guide the development of this extraordinary network of new and renovated shoreline parks while also taking into consideration the considerable planning work done previously by the community. more than two dozen public meetings and outreach events regarding the development praj have been held. to encourage meeting attendance, we worked with apri who distributed multilingual fliers to schools, community centers, and public housing projects, as well as a network of companies serving the bayview-hunters point communities. the park project was also presented at community events such as sunday streets. task force members and the

public determined what programs and amenities they wanted along the shoreline, and then we layered what folks wanted with technical studies such as environmental and sea level rise studies which informed what could go where. and in 2016, a design competition for the park project resulted in the choi of gustavson, guthrie nichols. >> supervisor tang: and supervisor kim has a question. >> supervisor kim: this came up some -- in some of the comments made by the public in questions to the board of supervisors, but whether it releases preparations in multiple languages around the ji e.i.r. and draft requests for comments, and i ask this question -- i understand that it did not happen, and the

planning department is correcting future notices, but we really can't have true community participation if our major language groups are not included in those notices. >> michael lee, planning department staff. when the notice of preparation was published and distributed, it was sent in english. green action contacted the department and asked us to translate the notice into spanish. it was translated into spanish, but due to a procedural error, the notice was never distributed to green action. moving forward, when we published the notice of availability and the draft e.i.r., we translated the n.o.a. into chinese, spanish, and tagalog. the sponsor paid to have it translated into chinese and spanish, and we posted all of those documents on the

department's web item. >> supervisor kim: and what is the general protocol for all of these notices at the planning department? >> under ceqa, there's no requirement to translate notices or documents -- >> supervisor kim: i know. that wasn't my question. i know that ceqa doesn't, but as a city where we ensure inclusion and language access, what is the department's protocol for when we translate notices in spanish and chinese? >> we translate notices upon request. >> supervisor kim: okay. i think we have to change this practice. there are too many members in san francisco that speak chinese and spanish as their primary language, and especially in a neighborhood that's as diverse as district ten, you're not doing public outreach if people can't understand the notices. i'm not going to quibble over what happened in this particular case, but i'm very concerned that the planning

department doesn't have a protocol on when they provide notices in the major languages that the city requires. and so whether state law requires it or not, the city should go above and beyond because it ensures that perhaps a third of our residents don't have an opportunity to provide comment because they basically don't know about it. i just hope that we can have -- i'd like the planning department, by tomorrow, to come to this board with an actual detailed plan of when it provides translated notification. i just think we can't move forward with these major development projects knowing that a good percentage of the residents aren't aware of it. thank you, mr. lee. >> the community led design process identifies a number of priorities including gather spaces, concessions, economic

opportunities, natural areas, historic resources, sea level rise, and water conservation. the resulting design is in part inspired addressing all of these wants and needs, consisting of six zones. the park design also includes a significant segment of the bay trail. india basin's steep banks and corridor like street basin close off and discourage walking between the neighborhood and the surrounding hills. the historic shore walk uses native drought tolerant planting and follows the original 1938 prework shoreline and is a nod to many neighbor's southern roots porch swings. the marine way will accommodate casual recreational activities and events and terminates in a gravel beach from where park

users can play in the water and launch kayaks, paddle boards, and canoes. the dock will also serve as an outdoor classroom for area youth and a place for bird watching. visitors can stop at the ship wreck overlook deck whose dimensions mirror the bay city ship wreck and from which one can gaze they ship's visible remains. on either side of the marine way are the sage slopes and the marsh's edge. the sage slopes transition to a restored marsh edge that replaces the hard edge along the existing mark, and will

protect the park from sea level rise and storam surges an overlook pavilion will provide space for bayview-hunters point food retailers. the a.d.a. accessible garden path will bring visitors into the boat yards well as to a landing to connect to the adjacent park. the boat yard's former paint shop will be repurposed and offer classes for area use. and lastly it's very important to note that portions of the 900 innes site constitute the

india basin boat yard cultural landscape. we've taken the site's history very seriously. the project will be developed in phases. phase 1 a is the full cleanup of the site. the activities associated with the site's history as a boat building and repair facility for over 120 years have left the property brown filled which must be cleaned of metals, p.c.b., and asbestos before it can be developed into a park. phase b consists of developing it into a boast yard and connection. phase c consists of finishing the work at the park. we have another $9 million in funding pending. we'll submit our permit application for site remediation by december 2018, bringing our estimated remediation start date to early

2020, and as part of that effort, we intend to collaborate with hunters point family who, through an e.p.a. brown filled cleanup grant has already trained approximately 60 bayview-hunters point residents in environmental remediation. and with that, that concludes my presentation. thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm courtney pesch, build senior project manager for india basin project. i'm going to give you a quick overview of the project design and project components. as you can see, the project site is mostly vacant, with one improved cul-de-sac and three tapered streets that the project intends to taper, reconfigure, build and dedicate back to the city.

since the 60's it's been the site of numerous planning efforts. the most recent and notable is the india basin shoreline community vision that was created by existing residents of the area. build used that plan as a starting point for our design. plus over the last four years, we have met with numerous community groups and stakeholders in india basin and the bayview to craft and refine this plan. we've held over 150 workshops, events, stakeholder meetings, and small working groups. we've also met with the tenant associations and h.o.a.'s of all the surrounding, public and private housing developments. the current zoning on the site is 40 foot height limit mc 2 and m 1, which we are proposing to rezone, bring the density towards innes and create 11 acres of publicly accessible open space along the shoreline.

we looked at the site comprehensively, taking into consideration the surrounding community and proposed new park system currently underway along the southeastern shoreline. as nicole mentioned, one of our first undertakings was to work with the r.p.d. and the task force to create the india basin waterfront parks and trails plan to ensure all eight parks along this 1.5 mile shoreline band would be designed and developed comprehensively. now to reiterate our programming, we intend to build 1,575 new housing units, approximately 25% affordable. approximately 200,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail, small office, community space, and a child care facility. this program allows us to dedicate a new five-acre park to the city which, combined

with the rehabilitated india basin open space, will result in a new 11 acre park for the neighborhood, plus approximately three acres of public open space within the development. this will be supported by approximately 1800 parking spaces, including over 200 public spaces for park users. in order to accommodate all of these improvements, we concentrated development towards innes avenue and have two 14 story buildings tapering down to one, two, and three-story buildings at the water's edge. the intensity of use is also concentrated along innes with the primary retail corridor planned for new hudson avenue. we have a diverse pedestrian network transversing the site. they range from creative foot paths and the more structured bay trail, linking the site to the 900 innes and five points north side park. we have a robust bike network, including class one separated

commuter bike path along new hudson. we really tried to focus on sustainability. i don't have time to go into the all the details here, but our site generally includes centralized stormwater treatment, a black water treatment plant to provide water for irrigation, net zero public realm, and accommodating sea level rise and changing habitats. now i'm going to quickly walk you through different areas on the site. you can see them in site view here. i'm going to focus on the park access. first, starting with -- at the main gateway to our project at aurelius walker and innes aven avenue. there'll be a transit stop here as well as bike share and other transportation amenities. and now the view into the park through the open public market

that will house start-up, small, temporary or semi permanent retail to support the public parks with a focus on bayview retail businesses. here's another view of the public market and how it incident fac interfaces with the big green. this slide illustrates the cove terrace which is where 900 and 700 innes merged. this is the pinch point of the site and we worked very closely with r.p.d. to figure out how to accommodate the uses in this area. 1800 parking spaces that were referenced earlier are tucked into the hillside, emphasizing the pedestrian focus on this project. there is a rendering of one of the primary public gathering spaces within the project. again, as you go outward towards the bay, the intensity and density of development decreases, including a shared street loop, providing limited

auto access and pedestrian spillover onto the street. the southeast corner of the site, we are proposing a perched beach with an adjacent kayak lounge, linking this site to the launch proposed at 900 innes. one of the other unique features of the big green is the interface with the private dwelling units. the park will be layered and provi provide ecological development. as discussed, the park will have a diverse trail network, including multiuse recreation path, the bay trail, and the park will be sprinkled with sculptures. finally, the shoreline treatment is unique in that the site is elevated at 25 feet behalf sea level and situated in such a way that this is minimal impact from sea level

rise. existing wet lands may be inundated over time, and so we have created a series of terrace wet land to allow migration throughout the years. finally, the project will be built in three phases such that with each development phase, we will build a commensurrate amount of park space. that concludes my presentation, and i along with several of our team members are available for any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. now, colleagues, supervisor kim. okay. we will go first to miss topia.

>> good afternoon, chair tang and members of the committee. i am the project manager with the office of economic and workforce development, and i am going to provide a brief overview of the public benefits and development agreement for the project. as supervisor cohen mentioned, this is one of the projects identifies in the southern bay front strategy which provides the city with the flexibility to negotiate each project's benefits package to respond to the community's needs and leverage the other project investments in order to provide collective value to the residents and neighborhoods. i will quickly walk-through the benefits greed to in this d.a. as you know our office focuses on negotiating agreements for the greatest number of public benefits, and working toward relieving the city's housing

crisis. we want them to build housing and do it quickly. the affordable housing plan has been designed to facilitate development of 25% of all market rate residential units built within the project site. the developer satisfied this obligation by constructing at least 139 on-site inclusionary unit within market rate buildings, conveying up to three on-site development parcels at no cost to an affordable housing developer for construction up to 180 below market rate units and by paying an inview fee on a maximum of 300 market rate residential units which could yield up to 75 low-income units off-site. i would like to emphasize that this program caps the number of affordable units that may be built off-site at 75. the remaining 319 below market rate units will be built on the 700 innes project site, and up to 180 of those will likely be

built in partnership with 100% affordable housing developers. in recognition of the phase development of the project site, this affordable housing plan requires that certain interim milestones be met prior to every 150th permit issued. it establishes maximum affordable levels for b.m.r. units and affordability units at each of the phase described. [inaudible] >> and for sail units must not exceed on average a rate that would be affordable to how's households earning 120% of a.m. i. new 100% affordable construction or rental stablization for existing

low-income residents. all of the affordable units both on and off-site are subject to the city's 40% local preference program to encourage stability. the next most significant component of this agreement is the accessible to parks and open space. it will include a new network of improved parkland and open space incorporated throughout the urban village. 12 of those kaerz will be improvements to the existing six acres, as well as a new park dedicated at no cost to the city. the project sponsor is also committed to providing a service c.f.d. which will yield $1.5 million annually. this will provide enhanced support to all of the parks as well as other eligible public

realm improvement parks throughout the site. the city has reserved the right to draw up to $750,000 from these c.f.d. dollars to use toward job training in the areas of landscaping, sustainable structure and open space management at the site. like pier 70 and mission rock, this project will also be required as part of the community benefits program to create a facility c.f.d. this first traunch of funds will be eligible by the developer to access infratrucktu infrastructure and streets. additional community benefits include the construction of an open air community market and potential grocery store, first source job opportunities for both construction and permanent on-site jobs, local hire

requirements for infrastructure work and existing city streets and parks and an 18% local enterprise business goal. the project will make an approximately $10 million contribution to off-site transportation improvements as well as construct neighborhood transit, bike, and neighborhood improvements. the prom sponsor will deliver a 3,000 square foot warm shell to a certified bayview daycare provider as well as annen dowment fund for tenant improvements. finally, the city reserves an option on 5,000 square feet of commercial space for a possible future community facility use such as a reading room, library, or other community serving space. this concludes my presentation, and i am available for questions, as well. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and supervisor kim has a question. >> supervisor kim: i actually have a series of questions.

first of all, a couple of things. i'm glad to see that within the development agreement that will be a public power consideration with sfpuc as well as with some of our other major area plans and the commitment to the child care center, which is incredibly important. i have a series of questions both on some labor issues, the t.d.m. program, and the housing program, and i'll just begin with some of my questions in regards to labor. first of all, i know that there is a waiver on requirements on prevailing wage and apprenticeship similar to what we did with mission rock and pier 70, but my understanding was in those cases, the developer had entered into a project labor agreement, and i remember strong labor support when those d.a.s came to land use committee, and i'm just curious what the status is in

discussions with labor. and if i have misinformation, please do correct the information that i have. >> supervisor. >> supervisor cohen? >> president cohen: thank you. i can just touch base with that, it's an ongoing conversation to finalize the details there in terms of what labor harmony would look like on this particular project. >> is there an agreement in place? >> not as i said earlier, but discussions are happening. so what i've been able to gather through my messages with key labor leaders as well as the project sponsor is that people are on the same page and that the language is still be flushed out. >> supervisor kim: i'm hearing different things. >> supervisor -- >> supervisor tang: if you wouldn't mind stating your name and position on the record. >> my name is lou vasquez, and i am the director of build.

we have an agreement with carpenters across northern california. we're in active conversation with the building trades council on a project labor agreement. the horizontal infrastructure work will be prevailing wage. the balance of the project is what is being discussed, and we hope to have an agreement in place soon, but i can't tell you when. >> supervisor kim: yes. so i am aware for the horizontal infrastructure, the prevailing wage will be in place, but i think there has to be a commitment for the vertical development as well. i'm a little concerned about supporting a project that doesn't have labor on board yet. in the case of mission rock and pier 70, at least in my memory, i remember all of that being worked out before it even came to land use committee. so i don't want to support something without knowing that there's a hard written

commitment to prevailing wage and to the concerns of labor and our workers. and i -- i'm going to guess that we have to take this at public comment, but i'm going to leave it to the discretion of the chair. >> supervisor tang: yes. if we can speak to this during public comment, i think it would be helpful just so we can get through all the presentations. although i think we'll get there shortly. >> supervisor kim: i just want to suggest because this is something that has come through the central soma plan through the labor council, is that there be a jobs plan. it's good we have an agreement on the temporary jobs, which is the construction jobs on-site, but we also need a plan for the permanent jobs which are really for the life of the project with the small business. i know i saw the local source for a certain percentage of the jobs, but for large development projects in central soma, we are going to be requiring developers to come up with a permanent job program that talks about local hires, i

think in particular 'cause this development is in district ten, i would encourage something similar. my second series of questions are in regards to the t.d.m. plan, and so i just -- i was looking for this in the d.a. i couldn't find it. what percentage of the -- of the plan are -- or the measures are they committed to, and i wasn't sure if this was pre-june 2018 or post. >> good afternoon. karly payne from sfmta. so just to confirm that i understand the question. is it what proportion of the measures that are in their transportation plan have they committed to? >> supervisor kim: well, the ordinance, the transportation demand management ordinance grandfathered in projects before june of 2018, so only comply with 50% of the t.d.m.

requirements. any projects that come after -- >> i understand your question now. so the transportation demand management ordinance also said that development agreement projects may meet the policy goals of a transportation demand management ordinance in ways kind of outside of the particular point program. [please stand by]

>> they will go back and revise their plan to do better. it is a commitment to have a lower right of driving trips than other ways would be expected to be one being that we are comparing apples to oranges, would you say the tdm program is part of the d8 will be meeting roughly 50% of what the ordinance requires currently? >> because the commitment is to a driving reduction, it is meeting the full spirit of the

ordinance. in terms of -- because the project is so large and there is so many buildings and units and total parking spaces, the t.d.m. ordinance says that you are pegging your total number of points off of -- based on how me parking spaces. it is really not designed for a project of this scale. so they would not be meeting their points target if you did it strictly at 100% compared to the menu. but instead of that, they are giving a commitment to this performance measure, which i think, in my professional ability, is on par with what we are expecting from projects across the board that are large. >> supervisor tang: what is the goal the project sponsor has committed to? >> it is a 20% reduction in

daily driving trips compared to what the environmental analysis showed. >> supervisor tang: my next series of questions are on the housing component. again, i scoured through the d.a. and i could not find any committed percentages of average income within the 25%. perhaps i missed it. it is a dense development agreement but i've never had a d.a. come to this board in my district without committed levels of a.m.i. are we talking about 25% at 120% of a.m.i.? at zero% of a.m.i.? that is a huge difference of subsidy and this could be a massive detriment to the developer if those percentages are not committed to. >> we committed to an average across the site of 110% for rental and a hundred 20% for ownership.

>> supervisor tang: that is very high. >> the expectation is that at least 180 of those units will be in partnership with an affordable housing provider. which would be 55% for rental and 80% and up to 90% for ownership. we also expect all the in lieu fees that would be paid out would be to low income housing as well. so the percentage -- >> supervisor tang: is that actually written out? i did not see that in the in lieu requirements. is that specified in the d.a. that any fee out would go towards low income housing? and at what percentages? >> no. we did not commit to that. >> supervisor tang: you cannot state something if it is not committed to. >> all of them are options. we don't actually commit them -- they have all three of those abilities to solve the affordable housing obligation. they can pull any of those levers. we just up -- the up number they

can fee out on and the number of parcels i can dedicate on site to a maximum of 180 units on those parcels. the expectation is to have those parcels would be ownership at 50 units and the third parcel would be a 100% affordable rental property at 130 units. >> supervisor tang: what is the percentage of two and three-bedroom units required in the affordable and in the market rate? >> the percentage -- i'm sorry the percentage of the number of units? >> supervisor tang: two and three budget -- two and three bedroom units. >> is a 25% for the two bedroom -- i'm sorry. what? >> supervisor tang: i could not find this on the d.a., as well. >> i can't remember. the number of two and three bedrooms.

>> supervisor tang: about 35% of units are two and three bedrooms. and the affordable and the market right? >> they will have to match. >> supervisor tang: about 35%. can you give me an accurate number? >> there is about a split. >> supervisor tang: ok great. if we can confirm, that would be great. i feel very uncomfortable with this very flexible open menu of affordable housing. i do think they percentage is quite high, to be honest, particularly given the district that this development is going into and the a.m.i. percentages in this neighbourhood. not meeting 110% of rental home homeownership. i understand a higher a.m.i. is very concerned -- i am very concerned about the fact there is an in lieu option when they only committed to 25%. the goal is always that if you fee out to you have to do 33% and the way i calculated it, it looks like back at base, the

project sponsor has only committed, at minimum, to do 20% on site. which means the remaining five%, if it is feed out, should be higher off site. while the requirement is no more than 75 units off site, and this is my very rough mathematics, this is not my area of expertise , it should be no less than 110 units off site and we should have a mandate on what level of a.m.i. those off site units are. i have always supported off site but when we do off site, they have to be deeply subsidized. with the giants and seawall where they committed to 40% on site affordable and middle income, they were higher ranges of average median income rentals throughout. it was not on public land and this is a mix of public and private land. they committed to 40% on and off site but there off site

commitments where super -- are subsidized for formally -- formerly homeless. and then on site they were quite high average median incomes up to 150%. i think that without having a detailed understanding of what the developer is committing to, it is not clear to me whether we are getting a good end of our bar again on deal. especially if a -- a good end of our bargain on this deal. we should always have a higher expectation. i understand there is not an office development as part of this development agreement as there was on others. so they don't have a job at linkage fee to plough back into the land. i am not satisfied with this current agreement on site. >> i want to clarify one point. none of the land is currently public land except for the park space. so all of the land that is being built on his privately owned land and being privately funded.

>> supervisor tang: that is actually really important. looking at the language here. is a little confusing because it says 29.26 acres. >> the parks land -- at the edge of the property is existing recreation and park open space -- >> supervisor tang: that is separate. they own 8.9 acres of publicly owned parcels along the shoreline where they are building a publicly accessible network that you've talked about at at says that build would be developed approximately 29.26 acres of privately and publicly owned parcels. maybe i just need to better understand how that is broken apart. and if it is just parks on their portion, that is fine. >> they will be building parks on their land and dedicating it to the city at no cost. >> supervisor tang: ok. a great. >> since you are bringing up some housing issues, which i think are global and extendable beyond this project, i was going to say a couple of words about

our thinking in terms of getting back to the housing package. you will see a similar thinking coming to some of the future projects coming towards you. as you know we are getting into projects that we will be bringing it that are mostly private, and somewhat some office to continue to -- contribute to jobs. this one will not. we are having to be more conservative with her out jewish -- with our asks. and we did run numbers and look at the project performance and where we are with this project is at about a 5.2% return on cost. our experts tell us that at 5.5% and above you will get capital to build the project. below five, you will not get capital to build the project. we are in a great danger zone. so we certainly are aware that this section asked for it to be at 33%, the reason we didn't go that high is very simple.

because it probably wouldn't be affordable to the developer. so we have this dilemma where we said well, if you allow about $5 million to the total cost, with the 75 unit up, and because we wanted some funding, and we wanted the opportunity for the developer to do a little bit of ownership housing which is what they fee out of, we made the call. and it is your call as a decision-maker to stay at 25. we think it will produce that revenue. if we go to 33, the project would not produce any fee out revenue. that would be a perfectly good outcome. i'm not arguing that would be unsustainable or a catastrophe that we were trying to get a bit of that revenue. that is the thinking. >> supervisor tang: i understand that. i wasn't suggesting we go to 33% or 25%. essentially, the base minimum that the project sponsor committed to his 20% on site. what i'm suggesting is a remaining be at the 33% level.

does that make sense? roughly six and a half%. my mathematics is not spot on but what i am saying is fine, we will do the 20% on site. i would like to have an understanding of the a.m.i. the average on rentals is high. but what i am saying is to keep the 20% mark on site but the off site should move from 75 units to 110 units. so that remaining 5% it's really six or seven%. >> forgive me if i don't understand you. i think i do understand. that movement, to make the 75 units go to 110 and you are multiplying each of those by the fee that is still being discussed, $200,000 per unit. at my not getting it? my point is -- >> supervisor tang: yeah. the off site should be at the 33 % level.

it should somehow match. >> understood. >> supervisor tang: again, by the way, i support small state acquisition i understand how important that is and there are many needs in district ten. i am not suggesting it should be 25%. i'm sure community members want to see this feed out. especially for the home ownership units. but i think it should be slightly higher at i do think there should be a commitment on the a.m.i. level. even if it is just a limit that this off site units would be offered for. i guess with a range of 110% for rentals and 120% for homeownership, i'm curious what the prospective range would be. >> i'm sorry. the what range? >> supervisor kim: if they only have to meet an average of 110% rental, how high can it go

for rental? and homeownership? >> it is 20% below market rate in the area. my understanding is, for this neighborhood, that is 140 would be the maximum. >> supervisor kim: for rental and homeownership? >> for rental. and i believe it is 144 rental and 154 homeownership and that would be the limits. it could not go above that. >> supervisor kim: that is very high. >> part of the thinking on this, supervisor, is simply that these projects are usually where we can get our more moderate to middle income housing. as we are doing around the city, we are good at producing low income and still struggling with the moderate for a variety of reasons that you are aware of. we are subject to the board's ultimate decision on this. proposing on some of these d.a. projects to keep it higher. >> supervisor kim: i understand the need for middle

income and i definitely would like middle income units on this project. it feels like a very high average. and just given the a.m.i. levels in the bayview neighborhood, it doesn't seem like, even if you had a 40% local preference, that many of the residents are going to be eligible. local residents will be eligible for this housing. >> understood. >> supervisor kim: ok. i would like to keep having that discussion over the next 24 hours, if the plan is still to vote on this tomorrow. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor can. i don't know if colleagues have any other comments or questions. supervisor cohen? >> president cohen: i wanted to point the question to supervisor kim. what is your understanding about the average a.m.i. in the bayview? it sounds like you are working with a number already in your mind. >> supervisor kim: you are

correct. i don't know the average a.m.i. in the bayview and i would like to get that information. based on the numbers that i saw during the inclusionary housing ordinance discussion, and in 2017, they were not this high. in fact, the levels i saw were far below 55% of average median income. again, it would be good to have that data so i understand how that average was selected. >> president cohen: i have no other questions. >> supervisor tang: all right. at this point, i don't see any other questions or comments. we will go to public comment. >> all right. i want all of you to listen real carefully. this is an example of price-fixing. and about this developer, you have a developer that is in it for profit. you need to get a developer that is part of a nonprofit construction development

organization by means of going through the federal government in order to get a construction company that is not price-fixing like this. do you see -- you sit up there and tell on yourselves and you say that the median income in the bayview is about 140%. that is $119,000 a year. you deliberately go to the areas in the bayview of people who are in that income bracket and don't include the people who lived in the same area who are lower income brackets, that are on social security benefits, retirement benefits, and by the same response, you fail to exclude people in income brackets who are below this range, this target that you are price-fixing at. we have emergency housing, homeless situations on our hands what you are doing is criminal. seeing you sit up there and complain and sit up there and demonstrate that you started about 40% of the median, you

said that about mission rock. but you have a low income female hispanic beer pitch person and the lowest income to apply at mission rock is $32,000 a year. at 40% of that affordable housing was only 2% of that 40% pie. it is not included in the housing opportunity. those are the plaintiffs that i'm talking about that i will fire off a class action suit against pertaining to housing discrimination. now you have the giants caught up in it because they are financing it. what do you have to say about that? >> ace washington. i was coming through to speak about -- and the sheriff asked

me to go out. because they told them they didn't want me and their business going in there and they will remove me from city hall. that is why i call it silly hall i'm trying to tell you what goes on in these walls here. and about this contract of bills , i have problems with you and what you did in the fillmore you build buildings there and we can't get anyone working in there peerk i knew you would all have to come back around again just like all of you conniving developers in the city and county by the bay. let me say one thing. i am pissed off right now. when i leave, i'm going to the sheriff his office to find out why i can't go in my district office. i have been banned from going to the mayor's office. mi that kind of a character? or mi too much for you. one thing is for sure is there is a new organization that we will build. it is called case. community, assistance, service, enterprise.

you have these developers and everyone has a big team of ten or 12 people to answer questions but you have nobody on the community sights. we have no consultants and no liaison. that is simply unacceptable. let me tell you what it means right here. we call it silly hall. i am pissed off at you all. i will go to the sheriff's office and find out why i can't go in district five. and for the brother using that language, you can't stop them because they do it in the white house. so that is why i call this silly hall. i will tell a story about here. you get used to get cut off for saying the s. word. but now you can say what you want. i will go up to the sheriff's office and find out what the hell is going on that i can't go in district five to find out about the corruption in district five. i am appalled. that ain't all. i am just pissed right now at the city council. [applause]

>> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the very in-depth questions about affordable housing. i am with the council of community housing organizations. so 25%. i remember being in a room with ken rich and supervisor kim and others when we worked out proposition k. the goal of the city and county of san francisco to make housing , going forward, 33% low and moderate income up to 50% for middle income. here we are at 25%. there is a few questions that were raised earlier and i heard answers that i couldn't find the answers in the d.a. that was presented in the package. so perhaps there could be some clarification on there peerk the d.a. explicitly says, up to three sites maximum of affordable housing on sight. i heard 180 units would be built on site.

i could not find that anywhere on the d.a. apparently, my reading, there is absolutely no obligation to provide a site within this development that will provide 100% affordable housing. there is no money dedicated and that is understandable. that is how a lot of these deals are. they provide the site but there is actually no guarantee that that housing will be there . and might be there but maybe i couldn't find it. the hundred and ten% a.m.i. average is very interesting. let say there was a site for low income housing at 55% a.m.i. let's say that occupied half of the units. that would mean the other half of the units could be at 170% a.m.i. with absolutely no range in between. and looking at supervisor safai, we have had this conversation about different income levels. where our teachers green they earn between 70 and 90% a.m.i. there could be no housing for somebody who you -- earns what a teacher earns.

one of the things that was a very important was creating a range of income. i want to see that here. thank you, very much. >> good afternoon respected supervisors. my name is michael. i am the founder will of community espana. it became a destination in san francisco and it serves 60,000 visitors during the year. it exists for around 70 years and it is totally ignored by this project. tomorrow, we have appeal hearing in regard to that. i will not discuss this issue at this moment, it is a little bit strange that this meeting is before the appeal. at this moment, i want to discuss only the use of land. it is a land use committee.

so the main part of 700 avenue property was the regent was zoned as light industrial for many reasons. it should be respected. if it is going to be converted to high density residential. why is it light industrial? number 1, it is not compacted landfill, which was created from the residuals of construction of hunter's point. it is not the free wait clock as it is claimed by the developers. and in my documents, i have reference to everything. so the story will is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon and lead and chromium. this is totally ignored by the planning department and everybody else. i have all the documents. i would like to show what happens with copper pipes when they are in the soil. you can see the holes they are.

this is rotten land. and when people want to eat, in the city needs housing, it does mean -- doesn't mean you eat rotten meat. you still need to think. you will kill the children that will be there. i would like to present my documents. just leave it here. thank you. >> dear supervisors, my name is james. i am a bayview resident and i have been one for 12 years. i oppose the development as it stands. i remind you that approach an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes. i would like to make three points. first, there was no attempt

whatsoever to reach out to 400,000 people, 60,000 people a year, for five years. actually, it is seven years who have enjoyed the environment of our community. there was no attempt to reach out to any of those people whatsoever. there was no input taken from the people who live on the hill, behind the proposed project. this is a major flaw in the design methodology. this is a horrible precedent. second, i am ok with the development as prezoning which eliminates a four-story industrial. i would prefer a park there. there are eight huge of elements going on around the corner. this is too much growth too soon in the neighborhood. you're about to double the population of bayview already.

housing growth advocates should be quite satisfied with that, for now. i remind you, that radioactive material has still been found next-door. third, the tower of the catholic development rok. they should not be used, however as precedent to justify these towers. that towers are completely new in a completely new neighborhoods. they do not involve change in the currently built neighborhood and community. the project is different. in summary, we reject these reasons. >> good afternoon. i am a general manager. i have been working there for five years. i was involved in instruction. i go there every day. i smell the sewer at exactly

1030 am in the morning. we started this business with ten people. i lost blood and sweat over it. it took me six years to get from ten people to 90 people. this is a big project. it started with one word and now everything is changed. including the height, the zoning , the density, everything. i am not sure what will come up next. i have to say that i have 90 staff working from the neighborhood. and the building that is going on behind us, it is going to kill our business. it will not just kill our business but employment as well. a moment to go, you ask them a lot of questions and they were looking at each other and had no answers to give. when you guys were asking the questions and they have no answers for small folks like us, we have been crushed like ants over here. do something about it and protect our business that has been here for so many years. ninety staff working from the neighborhood.

that is about its. i hope you look onto this. thank you very much. >> supervisors, tim paulson. on the secretary-treasurer of the san francisco billing and construction trades council. as you all no kak the building and construction trades council has a relationship with every developer up and down the coast, public or private, starting with the bayview, hunter's point area where we have a project labor agreements that people are working under. we have an agreement with pier 70 and we have a great arrangement with the san francisco warriors who are building their arena and the work that is going on out there as well as the mission rock and all things that have been referenced in some regard today. i do want to state that we have entered into negotiations with built ink.

we are working very collaboratively. i don't want to say there's any animosity or anything going on, we are exchanging -- i just exchanged -- received a counterproposal as i was sitting here waiting to speak. the negotiations are going well. but they are not done and they are not inked. on behalf of the affiliates of the labor council, i cannot officially sit down and say we support this. we will get to where we will have to be, but as of right now, our official position is we're trying to get this relationship put together as we move forward. my instinct, besides the fact that the negotiations are going so well, is to ask for a continuance. that is what my affiliates would want me to say but we are doing some intense negotiations as we speak. i wanted to put that all in context to where we are. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor kim has a question for you. >> supervisor kim: i thank you actually just answered it. i feel very uncomfortable putting something out without something in writing. it