>> all in favor? [voting] >> i make a motion that we don't reveal anything that we talked about in closed session. >> i second? >> all in favor? [voting] >> okay. pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> clerk: please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and other similar sound producing devices are prohibited in this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order anyone removed from the room by the use of

cell phones, pages or other similar sound producing device. public comment on items not listed on the agenda. >> is there any public comment, items not listed on the agenda? seeing none. >> clerk: okay. item nine, executive director's office. >> executive director forbes: good afternoon, president brandon, vice president adams, members of the public, commission, and port staff. i'm he lanes forbes, the port's executive director. i have one item, and it's to announce the grant of the zero golden gate grant to zero marine. it announced that it received a $3 million grant from the california air resources board to build the first hydrogen

fuel cell ferry in the united states. funding from this grant comes from a statewide program that puts billions of cap and trade dollars to work, particularly in disadvantaged communities. the grant will be administered by the bay area air quality management district. we are very proud of our resident, tom escher, look with dr. joseph pratt, and captain joe bergard. they have started this new company, golden gate zero emissions. this partnership already has proven that a hydrogen ferry can be built, and now they aim to build the world's first fuel cell ferrowe boat, the water go round. the water go round is planned to be on the water by autumn of 2019. we congratulate them on this grant award and look forward to

seeing a zero emissions vessel on their bay. port staff asks the commission to please close the meeting in memory of kevin manning. he died last night. he was 66 years old. i knew mr. manning. he was a 30-year cyclist, and i had the experience to ride with him with the oakland yellow jackets from 2002 to 2006 or so. he trained lots of people to be better bike riders. he changed a tire of mine on many, many occasions, and he even patented something would keep in tune to low air pressure, so they would know

when their tire would go flat. we are so saddened to lose him. he was a dear member of our staff. >> thank you. we will close the meeting in his honor. is there any public comment on the executive director's report. seeing none? >> clerk: item 9-b, port commission report. >> anything? commissioner gilman? >> i just want to on behalf of the commission thank sffd, san francisco fire department. last night, there was a two alarm blaze within one block of the cannery building. three firefighters were hurt in that blaze? but with every incident happening in the north bay and with the fire season here in california, i think we're very lucky that it didn't spread from a wood frame building to the cannery or other billion owned by the port. i just really wanted to thank them on behalf of the commission. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> madam chair, i request we have a moment of silence for

kevin manning while we're here at the moment. >> we have a moment of silence. thank you. >> that's all i have, madam chair. >> commissioner? >> nothing to report. >> i would just like to report that i had the opportunity to attend the american association of port authorities port governing board's conference in montreal, canada, last month, and it was a great conference with really good topics such as

the uncertain political landscape, navigating port priorities through rough waters. and then there was a session to create jobs partnering with economic development and prosperity. the one i liked was challenges facing women c.e.o.'s. this particular conference will be in san francisco next year, so i hope my fellow commissioners can attend. it was a really good conference and presenters. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]

>> is there a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on the consent calendar? all in favor? [voting] >> the resolution 18-40 and 18-41 have been approved. >> clerk: item 11 a., informational presentation by the san francisco planning department on the central waterfront public realm plan, including port properties such as warm water consult park on 24th street. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david billbray with the planning department. i am joined by others who have partnered and led the planning effort for the central waterfront public realm plan. the commission last heard and was provided an update on this plan in november of 2016. the plan is in the final stages of being adopted.

it's a plan that's an interagency project that will get public investment, streetscape and investments project in the central waterfront. working off of the 2008 eastern neighborhoods plan. the plan incorporates and leverages waterfront parks and public realm improvements that have been advanced by the port including the blue greenway design guidelines, pier 70, parks and open spaces including the crane cove park, and the forest city development project. the planning process included a significant amount of community outreach, which robin and sean will go through, and included the identification of nine projects to develop conceptual plans for, two of which are on port property, including 24th street east of illinois street and warm water cove park. both robin and sean will provide an overview of the plan

and where it stands today, and we're all available for questions at the end. thank you. >> thank you. >> robin? >> thank you, david. commissioners, president brandon, vice president adams, i'm robin abbad from the san francisco planning department, and i'm joined by my partner in getting this plan together. we're really excited to provide this educational update. so as david mentioned, this was an interagency effort? we collaborated with port staff as well as staff at the sfmta, the department of public works, and at recreation and parks to develop this framework document. we also worked with some great consultants, fletcher studio, a landscape architect who's actually based in dogpatch and has done a lot of local work there, as well as our friends as neighbor land who helped us provide some innovative web

based public engagement which helped us to reach a really broad audience. we're currently in a series of hearings associated with a general plan amendment that we're bringing to the right sides in order to incorporate this plan into our city's general plan by reference. at this time we're not proposing any planning code amendments. so just stepping back a little bit, what is the public realm? we think of the public realm as the streets and the parks and the open spaces that tie a neighborhood together? they're the commons, the parts of our neighborhood that all citizens and all visitors experience together. and so the public realm plan lays out a vision that is informed heavily by community input for how investments -- public investments and private invisitments can be prioritized and targeted within that neighborhood. and so what we have in this public realm plan is not just

some beautiful conceptual designs but a really practical tool that the capital planning committee can use when making decisions about complete streets and open space investments in the neighborhood. i'm going to turn it over to my colleague, who's going to talk a little bit about the plan and then i'll come back to talk about developments. >> so why do we need the public realm plan for the central waterfront area? as you know, in 2008, the central waterfront area plan was adopted as part of eastern neighborhood planning process. since then, the neighborhood has grown into mixed use residential area, and as you see in the chart, we are looking at about a quadruple increase in housing units in the next 15 years under the most aggressive scenario. and the area plan actually includes a lot of policies calling for open space and streetscape improvements, but

the public realm improvements haven't kept up with the growth, so in coming up with this, we formed an interagency team to kick off the planning process for the public realm plan, and at the beginning, he with did find the project that's a little bit bigger than the area planned boundary to provide connections to adjacent neighborhoods. at the same time, we recognize that there are already major projects underway, including pier 70 and potrero park plan projects along the waterfront, so we coordinated with david on top of the planning process to ensure that connections to the waterfront and throughout the neighborhood connect -- are all addressed. we also had aimed for six key outcomes, and the first one is to setup holistic visions for future investmented that would

select community priorities. also we want to make sure the planning provides for public coordination because the public realm has a lot of overlapping city jurisdictions. it was important to have important coordination between agencies so we can carry out the vision we came up with together. we also want to make sure that parks and streets are integrated with the community characteristics because the community has a lot of cultural and historic heritage, and we want to make sure that those are recognized. also for the city story industrial area, we want to make sure we have infrastructure for pedestrians. and lastly, but most importantly, as robin said, we want to create an implementation to not just plan for another plan. and so at the end of the planning process, we had implementation projects that are already underway that robin

will talk about a little later. as i said, we setup the vision based on public input. using these design guidelines, and this recognized future growth areas, including pier 70 and community's nations and important transit networks, so we setup a guidance for network for public realm improvements. the next two slide shows shows the timeline for our community engagement process which started in 2015 and concluded early 2018, when we published a public realm plan draft in early 2015 -- or '18, sorry. we had a lot of community engagement meetings to solicit

community input, and all this input became the basis for recommendations for implementation projects that robin will talk about from now on. >> up on the screen is just a deeper dive look into the type of engagement that would have been associated with one of those priority projects, so as you can see, there was a lot of really deep and broaden gaugement that we under -- broad engagement that we undertook with these different agencies on these sites. so the culminating chapter on the public realm guideline are implementations grouped around these three priorities.

and so as part of incorporation into the general plan, these guidelines will become part of the provisions that the central waterfront area plan calls for in dogpatch central waterfront. just diving down a little bit into the -- the recommendations for implementation, we worked with public works and m.t.a. and the port to identify specific street segments that weren't receiving improvements either through an existing public project, such as the 22nd street green connection between pennsylvania and third or through private projects, such as pier 70 and the potrero power plant plan developments. so when the -- as our capital planning -- city capital planning committee is looking at okay, where do we need to make improvements in streetscape to bring our infrastructure up to condition,

but also base enhancements, we know where we should be plugging in those funds. 24th street is a key aspect of connectivity to specifically warm water cove. it's part of the blue greenway. it was called out in the city's green connection plan, and this plan effort took that -- those prior sort of mandates to develop this corridor and looked a little bit more deeply into geometry and design, so we looked at how we could design this street to pedestrian approaches from warm water cove but incorporate all of the freight activity and p.d.r. activity that happens right there to the south of 24th street. through our public engagement process, there is prioritization for open spaces and parks. of course warm water cove showed up, lit up as one of the

high priorities. as the commissioners know there's a really established and committed constituency around that site. and so we worked with those community members as well as port staff, sort of take a fresh look at what an expansion to warm water cove might look at, what kinds of experiences, what kinds of facilities, what kind of productive landscapes warm water cove could look like in the future. so in closing, our next steps, moving out of our informational hearing with you, we're going to the architectural review committee later this month. we're going back to the planning commission before the end of the summer just as the b.o.s., the board of supervisors ordinary of concludes their research for our adoption hearing which puts us on track for adoption in the city's general plan by midfall. so with that, i'll step back and take any questions again, and i can take any questions that the commission or the public might have.

thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? no public comment. commissioner woo ho? >> thank you very much for this report. i guess a couple of impressions. number one, the fact that so many of the city agencies have come together and integrated in a collaborative way. i want to commend all of you, and obviously, we did play a central part in the sense that it is the central waterfront, but i'm glad to see there was so much interest across all the various agencies, and it seems like it's nice to see how the plans were integrated and the left-hand knows what the right hand is doing. so i think that's number one. sometimes that's not easy in a city of our size, so i want to commend you all on that. but the second thing is i think the plan has obviously been thought out. and i know that there's two projects that you pointed out that really affect us on the port that david has mentioned.

and i just want to know, and i am aware that we are of some of the funding or four projects, but what happens -- for our projects, but what happens to the other projects that you're planning to implement? where is the funding coming for those projects? >> so that's a degree question. some funding has been identified and moving forward. in terms of our open spaces and park projects, we have about $1.6 million in impact fees for esprit park. that's going with another grant that the university of san francisco is putting forward. we also have more contributions from ucsf going to complete streets project. there is a portion of a stairway on the 22nd street alignment that will connect the potrero recreation center to the street grid in dogpatch.

and we are also looking to feature primarily impact fees to soar we we might be able to start filling out the network of complete streets. >> sounds like your projects and financing sources are separate from rec and park. >> in some cases, the -- we are looking at the same funding source, so impact fees, of course, are ones that we would be -- we would be looking to, and there is a pot of funds specifically for open spaces and recreation in the eastern neighborhoods, which, you know, goes to many r.p.d.-led projects. >> right. and just my last comment. i think that we certainly try to engage in it very much actively ourselves here at the park, but the fact that you've engaged so much community input, i just want to commend you for checking in to making sure that everybody supports the plan and wants to see the plans happen. i think that's very important as we all have learned, so thank you.

>> thank you. commissioner gilman? >> i just want to thank you for the report and echo what commissioner woo ho said. i really was impressed with a new commissioner with the extend of ount outreach with all these agencies working collaboratively. i think it's a model of how outreach should be done, so thank you. >> thank you. commissioner adams? >> i just want to congratulate everybody on this and also nice knowing maybe 2019, it says warm water cove park might be in the general obligation bond. i think this just adds to the strength of our city. and then, the things the port has been a part of this, and all the things that my fellow commissioners have said, i think it just strengthens our city and just puts us on solid foundation. i'm really excited moving forward what this is going to look like. and i think this is like san francisco 2100. i'm really looking forward to

it. >> thank you. david, robin, sean, thank you so much for this presentation. this was wonderful. just a couple questions. just wondering how you got to this specific area in the eastern section, and how does this fit into the overall plan? >> yes. so just go back to our area plan boundary. we -- because the central waterfront area plan had all of these provisions and policies and objectives for, you know, public realm improvements, we essentially took that geography from, so this is considered, you know, a component -- now considered a component of the central waterfront area plan. we did extend a little bit further west, so if you'll notice in the -- sort of the bottom or the western border of the plan area, the plan area kind of jogs around the streets to come all the way to pennsylvania street, north of 22nd, as well as incorporate 22nd street up to the

recreation center, as well as incorporate pennsylvania street where the -- the area plan hadn't really included those. and the purpose of doing that was to address the connectivity issues. we have a neighborhood that's highly isolated, spatially and in terms of connectivity to potrero and mission bay. we have arterials, we have a creek, so we wanted to make sure those east-west connections were attended to. so our design recommendations extend a little bit west into potrero. >> so this is the eastern neighborhoods planning effort. so what happens with the other areas within the eastern neighborhoods? >> ah, yes. the eastern neighborhoods planning effort, which concluded in 2008, there were a number of area plans within the larger eastern neighborhoods boundary. and so those other neighborhood

plans include show place square. there was one for the mission, as well az central soma -- or central soma's coming forward now, so there were other equivalent area plans for the larger eastern neighborhoods geography. not all of them have a public realm plan in the way that we've devised for the dogpatch. >> i guess i'm just wondering what happens along the rest of the waterfront? what happens from india basin to china basin? >> yeah. well, we are looking at the blue greenway as our key force document. this really connects into this, connecting all of these waterfront areas with public access and trails. so what we have here in this central waterfront plan definitely ties into that. >> so there's no other plan for the central -- the rest of the waterfront. is that what i'm hearing? >> there are plans for other

segments of the waterfront. do you want to -- >> uh-huh. >> i manage the city's design group. i'm the principal urban designer for the waterfront. thank you very much for having us here today. so i think you're asking for the extension south of here towards -- >> from china basin near at&t park to india basin. >> oh, so mission bay. >> yeah, just wondering what's happening within the total waterfront and why we're just focused on this specific area, if there's any other funding measures being applied anywhere else in the eastern neighborhood along the port. and i'm just asking that because i know there's going to be resources that are needed to make these improvements happen. and i know the port is probably going to have to contribute something to that. so i'm looking at the overall picture of our waterfront and the planning efforts for improvement in -- in the eastern neighborhoods plan, how this particular area will

affect the entire waterfront. >> no, i greatly appreciate the -- your emphasis on the -- sort of pulling back the lens and asking how the whole waterfront works together. this is the only initiative that the planning department has underway at the moment. i'd have to defer to my port colleagues on the waterfront planning efforts that may be moving forward in the future. but as of right now, this is the only project that the planning department is working on. >> okay. >> david, do you want to step in and help out there? >> sure. so a bit of clarification. for mission bay, the mission bay plan -- so from -- from mission creek to the central waterfront, we have mission bay, and mission bay has a -- an infrastructure plan and a master streetscape plan that addresses all the design plans for mission bay. that gets us to yslais creek.

right now, the only thing that's guiding public improvements from the public standpoint is the blue greenway planning and port design guidelines and some of the public realm improvements that we've proposed in the piers 80 through 96 mayor tim and eco industrial planning strategy. the planning department in the eastern neighborhoods did not include the bayview community. at that point in time, and correct me if i am wrong, neil or robin or maybe diane will recall, is when the eastern neighborhoods plan was being undertaken, the bayview-hunters point neighborhood was going through a potential redevelopment area and was being considered as a redevelopment area, and so the planning department wasn't focusing its efforts on the bayview community because it was looking at a redevelopment area that would have included a public realm plan. so the reason i believe the planning department has selected the central waterfront is one it's seen the most

growth out of all those neighborhoods in the eastern neighborhoods plan. it had the least amount of infrastructure to accept the growth, and likely prioritize that based on what they saw was coming and probably what they heard from the community, as well. >> okay. so i guess i'm wondering how to get the rest of our waterfront back into the planning effort since all that no longer exists. >> well, the -- the port -- >> and then, my second question is, has this been -- have you done outreach to the central waterfront advisory committee, because i didn't see it in the -- >> so yes. the port and planning staff have gone to a few central waterfront advisory group meetings, i think three over the last couple of years. and during the outreach process, we also invited all the central waterfront advisory group members to the public meetings that were being hosted on the project as an entirety

but also the specific warm water cove workshops, 24th street workshops, and all the other workshops, as well, so they were notified. the additional planning for at least the portlands south of yslais creek will be captured as a part of the waterfront plan use that's being developed now. we're continuing to advance the -- continuing to advance and update the piers 80 through 96 strategy -- >> but does that come with a city interagency collaboration and funding? >> for just -- for just the port portions of it, it can, and when we did the blue greenway planning, it was an interagency collaborative process? and maybe what we need to be thinking about is how we partner with the planning

department and the m.t.a. and rec and park and begin to look at how we do potentially a bayview-hunters point -- >> or a waterfront, eastern waterfront upgrade. we don't really have to focus on specific areas. we can look at our waterfront and just try and see how to improve the entire waterfront. so that's why i was just asking, why are we just focused on this section when we have an entire eastern neighborhood southern waterfront. so just -- just wanting to know before we expend any funds on any particular area how it fits into the overall upgrade of the waterfront. love this. this is absolutely phenomenal. just wondering how we spread the wealth. >> president brandon, if i could just add. >> mm-hmm. >> diane oshima with planning

and department division. all of what you have just described and the comments added to it, i think we'll just have to see where we can take it. but i thought the one piece that was worth flagging, as well, the coordination that the oewd has been doing on the southern bay front strategy. so the planning director and ken rich from the agency have been here to try and speak to you on these large developments that are also cueing off of the blue greenway. that is an element, as well, and i think that we still need to try and work with all of those pieces to grow it -- >> you're absolutely right. we've never heard specifics. we've always heard there was this -- this plan, but we haven't heard specifics of how that's going to affect our waterfront, as far as the dollars and the resources. >> executive director forbes: okay. why don't we discuss this more

with the planning department and the m.t.a. and see what we can propose. i think it's a very good conversation to have, and we can update the commission after having that conversation in more detail. >> but i really do want to thank you because this is phenomenal work, and we are so happy to get warm water cove upgraded and 24th street improvements. we thank you so much for including us in this piece. >> absolutely. i would like to just add that the other thing that will be coming in front of the commission later this summer is the india basin project that's -- that's -- that closes a part of that gap, as well and includes interagency coordination with the planning and rec and park and oewd. that's specifics for that area, and we're talking about geography that becomes a little bit smaller, so thank you. >> thank you all. commissioner adams?

>> david, i don't know if you want to answer. maybe commissioner -- director forbes. are these projects so massive -- even like the seawall, we just took a certain part. are these projects so massive financially for the port that you can do a little bit here, do a little bit there, but you just can't do a big, massive thing all at once? is that how it -- >> no, but you can be part of the plan. >> no. i think obviously, you have to have boundaries, and you have to scale to a certain level in order to do all the interagency coordination. but the point that president brandon is making, while there are a lot of efforts south of yslais creek, and many big plans, like india basin as david just pointed out, it's interagency geography that ties it all together. she's calling on why not all of that coordination south of the creek so we can see a port wide

or southern waterfront wide approach, and it's a very, very excellent question. but for every initiative, you absolutely have to set a geography in order to be successful in seeing those improvements through. >> any other questions? thank you. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]

>> good afternoon, commissioners. mike martin, deputy director of real estate development. i just wanted to say i'm very excited to be before you for this project. this -- today's presentation represents a milestone of a years long and somewhat winding path towards i think having two things that don't always meet-meet, and the two things that are meeting is trying to do what we can to address the city's housing affordability crisis, and i think at the same time, benefiting our responsibilities under the trust. today we're going to be talking about a parcel of land that is cutoff from the waterfront that

is a surface parking lot that through a lot of work from a lot of folks in this room, through state legislation, through complex negotiations of a structure that isn't generally seen with those types of projects that we have brought forward a proposal that we think is really worthy of your consideration and approval. today i'm joined by members of the mayor's office of housing and economic workforce development. we also have from the joint venture jon stewart company, and so today we're going to walk you through a couple pieces. first as noted in the item, we're going to start with a review of the schematic design so you can sort of engage in that as part of your consideration of approval. then i'll invite ricky de-johnny from the port team to come up and walk-through some of the financial provisions, sort of building off of our information item presentation at your last regular meeting,

and i am extremely remiss in not introducing the port team, so let me do that now. aside from ricky, we have rebecca benassini, and rona sailor, as well. so with that, i'll hand this off to the developer for the schematic piece. thanks. >> thanks. good afternoon. john stewart, the john stewart company. i'm joined by reid devore, bridge housing, with whom we've had the benefit of teaming with on projects over the last 15 years. the most significant one we started off with was 2002, in north beach place, we teamed with bridge to produce a project that you probably see. it's on taylor and bay, it's 346 units. it's mixed use. and this one has a lot of the

same characteristics. we are -- this is our 24th public meeting, dating back three years almost to the day, so we have -- our script is pretty well honed. we have met with everybody that we can think of in the neighborhood. there's six community groups. we spent a lot of time with then community outreaching. when i say we, i mean bridge and john stewart community, and our architects, l.m.s., who have done a noble job. very briefly, before we move into some more particulars, i did want to address the issue of who's going to live in this building, and what does it represent for the city? is there any departure from past pattern and practice? there is. this has -- i think it's the mother of all mixed incomes in one sense. we have 20% of our 183 total

units that are formerly homeless. that is way below the 60% of tax credit standard. it's a whole nother universe, and it requires hands on management. there'll be ruffly 35 to 38 units in that category. we also have sort of the missing middle, which are people that are making too much money to qualify for tax credits or other common -- not-so-common benefits. teachers, for example, first responders. that takes us up to 120% of a.m. i. for this project, and in between, we have tax credit families. so we have a wide array of -- a wide disparity of incomes on mixed income. on mixed use, we have retail, we have a restaurant of roughly 120 seats, and we have a cafe

serving seniors. we have currently 125 family units and 53 senior units. the cafe would service the senior units, bill will show you when he makes his presentation. as to mixed age, you're looking at one of the aarp members. we will have seniors in the senior project, which is actually on the city owned property, and we will have family on the property which you own. and with that, marie is going to talk about what the 26th public meeting is going to be and where we go from here. >> good afternoon, commissioners. marie debore with bridge housing. i oversee this project, along with 735 davis. and i wanted to give a brief introduction about our team and

then talk about what we're planning on doing, the next steps after today's meeting, and then, i'll hand it over to our architect who will walk you through the current design. i work with bridge housing, and bridge housing's been -- been an affordable nonprofit developer for over 30 years in the city here. we're based out of san francisco. we're committed to building affordable units in the city. we have 1800 units -- over 1800 units completed here in the city and have over 2500 units in the pipeline. we -- i wanted to just introduce the rest of the team. i also have jilani dawson here, the project manager for this project. we've also brought our architect, bill letty and aaron thornton for this. aside from that we've also partnered with the ymca and lutheran social services

groups. they'll be providing services at the site, and we have a retail partner, a consultant that will help us fill the space, vickie johnson. also here, john already mentioned, and the port staff also mentioned is the mayor's office of housing. bless you. so we already talked about the meetings that we've done. we're very excited to be here before you today. this really is a milestone for us. not only have we received approval from the planning department, you know, the remaining agency approvals that we need, this is the first one, we'll conclude or complete the entitlements. as you can see, we've done over 25 meetings with the public that was started originally by the mayor's office of housing before we were even selected as

a developer. before we go into the architectural drawings, i just wanted to give you a timeline of where we are. we're planning in the month of july to go before the board of supervisors to receive approval. and then, the final step would be the state lands commission in august. and once we have all of that, we are planning to apply for financing for this project so that we can start construction in the spring of 2019, and it's very critical that we keep in line with these scheduled meetings as -- if we miss any of the scheduled meetings, we fall behind in our financing applications because there's a break towards the end of the year, and we would not be able to apply for financing early next year, which could set us back several months. we're here today to present this project. we're excited about it. we hope you are, too. we're available to answer questions after the

presentation, as well, and with that, i'll hand it over to aaron thornton from element. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron thornton. just wanted to give you a brief introduction to the project. on the screen, we have the site. it is at broadway, running east-west, front street, running north-south. the big rectangle with the port owned project. the smaller rectangle is the city-owned project. a couple of key concepts. we wanted to integrate midblock passages, which is something that has been around since mohcd has used this from the first time to the neighborhood, context well harmony. we're in a historical districted. we wanted to blend with the historical district but still be a new building.

and lighten views to one of the most spectacular rooftop views in san francisco, we think. here's a view of the two buildings. on the left is the family unit, and on the right is the senior building. site plan, you can see broadway on the bottom, front, running up and down. corner view, this is from the corner of front and broadway. we're looking at one, two, three, four stories of residential above one story of commercial space. that's approximately 3500 square foot commercial space on the corner. this is a view of the davis -- davis street building where we've used brick to integrate with the neighborhood. also stepping down towards the waterfront and providing a rooftop terrace for the seniors. the family building is in the distance.

we've also paid close attention to the midblock passages in the neighborhood and provided our own midblock passages. andrea cochran is our landscape architect, and we think she's done a phenomenal job of designing our midblock passage ways. this is looking at the senior building, one of our midblock passages. this is a view of our north-south passage adjacent to the family building. on the left of our commercial space, and on the right is our midblock passage, which is open to the public. so that's the end of our presentation architecturally. if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer those, and we have lots of additional slides if you'd like us to show them. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, president brandon, commissioners. my name is ricky tijani, development project manager

with the real estate and development division of the port. as mike indicated, this is a major milestone for this project. we've been wrestling with this now actually since i joined the port, and when you approved the m.o.u. back in 2014. we were back here a month ago when we gave you the details on the terms of the three transaction documents involved. but today, i'm just going to talk about the improvement we've done based on the direction you provided us back on june 12 as to the terms, so i'm not going to take up much of your time going back to all the items that we covered on the 12th. trying to get back to where we

should be. sorry. just trying to provide an outline of my presentation at this point, which is just going to be essentially what we covered already, and then, talked about the proposed transaction document and changes to the proposed terms. essentially, the presentation hasn't changed from what question presented to you on june 12. as the developer indicated -- thank you. the project hasn't changed from what we presented to you the last time.

125 total family units with 53 senior units, with a retail space. this is the small space for a child care center and then the open space. update to the m.o.u., based on the direction you gave us, we went back, and as mike indicated, was a little bit of a push back from the mayor's office of housing, reminding us of the true nature of the site and the constraints that would be on that site. so the appraisal currently is at $14.8 million. because of the requirement to convince state land staff to support this development, we need to prove to them that we are getting the fair market value. and given the fact that the mohcd is not going to be able

to pay us up front for the fair market value, we introduced the concept of interest that would be charged during the first and second year to maintain the present value of the fair market value of the site, so that's why we're proposing a 1.5% interest the first two years and 3% therefore until the full -- there after until the full market value is paid. and as michael indicated, there is no deduction from the fair market value because as you know, when you pay for the land up front, the argument is we paid for the land up front, so why would we be participating in any revenue from the project, but we have to point out this is the way the land grant operates, and if we could get more of that, that would be okay. so there is no deduct from the fair market value. in terms of surface --

[inaudible] >> -- which we're hoping that we'll be able to sell within the next -- hopefully, within the next six months, the proceeds from that sale will be used to pay for this because that project is required to pay an in lieu fee that we think is approximately $20 million, and mohcd could then use that to pay us. in terms of the lease itself, as you'll recall, we -- back on june 12, we are looking at $1 peryear, and the reason for that $1 peryear is again, we're getting the fair market value up front. if we don't get that, we tiply will get a minimum market base rent which is somewhere 10 to

20% of the appraised value of the site. however, they're telling us that we cannot participate in the profit or the off-site of the residential portion, we told them that wait a minute, if we can't participate, we are going to be incurring costs, so we were able to negotiate for $20,000 a year. so even though we're referring to the minimum base rent, actually, it's because of the lease nature, we have to call it minimum base rent, but it's not actually a minimum base rent. it's what they will pay us to participate in the project. that 20,000 minimum base rent is going to be escalated, but because there's an affordable housing project, they can't charge market rate, and the

rent doesn't grow as the market rate grows, so it grows along with the area median income, so that's why we're indexing it to that area median income. the times of the participation, again, this concession that we asked for because we can't participate in the project. we have to find a way to characterize it as a fair market rent. so on this slide is an indication of how that would be done. that in the event of a sale, that there would be deferred rent, and the deferred rent would be a function of the appraised value of the site up front, that would say okay. this is how much rent you're going to be getting, but it's going to be deferred until we have the money to pay you, and that money would come from the sales proceeds, and that would be based on 30% of the

proceeds. one silent point is that since they are a nonprofit and there's not that much cash flow from this project, if they do have a sale, and there's no sufficient funds to pay us, then that rent may have to be forgiven in order for the funds to make the transaction. the next is the retail portion. the retail portion, we're able to do -- improve upon what we showed you back on june 12. i think we indicated we will be getting 20% of the net revenue during the operational phase of that retail space. we were able to increase it to 30%. participation in renting or the subleases, so this is going to be a six story building, we thought maybe there would be an opportunity to have a microcell tower for cell phones. usually, the many maker in san

francisco, so we thought they'll maybe approach, and i know that would generate additional revenue. on that, we will be getting 50% of the net revenue after they've deducted cost of generating that revenue, and that will pay for all the expenses that may be involved. and also, because of the retail portion doesn't have this restriction from low-income housing past credit indication, we're able to participate up front in the sale of, you know, what we call upside and economic opportunity from site. so that, we will be getting 15% of the net proceeds. so based on what is on this slide in front of you, we're recommending approval. i'm not going to go through all the details, but as we indicated back on july 12,

there are many benefits on this project. some of them mike already mentioned, but as indicated on this slide, this is why we're recommending the approval of the document that is before you or adoption of the reso that is part of this action item. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. pat david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i just want to say that we are in complete support of this project. this is a phenomenal project. it really fills so many of the holes that we have in san francisco on housing. i mean, one of the things that we really don't talk about in san francisco, and it's one of the things that mayor elect breed has really been pounding

the table on is the missing middle-income housing. i have three children 234 san francisco's public -- in san francisco's public schools. every year, there are about 180 classrooms without teachers like clockwork because teachers cannot afford to live in san francisco. so that missing middle, the people that are making above 60% a.m. i., but they can't afford market rate housing in san francisco, we've built almost no housing for those people in san francisco for about 30 years. and so when we think about the people who make our city go, teachers, firefighters, e.m.t.'s, those people, this type of project, where we actually have the ladder housing for people authorize low-income and people that are middle-income, these types of projects are phenomenal. i want to emphasize the importance of this being approved today, because as mr. stewart said, not only does it have to go to this commission, it also has to go to the board of supervisors, and the board

of supervisors goes on recess in august. so if this does not get to the board of supervisors in a timely period, we are talking about incredible amount of delays. and with delays come additional financing costs, incurring the costs of money for these types of giant projects are very, very high. this is a great project. this is the 26th, i think, presentation. there's going to be, you know, a couple of more to the public. the outreach has been phenomenal. bridge and john stewart and company are great companies. they know how to do this work. they've been doing it really successfully for years, so i hope we can move this forward today. thank you. >> thank you. >> members of the commission, i'm janet crane, an architect working in san francisco since

1970, a neighbor of this building, 14-year board member of north beach citizens, a homeless group of this area, founder of nick's village. all this experience gives me firsthand knowledge of how difficult the housing situation is, certainly, for the general public in these affordable housing, specifically seniors and the homeless. so i speak, obviously, in support of the projects on points one and three in your resolution. i won't go on much longer because you've had a very good presentation here, but the sponsors and the architects are nationally recognized. they've responded to public input with a staggering number of hearings. the project conforms 100% to the planning code, does not require variances. could have been three stories higher than it was, but the developers chose not to take