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 those

questions, right. >> how we have defined in the past? >> not how we have defined the number of units or the type of units was as we go forward and build units, formally we say those are replacement and those are not, that formula isn't touched by the department of finance, the determination of our obligation. >> indirectly. we he have to -- we have to be clear about the formula and we're at that point over several years of experience, we have developed a formula and we need to keep it because it would be subject to abuse or either an understatement or over statement that is subject to the obligations. we have a formula and it should be

definitive. >> is it an actual formula? i studied in engineering. >> it's based on funding. if you have 100 units in a redevelopment project or richardson apartments off hey street, that's a 100 percent replacement project. in other cases there's a development in the first phase of hunters view that some were replacement units for those 37 families that were relocated from a different section and there's any housing that's counted as replacement. so the dollars dictates the formula. >> i see. when we have an affordable requirements, those may not be s p2113 replacement because it's probably funded by

the developers. >> that's right. >> that's block 49 i'll use an as example. >> thank you very much. okay. i got it now. i'm not confused anymore. okay. thank you. >> can i ask. >> commissioner rosales. >> did i understand you to say mr. morales, it was enact in the year 2000. >> yes. >> at that time the baseline was in terms of replacing units was determined to be 6,709? >> yes. >> i want to make sure i understand this. >> the date 13 years later, we've only made rows on 900. >> that's correct. >> so why does it take 13 years to do, you know, so few units? >> first of all 2113 was based

upon the expiration of the plans. it was all tied to the expiration of the plans for the various project areas and in 2000 the plans were still active, still had both housing -- not housing replacement obligations and non housing obligations to the increment had been committed for the completion of the project area as it was originally proposed. the replacement housing obligation funding was not to be available until after the plan expired and the plans didn't really expire until 2009 so in addition the department of housing and community development needed to certify the units, that took a while and the board of supervisors needed to amend the various redevelopment plans that were about to expire in order to

extend the tax increment authority. so those things did take time and at first funding under 2113 i don't think it became available until 2006 really and projects do take a while in san francisco to conceptual, fund and to complete. >> and i would also add to that because replacement housing obligation is different than the inclusionary housing, when we had those units we couldn't count that although we built mission bay and other places. >> i will acknowledge, but it seems if we have 5,800 units to built, anyone who will be entitled or beneficiaries will be dead by the time they're available. am i getting that

wrong? >> these replacement units aren't directly tied to the person who are displaced. persons who were originally displaced particularly now in 1960s and early 70s, received certain benefits, certainly not as you will hear, they were not totally significant by our standards today, but those displacies received some relocation and other benefits. the community redevelopment law has never required that the replacement units go directly to displacees. it was in addition to