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 so the legislature adopted 2113 saying

the city of san francisco and is redevelopment agency want to apply the then current obligation for replacing housing to those units that were destroyed before the obligation was in place and raise indicated that obligation was first adopted in 1976 and prior to that time the san francisco redevelopment agency destroyed 7,000 units. the statute itself was not self executing. it requires a number of debts for the agency and the board of supervisors to take and also the state. the first step was for the department of california housing and community development to certify the exact number of units that the agency had destroyed and so in 2002, and 2003, they submitted documented to verify the number

of units that had been destroyed in several of the older project areas. h cd found that 7,900 units needed to be replaced and that was part of the 2113 obligation. the legislation required that the board of supervisors adopt amendments to redevelopment plans acknowledging the replacement housing obligation and extending particular redevelopment plans so that tax increments can continue to flow after the expiration of those plans. some of the first redevelopment plans to be amended by the board of supervisors were the golden gateway, the indian basin and the hunter's point project area, subsequently the south

beach redevelopment plan, the western additional a2 and the buena plan were extended to allow for funding for replacement housing. after 2013 was adopted the legislature expanded all agencies so any unfulfilled housing obligation that was in affect at the time the plan expired had to be fulfilled by the redevelopment plans so anytime limits would fall or be superceded by the requirement that the housing obligations be fulfilled so the agency used 2113 and these later enact stat

tory amendments western a to allow for a funding affordable housing for replacement units. after the board adopted those ordinance, they issued bond under 2113 to provide the funding for the housing that would need to be built and from the period of 2005 through 2011 the agency was able to fund approximately 900 units of housing. many of those have been completed by now, others are still in pre-development structure phase. we need an

obligation of 5800 units that still need to be built. so with a dissolution of the redevelopment agency, the successor agency was aware of the importance of obligations in this scheme of continuing our activities and almost from day one the successor agency asserted in documented submitted to the state that one of its enforceable obligation in addition to the mission bay and the shipyard and transbay was a replacement housing obligation. indeed of april of 2012 the oversight board in one of its first meeting approved the first rock and adopted a resolution that found that the redevelopment agency and successor agency had a housing

replacement obligation to the 6800 units that were destroyed and replaces. indeed the broad statement of these enforceable obligations and the number of units and the amount of money it would cost to replace these units hand about on every rock that has been submitted to the department of finance since this solution. and the department of finance hasn't objected to those broad statements of the enforceable obligation. in addition there had been a couple of specific projects that were listed under these obligations for particular projects that would be funded from 2013. most notable was a parcel loan of

the central freeway parcels, former freeway parcels where the housing successor and the successor agency proposed to build approximately 80 units of rental housing that would be replacement housing that would be funded under 2013. this was submitted to the department of finance in rocks 3. significantly the state requested a review of that particular item along with several others and the agency described in detail the nature of the 2113 obligation and how this parcel project fit within the fulfillment of that obligation. after that, a submission by the successor agency, they approved that item. currently today we have

a rock that would seek funding for 2113 for 80 units in the south of market. notablely the state has asked for review of that item and we are going to submit an analysis very similar to the with parcel and how that's apart of our obligations. so we had fulfilled the requirements for the final conclusive just to recap. the actions of the agency of hcd and certifying the funding and that it constituted property tax given the size of the obligation

which we think is going to be $1.5 million and the revenues will be advocated over time. finally we have submitted several rops which this replacement obligation has an approved by the oversight board and the department of finance. we strongly believe that we have fulfilled all the criteria. i would also know that we are extremely hopeful and confident that the department of finance will approve this if you agree to submit this request you we don't think it's the end of the story because we have time limits in 2014 that may require adjustments. the value of this

petition that you have before that it would get the state's acceptance of an enforceable obligation that the agency must replace these units that were destroyed long ago and we can use that not only for immediate funding request by also in the legislative arena to get the necessary changes to have that funding continue and with that i'll conclude it. >> is there any public comment. >> i have one speaker card. >> let me state very clearly for you, i would call it [inaudible] when it comes to this. you have to have a good stance of history. in this city of san francisco, named

after saint francis, we have thousands of japanese, thousands of italians, later thousands of blacks who were impacted in a horrendous manner. i'm glad that san francisco redevelopment agency is dead. i'm very glad. and i see before me some -- what would i call shadow ghost of the san francisco redevelopment agency trying to comprehend something. you heard a long winded explanation which is people were harmed, people were thrown to the streets, people were harboring their sorrows, middle class families who were grown to poverty and respondent

and took up habits like drinking and many of them died, but when they came here from east coast, middle class families came with with an education, they brought a lot but redevelopment saw to it that they destroyed the family. so in shock today you guys to some legally are calling upon the state of california to create affordable housing so we have tons and tons of market rate housing but we don't have affordable housing and then we have affordable housing, we choose to build them on contaminated sites like the shipyards which are grown to flooding. you can't understand that because you don't read the engineering reports but i can

because i've read it and i have experience. the state of california is going along with some legal -- because it's impossible to build thousands and thousands of affordable housing. it's impossible to built them because of the time restraints and because of the money so what do you do? you a gree to put people who are poor and put them in small blocks and call them affordable housing. i wish you the best. but we as advocates can hold to the fire and start a resolution. thank you very

much. >> jackson. in listen, i'm thinking i'm hearing a report that i was in a meeting with olson lee. two weeks ago housing units that's under the hope program and when he talked about tax increment, my ears popped up because that means tax my community. i'm a property owner and the games, you know, that i have seen here is that everyone that was working with a redevelopment agency was part of the redevelopment agency are not all in the department and they're singing the same tune. the same tune is being sang, and you need to investigate. you need to get documented for yourselves and read for your sexes because when he talked

about the 75 -- the housing being destroyed and western division, i like no know where were they? the last time anything was destroyed here in san francisco was when we had the earthquake and i like to know information period because talking and if you believe all the talk that you hear, we're not going any place because of the fact even building the houses in huntis point, if you buy a house up there, you can't even get insurance because you won't be able to dig in the ground to make flowers or make vegetables because the shipyard is a super site not a brown site. what's his name, who is

the boss giving out -- macoin just lied. all the lies that have been told which is a shame and if you believe those lies because i have been here in san francisco since 1943 and i've lived at huntis point since 1948 so i as a teenager, i've seen everybody in bay huntis point. all field land and everything over in that area so you all need to be very careful on what you're hearing here. >> keith washington. >> ain't no mystery. check the history. what mr. devoir just revealed to you, it clarified

and cultures everything, but i hasn't been doing it as long as mamma jackson, but to hear that display on what he said within senate. i went to the senate back in the 2008 and testimony and the next time i come i'm going to bring that paper to you and they said we like your testimony and we're going to put it into our testimony and the record speak as i as an individual at the western edition has been there and the redevelopment agency is leading us and we need to have input on what's happening. they appreciated my compliments. this is his second time around. you can't tell me that brown doesn't know what went down and why our population is going down. see, there's a theory to all this here and everybody say

why do you rhyme so tight. i don't know, it comes off that way but it clearly states that something is wrong here in san francisco. the planners before you, this were to get rid of us and didn't expect mamma jackson to be here, but i need a tape of that. you're stating what you have done without stating what you have done. as far as laws are concerns or whatever you call it, that's what i'm going to study and get the word and get back to san francisco and tell them, hey, remember i was here 2008, we haven't got no respect from the old redevelopment agency, case and point. look at what happened. black businesses have failed and you spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve

for what they've done to us in the past, but it didn't work so those were failed efforts so what do you do about your failed efforts? something has to be done and you can go in history and i like the commission asked questions -- when you asked those questions all of them start going around because they didn't expect those questions to be asked. ladies and gentlemen i'm here to say, everything that you said for the delusion, all those facts and figures when you come to the next meeting, we're going to show you that those things that governor brown doesn't know what's going on but he will. >> thank you. do we have any speaker cards. >> i have no further request. >> thank you very much. this resolution again is to approve asking for the final conclusion of the determination from the department of finance on the

replacement housing obligations. so i as usual have a few questions but if anyone wants to start. >> i'll start. >> okay. i have a question. >> so i guess the -- f p2113 does say that the -- as you mentioned one of the further amendments was the replacement housing obligation isn't affect in 2014 or the sooner which is fulfilled which ever is fulfilled. that was a little bit confusing in the way you worded it just to make sure that other people get that. but my question is since redevelopment project areas no longer exists except for the

enforceable obligations, the major projects we still have, where is the tax increment supposed to come from to build the housing obligations and where can the projects be built? >> with regard to the source of the tax increment, it's limited to those limits plans that was amended. we're talking about income point south beach, western edition a2, golden gateway. those are the most significant generateers of property tax revenue. and the housing can be built anywhere in the city under the replacement housing obligation. the one for replacement -- the

law allows for the housing to be built in the former agency. >> second question. so i was looking through all of the documents and they don't actually have -- i'm sure it changes overtime -- affordable level when we talk about moderate income level, are those levels paid to anything anywhere? >> first of all, the housing has to meet the community standards for affordable housing which generally is under 120 percent of income. s p2113 has an additional requirement that 50 percent of the housing that would be completed has to be available to and occupied by they low income households which are 50

percent. those current levels for example for 50 percent of meeting income for a three person house come in san francisco is 50,000 per year. that's the income level for a household of three to qualify for very low. 50 percent of the units that are funded as i said have to be at that level, at the very low income level. >> my question is, where do the ami level come from that we're able to say that very low income -- i know that's the case but i'm asking the question because half of the funds have to be for very low income, that leaves the other half for moderate and we have a crisis going on with work force and housing income. how are

they paid, can they change, who made that decision that 50 percent means low income, not higher or lower or -- >> well, i mean the community development law and the housing and community development department have issued the guidelines for the -- i guess hud -- on what constitutes low income and low income and it's the state law that we follow and we're required to follow. i think perhaps to your point maybe is that these -- if we do indeed have a retained housing development to replace some or all of these 5,800 units this will come before you because if they obtain obligation of

successor you would approve the project and you would review the rfp that would identify the income levels that would be targeted in the proposed project and then after the selection of the developer and the request for funding comes before you, you have an another opportunity to determine what the appropriate income levels are so i think they'll be plenty of time to determine what the mix of low income households should be for these projects. >> okay. that makes sense. thank you. and then i have a question. so one of the things that got me thinking about this is this has confused me. whenever i looked at the retained housing obligations that's lined up against units that have opinion built and i've seen those list before, they don't line up one to one so my question is one, why and

two is the housing obligation for the agency or is it for the city and county of san francisco and if so does it overlap. i'm not sure that it does, but go on? >> well, historically the obligation wasn't the obligation of the city or county in which the agency was located so they are separate obligations. it's separate from production obligations so you couldn't use funding for replacement housing obligation to fund new units that are required as part of an inclusionary or production goal. so we're operating in those guidelines until there's

a clarification by the state or elsewhere. in terms of lining up the numbers, i think in terms of replacement housing obligation, there's been a little variation but it as been substantially the same that's between s p2113 until today for the number of units to be replaced. 7,000 units had been destroyed and not replaced and fdc certified 6800. it hasn't resulted in major changes in the number of units. >> sorry. so just to interrupt you. someone is asking about the number -- i wasn't asking

about the number of replacement. you have it built as we had projects going on in the various project areas and there's a chart that i've seen before and it's here that said 30 units that were built in this building, 20 of them were s p2113 and i was wondering why it's not 30. why is it every affordable unit or affordable unit. >> i think that's separate from other housing obligations. at least that's how we have viewed it in the past. for example mission bay has a production goal for affordable housing. that production goal would be separate from any units that are funded by replacement housing funds. >> i see. >> you could have -- and

perhaps the projects are a better example of that. you could have housing that part could go toward the housing production that are in the contract and the rest of the units would be replacement for the units destroyed long ago so you would -- once again in reviewing the project you would determine that next, but the staff would come to you with a recommendation about what units should be replacement, considered replacement and what should be considered new housing for production goals. >> okay. theoretically that makes sense in looking at affordable housing. if you think of all the units that are building to be built, you can say 5500 are going to be replacement and the rest are production but it doesn't make sense to me as an ongoing

dynamic requirement. i'm not getting it but okay. >> i think that's a valid point and we're going to start with the premise that we need to establish this replacement housing obligation and get the means to build those units, how they are ultimately categorized or how they are evaluated in terms of our housing obligation is to be discussed, debated and determined in the future. so yes, these replacement housing units may be become tomorrow's production units. we'll have to see. >> for the final conclusive of the determination, that doesn't have anything to do with whatever formulas we use to say which are the replacements verses not, you know, other things like house does this -- that determination is not related to any of