maritime use. so i would like that option to be provided. >> i would argue that that's a priority of maritime versus financial should be built into the guidelines of the rfp. it should be in the up-front guidelines. and i think this rfp in terms of including the values of the community, et cetera, is much more comprehensive than we've done in the past, because we've taken that in consideration obviously, through the waterfront land use plan and all the discussion we've had with the committee so we are trying to be very balanced with it. but i think the guidelines of where we decide if it's maritime or financial feasibility, i think we've left it open in term it is of the uses so i don't think we've tried to preclude one or the other. but i don't think it has to be argued at the end of the process. it has to be included in the front end and the panel will evaluate if there's nuance or gray area, which there will be, to decide which

is the best way for the port to consider. and they should show us the nuance and gray areas but we will look at that. but i don't think we're going to have a big philosophical discussion of maritime versus other but it will be nuances. >> i would hope that. but when i look at the criteria i don't see anything that ponies to maritime. -- points to maritime. so all evaluation criteria will get points. the reality is they may impute it. but it is not a requirement from the pointing perspective. >> on page 12 of the staff report, we outline the scoring criteria with more detail than we saw on the slides. and if you look at 1b and 1e under quality of design development submittal, 1b talks about performance trust objectives which includes maritime and 1e

calls out this balance that commissioner makras is pointing out. i agree it doesn't talk about how they are weighted but maritime is called out. >> so how many people are going to be on the panel. >> at least four. and it's in the waterfront plan or include -- just a moment. >> i saw that. but is four a good number? don't you usually need an odd number? >> well there's scoring so i mean if there was a tie i guess having a fifth would be good. and we left it open. but at a minimum it has development expert, port advisory member and person representing city or regional interest. we thought if there was an additional need, we could add another

expertise if needed. >> when is that decision going to be made? who is going to be included on the panel? >> we would -- in our schedule we were going to begin to put names out there internally, have the rfps out on the street and have a final panel. >> when are you going to let the commission know? any involvement in who is on the panel. >> we could do that. we could recommend a panel. i could send you -- so in terms of forming a panel, there's the issue of expertise but also the time commitment. so sometimes it's hard to find panelists and especially the quality and caliber of panelists we want here. so what i could do is write you a memo of who we are planning to put on the panel and if there's anyone who wants a hearing or wants to talk about it, you could let me know in new business so we could put that step in. >> can you give me an example of what

you mean by city or regional representation. >> as an example there might be a maritime group, a maritime individual that represents all the maritime business that we have or another one might be an open space advocate in another consideration that's not looking at just a neighborhood or district's interest but really looking at regional or city-wide interest. >> okay. and within the timeline, where did you think we should put the presentation to the commission? >> i'm the wrong person to ask. i actually think -- i'm looking at rona, because does legal have a point of view on this? because you have been more advisory to us on -- do you think it should be before the panel comes together or after the scores are done? the second one. legal thinks it should be after the scores are done and embargoed.

that's an interesting word i'm choosing. but can we embargo scores? no. >> i thought -- sorry i thought from my experience contracting with the city that until you inform the respondents, they could be embargoed. the department of public health and mayor's office of housing often have scored decided internally and they don't notify anyone until like a month that they are embargoed. >> for the city attorney's office, i don't have in front of me but i think the rule is once the scoring is completed, it is subject to sunshine. so once the score is completed the names of the scores and scores themselves are subject to sunshine. i think -- i mean, i think it's a great discussion. i think what you are struggling with is -- yeah. i think what you are struggling with is the

need for you to have information and understand what the panel is doing and the need to let the panel be in this very controlled setting so they can make sure that everyone is treated fairly. and when you have a presentation here, you know, there's really not necessarily fairness. so somebody could take for five minutes, somebody else maybe could talk for six minutes. so when you want the panel to be in a very controlled environment and the public forum is not a controlled environment. so those are the two things that the staff is struggling to present you with options to meet your needs with those two competing objectives. >> could we say in the rfp that the commission will hear presentations on all proposals after the scoring however you want to word that but make it an opt-in. so if i scored only 20 points after that effort

and work, i could choose to come yell at the commission or choose not to show up. and the staff do the five-minute presentation on what that project was. so to the point, we are trying to get a level of transparency to show to the community everyone who applied. it would be unlikely for folks who are tightly scored might come use it as a forum as a public comment to argue their case. but you'll have some natural drop offs. >> i think the city attorney's concern is that the scores should be done before the public the uncontrolled public forum happens. so there's no possibility that the panel could be influenced by what happens. so the hard part of that is figuring out when to get the larger group to come to you. if that's what you want to do. there's really no problem in having the scores done, the presentation made, the scores -- you

would see the scores, you have as many people as you want. at that point you could say we want the top five, we want anyone who scored over 90. because then the scores are done. so the hard part is getting the people in the public forum before that happens. >> so it sounds like the suggestion is what we would do is we would -- i'll write a letter to you talking about who the panel would be, we may provide an informational memo just saying who came in the door and how the process is going then we'll have an info item at the commission where scores will be complete where all the proposers who met the mq have their seven ten minutes to present to you. then right after that, we'll have our info item where we explain what the panel did, the work of the panel and who is

preferred or sequence, something like that. >> i didn't think we would be going this far into the rfp. i actually have a different take for the panel. i think the executive director should pick the panelists. i don't think the bidders should know who the panelists are. and i think that they should be one meeting whether it be a phone meeting or not with their instructions and it be limited to one meeting where everyone does a meeting, so everyone as a rater has the same rules and there's no influence on them. i can tell you why. when the names are out there the private world is going to figure out who those panelists are. they will work very hard to payload their presentation to that person and try to get under their thinks to get the most favorable response just tailored to panelists. and i think that we should

have the project tailored to the group as a whole. and that is a better way to get leverage. >> i think the oral interview should be in person. i don't think the phone is acceptable. i think you need to see body language. >> i'm saying for the panelists. i'm only talking about the panelists. five or six. >> can we. >> i'm okay with it being face-to-face. >> can the panel do their work, come to us with the informational presentation where everybody gives their presentation and then the panel gives their recommendations and that's the informational presentation? can that happen? >> i think that could happen. it may be staff making the presentation just to summarize all the panelists comments. >> that's fine. that's fine. that's fine. >> no, no, no.

>> so i think maybe what i'm hearing is that -- do you want to go or do you want me to? >> i wanted to make sure mike understood the proposal. that's what i wanted to start with. >> what i wasn't clear with was whether you were thinking that would happen in one meeting or two. >> one. >> one. >> one informational meeting. >> so agenda item 1 is. >> presentation. >> presentation from all proposers. >> yes. >> item number 2 is. >> comes up, public comment happens end of item. >> staff panel recommendations. >> then we get up, we summarize the scores. >> but then you can't have any written material. >> so by the time we have the informational hearing where everyone presents if the scoring is done, under sunshine, there's public record, so everybody is going to be walking in the room knowing the scores.

that's what i heard the attorney saying to us. so we are saying look, we want to hear from all of you if you want to talk to us, because we are curious what your proposals are. we haven't voted on who you can enter into your negotiations with, we can't issue an award but the scores are public. and i'm actually supportive if we have one long meeting where this is the focus of what we do. and we might have some people really upset with their scores. and that's fine because it's part of being transparent, we can hear that and understand that. informational. >> it just seems like we have the recommendation which is actually now public because the staff report is public already. >> that's right. >> right? but the scores have always been public in any presentation when we tell in the staff report, it's always public. so then they present. so it's a little flakey. why am i coming to present? no. they are

coming to present before the staff report on the panelists recommendations. >> they have options to present. >> that's part of the proposal is to include a summary because we don't want to put someone's proposal in our own words so we have that part of it where we are asking for a short summary executive summary. so if a respondents aren't opting to present, staff can summarize those who did not come and share with the commission their proposal. >> the city attorney, it's not about our staff report. the minute that panel scores everything and hands them to the staff there technically can be sunshine to anyone who submitted them, even if there's a delay to our meeting. >> unless you are inside an appeal period. >> right. so that's why they are immediately

public like when the work is done. so i guess that's what i understood the city attorney to say. our meeting could be three weeks later and people will still know their scores. >> so i think what we are describing is certainly workable from our perspective. i think commissioner gilman has the point of between friday and tuesday everyone will have a list of those scores. if the commission is comfortable with that, i don't know that i see a weakness. it's sort of the flipside of not seeing the scores but seeing like if you are going to have everything in front of you and you are going to have the public in front of you as well. so if that concentration of information makes sense to you, i think i don't see a problem with it. it allows us to compress that period, which is a good thing. we'll ask for the

executive summary, and that will form the basis of that staff report. we'll directly cut and paste. so we are not putting words in their mouth. and if they don't show up, we'll be able to walk through that executive summary. and i think the tenor of the presentations is going to be very pointed in terms of -- those guys aren't as good as me. but i think that feels where. >> but they'll want to show up and present because we still have the option of rejecting the recommendation. >> exactly. we have other rfps. >> and they may want to set up themselves for the next set of pier projects. so i think this amended proposal works quite well. >> so just to highlight a question. so there's no action that day. >> correct. >> just information. everything is information. >> with an action item on the recommendation. >> right. >> and i assume we are going to then

follow this framework for the next two rfps. 30-32 and when we do the northern fingerling piers. i feel like if this is a disaster -- [laughter] . >> i think we should reserve judgment until we go through this process first and then decide if this is ongoing. because it is a change from the past. and let's not commit to everything at once. >> so i would suggest we are going to come in and propose this process for 30-32 because we are coming in two weeks. we won't have seen the success but we have said we want to hold back on the northern historic piers so the non-winning proposers can go there but that seems like a natural time to figure out. >> we will be using for 30-32 and 33. >> we will be proposing that so we can start here in three weeks. >> any other comments.

>> all in favor with amendment. >> with amendment. >> resolution 19-43 has been approved with amendment. >> to remind everyone to please silence your electronic devices. item 10a request approval of issuance of port of san francisco series 2020 refunding bond in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27 million with an interest rate not to exceed 6 percent per annum to refund the remaining outstanding balance on the port commission's 2010

revenue bonds to form a supplement to indenture of trust between the port and a trustee three the sale of the 2020 bond negotiated sale pursuant to a purchase contract, four the form of a bond purchase contract, five, the preliminary form of the official statement relating to the bonds and the distribution of the statement. six the form of the continuing disclosure certificate of the port and execution of the contract. and seven the form of the escrow agreements. this is resolution number 19-42. >> thank you. katie before you start i know we had an informational presentation on this, and i know that everybody fully supported it. so can you just go over the highlights of what has to be presented today. >> brandon. i appreciate this so much.

yeah. so the highlights are staff is here to ask the commission to approve a revenue bond refunding of nearly $30 million and outstanding 2010 bonds. we are requesting authority to issue up to $27 million in new bonds. we expect to only use -- or to issue about $23.5 million in new bonds. and we are estimating that the port will realize approximately $13 million in savings from this refunding with the net value of $7.9 million. the maturity base of these bonds would remain the same. the key thing that i just want to tell the commission this afternoon is that we are asking for you to approve a resolution authorizing the

sale of 2020 bonds in an amount not to exceed $27 million. we are asking the commission to approve a third supplement to be indenture of trust, a bond purchase agreement a preliminary official statement continuing disclosure certificate and escrow agreements one for each of the series of the 2010 bonds that are being refunded. if you approve this item today we will be introducing legislation at the board of supervisors next tuesday. and we hope to have the transaction concluded and all of the outstanding bonds repaid by march 1 of 2020. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you so much. can i have a motion? >> i will move the item. >> i second. >> is there any public comment on this item? any questions or comments? all in

favor? resolution 19-42 has been approved >> thank you so much. >> item 13, new business. >> is there any new business? is there any public comment on new business? >> item 14, adjournment. >> can i have a motion to adjourn? >> i make the motion to adjourn. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

>> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i applied. i was happy to receive one of them. >> the community bike build program is the san francisco coalition's way of spreading the joy of biking and freedom of biking to residents who may not have access to affordable transportation. the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes

for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working with low income individuals or families or people who are transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour

class. things like how to change lanes how to make a left turn, right turn how to ride around cars. after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city. >> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience.

there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles, 376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them

access to something that they may not have had access to. >> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active. most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. itit is a good way to exercise. >> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun. it has opened to many doors to the young people that will usually might not have a bicycle. i have seen them and they are thankful and i am thankful for this program.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪] [speaking foreign language]

[♪] [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language]

[♪] [♪]

[gavel] [gavel]. >> chair peskin: good afternoon. welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the of the board of supervisors for today, monday october 28 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin joined to my right by vice chair supervisor ahsha safai and to my left supervisor mat haney. miss clerk do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please be sure to silence any phones or electronic devices. items acted on today will

appear on the november 5 board of supervisors calendar against otherwise stated. >> chair peskin: miss clerk, could you read items 1 through 5 together. >> clerk: yes. [agenda items read] >> chair peskin: thank you ms. major. this is our tri-annual update to the aforementioned codes which requires their appeal and enactment of new 2019 editions. here on behalf of the department of building inspection, we have bill stron and michelle yu if you would like to present on items 1 through 6, none of which seem to be very substantive in nature but the floor is yours. miss yu?

>> good afternoon chair peskin and committee members. i am michelle yu, and with the help of d.b.i. staff, i am responsible for helping customers with code questions, interpretation to the code as well as lead the code advisory committees. agenda items 1 through 6 are six proposed amendments to adopt the code of the california building standard commission. the codes include the building code residential building existing building, electrical code mechanical plumbing, and green building code. san francisco is proposing these ordinances to repeal the six current 2016 codes and to adopt the new 2019 california

building standards and san francisco amendments. the san francisco amendments to the current 2016 california codes will be carried forward as a 2019 san francisco amendments with no or little technical changes to be consistent with the changes made by the state and to have the new codes take legal effect on january 1 2020. the changes before you today in the san francisco amendments include mainly chapter number changes to be consistent with chapter number changes made by the state. another change that we have made is to remove language in the current code amendments that has now been captured in the 2019 california codes which just means nationally and statewide they are catching up with san francisco standards. other than that, you are not to expect any substantial changes, and those ordinances for the

carry forward and enactment of the 2014 amendments. i'm happy for your continued support and happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you miss yu. are there any questions for d.b.i. staff? seeing none, is there any public comment on items 1 through 6? seeing none we'll close public comment. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and i would move that we send items 1 through 5 to the board of supervisors with recommendation and we will do that without objection and send item 6 with recommendation as a committee report, and we will do that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: thank you ms. yu. madam clerk we are waiting on the fire clerk for item 7 and i do not see him in the audience, so would you take items 8 and 9 together? >> clerk: item 8 is the

intention of the board of supervisors to order vacation in the streets of india basin street. item number 9 is an ordering of the vacation in the streets of india basin streets, authorizing the city to quitclaim its interest, affirming appropriate findings, and authorizing official acts in connection with the ordinance. >> chair peskin: mr. chury on behalf of the department of economic and workforce development if you would like to tell us about the vacation and the exchange and the conveyance the floor is yours. >> thank you chair peskin.

my name is jonathan cherry, and i'm with the office of economic and workforce development. i'm here to describe these two pieces of legislation. i'll start by providing just a brief background and then i can explain how today's legislation fits into the india basin project. the board of supervisors approved the india basin project just over a year ago on october 23, 2018. the approved project includes two components both of which are to be delivered by the developer build. first, the mixed-use development including almost 1600 new housing units, of which 300 new units, 25% of the total, will be below market-rate units, and improvements to the existing rec front open space along the

waterfront and the big green which will be a new addition to the city's southeast network of public parks. quickly, a number of other public benefits are included in the approved development agreement, including new city streets and utilities, a new bike network, including a class one bikeway through the project and a bay way trail. the project will provide space for several uses important to the community that are listed here on slide three and includes a workforce agreement with requirements during both constructions and operations of the development. the india basin project is development with a long-term use towards sustainability and resilience including on-site treatment of wastewater and stormwater reduce waste emissions through 100% clean energy and the formation of a

community facilities district that will provide facilities for sea level rise mitigation on the future. we have items 7, 8 and 9 on the agenda and the board's approval of the project last year included the initiation of the street vacation process and also authorized the agreement of some of the right of-of-way to the developer. it authorizes the city to enter into a public trust exchange agreement with the state of california and the developer in order to clarify the existence of the public trust status on the park area closer to the shoreline and remove the public trust designation from the private parcels on the uphill portion of the site. through the development of the approved projects the city through the addition of new open space and new streets,

will acquire more private land than it conveys. so the next few slide i'll quickly walk-through the street vacation and how the configuration and the ownership of the parcels will change which will be implemented in parallel to the street vacation. so you see here this is the existing site also referred to as 700 innes. you can see innes at the bottom of the slide, and this extends to the bay between griffin street on the left of the slide to earl street on the right of the slide. the other street parcels being vacated are mostly unimproved and unaccepted right-of-way which you will see on the next slide. here on slide six, you see the

existing ownership of the site. in red are the portions of the site privately owned by build. the solid green areas near the shoreline are the park areas under the jurisdiction of rec park. the remaining areas shown in hatched green and blue are the areas to be vacated and this consists of right-of-way under the jurisdiction of public works in the green hatch and the area under the jurisdiction of the port in blue. the next slide slide seven, focuses just on the streets to be vacated. of the 7.5 acres to be vacated, roughly half, 3.7 acres of parse street parcels, lie within the future park area which is the green dashed outline here and these will remain owned by the city to be vacated and maintained by the park and rec park. the remaining 3.8 acres of vacated streets will be conveyed to build at the time

of the public trust exchange as contemplated in the development agreement. the city will temporarily reserve right-of-way easements over 1.5 acres of these street parcels to ensure there's no net loss of acreage as part of the development. slide eight illustrates the 6.4 acres of currently privately owned land that will become public land as part of the public trust exchange and the city's acceptance of new streets. this consists of 2.6 acres shown in the lighter shades of green added to the existing park area and 3.8 acres of new city streets which are shown in dark green. on slide nine, you can see the final ownership configuration of the site after the public trust exchange agreement and after the development. the areas in light green will

be owned by the city as park, with a public trust designation over them and the areas in red are owned by build. finally, on slide ten you can see the approved projects, both the mixed-use developments and the newly expanded and redesigned public parks. so on slide 11 we are requesting minor amendments that have been drafted by city attorney. committee members should have copies of this for reference. the first is on the second page and simply adds the date of the committee of the whole date. the second is on the same page and the amendment provides the city to convey the parcels through the state at the time of the trust exchange directly from the city to build.

also, we would note in the ordinance on page 2 line 16, that the designation would be heard at the full board next week if approved as november 5. and on page 3 line 24 of the ordinance, the committee of the whole date of december 10. and on that topic, slide 12, here's the anticipated schedule for future hearings on both the resolution and the ordinance. this schedule results in an effective street vacation in late january. we would ask that the city forward the intention with amendment and positive recommendation to the full board hearing on november 5 and we request that the ordinance with amendments be forwarded to a committee of the whole hearing on december 10. that concludes my presentation. thank you for your time and i will be available for your questions along with public works staff.

>> chair peskin: thank you, mr. cherry. are there any questions for oewd? seeing none are there any public comment on items 8 or 9? seeing no public comment, do we have a motion -- supervisor safai? >> i just want to make sure the streets will be accepted back and they'll be fully-accepted streets by the city? i understand the city will own those streets but they'll be fully-accepted streets? >> yes. all of the streets that you saw in dark green, all of the streets will be fully-accepted fully-owned streets. >> chair peskin: thank you, supervisor safai. so on item 8, i would like to insert the date being december

10. on item number -- there's a blank. so that's the -- -- >> apologize, chair. for the date, that would be the november 5 resolution. >> chair peskin: no i think that's december 10. if we're talking about file 150969, this is the resolve that says notice is here by given on blank date 2019 i

believe was the november 5 date? okay. we will take that and fill that in and forward that to the full board with a positive recommendation. and then on item 9 on page 2 we will insert the date of november 5 and the city attorney will fill out the resolution -- or the clerk resolution number and file number. and then on page 3 as line 24 we will insert the december 10 date. and on page 8 at line 17 we'll insert the language of either directly or indirectly through the state right before sub-2. and if there's knox we'll take those amendments without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and then, we will forward agenda item number

9 to the full board for december 10 at amended without objection. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the committee made the motion to forward it without recommendation on december 15? >> chair peskin: that's true. without recommendation, as amended, without recommendation on hearing december 10, 2019. we'll take that without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, could you please read item number seven. [agenda item read] >> chair

peskin: and here to present on behalf of our fire department is fire marshal decosio. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan decosio here to speak to the 2019 amendments to the fire code. there are a handful of changes. i will highlight those changes and answer any questions that you may have. >> chair peskin: please proceed. >> okay. number one many of the sections were renumbered so it's just a matter of renumbering sections. the fees live in a different section. the fees have already been aof proed by the board of

supervisors. the -- have already been approved by the board of supervisors. the fees are subject to the administrative proposal that we have in place, and that was a process we started about two years ago and it deals with violations that are ongoing that are not abated and we have a hearing process in place to address those. so our attempt here is to recoup our costs of the administrative hearings. in addition we now have -- specifically identify or spell out the requirements for who we considered -- what kind of credentials you need to perform work on fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, and maintain systems. we're being explicit about that and entering that into the code. also fire escapes. with regard to access to require escapes, what is an obstruction?

we're clarifying that, as well to include locked doors and roomed -- fire escapes to include locked doors and rooms behind a fire escapes. and then lastly fire escapes we require documentation that their fire escape has been certified and inspected within the last five years and i'll answer any questions that you may have at this time. >> chair peskin: colleagues, any questions for the fire marshal? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number seven? seeing no public comment, thank you, mr. decosio and we will send this to the full board with a recommendation as a committee report for hearing tomorrow, the 29 of october without objection. >> very good. thank you. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, could you please read item ten.

>> clerk: item ten is a measure urging treasure island benefit authority for post disposition agreement. >> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin. and i know that chair peskin and supervisor safai you're very familiar with the treasure island development. this is a development that will transform the island with 8,000 units of housing. it broke ground this year and it has been in the works for decades. in 2011, a development and disposition agreement or d.d.a. was signed outlining the development work and transition for leaseholders. and one of the things that it laid out was a process for us to make sure that the residents of the island nearly 2,000, have access to the development and have a plan for relocation. during the course of the development all of the

residents will need to be relocated in some way. one of the things that came to my attention in the first few months of time as supervisor in meeting with people on the island and serving on tida and representing the island is a lot of concern and anxiety and questions about what would happen both for people who were pre-d.d.a. who moved there before 2011 and after d.d.a. who moved there after 2011. if you had only lived on the island a year or two you would not have benefits. but now it's been eight years and the development is not slated to be done until after 2030. so this offer that has come out of conversations with tida and

mohcd applies to more residents. some folks could have lived on the island for 20 years while the development is taking place until it's completed, and i think we have a duty to take care of the residents of treasure island who are being asked through no fault of their own. i want to appreciate tida director bob beck who's been a supporter and partner in coming up with some new options for what those transition housing benefits will be and i think director beck is going to present on some of those. >> chair peskin: bob the floor is yours. >> thank you chair peskin members of the committee. bob beckwith with the treasure island development authority. supervisor haney did a good job of presenting the framework for the treasure island development

network and so i'll go into a little more detail on that and talk about what we currently propose to -- the measures that are currently proposed to address the intention of the resolution. just as backdrop for our discussion neither state or federal relocation law required the residents of the island to be provided with relocation benefits but the board of supervisors and the mayor, when they endorsed the 2006 development plan for the island directed tida and the developer to come back with a proposal with plans to provide residents at the time of entitlement with transition housing benefits. and those are the benefits that we have in plan today. in 2011, when the disposition development agreement and related documents were adopted,

the housing and transition plans kind of captured the framework for both the residential development program on the island and also the transition benefit programs. the housing plan itself is the guiding document for the development of market rate and affordable housing. for our affordable housing the average affordability for the 2,173 units that we'll be developing is below 50% of a.m.i. or area median income and 5% of those units are to be developed by the developer as inclusionary units within the market rate with the balance being developed by treasure island development authority and mohcd and affordable providers on 20 parcels located throughout the development.

the 1 treasure island development transition housing plan provides for the future transition of our current affordable housing residents on the island. and the second document was the transitional housing rules and regulations for residents of the villages at treasure island those being our property rate management of rental uniteds on the island. under the transition housing rules and regulation, benefits were extended, as supervisor haney mentioned and i previously mentioned to the residents that were living on the island at the time the entitlement documents were approved in 2011 and only provided to those residents that came to the island in the future to receive advisory services. so to kind of graphically ill illustrate what that means for

our population first, in the yellow circle we have the residents of the one treasure island program member agencies. that includes catholic charities, community housing partnership, swords to plow shares and housing 360. all of those are governed by the one treasure island transition housing plan. and then we have on the left, we have pre-d.d.a. households. those are households where all members of the household were residing on the island in 2011. we have post-d.d.a. households which are households where everybody on the lease currently has came to the island after 2011 and we have some mixed households where -- that were originally pre-d.d.a. households and some household members moved out and other household members moved in.

so it includes both people who were a resident in 2011 and those who came since 2011. for the one treasure island residents and the one treasure island transition plan, it requires that tida will develop in partnership with one treasure island agencies not less than 435 units, and in fact our first four projects that we're planning to construct will be in partnership with these first housing providers. swords to plow shares is expected to break ground this spring and catholic charities roughly nine months later. we're not limited to developing 435 units. after we've divided these first four projects, we'll develop future projects through an r.f.p. process, and we -- we

will partner with those agencies in the future. the one treasure island transition housing plan provides all households in good standing will be offered replacement units in a member agency's building when it's completed. so all of our current 36 swords to plow shares households are expected to transition to the swords to plow shares building when it is completed. for the villages at treasure islands the benefits included when required to make a long-term move, a long-term move to be to a new unit to take a new rental unit on the island at a rent controlled

relative to their current rent with some adjustments, and in lieu of if they chose to leave the island or if they were interested in pursuing a market rate unit either for rent or