industry that should be regulated, it should be a redifferent type of industry, and those that -- very different type of industry, and those that live here should understand this is a very different limited profit in this world because of how we house people. this is just a repeal of costa hawkins. it does not set new repeal laws, but it would give san francisco the opportunity to debate those issues. for those that fear what the board of supervisors may implement, i think you need to look at our history over the last couple of decades to see that this board moves slowly, we really debate issues. there's a lot of negotiating, that we listen to all stakeholders, and we certainly don't want a structure of laws that are untenable for everybody, including our small property owners and landlords who provide this type of

housing. i do want to remind this board that we unanimously passed a resolution in support of assembly man david chiu's bill, ab 1506, which effectively real esta estate -- repealed costa hawkins, and i look forward to the same on this as we did exactly a year ago. and i also hope that all members of the public will stay for our next series of items. it's important to support the symbolic representation of items, but this is absolutely a development that the community should be engaged in and watching over. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: actually, supervisor kim just

made my point on 1506 that was pointed on in 2017 by each and every member of the current board, so thank you, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you, thank you, supervisor peskin and fewer for bringing this up. i have that difficult job of really trying to provide different perspectives on this issue. i disagree with some of the public comment that i've never been for tenants, as someone who was a renter pretty much my entire adult life, having benefitted from controlled rent myself. however, i think that at the ground level, what i hear day-to-day from our residents, especially the single-family homeowners is something that they're very concerned about the repeal of costa hawkins and what that might do to their situation and their homes.

and so while i want to support this dialogue regarding proposition 10, i do want to propose potentially some amendments to this resolution. i would like to pass it out to the full board so that we can vote this out at the board of supervisors, but just some affirmation of rent control, and any affirmation of rent control to new construction should be adopted only after an economic analysis from the controller. i know that some jurisdictions, the idea of rolling rent control, i'm interested in having our city further analyze, so i wanted to at least include that piece in this resolution. so again, it is something that i believe as a representative of the sunset district where we have many single-family homes, that as supervisor fewer said there are many differences between small property homeowners versus large corporate building owners from multiunit buildings. and so i wanted to at least,

again, as a representative of district with many single-family homes, insert that provision in here. so with that, supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. i really appreciate all the discussion and all the folks coming out. i really think this benefited from coming to committee. i think we did support something in the fall. it was a slightly different piece of legislation and it was through the legislative process. for me as it was on the ballot, i have had a lot of stories of people that have faced eviction. i am not oblivious to the fact that we have a housing crisis. as fernando said, we're working on a conversation about teacher housing and how we can tackle

that. three, four members of this committee were on home-sf as well as the inclusionary housing opportunity, so i am in favor of rent control, i do believe this is a healthy conversation. i do also believe that the idea of how it plays out on the ground in terms of single-family homeowners, i know that we have the highest number of owner-occupied homes. a lot of seniors that are actually ageing in place, that rent out some small space do that as a way to continue to live with dignity in their homes, as well as long-term landlords that continue to rent out their space. so i worry without ultimately not having that part of the conversation that people would face immediate rent increases or be asked to leave their homes that they've lived in for a long time because they are in a single-family home if this were applied to them. that being said, i am in support of the resolution. i think if we could make some amendments as well as to the

conversation about doing an economic analysis on new construction, i appreciated what supervisor kim had to say the other day on the application of rolling rents. i think you certainly would want to continue those that are lending to these projects, affordable and otherwise being able to continue to have confidence to invest in san francisco's market. i think that's an important part of the conversation, so an economic analysis, so i would be supportive of that language or if you have some additional thoughts on that. >> supervisor kim: yes. thank you, supervisor safai. i wanted to propose maybe two different resolve clauses so that colleagues can take action on both. so one would be what i said originally, that the city and county of san francisco that single-family homes should be exempted from rent control, but a further resolve clause that any application of rent control, new construction or single-family home should be adopted only after an economic analysis from the controller's office, so we'll separate that

into two different clauses. >> supervisor tang: okay. so supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. i'd just like to comment on the amendment. the idea of costa hawkins -- of repealing costa hawkins is so we can actually have an discussion on what should be exempted and what shouldn't be exempted. and should there be caps on it, and should it just -- should it relate to people that have homes that are owner occupied? this -- to put this before even having discussion with a larger group of people, i think, is actually what people are afraid of. people are actually afraid that this board will make decisions without them at the table and not having a full discussion backed up by any type of data or even serious input from the community. and so for this board to come forward already saying if it passes, this is what we say, is

really opposite of what costa hawkins will allow us to do. costa hawkins, the repeal of costa hawkins, will allow us to have those conversations. and so for this board to decide first, even before meeting with any community members or anything, saying oh, i want to exempt single-family homes, i'm not saying we should or we shouldn't. i'm saying that if costa hawkins is repealed, it allows us to have the full and rich conversation for once and to determine the outcome of that conversation before even costa hawkins is repealed is really opposite of really what this -- of what the repeal of costa hawkins will allow us to do. i don't have a vote on this committee, of course, but i just want to caution members of this board, you are doing exactly what the community is

afraid -- what will happen, is that things will be decided on without having a full discussion. and i just want to caution the board on this decision if you were to pass this out with this amendment. thank you. >> supervisor tang: thank you. i hear you, supervisor fewer. [applause] >> supervisor tang: and i'll just say this is a policy statement. i highly doubt that we'll be voting at the board on the official language, when and if this is a policy here at the board of supervisors. i think it was stated at the full board the last time this was there, i imagine it might be taken to the ballot directly, so this is -- insertion of this language is simply my way of trying to provide actually balance in this conversation. so with that, supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor tang. i'm happy to support the second further be it resolved that this board would engage in an economic analysis. it's what i would want to do if

we would talk about a rolling rent control and who's exempt and who's not exempt. i think it makes sense and it's what this board would do, any way. i cannot yet support the first further be it resolved that we would definitively exclude single-family homes from the rent control ordinance. while that may end up being the right policy position and i can understand many of the arguments to exempting single-family homes, i would better want to understand the policy reasons and engage with our community stakeholders and the economic analysis before that. so i won't be voting for the first amendment, but i will be voting for the second. >> supervisor tang: thank you. so any other questions, comments, colleagues? oh, yes. wendy paskin-jordan madam chair, i would say as long as you can get it to the full board, we can deal with it there. >> supervisor tang: yes. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: were you saying you could potentially get to that point on

single-family homes after a discussion on economic analysis and single-family home discussion? >> supervisor kim: yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. >> supervisor tang: okay, so colleagues, i have the first proposal, so the first one has to do with the single-family homes, and the second has to do with the analysis. let's do a roll call. >> clerk: on the first part of the language concerning rent control -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are two ayes with one no, with supervisor kim in assent. >> supervisor tang: okay. the first one is adopted. and the second one having to do with the economic analysis of negate construction and/or single-family homes, roll call, please. >> clerk: on the amendment as stated --

[roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> supervisor tang: so the second amendment, the amendment passes, and then, on the under lying, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i was just going to make as a friendly amendment on the second amendment, you send it without recommendation. >> supervisor tang: okay. so can we have a motion on that? i'll make this motion without recommendation to the full board as amended. and can we do that without objection? okay. we'll do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor tang: okay. thanks, everyone. and now we're going to trade spots and bring supervisor cohen in and go back to items 7 through 11. >> clerk: items 9 through 11. >> supervisor tang: sorry. items 9 through 11.

okay. supervisor cohen?

okay. we have supervisor cohen here now, so you have the floor for india basin. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you very much. good afternoon, everyone. you guys ready? >> ready. let's go. >> president cohen: all right. so items 9 through 11. thank you, good afternoon, chair tang. i appreciate you for hearing this item today. what i'm doing is i'm proposing some amendments that i hope that you will take after public comment. they're nonsubstantive amendments. they pertain to clarifying the language that is used to define the off street parking use definition. i'm here today to emphasize my support of the india basin mixed-use project in the district, and specifically in district ten. at this time, we as a city are working to find solutions to the housing crisis, and this

development has the potential to provide over 1500 housing units that are desperately needed. i just wanted to give you a brief overview of this project 6789 it is compromised of 28 acres of privately owned land, six acres of rec and park owned india basin open space, and nearly six acres of unimproved and unaccepted right-of-ways. so you may recall, this development is one of the projects that was identified in the southern bay front strategy presented to the board of supervisors last -- last year. just as a quick refresher, the southern bay front strategy seeks to maximize the public benefits across the entire neighborhood in several -- excuse me, in seven principles areas: in housing, transit, jobs, open space. it gives much needed attention to sea level rise, sustainability and equity and

community facilities. it's true this framework that my office and staff has prioritized the negotiations with community -- with the negotiations for the community benefit for this particular project. i've focused on supporting a robust and affordable housing program for this development. you should know that it ensures 25% affordable housing units are made available, and that is approximately 394 below market rate units available, again, for this particular project. of that number, at least 139 will be inclusionary housing units within market rate buildings, and there will also be three parcels within the project site that will be dedicated space for a partnership with a nonprofit community affordable housing developer to develop on. at full buildout, the open space will include a total of

14 acres of publicly accessible parks, plaza, bike trails, as well as pedestrian -- pedestrian pathways. $ $10 million will be contributed to an offsite transportation improvement fund, which -- which -- which this section of the district is in desperate need of. in addition to housing and open space, this project will provide first source job hiring opportunities for both construction and permanent on-site jobs. i'm enthusiastic about the opportunity presented by this project to bring in an array of units that are beautifully restored. i hope that you will join me in supporting the items today. i have -- we've got staff here to make presentations. supervisor tang and supervisor kim, thank you.

i have no other remarks at this time. thank you. >> supervisor tang: great. thank you, supervisor cohen, so we'll go back to the presentation, and we had matt schneider here from planning first, and then bill and eowd with speaking next. >> president cohen: thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm matt schneider of planning department staff. we will be making a presentation to you on the india basin mixed-use project. i will begin with a broad overview that puts the actual actions before you into a context and then we'll describe the actual actions that are before you. after that, i'm going to turn it over to nicole avril of recreation and park department staff. she will give you an overview of their portion of the program. you will hear from cord knee hash from build, inc's project. i'm sorry. it's just build, a project at 700 innes.

after that, eowd will provide you with more specifications of the overall agreement. india basin is located in the bayview-hunters point community. it's skbrust northwest of the hunters point shipyard and north of hunters point hill. the entirety of the the project consists of 38 acres and can be further divided into two components. as you see on the diagram before you, the northwest half or i should say the third of the site is proposed to be developed by rec and park. it consists of the existing india basin shoreline park and also the newly acquired site at 900 innes. 900 innes is most known as the site for the historic ship wrecks cottage. referred to as 700 innes, it

consists of another r.p.d. project that we refer to as india basin open space, and then 700 innes itself, which is approximately 17 acres of privately owned parcels, and then also unimproved public works right-of-way. so if we zoom out a little bit to put this in a little bit of a context, this project is being envisioned as part of a series of open spaces within the india basin neighborhood, including the existing improved and new open space starting with heron's head park to the power plant and the site we will describe today, moving to the open spaces at the shipyard. and again, to just blow it up, to zoom out again, to just remind you, we're considering this project in the context of the southern bay front

strategy, which supervisor cohen had just described to you. the actions before you are going to focus on the portion of the projects of 700 innes that'll be developed by build. again, this will take an existing vacant site zoned for industrial and create a mixed use project of 1,175 units, 1009 square feet of residential supportive uses, and four acres of new and rehabilitated open space. so you have three actions before you that will enable this project. the first is the general plan amendments. general plan amendments are being made to the bayview-hunters point area plan, the commerce and industry element, the urban design element, and the recreation and open space element, and what it simply does is this site, the 700 innes site is identified for light industrial and

industrial developments. we're just changing the designations to make them mixed use perthe current proposal to make sure the heights align with the proposal and then to make a few cleanup corrections in the open space element. the second action before you are planning code map and text amendments. the map amendments, we can describe in two sections. we are looking -- when i say map amendments, we're looking negate really zoning redesignations. we're looking at 900 innes, which is currently zoned for industrial use, to rezone that for open space, and then similarly for the 700 innes project, also zoned for industrial use, for mixed use development. perhaps most importantly, we're going to create a special use district for the 700 innes site. the special use district will essentially be the one place to go for development a task for

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