not responsible for planning code enforcement. when i sunshined the planning department regarding the penalties assessed when they issued a notice of enforcement for the unpermitted removal of a three storey bay at 2,517th avenue, the planning department responded that they work with violators versus issuing penalties and fines. this says a lot about the planning department's notice of enforcement process. i would suggest that the planning department removed word "enforcement" from their process. the planning department's lack of enforcement is one of the root causes of unpermitted demolition in san francisco. can you imagine what parking in san francisco would look like if the parking control officers did not believe in enforcement, but -- and did not issue tickets with fines, but worked with

individual violators? thank you. >> thank you. any more public comment? seeing none -- just on -- you know, i think we're really -- both departments are understanding the importance of getting to the understanding that we need to do a better job in implementing our policy and procedures, particularly 317 has been a challenge for us and at the department here. it's been a challenge for us and also for planning. i do want to point out in a statement that, you know, there are a lot of projects out there that might have been presented as being illegal demolitions and they are not. and they have not exceeded the permits. and what i'm finding is that when the drawings are produced and the facts are put on the table that what is perceptually seen by some community members

as exceeding the permit, they did not. so i think that we have to be fair about this when we say that when buildings are -- some of the photographs that are produced are produced and they're automatically presumed as exceeding the permit -- and they have not. there's been cases like that. and we welcome anybody who has an issue to come to d.b.i. and to talk about the inspectors and to go through the plans and to see what was approved both by planning and d.b.i. i mean, i think that is a very important part of this process that needs to happen. then there are projects thought who have egregiously exceeded the permits and they need to be dealt with. so i think that it's important that we keep it consistent that, you know, we need to get all of the facts first before we necessarily condemn every project that we see that we feel has exceeded its permits without getting all of the facts on the table for us. i think that is important. as a builder it's a very difficult thing out there

sometimes to do these buildings where there needs to be an understanding between d.b.i. and planning that sometimes the permit -- we need to sit down and discuss this and communicate to everybody what needs to be done to make these buildings more seismically safe and fireproof and so on and that's what is happening out there in a lot of cases. in other cases it's quite different. but, anyway, i wanted to make that comment. commissioner lee? >> another issue that goes a long way to resolving it is communicating with the neighbors. i find out that i think that the planning department does a very good job in the beginning of a project, meaning, makes the project sponsor notified in the neighborhood and telling them what their plans are and what is being proposed. but between that time and when the project gets approved and the permit is issued, the neighbors don't know what was

discussed or what was finally approved. we don't know if a room has been added or there's been approval for demolition. we don't know that. so that's why some of the neighbor comes by and say, hey, why is this all missing now? because it was approved. it did go through a process but nobody was notified in the neighborhood. so that's something that we may want to talk with planning about, about whether -- what should we do once the project is approved, how do we get the notice out that this has been approved and this is what is going to be built, this is what the department, d. bimple deparg at to say that it's going to be built this way. i think that would solve a lot of problems. >> i think that is hopefully that we will have a good discussion in april on this. sometimes a front facade is not historically significant but it

triggers off emotions that it shouldn't have been removed though on the plans the contractor shows that it can be removed. obviously, you have to communicate if you have concerns and that's not the issue but i think it's important that we balance it. there are a few bad actors out there and there's a lot of good contractors out there who are trying to do exactly as approved. and who have no interest in exceeding their permits. they get caught in this web sometimes and i have to feel that we have to talk about them and recognize that they are doing a good job out there as well but there are definitely people out there who need to be dealt with and who are abusing the system. that's hopefulliy in the planning commission joint hearing we can talk about that and we'll be straight about that. as i said in projects like alvarado is coming back to us and we'll walk it through and learn as much as to why it went as far as it did and take it from there then, okay?

so thank you all, and commissioners pointed out, thank you for coming out and presenting your cases here today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. item 8, update on accela permit and project tracking system. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm shawn beulin from the department of technology, helping out on this project. you have the status in front of you. the good news in terms of major accomplishments, we've had a big wave of reports, specs approved and there's a bunch of report development going on. we have been going through the project and working on build activities, meaning working closely with the frontline staff and making sure that the new screens and that they do exactly what you want them to do when you hit this particular button and the right values are in each

drown down list. it's a -- drop down list. it's a long drawn out process but it's proceeding very well. and most of the interfaces with the external departments are now in development or being tested at the moment so all of that is very, very positive. in terms of the major activities planned for next month, bottom line is that there's more of the same. we've got a lot more reports to do, we've got to wrap up the data migration activities, we've got to wrap up the interfaces and wrap up all of the scripting work to make the application behave exactly as we need it to behave, so that's all, very, very positive. over the last few days for your information an issue has arisen that actually came up after i had produced this one pager and i'll give you a verbal update on it so just so you're aware -- for awareness purposes. we talk about all of these interfaces and one of the interfaces is a payment adapter

to help people to pay when they use the web to do certain activity. that payment adapter is completed. of course, just about the time that it's completed we learned that, you know, this company that provides the adapter has a contract with the number of the departments throughout the city and there are some contractual issues going on. d.b.i. is not the only department impacted and there's a number of departments impacted by this and it's outside of d.b.i.'s control. so we are rolling with the punches and exploring possible options for dealing with this interface to be able to deal with web payments. >> what is this -- what does it mean a contractual issue? >> you know, i'm actually not quite sure how much to share out loud because this is a vendor relationship and there's some sensitive discussions going on but there is a possibility that

we're not licensed to use the product towards the end of the year. and that is what we are working on at the moment. one of the welcome to big project implementation and all kinds of contractual disputes. we are exploring multiple alternatives to address this. i must say that d.b.i.'s management is being very proactive in pursuing and helping us to pursue these options, identify them and put this issue to rest. but it is literally something that popped up over the last few days and we felt that you should be aware. >> okay. i'll get more offline, i guess. >> just a brief note on the change management roadmap. i have shared this before and we are executing to it. detailed planning is underway.

we're going to have a far more detailed plan and we'll share that with you in the next month. some of these dates are changing a little bit as we get down to the next level of depth on the planning. so there's going to be a couple shifts in the dates but we're going to have a much more flushed out plan for our outreach and communications, both internally, within the department, and externally with the other departments and outside people. so this one pager will be blown out into multiple pages and we'll be sharing the greater detail with you starting next month. any questions? >> we're getting close. >> yes. absolutely. thank you. >> clerk: public comment on item 8? seeing none, director nine, director's report, 9-a, update on d.b.i.'s finances.

>> good afternoon, commissioner, the deputy director for the department of building inspection. before you is the february 2018 financial report provides that revenues and expenditures for the time period of july 2017 through february 2018. i'll just go over a couple of highlights. on the revenue side we continue to see a slowing of revenues. so ending february 2017, last year, we had collected about $50 million and this year we're at $47 million so we're down over $3 million in last year. and to plan checking revenues, it's down by a lot. however, although we are continuing to see a reduction from prior year overall we're still doing pretty well because if you see the first page we're

actually -- we had predicted to be even be lower so we're actually projecting that we're going to be about $6 million over budget. but we are seeing a steady decline. so, for example, i went back and i looked at revenues and i think we haven't been this low in february since maybe fiscal year 2014. but once again it's still high and we're coming down from a low high. -- from a high level, yes. so that's on the revenue side. on the expenditure side, similar to what we have been reporting over the past few months, we are down a lot from the prior year. that is primarily so you'll see that we have collected about -- we have spent about $33 million this year and last year we were almost at $40 million but that continues to be due to a lack of billing from other departments. so basically about $50 million, $60 million is work orders or services with other departments

and we're paying the departments for other services they are providing. and this is city-wide, pretty much the billings have been a lot slower. so last year we had already seen bills and approved bills over $6 million and this year we're only at $1 million so it's hard to make projections because the billing is just really slow and that's linked a little bit to the departments just getting on board with the new financial management system. so we hope by the nine months that we'll have a better picture and nine months is supposed to be march. we're starting to see a lot more billings come in so hopefully if not by march, that by april we'll have a better representation of what our work order expenses are. after salaries it's the second largest expenditures. i think that is it. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 9b, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, bill strom, public affairs. i'll just mention some of the highlights from the report that is in your packet. you have heard assistant director ron tom talk about where we are with the cost recovery legislation, the mayor did sign that on the ninth of march and, therefore, in 30 days that will will be in effect. so i think that we're in a good position on that rather important element of our tall building aspect. we also mentioned earlier about the accessible entrance business program and supervisor tang met with the director and the deputy director sweeney and the office of the small business and some other folks. there's been a fair amount of comments coming in from small

businesses to the supervisor about how much time may be needed in order to meet the initial compliance deadline for these checklists that was going to be may 23rd. she has agreed in principle to extend that out. we're thinking probably to a deadline closer toward the end of the year that will give people a little more opportunity. as was mentioned in the president's announcements we did send a second notification to approximately 24,000 of these small property owners that we think are going to be in this program. to date we still have not had very much of a response from the two notifications late november, early december, and now this past week. as we know constant outreach and communications is necessary in order to make owners aware that

they do have a compliance issue here. and particularly those buildings that are already exempt. we think that out of those notified 7,000 or 8,000 of these buildings, all they have to do is to file a declaration form that they sign and get it in here to the building department. and that number would obviously go down quite a bit. but so far we aren't yet getting that response. that's one of the reasons that we have scheduled two more brown bag workshops at d.b.i. and the first is march 30th. and there's another one in early april that we'll be letting you know about. i guess that on other matters i would just mention on the mandatory seismic retrofitting tier 3 that we're down to where we have about a 96% compliance level. there are approximately 130 buildings that are noncomp

pliant and the code enforcement division has posted all of those buildings and we'll be scheduling a director's hearing for those. i'll let you know once we actually have a date for any of those hearings. they have not yet been schedul scheduled. one other matter i'll mention is on accessory dwelling units. i understand that supervisor tang and some others at the board yesterday did introduce a new piece of legislation. i haven't yet seen the details of it, so i don't yet know what's in it. i do know that director hulie has an internal accessory unit task force that is headed by the deputy directo dan lowry and the permit services section, working with internal staff as well as pretty closely with the planning department in order to see if we can find a way to move forward those units that we know are

meeting the life safety standards. as all of you have heard last month from the fir fire marshals presentation that there are some builds that do present challenges and to president mccarthy's point i think that the goal going forward is to give owners a pretty clear picture of whether they're going to be able to qualify for this type of a unit or not early on and not drag the process out, unknowingly or unwittingly, so to speak. but with that i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 9-c, update on major projects. >> the director of the building inspection and this month compared to last month roughly only 1% increase of technical reasons, nothing changed from

before. any questions that you want. >> thank you, director. >> clerk: item 9-d, update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners and president mccarthy. the numbers for code enforcement and d.b.i. monthly intake for february. building inspections performed, 4,947. complaints received, 427. complaint response within 24-72 hours, 383. and complaints with first notice of violation sent, 67. and complaints received and abated without n.o.v.s, 215. and updated compliance with notice of violation, 34. and second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 22. and h.i.s., there was 1,072 inspections performed. complaints received, 476. complaint response, within 24-48

hours or 72 hours, 450. complaints with notice of violations issued, 188. and a baited complaints with n.o.v.s, 329. and the number of cases sent to the director's hearing, 48. routine inspections, 226. and code enforcement, number of cases sent to director's hearing, 71. number of order of abatements issued, 17. the number of cases under advisement, 9. and the number of cases abated, 56. and the code enforcement inspections performed, 158. and cases referred to city attorney, one. those are the numbers for february 2018. >> clerk: is there any public comment on the director's report items, 9a-d. seeing none, item 10, review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of february 14, 2018.

>> approved. >> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? all commissioners in favor. any opposed? the minutes are approved. item 11, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of february 21, 2018. >> moved to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment? okay, seeing none are all commissioners in favor any opposed? minutes are approved as well. and item 12, adjournment. a motion to adjourn. >> adjourn. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second and all commissioners in favor? we are now adjourned and it is 12:20 p.m.. thank you. .

aggregate. >> clerk: item number one, call to order. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: okay. you have a quorum. >> thank you. thank you, everyone, for being here, and for those that are watching remotely, and we appreciate your presence today, and those in the audience. i see jill mantin.

nice to see you, jill, and the rest of your staff and guests. okay. let's move on. >> clerk: item number two, general public comment. >> are there any public comments? seeing none clerk cl. >> clerk: item number three, consent agenda. approving the minutes of the engine 19, 2018 meeting. >> i move for approval. >> i second the motion. all in favor? the aye's have it. thank you. >> clerk: item number four, dda commercial leasing division. >> thank you. directors, chair richardson. bob beck. in light of the discussion last week during public comment at the board meeting on the concept of a treasure island sailing science museum, had -- last september, we had done a

presentation on how we would propose that unsolicited proposals be addressed. and following up on that, i wanted to go into a little detail just in the explicit terms of the disposition and development agreement as it relates to the development of commercial sites -- the key commercial sites on treasure island and yerba buena island. so again, in 2011, we adopted different disposition documents, but today, the dda lays out tida's rights and obligations as it relates to the commercial sites on the island. and the key commercial sites that are -- you know, we have a larger mixed-use zone on the

island where some retail or commercial is provided, but the dda identifies the indicated properties as key commercial sites. the island center core encompassing building one, to the west, block m-1, between building one and hangar two, hangar two, hangar three, are all part of that key commercial sites or critical commercial sites. and then, additional commercial sites include the treasure island and yerba buena hotel sites, as well as the historic structures on ybi. so as i highlighted, the treesh island key commercial sites include that center core running along the center shoreline from building one to hangar three. and then, indicated in blue on

this diagram, the hotel site is not defined as a critical commercial site, but a noncritical commercial site along with the hotel site on yerba buena island and the senior officers' quarters historic district, which encompasses not only the residential buildings on ybi, the historic residential buildings, but also the torpedo building on the west tip of ybi. under the dda, tida has the mission but not the requirement

to improdevelop these properti. if they don't, they are supposed to put them out as an auction for a development opportunity. and in terms of opportunity for building one and hangar two, it's within ten years of major phase approval. again, as a reminder for folks, major phase approval occurred in 2015, so we -- it would be within ten years of that or by 2025 to be entered no a bdda or auctioned off those sites, and for hangar three, it's an additional five years by 2030. the development of the mixed-use blocks, m 1 a and m 2 a, there's not a time constraint; however, there is -- that is the retail main street that connects building one to hangar two. on the noncritical commercial

lots, it provides that ticd shall enter into an auction for the rights to the vertical development opportunities for here. this includes as i mentioned, both hotel sites on treasure island and yerba buena island as well as for the buildings kpriezing the strategic -- the senior officers' quarters district. and the timeline for the ybi hotel site and the officers' quarters area is no later than five years after the outside date for completion of infrastructure and stormwater management controls from the dda's scheduled performance. so just recapping, again, ticd is granted through the dda key -- the development rights for these key commercial sites, and if they decline to exercise

those rights, they're supposed to auction them off. and that any changes to the adopted land use plan in particular required ticd consent. also, under the edocma, we have a waterfall financial agreement with the navy, and where if ticd meets certain return thresholds, ti -- the navy would receive a supplemental payment, and therefore, any changes that we do to the land use program or to the auction requirements would be subject to navy review and consent to show that their financial interests are proposed. so as we -- as we proceed with the sailing center and speaking with mr. hancock, having encouraged him to reach out to ticd and present them with a

final pro forma and a business plan for his concept, but that's really kind of the starting point in -- in that discussion. so i just wanted to highlight that for you and if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> commissioner, question? >> yeah. thank you very much for the information. it again, refreshes our memory about the timeline as well as the leasing obligations and how the various land uses will be developed over time. and i'm sure that there's many unsolicited proposals that do come in for worthy causes as well as worthy enterprises, but if what you're saying, mr. beck, is that the -- because our master lease is with tidc ---cd partner, that those proposals first need to be

vetted through them, is that correct? >> yeah. the -- yeah, the -- really, because those economic development rights were granted to ticd in the dda, that ise starting point for somebody that wishes to make a proposal is ticd and see if it's one that ticd would either be interested in partnering in or something that would waive their development rights. >> thank you. >> i have a question regarding the non-commercial lots. in particular, the block c2h. and you mentioned here, with the language deemed appropriate. it doesn't seem to be a timeline there, that, you know, for any kinds of action auction to take place. was that really defined in the

dda? how do we treat that? -- this particular block? i know that the other blocks, the y-2 have within the five years, but that particular one, it's not -- doesn't seem to be a definite timeline why, and how do we treat that? >> yeah. and i think that was -- it -- you know, it gives ticd kind of sole discretion for that site. as part of their park improvements for the west side, the city side park, they proposed to incorporate on the block c2h some temporary park improvements so that it won't be sitting as a fenced-off vacant lot but would be in the interim part of the city side park open space, but i think there's a few factors that led ticd to preserve that

flexibility. first, i think that they believe that that hotel site is really suited for development after ferry service commences, and because there's a lot of variability in the timing of ferry service, that was one reason for flexibility there. i also think that a consideration may be the completion of some of the surrounding development. you don't necessarily want to open a hotel and then develop the site kneeled adjaceimmedia to it. and one of the sites in close proximity to the hotel site is the 450-foot tower site. and again, that site in particular is likely to not be developed at the very beginning of development, but to wait until ferry service and some of the key retail are developed in

the island core. so for those reasons, i think some of these are some of the reasons that contributed to ticd pursuing that flexibility in the dda. >> thank you very much. from the audience, are there any questions? seeing none, thank you. >> sure. >> clerk: item number five, artist selection process update. >> jill mantin is here today from the arts commission and will give an update. >> commissioners, it's very nice to see you. good morning, director beck. things are going -- proceeding according to plan, i'm hoopyapo say with the artist selection process. almost all of the proposals have been submitted. there was a period of preliminary staff feedback regarding technical issues, possible maintenance issues. we are prepared to display the proposals starting this monday

on treasure island in building one. there will be 14 boards, some explanatory boards, and then, one board pereach proposal from -- there's seven finalists, two of them have been asked -- asked -- have been invited to develop proposals for two sites, excuse me. oh, thank you -- [ inaudible ] >> so just to refresh your memory, the selection panel met in december. the visual arts committee had commented and reviewed and commented on the finalists. we were able to achieve consensus from the steering committee to invite the finalists to draw up a proposal, and we made a brief report in january , i believe, at the tida board meeting. so now, as i said, the proposals are coming in. we're going to have a public

display -- go to the next slide. following the display at tida, we're hoping to have a display in city hall, if they can accommodate the 14 boards. if not, we have an alternate space on the third floor of the veterans building where my office is located, the arts commission across the street. we have the selection panel meeting on april 17th, and just to refresh your memory, the members on the selection panel include board president f fai sen, arts commission president j.t. beltran, and our guest curators from the smi smithsonian institution and sfmoma. on the 16th, we expect the

selection panel to make their final decision regarding the three sites: waterfront plaza, building one plaza, and yerba buena hilltop park, and we have those sites laid out for you here. these are our finalists for waterfront plaza. i'm sorry the text is interfering with the image. this this is not their proposal, these are examples of part work. and then our three finalists again, and yerba buena hilltop park, and the three finalists. and then, following the selection panel meeting on april 17th, conveniently, we have the visual arts committee meeting on april 18th, so we'll be able to obtain comments from the arts commission in very short order. additionally, we will place motions on the agenda for the

visual arts committee to authorize the arts commission to enter into agreement with the three selected finalists pending final approval from tida, and which will enable us to contract with the artist as soon as tida has approved the artist. after visual arts committee on april 18th, and prior to the tida meeting, i believe which is may 9th, we will convene a meeting of the steering committee. hopefully, committee will ratify and accept the panel's recommendations, and then, we will come to tida, assuming all goes well on wednesday, may 9th, for your final approval, and your blessing for the arts commission to enter into agreement with the artist. when the artists were sent their memorandum of understanding to did he right la lane -- develop a proposal,

they had to review that, and we're assuming having reviewed that they would be willing to neent a agreement. director beck had asked the commission to work with the city attorney to see if we could stream line the standard city contract that's used, and the city attorney agreed to remove a few provisions and we're also able to stream line just the format in the appendices which describe the scope of work, but for the most part, we're going to be using the standard city contract, with the exception of afew provisions. so i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. i'd like to acknowledge commissioner sen for making herself available at the several orientations we had. we had hoped to have all of the artists attend a single orientation, but giving people 2.5 weeks notice when they're coming from places around the

world proved to be difficult. so we were fortunately able to conduct a few orientations to make certain that the artists were familiar with the site, understood the conditions, the constraints, and had the opportunity to really view the incredible -- incredible majesty of the view and the sites and learn about the history of the island. so i feel like we're in good shape at this point. >> thank you, jill. questions? >> no, i don't have questions, but maybe i can just make a few comments -- and thank you, jill, so much for shepherding this process. it's been very labor intensive and also a labor of love because in some ways it's such an incredible site and we actually have gotten an incredible response. there's almost 500 artists who applied initially, and then, there was the winnownig doing

the selections. the artist that has been selected, they're well known. it's a different group of artists locally, internationally, and from california, as well, and i think we have gotten a wonderful response. so -- and i think all of them have been so incredibly moved by the sites that they will be working on and very excited about the possibility of working with us on the island. and certainly, as the selection process goes on, when we finally select artists for each one of the sites, that will be coming back to the treasure island development authority board before the arts commission, so that it can be viewed by the commission as a whole, and that that decision,

then, would be ratified. so thank you very much, jill, for all that you've done for this. and it's just incredibly exciting for us to see throws first three public art commissions be carried forth. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, just one question. so hopefully, this'll all work for the ones selected. if one falls through, is there a plan for the back up? >> i think we'll have the selection panels select an alternate for each site, so we would have a back up plan. >> okay. great. thank you. >> and then one step in the process that i neglected to articulate, between now and the meeting of the selection panel, i hope to convene a meeting of the steering committee to gain approval in advance of the budget that will be available for the first artist's contract. we don't necessarily expect that all of the funds will be available. we're hoping that we'll --

enough funding will be available from ticd to enable us to complete at least the design and engineering contract with the artist, so in the next few weeks, we hope to be able to schedule that meeting. zb >> did you have any questions or comments? >> thank you. ji jill, again. i want to commend commissioner sen for being on the steering committee. for those that are hearing about this for the first time, is that the arts commission, under your leadership, jill, actually went out everywhere, and and you received almost 1,000 entries. it was an exhaustive process, and what is great about the final artists is the diversity. i think we really need to know

that because people expect us to have that kind of inclusiveness, and they are international artists, well known, so this is very dpli delighting. i was going to ask about the budget since there hasn't been any meeting for the steering committee, so that would take place before your meeting convened for the artists, is that the plan? >> yes. i'm working with bob to schedule that in the next -- in the coming weeks. >> the other thing i want to ask you, then, i know to keep the momentum on the press and the marketing -- i know paul wylie was just hitting every major magazine and marketing entity. i think the ones that we have are really great, so keep going and getting more coverage for even this. >> thank you. we hope so. we're very excited.

>> that's great. thank you for that. >> thank you. >> i do have one question, jill. i think the public display as the proposal is a great way to advertise to the public as large that there's something happening at treasure island. and where will you be sending out information about the public space? there's -- as i understand it, there's going to be displays of the entries, building one at treasure island, and then another at some location in the city. >> in the civic center. >> and what sort of outreach do you have to let the general public know? >> we will work with our communications director. we have a large mailing list that the art commission uses, and of course, we'd like to work with treasure -- with t a tida, but i'm also hoping to extend the contract with the publicist we have.

her fee is included in my budget request to tida for this year, so i'm waiting to hear back from that. she did a if he nom signal job. at commissioner richards mentioned, we had international press coverage, in newsweek and the new york times. she does an effective job as well. we have a number of local writers. charles demornay who did a great write up in local press, so we have local press that are already attuned in watching our moves. >> thank you. so please, yeah, that's critical yeah. let's get everyone and please keep going. thank you. >> thanks. >> thank you. any public comments? seeing none, thank you, jill. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: item number six, affordable housing development

efficiencies. >> thank you, directors. i know that there's been a lot of interest in opportunities that will be -- may be available to us to reduce the cost of developing and operating the affordable housing as a means of closing our funding gap on the affordable housing development program. and i wanted to provide an update 6789 it's very mu

update. it's very much a work in progress. since we last updated the board in october, mohcd has convened a regular meeting with developers of affordable housing to air issues of -- of interest, concern, and opportunity to help achieve late mayor lee's goal of bringing more affordable housing to the city. so in -- in those meetings, some of the subjects of conversation have been environmental regulations, as well as mb -- or lb and sbsub contracti contracting -- and sb subcontracting requirements. when we put out an rfq for the development of a city-owned

site, the developer is asked to follow the city subcontracting requirement. the -- one of the areas of concern has been specifically the -- the professional consultants contracting requirement because these teams tend to operate in a very lean and mean approach, and so expanding the team to provide subcontracting opportunities sometimes can -- can both complicate the design process as well as bring some added cost. some other areas also include accessibility requirements, and it's not so much i think a concern to avoid accessibility requirements but really seeking

clarity around accessibility requirements and the level of universal access in terms of the number of units within an individual building would need to be designed and constructs for universal access. as well as some of the green building responsibilities, and that's in some regards more of a citywide conversation than on treasure island. and part of that is in the last few years, the city has instituted the stormwater -- on-site stormwater capture and treatment requirements for new projects, whereas under the master vote minute at treasure island, we have a separate stormwater collection systems, and we do separate treatment of the form water. so that's a cost of treasure island that's being borne by the master development and not

being put on the affordable housing sites. but it's an example of the types of green building requirements that other sites have indicated contribute to -- to higher costs. some of the other areas of exploration on the capitals, the construction side, include possibility of pooling transition reserves, sharing operating subsidies, and then we are looking at treasure island specific cost opportunities, clarifying the instances in which ground vapor barriers may be required. the results of the geotechnical program to be clear for the heights of most of our affordable buildings. the intention is that the

geotechnical program will make it so that those buildings can be supported by mat foundations and not requiring piles, and just working with the design teams for mercy and catholic charities to make sure that they concur with that assessment, because that's large potentially avoided cost for development of the project. as well as clarifying dda rules regarding impact fees and other project requirements. on the operating cost side of things, we're look at a shared property management opportunities, shared services opportunities between sites, and pooled replacement reserves or pooled operating reserves. and each of these have their own challenges, and in part as we develop more and more sites,

some of these become greater opportunities within the island as a community, but for the first one or two sites out the door, the opportunities to -- to leverage shared property management resources or shared services is more limited. of course modular construction is the -- the opportunity that is out there that i think holds the most promise and the most -- captures the most interest and discussion. our presentation last fall followed on the heels of the controller's office issuing their comparative analysis for the potential benefits for modular housing. the -- kind of the key findings

for that greatly summarized from our october discussion are that there are the opportunities for modest cost savings, but significant time savings, as much as 30% time savings on the delivery -- construction of building. and that helps save project management and other costs, as well. the -- the potential concerns highlighted in the controller's office report highlighted the relative immaturity of the modular housing market, both from the side of firms available to do fabrication but also general contractors that are experienced with the process of constructing a modular facility in the field.

those are opportunities that were noted that should only continue to improve over time as we move forward. also following our discussion in october, the city did come to agreement to pilot two projects in the city for modular construction. at that time, that does not include a site at treasure island, but we continue to evaluate the potential use of modular construction for both parcel c 3.2 and c 3.1. at this time, 3.2 looks to be -- have more potential for modular construction based on

the building layout and the range of units that are proposed. whereas the mercy housing project, while a preliminary projection does show that it could lower housing costs, the need to move to regular unit dimensions actually creates some inefficiencies in the massing so that the current massing studies are showing a -- us potentially having 15% or more fewer units than we could if we optimized the development on the site. but it's not just a -- the faezibility doesn't just hinge on the number -- feasiblity doesn't just hinge on the number of units that they could

create and the amount of time needed to fully fund that project. so obviously if we're delivering fewer units at a lower cost perunit, that's a project that we would be able to move into construction earlier than a one that has more units. even though the marginal cost of those additional units could be quite low because we're continuing to add -- build units to a building that has fixed program facilities. so as i said, still an ongoing assessment for both of those sites. and these are just some -- some examples of modular construction, too, in the bay area and of very intriguing architecture structure in los angeles. other potential efficiencies that we identify and continue

to explore include construction, financing operation, management efficiencies, pooled insurance opportunities, construction general cantations. in some cases, they relate to city construction requirements, optimizing shared or sharing service spaces and parking and other facility amenities between structures developments. the entire picture of reserves and property management and operation staff, and shared construction costs. and one thing that's worth noting about all or most of these on this page is that they really are most optimal if

we're able to move forward with multiple projects in one time frame. but because of the way that our funding accrues, we'll be doing individual projects sequentially every two to three years, which we're going to continue to pursue these opportunities, but it may be more challenging to leverage those that are construction relates, whereas operating reserves or sharing service spaces or parking, that may be something that will lead to operating efficiencies in the langua long-term, but again would likely accrue to the second, third and fourth projects under a particular program manager as the -- the initial project will need to provide those service

facilities. and then, a second or later project by the same program might be able to leverage program facilities that has been built in an earlier or nearby development. and then again, i just mentioned the challenges that many of these -- these -- these efficiencies face in terms of timing. so continuing to move forward with these discussions, our real focus right now from a funding and strategic approach is looking at the first five development projects, refining the estimated cost for those projects, and the potential availability of funds because