generated 71.2 are from san francisco. there have been 32 workers from san francisco working on-site. there are 124 workers in general on-site. of the number 20, actually live in the district 10, those three zip code areas. we are doing well in terms of the diversity and also even though the bayview contracting policies does not necessarily have minority and women goals, approximately 6 percent are female workers. >> great. i guess you don't to have go into it now but is there visibility into how much those individuals are working getting towards the question are these people approaching ft eshs. is it really more

sporadic than that. is there any way to see that? >> there is, there are ways to do that. but really our program is designed to track total work force hours and the goal is based on total work force hours. we can manipulate the data to generate for example, what is it the gross wage for residents of the bayview on the projector san francisco as a whole. if there is information that you like, we can work to provide that. >> well, yeah. i think you happen to be said that we track the information that we ask for. it might be that, that's a question that i have, but maybe it's not the most important one. maybe it's for another time that we can discuss. i wanted to bring it up since we

talked about contracting. >> our partner also tracks some of the data in a different manner. >> ycd does that work as well. so there are partners that have metrics and systems that might be useful for that. thank you, mr. bridges. >> commissioner? >> yes. i wanted to make a quick comment because i know we are running out of time. i wanted to thank both the staff and lan ar and everyone involved in the report. it's very comprehensive have and i'm glad to hear the report here because when i read it i was a little concerned about some of the numbers and i take to heart the pledges not only the good faith efforts in the past but going forward and i look forward to the next report and i'm pleased to hear that all of

these strategies are being thought through are in my experience excellent strategies. when you look at a scope if it's too large and if folks are not competing and you break it down, and if people are not getting noticed because they are tired of being told that something is available and it not available to them and they are debriefed and they didn't do as well as they thought they could. all of these strategies which i hear are being thought through certainly i think are excellent strategies going forward. the only small question i have is the issue of notice because it troubles me, basic notice is something that is critical to any contractor when an opportunity is present or not. i read in the report on page 6, that several of the bayview hunters points sbe's indicated

they had not received notice of bid opportunities. can someone explain to me, maybe did you already and maybe i missed it. is this, the systems were not in place, the systems that you talked about were not in place or folks just ignored the notice? >> we are not sure how that happened because we've done so much work with redevelopment agency with over 25 years. we understand all the processes to go through. we go out on the website, we go out on several publications and we send out several letters and we've worked with people in the past and our e-mail that we used to e-mail blast people. for some reason there were people that said they didn't get notice. we had a copy of the letter that we sent to him. he turned in a bid four months after. we were able to reverse a contract that

had gone out and awarded to him because he was local. so we are trying. and then once we found that situation, we made sure that all the data we had was correct for the next phase. we made sure he was in the data base to get the notification the next time around. we've been improved but something address are in correct and they haven't gone through the certification and we are just going through the most recent list that we have. >> okay. >> george bridges, i would like to add that often the companies will have an e-mail and it might be an admin person and they are no longer there and when the offering comes to them the small business has not changed their e-mail address. we try to remind them, if there is anything that has changed, make sure you contact either us

or the center contract monitoring department. make sure all your information is up to date otherwise they would not get that e-mail notification. >> just to add to what mr. bridges said to reduce the margin of error with these e-mail list and mr. bridges can elaborate the contractor directly downloads, there is an ex- port in the excel sheet and the contractor, the developer is able to do that from the oci website. it's not a question of lost in translation between the different parties. it's a direct download and greatest and latest information that we have from contractors and we utilize the cities list as well to get the broadest reach. >> finally, i would like to say that we recognize that there were communication issues in the first bid, 50-5 # and in my

presentation i mentioned the layers of communication. defer did mention we are now using a three layered communication system, we are e-mailing, faxing and telephoning. when you start a project there may be discrepancies in the data. as we engage more and more contractors and defer has created his data base, that is flushed out and we expect that communication to improve as we go forward. thank you. >> thank you. just a note on the time for our meeting today. we will be suggesting to this commission that we continue our closed session item. so don't sense is escence se censure yourself. this is an

informational item. are there any questions or comments? thank you very much. thank you to our presenters. we look forward to working with you all in the future. madam secretary please call next item. >> item c final workshop on the long range property management plan pursuant section 43191.5 semi below bill. >> thank you, this is an informational workshop on the property management plan now that we have paid monies due in taxing. approximately11 100-0000. we did an time clock. it was issue boo i the state and 6 months later we must

issue this plan. we have been as you will hear from staff out in the community. they have been out there rigsly, tierl lease and on weekends and you will hear about the additional outreach efforts to be able to put together a plan that works within the context of dissolution law. we've already been to second workshop at the oversight board last week. this is the second workshop here and we'll be teaming up action for your consideration as well as the oversight board's consideration for the state department of finance. i would like to ask reynolds with the development division to present this item? >> thank you deputy director. i apologize, i'm also not feeling well myself. i guess in the interest of time, i'm not going

to do all the slides that i was going to do. i think i will just, i know there is a lot of materials that was given to you in your packet, not just this packet, but the original packet that went to you on august 20th for the first workshop. between that workshop and this workshop and then a couple at least one info memo. you have had a lot of material. i think what i will do is focus on the disposition plans and then get, allow for more time for questions and comments. this again today is not everything that is going to be in the disposition plan. what i'm going over quickly with you today is the ones that is a subset. it's just the ones that were either to be determined

for the workshop or unclear disposition plan. that's the focus of this one today. so just quickly i'm just going over one quick brief slide about what basically our alternatives under the dissolution law and you can see here the property that i'm focusing today are the parcels and the shipyard parcels and the shipyard community parcels and the mission bay park parcels and the yerba buena gardens and we'll go through timeline because we are in the homestretch of this plan. so just briefly just to review what the alternatives are the 1st that we can retain. if we have an asset that has a

governmental purpose of some sort, then in that case we need to transfer it to the city or whatever the relevant public entity is to own it and operate it in the future. or no. 2, we can retain some property, but only if we are to fulfill a first obligation and we have terminated -- interpret that to mean an obligation. the state department of finances has indicated to us in other conversations that they this i that we should transfer other obligations like property management obligation of the city. when i'm talking about retaining something, i'm talking about a development obligation. then the third, if the property doesn't fall into those two then it has to be sold. there is only an exception to that and the law which is that if it's a property that it's a very

narrow exception if it was a property that would identify a specific use for a redevelopment plan, then in that case it has to be transferred to the city. i have been keeping those, we have kept those in mind as we have discussed these properties internally and physical figuring out what the best plan is for all of these and we'll be producing these to you today. first the transbay parcels and what we are talking about here is one that we own now, we only own one, it's block 11b which is purple. and then we have options to purchase in the if the two other park parcels and block 10

in the corner. so like i said i'm not going through the enforceable obligation discussion because there is a lot of information in your memo and if you have questions i will answer. i'm going skip right to the disposition plan for those. for 11b and 3, so for parks, 11 b and 3. we have the same disposition. we would basically just retain those temporarily to fulfill our development obligation. we would ensure that they are developed as parks and then once they are developed as parked we transfer them to the city and the city would maintain them using funds with funds from the community benefit districts that would be formed in the future. the transfer date for those, 11b is estimated to be in 2016 sometime and blocks 3 would be

2019. so lot 10 what we were going to do is just not exercise our option on block 10 because this parcel is immediately adjacent to land that the tjpa already owns and is going to actually operate a park under some bus ramps in the future and it makes sense to just retain it and incorporate it to larger park that we are going to be operating in pag land and park land and they will be operating that on itself. now the shipyard park parcels and the shipyard community parcels. this map generally shows where things are in the shipyard. phase one which is kind of the two gold areas in the white

horseshoe there in the middle of the parkland, that's hill top and hillside about 75 acres in phase one and phase two is the rest of the shipyard and candlestick point there on the other side. the ship yard parcels is there, and it's about 21 acres and we have accepted 200 acres in parkland in phase two. one of the buildings in phase one has a module plan on it. additionally it was from your memo from the community facilities parcel. the disposition plan for that in what i'm going present today an appears in your memo. it's one of the park parcels in phase one. the shipyard

community parcels there are green and those are comprised of vacant land and studios of building 813 which is slaetd for king tech incubator. then i'm going skip the enforceable obligation and go to the disposition. for the park parcels, it's very similar to transbay where we would retain them temporarily to fulfill our development obligations which would mean to ensure they are developed as parked and we would transfer them to the item a: authorizing the issuance of tax allocation bonds for the mission bay south redevelopment project area in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $70,000,000, and approving and directing the execution of an indenture of trust, and a bond purchase contract, and approval of other related documents and actions, mission bay south redevelopment project area. discussion and actionn resolution no. 52-20133 page 3 of 3 bb update on the status of hunters point shipyard local contracting and construction workforce hiring; hunters point shipyard project area. discussionn cc final workshop on the long-range property management plan pursuant to section 34191.5 of assembly bill 1484 'redevelopment dissolution law'". discussionn

dd workshop on the streetscape master plan, signage plan and major phase 1 application for candlestick point; candlestick point and phase 2 of the hunters point developed as parked and we would transfer them to the city 1234 city for governmental purpose. the phase one parks, we will transfer these parks in major faces as they are completed. the phase one parks will probably transfer to the city in the next 7-10 years that will include the modular building. in phase two it's really hard to quantify when the transfer would happen because it really depends on the pace of the federal remediation effort and the pace of private development. any way the city can then once transferred the city can fund the benefit on the maintenance of the park. the shipyard communities parcels, it was three things, vacant land and parcels. for the vacant land, what we are suggesting is again, we already own 1.2 acres in phase one and we will own another 5 acres in phase 2 about 6 acres. we have an obligation to require these

parcels and developed the infrastructure. they intended to use the finance the development of these parcels. that is no longer available. given that situation, the best hopes for them to be developed is to transfer them to the city and have the city and partnership with the developer and the community of course work out some sort of plan to develop these parcels. but we will retain them temporarily as they go from law land to finished lots and then transfer to city for future development. the phase 1 lots will transfer to major phases over the the next four 4 years and the next project redevelopment schedule.

other studios, what i'm going to say is a little bit different than what is in the memo. the artist studios wr on building 101 now which currently houses artist. and under the phase two dda we are required to own what's known as the artist r e placement billion which -- building and will also transfer to us and we'll own in the future. in this situation, what we are proposing is that we would again -- retain both of these buildings until all the permanent structure has been completed on both buildings and at that time when the artist is relocated, at that time we would transfer both buildings to the city per an enforceable

obligation and what we are saying is that because of the restrictions, the rent restriction that are contained in the tda where these buildings have to be basically rented to the artist at cost, that the only real way to ensure that in the future is to have these buildings remain in public ownership. to do that it made sense for the city and what exact entity in the city is not clear right now but would be some city entity. the estimated transfer date for those would be in the next 3-4 years. then finally building 13, that one is the same as it is in the memo. that one we will acquire once it's transferred from the navy and that building will be sold at market value but with the restriction that it must be

used for the a designated facility use. it would be built by the developer but the actual renovation on building 13 would have to be completed later when the property is sold. the estimated transfer date in this case is within 5 years. so that's the shipyard. the mission bay park parcels are a little different. we don't own these parcels. we lease them from the city. right now we are leasing about 13 acres of parkland that has been finished. we lease these parks from the city for property management purposes. we lease them and thp we maintain them with funds from a community facilities district. so we

lease 13 now on this map. the ones that we lease now are shown in dark green which means they are owned by the city..or dark blue which means they are owned boo i the port. there is also a very small park there in pink that's opened by the puc. then in the future, we have options to lease about 27 more acres in the future once these parks are completed. on this map, these are shown in light green which is ownership by the city and light blue and chs ownership by the port. altogether it's about 40 acres. again i will skip the obligations. and so in this case, the decision would be, we've had conversations with the developer, and out at

mission bay and also the city about what would be the best thing to do do with these parks about what we could do. so what we are proposing is that we would continue to lease and manage these parks, the completed ones and future ones until their developed until the master plan is finished on all 40 acres and when that is done which is expected to be in 2022. at that point we'll terminate the lease on the parks and transfer them as a unit, as a system to the city. and the city has expressed it's intent to continue managing them as a single park system. they can continue -- using the funds. we recommend the success or agency retain the

responsibility of admin sistering the cfd given the complexity of transferring that responsibility. that's mission bay. now yerba buena gardens. yerba buena gardens, i'm going to remind everybody what the property means. there is 3 blocks. what i'm talking about this as a single group of properties. they cover 3 blocks, the first one central block one closest to market street. on that block, we own the plaza and then we lease a bunch of parcels to millennium, these are properties operating at yerba buena gardens, the hotel and four seasons and

underground passage ways near market street and we also lease to the marriott and the land under the marriott and these are large revenue generating properties that all the money goes into operating the public uses on central block two. most of it goes on central block two. then central block two is the map -- main block where the central block area is except the metro building. we lease the land under the met troin and that's another revenue generating use. then central block 3, is children's focus block. he we don't own any improvements, but we lease the land. we lease all the land in which all the improvements sit. the children's garden, the

child center and the ice skating center. so here, again, we've had conversations with the city about this and with these stake holders out there and yes, -- yerba buena gardens and the plans are to transfer the assets of the city and continue to manage in some unified fashion. and the city has stated publically they are committed to keeping them together and managing them together but the exact management structure has yet to be determined whether it be some city department or separate non-profit or possibly some separate authority. but the estimated transfer date here is sometimes 2015, probably. and the city could then continue to use the funds from these leases, all the

leases would transfer. they can use the funds to operate the gardens, but the money for the capital improvement is another thing that has yet to be determined but we are looking into several options about the city about how capital improvements can be used in the future for yerba buena gardens. and finally other properties, i have two, the fillmore heritage center and the garage and commercial air rights parcel and then the foods co-property which is land we own adjacent to bayview hunters point and it's land that we lease to the kroegos shopping store. the

commercial airline parcel, like i said we own those, but the commercial air lights parcel is under a ground lease with fillmore development commercial who has certain rights under the ground lease to purchase the parcel over time. it's about $3 million that's owed. if it's paid over time, the developer would own that parcels. right now it owns rights to that parcel. but so far in construction loan to the city. i know in your materials there is a lot more information, but i will just briefly say that the city borrowed $5.5 million from the u.s. department of housing and urban development hud to make an alone with fdc, and the city has an alone -- loan. with

hud. the city uses that money to pay hud and that hasn't been happening and the city is owed about $1.4 million. in addition we all know that the main tenant, yoesh san francisco is in an agreement proceeding. i know a memo was provided to the commission that gave a lot more information about this. so given all of that, it's likely it's very likely that the city is going to foreclose on its city interest. from that scenario, the disposition plan would be for either the success or agency to work with