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 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