property that would identify a specific use for a redevelopment plan, then in that case it has to be transferred to the city. i have been keeping those, we have kept those in mind as we have discussed these properties internally and physical figuring out what the best plan is for all of these and we'll be producing these to you today. first the transbay parcels and what we are talking about here is one that we own now, we only own one, it's block 11b which is purple. and then we have options to purchase in the if the two other park parcels and block 10 in the corner. so like i said

i'm not going through the enforceable obligation discussion because there is a lot of information in your memo and if you have questions i will answer. i'm going skip right to the disposition plan for those. for 11b and 3, so for parks, 11 b and 3. we have the same disposition. we would basically just retain those temporarily to fulfill our development obligation. we would ensure that they are developed as parks and then once they are developed as parked we transfer them to the city and the city would maintain them using funds with funds from the community benefit districts that would be formed in the future. the transfer date for those, 11b is estimated to be in 2016 sometime and blocks 3 would be 2019. so lot 10 what we were

going to do is just not exercise our option on block 10 because this parcel is immediately adjacent to land that the tjpa already owns and is going to actually operate a park under some bus ramps in the future and it makes sense to just retain it and incorporate it to larger park that we are going to be operating in pag land and park land and they will be operating that on itself. now the shipyard park parcels and the shipyard community parcels. this map generally shows where things are in the shipyard. phase one which is kind of the two gold areas in the white horseshoe there in the middle

of the parkland, that's hill top and hillside about 75 acres in phase one and phase two is the rest of the shipyard and candlestick point there on the other side. the ship yard parcels is there, and it's about 21 acres and we have accepted 200 acres in parkland in phase two. one of the buildings in phase one has a module plan on it. additionally it was from your memo from the community facilities parcel. the disposition plan for that in what i'm going present today an appears in your memo. it's one of the park parcels in phase one. the shipyard community parcels there are

green and those are comprised of vacant land and studios of building 813 which is slaetd for king tech incubator. then i'm going skip the enforceable obligation and go to the disposition. for the park parcels, it's very similar to transbay where we would retain them temporarily to fulfill our development obligations which would mean to ensure they are developed as parked and we would transfer them to the item a: authorizing the issuance of tax allocation bonds for the mission bay south redevelopment project area in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $70,000,000, and approving and directing the execution of an indenture of trust, and a bond purchase contract, and approval of other related documents and actions, mission bay south redevelopment project area. discussion and actionn resolution no. 52-20133 page 3 of 3 bb update on the status of hunters point shipyard local contracting and construction workforce hiring; hunters point shipyard project area. discussionn cc final workshop on the long-range property management plan pursuant to section 34191.5 of assembly bill 1484 'redevelopment dissolution law'". discussionn dd workshop on the streetscape master plan, signage plan and major phase 1 application for candlestick point; candlestick

point and phase 2 of the hunters point developed as parked and we would transfer them to the city 1234 city for governmental purpose. the phase one parks, we will transfer these parks in major faces as they are completed. the phase one parks will probably transfer to the city in the next 7-10 years that will include the modular building. in phase two it's really hard to quantify when the transfer would happen because it really depends on the pace of the federal remediation effort and the pace of private development. any way the city can then once transferred the city can fund the benefit on the maintenance of the park. the shipyard communities parcels, it was three things, vacant land and parcels. for the vacant land, what we are suggesting is again, we already own 1.2 acres in phase one and we will own another 5 acres in phase 2 about 6 acres. we have an obligation to require these

parcels and developed the infrastructure. they intended to use the finance the development of these parcels. that is no longer available. given that situation, the best hopes for them to be developed is to transfer them to the city and have the city and partnership with the developer and the community of course work out some sort of plan to develop these parcels. but we will retain them temporarily as they go from law land to finished lots and then transfer to city for future development. the phase 1 lots will transfer to major phases over the the next four 4 years and the next project redevelopment schedule.

other studios, what i'm going to say is a little bit different than what is in the memo. the artist studios wr on building 101 now which currently houses artist. and under the phase two dda we are required to own what's known as the artist r e placement billion which -- building and will also transfer to us and we'll own in the future. in this situation, what we are proposing is that we would again -- retain both of these buildings until all the permanent structure has been completed on both buildings and at that time when the artist is relocated, at that time we would transfer both buildings to the city per an enforceable obligation and what we are

saying is that because of the restrictions, the rent restriction that are contained in the tda where these buildings have to be basically rented to the artist at cost, that the only real way to ensure that in the future is to have these buildings remain in public ownership. to do that it made sense for the city and what exact entity in the city is not clear right now but would be some city entity. the estimated transfer date for those would be in the next 3-4 years. then finally building 13, that one is the same as it is in the memo. that one we will acquire once it's transferred from the navy and that building will be sold at market value but with the restriction that it must be used for the a designated

facility use. it would be built by the developer but the actual renovation on building 13 would have to be completed later when the property is sold. the estimated transfer date in this case is within 5 years. so that's the shipyard. the mission bay park parcels are a little different. we don't own these parcels. we lease them from the city. right now we are leasing about 13 acres of parkland that has been finished. we lease these parks from the city for property management purposes. we lease them and thp we maintain them with funds from a community facilities district. so we lease 13 now on this map. the

ones that we lease now are shown in dark green which means they are owned by the city..or dark blue which means they are owned boo i the port. there is also a very small park there in pink that's opened by the puc. then in the future, we have options to lease about 27 more acres in the future once these parks are completed. on this map, these are shown in light green which is ownership by the city and light blue and chs ownership by the port. altogether it's about 40 acres. again i will skip the obligations. and so in this case, the decision would be, we've had conversations with the developer, and out at

mission bay and also the city about what would be the best thing to do do with these parks about what we could do. so what we are proposing is that we would continue to lease and manage these parks, the completed ones and future ones until their developed until the master plan is finished on all 40 acres and when that is done which is expected to be in 2022. at that point we'll terminate the lease on the parks and transfer them as a unit, as a system to the city. and the city has expressed it's intent to continue managing them as a single park system. they can continue -- using the funds. we recommend the success or agency retain the responsibility of admin

sistering the cfd given the complexity of transferring that responsibility. that's mission bay. now yerba buena gardens. yerba buena gardens, i'm going to remind everybody what the property means. there is 3 blocks. what i'm talking about this as a single group of properties. they cover 3 blocks, the first one central block one closest to market street. on that block, we own the plaza and then we lease a bunch of parcels to millennium, these are properties operating at yerba buena gardens, the hotel and four seasons and underground passage ways near

market street and we also lease to the marriott and the land under the marriott and these are large revenue generating properties that all the money goes into operating the public uses on central block two. most of it goes on central block two. then central block two is the map -- main block where the central block area is except the metro building. we lease the land under the met troin and that's another revenue generating use. then central block 3, is children's focus block. he we don't own any improvements, but we lease the land. we lease all the land in which all the improvements sit. the children's garden, the child center and the ice

skating center. so here, again, we've had conversations with the city about this and with these stake holders out there and yes, -- yerba buena gardens and the plans are to transfer the assets of the city and continue to manage in some unified fashion. and the city has stated publically they are committed to keeping them together and managing them together but the exact management structure has yet to be determined whether it be some city department or separate non-profit or possibly some separate authority. but the estimated transfer date here is sometimes 2015, probably. and the city could then continue to use the funds from these leases, all the leases would transfer. they can

use the funds to operate the gardens, but the money for the capital improvement is another thing that has yet to be determined but we are looking into several options about the city about how capital improvements can be used in the future for yerba buena gardens. and finally other properties, i have two, the fillmore heritage center and the garage and commercial air rights parcel and then the foods co-property which is land we own adjacent to bayview hunters point and it's land that we lease to the kroegos shopping store. the commercial airline parcel, like

i said we own those, but the commercial air lights parcel is under a ground lease with fillmore development commercial who has certain rights under the ground lease to purchase the parcel over time. it's about $3 million that's owed. if it's paid over time, the developer would own that parcels. right now it owns rights to that parcel. but so far in construction loan to the city. i know in your materials there is a lot more information, but i will just briefly say that the city borrowed $5.5 million from the u.s. department of housing and urban development hud to make an alone with fdc, and the city has an alone -- loan. with

hud. the city uses that money to pay hud and that hasn't been happening and the city is owed about $1.4 million. in addition we all know that the main tenant, yoesh san francisco is in an agreement proceeding. i know a memo was provided to the commission that gave a lot more information about this. so given all of that, it's likely it's very likely that the city is going to foreclose on its city interest. from that scenario, the disposition plan would be for either the success or agency to work with the city but the success or agency to

work together or transfer it's interest to the city and have the city sell them so it can reconfer -- recover as much as possible the $5.5 million construction loan. anything other would be considered program plan because it was purchased with the program renewal funds. if nothing happens and the ground lease reman's in place, they have rights for the ground lease inform that case we are proposing that we still transfer the property to the city, have the city take over as the landlord for governmental purpose for the same reason because they are because of the investment with c dshsg that it would be easier for them to fulfill their obligation that has to do with fulfilling their obligation to had you hud under their loan.

finally food co- that one, i know since we've met last time that kroger is still interested in purchasing this parcel. then the plan would be that they were interested before dissolution and we would still continue to try to sell it to them so that they can improve the grocery store there on lane street. this is another cdbg parcel so if it was sold, the proceeds would be program income. so community outreach here for this. the various project management team has been going through various citizen advisory committee that is going through the transbay

shipyard and special meetings happening in yerba buena gardens and there have been special meetings with other affected at the request of certain communities on certain assets like shore view park, some oci staff has gone out to shore view park to meet with representative and discuss when an appropriate strategy would be there and i know the saturday this is a meeting in the western addition november 9th, saturday and i will be going to that meeting. so timing so all this being said in a very short manner of couple days we are going to be asking you to approve this november 19th and it will go to the oversight board on november

25th, and we'll submit it to dof. that concludes my presentation. i'm here for questions. >> okay, thank you very much even for that a bridged presentation. is this any public comment on this item? >> i have seven speakers cards. members of the public please come to the podium in this order. john oeb erlg. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm john oeb length representing the taco group on the alliance. your staff and team have done a great job with our stake holders trying to figure out

issues on yerba buena. they have heard us for everyone's desire to maintain the gardens in the future. i'm optimistic that the final decision will be made by the mayor's and board of supervisors next year will be a good one. what i want to draw your attention to right now, as staff noted you will still be the policy body for the gardens until the transfer is done perhaps in 2015. by then, major redesign of parts of a gardens for the expansion project will have been finished. it will be done. it won't matter what any success or entity thinks about it. there are major changes being proposed by the master project in the children's garden and parts of cb 2. as far as i can tell the date they have acted as if you don't exist.

community people, even though it your property and you are the body for the gardens for what should and shouldn't be there and what should or shouldn't change. we really want to draw your attention to this. you should have equal role with the city with regard to the expansion project designed impacts on the gardens. your job is protecting integrity of the gardens, the quality of the gardens and i'm sure you want to and i'm sure you can. i think it's possible. there is a lot of good possibilities in expansion project but there are also a lot of negative impacts and what brought this into focus was the architects told us that children's garden has to go and that it's in the way. that's not your decision to make. that's what this letter makes. that's your decision to

make. what happens to that garden, where should it go. i'm here today to urge you and your staff that they have to treat you as equal partner with regard to the redesign of the guarders that project will require. that they come to you and work on alternative and come up with a best solution possible for all concerned. thank you. >> slater. hi, my name is karen slater an artist at the shipyard. i'm here for the arts. we have a statement. i have a copy for you all. founded in 1995, star has worked for many years to protect the vision and reality of the hunters bayview shipyard. now with the future secure we are excited to be

part of the larger community. for nearly 30 years artist have been working on dilapidated buildings and that wonderful big crane out there. now the look and feel will be very different for artist and musicians working in the spaces there. the commercial kitchen providing opportunities for small start up catering companies to start their business will be housed in their own building. 1 day we imagine the buildings next door. we hope this will be the nexus of the san francisco. san francisco offers the last space for affordable working spaces in san francisco. the transfer and ownership of the city acknowledges the deep commitment that exist and the

city fought for the artist. we imagine that through our management of the spaces are more active arts community than ever before can flourish in the shipyard. we hope to engage arts community in the bay area and maybe the country. our new building will be the catalyst and a burst of in you energy from those that work that. which has results in the artist sharp yard to become a permanent development. we hope to main attain and manage and groi this part of our community. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm grandey from the yerba buena alliance. we

are for the future of the gardens and would have that submitted in the report. i would like to take a minute to acknowledge many people here in the room, michael from the children's creativity museum and scott from ybca resident, activist rick smith and from the garden festival. they are all on board with the principals and very concerned. i will take this moment as well to acknowledge comments from

john oeb leng, i would like to call to your attention our principals and remind you with a we are advocating for. thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to echo on -- johnson comment and about the community schools and keeping us abreast of the process you are going through. i'm speaking as a board member on behalf of the yerba buena alliance as community as guidance for the way forward for yerba buena's future. we

really em implore that you use these principals for your consideration of yerba buena's future. a brief subscription of these principles that all these buildings remain so. and that any displacement of these uses should be prohibited. secondly that all sources and often

we've seen them turn them over. these funds are legally to ensure they are used for that purpose. regarding the use and maintained by first class professional organizations are great on our mind. we also urge that you consider a dedicated single governing body to over see these diverse issues to lawsuits and project legal struggles. the purpose was to have no dominant use and to manage what was built there and have a diversity of uses. the urge sea of having a