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 conversation about what we're going to be doing with affordable housing, work force training, and the existing projects, those are things that are still being worked out by the city and we have time to weigh in on that a part of the budget analyst recommendation is to have the board direct the budget analyst, perhaps to do additional analysis on other aspects, and

it is my intention, with the support of colleagues here, to bring a number of a follow-up hearings on the redevelopment agency in to get updates on what is happening, and at that juncture, to ask the budget alice to provide additional information to help make the decision. we are going to ultimately see this on at the budget, but we would like to see updates ahead of time so that we can have a meaningful way of winning in this process. i think it is going to be a important for us to deal with issues like stephanie -- staffing and what the organizational restructuring it will look like. we want to know what the revenues will look back. when it comes back to the general fund, that will have a direct impact on our budget. we want to know about the major projects and whether the enforceable obligations definition is action what is coming to be. we want to know about our low and moderate income fund and what is happening with affordable housing projects, in addition to other smaller projects in the carper folio.

i think there is an awful lot of information, a lot of decisions about staffing, parties, and organizational matters that will be coming before us. today is to make sure we are retaining the assets and steady -- stepping up the structure. if we do not pass the legislation to make sure we're the successor organization, it will go to the housing authority in terms of housing assets, and non-housing assets will go to a successor agency, to be determined by the state. because of his projects are so important to the san francisco community and to what we're doing here, it does not make sense for us to allow for that to happen. i absolutely would be supportive of this resolution, and i want to thank the departments and supervisors who have been involved. supervisor kim: thank you. i think addressed many of the points i was going to make. i actually think that this is a very narrow piece of what we're going to be doing in terms of

the long term, with committing three development activities and controls to the city and county of san francisco. that is why i am is supporting this resolution, because it is a limited number of things that we are required to do quired -- prior to february 1 in order to have any sort of plan to meet the state's debt like. as supervisor chu allied committing housing projects to the mayor's office of housing is a very natural fit. they had the expertise and capacity to do that. i am pleased to see that the city is fighting for the low mod fund remaining as a whole in the city for us to be able to develop, and all of the affordable housing projects we have promised that we desperately need to see built, and the dissolution of tida as a redevelopment agency. it has never acted as a a redevelopment authority. i think the things put forward in this resolution are basic.

in terms of the oversight body, i think they're fairly limited in some of the changes. they have to work with in the land-use plan that we have already passed and have gone through the legislative process here at the board. it is ltd. 23 project areas. we still have many other area plants that we have a lot of questions around, including south of market, yerba buena, which is no longer an area plan. but we still have many other questions that need to get addressed. this will be coming through the budget committee. many of the funds in development are going to be going through the property tax apportionment and will come back to the city. i think all 11 members of the board will be away in in terms of what our priorities are around economic development and workforce development. i want to make sure that we commit as much as we can, given the increased number of dollars that are coming back to the city on the promises we have made to

our communities. i support moving this forward. i also want to thank supervisor cohen for her work with the mayor's department and numerous departments. i think there many months, many trailing pieces that will be coming to us. this is not a hasten the process in terms of what we have to do by february 1. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim has made a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. supervisor avalos: just before voting, i feel we have to move quickly. i feel like i have not heard enough from members of the public, people who are involved with housing development, people who have concerns about the oversight board and how it works. i know we have to move quickly. i feel like we might need an

extra week. i am going to approve it going out of committee, and i will give its recommendation, this item, but i feel like it could come forward on tuesday with questions. i want to make sure that, you know, we expect that there will be some discussion that will happen at the full board that could lead to a continuance of the item. and if there are other ways that we might need to have a process that includes greater discussion and gives us more time, perhaps an extra special board meeting, i think that that is something worth considering. but i think there is a lot of questions that we could still have about this resolution and its unintended consequences. but for right now, i am willing to move it forward. but we could end up being in the board of supervisors with proposed changes that might need extra public comment that

we should be prepared to deal with. supervisor chu: thank you for your comments. supervisor kim: speaking to his point about questions that may arise to the board meeting tuesday, it is important for members of the public to be about to articulate the oversight bodies of 30 over land-use designations, and with that could mean and what that would not need. just so there's a clear understanding of the potential of that authority and what it means and what it does not mean so we provide a level of safety. comfort to folks that are worried about the plans as they exist today. supervisor chu: thank you. i expect the departments will be there on tuesday to address questions and concerns. are there any further comments before we vote?

>> a question for the deputy city attorney. because of the quick nature of this, not clear if we have had full public discussion, if we were to double that i am not sure i want to make this notion or not, but if we were to have this heard at the board of supervisors as a whole committee, if we made amendments that, in some cases, would be considered substantive, could that lead to a continuance at the full board? >> through the chair, supervisor avalos, if amendments were made at the full board next week, that would require a continuance, whether you see it at the committee as a whole next week or not. because it is the meeting at which the amendments are made, that then requires an additional opportunity and notice, an opportunity for the public to come and comment about the

changes that are made. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. i am fine in moving forward as is. supervisor chu: thank you. do we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations? we will take that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us today? >> that completes the agenda for today. supervisor chu: thank you, we are adjourned.