area center. >> it can be sold separately. >> okay. is there something that we can change in the property management plan or when we make the determination that an asset is to be sold, does it just mean sell or can we add use restrictions to the selling for the disposition in the property management plan? >> well, i think that the whole point of doing all this is the state, you know, wants to get as much money as possible. and yes, it's true in this case the state wouldn't get any money because of the the cdbg restrictions, but in other cases where we brought properties before them, they've focused on are you getting -- even when it's restricted revenue, are you getting as much money as possible, and if there's not a use restriction on it, i think it would be

difficult to apply a new use restriction on it because the state would look at that as us trying to purposely reduce the value. >> i think i -- the reason i asked that question is because i feel the garage parcel adds to the value of the enter social center itself. so if it can be sold to someone who is doing rental on another lot nearby and they choose to buy that garage and then they say this is only for residents or for this particular use, but not necessarily for the heritage center, i think that would lower value of the commercial parcel in heritage center. i was wondering if we could enjoin the two in some way that would enhance the value of both. >> maybe not today, but i think before -- >> i mean, we are approving

these plans essentially kind of fuzzily. there's any number of ways to negotiate a sale. i wonder if that's something we need to talk about today or something we can be -- >> i think the fair market value is -- i think to answer your question is that we would have to -- we're just saying generally we're going to sell it under the assumption that we're going to try to get as much money as possible. i don't know if having it restricted for residents would be more valuable, i dunno. if that's more valuable than just having a garage that's open to the public, i don't know. >> which brings me to my next question. i know that there's multiple charts in this binder that show the market value that you have on hand.

some of them are based on leaseholds, others are based on other types of methods that were used. for something like that we'd have to assume this would be an appraisal. would that be part of the sale process? >> no. >> other question related to that -- are there any methods that we'd use that the state may take irk issue with? an example, my eyebrow's a little bit raised when i read about using leasehold value for 345 avenue, which is currently held by kroger in hunters point. there's many ways to look at the assessed values for that property. do we think that the state will question some of the methods that we've used for assessing

the value of the property that will be sold or is that just something that's later. >> i'm sure that's possible. i think the reason that is put in is because that is one of our arguments is that that's an enforceable obligation. there is this ground lease and we realize it's a below market ground lease, but that proper /tpeu if it was sold with that ground lease on it, that's the only revenue that would be generated from that property. you're right, it would have a completely different value if the ground lease wasn't there, but that's the current condition. >> yep. okay. and then final thing just on the air rights parcel. i know for the jewish museum it's the same model where the development rights were sold so you can't do anything so there was transfer with value of zero. do we think that the state will agree where that method or do will they try to say it should

be the same as the air rights parcel. >> for the jewish museum, if they question that we can prove to the state that the development rights were sold and so there is no potential for building above the contemporary jewish museum. >> okay. concludes my questions for now, thank you tracy. and anyone else. sorry, i've interrupted anyone. again, i do think we can put on the future agenda what is the collaboration process and that public process again is separate from this. i've asked my specific questions about property management plan issues. i think a lot will be addressed when it 's time to dispose of properties. with that, unless there's any other questions or comments, i'd like to suggest a language change to the resolution and then take a motion on the

amended resolution so let us see, where did we make that suggestion? that they strongly urge the city to take into account community concerns and suggestions for the decision property. >> i just don't think that this resolution is the proper place to do that. >> mm-hm. >> i think something that would be more suitable is directing the staff to come up with an actual process as we dispose of these properties, which would include immunity and put community recommendations so that when we do dispose of these properties we'll say whatever department it's going to, here are the properties and here are our recommendations and how to carry out the pumps purposes of the property. >> i like that better.

>> certainly those two sentiments are not mutually exclusive. you could insert a clause per the chair's suggestion and direct staff to do as commissioner said to make sure there's community input and concerns. >> could be a decision of the commission, but you could do both. >> just clarity working out a process so that no matter what property it is, no matter where it's going, we're taking these necessary steps to ensure that whatever we put forth in that process is like a checklist, so to speak. >> what can we include in this? >> that's for staff to gather something for us. >> i would recommend we do both, the executive director has suggested that we include the language in the resolution. we can be both generic and specific so we can talk about involvement of the community,

but specifically mention western edition. there's principles developed, community effort involved. i think we can name those two, but not be exclusive to those two. we have language including but not limited to and then three illustrations of where we're concerned that they're b community concerns being considered by the city. when we approach the city or when staff approaches the city it's not a generic wish, it's something very concrete. >> i'm okay with that. >> okay.

do we have that language proposal clear? >> did we get that? >> i think you could have it as a second resolve so be it further resolved that the commission hereby strongly urges the city and county of san francisco to take into consideration the concerns and demands of the relevant communities, including but not limited to fillmore and hunters point. >> that sounds great. >> would those recommendations come from us, is it our job to get those recommendations attached to? >> i think we do not have to answer that question today. you know why? because part of the reason why i've been so vague about the

whole process is there cease on the properties that will transfer to offices of so we need to look at how that's going to work. okay. >> i move a resolution that has that language in it. >> i second the stipulation. >> thank you very much. madam secretary please call the roll. >> johnson. >> i. >> the vote is five i's. >> thank you very much. we're going to direct staff to start thinking about a model for collaboration and we'll discuss it as part of our commissioner matters in future meetings. please call next item. >> item 5c, confirming housing assets transferred to the city

and county of san francisco as housing successor under california health and safety code section 34176 action resolution number 642013 madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, this next item review in essence of a revised housing asset transfer list is really a companion piece to the item the property management plan that you just reviewed and considered and took public comment for. it's really a clarification due to disillusion laws, dissolving, being part of the city where as assets are and would be quite helpful for title companies to make sure that it is clear in one place what are the assets that have transferred to the housing

successor and those that are still yet to transfer with the commissions and oversight board's approval. >> thank you director, good afternoon president johnson and commissioners. again, sally, deputy director. again, the action before you is a confirmation of the housing assets that have been transferred to the city and county of san francisco under dissolution law. i'd like to review some of the key actions that have taken place prior to dissolution? in january just the city took action through board of supervisor's resolution 11-12 to elect to retain the housing functions of the former redevelopment agency and to accept the housing assets,

accept a transfer of all of the housing assets pursuant to disillusion law that was comprised of assembly bill ab 26. in march of 2012 the oversight board took action to acknowledge all of the housing assets had transferred to the city as housing successor. however, the end of june of 2012, the state amended disillusion law through assembly bill 1384. it did a lot of things, but one of the things it did was it changed how the assets should be treated, especially in transfers to housing successors and provided that transfers of housing assets exclude any balances that are retained in the low and moderate income housing fund and ex/khraoded the transfer of any obligations

that were retained by the successor agency. it also required that housing successors provide a list to the state called the housing asset transfer list or the hat. that due date was august 1, so pretty much just one month later the city was required to turn in the hat and the city did that on august 1 and it included again all the housing ass sets including all the low and moderate housing funds balances in conformance with the actions that had taken place in january. at that time it was unclear what the im/paeubgt of 1384 was. it wasn't until october 2012 until the city implemented 1384 through an ordinance which created this commission and elected to retain certain

affordable obligations in two major categories. first were all the affordable housing obligations related to the major improved development projects, mission bay, shipyard, and the transbay redevelopment project areas. what 215-12 did, was identified obligations to our replacement housing obligation, the 6700 housing units that were destroyed by the previous agency and not replaced, often referred to as sb 213. that was a retained housing obligation of the successor agency. in november of that same year dof began to make determinations about the low and moderate income housing fund and they provided direction that the transfer of low and moderate income housing funds that had been identified through the hat to the city was

invalid and directed all funds be returned to the successor agency that was excluded from transfers to housing successors. where we are today is that we have this existing /hatd sitting out there listing all of the housing obligations. meanwhile we're, as you just heard, submitting a property management plan that includes a significant number of affordable housing obligations so they were somewhat in conflict. in order to make our approach consistent, we wanted to take this action to have the commission and then the oversight board confirm what actually is a transferred as sets and what's a retained asset so we can sync up all the documentation. in order to do that we 're

providing to you the list of transferred housing assets. there are over 1,000 as setses on that list. perhaps ground leased, the interest is in affordability re restrictions of the original hat with two changes. one, we removed the retained housing obligations from that list and secondly, through this review, the staff at the mayor's office discovered there were about a dozen regulatory agreements that had been left off. these were all related to projects completed in the

1980's and 90's and regulatory agreements that were left off and we took the opportunity to make sure they were on here. we're seeking your confirmation of this so we can seek confirmation of the oversight board simultaneous with the management plan so the state will receive a refreshed view of what has actually transferred and they won't have an outdated document such as the hat while reviewing the property management plan. one thing that the oversight board will do -- tracy mentioned this in her property management plan, if there are mixed use assets that include non residential open space, then the oversight board shall consider whether there is a benefit to the community and to

the taxing entities for keeping those developments intact as they are or if there should be a revenue sharing great many such as the non housing uses were separated out. we're compiling a list of those assets. you can see them on the list you have. anything that says affordable low and income /photd rate housing commercial space. those are what we're talking about. most cases it's ground /tphror retail spaces or some cases they're non profit on the ground floor. any cases is offset expenses, they're integrated into the whole development. our staff recommendation is to find a finding that is to the benefit of the community and the taxing entities to keep these /tkefplts intact as they were developed. that condition /khraoudz my concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions.

>> thank you very much. i have one speaker card, charlie walker. >> he's gone. >> any other speakers? okay. thank you very much. i'll start off with a quick question. excuse me, i have no voice today. the replacement housing obligation, but i want to keep it straight many my head. what are we doing with that? who will that transfer to in terms of all of this? >> the replacement housing obligation is an obligation of the successor agency, not been transferred anywhere. we have certain properties that we have funding with funds that are not yet complete and so we are retaining those and then again, the plan is whether it's a replacement housing obligation or obligation related to shipyard or transbay, as each project completes at that point there

would be the transfer to the city of housing successor so there will be future transfers all the way along. the replacement housing ones will be projects where we'll be using sb 2113 to complete those projects. >> that was my question. the sb 2113 funds, is there no mechanism for those fund s to go to the successor housing agency? the reason i ask the question is if the obligation remains with us and we don't have the wherewithal to finish some 5,000 units, does that obligation at any point transfer to the successor housing agency to complete. >> we haven't gotten to that point. we just submitted our request to the state to establish the obligation with the state.

that's before them now so that's step one is to have the state finally determine that there is a replacement housing obligation and then i think we go from there. >> got it. >> as a part of that determination, determining there is a statutory obligation, we need a /soeurs of funds so that's the funding stream so in those redevelopment plan areas where the program is complete, golden gateway, south beach, now there's ability after death service to be able to use the additional head room in that tax increment for this tax purpose so we've built approximately close to 1,000 today, but about 6,000 still exist, so it's the obligation and funding stream. if the city were to accept the obligation, it would have to identify a funding stream so it would be unwise for the city to

accept the obligation without a source of funds to do it. >> okay. i think i have some more thoughts on that, but that's not part of this resolution so we'll move on to other questions. can you just also explain again sort of the separation of the income stream from mixed use property that is are being transferred? what does that mean? >> so disillusion laws provides for an ability for the oversight board to make a determination that if you had a mixed use as sets bra oversight board believed it was not a benefit to the community and it was a benefit to the taxing entities to separate that out in order to keep the revenue from the non housing youth, it could take those actions. in our particular case, the as setses that are mixed use, we

believe there is a benefit to the community, including the residents of the affordable housing and benefit to the taxing entity to preserve these developments as intact units because the lease revenue of an affordable housing building has a retail space they're renting out, they're using the revenue for the store front to offset the affordable housing operating costs so it would be detrimental to the affordable housing to separate that out. it is a benefit to the community and taxing entities to preserve these developments today as integrated developments. >> so is the oversight board going to be asked to make that determination in total or to look at each development or item? >> we're going to provide them with a list of those specific

subset of this that identifies which are those mixed use assets and any revenues from those are being oversight board will take up. >> are there any mixed use assets where that wouldn't be the case? >> no. we don't believe so. >> okay. >> thank you, so i've heard three different pots of funds here. replacement housing, sb 2113 funds, the loan moderate housing funds and then tax increment dollars. which funds of those are we using to funds other affordable housing obligations this don't fall under sb 2113? >> the affordable housing obligations that we have left that are the non replacement

retained housing obligations are being funded right now from tax increments that we're requesting through the wraps process based on the obligations from those major predevelopment project areas. mission bay tax increments will fund to mission bay projects. >> gotcha. >> thank you. any other questions about this? i've tried to go through this whole list. i'm assuming that, like everything else, this is an ongoing process. i know this is being submit /w-d the property management plan, but if something's forgotten or not correct, you would amend it. >> that's our hope. we hope we've caught everything this time, but as i said there is certainly going to be future transfers for properties as

they complete and need to be transferred so this list will group. glow. grow. >> exactly. any other questions on this particular resolution, 542013? if not, can i entertain a motion? thank you very much, hear a second? >> second. >> thank you very much. please call the roll. >> madam chair, the vote is five i's. >> thank you very much, please call next item. >> 5d, authorizing a memorandum of agreement with the san francisco county transportation authority in an amount not to

exceed $2,883,900 for construction of the realignment of the folsom street onramp. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, this is in essence a contract with the transportation authority for public improvements that are required under the transbay implementation agreement. as you know, the board of supervisors acts in its capacity as the authority board of the san francisco county transportation authority. this morning, because we are two parties to this contract, the authority board approved this particular contract contingent on ocii's approval so we have the counter part's approval to move forward. so i'd like to ask the senior

project manager for transbay to present this item. >> thank you. the item before you is in agreement with the san francisco county transportation authority in an amount not to exceed $2.883 million for construction of the realignment of the folsom street off ramp. before we start the main part of the presentation i have a minor amendment. the final whereas clause on page two states that the copy attachment a to the resolution. however, since this document is about 100 pages long the staff decided not to include it in the packet that you got so on file with the secretary if you care to review it. back to the item you'll recall that -- >> i think we got it. isn't that right? >> oh, you did get it? >> yes, today staff distributed it to sync up with what was

described in the resolution. it's on file with the secretary as well available to the public. >> good, i'm glad you got a copy of it. you'll recall on april 30, 2013 the commission authorized a personal services contract with the sfcta in an amount not to exceed $365,000 for the off ramp realignment. they have now submitted it to cal-trans. if the agreement is approved staff anticipated the start of construction in mid 2014. the off ramp realignment is a r