there is a community room offered in the proposal fort community. across the street, you have two piers that resemble the historic format. the two-story structures. what is notable is the water room, which is the floating pool plus the basin that has room for personal watercraft, floating wetlands and access to the bay on south side. on the eastern edge, the deep water berth included access diagram how to get to the deep water berth in the embarcadero is part of the proposal. and loading an unloading and provisioning of the boats. the program here is what strada tcc proposed. the 13-acre site on the piers, they proposed 376,000 square

feet of rentable office. the retail, restaurant component is 331,000 scare feet. and then of the 2.3 acres on the seawall lot, there are 610,000 square feet of residential. if you skip below the square foot met risk ricks -- metrics, you see other ways. the deep water berth. 643 market rate units on the seawall lot. 57 inclusionary affordable units mixed in with the development. and then a separate building that is 100% affordable bringing the total to 850 units. i told you that we met with the northern advisory committee and the maritime advisory committee last week. it was a real hustle to get the recommendations on september 8,

turned around and wrapped up for presentation on the 16 and 17. another bit of good work to get this to you, but we think it's really important to keep the conversation warm and highlight the points at these meetings, because we know you have a very important decision to make today. we summarized the comments from the committees. i'll read them quickly. in general, there was an appreciation from both groups that the community values were reflected in the response. there was an appreciation of the strategy of making both the piers and seawall lot a community asset and revenue generator, especially given the condition of the properties the way they are today. there was a strong concern and desire for a strong plan to manage parking and traffic at both sites. not just the residential part, but also considering the development on the piers. and a very, very strong interest in an ongoing dialogue with the community that rebecca mentioned. this is the very beginning of

the process, but i wanted to make sure that we hear loud and clear this is a conversation that has a lot of stakeholders who have a lot to say and hopefully find this opportunity to work with the proposer. on the piers, there was a real appreciation for the overall engineering approach. this is not a rehabilitation of a compromised structure. this is a demolition and rebuild of the structure and rebuild of a smaller footprint. that helped bring the cost down. they appreciate there is a deep water berth and berth access accommodated. that came up during the advisory meeting last week. there was some acknowledgment of the design strength on the piers. the similarity to the historic piers is appreciated. the low profile of the buildings on the pier impressed people. it's less cover of the water by opening up more for the water.

appreciation fort public access areas. there was a better understanding of the proposal of what the water meant with the help of strada walking the community through the process. i'm sure the strada would appreciate the opportunity to talk to the community about that if this negotiation continues after today. but there was also concern about the market demand for office in this post-covid world. office is part of all three proposals. it's just a healthy thing to put on the chart, but are we in such a different world that the office would be used the way it was used prior to covid. but the timeline would be well past the full recovery of the experience with covid. but the seawall 330, there was a appreciation for the sculpted

design, but there was concern about the height and massing of the residential being. and there was generally seen as better long-term use on the site than the navigation center or parking lot. and there was an appreciation of the proposed community stage in lot 330. so here we are then. at this point where today you may take the action that would direct staff to negotiation with exclusive negotiating agreement with strada ttc. the e.n.a. would be a contract between the parties until a lease disposition and development agreement is signed, but the terms will require collaboration with regulation -- regulatory agencies. so bcdc, state lands commission, the army corpse of engineers are all important stakeholders in

moving forward with the development on the bay. we recognize that and are making sure that's reflected in the next diagram as well. we'll include the parties responsibilities in the ena, that includes a partner engagement. it will conduct site due diligence, including a community benefit package. completing the financing plan and the land use plans and completing the california equality act provisions to secure the entitlements. that's what the ena would fundamentally include. we have the resources on hand. clark miller and in case you have questions, but where we are today, the fact that seeking the commission's approval to begin ena with strada ttc and then

once that is signalled, we start the collaboration in a much more intensive way with the community and bcdc, the state land commission and the army corpse and engineers and then we would come back to you seek approval after we have these community conversations and dialogue. with that, then, i would like to leave it to you for questions. i appreciate you sitting with me through this presentation. >> thank you, peter. can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> president brandon: thank you. let's open it up for public comment. we will open the phone lines to take public comment on 11b so members of the public who are joining us on the phone, will provide instructions now for anyone on the phone who wishes

to provide public comment. >> thank you. we'll open the queue for anybody on the phone who would like to make public comment on item 11b. please dial star 3 if you wish to make public comment. the system will let you know when the line is open. the others will wait on mute until the line is opened. comments will be limited to three minutes per person. the queue is now open. please dial star 3 if you wish to make public comment. >> thank you. do we have anyone on the line? >> yes, president brandon, it looks like we have about seven callers on the line. >> thank you. please open the lines for the first caller.

hello? there is a caller on the line? okay, i'm going to move to the next caller in the queue. it looks like this person has left. >> thank you. hello. i have a question about the time line, what is the typical time line for a project like this? >> president brandon: is that your comment? >> that was a question that i had. >> president brandon: okay. can you state your name, please?

>> my name is -- >> president brandon: thank you for your call. we'll answer the question, okay? >> thank you. >> opening the next line now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is alice rogers again. i am here as once again a member of your waterfront land use update working group. and also a neighbor. and i would encourage you to please go ahead and authorize this exclusive negotiation. i think the process that you set up was very regulatory. the responses were robust. the reviewing panel, i know, having served on another panel,

was exceedingly well managed and was supported by very good professional support staff. so i think it's very, very important to get these properties into more productive views during our discussions over the years with the navigation center, our community is often divided, but during that discussion, i think to a person, every person said, port, please put these properties into productive use. this is the first step. please do it. thank you very much. >> president brandon: thank you, alice. >> thank you. unmuting the next line. >> hello, can you hear me? my name is john grath.

i'm a resident of south beach. first of all, i would like to thank the staff for their thorough work on this project, but as a resident, i'd like this point out a few -- like to point out a few things that concern me personally. one is the traffic. even before the build-out of the mission bay and several new condominiums, the traffic in our area has been horrible leading up to the bay bridge. and then on top of it, they've now eliminated a number of lanes for bikes, which by the way, i support, but it's not going to add to the problem. you fly in the -- throw in the chase center, the ballpark. i wanted to make sure that the team does a thorough study, because it feels like we have a disaster happening for traffic

in the neighborhood. it won't get any better. so that's point number one. point number two, just a question of do we actually need more high-end apartments, condos in this neighborhood? it seems like we're a bit saturated right now. we have projects that aren't selling very well in the neighborhood. we have a whole bunch of residences coming on in mission bay. at the same time, i think there are the of 0 questions about the -- there are a lot of questions about the future of the property value in that area. it's something i think is very serious. at the same time, we're seeing the office market really soften. we saw pinterest pull out of one of their projects. when we think of this space, is it better used for something that is more open to the public? something more in the lines of

what york has done, building open fields and ball parks, et cetera, as opposed to adding additional office space to this area that frankly, i don't think any of us can say whether or not we know will be needed or not. i think that this coronavirus has been eye opening to us. and also i think there is one last topic i'll bring up. you know, the neighborhood spent a lot of time and the port discussing the navigation center. and the serious need for housing for the homeless, and now we're throwing up high-end luxury apartments. it seems like the commission is actually speaking out of both sides of its mouth. i see that there is a low-income housing component, but when you look at it in totality, it feels as if it's -- [bell ringing] --

it's really not meeting the goals. >> president brandon: thank you, john. we appreciate your comments. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is barbara. i'm a port side resident across the street on bryant street since 1994. so i commend the port and the staff in getting to this point in the development plan that they've been trying to do for 30 years. and i do echo the previous comments, i echo everything he said and i agree totally with him. i want to say other things. the massing of the seawall, those two towers, the report that mr. albert presented talks about massing on brannan street.

it's the corner of bryant. portside is a 38 bryant. we have a small seawall right in front of us, the green grass area, so we don't abut embarcadero. but these two towers that are 160 feet on the corner of embarcadero and bryant, they abut the sidewalk, it's totally massive. it's almost twice the height -- we're nine stories -- this is 160 stories and this one is also obstructing the views, our value, creating shadow. the development looks really pretty. it might seem to meet all of the criteria, the waterfront plan, the port goals, the r.f.p., the port community values, but this inherently all these things, really big problems, the tower

height, the massing. i don't think the waterfront port, in echoing the previous speaker, there is too much commercial space. who is going to use a big public pool? i belong to the bay club. it's not conducive to the ada, the kids, the family. how do you get into the pool? berthing four yachts and what not. there is no social equity there. it's only for the wealthy. it doesn't meet everyone's needs. it's only for people who can afford to bring the -- the condition is incredible. this is covid time. i was actually coming hope from an appointment and i had to during midday by 1:00 in the afternoon, coming on the embarcadero to turn left on bryant, actually the two were

going through the other two through lanes. i ended up driving on embarcadero on the pier side so i wouldn't have to wait and block the traffic. it's already congested. the other thing, san francisco is doing a congestion study and they haven't included embarcadero as part of it. [bell ringing] >> thank you. >> thank you. moving on to the next caller. hi, i guess i'm live. my name is mark dragon. i'm a 15-year resident of south beach. i live in a condominium complex where i'm the president of the board and 336 units. and i'm a member of the northern advisory committee, so i have seen this proposal. first, a shoutout to peter albert. he has done a phenomenally good job of responding to e-mails at

midnight, working around the clock. terrific job. i'm opposed to this proposal for two principle reasons. the first is it obliterates the waterfront plan. it's not at all consistent. it's seeking for a two-x height variance. that is massive. there is a reason we have the plan and this proposal ignores it. it's frustrating when the other two proposals actually complied with it. they were being good neighbors. so this proposal is just inappropriately-sized for this location. additionally, the washington project, if it told us nothing else, it's that the citizens of san francisco do not want walls on the waterfront which is what the two towers here would create. if we move forward with this, we're signing up for years of contentious public hearings over the massing of these two towers.

and i don't think anybody wants to go through those public hearings again, especially after having gone through the navigation center process. so first point was, it's inappropriately sized. it doesn't comply with the waterfront plan. number two, it's an economically bad deal fort port. under this proposal, the port sees $1.5 million land lease for one year and then doesn't see a dime until the developer reaches an 18% rate of return. in a world where there is zero federal funds rate, 18% is incredibly high. it means the port is likely not to see anything. even if they do, it won't be more than $13.5 million for a 75-year ground lease. alternative proposal -- i'm just reading from the kma study, pays not only the land lease of $1.5

million but $135 million in participatory rent. 10x what this proposal does. this proposal is capturing all of the economic gain for the developer and none for the port. as port commissioners, you have to be fiscally prudent when you enter into a 75-year land lease and this does not generate enough revenue from the port relative to the other proposals. it's inappropriately sized. it doesn't comply with the waterfront plan. and it's not a very good financial deal fort port. thank you. that's all. >> president brandon: thank you, mark. >> you're welcome. >> next caller, please. >> opening the next line now. hello commissioners thank you so much for taking the time to hear from us. my name is carole hart.

i'm actually a resident of the watermark. i've owned a place at the watermark since the time it was built. i'm very concerned about the proposal. i think just terms of overview, the way i see it, there is this beautiful dramatic proposal for the piers and it's just so appealing and to me it's beautiful. it's better than looking at a flat concrete parking lot that we have right now, but i think -- and this is normal with the seawall lots, the proposal for the seawall lots is sort of devastating in every way to the neighborhood. i would incorporate the comments from the three people who spoke previously. traffic. traffic alone it was discussed when the warriors' proposal came forward, that area is already just wall-to-wall.

right now it's somewhat down because of covid, but basically many times of the day you can't move through that area. now the idea is to put a huge increase in number of residents in the area which means much more need for emergency services, ambulance, potentially fire. how are they going to get there if the traffic increases the way it would inevitably with this proposal? also, i would agree completely that when voters voted for proposition b, what they were saying is, we do not want the port approving walls on the water. that are not consistent with community character or the view of san francisco as a stepdown city with the highest buildings on the hills and then coming down, so there is this clear open view and experience of the waterfront. and that's what i think your job is as commissioners. i have to say, you know, just as a resident of the watermark, it

may not be that we have the absolute right, but we definitely depend on what we're told at the time we spend millions of dollars when we buy these apartments and condominiums, which is 105 feet. now the proposal is to obliterate that view. so along with everything else, it's hard to say how that is fair to the landowners, although i understand an argument could be made. so i think that, again, incorporating everything that has been said, i think this project, it's made to look appealing. it has appeal, but i think it is completely violating the community experience of that neighborhood. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. next caller. >> unmuting the next line now.

>> my name is david, i'm a resident of brandon street. thank you for the opportunity to speak. quickly, i'd like to commend the developer on thinking about recreation and open space on the piers, although i have to agree with previous callers that some of that recreation space is limited and kind of high end. we need ball fields and playgrounds in this area. but the seawall plan really, i feel very strongly is too dense and too tall for the reason that previous callers mentioned. reasons exist for the height limits along the embarcadero and this plan far exceeds the limits. so the detriment of the neighborhood, residents who have vested in views, as well as area visitors who use the area to get to oracle park, chase center and the other waterfront amenities we have. they'll have to deal with new crowds and new traffic.

that were not expected and that the area has not been built for on an infrastructure basis. my recommendation is respectfully, that the port commission terminate the r.f.p. process and pursue other actions. thank you very much for your time. >> president brandon: thank you. >> we have six additional callers remaining on the line. >> hi, i live along the san francisco water park. actually i'm carole's neighbor. my comments are similar. i have something i want to read. in 2014, the citizens of this great city overwhelmingly approved proposition b which required new construction adhere to long established height

limits or require approval bit citizens via a subsequent city-wide proposition. the voters of san francisco strongly communicated their values that the development along the waterfront not create a "wall". instead, a stepdown in height from taller buildings behind them. the other two proposals for this property appear to have listened to the community and fit within those requirements while the strada proposal mentions it adheres to height limits on pier 30-32, the seawall lot does not meet the limits and creates 180-foot wall along beale. community values was mentioned over a dozen times in the presentation we just listened to. i ask that the port commission not ignore the voice of the people of our city, not ignore the values that the community legislatively established and

require any project to meet these proposition b height limits. thank you. >> president brandon: thank you. >> let me try to mute them and unmute them again. >> good evening. hi, everyone. members of the commission, i want to thank everybody for the

hard work they've put into assessing this project. i am a resident of the south beach area and i wanted to echo my neighbors who spoke before me on very similar issues, but i wanted to bring up something that is very important to this city. which is our homeless crisis which the city has tried to address by putting in the navigation center. unlike many, i was a supporter of it and happy to see it there. and it's a step forward to address homeless issues and now we're thinking, why don't we just put in two high rise luxury towers to replace what we have fought very hard to try to fix. knowing this area having lived here through regular days and gang days, trying to get home from bryant on beale street. it's been about 25 minutes just trying to turn from bryant

street to beale street. there is not a way to get on that. covid has dampedened things down, a little bit, traffic has gotten better, but i'm pretty sure that when things are back to normal, traffic will pick up and adding 850 residents doesn't seem look the sensible thing to do. as much as i would love to see a park and something beautiful on the pier, i don't agree on breaching the height restrictions and adding this many units. i'm also an advocate for the homeless population and trying to make our less fortunate folks' lives better. on that, i would like to hope and advise that you take into consideration such a large impact project and perhaps pursue other opportunities. thank you for your time.

i wanted to mention south beach is an inclusive community. i'm proud we have a foundation that pacific heights rejected, but unfortunately, i believe it's a farce that we'll create a luxury swimming pool in a city with homelessness. i hope they investigate realistic parking solutions. rental households in san

francisco usually have more than one cohabitating adult. therefore 850 rental units has realistic potential to add hundreds of cars in south beach. south beach proper does not have parking structures akin to mission bay. long-term, it will be become scarce if 850 rental units are constructed. we in south beach have not seen the consequences of the stadiums at full capacity. i'm also afraid south beach real estate is oversaturated pre-covid, 274 brandon, 300 brand brandon. that is four empty store fronts outside my home. 2 bryant street across from seawall lot 330 is commercial developed by strada.

it's advertised for lease. i'm not bullish about the future of just the immediate future of commercial real estate. i hope the commission considers long-term solutions. i'm not keen on what i perceive is an unrealistic being proposal on our public lands. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. hello? my name is earl. i'm a resident and business owner directly across the street from the proposed development, seawall lot 330 and piers 30-32. we are important stakeholders who must live with the consequences of this decision on

a daily basis. the majority of our concerns with the proposed development including its improper height and mapping, disregard for the waterfront plan recommendations, exacerbation of untenable traffic congestion and increased exposure to care pollution are a direct result of the proposed development's unacceptable scale and density. i understand and support the need for housing, but to destroy a neighborhood by imposing mega density upon an already densely populated and congestion compromised neighborhood is simply wrong. when i and my fellow residents need to sit in bay bridge rush hour traffic on the embarcadero, harrison street, bryant street, main street and spear streets surrounding our complex for an hour or more, it's to get back into our homes, this is not progress. this is the price of poor planning. i understand the need for

housing around transit corridors, but when it is applied to an area that is already a major choke point for vehicle traffic feeding to the bay bridge, highway 280, highway 101, and renders its surrounding streets impassable and neighborhoods unlivable, it is problematic on the policy. i urge the port commission to deny the authorization of an ena with strada ttc for piers 30-32 and seawall lot r.f.p. we sincerely hope the port will not only hear the community most impacted by their decisions, but address their legitimate concerns. thank you. >> looks like we have two callers remaining.

hi, commissioners. this is rick dickerson. i'm chair of the embarcadero safe navigation advisory group. and a long time several-decade resident and person who works in the south beach area. used to also be chair of the rincon point c.a.c. first off, i would like to say thank you on behalf of the navigation center advisory group for continuing on with the r.f.p. process for, as was promised for this site in the pier, seawall lot and the piers. and continuing on through the whole covid-19 pandemic. i note it hasn't been easy and once again, thank you for everyone submitting proposals. i think that you got three interesting proposals.

unfortunately, i have to echo a lot of the things that other people from the area have brought up with with regards to how the seawall lot is laid out in this particular proposal. the piers itself, the plans for the piers itself, are kept low-profile which is brought up in the proposal, but the problem is, unless you're driving along the embarcadero you're not going see it, because the proposal is building a wall along the seawall lot. and there was a great deal of time and effort over a couple of decades through lots of negotiating and discussions about how to keep the embarcadero open and the waterfront open. and as they've cited, b was passed by the voters of the city to try to do such a thing. by doubling the density and

massing on the seawall lot, it's going contrary to everything that they tried to put together and the voters of the city said they would like to see. if this is going to move forward, i would hope there is going to be significant change to the design and the massing on the seawall lot by the developer and i hope that the port would mandate there be a lot more outreach to the community. because i think as you're hearing tonight, there is a lot of displeasure in the opportunity with the way this has been put together. thank you. appreciate it. >> president brandon: thank you. unmuting the last line now. >> thank you, commissioners and staff. this is john cornwell. i'm a 26-year resident in port

st. -- the street from the project site and president of the foundation. i've been involved in development attempts on the pier going all the way back to the early 90s. warriors, et cetera. and all those projects in all that time, even prior to the passing of proposition b never proposed more than 300 units. they were 250, 330. 850 units just to put this in perspective, this project is taller and larger than the hyatt regency. it pushing the massing onto the streets and embarcadero. it's a really ridiculous design. i don't want to repeat myself or what everyone has said, but this

is the most diametrically opposed plan to proposition b that anyone could come up with. in terms of traffic, the only egress to this thing, it's not on embarcadero, it's going to be on beale, a cul-de-sac, which leads on to the bay bridge approach, which will completely mess up that. we paid and had prep modelling done during the warriors proposal and we already know we're beyond capacity. i mean, some of my neighbors and myself, we have to park at rush hour a block away in a metered, walk home and come get our cars after 9:00. even now with covid, i was stuck in traffic. so this is not a very serviceable area. you know, also there was not a lot of outreach to the community. i know the urban waterfront group, but that is not necessarily reflective of people immediately impacted.

we're really, really unhappy with the idea that someone is going with a 220-foot elevation on these things when proposition b limits them to, i think it's 105 and 160 or something like that. this is really kind of an affront. i think it's very arrogant, of strada to think they're going to blow through those. they might. they're very well connected. they might trump all this. you guys have responsibility to make sure that the legacy of the import works with the community and the community intent and this is the exact opposite. i find it disturbing that one of your commissioners has recused herself -- i'm glad she did, but the fact she was connected to one of the proposals is kind of leaves me a little bit concerned. and then lastly -- [bell ringing] this service -- but who

is going to use a 55° foot pool? i think it's an insincere offering. anyway, i hope you guys do the right thing and go and look at something that is more community serving and in line with prop b. >> president brandon: thank you so much for your comments. >> at this time, there are no other members of the public on the phone wishing to make public comment on this item. >> okay. seeing no more callers on the phone, public comment is closed. do you want to address any of those questions? >> i was asking peter -- >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the question. >> president brandon: do you

want to address any of the concerns, talk about the time line, the traffic study, the finances. >> well, thank you, commissioner. i think what i do want to say is that i heard a lot of these concerns and i think that it's really clear to everyone who has been involved in this, this is the beginning point of the conversation. this is not -- this is not as rebecca said, the final step toward -- it's not even entitlement. so what i would like to do is allow, the commission to check in with the team strada is still here. when they were representing the project to the community and to us, they kept saying they were looking forward to these kinds of conversations about the height, about the density, about the configuration. so i don't want to speak for them, but i do want to make sure they have that opportunity to explain their rationale at this

point. >> president brandon: strada team can speak? >> sure. i'm happy to respond. this is jessie, principal of strada. by the way, i would like to thank staff, peter especially, for all the great work in moving through a very effective and fair and transparent process here. and president brandon, commissioners, director forbes, we're thrilled to have been recommended for this process. but as peter said, you know, this process of submitting to an r.f.p. is an unusual one for strada because as folks involved in other projects of ours know, we often spend months in the community working through these kinds of issues before we submit anything to the planning department for example.

if you look at for example our most recent project in bayview hunters point where we got unanimous approval from the planning commission, no opposition. part of that was a testament to how we engaged in the community. within r.f.p. process, it's not possible to do that same kind of process. you kind of go off into your shuttered room and come up with an idea and hope it meets the expectations of the policymakers and the community. as it relates to the seawall lot, you know, we have been trying to balance a series of policy objectives articulated in the r.f.p. that includes first and foremost paying for a considerable amount of public infrastructure by our math, $370 million worth of pier and seawall strengthening, sea level rise, east berth, public

amenities. so those cost have to be born in some fashion by the project. we took the view it was important to address on the water side of the project and develop a footprint for the pier side that was consistent with past, that's why we ended up with office and addressed the goals of the maritime and public access. and really the seawall lot becomes the economic engine to deliver that as well as community benefits like the 25% affordable housing that we're proposing. you know, to be fully financed by the project itself. that said, this is a starting point as peter said. and we're very interested in having a deep and authentic conversation with all of the stakeholders that have articulated their concerns. we said that at the northern advisory committee. this is the beginning of the

beginning. and you know i'm hopeful we can come to a shared approach that addresses the desires of the port to pay to -- have the project pay for all the improvements, but still meet some of the concerns that the community has addressed. i will say on the design, that we took a very intentional approach to take a set of zoning constraints as currently envisioned that creates really a very long linear wall along the waterfront. you maxed out the current zoning, you can end up with a very long street wall, lower than what we proposed, but a very long street wall. instead what we did was say push the density of the housing up to the edges of the farthest corner of the site and prep the middle of the site in the middle of the embarcadero. we walked through at the last presentation, you know, the

visuals of that. the idea was to create a valley in the middle of the site to preserve views. obviously there are people not happy with that approach. there is a million ways to approach the mapping of the site. and we're happy to engage with the neighbors in those kinds of discussions. we said as much at the northern advisory committee meeting last week. >> president brandon: thank you. someone had a question about the time line, the time line for these type of projects. >> i'll start with that. this is peter again from the port. if we could go back to the next step slide. it's very generic because the point would be that we're not actually entering into the ena. today, what we're talking about

is the approval to begin the ena negotiations, but the ena would be in the fall and winter of the collaboration of the regulatory agencies and the dialogue with the community. it's important, as you heard today, the community is not just one entity. there are a whole bunch of different stakeholders that care about what comes out of this. at the conclusion of the series of the meetings, with the stakeholders, the community, the regulatory agencies, we would come back to the port to see if we're ready to enter into an ena. that would be the conclusion of this request that we have a community dialogue, that the community has told us they want to hear and jessie has offered to provide. >> it's maybe helpful for me to state what we've seen in past projects. i mentioned earlier, i looked at our four last developer solicitations to led to project approval. i mentioned the shortest

duration we had was on the historic core at pier 70 which is about a 300,000 square foot project. that took us two years from developer selection to approval. longer time frame that we've taken are on the 28-acre site. those took six and eight years from selection to approval. i imagine this sort of project is between 2 and 6 years are the sort of time frames we typically take. of course, strada, i'm sure would like to go as fast as possible, but that's what we do and that's how long we've seen these processes take. so multiple years between selection of the developer to the project approval. >> president brandon: thank you, peter. >> commissioner woo ho: thank

you. i want to open my comments to say i feel a little deja vu here, but different deja vu. when we first proposed the navigation center for the homeless and the initial reaction as you know was just horror by the neighborhood. and it's interesting now to hear somebody say, well let's keep the navigation center. so all the terrible things they envisioned as a result of having a navigation center did not materialize. and i think what i'm trying to say is sometimes you have to have a little vision, look over the horizon before you react to everything in front of you. and i do think that because the community, perhaps the neighbors have not had a chance yet to engage as fully -- and i'm glad to hear jessie say he will have a discussion with them -- that we could come up with something

that i think can meet -- it will not be perfect. you cannot satisfy everybody's individual objective. there is a little envy. people realize their views may be affected. i recall many discusses on seawall lot 330 that the units behind them were told, something could be built in front of you. so they've had the luxury of not having that happen. so i'm not saying that justifies to have a huge massive building, but on the other hand, that's something they've gotten used to, so it's very hard to obviously say, well, what we told you a long time ago is now starting to happen. i think we want a balance. and it's going to be up to, i think, our staff and jessie, as we move forward, and strada to find a way that does find some balance here, because i think to say we're just -- i don't think

we're going to find any project that is going to meet everybody's demands. i felt the massing on the piers on the other two proposals was too much. it's interesting my first reaction was the piers did not have tremendous amount of massing. of course, if you have finger piers you can't. that's just the nature of the way the preservation of the piers is supposed to be. you can't have two towers out there any way. i understand the economics that have to be balanced by trying to figure out how to make the economic engine on the seawall lot. there is lot still to be worked out here. to me, i don't believe the r.f.p. is the correct path forward. i think we need to find a way to take this input and go forward. but number one, i want to just verify all the comments that we

did hear that the current design absolutely does not conform to proposition b, is that correct, peter, what all the speakers said? so the height limit, i thought we couldn't do that. after 8 washington, i thought that was an issue then and i thought -- of course, prop b, so i'm surprised. can you comment on that. >> sure, i'd be happy to comment and let my colleagues. what is happening with this proposal, they're working over the zoning which is 105, towers up to 65 feet. that would be the bay -- [inaudible] they're using the state density law to have the state provide exemptions to a limited extent up to that 35% above the floor area. they're going higher by virtue

of the state bonus. it's something the attorneys are still looking at, if this is the base zoning or new base zoning. i don't know if anyone wants to elaborate on that. >> it's rebecca. i can provide just a little bit more detail. the key point, commissioners, is under prop b, a vote of the san francisco residents would be required if it exceeds the height limit. what peter is alluding to, whether or not increasing the height for the state density bonus would require a vote of the people. we will have that definitely nailed down as we move forward, but we understood that was what the developer's approach was. to take the base zoning, add the density bonus and whether or not you would require to get a vote

for the residents under prop b. >> commissioner woo ho: my one comment, you can always anticipate there is reaction to height. and i think you should have anticipated to have explained it in your presentation and not to have them tell us this is an issue. because it sound like we're ignoring it, yet you understand the issue. there is a possible way to interpret it. we don't know the answer. but it seems like this has gone viral with the neighborhood. so i think it's unfortunate that we're in a defensive position about it. so that's my response on that. i mean, i think that probably in the r.f.p., we did ask for housing because that is the mayor's number one issue and we have affordable housing here. and i'm not quite sure how the tag luxury all of a sudden has appeared on this project. i'm not sure, because i even

just asked last time to understand the mixture of housing. i didn't -- we didn't talk about what the rental rates were going to, but somehow this is already out there as luxury. i don't know if that's an accurate depiction? because there is a certain amount of affordable. because it's other housing, it means it's luxury. i think we have to be clear on how we communicate, where did that label come from? that's something we're also having to deal with. the other part which -- the perception, cosmetics. the other part was not being in conformance with the land use plan, which was, i want to point out, an advisory plan. it doesn't mean that we're bound by it. we want to live by it, but what are the issues related to the waterfront plan?

the comments we received. >> the height would be the issue that the people are talking about. it was flagged in the last presentation. the density and the height issue not being resolved. but the land uses in the proposed plan, there is no inconsistency between what is proposed on the seawall in terms of residential or what is being proposed on the pier in terms of mix of commercial and retail. the land uses are consistent with the proposed draft update of the waterfront plan. >> commissioner woo ho: okay. i'm sorry i'm not doing this in order. i just wrote notes down. i felt that the presentation that we heard last time, that there was a fair amount of obviously community access, open space on the pier side. and i was also a proponent even

of the floating swimming pool which mentioned and the recreational access, which we have heard -- not today, but in other forums where communities said we want more water recreation, access. well this was an opportunity to provide that and i'm not sure the label it's only going to be for luxury swimming pool. it seemed to me it was going to be open to the public. i don't think we made any decisions about that and i think it should be made to the public. so i don't know how that got twisted. because i thought it was a public benefit. a community benefit and i think we need to -- that's what i understood and i would expect. that would be part of the plan if this design moves forward in that regard. that would be another comment to say i think there was a lot of discussion of open access and somehow that is not coming across in presenting it and in

talking with the community they should understand it. there may not be people who care about water sport, but we have heard that from other people saying that is an important part of what we should provide. people want soccer courts on pier 30-32. i think i am empathetic to the issue raised and it's been raised every time we talk about pier 30-32 when we looked at the warriors and everything else. that is traffic and that is right up your alley, peter. but one of the things that was not included yet. one speaker was again having concern about parking. so i guess i w