here. the overall landscaping, i think square feet is 5,000 square feet in terms of the landscaping on this site. >> it's for the children? >> yeah, partly children, partly some seating for families who might be doing their laundry to watch their children play. >> i'm asking about the open area? >> the open area for children? >> yeah. >> would be probably -- based on past project, we haven't designed it specifically in terms of 20 by 20. >> how about this room? that's not big enough. >> it's good for this type of project. also we have in the community a pocket park next

door as part of open space in terms of the shipyard development as well. >> go ahead. >> i like to mention that block 49 as part of a bigger development and we have a network of small parks in that area and we also have a formal player ground in its court which is basically two blocks down the street where it will be place structures for kids of different ages. >> how far is it from this area? >> approximately two blocks. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. rosales. >> i have questions and i want to follow the amendments of the dda. i see in the resolution that phase 1 of the dda is the 5th whereas clause in our

resolution says that the first phase of the dda which was authorized in december 2013 obligated lanard to construct infrastructures and 5 percent is affordable, do you see what i'm talking about? >> yes. >> when the deal was struck, the affordable housing obligation was inclusion natury. >> it provides 15 percent of all units that are available at an affordable level of 50 percent or 80 percent of bmi. they're going to be included in the market rate.

>> inclusion natury for sale and requirements for sale housing. >> through each one -- okay. ary for sale and requirements for sale housing. >> through each one -- okay. >> it provided 15 percent affordable units hasn't changed. what the 6th amendment did was allow for the 50 percent mia units be located on block 49 and not inclusionary in the market rate development but the overall unit count hasn't changed. >> is there a reason why we're taking or -- >> yeah. i'll answer that question. commissioners, rosales part of the reasoning had to do with the construction schedule and the way in which we would get the affordable units as the phase 1 project

was built out. there were a number of reasons but one the main ones is we would get the units sooner if we place them all on one block. >> in addition the developer, there are certain issues to have affordable units, the financing comes easier to group them together. but the moderate income or work force housing units are still inclusionary throughout the project. >> and sales for rent? >> yes. >> i wanted to make that clarification and make sure i was understanding what was in front of us. thank you. >> okay. so thank you everyone. we're not done yet if anyone has questions raise your hand but i have a few to go through. so i'll start with

the resolution itself and that first item on having any potential sort of issues of quality of life or discomfort by the residential design team. the way we're operating is once it's completed it will be transferred to moh. who are the resident supposed to go to if they are -- they have building management, i guess, but who is the building management supposed to go to get an amended design through. is that moh planning department. how will that work this work? >> they'll go to the building management and building management will go to the office of commission infra stuk structure and we'll work with mow. mow would be the probably

owning the property at that point in time because we have to transfer all of the affordable housing sites to moe upon completion, so it would have to be both agencies working together. >> my question is further to that is what i thought, moh is part of the mayor's office, right. and so do they have a separate process for amending their designs and implementing that development than we do so we know the successor a we're pretty independent in approving designs and approval development agreement and contractors, and the mayor's office works through the housing development to get things done, so my question is,

is that true and i sort of question the ability of that part of the resolution to really be affective. i would kind of think why don't we just evaluate right now that design would have any quality of life issues and if they do fix it now rather than waiting to have the building management who will have to go to moh and go through the city to implement anything? >> so we have discussions with the design team on this and kevin's point is i believe there won't be issues concerning quality of life, discomfort of the resident, however we felt since there wasn't a full study conducted, we want to have the possibility

to still require minor adjustments should that be the case. so if you ask the design team at the moment they will say that there are no concerns anticipated based on their experience with similar developments. >> okay. and i hate to be labor this point. i'm very cranky about having resolutions that make sense and are enforceable so if the project transfers to the mayor's office of housing, we can't impose a further requirement that the architectural designers do, can we? if a project is built and people lives there, which means that hoh is the city project owner, can we actually enforce through this resolution the architect adjusting their design implementing a new

design development because the resident are unhappy. do you know what i'm saying? i'm sure if that were the case and building management went to moh and said this is terrible, they can do something anyway but i'm not sure that element of the resolution impacts that ability for moh to change a finished project. >> regardless of who owns the property or the improvements built on the project, so this 60 housing development, the design is still in affect and any conditions that are imposed pursuant to those transaction documented and land use documents so for the commission to determine a condition of approval, the fee owner will have to coordinate with our staff and if it requires

changes if it's substantially different than the schematic design you approve which i think is one of commissioner ellington's question, there's some body of jurisdiction over the shipyard and affect some affect if that changes. >> i guess i bring it up because this seems like the type of thing that would come up in other resolutions for the project and that's why i want to deal with how we think about these things, like having outstanding issues that will approve a design and the reason i have an issue with this is that i think it sets up a gray sort of circle because the project is finished and the building goes to moh and it's super windy and i'm bringing groceries home and my eggs are

flying overall the place and moh is overwhelmed, i don't think this agency can do anything about that. yes we have land use authority in the ground lease but we don't own the project. do you know what i'm saying? i feel like i have an issue with having wording like that in a resolution that sets us up to be in a position where we can't help or do anything. does that make sense? >> can we take it out. >> i say take it out. >> do we have an mou with mayor's office of housing. >> we do not. it's in progress and it will be the subject of consideration at a future commissioner's meeting. >> i mean, i guess. if mou says here's how we will work to transfer properties and here's how we will work on development with moh, but it doesn't say what happens when moh owns the

property which is happening with law and state. i guess what i'm saying is i would actually say strike that piece in of the resolution. if there is a resolution, the building can go to moh and work with them like they would with any other project to make it better for resident. >> i'm sorry. hello. >> developer, madam chair. i appreciate the comment. i don't want to speak to your concern about the precedence and the resolution itself, but given the extent of the discussion, i didn't want to go without saying as owner and operator, regardless of the resolution and moh or ocii, we would want to correct the situation regardless of oversight or whatever is in the resolution. we need to make sure we have a high quality of life within the complex and we

provide housing for our resident so i would say regardless of the concern you're raising i think it's an issue -- beyond that with regard to the resolution i'll let you work that out but i didn't want to go without saying we will want to correct this issue regardless of governmental oversight. >> and i appreciate that and my next comment hopefully this won't sound too negative but it's a rental property so if people aren't happy they can move and the next people will move in and they'll live there until it's too windy for them and their eggs are blowing overall the place. it's a little bit of a different circumstance, although i appreciate your stance that you want to have a community where people aren't moving out every six months because it's a horrible place to live, but i don't want to belabor this. my

point is -- my suggestion for the resolution is to strike number one from the conditional -- the conditions of the resolution on page three in case the resident raise concerns, notify icc and the design shall be implemented. either strike it or change ocii to moh. >> for the chair on that point, i think vice chair rosales can pose a question, could this be resolved through the mou and could ocii delegate it and the question is yes. it may not be necessary, certainly you can consider -- it sounds like you have a motion from your colleagues. we can handle this

type of concern through the mou. >> great. i haven't seen an mou, but that's what it says. >> question. i understand your sentment. i wouldn't feel comfortable taking this out completely but i like adding the housing successor agency to the end of -- >> oci and the housing. >> okay. >> we haven't taking a motion. i'll make that a change to the resolution that instead of having the building building operator notify occ, it should be the housing successor agency and we'll have an mou with moh and that will cover the transfer for making this happen. >> really quick because it's going on 3:00. i saw that -- i

wrote this question down. so on the parking, what is the decision on the one car share spot? >> the design can jump in. including a car in new development is a new planning code requirement so we make sure that the design team follows that and they have basically followed the requirement by including one. there will probably be more car share throughout the development, maybe partially on the street or in buildings but for now specifically for block 49 we have this one. >> okay. that was my next question. this is about the car share and the bike parking, i think the bike parking is pretty significant. 60 spots

for 60 units but just for people who don't live in the building on street, this is a procedural question, i think dpw handles the parking on the street. >> i believe so, but i'm not certain. >> i'm pretty sure about that. i had that question before. if it were us because the design is part of this project, i would say we need more on street bike parking and we should think about designated car share if there's not a significant amount in the buildings but i think that's an mta thing and i'll take it up with them. okay. so -- that's it. everyone has -- my suggested change to the resolution. are there further

questions on the block 49 project? all right. if so i like to -- i like to entertain a motion on the resolution as amended or suggest change. >> i move to approve the schematic design for block 49 with the suggested amendments. >> i second. >> thank you very much. madam secretary please call the roll. >> please announce your vote when i call your name. >> ellington. >> i. >> mondejar. >> yes. >> singh. >> yes. >> johnson. >> yes. >> the vote is five i. >> thank you very much. madam secretary please call the next item. >> item 5 d authorizing the submission to the california department of finance of a request for a final and conclusive determination that

senate bill no. 2113 20000 established an enforceable obligation regarding the funding and development >> item 5 d authorizing the submission to the california department of finance of a request for a final and conclusive determination that senate bill no. 2113 20000 established an enforceable obligation regarding the funding and development of affordable replacement housing units. discussion and action resolution number 51-2013. >> thank you madam secretary and commissioners. during the redevelopment team, there were housing units that were destroyed across the city and senate bill 2113 allows us, the former redevelopment agency and now oci to move forward to collect tax increments and fulfill that housing information and that's an informational item related to preference. to both of these items are on your agenda. i like to ask deputy director jim to present this item. >> chair johnson, members of the commissioner, my name is jim, deputy director at the

successor agency as director bohe indicated the issue before you is getting the state department of finance to determine that the housing obligation exists for housing that was destroyed before 1976. by a way of background to talk about how this sits within dissolution law, i wanted to go over the highlights. so we know at this point in the 20th month of dissolution, that enforceable obligations are the key to what is the agenda for successor agencies. we know that the dissolution law, although it requires successor agencies to wind down as quickly as possible allows activities to continue if they further preexisting enforceable obligations. we also know that

in designing enforceable obligations and what can be spent for those, the state through the department of finance has primarily through the rock which you review every six months and submitted to the department of finance. under dissolution law dof has suggest discretion to reject the expenditures in the rock and challenge the existence of the obligations. enforceable obligations are broadly defined to design contract agreements and among other things obligations imposed by state law. so because of the relative uncertainty that we have about enforceable

obligation because dof can review them, there was a procedure placed in the clean up legislation to the original dissolution law, that's ab 1484 adopted in june. provided for the first time the agencies could request or petition the state department of finance to determine that an enforceable obligation that has appeared on the lot is something that dof won't challenge in the future. if a state determines that and enforceable obligation is conclusive, they're reviewing the future is to determine a particular expenditured is required under that enforceable

obligation. under 1484 the procedure for submitting a petition for final conclusion requires two things, it could be that the obligation provides for a commitment of property tax, second that commitment of property tax occurs over time, and third this is something that the department of finance added, that the enforceable obligation has to be approved before you can submit it for a final determination. the agency has already submitted three final conclusive determine requests and received two. one for transbay and enforceable obligations underline that project. another final conclusive

determination was issued for the shipyard point both phase 1 and phase 2 and we currently have pending on mission bay north and south final conclusive determination. these were all submitted before the formation of this commission and were submitted directly by the staff, but the executive director to the department of finance and as i have indicated here have already approved two out of the three. this would be the first conclusive determination that we have presented to you for your consideration and let me describe the scope of this obligation and some of is historic background. starting in the late 1990s the former redevelopment agency was aware as most redevelopment agencies were aware that many of the older redevelopment plans were

going to expire. because of the way these older plants have been established and the statute governing them, a lot of them were going to expire around 2009. more significantly the ability to issue debt was going to expire around 2004. this prompted many redevelopment agencies to look at state fixes to try to extend the life of redevelopment. in san francisco the focus was on trying to extend these older redevelopment plans to provide funding for affordable housing. there was a lot of controversy about this in san francisco and throughout the state because a lot of the people didn't want to give any extension the authority to development agencies. we in san francisco had tried to limit the scope of the extension to provide

funding for affordable housing. we worked with senator john's office to further limit and design what the nature of the obligation was for san francisco. the result was special legislation that only affected san francisco and provided an extension of redevelopment adopted prior to 1994 allowing those plans to be extended in order to replace or provide funding for housing, affording housing that can had been destroyed during urban renewal days. the estimate at the time going into the legislative session was approximately 7,000 units that

needed to be replaced. the scope of 2113 is now that it provides a time extension of the agencies ability to incur debited and it was enact in 2000, the city of san francisco was granted to incur debt to fund affordable housing that would replace the destroyed housing until january 1, 2014. the city and the agency were also granted the authority to receive tax increment to repay that debt until 2044. so the bill 2113 provided a number of findings that are important to

us even today in establishing this obligation. the legislature found that although san francisco was unique in that it had a very aggressive affordable housing program that it still suffered from the lack of affordable housing because so many units had been destroyed and not replaced, and it found that the continuing housing crisis and this was in 2000, the continuing housing crisis in san francisco was compounded by the loss of affordable units that were never replaced. you can take a look at those findings that were made in 2000 and apply them to this time in san francisco where the housing crisis is even worse. another significant thing about s p2113

when it was adopted and the reason it received the support of the legislature and the govern governor at the time was that it provided funding of the schools for the redevelopment plans and you may recall from discussion and the reasons that governor brown did this was to reserve funding for school because when the plans expire and the property tax will be restored -- under 2113 the legislature made clear that the schools would receive their full share of the tax increment before we could use the tax increment for affordable housing. this led to the finding both in the legislature

and in some of the legislature history that s p2113 wasn't going to have an impact on state and its funding of schools and that's a significant factor here today. also at is core, 2113 adopted the replacing housing obligations that were first a domented in 1976 and continued through dissolution. where ever an agency destroyed a housing unit that was occupied by lower income household the agency was required to create a plan and it was required to develop units that one for one replacement with an equal number of bedroom as those who had been destroyed. the agency also had a four year timeframe to replace those units