walk through what the board of supervisors did, the resolutions before you today, and then as supervisors chu mentioned, we have a number of staff from city agencies are available to answer your questions. >> we have been joined by supervisor cohen. i know that you are a sponsor of this legislation. would you like to offer any comments? >> thank you very much. my comments are pretty humbling just to say think you to all the people that have been involved in this process from start to finish. thank you for hearing this item so quickly. iso want to thank the staff persons that have worked tirelessly on this particular item. i look forward to hearing from each one of you. this outlines the materials

before us which demonstrates that there is a number of actions that the city must take in order to protect the housing and public assets and to ensure that the city can implement important development projects and community obligations. i just want to say thank-you and i'm looking forward to the presentation. >> thank you, supervisor. the resolution before you today addresses the transfer of assets and obligations from the redevelopment agency to the city. on december 29th, the supreme court issued its decision in a legal case, the california redevelopment agency versus the state of california. they decided that this was constitutional and that a be 27

was unconstitutional. what that means is that redevelopment is abolished and there is no ability for locals jurisdictions to buy back into redevelopment. what that means for us is working closely with the redevelopment agency, there is the city attorney's office, the city had been a straighter, and the comptroller's office. we have to determine what the fiscal and operational impact is of becoming the sister agency. it means that the redevelopment agency is dissolved and all assets will transfer to the city along with those obligations. those obligations to include major development projects as well as other commitments that the agency has made better binding by contract.

people have been concerned about the retiree health fund and whether or not those obligations will be viewed as a forcible and they are. all of their work beyond in forcible obligation either terminates or is transferred to the city. what does the resolution do? this those five important things that allows us to make sure we're ready for the resolution that occurs by law. the first thing it does is that the firms of the city will take on being the successor agency and exercises the city's right to assume the affordable housing aspect and obligation and designates the mayor's office of housing as the entity where the housing will be completed. it also provides for the continuance of our three major

projects which are missions bay, candlestick, and transbay, each of which is governed by a binding contract. this does this by designating the director of the administrative services as the entity to manage those projects going forward and provides the oversight board with the responsibilities that were previously held by the agency's commission with respect to those obligations. it rescinds redevelopment powers because they cannot rely on this for the development plan and finally recognizes the authority of the comptroller and the treasurer to receive added minister funds for the agency. as i think both of the supervisors' book initially alluded to, this has happened very quickly and there are many things that are still to be

determined. there is a lot we don't know yet. one of the biggest questions that remains at our office is to really determine what is the amount that will be needed to pay for the enforceable obligations and how much is left to continue the work that the agency was doing previously. the other thing that i think continues to be uncertain is what tools will be available to local jurisdictions to do we development activities. there is likely to be so activities at the state level but we don't know what those tools will be going forward. we certainly look forward to working with this committee, going forward towards the budget where we have a number of these questions and get sorted

out. as i mentioned, there are other agencies have available to answer questions. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> good afternoon. assembly bill 26, the bill that saw the redevelopment agency requires the city to make an affirmative election, whether they want to maintain the housing access and housing obligations that formulate the publication of the redevelopment agency. if the city does not like to do that, this would go to the redevelopment authority. the city does not need an election to become a successor agency. they automatically transferred to the city unless the city determines that they don't want them. that is the context of this

legislation. under the proposed legislation, it would transfer housing assets to the mayor's office of housing and the non housing assets, any responsibility for the three major development projects to the director of administrative services. this would be candlestick point, some parts of mission bay and transbay. the city would be responsible to meet the obligations of these forms of redevelopment obligations and the increment financing that would have to sit on to the redevelopment agency and would be transferred to the city to pay for these obligations. under the legislation, the assumption is that there will be remaining property tax revenues to the city for general

purposes once the obligations are met and the property taxes have been distributed to all of the taxing industries. at this point and time, financing information is insufficient to determine what the full impact is of resolving the redevelopment agency. for the first six months, there is a recognized obligation payment schedule with $220 million in obligations. $90 million of the obligation could be viability for pension and medical benefits for present and retired redevelopment agency employees that the city would

assume. there has not been a determination, about 100 would be transferred to the city. this is the collective bargaining rights that they may have in the transfer. in terms of the assignment of these employees and what their responsibilities to be, that has not been determined yet. because this legislation is necessary to implement, the recommendation is approval. because of the unknown fiscal impact and many of the aspects of the plan that have not been determined, we do recommend that if the board of supervisors wishes to make the budget legislative analyst too conduct further assessment of the

impact. >> we want to point out the city attorney is available for any questions. i believe that supervisor: wanted to make additional comments. >> both the budget director and budget analysts gave you pretty in-depth overview but i think as supervisor cohen said, your question was to what particular obligations are we looking at. with respect to the non housing assets which will be transferred to the city administrator's office, those range from our major projects. we have contracts in place for mission bay, transbay, as well as other contracts.

the operating agreement with the mexican museum and the mission site with millennium partners which is an ongoing obligation which will continue under oversight from the city administrator's office. the budget resolution does resolution does provide for coordinated focus. -- the budget resolution does provide for coordinated focus and working with the mayor's office on other ways to staff these enforceable obligations as we move forward. in terms of the house in assets, there are a number of very important housing assets that are already underway in contrast which we believe are encumbered. in total, there is approximately 200 million in moderate income housing funds and the projects that are either in contract funded under way which we believe are encumbered.

those range from public housing rebuilds, alex griffith, mary helen rogers. all of these things are obligations that will continue under the direction of the mayor's office of housing. with respect to staffing, i would like to clarify and say that as we have understood from the city, as of february first, the redevelopment agencies will dissolve in the court decision. the redevelopment agency's staff and approximately 100 bodies in place today. all's duffel move on february 1 to the city administrator's office and through a process and analysis that we have with many charts and excel spreadsheets

that show all of the obligations with the housing assets and once analysis is in complete -- is complete, the purpose staffing, how to manage each of these functions, a determination will be made on how to redress these obligations. >> thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment? >> good morning, supervisors. eric brooks representing aggrieved party and the local grassroots organizations which has four and a half thousand supporters in san francisco. most of whom vote and most of whom get reports through us for voting. this is the item i came for. none of you have received communications from a or probably many other people from

a because this was up so fast. i was able to alert from various organizations that have faced challenges and concerns about redevelopment projects. i know you have to go fast but this is incredibly premature. we have a situation where the board will be making one of the most important decisions it has ever made in its history, which is who will oversee redevelopment and what agencies and staff will be in charge and especially the oversight board, all conversations i have had with other organizes around this always talks about the elected board of supervisors itself assuming that role. i myself have done on behalf of my member organizations extensive comments on both

treasure island and the bayview hunters point phase two and i have spoken to other organizers as well. none of us received any warning that this was coming whatsoever. everyone that has made comments on redevelopment agency projects for, i guess, whatever, a notice should go out to them. we should have another hearing at least in budget and finance and we should do a real public hearing on this and move this around so that we make a much more informed decision. the public is unaware of this. >> thank you. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> i would like to thank you, and the city for absorbing the

redevelopment agency on march 30th. but we have seen the neighborhood improved so much through the redevelopment efforts. i recognize that this is unrealistic for a transfer of that magnitude. i reckon that the transfer would be more realistic if the extension, like the gentleman before me said come on that everyone has been shocked by this news. i think that an extension of like six months, even to a year would be a more realistic transfer of this type of

responsibility. i would like to voice my opinion on behalf of the parish of st. patrick. thank you. >> thank-you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. by a understand that the city needs to move fast on this but there is a major policy change that is enacted in this that i think deserves greater consideration. if you read this resolution, we have binding land-use controls. some of them are the planning code, some of them are for redevelopment plans. and a lot of areas, some of these documents are very dated, but we do have a set of legislative land use controls for this purpose. it should be like the rest of the city, which would be the

rule under which development takes place. if you want to change them, they have to be changed through legislative process. the one provision that really concerns me about this because this is really unprecedented. we are going into completely uncharted waters with this. on page 21, it says that the oversight board is authorized to approve changes to enforceable changes including changes to the land use controls and a financing plan. we have seen this oversight board which can make legislative changes to any redevelopment plan, to any design for development control in these three neighborhoods of the city. there is no appeal process for these legislative changes. so you as representatives are giving land-use control to an unelected body. we know that denise to be a transitional body to deal with financial and all of that but

this is a huge change in the way the city does land use and we think this provision should be struck and we think we need to have a conversation about how to do land use. for the first time in probably 30, 40 years, we have the upper to to to have one set of land use controls in the cities. this is trading at an unaccountable body and a whole bunch of other power that you should consider before you give away. >> thank you. >> i have a quick question. i'm curious to know, do you have suggestions? >> if this were mine, i would strike the provisions that allow this body to amend the actual land-use control, retain the provisions that would allow the oversight board to approve projects within the existing land-use control, and then you maintain legislative control over the land use change so that

that oversight board or if you went in there, you would amended the design for and development controls, for example, it would go through the normal process, the way any planning code amendment would. that would be my suggestion, to kind of keep it on par with other land use controls and the code. i think also over time, and again, we will not do this as part of this effort. there is a question of policy here. the older redevelopment areas like mission bay have the design for development codes and they did not use the planning code at all. then they went through the time with three development, where they said, we want to use the planning code, right? we want to the extent that we have have one set of planning controls, one plan for the city, but we will use the redevelopment powers selectively

for the approval of projects funded by the agency. then, some of the newer projects went back. the president i'm talking about would be similar to the way you did treasure island this year and a way that you did the controls for park merced. these were negotiated agreements, these are development agreements, but there are controls and the planning code that will be amended. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors. we're very proud of the efforts of the san francisco redevelopment agency in creating this project and creating the process. we want to express our support

of this resolution going forward and said our compliments to the city administration's office. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i have been waiting for this day. i did not even imagine that this day would come when i started 20 something years ago. i'm appalled that the process is continuing even though we're getting rid of that giant. this is the same thing that happened in 1948. back when redevelopment was first put together, in a smoke- filled room. i have the history on how they put together this so-called

urban renewal but we called it a negro removal. they talked about how significant this did. having you checked the history of what they'd done to the african-americans here in san francisco? now, here we got them, we will have to make sure that they are accountable. what are you doing it, russia and it if you are not even looking at -- what are you doing? you are rushing it. the african-american out migration. i don't need no permission to do what i'm doing. right now, the records show that the redevelopment agency has been detrimental to the african-american kennedy and there is no gift back now. the only thing we have to do is that we will have to file a lawsuit. i will file the suit along with

others to stop all of these procedures. i am ashamed of ed lee. he complained on how redevelopment has done. how dare him without consulting to the committee, with the western addition. this is insulting. we will have to file a lawsuit. >> thank you. are there other members of the public that wish to speak on this item: number9? >> i would like to give the interim director of the redevelopment agency an opportunity to address and the sticky questions that i heard that will may be shed some light. one, if you can speak to the extension of the deadline. this is the question raised by

the woman from st. patrick's parish. then, if you can discuss what actual powers we have. thank you. >> thank you. one, on the extension, when i heard the woman from st. patrick's church articulate and ask for an extension of the time for the transition. what we do know is that redevelopment agencies will be dissolved as of february 1. there is no appeal process, there is nothing that we can do to change that. there is talk of potential state legislation out there. we cannot control that. we must act affirmatively and accordingly in compliance. the time for transition, we expect there will be transition

commencing on february 1. we believe it may last until at least march 30th it, there was a conversation to the budget discussion with you on how housing should be structured as a move forward and how they should be implemented. the resolution does provide oversight board with the ability to oversee of the major development projects. each of these have plans that planning and the board have approved and are being implemented as such, for example in mission day, it is about half done. we're just getting started at hunters point shipyard, a phase one and phase two, both with a moving forward on alice griffith as well as the broader shipyard.

this oversight board will have the ability consistent with our contractual obligations with our third-party developers to be able to implement these projects and the agreement consistent with the city's obligation that we have with these third party developers. any further approvals consistent with those obligations and the oversight board will be able to prove so long at this does not increase the enforceable obligations. all of these major projects are on this and forcible obligation schedule. the comptroller has a role in making sure that the payments are made for these enforceable obligations, the oversight board improves these and whatever changes or additional contracts are made pursuant to those obligations. the oversight board approves

that and then the state of california reviews that and the comptroller conduct an audit of those activities. there is a pretty good degree of oversight. the reason why we have structured and proposed to have a coordinated management function is because their largest generators of economic activity, parks, affordable housing really left in the city. we have an important obligation to make sure that those continue to move expeditiously contrary to what the speaker said. the oversight board will not have the ability to approve changes to those redevelopment plans consistent with how this board has acted previously for all plans. this board will approve those changes, if

supervisor chu: thank you. i want to comment. in terms of the time line, we spoke to the february 1 deadline, and that is sending we're moving quickly on. today's legislation truly a firms to the successor agencies will be to receive assets and obligations to the redevelopment agency, specifically indicating that affordable housing assets come in addition to the low and moderate-income housing fund, close to moe, and the others go to the department of administrative services under the city administrator. talks about the requirements for payment and performance, authorizes the oversight board, rescinds the redevelopment as ignition for treasure island, and makes findings under ceqa. it is laying out the framework under which we can address how it is we are going to be structuring 3 development activities going forward. i think that conversa a