block. it is a very well utilize space for the tenderloin neighborhood. engine would greatly enhance our ability to serve more of our residents. i am excited about the 90 units of affordable housing coming down the line for seniors. there is also a lot happening with tndc ready ready one of their hotels around the block. hopefully, we will see some important but it -- revitalization in the neighborhood, but one that serves the tenderloin community. supervisor chu: thank you. given there is no general fund impact and no budget analyst report on this item, so if there are no questions at this time, we can open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send the

item forward with recommendations. seconded by supervisor kim. without objection. item nine please. >> item 9. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a permanent tie- back easement and a temporary construction easement over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel no. 038-200-020 located in the town of hillsborough, san mateo county, and required for the crystal springs pipeline no. 2 replacement project, known as project no. cuw37801, for a purchase price of $87,570. supervisor chu: thank you. please also call item 10 and item 11. >> item 10. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a two permanent access road easements and two temporary construction easements over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel nos. 253-270- 17, 19, 21, 24, and 25 located in san joaquin county, required

for the san joaquin pipeline system project no. cuw37301 for a purchase price of $83,900. item 11. resolution approving and authorizing agreements with purchase of a permanent access verdi's men and a temporary construction these men over, on, and in portions of assessor's parcel numbers 253-170-05 located in san joaquin county, required for the san joaquin pipeline system. supervisor chu: these are all items related to projects that the public utilities commission is undertaking. they all relate to permanent and temporary easements. >> john updike, acting director of real estate. item 9 is related to the crystal

springs pipeline number two improvement project. this property, i have an overhead for you. this is in the town of hillsborough. what is before the committee today is the purchase of temporary construction easements totaling 6440 square feet and a permanent easements of 4600 square feet. the settlement agreement calls for a purchase price of 87,005 and $7, which is between the appraised value and the requested amount from the owner and is pursuant to an summoned by the puc general manager and commission, who will approve this resolution. this is in conformance with the general plan, and with your approval, we would be able to execute the agreement for sale and the eastman documents for this project. i will do 10 and 11.

if you have questions, i also have brian from the puc. item 10 is for the san joaquin pipeline system improvements. this location is in the city of tracy. this acquisition is on the tracy called country club, shown here. roughly where my finger is is where the pipeline cuts across the country club. this is two timber construction easements totaling 1.1 acres and two permanent easements. the agreement reached here with the country club calls for them to handle turf restoration and sprinkler and cart path issues. the city's obligation is simply

to return the great back to its existing condition. in the country, take it from there. the purchase price includes adequate compensation for them to do that, and that is in the amount of $83,000. again, approved by the puc commission. we do have a general plan conformity letter on this as well. ymitem 11 is the same project. the city of tracy, san joaquin county. across the street from the golf course. this involves the acquisition from the dole family of eroded easement and a temporary construction even that lies along the road of 1.39 acres. this is also a settlement

slightly above appraised values, below the requested amount. really, reflective of the temporary construction easement time line. so it is not above the appraised value. simply a technical issue on the settlement. $10,000 to acquire those two rights. again, approved by the puc commission through the same resolution as the prior item. general plan conformity as well. those are the three items before you now. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. from my understanding, and these items do not have a general fund impact. they would be paid for through the public utilities program. is that accurate? colleagues, why don't we open up these items for public comment at this time. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item?

had in his nine, 10, 11? -- items nine, 10, 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? motion to send items nine, 10, 11 to the full board with recommendations. without objection. item 12. >> item 12. resolution approving the exchange of a portion of city property located near the intersection of folsom street and essex street with a portion of abutting real property owned by 515 folsom street llc; adopting environmental findings and other findings that the actions set forth in this resolution are consistent with the city's general plan and eight priority policies of city planning code section 101.1; and authorizing other actions in furtherance of this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. pike? >> this item is a resolution authorizes an exchange of city

property with a private property owner known as 515 folsom st.. i have on the overhead the general area in the transbay terminal area. in particular, it is this parking lot, here, on folsom. essentially, and the area in pink is being exchanged for the area in yellow in the photograph on a overhead now. tjpa and the city, which permitted the transfer of state property -- to the city, and subsequently we are before you now with this exchange agreement that squares off the ownership of the private parcel and city parcel. it facilitates the city parcel

through the redevelopment agency, a party to that agreement, to allow for the development of affordable housing in the future. so this is step one of a secondary step. the particulars of this exchange are 746 square feet going in one direction, 2278 square feet in the other direction. the benefit of that, a differential of approximately $69,637. those are funds owed to the city, providing more land than the seller is provided to us. therefore, it is not quite an even exchange, but the agreement calls for the payment to be made by the llc to the city. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. this item does not have a budget analyst's report, given the no impact to the general fund. why don't we open this item up to public comment.

is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 12. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we send this item forward with recommendations? without objection. thank you. colleagues, can we take a motion to rescind the vote on items nine, 10, and 11, so that supervisor kim can vote on these items? without objection. on items nine, 10, and 11, a motion to send these items out with recommendations. can we do that? thank you. item 13. >> item 13. resolution expressing the non- binding intent of the city and county of san francisco to comply with part 1.9 of the california health and safety code, recently added by assembly bill 27, for the purpose of providing the board of supervisors with up to an additional month, until november 1, 2011, to consider adopting an ordinance allowing the city and county of san francisco to continue to undertake state-authorized redevelopment activities by

agreeing to make ongoing annual payments for the benefit of other taxing entities, including the san francisco unified school district and city college of san francisco; and adopting findings that the resolution is not a project under the california environmental quality act. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have ever presented it from the redevelopment agency. >> amy lee. i will make this brief because this is more of a procedural issue. we will be back before the board for a more substantive discussion about the actual mechanics of the payment. as you may or may not be aware, the state, in implementing ab 26, called for the dissolution of the agency and temporary suspension of our activities. coupled with that was also ab 27, which permitted cities and

counties to bring the agency's back to life, to continue to do redevelopment activities once their funds were paid to the education relief augmentation fund. that amount is under the community remit amount. that needs to be paid some time in the fall. there are two payments in january and in may. there are some procedural things in ab 27 that permits us to have additional time in coming up with how we are going to make this payment. so this resolution before you just permits the additional month's time for us to discuss with the mayor's office, as well as within our own program, to figure out where the funds will come to make this agreement. after the board comes back from recess, we will come back before you to discuss the details of

where this amount will come from. after august 1, we will have a more final definitive amount. right now, we just have an estimate, and we believe we could appeal this estimated amount. supervisor chu: thank you. it makes sense, given that we do go on recess. in terms of state actions, i know that some things are already passed and then with. in terms of uncertainties, you talk about the fact that the number we have to make in terms of the payment is still uncertain? >> yes, i believe the department of finance will be providing agencies with the number they believe is the amount due, in order to lift the suspension. we believe they did not calculate some of our debt obligations, so as a result, would potentially reduce the amount we would have to pay. right now, we estimate the amount around $26 million. we think it might be slightly lower.

once the department of finance gives us a number, we will have a short window to apply and provide that information. so this provides some clarity. supervisor chu: will they also be providing with the ongoing obligation will be? >> we believe so, yes. supervisor chu: from my perspective, we do not have a budget analyst's report on this item, because there is not get a specific plan associated with this resolution. so today, as we are acting on this resolution, we are not committing the city to anything just yet. that may come later on as we have time. just for the department's understanding -- and i know i have a conversation with our budget analyst. i would really like to see even supporting this resolution going forward to understand how that payment will be pulled together.

one of the outstanding items when we pass a budget was the kindest thing that we would have to deal with this redevelopment agency issue coming up. we do not have a pot of money set aside for this redevelopment payment, whatever that amount might be. i would be interested in seeing what that is and what the trade- offs are of how we are pulling this together. of course, the other thing i would like to understand, going forward, we currently have every development financing package. we also have an infrastructure financing district package. that packet we have approved on two occasions through this board. given that we will be making significant one time payment, and given we had an ongoing obligation, whatever that valley will be, i would be interested to see how they're redevelopment financing package now compares to an ifd. in the past, the redevelopment financing package always succexceeded the ifd numbers,

but i imagine we will be set a better off with redevelopment financing. but i would like to better understand those costs, how it looks. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am curious. what other jurisdictions in california, do you know, are looking to pay this new membership fee? >> i understand certain jurisdictions, like los angeles and oakland, the council has already adopted the intention. we are just adopting the extension of time, but they have already completed their adoption and final in tension. supervisor mirkarimi: i support this, if not everybody, the house majority does. member should certainly has its privileges. this is a strange way to keep redevelopment alive, by requiring a $26 million fee, in

essence, to keep this retained. what do we get in return? >> certainly, as to provided to mention, redevelopment financing compared to other -- as supervisor chiu mentioned, redevelopment financing compared to the others can save us money. our project areas are very robust. those are the benefits that i will try to lay out and make the comparison, but the tax increment financing is a bit more lucrative for the city and county. for everyone dollar of tax income that they provide to us, the net effect to the city and county is 57 cents on the dollar. so it also helps from a general fund perspective, rather than using the entire dollar to get an ifd financing going. supervisor mirkarimi: does this also portend to potential agency changes its up? >> absolutely.

there could be changes in the law of how we could look for the funding for this payment. there are different mechanism that we're looking to do to make reductions in our administrative staff, personnel, as well as economic development. we will also look to rely report. our existing funds in comparison with our debt obligation as well. there will be some changes. as you know, it is difficult right now. we still have some very active areas. mid market is a survey area, and we are still committed to those areas, but we have not done new hire for quite some time, and we do not anticipate too. so we have to reprogram some of our staff, as well as some of our priorities. this will be a big hit to our housing projects. there will be some projects that we will have to delay because some of the money will have to come from housing. we could go into the details of

those specific projects and impact of that. some of it will not be as devastating because of the timing of the financing from the developer's expect -- perspective they allow us to delay our funding of it. other times, it would be a significant hit. we have been under dress for the past seven months. during the past seven months, we have not been a bit too many of our housing activity that we would have been. as a result, it will really impact the future pipeline. the work we should have been doing in the past nine months, we are doing to prepare for the housing construction that would have been happening in january 2012. so we will see the bigger impact in the next coming year. i cannot say today that i cannot build housing that will start september 1.

a lot of the critical that work should have happened by now -- redevelopment work that should happen by now. supervisor mirkarimi: other cities and counties looking to retain their read development designation. does that mean that the others are going to go away? >> frankly, many do not have the funds. san francisco does not take all our titled tax increment. we only bonn for products that we think will be immediate. we do not maximize on all of our abilities to get bond proceeds for tax increment. there are some -- i understand san jose had made some poor decisions and made some debt obligations to the city. there were some precarious market conditions that really

excited their demise. smaller redevelopment agencies that do not operate like us would be entirely eliminated because they will not have the funds available to make this payment. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. just one comment and question. in terms of the longevity -- and this is a conversation that we can have when items comes back to us. if we make a one-time payment, it will be substantial. one thing to consider is, does that mean make it to keep the development agency in perpetuity? in three years, could the legislature come back and abolish redevelopment? that is something that we need to address in the next presentation. finally, a question on a lawsuit. i know there is a pending claim by the state redevelopment agency. does that impact this proposal, going forward? >> a lawsuit that was found by

the league of cities, counsel association is challenging the legality of ab27, 26. it does lend itself to some uncertainty. as of now, some of the bond counsel is hasn't to -- hesitant to opine on whether we should be able to issue bonds prior to the resolution of the lawsuit. that further suspends some of the uncertainty we face. we will know a little bit more later on, the bending on whether it gets heard in the supreme court or not, how fast that is accelerated. it really is making a huge impact to our work and our ability to contract, and our existing contracts as well. given the additional time, we

will have more certainty when a comeback in august and september, to have a more detailed discussion. we will also have better numbers for you. at some point, we may also have better tax rolls, assessed values. then we will know the status of the lawsuit, and if any changes will be made to the current bill. there was some speculation that there could be some cleanup language. but we hope to have more information on those two things, and will go into detail discussion. supervisor chu: thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst thought reports -- budget analyst's report on it. i know we open this item up to the public. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> i just saw an item that looked just like you and walked just like you

and i knew that it grew turn the city on its corner, call out your name i knew it felt the same and it grew and it grew fix it up, won't you and all the schools fix it up, " you take my redevelopment away blues all this item, everything to me fix it up, " you please fix it up, won't you you will take away my redevelopment blues. supervisor chu: thank you very much.

are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am one of the co-sponsors of this resolution but i think it is important that we move forward with our intent. and our commitment to continuing our rid of all the projects in the city. there are many important projects that are important to many of our neighborhoods, including district 6. so i am very committed to this. it is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in, but i look forward to seeing how this moves forward with all the moving pieces. i do think it is important we move forward and keep redevelopment, here in san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, can we send this item forward to the full board with recommendations? ok, that will be the case. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda.

supervisor chu: thank you. i believe this is the last meeting until we come back from court recess. happy vacation to everybody. thank you. we are adjourned.