tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 10, 2018 3:00pm-4:01pm PST
even $4 billion which is what we'll estimate that to be in a state that is as needy as california when you pred it over the state, the amount san francisco will get is quite small and not enough for what we need. the value in overall housing policy and why we need to concentrate on treasure island is because we have the land. it's so difficult to get land because we know how land costs have gone through the roof. it's difficult to find land to make the project feasible and we have the land and commitment to do 2,000 units of affordable
house. it seems to me we can increase housing on the sites we hold and so it teams to me we should target the projects if only we can get the financing resources available. i'd like to work with you and if there's not a way i've been asking the nonprofits to do and the city and our staff here to to look at the projects coming
up not as individual projects but there's efficiencies if you're going to build 2,000 units of housing. the first three sites, is there not a way to have efficiencies in designs and operations that can being looked at where we pull resources. perhaps it's negotiating in advance the fee paid to general contractors or an insurance policy backed up by the city to be used by the non-profit developers on treasure island. perhaps special subsidy programs for the projects. there's a list of things that can be looked at.
and i would ask your office work with us to think of ways in which we might be able to get those resources and use them more efficiently. for one thing san francisco, the cost of building an affordable housing unit in san francisco is so much higher than the rest of the bay area. there's certain ordinances we want to support but we have to look at them and see how much cost it adds to the overall construction and design costs and is there not a way to make them more efficient. i'd like the nonprofit
developers involved i'd like to come up with a list of efficiencies. ways in which to fast track the local ordinance need to be looked at which perhaps can be streamlined but basically a list of things we can reduce the construction costs so there's less to put in as a subsidy because it's already too much. >> rest assured we're looking at these things. >> i know you're working in concert with the non-profit developers and our staff to come up with that program. i'd like to open it up to other directors. linda. >> commissioner: thank you for coming here today.
i think it's a matter of time because we've been anticipating getting to know you and working with you a long time now. for the record we have people who have developed housing for decades and we're active in the community. we advocated for housing to chinatown to san francisco. your predecessor, mr. lee, no relation to mayor lee, was considered one of the foremost housing directors in the state of california and mayor lee was
the first mayor out of the gate in the state of california and set up the successful agency and began rolling up his sleeves to stabilize housing and create bond measures and the rest is history. you're welcome here and we want to establish the relationship. at the end of the day, treasure island, we'll be working with you and fulfilling obligations. your predecessor worked on many
sites. and some projects today are a great testament. when you look at san francisco budget and we're only spending $220 and thanks to mayor lee with the special bond measure it's a disgrace about the measures. i foresee the situation will improve and again citing mayor lee's legacy he was instrumental because again, san francisco is leading the state and because of the efforts now we have leaders in san francisco to push that. one of the things we know the
state needs to advocate pore -- more leadership we only have 2% of the state grant but with all the bills in place now, but it's still not enough because we'll have to be creative locally to see how we can extract and we have the capabilities to work with you to make sure treasure island doesn't fall through the crack. and use influence to move it forward. one thing we mentioned and we know is about the cost of housing and also the entitlement. you were correct. san francisco is very hard to build even with the scarcity of land and i think it's a foregone conclusion as a member of the
community we're pushing modular housing. it's no longer where we have concerted efforts that's the trend everyone is looking at. how can we put that on the joint board in san francisco. the discussion is not only going to be limit to us here but to the community. you need to help us to know modular shougs what -- modular housing is what is needed and use us to push the discussion. that's the bottom line. it's wishful thinking to think we have the deficit and the limited use of funding and the
modular housing shows other places in the world are going to that way. when i look at your pie chart you mention mentioned the impact fees it's a substantial amount but what's the projection. what are the challenges that can make that because if that impact fees maybe you can site what you for see and how we can be helpful. >> i will do my best to answer that question but i'm not the
director of mocd i'm representing kate hartley our esteemed director. it is with great difficulty we have an accurate predictor of the impact fees because of the way in which the legislation needs and the way the money comes to the city. in general terms we do expect significant fees to come in this fiscal year and next fiscal year and that's because the planning department does tracking and look at the projects that have submitted planning applications and have a sense of who's planning and who needs to do environment environmental assessment and who will get to the payment of the money.
what we see trend wise is we're at big numbers now. this year and next year and then then there are assumptions made on what will happen about the economy in general and we'd expect there's fewer inclusionary fees. and inclusionary fees we're incredibly lucky to have the best inclusionary laws in the country in san francisco. one of the challenges of the rules are about the timing of the money and how to predict when it's coming in. >> yes. at some point, kay needs to come
here to to be on the same page. lastly i have a question for how we're managing. i know we have all kinds of documents but i think it will in instrumental if we can have an excel sheet format. it would be great in march to know how many of the households we've have one-on-one with and on one spread sheet. that could be posted at the end
of the day on were website and the supported documents would be there for people to review. it's such a significant aspect of the development and given the known issues we have to deal with so it's important to look at that and translate to that point. i know you collected on the house of tida. thank you again for your presence here today and ask your director we'd like the discussion and we're passionate about the modular housing and any assistance to find creative ways for treasure island. >> i will do that, thank you. >> thank you, linda. sharon. >> thank you for the presentation. i found it helpful to get the
recent history on how tax reform has impacted the funding. i'm not familiar. i have a question on how the pads work. would the individual affordable housing developers be responsible for bond financing or can mocd look at more resources. it rates right now are pretty good. are there efficiencies with just taking issuing a larger bond versus having smaller bonds over the however many years.
>> that's an interesting question. there are many kinds of taxes and bonds. the buyer is going to bank x and they give a rate. the city has issues of bonds purchased by the bank. the transaction for the borrower have to go through a required process but it's pretty easy. it's a loan backed by bonds. we already act adds -- as the issuer. we generally charge the lowest rates of most of our peers. we're getting efficiencies with the city in that function when we're the issuer.
so it would be more challenging if you were doing one project every two or three years to cost effectively issue bonds that would have to cover a large amount of time. i think that would fall in the category of things you're colleague was asking about. are there ways we can efficiently do all parts of the transaction and since we are a major part of financing of the housing we would certainly be looking at that. we haven't done exactly that to date but we are always looking for ways to get the money out the cheapest. both our own and the private money. >> and then i think the city is in the process of exploring the
idea of creating a municipal bank. will that impact our financing capabilities? >> i will be frank. i have no idea. >> commissioner: and similar to linda's question about the pie chart you provide. from what i understand it sounds like you're anticipating the federal funding section to basically be reduced over time because of the 4% or something. and the state portion of the pie would increase. do you see that to even out. are you anticipating a gap?
we'll still be able to utilize them. they were worth less than a year and a half ago. we know that hud has less of their home federal grants money which represents that portion of the pie chart. where he don't know how the state will pull their money out every time they put out a notice they set a lone limit and said the parameters and and there's a program on how much money they'd need so it's hard to get to the point where we can say it will
>> last question. part of the cost increase in developing housing project you've noted has to do with the duration also the labor costs associated. i'm wondering if you can speak how they're work the other offices to address trained labor shortage which is the driver for increase in labor costs. >> the labor challenge on the west coast with the fires and natural disasters creating more demand than we had before for residential construction -- i don't know anyone has a solution for that.
we work with our city partners on programs like and participating in the development and that's a great challenge where there's so much work locally to get people to their jobs. i'd like to move the agenda forward. >> i'll ask a quick question. thank you for the presentation. it's very helpful and look at the impact it's having locally. i thank you for all your good work. we need to work together to make it work to build affordable housing of course. one of the specific questions i have goes to the impact fees.
those are inclusionary fees. developers who put time into several ordinance. >> as it pertains to treasure island, do the funds go into the city fund or are they treasure island specific. so when we look at the budget for the development and in the budget there's impact fees do we benefit treasure island or is it exclusive of treasure island?
have a shortfall and they're helping to find solutions. our program will be get significant contribution either directly there city funds or from city allocation of state funds. to help fund the program. >> and other fees. >> commissioner: thank you so much mara for your presentation. i would like to have a report back on the efficiencies that we can do think of. are there ways we can streamline the process. >> we'll calendar that. >> commissioner: thank you so much. let's see. for the next item i would like to have the item number 8 item.
jill manton is here and has another commitment. >> the clerk: item number 9, art selection rfq results. >> we've completed the qualification phase of the art selection and she'll speak to the items short listed for proposal. >> happy new year. i'm excited to be here in the art selection process for the first series of sites to be for series of art works to be commissioned for sites on treasure island. the three sites are building one plaza, water front of plaza and
herba buena plaza. there's an all-inclusive fee with the artists' fee and engineering, transportation and we met december 1. the selection panel was president of the art commission, ticd, our guest curators from san francisco museum of modern art and a curator part of the smithsonian museum. we reviewed of the 495 applicants after multiple screening to pare down the list.
37 artists were select. after the first vote, that number was reduced to 15 short-listed artists and the panel looked more carefully at each site and identified corresponding artists and there may have another couple of votes before we established our lists of three artists per site. i'm pleased that our artists represent are internationally renown. we have artists from different countries and it's a diverse list. we have artists of color and from european. we have a great group of artists. i think the panel worked very hard. it was an all-day panel as you can imagine going through this
much work. i think there was true consensus about the deliberations and later commissioner tsen would like to comment and in accordance with the arts master plan they reviewed and comment on the artist. the steering committee responded during the holiday vacation to line up the votes to proceed. now that we have the approval from our steering commission we contacted the finalists and let
we don't have an x marks the spot location. i just heard back from the local gallery he's interested in developing proposal. those artists at the height of their career don't usually participate in competition but they found treasure island compelling and wanted to participate. a new york artist typically
works in recycled tires. i'm please to say she was selected for a finalist for two sites. we look forward to seeing what she will propose and another artist has a studio in northern california near the russian river. though this is a glass artwork her work is typically characterized by her use of vivid color. we have a local artist that works with phenomenon. he has a number of works in the city and has been commissioned to do a water work for trans bay and he's an alternate in the event one artist can't participate. and for the herba buena park
site we have a photographer who has start to work in sculpture and architecture. she was featured on the cover of the new york times and there was an in depth article about him. again, booker who's work i just mentioned and then andy götze a british artist and perhaps the best known in the world at the present time has done a number of installations in the presidio and those are our finalists and i'm happy to provide further details about next steps. i should stay speaking of next steps the artists will be asked to develop the conceptual proposal and paid a modest
honorarium and we'll have drawings to know what the sculpture is going to look like and what materials and what the corridors are. it won't provide us with engineering. we hope the artists will be able to work with our time line. we're asking for submission. we would convene the selection panel after that and then go through the process of treasure island art steering committee and proposed to tida for your final approval. there's also a two-week public exhibition period built into the schedule. we'd like to have the works displayed on treasure island and then analyst -- in the city at a public site to be determined. >> commissioner: are you ready for questions? >> i am.
make treasure island a distinction. i came back late last year visiting a group of islands in the southern japanese inland sea it's very similar in history having basically industrial uses and then and getting people to visit has revitalized the islands. it's our hope treasure island will become an international art destination for people around the world to come and visit these incredible art works by the greatest artists of our
time. it's wonderful we had such a response to request for qualifications to have incredible artists respond and this is a final grouping. you will all be involved in this when the final decision is made. it will come back to the tida board. very exciting. thank you, jill. >> my flash. >> commissioner: any comments or questions? >> i was present for the selection committee. though it wasn't expressly discussed as an objective, the result with the selected artist
is we have a group of artists that have demonstrated a broad range of work in material and theme. often you'll see a piece of work and you'll be able to know the artist regardless of the location. you'll be able to say that was done by so and so. and they'll speak to the treasure island and herba buena island opposed to something that will be specifically recognized for work by a specific artist. it wasn't necessarily an expressed intent during deliberations. when you look at it after the
our program. i don't have slides prepared but i wanted to speak to the changes being proposed in this amendment. there are two main changes proposed and a few ancillary definitions included in the definition there. the first change has to do with what is referred to in the dda as transferrable infrastructure. it's responsible for the development of all what we call the horizontal infrastructure the roadways and utilities as well as amenities like street furniture and bike rack, street lights and so forth along with the fairy ferm -- terminal.
transferrable infrastructure speaks to infrastructure obligations that ticd transfers to a vertical developer. for instance, depending on the time of a project they may transfer the responsibility for installing ramps to a developer. the first change has to do with the provision that sets an outside date a latest possible delivery date for obligations transferred to a vertical developer. there's a section 7.2.2 there's three dates the earliest of which is set as the outside date for the development of that
transferred infrastructure. one of those three objections is 24 months after the date of transfer of that parcel to a vertical developer. what we are proposing is that rather than that option that when we adopt the final map for a particular subdivision we will be adopting a public improvement agreement between the city and ticd as master developer. and as routine part of a typical public improvement agreement is that any key delivery dates would be articulated in the public improvement agreement. so substituting that provision in the dda for the late outside
date to be 24 months after the date of transfer to a date any date established in the pia gives us the flexibility of having the outside date be set contemporaneous with the approval of the map and infrastructure. that could potentially be where there's flex ability a date more than 24 months out or where there's a critical need for a piece of infrastructure to be developed it could set out at an early date. the date of the individual transfer is somewhat indeterminate date relative to the horizontal infrastructure. it was thought to be a more meaningful date than a specific
and now we're on the final mapping phase and adopted the tentative subdivision map approved by public works and tidc will develop tentative and final parcel maps for the individual parcels they're developing. so the changes the additional changes that are proposed are po move that date whereby the developer would be allowed to transfer from the tentative to the final subdivision map.
agenda item to make sure questions you had relative to this many were addressed and kay's also here if you have questions of the developer relative to these changes. >> commissioner: the item before us, bob, my major question with this has to do with what happens if there is not a movement forward on the parcels that have been transferred. we are -- in effect what we are doing is taking public grant which we own which has been transferred to the city by the navy. we are then transferring the land to the developer who has certain obligations for public
improvements we've agreed to and they in turn will be transferring parcels. my question has to do with from our view point we have to be sure that the public improvements are done in concert with the private development and vertical developments ongoing. what happens when there's a public transfer it could be financing or the economy or that particular developer going into bankruptcy. the development doesn't occur in a timely way. what options then do we have? then the obligation is the ticd
does it still have obligations though the land has been transferred to a separate owner? >> that's a great clarifying question. >> they all have their own specific development dates. typically in the case of the police and fire station or the ferry terminal to the permitting of the 500th, 1200th residential
unit. as developers aggregately pull building permits it starts a clock and depending on the nature of the infrastructure it ranges from the pulling of that specific building permit to the time ticd has to improve the ferry terminal. the major piece of key infrastructure all have established schedules of performance outside of these provisions. so in terms of the transferrable infrastructure we're talking about specific improvements relative to an individual parcel.
there are instances where you can see, for instance, the hotel parcel in the first subphase but the timing may not make sense until after the ferry service is operational. that individual parcel may come at a later date. we would need to look at specific obligations or they go through specific performance requirements. >> you are suggest they be
negotiated with each agreement with each parcel that comes up? >> puc may put up a specific performance requirement relative to street lighting they want all these or alternatively the street lighting comes from mta and we want to make sure it's installed independent of vertical development activities and other performance measures. so the pia was the primary instrument but through the vertical disposition vertical agreement would be another avenue to transfer the
requirements to a vertical developer. the vdda is also the instrument by which they transfer the obligation. in agreeing to transfer the obligation to install the street lighting along the street segment they would be setting forth the time line by which they would require the vertical developer to insure it was irrespective of a downturn and they would say we want to make sure you get this path of travel improved in this specific time frame. >> commissioner: i think what i'd like to be assured of is
>> tcid would be the party under the pia and they say you will make the streets complete. there's one step they obligate to complete the infrastructure or the public infrastructure the bike racks and lights and so on. when we transfer to vertical developer the dda is clear it retains obligations to step back in should the vertical developer fail to perform on the time
line. >> they're guaranteeing the performance of all the public infrastructure in these two initial subphases. as individual scopes of work are received permits from dpw they'll require bonds and we'll cannel our bonds as new bonds are issued to public works. throughout the process there's going to be significant guarantee to ensure all the