percent. you will consider the opa >> that's correct. >> even with the 10 percent and correct. >> so we don't have time to dda schematic design and control amendments in march. talk about it but maybe an today again we're just focusing on the plan amendment, which

would then allow you to consider the proposed offline conversation like san development project. so actually i'm sorry that goes to the mateo it says to me that i don't citizens advisory committee in march, and then it will come to you in april, the dda, schematic design and frankly understand i understand where san mateo is cheaper to do development controls amendment. bills. >> i looked at the briefly in the board of supervisors alameda county will meet to oh. >> and also in the sonoma area consider the plan amendment and then also in may of 2016, the board of but predominantly alameda county supervisors needs to i'd like to talk further and consider the 3 3433 report, require and provide delays and i know we're redevelopment law that needs running out of time the only to be demonstrated that the property will not transfer at a price that question on the contracting side is less than fair-market value that. will be from the elevation project another hearing and the board of didn't work for us what about supervisors makes that decision and asking our contracts requiring finding. our developers slash general today staff is asking to you contractors to use the approve the report to the board of elevation. supervisors. >> they used that there is no adopt the environmental doubt. review >> on the payment side.

findings pursuant to ceqa, approve the plan amendment, refer >> yeah. here's the tricky part the plan amendment to the planning commission, and recommend the plan amendment to the board of supervisors for you don't have to answer me i know they use it for the its workforce so then the last thin approval and adoption. just to tie those together, again, i keep i mean, i'm not these are next steps. understanding that is interesting goes to the adding to that is the land workforce issue that if we have closure in the family 2016, construction start folks stan on krrngz you know in early 2017. the bayview and we got more latinos i think that exists in that ends our presentation. we have several people here san francisco on the i guess i don't understand that - i don't understand that i don't understand we can have san franciscans on corners not working but. >> we have to. we have planning staff from oci and >> central valley coming in or we have what. >> we have to get them into representatives from the developer, and we have the architect. the unions. >> into the unions. >> do you have a response thank you. >> thank you. 40 percent latinos i don't know what percentage the latinos in

san francisco. >> 22 maybe. we will consider public comment on the items. >> okay. do we have speaker cards? >> we do, over 20. i will count them five at a >> yes. i got that. time. >> here's what happens when we rob pool. miss a meeting i'm sorry. >> first, i want to thank the donald. support of ocii commission and greg onsell. all at staff around the greg cookston and alice dur workforce development something that was not noted but to acknowledge of all the city departments workforce data and oinger. >> i'm rob pool the project replacement is more reversals in manager of the san francisco housing replacement think ocii and action coalition and members construction projects than by supported non-profit advocates for others chapter 6 department and well-zioned and well-located housing in the mayor's office of housing all levels of affordability in for private investment in san san francisco and i believe it's francisco i think that speaks to my first time speaking at this the supports from the commission commission meet and i'm excited. as well as the staff for that the plans were presented to success that is to be fair it is us in october of 2014. difficult to track the private and in regards to the investment in san francisco we upzoning, we absolutely support using the have data on visually all the

increased height to deliver new construction projects but more affordability within the project. not certified payroll we track as a policy, something that we support across the city new placements it's a accurate because of the benefits it can deliver. i think what this project to say that appendixes in the has achieved is unprecedented in last fiscal year in 2014-2015 san francisco, 40% on-site affordable with regard to the placements of housing for a building is pretty remarkable. individuals that may seem like it's not like 5m or mission rock, which had much greater scale, which had job housing linkage fees their suitable for gainful to achieve the 40% marks this. employment we can on this edging is just it's people so much there are one residential building and we as an organization have never seen that. that can only be achieved abashes or barriers for high because of the added height and i would school dilemma or ged and did like to say that, i think 70 extra the those are industrial units and standards some expectations but 60% of those are below most of pressure programs have those as requirements market rate again through our program we and just speaks for itself. to add to this, could i have have other places to assist the projector please and think people targeted receiving a about who ged's or high school dilemma but changes associated with that and these bmrs serve? this is from the planning department's website. california state driver's if you look between 70-120%

license we are working with other entities towards ami, the maximizing the amnesty period people purchasing these homes is construction workers, postal inform support individuals clerk, getting air can state driver's teachers, first-responders, electricians, that is -- license the contractor require that is our middle-class. these are the people being that for the need of popping into the say service truck or squeezed out of the city and these this project is providing homes for those people. is this clear for everyone? dump truck that is readily zabl that is requirement and large those are premise public works and infrastructure tremendous benefits, who we're building projects there is also a drug screening e skroen that is a homes for and we're building more barrier for employment for some homes with increasing the height. individuals as much as we are we believe that the eir is solid and does not need to be reviewed supporting the outreach citywide again. we're focused if d-10 time to i think the presentation showed that the increased height from address the question bought up urban design standpoint fits in very well from the city and actually in ten years or so, this building about formally incarcerated will not they're a top prerequisite not a look that tall relative to what else cycle for the formally is in pipeline. incarcerated individuals well

we support the project and represented but challenges support the height increase and hope around the barriers mous in you can move it forward today. thank you. >> thank you,. place with the san francisco can we have -- is district attorney's office adult probation and 5 key charter commissioner pimentel is asking if you schools the charter school wouldn't mind sharing that with us? supporting high school dilemma >> i can email that to you and ged completion in the san as well. francisco jail system and all the services for the folks we >> good afternoon work with the sex offenders and commissioners. their exclusively fronted by terry anderson's that is the i'm donald -- [speaker not understood] last year's recipient of the basically i'm a member of sf awards but sometimes, people are facing multiply barriers towards and sierra club member and very employment we try to address the active. acknowledging the housing other barriers if not everybody shortage before our city in the last is seeking this type of november election 57% of the sf employment's as well we have sometimes refusal for some job voters passed legislation for more opportunities and job calls i affordable housing. and tenant as agreed think one of the challenges with construction as much as it is

great for individuals and a career pathway it is hard work promotes health and wellness. what i like the hours are difficult, the about the 160 folsom projects maintains and enhances public sight lines fiscal challenges can be some at 400'. challenges on that the below market rate units any other questions specifically will be to this? mixed instead of being on okay. great the lower floors of the building. thank you the developer will subsidize thank you >> okay. those are my homeowner association dues. questions. >> just a working group. sponsoring the 391-unit >> yep just. building with 40% affordable spacious >> working group e workshop units in a white billionaire thank you for the follow-up on neighborhood where our questions and look forward it costs today a market-rate to the photocopy on our new $1600 a square foot to own a one questions. >> thank you bedroom/one bath condo and it's key to okay oh, i'm sorry. >> we'll go on to the next infusing racial diversity while item and a a chance to sneak out creating social equality in the transbay district community. none of the surrounding builds having to catch my flight. >> i'll say there is an any on-site affordable units opportunity deputy director is

and thus prepared to give a high-level creating neighborhood equity and sustainability and at the same time protecting our local overview the slides talk about environment, our property tax draw and should rather than damaging the commission want to continue suburban sprawl. the closed session it's mixed-use is diverse and healthy there are not urgent matters. is green, is leed certified >> thank you and accessible and sustainable and even traffic impact is lower than okay. >> we may lose - when is your normal. by creating more spot zoning projects flight deadline. like this, it will bring down rents >> should be out of here by 6 for san francisco tenants, and okay. we'll be done by normalize real estate valuations that then. >> next item, please. become >> okay. the madam clerk, any sustainable and affordable for young familis to transfer from low-income to working middle-class. other business before this is 5 g working group to recognize the please approve the height of this project. we are in a state of public emergency with our housing shortage. thank you. >> thank you. payment schedule for 20152016 through 2017 discussion madam >> speakers, can you please come to the far right, so we don't block the director. >> certainly given the entrance? come on this way. thank you. lateness sdubsz deputy director i'll give you a high-level

overview the payment schedule and one drop pursuant to the legislation signed by the governor last fall that will be mr. onsell. our overall budget there the process the oversight board must >> hello. act next week to get to the i'm of -- the traffic is deadline. >> thank you director bohe i want to say i've made a couple changes to the slides our deputy really bad of the finance is out of town and increasing from 300 to i've noticed a couple of things 400 adds more residents and more cars. it if you see a difference follow along on the street it tooks 20 minutes going two-and-a-half blocks and it director bohe mentioned sp is will increase the traffic and pass we're in a rock world that make it is the biggest change we're worse. preceding as we have focusing on implementation of our obligations paying for staff and i walk from the bay bridge to the ferry building and i want to those kinds of things it is see the city, and i want people who similar wrap structure

are coming to visit san we have an accelerate scheduled francisco seeing the city the way it is. and director bohe mentions i don't want to see a wall. oversight board on onward make a thank you. >> thank you. deadline submission a template on this december 29th a >> mr. cookston? compressed schedule the funding sources remain the >> hello. same the organization eva 12 i watched the animation of the shadows, i thought that was very interesting. months periods 6 most in a and b the problem with animations is that they don't tell the complete truth. period to help to estimate when for instance, shadows don't confine themselves to streets. the property tax we'll be they cover buildings. they cover surfaces. estimated for the overall 12 they cover public areas. months so high-level $460 million you and that wasn't represented in that animation. that one particular area on spear see it is breakdown a third and street, that little plaza they were talking about, it's right at the center of the infinity third between the bonds precedes complex, who procedures and others from our this developer built several years ago. that is where people to use again similar uses debt enjoy sunshine and where people service as usual the largest have their lunch and enjoy the

investment that portion of thirty percent of our they made at the infinity complex. there are 1400 people that usage for the pressure bonds and live there and none of us contemplated all of the project areas is non-housing and affordable a 400' housing and asset uses along and 426' tower going up with the administrative and right next door. i know myself when i bought my unit other obligation activities on the 42nd floor i was so when we go to the shown a diagram by the developer's non-restricted debt service uses agent that showed 300' tower on that this give us a high-level view property. i believe the developer already owned that property at the time. the program breakdown is the so clearly, the plan was to put housing portion a robust housing a 300' building there. so i program and this budget will figured 42-floor, no problem, i'll be able to continue into next week with the see this view and enjoy it on the project areas mission bay was basis that i moved from los large we're issuing bonds new angeles, got my beautiful home in san francisco. bonds this year and the now i'm going to be looking into the developer's third project. expenditure the proceeds for i don't think that is right. i have a real problem with 2016-2017 will be ongoing that. everybody needs affordable housing here in san francisco. that is for sure. again that affordable housing program this - we have a larger we all need it and we want it, but it looks like just a handful of housing program in terms of the

expenditures then seen total one additional people will benefit from hundred million dollars on but it, 30, 40 families. the roths we will be showing about $70 million of that the lumina folks will be impacted and other developments will be because we have prior authority impacted. when we go for a construction is it really worth compromising loan we spend it over two years everybody's quality of life for a handful of additional only needs to show up once we affordable housing units? i would ask you to take this into consideration. thank you very much. said to highlight project but >> thank you. >> cannot following people i'll go through it it gives us a please come forward? ken chu, lee robins, lauren description of the projects in 2017 post, the shipyard program similar to mary anne wallace and jerome past years implement the planning and prelims is underway dobson in the shipyard and candle stick and you know again similar categories of expenditures in motorbike as i mentioned we're issuing bonds in 2016 so >> resident of rincon hill and i the bonds will occur in have letters from ten residents

unable to attend the meeting. they are all in opposition 2016-2017 for reimbursement but to the day to day continue to be busy project. i'm here and i would like to speak to you about the quality of on the vertical projects life that a 400' building would approving the designs and work permanently impact to neighbors, and on affordable housing projects this didn't necessarily get visitors in rescued in the staffing line but rincon hill by a 400' building and the main rotting users the your role to make decisions that are for the common good. i will infrastructure reimbursement. start with with the shadow. >> for transbay we are ramping the shadow ordinance prevents up on the open space obligations buildings from shading public parks and city land. as you may know the master if rincon park were on city developer in transbay the land, the proposed building at 160 infrastructure responsibility and the streetscape project in folsom would be illegal. construction in 2016-2017 and here is a shadow study. again in predevelopment on some of the remaining open space such the block 3 park what is now here is a shadow study that we have donned and we have talked to referred to as the under ramp park and open space on ethics staff at ocii and they agree this shadow analysis is accurate and so street on the notary republic housing does the affordable housing projects are listed on the affordable housing slide are

for asset management our project sponsor project sponsor was i will speak to a shadow that a approved and we'll begin to implement that is for a garage 426' building would cast. fillmore heritage garage and this combined with other planned and approved projects in the yerba buena gardens tariff we've area will substantially increase shading on include them in case it take rincon park and reduce the enjoyment and use of the park for longer than anticipated and residents and visitors alike. continue the operations in other as you'll see from the red existing obligations is the shading for a 300' project, so from agency operations you and you'll see as it goes over know this is sort of changes in to a 400' project, it's substantially increases fine-grain detail we are the amount of shadow on statistic at fte count and from rincon park. just looking at our f p on slide the shadow study for the 16 the increment as you can see planning department determined five this is debt service and then open spaces that would receive using the rest of it across the new shading from the 160 folsom project. project areas in smaller much smaller monuments. >> a more detailed account

i'll not look at but the tax increment from 2015-2016 and the publicly accessible projects, et cetera. the latter is now the 2016-2017 the high-level trends temporary that that is a more tax transit center, but it will become a park when the permanent transit center is ready. increment in mission bay our 20 percent pledge of allegiance the project before you is more affordable housing gets about what is best for the public good. higher that makes the numbers up i want you to fully higher and more costs with the appreciate the quality of life of residents, workers issuance of bonds we included and visitors to our neighborhood. we need to speak about that and each individual per traffic. ocii may claim that the eir category has ups and downs and was that's why you see negatives and sufficient theoretically, but if you live in this neighborhood, you will positives overall the major know that between 3-7 p.m. trends and we have recarding monday through friday our some thought we used to limb neighborhood is in gridlock traffic. we also have approximately 7 together and administrative new costs the d u f has true admin high-rise buildings that are not occupied that will add to the current gridlock. please consider this when from staffing and others you are making your decision. you should also know that by expenditures that are directly related to enforceable law the state law requires obligation prior to other developers provide

35% affordable housing. instructions the management and this deal that the city is direct xhulth staff and the making with the developer will provide an additional 5%. assets to keep line one as pure this is not currently known admin and line 11 staffing and by the general public. other costs that we can say would you please make this clear to the public that this new deal direct management costs so this provides an additional 5% of affordable housing? >> ma'am? >> yes. sort of a structural change to >> your time is up. >> i appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you. the spreadsheet the sp one 07 allows us to issue >> hi. my name is ken chu. the bonds we are projecting i live in the area. $23 million in bonds this is the i just had a couple of concerns. my no. 1 concern is the last we prolonged in the value that the land is being sold at. 2016-2017 we have a in lieu of i mean $19 million for that fee that allows us to offset plot of land seems very, very low. issue the new bones it is great we got in the fees more and i'm hearing like parcel affordable housing but want to f was issue the bones and plan to do $165 million and this whole housing bonds in spring followed by transbay later in the fall 40% affordable housing from the developer so that gets. is really just subsidized by >> us to the schedule to submit

the city and if the city sold at the by february 1st actual marketplace they could pocket that as director bohe mentions that $100 million plus and spend is really the first path we'll it to build significant amount more be coming back in the spring and affordable housing. so if our goal to create a reasonable that is the goal, then to me, that seems like a much more optimal plan for outside number for property tax draw and other sources to give the city. us ourselves the authority and there has always been options of these blocks as well, and knowing we'll be coming back to refine our budget when we were i'm wondering why there hasn't been an option for this block as in doubt will the costs we well? because arguably it's the most modest might have erred but that valuable block out of all of the parcels, because it's closest to the will be fine for our process waterfront. the other issue i have is just around with that, that concludes my the park shadows. so this presentation. i'm available to answer any questions is just one building. >> okay. thank you for this this area is going to be developed a lot more. succinct report and once this whole area is any. >> no speaker cards. filled up, rincon park, transbay >> any questions. park, all >> no questions. these other parks in the area are going to have significant >> so nope we're good thank amount more shade yos. so yes, it you. >> okay. >> so let's see where are we. might be a

small percentage today, but it's going add up and soon our >> number 6 and yes public parks won't be very friendly to be in. my third point is the spot zoning and what is to say that block 20 comment next orders of business 2 won't get xenoned zioned zoned 3 speaker cards. >> okay. up? thank >> yes. hello. >> hi how you doing sxolz and you >> thank you. >> my name is lee robins the board i'm clyde miller i was and i'm a member of several organizers and here maybe what 5 months or professor of organizational management in theory i come before you as a citizen and voter three or four months ago the to speak about a couple of things that are more about the dynamics and issue with the hunters point the macro aspect of it, than the block 50 and 54 block i worked details. no. 1 i wanted to live --

with a contractor and the we moved developer a lennar we hope the to los angeles when i was a teenager. i wanted to live in san project will be didn't get paid francisco ever since i graduated and ultimate got put off the college and i was kept on the east coast project until 2 1 so i came here about 5 months years or so ago. ago asking you guys to help to i lived in new york for a get o b i to go into a emotion couple of summers and decided that i did not want to live many , many nothing has happened i wrote a letter in november the manhattan. 9 i said to the board when you in manhattan. guys can take into account this and help me. in dynamic terms i want to >> that's fine i have a copy. comment on what i see as some of the nonsense of >> in the letter it states the arguments. and my speculation that it that if the contractor and the arises out of people who know what the conclusion is supposed to be and then you look for arguments that support has any kind of spit go to emotion or arbitration and that it. so to read a couple of

things in should have happened before we response to community concerns the context of surrounding were put on the project that buildings has changed significantly. explicit happen we want that and a 400' block building on process to happen this is going block 1 on for a year and a half we're a blends in with recent development and small firm not on the chance to of course it does as a result of bid on other projects because we decisions like the decision being urged now and it will continue. it reminds me of the analogy been put in a position that impacted our firm come to a of the theory that we have too much exclusion to get this ended to traffic and what we need to do is be further work in san francisco build another highway and probably most of you are familiar when that as a minority firm we thought if movement went on, more businesses and more people moved in and more cars on the in 2013 were a small firm but a highways and soon the new highway was just as crowded. in the same way back in the 200 and 50 thousands of credit. >> after this project we are 1970s, the ceos of corporations tended to have salaries about 20 times visually almost ready to close that of workers. the doors we need help we didn't it's now 300 times. i don't know if you know how those are set, but they are get paid and got put off the typically set by compensation committees, who make the decisions about what is project that's why we are here i reasonable by guess what? know you guys are public works by looking at what other

you take this seriously whatever ceos get. so i would have liked to there is an issue when things have seen a are not going right we need help plan looking at 200' rather now we have the redevelopment than 300'. due to the pressures, that agency no longer intact we have is not what has been done. a gap a gap between what the and finally, just in terms of what strikes me again as contractor does to the small nonsense, response to community contractor and the contractor to concerns, we're not doing a variation. get for the small minority to we're going to amend the whole thing. get the larger contractor it that doesn't make it better. it makes it worse. takes for money in between the thank you. >> thank you. time it happens and the smaller contractor the small contractor >> good afternoon, my name don't have the means to be able is lauren to do that that's why we have to post i'm vice-chair of your transbay citizens advisory committee and also come to ocii and different president of the board of directors of the greater rincon hill organizations to put pressure on the companies to do the right community benefit district, block 1 is thing we ask we sit down with located in our cbd, as well as in the emotion and not the general the project area. i'm here to speak to you as a contract we say does have a case resident who lives three

we have a case but if they felt blocks away from block 1 who will be looking out at it every day from the windows in my home and i'm thrilled to it but a bias non-bias party to see this building and actually wouldn't mind it was higher. help to mediate this we can get it is more complimentary to the it resolved. skyline as josé campos' >> we are you think biased. >> we need your help we were presentation made clear and would i like to waiting for two months since commend ocii staff for their thorough analysis of how block 1 will november and not heard anything enhance and contributing to the if you guys can make that happen skyline and affects of shadowing. regarding the shadowing i greatly appreciated for that a listened carefully to that presentation at our small company like ours we're california state citizens advisory committee meeting last week definitely needing our help. and again today and feel that comments on the negative impact of shadows >> thank you for coming. >> sir. >> can't see. from the additional height. >> did you call my name so 0 these programs we're dealing with the small business and minority companies and women owned businesses the construction industry right now

is thriving and if you know eject has programs in place but i think it can be approved i find it remarkable that the outreach programs that i go the to just about every one of them concessions that the developer is making in the project have come to pass. i commend again the i represent the mirptd contractor they can't stop negotiating team working in those events for tishman spire and the the challenge with these ocii city for getting us 40% affordability component. it sets the bar high for the representative introduced emphasized the use of local san city, for getting affordable francisco first and suppliers it housing sprinkled throughout. again, a new standard has goes into the deaf ear they're been set. finally something that we have discussed in our cac not hearing what their assessing meetings as something that we're they can emphasis san francisco concerned with was hoa dues and amenities first but a little bit more than in a that more than just a project and not just block 1, but several of the buildings conversation piece a clofks with going up in the general contractor you know the transbay redevelopment area are a trade association like ours we going to have affordable and market-rate units as you talk about the clorox that is know. the question of affordable the only way to win and move hoa dues forward so our below market rate another approach we are taking

neighbors can stay in these beautiful is partnering if a smaller projects has come up as a concern? what the developer and ocii are downtown company can't perform proposings a model of hoa associations with a larger contractor but a and dues, so that all of the residents in block small business out of san 1 can enjoy all the lovely francisco whether a woman owners amenities could serve as a model for so we don't lose the opportunity other buildings in san francisco. i urge you to adopt the for minority contract given the amendment, to take your staff's advice and option to grow but at the same to do what i feel is in best time learn if the peers so we're interest not just of my neighborhood transbay, but what i feel is in best interest of san francisco to have here in a moifrnt contract we're serious about those issues and this beautiful buildings built at 400'. thank you. >> thank you. faced as you may know with the dbe programs nationally 85 percent goes to male contractors most of businesses and we're >> my name is mary wallace. just want to make a difference i'm a citizen of san francisco for in northern california the past three years. especially san francisco market it seems like all of this we're losing a lot of the presented diversity here and if we can assessed of the building at continue to supply jobs and 400' should still be available at create wealth in a minority the 300' height. community they can stay here i'm i don't know why the 35%

here to help thank you. >> thank you affordable housing -- why isn't that percentage higher? there are already and ready. so many luxury condos in the >> oscar james i don't want to city, that aren't even occupied most time. they are just places people take up too much of your time keep when they visit here once in a while. and they are crowding out happy new year and the best of actual the new year to each and housing for residents. so it should everyone the director and legal be 80% of the development and staff actually. i wish you the best i mean, i don't know that 40% should be that celebrated? and two things i want to bring up this presentation, it seems to before i was a general use other contractor i had a company people's pointed this out, but it's using all of the current and called double trucking this currently approved building gentleman before me has problems heights with the companies it is as a precedent to make this important for the commission to building taller. but actually, that will just get involved into this by extension make the future particular issue my company went to court i spent buildings look at this one and say why can't it be taller? i mean, it's over $48,000 productive i was a right on the waterfront and what does minority and i decided to get out and work with the agency but

"flood-resistant" really i still working on with the mean? that doesn't sound very safe. there has been very elaborate maps minority contractors today down to prove that the residents of the other thing i would like to rincon hill have a calls to arms bring up is about women against this, as much as i can seen, contractors when i was a except with one exception recently. contractor it was minority there is using this map to contractor okay. the women prove these people who object must contractor came into existence be mistaken, but actually, we and they were making contractor know statistics can tell you with white women's you guys are whatever you want them to tell you. lurking for a breakdown on the and the development doesn't step-down to the waterfront as ethic breakdown of the women required, and minority contracts if you look the increased height limit will cast more shadows and more at it i'll bet you a penny that long-lasting shadows and it's without a doubt. is there a good, current the majority that will white study? has anybody looked into women contractors and the other increasing public transit? things i want to bring up is i it sounds like there is no reason to make the building taller, but make know you know dr. jackson dr. more affordable housing in the 300' espanola jackson right now on height, which is already too her death bed i ask you guys to high as has been pointed out by another citizen. thank you very much. pray for her there's things she

>> thank you used to fight forgive the >> cannot following people project that is you asked for make their way to the right. sonya transit, robert devlin. commissioner bustos in the shipyard make sure that that cam chou transpires those >> carmen, and willie chu. native-americans are recognized not just a piece of art but something people in the >> my name is jerry dodson, communities know that the that a resident of the neighborhood and i would like the commissioners was their land and recognized not to add 100' to this tower. regardless of what happens in it will be serious negative the shipyard not only them but consequences in our the african-americans for the neighborhood. things they've done in the first of all, it would shade five community and the different parks of open space in san francisco. mexican-americans there was their lands along with the ma as the previous speaker said, it would shade. loved ones so let that history now when the staff was of those races he named have a super, super vision and in the presenting, talking about percentages, the fact hunters point shipyard thank you very much and happy new year to it would shade all the way to the bay. you. the staff never released the >> thank you. >> okay

shadow study. we asked for it and they d never did it, but they agreed this is we'll have enough time in closed what it should look like. here are the two examples session and adjourn? that we have, over here is 400'. >> we're 6. >> we can. you can see the shades all >> yes. >> okay. let's yeah. okay so way to the bay and it varis from let's - can we - do you have a day-to-day, and season of the year. that is a huge shadow over report. >> i have no report. the park. >> i don't have a report i'm at 300' it still shadows, but just clips the edge. so really assuming the commissions have no this is what we're talking about, questions so straight to closed the session. percentage were never >> the the next order of business is closed session. released and we couldn't check it -- this is what it would look like: also >> need a minute to do - the building is out of character >> yes. maybe. foyt >> okay. so we're back if it for the neighborhood, almost all are closed session inform reportable 300' with the exception of items and i see no member of the public prepare for potential

infinity public comment so next item, and lumina. now this is the subject please. >> the the next order of property. business is item 11 adjournment now almost all of the buildings here that were in two blocks of madam chair the meeting is the water are less than 300', marked adjourned at 5:54 p.m. in yellow. this is the infinity portion, which is more. the neighborhood is really very much 300' and down and this really would be an eyesore. here is what it would look like: white drawing. this is the building. this is a 426' building and you can see out it stands out, really an eyesore with strange architecture and not friendly to our neighborhood and i ask you not to do that. now even at 300', it still - >> all right. so first of is high, all, i want to welcome everybody but it does have -- it

does blend who is here in more with the neighborhood. so this is plenty, 300'. the press, all our communities we don't need it. our neighbors would be partners are here come on matt overwhelmed by traffic. we're being overwhelmed and we have matt right there are for making it dark and windy and it's the school district already windy thank you for making it this and as a neighborhood, please do not do that to our neighborhood. press conference happen that is please leave at 300', what probable one of the month the zoning called for. thank you. >> thank you. crucial and important issues and topics that is going on about gun violence you know taking into >> good afternoon, consideration what is happening commissioners. all around the world and country my name is peter hartman and and city we're here as a i'm the chairman of the citizens community everybody is one to advisory committee and i'm an area resident myself. eradicate gun violence i'm rudy last week the committee the ed of the analyzing an considered the amendment and voted to organization that has been approve it standing and fighting against on a 7-1 vote with one gun violence for the last 21 years i'm here with my people my abstention. some of the concerns that were raised were the short period of community and everybody that is here who is serious about this time for

consideration of the eir. issue we we want to make sure we the amended eir. eradicate gun voipgsz that we and maybe even a concern was are here you take this issue raised about the 400' being very serious one of the most similar to the other buildings right important protections is dealing across the with the mothers the mothers street, and having a bench have lost their sons to gun effect, but ultimately the committee violence we want to make sure we let them know that also they're itself overwhelmingly felt that particularly being heard and they're being given the 73 extra units in dealt with prove or disprove so the current housing crisis that me being involved in the we have was more important. violence field for 21 years we this does -- the increase, tale with youth kids from all the extra 100' provides for 73 over the community all over the extra units. 60% of which will be city with the help of brothers affordable. like brother rich from project and that i think will provide housing for an extra 73 households and from the vip team in the that will keep them from going somewhere else building in san francisco and displacing another existing 73 units and so without further ado, i somewhere else, households somewhere want to invite mayor ed lee to else in the city. we also felt the come on up we've got to put him environmental concerns, and urban design

concerns on pause the president of the had been adequately united states we have to put on addressed by staff, providing the step-up from the mayor ed lee let's welcome the waterfront, and the sculpted ferry rosz robber mayor the city affected along the skyline. we think the staff has done mayor ed lee (clapping.) a great >> rudy thank you to you and job in providing for maximum your staff for making your house amount of public benefits for this, available to and i know going back, i have been on the committee for a very long time. so long i can't remember when i joined, but i know we worked on the original plan. there was very little down there at that time, we felt that the heights even 300' were kind of pushing the envelope. but now as the staff explained, there has been a tremendous amount of change in the neighborhood, and this building fits in with the changes and the changes that will happen. i would like to finish and say that we think that this is a very

-- and the enhanced height will improve the really great addition to the san francisco skyline. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. thanks. my name is sonya, and i founded sf bay renters federation, because i realized that shortage is a renters' issue and it's absolutely appropriate that san francisco go up. if we're going to have capacity to holds all of the people that need to live here, we definitely have to go up and i think it's worth take all the opportunities that we can to increase that. it's a really building. i enjoyed -- i was looking forward to finding out why not? right? why does it hurt to add ten

storis? it benefits the city by adding units and by adding subsidized units and benefits the city by a difference of $2-3 million a year in property taxes which is a small amount of the overall budget, but $100 million hires ten eviction defense lawyers, to put in perspective. the concern i heard mostly is shadow, but i don't really buy it, because if you were a person who was concerned with maximizing the amount of public space that has a lot of sunshine, you wouldn't necessarily oppose a height increase, but what you would do is demand a completely public park at the top of the new building. which is something that we would love that. wouldn't that be amazing? it's way less invasive than losing ten whole stories. so people that truly wanted more public sunshine would have asked for that, but they didn't, you know?

so i'm not sure i buy it as a concern. the neat thing about the 40%, oh, my goodness i loved the comment before is about 30 extra subsidized units worth block views from the infinity? put that way, i think it's the clearest way to know this is absolutely worth doing. yes, 30 subsidized units for working people in san francisco is without a doubt 100% worth knocking a couple hundred thousand value. is a chance to comfort the afflicted and also the neat thing about this project, not only unprecedented unlike mission rock or 5m it doesn't have a commercial aspect. the 40%, this will be an economically integrated building forever, the

people living in them will be on the condo association. you know, so forever they are going to have quite a lot of control of what the condo fees are and they are going to have to work together with rich people this. is on the economic integration that we want. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is carmen. i am in the process of buying one of these units at 4th and mission. so i'm the person, people like me are the people who will be moving in this new unit. i'm a project engineer working in the transbay terminal, that is going to be the biggest rooftop park in the whole world. so you will have plenty of parks to go. i come in the night-time and produce several shows. i love san francisco. there is no way i could live here if not for a program like this. i can tell you how frustrating it is, that the handful of people that is 44

families that can't move there because there may or may not be shadows. we're talking about shadows? it's the only way people like me can live here. i'm making this city alive. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is robert devlin, sales associate for polaris pacific and i work at 400 mission. i have one of the best jobs ever. i get to give keys to people like carmen and to cam, who will be speaking next. i have two letters, if i have time to read them both, i will. the first one is from a buyer itran purchasing a unit at mission this is her letter. to whom it may concern, i am

unable to attend the hearing today, but would like to voice my support for the new building proposed by tishman spire. as i have been told the build willing designate 40% of its units as bmr. this is a huge opportunity for current san francisco residents, like myself to purchase a home and remain living in this wonderful city. i work in education, and i love my job. my salary is decent, but a total joke compared to what my engineer friends are taking home. but there is value and substance in what i do. there are many people like me in san francisco. volunteer on weekends and listen to npr and give back to our community and bay our bills on time and have good credit. what we don't have unfortunately is a six-figure salary, or lump sum inheritance. so

we cannot ever hope to buy a place and become a permanent resident. while i don't mind renting, i constantly hear news of landlords raising rents, evicting renters, et cetera. and this will eventually mean that i will be priced out of the community that i lovingly and proudly call home. a lot of people attribute the exponential increase in rent prices to engineers, and foreign investors, which is accurate. but parts of the issue also stem from san francisco's severely inadequate supply of real estate. allowing the construction of this new building alleviates the supply problem, and will help the middle-class remain in san francisco. especially since 40% of the units will be designated as bmr. when assessing this project please consider the positive outcome this will have on current san francisco residents.

thank you, itran, bmr owner at 1400 mission. the second letter is from stephany ebbling and she write issues first came to san francisco in 1991 as a visiting student at uc berkeley and of course, fell in love with the city. i moved here permanently in 1998 and become a citizen in 2011. my entire professional life has been in education. first as a college teacher, then since 2001 at uc berkeley as a student advisor and program manager. and i'm deeply committed to my work as a educator. a salary in public education makes it impossible even to consider homeownership in the current real estate market. without the bmr program, i never would be able to be a homeowner. please keep this program alive, and support this project. thank you. >> thank you.

>> can [speaker not understood] >> good afternoon, my name is cam chou and i came from cambodia and living in the tenderloin for 30 years and worked at the mail yard for 27 years. thank you for the projects and now i'm an owner of 1400 and mission street and thank you, mayor, and staff and everybody here. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissionersing. my name is mitchell, director of affordable housing alliance and we actually operate san francisco's oldest tenant rights pact, continually operating since that time. an issue that we felt strongly about

years and years and today is that this is true for all city dwellers, but particularly renters that access to public parks is important, because renters tend to live in multi-unit buildings with smaller and smaller units. an issue that we got involved with a think in 1982 was proposition k the sunshine ordinance and worked with supervisor ma to pass that ordinance at the time. voters have spoken and said they don't want shadows on public parks and that time we didn't anticipate the earthquake and removal of the freeway and construction of rincon park. rincon park and not only the construction of the park, but the fact that basically through a quirk, rincon park and increasing number of parks around the city don't fall under proposition k, not because they are not parks because, but

their ownership is different than what was anticipated back in 1982. the only reason we're here having a conversation from 300' to 400' is because the port owns rincon park. otherwise, we wouldn't be having this same conversation at this point in time. we believe that it's important to there are to be a quality of life for renters in san francisco; that we can't just build, baby, build, like houston did to the point that we may solve our affordable housing problems in san francisco by building soviet style block housing and shadowing all available park land around it. but that really wouldn't -- that would solve the problem because when we decrease the demand, because people wouldn't want to live here anymore. but that is not way we want to government we have a long record of aggressive fighting for both renters' rights and affordable housing, but in this case we don't think the

modest increase of affordability is worth the shadowing that will occur in rincon park, a park used by all city residents. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is eymani davis and i have the pleasure of working with tishman spire last summer and specifically with the project block 1. increasing the height for block 1 project from 300' to 400' allows many other san francisco familis to stay in san francisco and have the opportunity to stay in san francisco. as a former youth commissioner of district 10 who worked under malia cohen and served on the housing environment and structural committee me and my committee have ran into issues of affordable housing, specifically with concern and families. it's been an ongoing issue facing san francisco for quite a while now.

tishman spire's project block 1 had many efforts in addressing the issue and combining it the best way they could with providing affordable housing units in san francisco. the increase in households will allow more familis to stay in san francisco and it's important that we don't limit that opportunity for families in san francisco, because of some of the selfish needs of others. i have listened to a lot of people who oppose the increase and it seems as though the very things such as being stuck, i guess n traffic and not being able to look outside of their window to a pretty view all seem to be very selfish reasons on why the city can't increase the building -- i mean why the buildings shouldn't be increased. as a person who lived? san francisco her whole life and faced the possibility that we may be priced out. it's important that these opportunities continue to stay open

and that san francisco set an example that we want to have these people who are lower-income to be in san francisco. because right now it doesn't really seem with the decrease in the building -- we want to continue to increase the diversity of san francisco, both across racial and socioeconomic lines and honestly, it would be a disservice to have the building at 300' rather than 400'. tishman spire has done a great job and below market rate units. with that being said, i want to say it's the selfless act to do and we shouldn't be concerned with the shadows, because they have no affect at all and the shadows shouldn't be a reason to begin with. overall the issue regarding

shadows is really selfish and i believe that san francisco families deserve to stay here and we deserve to provide them with as many opportunities as we could. we owe them that much. thank you. >> thank you. tom fogel, firefighter in san francisco and local 798 representing the members that work at fire station 35, which is immediately adjacent to rincon park on the embarcadero. located at pier 22.5. we know this project will cast a minor shadow on fire station 35. we also don't have any objection to the shadow. actually, we know that as a result of the increased height, this project will deliver many more permanently

affordable housing units than available in the area. as someone priced out of the san francisco housing market many, many years ago, i'm very aware that the housing prices in san francisco need to be kept at a level where people who actually live in san francisco can stay in san francisco. this project is an excellent way to provide housing for the firefighters, so that unlike me, they will be able to stay in san francisco. this is a fantastic project, local 798 feels that this project deserves the support of this commission. thank you very much for hearing me. >> thank you. >> my name is victor and i

do appreciate the affordable housing in the city, the increase of the number. but i have to look at this project from more micro point of view, rather than macro point of view. i live at infinity and a represent all of the homeowners who live in the northwest of the infinity building no. 1, which is 301 main street. the benefits that were presented to the community by staff seem to be zero if you look at the difference between the 300' and 400'. i don't see the difference. one thing i would say that some of the objection to the 400' will go away, if the building will not be towards the bay, but it will be just the same footprint, but the opposite way. while the building is away from the bay, the whole issue of shading, the

whole issue of the concern of the looks, and the extrusion of the building that looks like a sore thumb, when you refer to the presentation of the gentleman that choose the skyline, which is absolutely right. the skyline which the building facing this way is just like a sore thumb and not conforming with the 200' and 300' buildings around that subject building. if you turn it around, i think it will make more sense. so the building will be away from the infinity and away from the bay, and that way it will present less of a problem that was presented here by the objectors. other than that, i think that the building looks great. and

and the fact there is approval of this process without the variance seems to be just taking a shortcut that is inappropriate in this substantial case. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> are there any others who would like to speak on this item? ms. wilson, do you want to go ahead? >> since you are up there anyway. >> chair rosales, comparisons, director bohee, i'm monica wilson and here to support transbay block 1. i have been working with tishman speyer on their spe commitments and starting with professional services and most recently, they developed an amazing trainee program, which i think will be a model for

future projects coming before you. what i can say their consistency to the commitment of the lb community has been spot-on since day 1 and grassroots outreach that was done, the commitment and the participation by senior lbes, lbes that have been in san francisco and have their roots in san francisco for years. i did a quick analysis and we have a handful of lbes that have delivered 100 years' of commitment to san francisco, averaging 15 years. i wanted to share that with you that was incorporated into the lbe plan:they did achieve not only 50% requirement, they exceeded it. but also the role, the sheer number of lbes participating as a percent is more than 50. so again, a huge win to the lbe community.

staff forwards that what i mentioned as a training program in the spe program and trainee program and get into construction and workforce. the trainee program was something that tishman speyer embraced immediately when we are really just talking about professional services. we just brainstormed what it would be and it was probably the most remarkable summer i have had as a senior -- not as a senior citizen, but someone practicing community and economical development work for 20 years. what they delivered for san francisco was an internship program that they designed and implemented, which allowed me to monitor and track and share with you what they did provide in terms of economic impacts. 8 internship positions and partnered with two community-based partners. one which i am the program

director of and another program through the san francisco unified school district, 100% of students were students of color and 90% went to high school in san francisco and 75% going to school in greater bay area. these are first-generation college students, almost exclusively. what we did was delivered and tishman delivered i should say first and foremost the transbay block 1 experience and the team included six firms. tishman and turner, design professionals. i will wrap it up to say that four of the six team members were lbes, san francisco lbes and the design professionals that embraced the young adults and it was remarkable. we had a full tishman speyer days and members were there that walked us through everything.

it was such a powerful experience. like i said, i have been doing economic and community development grassroots in san francisco for 26 years. it was a joy to work with them and can't wait to work with them. i just wanted to say it's a very innovative team and i look forward to seeing them commence on transbay block 1. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is john galinger and following this project closely the past year, over the last three, four years i have been a leader in the waterfront movement and there are so many parallels in terms of retic you are hearing and deceptiveness from the developer and reaction from the public when the real information gets out. i have full faith that the commission is doing treas its job.

it's going to the board of supervisors and to address no. 1, barely mentioned in the presentation, never mentioned by developer's folks or in their community concerns outreach is that 35% affordable housing is required by state law on this site. 35%. so to the comment that this is a selfless act by developer, 5% affordable housing is not a precedent-setting extraction from a developer in this town. we had more than that certainly in the end in the giant's project and many more. and 5% isnot something that crow about. so i hope you will make sure that is clear, so the public understands what this is and what it's not and b, demand more, because you can certainly get better than that, if that is way you want government no. 2, there are two buildings, not 1.

nowhere above the 26th floor that a person making less than the highest of the high potentially even get to go. why not, if you are going to add units rather than rewrite the laws as the voters in the washington context and otherwise said overwhelmingly is not the way to deal with properties especially near waterfronts and rather than rezone the site. why not have the developer build extra floor in the so-called podium buildings? why not add floors and mix it with upper-income units. because they have lobbied successfully and pulled the wool over some. i think you should at least explore that before you move it forward and i certainly hope that the board of supervisors will, if you don't. that there is another

building that could be added floors to rather than the drastic step of rewriting the law. slide 12 talked about money. i have never heard this in any presentation from the developer or the commission -- if i heard this for free and i hope you clarify, the developer is getting $19 million parcel of land public land for free under this deal? chairwoman, executive director is that true, that you are giving this developer a $19.2 million estimate fair market value parcel of public land in this time of extreme affordable housing crisis for free? and that is why they are saying in a shameless act they will give you another 5% affordable units and if that is true, have you done that before elsewhere in the city had? that an incredibly valuable parcel is given to a developer for housing? certainly the board will

take a look at it. i hope will you. lastly, i hope the city attorney has weighed in or will today that the chapter of our city law, chapter 29 of the administrative code requires a project that is proposed by a city commission, costs $25 million or more to builds that does and subsidizes at least a million in public money has to be submitted at front-end for fiscal feasibility analysis and signoff from the board of supervisors before the environmental review can be approved by an agency such as yours. so i would love at least for information, so that the commission knows. because i'm sure that the board will bring this up, is this project not subject to the fiscal feasibility ordinance and if so, why? thank you very much. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> mr. james? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is oscar james.

i'm a native resident of bayview hunter's point and a native resident of san francisco, born and raised here. the last gentleman that spoke and i'm in support of this project, but the last person who spoke i would like to find out more information on what he had brought before you guys. if this land that is being given to them? and if so, why our community, our residents from san francisco have more of a priority and more opportunities to buy more property in these participate particular buildings and should be available to san francisco residents. and being that they are getting $19 million free land, that opportunity should be extended to lower income,

for some of those suites or whatever they are taking about having. i would like for you to look into that. if the city is giving something, residents need more of an assurance for opportunities to buy and live in this particular project. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i have no more speaker cards. >> thank you. well, thank you everyone for your comments. i thank each commissioner. certainly i did listen very carefully to what you all had to say. it's now in the hands of the commission. do we have any commissioner who would like to kickoff any questions of staff? okay.

i have a question. as folks are gathering their thoughts and i have one. i think one of the comments that kind of stuck with me is why aren't all of these bennis, if you will, not available at the 300'-level? >> hi, i'm going to ask our housing division staff to come up and do that comparison for you. >> tiffany bohee executive director, on slide 7, as you recall commissioners in fall of 2014 you authorized exclusive negotiating agreement for two projects, one at 300' and one at 400' and due

to the stakeholder engagement, direct feedback from stakeholders and others, we have substantially enhanced the public benefits, since you authorized the exclusive negotiating agreement. if you recall, at that time, at the 300' and 400' project, 35% affordability and certainly when you increase the denominator you get more affordable units. at that time, the affordable units were proposed to be located on the bottom floors of the tower. the tower is wholly subsidized by the developer, which is an affiliate with tishman speyer and the podium requires subsidy with mixed income blocks. you have seen blocks 100% affordable and some that have mixed income like the mercy project, 6 and 7,

block 9, et cetera. so the benefits are provided for in the 300' building, but what you are geting and since that time of the ena, the units are now dispersed throughout the project, which is different than the terms of any ena and staff has provided, as i said, a draft agreed upon term sheet that is attached and available for the general public. we have looked again at hoa structure, because it's a very important issue. the amis are priced starting at 80% ami to 100% ami. that was in the 300' scenario. when we looked again, since that time, the 400' scenario, there is still an income need and prepared form for the mayor's office of housing and seeing the need above 60%

ami to 200% ami. you have seen that implemented on the blocks, on the state-owned blocks which transferred through your office, that we get from caltranss and tjpa a mix of 20%, 27%, to the point that we looked at 35%. so if the staff wants to add additional comment? >> well, of the 44 new affordable units, 30 of them will be available to households earning 100% of ami, just what tiffany bohee spoke to. >> 120%. >> yes and 30% of the units available at 100% of ami. it's been said before, it's 60%. i just want to clarify, i think, some commenter spoke to the 35% requirement. again, that is across the transbay redevelopment project area.

it is not for individual projects. >> one other thing i wanted to clarify is the materials have been on our website since thursday. and if anyone wants to see those, and also the presentation from today, they will be up. thursday we posted the videos and the materials. >> housing, do you want to add anything to the difference between the 300 and 400? >> i guess my question, why can they not be -- the comment was why aren't these benefits offered at the 300'? i mean is that a developer question? >> yes, i would like to call up carl shannon. i think he could explain that best. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the 300' building is the required zoning and that zoning requires the podium build to be 100%

affordable and for the tower to be 15% affordable. we have reached beyond that for the 400' tower to provide these additional benefits, and remember, math is done different ways in different parts of the city. when you compare this thing to 5m and the giants, where they are doing 40% off-site this. is on-site. so it's really 60% of the market-rate units. the number of bmrs is equal to 60% -- it's important in order to make this overall economic package work to have enough market-rate units to make the overall project economically viable. so it is our preference and i think the preference of

the ocii staff to see this come forward with 400' tower and the additional affordable units. it if that is not possible either here or at the board of supervisors, we would go forward with the 300' tower. >> thank you. commissioners want to continue with questions? >> i have a comment. i want to make a couple of comments. one, this was first brought to us as a native san franciscan, my fear was the manhattanization of san francisco and it's still a concern of mine. because what makes our city so unique and so lovely, that it's not spread out like l.a. and not crazy like new york. it's san francisco. so that is something that i will always be on the lookout for, and make

sure that we are mindful of that. with regards to this project , what really concerns me is the level of elitism from some of the speakers. because what i hear is that i don't want this to cover my view. and that 40% is not enough, and 5% does not make a difference. as someone who has seen people who i grew up with, pushed out of my city, and people who made this city so attractive, that many of you want to come here were pushed out, that 5% is a lot. i would love to see those people come back to the city that they helped to build and make attractive for many people now. so i'm offended by some of those comments, and i

don't think it's right. i think we got to dot do the right thing and being mindful our city's skyline and a lot of questions we have asked about the project and also understanding unless you are siting at that park 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, there is going to be shadians darkness, because that is how the world turns. so let's be careful about how we talk about things, or better yet, let's be mindful how we think about things? let's be mindful there was a city here that for the most part a lot of people didn't live here before. and some of the buildings that are there now blocked the view. some of the buildings there now created shadow for some people.

so i just say let's be very careful that this is a city, an incredible city, and that we are having issues of diversity, not only in terms of just race, but economy. that we need to do things to make sure that we have that diversity, to keep this city alive and vibrant. so madame chair, i just want to say that, because i think it's important that i needed to say to clear my conscious when i vote in support of this. >> commissioner, before i turn to commissioner pimentel, do you have a question that would you like to ask straf at this staff at this time? >> no, i'm done. >> commissioner pimentel. >> i want to thank carmen, i believe that was her name, who came and spoke and gave the perspective of a working-class person. i can only imagine some of those working-class people, who

will be residents in this unit were unable to afford to take off work today to give public comment and i think they need to be viewed as people, not spots in a development. day after day, i see my son's classmates leaving the city, moving to portland, seattle, new orleans, because they can't afford to live in san francisco where i live my view is my neighbor's gate and dilapidated fence and ambulances going by daily, but it doesn't matter. what matters is we have a home and what is more important, views or people? these are human beings that want to stay here and that work in an industry that helps many people here today. and they are important. and those 30-40 families, put yourself in their spots. they are trying to stay here and afford [hao-efrplt/] here and they are important and add value to the developments, so people can hear their stories, understanding

the struggles of working-class people in san francisco. and see what their -- what san francisco is through their lens of life and these units can make a difference in their lifes. they are able to stay here, native san franciscans have the ability to have a key to a home in san francisco. i think it's very important for them to have a chance to stay here. and i also would like to highlight, i was very proud to see the parking aspect. there was such a variety whether car sharing or biking, et cetera. work class families often have cars to pick up their children and groceries and it's very important to have many options available to them. going off of miguel's comments, people are important, and they

deserve a right to stay in san francisco. >> thank you. commissioner singh. >> i just have a couple of questions. first i have one regarding the $19 million. everybody has said that it was a high price to give the land for $19 million. >> that is the estimated value of the land. and so that is what they were going to pay at closing. then we were going pay $275,000 subsidy for each unit, which is $20.9 million. so they are going to build those units without a subsidy from us. and that will result in $1.7 million savings to ocii. so the land is not being sold for free. it cannot be sold for free under state law. the board of supervisors has to make a determination it's not being sold for less than fair market

value. >> i actually like this affordability has increased from 156 units, and added 44 units with 100'. that i like. thank you. >> thank you. so i have a couple of questions, additional questions and one of them is another point that stuck with me, because as i say, i drive through transbay often. more properly said i avoid driving through transbay often. tell me about traffic impacts? i know it was studied in the eir. one of my pet peeves it seems like projects are going up at every third corner of san francisco, and

there is no rhyme or reason to it, as though nobody is talking to anybody. so i wonder what authority we have, given transbay is under our jurisdiction to either elicit support from the developers that we deal with, their general contractors, when they are building to talk about some sort of comprehensive tract mitigation or coordination plan? because i do think the traffic impacts are construction-related. at least we have been assured it's not a forever conversation. i mean, i'm assuming these traffic impacts are going to minimize at some point? is that something that we as a commission can say something about? >> i would like to call up shane hart, the project manager. >> good afternoon, chair rosales. my name is shane hart,

project manager for transbay. regarding traffic impact as josé mentioned earlier there was a traffic study completed for the original transbay eir. because of the unit count that was analyzed in the redevelopment eir, the impacts are much less with this project than what was previously anticipated. as far as i think you are getting down to just the practical aspects. this was an issue that was brought up at the infinity town hall meetings. a lot of residents are concerned about the traffic. they are concerned about the noise. and what we want do is work with the city and the developer, especially as it relates to the noise, as far as making sure all of the hotlines that people can call to make sure that these noise problems are

taken care of. we're going to work extensively with them to make that happen. we can also talk to the city about what you are talking about, as it relates to temporary traffic problems that are caused by construction. so we can look into that and see what we can do to help mitigate that. i also know that city planning is looking at an overall streets plan for the entire transbay/rincon area and looking at traffic. and those studis are supposed to be coming out here any time. so that is another situation where we'll be able to look at those studies and determine how we can help? >> okay. yes, i think we should do that. >> yes. >> i can also call up planning department.

>> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners. i have prepared the addendum to the eir for the proposed height increase and project modification. the way we analyze traffic in the 2004 transbay eir was to look at the potential square footage and dwelling unit increase as a result of the redevelopment plan? and those then correspond to a certain number of vehicle miles traveled added to the transbay area. on this side, the total number of dwelling units, even with the 400' version of the currently proposed project, does not exceed the number of dwelling units or the square footage of retail space that was anticipated for the site and analyze in the 2004 eir. therefore, the project would

not create more traffic than was previously analyzed. as far as existing conditions, the existing conditions were studied for traffic in 2004. as well as modeled for year 2025 cumulative scenario. so that would be the impacts of this project, plus all of the other development in the pipeline. that analyses showed that traffic would worsen over time and this project along with the other redevelopment projects would contributing traffic and cause congestion to worsen, but for the reasons that i just described, since the project does not have more dwelling units or more square feet than what was assumed in the 2004 analysis, the traffic contribution from this project would not be any greater than was previously studied. even with the additional 100' increase. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner singh? >> yes.

i didn't understand that parking 1:1, what is that? >> thank you for asking that. that is something that i need to clarify. so the parking ratio in the tower will be 1:1. 1 housing units, 1 parking space. >> so everybody will get parking? >> in the tower, yes. in the podium it's 1:4. that is typical. that is our policy in other transbay blocks. >> okay, thank you. >> you are welcome. >> okay, so i have a question on shadow. since we have heard a lot about shadow, two speakers put up nice drawings and said twice those drawings were shown to our staff and that our staff agreed that the depiction of shadow was accurate. i need to check. are those accurate statements? >> i need to call up josé

campos: >> thank you, chairperson rosales. in fact, just on view, you have seen the video and in your packet the analysis that has a page by page rendition of the largest shadow impact on rincon park in the worst-case scenario. so when we met with some of the speakers today, who showed us the exact same diagrams that you saw just now, we agreed that just on the surface, without doing an actual technical analysis, it matched similar worst-case scenarios that we presented in the shadow study and the video shown today. >> another question, i know you are not an attorney, but there was another statement made if this were property owned by the parks and rec commission under prop k, the shadow or the impact would be

deemed illegal? i don't think it's a per se legal test, but contravene the requirements of prop k? >> right. my understanding is in certain parts of the city, when prop k was actually voted in, there was a list of parks that are under the jurisdiction of the recreation and park department mainly downtown and chinatown, for example and there was a shadow budget established for each these parks. it basically allowed development to happen, and shadow up to a certain point. once that shadow budget is exceeded in the prop k parks, or when a proposal would actually exceed that budget, it would require an amendment of the shadow budget that only happens through a joint hearing of the planning commission and the rec and parks commission. and so that happens in certain parks on that list. and as the speaker mentioned

today, it's not the case in rincon park, because rincon park doesn't have a shadow budget. however, as i mentioned in my presentation, we did follow the methodologies of probk and section 295 of the planning code and in particular, what i described as the theoretically available annual sunlight and how to actually measure what sort of impact a development or increase in height would have on potential shadows or on open space with an increase in shadows? so the methodology that we used and the numbers that you see are the same. it's just that what i described earlier as the shadow budget, don't apply, because they don't exist in the south of market area that we studied. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner singh. >> i want to revisit the

context of mr. lee -- [speaker not understood] i want to know what sbe, wbe and lbe. >> contract compliance specialist, good afternoon commissioners and director bohee, to-date, working with the developer, we have done the outreach as we typically do. we'll bring to you the full team when they come forward for schematic approval, but currently achieving sbe credit to 80% and wbe and mbe are both significantly good and we have good diversity. so we look forward to bringing the full team at schematic. working with the developer, they have made good-faith effort to actually on this project studio gang is a woman-owned business out of chicago. they are not economically disadvantaged, but we have two local

associate architects working closely with studio gang and that would be perry architects, and barcelona james. so we're really excited about the opportunity for barcelona to be working collaboratively to focus on the podiums and tower and hopefully perry, but all collaborating together, along with the other diverse consultants. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments? >> i want to move that. >> commissioner singh has moved the two items, 5b and c. let's take them one at a time. 5b moved by commissioner singh. >> second. >> seconded by commissioner pimentel. before we take the vote, i just want to mention that you have at least 3 native san franciscans on this board.

and you haveheard from two of them and i'm not going repeat what they said, but i completely agree, frankly, with what they have said. i was born and raised in the mission and bernal heights. the views are great, you know? , from bernal, not from my house necessarily. but i can travel to see the views anywhere, because this town, i feel, belongs to me and everything about it belongs to me. in this particular area of san francisco i think it's critical that we have a i did diverse neighborhood and since i'm a mother of two kids who want to have them live in their hometown, we have to build housing for the middle-class in a very exciting area of my hometown. on balance, i'm supporting the motion, and i hope the

commission does approve these two items. so it's been moved by commissioner singh and seconded by commission pimentel, please call the vote. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name. commissioner pimentel. >> yes. >> commission mondejar is absent. commissioner singh. >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> madame chair rosales? >> yes. >> madame chair, i have four ayes, and one absent. >> okay. item 5b passes. would he like the same motion and call? >> yes. >> commissioner singh on 5c is moving, commissioner pimentel is seconding. please call the roll. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name. commissioner pimentel? >> yes. >> commissioner mondejar is absent. commissioner singh. >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> madame chair rosales? >> yes. >> madame chair, i have four ayes and one absent.

>> item 5c also is approved. thank you everyone. we'll wait a little bit while the room vacates.

thank you. can you please call the next item? >> the next order of business is 5d, approving amendments to the open space and streetscape master plan and streetscape and open space schematic design plan for phase 1 of the hunter's point shipyard and adopting environmental findings pursuant to the california environment quality act. hunter's point shipyard redevelopment project area discussion and action, resolution no. 3-2016. madame director. >> welcome again to the members of the public and thank you for continuing to join us. the issioners, as you know, hunter's point shipyard

candlestick project are covered by two ancillary documents to support them and implementation on hunter's point shipyard and candlestick back in '07. you approved open space with former redevelopment agency, commission approved an open space and streetscape plan. certainly since that time there was another dda approved for shipyard and candlestick and refinements and before you today is an updated open space and streetscape master plan, to really reflect the reaality of what has been already approved and being built today. lila hussan the project manager for the team will present this item. >> thank you, director bohee and commissioners. good afternoon and thank you for hearing this item today. i will go through the amendments, director bohee already get a great

introduction between phase 1 and phase 2 development. and i wanted to go over the major amendments. that we are covering today, the first one is three separate elements that we'll be adding to the open space in replacing one of the elements that we'll go through in this presentation, the galvez steps will be removed and we're adding the overlook, the promenade and store house plaza. we also have minor changes to the streetscape plan in terms of path of travel, as well as plantings and tree replacements that we have updated since 2007 after working with the department of public works, the bureau of urban forestry. so some of those updates will also be contained later in the presentation. lastly the third item is the removal of the s-curve which sounds very weird, but it's actually a street

that looks like an s, that was originally in the 2007 plan. and in 2010, when the phase 2 project was adopted, city staff, oc ii and the developer looked at the configuration of the street and proposed an alternative that we'll describe in greater detail. here is a quick visual overview outlined in pink of the presentation is phase 1. what is commonly referred to as hill top and hillside are the phase 1 developments. the surrounding area is phase 2 development. and i'm just going move quickly to the next context slide. and again, just to orient everyone. this is kind of a zoomed-in block-level detail of hilltop and hillside that also shows there is amazing views both at

hilltop and hillside that look all over the bay and also provide opportunities for the open space to also provide advantageous views as well. the slide highlights the galvez overlook, the promenade that is a new feature added to the open space, as well as the store house plaza. and another context slide to give a sense about the circulation that exists today for phase 1 development. you have in it a major and bus corridor that hits donahue

gateways, of which many of these improvements/amendments to the plan will be focused on. with that i would like to introduce the next speaker, frankie from lenoir. later on in the presentation, we'll also invite jennifer ing from cmg who worked on the designs. >> thank you very much commissioners for giving us the time. we'll be brief. the slide that you have in front of you kind of illustrates the main areas that we're going to be -- that is affected and updated and enhanced per the newest design. on the left side we have kind of a footprint area of where the galvez steps once was. and now to be replaced with the galvez overlook. i'm be working my way to the

right. it's referred to as the colman prom demand promenade and enhanced that as well to the store house plaza at colman and galvez. the store house is a modular building currently used for community meetings and also for affordable leasing services provided there. the galvez steps we'll be discussing in future slides. this slide reflects the path of travel here at the hilltop, in the area that we're currently discussing. as discussed pointing out the galvez overlook and store house

plaza and why the importance of the collman promenade was required for enhancements. [ inaudible ]

to create the pathway between the development enhancements. we felt there was a couple of issues with the galvez steps besides it's initial purpose of connecting the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill to the international african market with the retaining walls that would have to be retained over the years and a lot of tree and landscaping enhancements that we're being proposed after further discussion and look and analyses, it was deemed fairly expensive to maintain. and not really tie into the official use of what was it was originally

designed for. it shows a couple of vantage viewpoints atop the galvez overlook. looking down to the downtown area, you can kind of see some of the vertical decline that is happening on that hillside. and on the right side, we see kind of looking over to where the store house is and that parking lot there as well, how that area will soon function as commercial kitchen and artist parcel will be. again looking up towards the side, the left side is the path where is now considered the coleman promenade is the area that will take place and on the right, looking from the double-up, you can tell the

vertical difference and now cmg will discuss the enhanced design. thank you. >> hello. i'm jennifer ing from cm. cmg and i have a little bit of a cold and i will focus on speaking clearly to you, but if i don't, let me know to

help create more texture and color and warmth and the other thing we wanted to do was create a delightful experience, something charming and elegant that had a nice presence to it. so when you walked up coleman street you had a place to stop and rest and look at views and to embrace the historical con texting of the shipyard. how we decided to do that was take the concrete and wood ballasts to be more usable. this is an enlarged plan that shows what the galvez overlook could look like. there are three major seating areas. one to the far left and one in the middle has ada companion seating and one to the far right. there is a range of seating

options backless seating, backed seating and we tried to orient the seat in different angles to capture all of those views will see the beginning of the coleman promenade and the concrete ballast that i called out earlier is now used as a seating element. the concrete ballasts are used as a way to create a rhythm down the street and to provide a chance to meander and enjoy the character of the site. we have tried to increase the pedestrian experience by adding flowering trees and plants. block 55 is in the background. there is also, let's see

part of that is working with the marketing team to figure out what the right signage should be and where it should be located? moving down coleman promenade, the major design issues that we saw immediately was that it was labeled as public open space, but had very minimal landscape improvements and, in fact, what you see there is the improvements. so not very much. there is a real missed opportunity with the store house in terms of what is going on inside? and in connecting to that interior program. there is also a missed opportunity with connecting to phase 2. on the right side of the image in the far background, you can see

a building where the phase 2 developments are. we could really create a strong design dialogue with that, and create a stronger connection. also, across the street, on the second image where hilltop park meets coleman street and to create a real strong threshold between store house and what the park is saying. coming off of the site observations we have a couple of design objectives: the first is to enhance the inside/outside connection. so whatever is happening inside the store house, you should also be able to do that outside. so go get your coffee and snack and have a good time and come out to the wood deck to enjoy the outside, almost like a little backyard. we have a custom concrete lounge/bench that we think would be a great a tracter of

attracter and to be a great terminus to the coleman promenade experience with trees on each side and ballast that you want to end in something equally enjoyable. on the enlargement plan the yellow dots, that is the location of the bay view horn sculpt yours and also trying to provide a nice venue to enjoy the art, view the art and also see it as an entry piece to all the other art pieces on hill point park as well. this is a view of what it would look like. a small space, but trying to

be dynamic with materials and to be as warm and welcoming as we possibly can be. the temporary bus stop is to the right side and also the entry to the hill point park. the 2007 design had a very narrow sidewalk and then a very narrow sort of path of travel and a very wide continuous garden planting strip. now this continuous garden planting strip was a great idea in theory, but it was very difficult to coordinate the utilities and the driveways and the street lights and the parking. and then all of a sudden our continuous planting strip is very chopped up planting strip. so when

cmg was asked to review the design, in terms of how well it complies with better streets plan initiative, that was set forth by the planning department? and to think about what the overall pedestrian experience could be? so first we expanded the sidewalk as best we could and created a furnishing zone, so all of those can land themselves on the sidewalk in a very organized way and outside of that path of travel. so that when you are walking down the street, you don't see all of those utilities. they just fade into the background. the other thing we did, we worked with the bureau of urban forestry to think about what the tree selection would be and revised the tree palate a little bit in terms of what was going to provide the least amount of maintenance and the highest durable plantings? and then we thought about it in terms of what the san

francisco approved streets were and whatever trees lend themselves to the area, san francisco approves of that. so here is another view of what that streetscape could look like and then an enlargement plan of what the streets are. at this [#30-eu7b9/]ly turn it back to frankie, to talk about the s-curve. >> we're at the final amendment, part of the suite of amendments here. this is the s-curve that i spoke to earlier. if you look at the next slide , where what you have on your left-hand side in red is the 1997 plan of the original street alignment. you had ennis going down and following somewhat what we call the s-curve and hitting donahue

street. when phase 2 was being studied and a lot of discussion between city agencies mta in particular relooked at this intersection and felt for transit operations, if it was possible to remove this scientific s-street and regularize it in a t-intersection would be better for transit operations. in order to accomplish this, the street was widened innes to actually handle the amount of vehicles that were planned both for phase 1 and phase 2 as eventually phase 2 will get developed. and the vehicular traffic would increase substantially. what you have that was cleared in the environmental impact report for the phase 2 is the removal of the scientific s-curve and new

intersection. so that is the final amendment that is part of phase 1 open scape amendment and to highlight the community process. i believe claudia provided a letter from the cac chair dr. honeycutt in support of these amendments. we did go before the planning development and finance subcommittee earlier in the year and to the full cac in july of last year. and jennifer spoke to some of the ways that their design has already responded to some of the comments that we receive, which is to add more color to the seating. originally it was all concrete and we add the warmth of wood on the concrete ballast and also to add, when you are sitting at galvez overlook, for folks who are sitting there to understand what they are looking at and also to understand the history that used to be from

front of them, that will no longer be theres on phase 2 is built-out. so that signage is something had a we what that we need to work on and bring back to the cac to review to and to respond to the meandering ways to add to the character of coleman promenade. as far as maintenance, once lenoir is constructing these if approved, the maintenance will be part community facilities district and funds from the source will be responsible for maintaining the open space elements. when we relooked at 2007, going back to the galvez steps the cost of maintenance was significantly higher than what we anticipate for

the coleman promenade, as well as the galvez overlook and the opportunity to be next to the modular building has the opportunity for that tenant to be able to do a certain amount of basic maintenance and the rest being -- coming from the cfd. so we do have to look at long-term maintenance of our open space and be able to make sure that we have funding moving forward. so that these new developments can actually be maintained throughout the life of the project. thank you. >> thank you. >> we're available for questions >> okay. i think first we need to take public comment. >> i do have two speaker cards. one from mr. clyde miller and mr. oscar james. [ inaudible ] >> okay.

mr. james. >> thank you. oscar james, native resident of bayview-hunters point. i was living on navy road when i was born. so this is a particular heartwarming project for me. i really like what is taking place, but i have a problem with two things. one with the trees. i would like for those trees coming into the shipyard to be palm trees like they have in dolores park and around the embarcadero. i would also like the trees to be around the housing to be trees that don't drop leaves during the winter. and also, when they plant those trees, put those pipes down with the holes in it, where they have

been watered the roots don't stay up on top under the bottom of the concrete sidewalks, where they expand and start breaking the sidewalks. put them in, like you would in the rich areas. put them where you have the proper drainage, so people don't come out and stumble over those sidewalks on that. i really like what they are doing. i really love those benches. and any other benches that they put in that area, put some wood on there. because we don't like siting on concrete. we don't like hemorrhoids. thank you very much. [laughter ] [laughter ] >> that is the only speaker card i have. >> okay. ez questions or comments?

commissioner pimentel? >> are you working with artists from the 9142? >> there is no public art that is part of the overlook. there are a lot of art pieces on hilltop park. this is not part of the program, but there is more wayside signage for the views. there will be opportunities as part of the phase 2 project to bring in historical commemorative signage and we'll be coming back to the commission for the hunter's point shipyard signage master plan, which we'll talk about some of these more commemorative -- i'm having a hard time saying that word -- for the items for the greater shipyard to cover the larger area. >> commissioner bustos? >> i have a couple of

questions. one, i think oscar james brings up an important point about the trees. palm trees attract rats, so i don't know about all of that. but in terms of just making sure that the trees don't break up the sidewalk, and i think having proper drainage is going to be key for long-term investment, which i'm sure you guys are already aware of, but wanted to rereiterate that. >> the city is requiring minimum clearances between utilities and street tree plantings to avoid some of the sort of uprooting that you see in more infill or historic neighborhoods, that didn't have enough space to actually do that. there is also other treatments such as root barriers where the tree is planted in kind of a partial bucket, a barrier.

some of these are under review with the city to make sure that we have enough clearance between the utilities. the palm tree comment has come up in public comment for innes street. what has come up in community meetings is palm trees along innes which will be discussed when we come back for the hunter's point shipyard streetscape plan. where we'll be talking about what the innes corridor looks like and as far as the comment about leaves falling down. these trees are deciduous and during the 2007 period there were a lot of comments about wanting to

see foliage and seeing the seasons change. i have worked along the promenade where we have similar desire from community residents to see the changing of seasons and colors and lot of these trees are deciduous and we'll have maintenance staff to make sure it much resembles like the mission bay streetscape looks like, where you won't see a lot of -- >> are we coordinating with because there is going to be public property; right? are we coordinating with the parks and rec department on some of this stuff? >> for the open space? right now, for phase 1, this is oti property and as part of the property management plan it will go to the department of real estate. the management wouldn't necessarily end up parks and rec and could be different configurations much like yerba buena.

we have consulted with the bureau of urban forestry, as well as the department of public works, who is the permitting entity for a lot of these improvements. so there has been city agency review. >> okay. i just bring that up, because i think we may want to figure out how to coordinate better with them. commissioner pimentel brought up a great community about the art. i remember back in redevelopment days when i was a commissioner on redevelopment, we did a lot -- we had a lot of conversations about this area, and about the art. and so we said we wanted local artists. so please, please, please, please make sure that is reflected and maybe we need to go back to some of the drawings. because we actually had some pretty good renderings of what we are looking at and the type of art. maybe we can dig those up

and share that with you? the last thing i just wanted to mention is the storefront, i remember during the redevelopment days, and oscar james, you may remember this, but we talked about having that storefront almost as a museum for the ohlone people . that was a huge point of discussion looking at the whole plan, and we said we need to do something that honored the ohlone -- do you remember that? >> yes. >> we talked about wanting to do something to honor the ohlone peoples and some of the art reflects the community's art and i hope we haven't gone away from that. that was one of the many reasons why we wanted to support the

project. >> i wanted to provide the commission on an update to the public art project. these are the nine pieces of art that ocii commissioned with federal grant dollars. it did include a piece that does honor the ohlone people. a canoe installed at the park and all nine pieces have been completed and installed, the bayview horn is one of those pieces as well. which is in the store house plaza. >> so going back to the store house. again, i remember when we looked at the renderings of that building and what it was going to look like and we were going to use it as a community space to begin with, but it would then be a place where people can go and learn about the ohlone

peoples. so like i said, i hope we haven't forgotten about that. >> i node need to do some more research. i hadn't heard about that. the art for that modular is the horn and quilts, but there isn't anything specific to the ohlone people. so we should have a conversation about that. >> yes. you can go back to the tapes or transcripts, we did talk about that. and like i said, it was for several -- it was two or three meetings as we went through talking about this, that came up over and over again and we said it would be a nice tribute to the original peoples of this area. >> okay. >> if you can check on that and report-back, that would be great. >> sure.

>> okay. motions? >> i'll move. >> second. >> it's moved by commissioner bustos and seconded by commissioner singh. please call the roll. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name, commissioner pimentel. >> yes. >> commissioner mondejar is absent. commissioner singh? >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> madame chair rosales? >> yes. >> madame chair, i have four ayes and one absent. >> 5d is adopted. thank you. please call 5e. and i don't know how much longer we have this room. i just want folks to know, that we have got three more items at least -- >> we have to be out of this room by 5:00. i can call and check. [ inaudible ] >> we can check. >> i'm not advocating for

more time -- [laughter ] >> thank you. >> okay. 5e. >> 5e is delegating to the executive director of the successor agency the authority to settle claims in an amount not greater than $50,000. discussion and action resolution no. 4-2016. madame director. >> commissioners, as you recall, there have been a number of -- since dissolution and since you have been serving as successor agency, there have been a number of specific municipal derivatives claims that you have settled and considered that have been all for a nominal amount. because we do expect additional claims to come before you for your consideration, this is a delegation agreement form for

settlements look at your policy, dissolution law and citywide policy, so delegation is set at $50,000. jim morales, ocii general counsel and deputy director can provide additional details. >> president rosales and members of the question, my name is jim morales. this is a pretty straightforwardtrousing delegate to the executive director certain authority. there is no question under sort of redevelopment law and historic practice you have the authority to do this. in fact,, i think as the director alluded to, the director already has the authority to enter into contracts at the $50,000 or less mark this. would extend that to settlement of claims.

in light of dissolution law we have had to send up some very small settlements, both to the oversight board and then to the department of finance for their approval. and this has caused some inconvenience and difficulty in resolving these claims quickly. this all relates to the affirmative lawsuit related to banks and lenders received by bond issuances and how that money was used was the subject of this nationwide lawsuit. we have an individual case pending still, and there were a number of defendants, many of the major banks, investors and others, that are defendants. and they are now settling for relatively small amounts.

and so the idea originally here was to try to delegate to the executive director the authority to settle these matters without having to go to the commission to the oversight board and the department of finance. in looking at the matter, it seemed like given the convenience and efficiencies associated with resolving other types of claims under $50,000, given the city laws that authorize city departments to do that, that we would propose to you a more general authority, not only to resolve claims within this particular litigation that are $50,000 or less, but all claims. whether they are claims where we receive money, or whether they are claims where we have to pay money? we intend by this to, if you approve it today, to take it to the oversight board for its review and

approval and once it goes to the oversight board, it they approve it, it then goes to the department of finance. and if ultimately the department of finance blesses this, authorizes this, then this resolution would go into effect and it would provide a relative amount of efficiency and convenience in resolving claims. we don't have a lot of claims in general, nor do we have claims at the $50,000 or less. they are rather rare. nonetheless, it just seemed like good, public policy to establish this type of delegation for the executive director. so that it can avoid cluttering your calendars and avoid going to the oversite and department of finance process. the key point i think for the oversight board and the department of finance and it's stated in the

resolution is that we would make -- the director would make a finding that entering into a settlement agreement of $50,000 or less, complis with enforceable obligation. and make a connection between one of our existing enforceable obligations that the state has recognized such as the mission bay owner participation agreement oppurthe disposition and development agreements for hunter's point shipyard and candlestick and we would always make a finding -- not always -- only it it's true obviously, but we would use this resolution only if there was a direct connection to those enforceable obligations or our obligations as property owners prior to transfer of our properties to the city. and we believe that is the key to getting the department of finance to

approve this. it is somewhat untested. we have no precedent under dissolution law for this. the department of finance to our knowledge has not seen these type of resolutions before, but we wanted to take it up, and try to get their approval for what appears to be a very reasonable, logical approach, that serves the interest of dissolution and the agency. and with that, i'd answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you. do we have public comment cards? >> we do not. >> okay. so any questions? for the general counsel? commissioner singh? >> mr. morales, did we approve this also -- the authority? >> in 2002, the commission approved increasing the executive director's authority to approve

contracts at $50,000 or less under the purchasing policy. it did not explicitly cover settlement agreements or resolution of claims in litigation. it was more for professional service contracts, and other forms of contracts that the agency enters into. i think the limit before that was $20,000. it was very low. and so the idea was to delegate to the director the authority to follow the purchasing policy, engage in competitive solicitation, if appropriate, but to make a final decision on smaller contracts. >> okay. thank you. >> this is consistent with that. >> i think this is good public policy, as general counsel morales said and mirrors what department heads have. i actually thought $50,000

was low, but willing to go along with that threshold. >> so moved. >> commission by commission bustos. >> seconded. >> seconded by commissioner pimentel. please call the roll. >> please announce your vote which i call your name. commissioner pimentel? >> yes. >> commissioner mondejar is absent. commissioner singh? >> yes. >> commissioner bustos? >> yes. >> madame chair rosales? >> yes. >> madame chair, four ayes