least reassure them that what they're saying is going to be thoughtfully discussed and thoughtfully included in whatever actions we do. >> two answers to your question. first one is the resolution 53, 2013 that we actually have to approve or not approve as the case may be today, did we get a ride line version of this? did we do that executive director? >> not yet. maybe we will. >> yes we will. let me finish the two parts to that question. the first part is the reason i ask the question is because the resolution was because there were some last minute text to say we strongly urge the city to include resident concerns and community process in their final disposition plans. that's part one. part two is getting back to

kind of the commentary that i just had that yes, i do think that we need -- we here, the commission, obviously here as the community is concerned, we have written commentary that was heard today and verbal commentary today and what we need to do is formalize again that collaboration with the city so we can create a public process around final disposition. i think people saw on their november 25 date, that date is sort of a soft dead /hraoeub. deadline. it says we know in the future what needs to happen. they're transferring to the city for government purpose, or we need to sell it. we've got between 12 to 14 months with first sort of soft date in there all the way out

to 2025, i think was the final date i saw on some of these documents to say we are going to dispose of this property and the city then has it and are going to do something with it. so we have all that time to have a public process for what that is. i don't think we need to encumber our conversation with that today because it's not part of the property management plan. it shouldn't be, i don't think. and i think we need to have a clean form so we can say we have a property management plan, how do we approach those varying cliffs in a way that makes sense and have that be a completely different discussion. >> i think i agree with president johnson that we should amend this, you know, and then want to make sure the community's properly involved

in all the projects because we get a very injustice in the past, especially investor relation and i don't think it should happen again. thank you. >> okay. i have an actual question for the property manager plan. i want to continue this conversation, but want to make sure we're not leaving out questions about the actual property management plan. this is the first one -- there were a couple of which i thinks from some of the draft plans that i wanted to bring some attention to and just ask sort of like what was the model and do we think the state will accept some of these things. the first one is there were properties that are now being planned to be transferred to the city for governmental use that were /orpblly going to be sold in the open market and

previous drafts, first one being building 218. originally the goal was to sell to private developer who would own and manage. tracy, can you just quickly discuss why the governmental use approach or transfer to the city approach is a better route? >> will, i think partly -- again, not arguing the governmental purpose. we're arguing kind of an enforceable obligation and we have an enforceable obligation that these were part of the community facilities broadly identified as community facilities in the phase two. we felt that was a stronger argument when we went back and looked again at the phase 2dda and the redevelopment plan which specifically kind of envisions that there are going to be these community facilities that have a public purpose. therefore they should -- we

feel that's a strong argument to keep them in the city's -- transfer them to the city and artist studios and keeping the rents at cost. which the dda says rents can only be charged to cover expenses. and having the city take on that function is perhaps easier than enforcing that through a third-party. this is what we're arguing and it may not be something that the state accepts, but based on our understanding of what the community and the developer would like, this is our strongest argument for trying to get that, but the state could reject it and make us do something else.

>> i'm going to have to ask you ask staff for you question because i can't address members of the public. i'm sorry, yeah, i understand what you're saying, but that is how we do the procedure for these commission meetings. there's other types of forums for the types of conversation you're talking about. if there are questions that you want, you have to ask staff members to -- yeah, well, sorry. i'm sorry, i'm not trying to be facetious, but that is the tradition of commission meeting. i'm sorry, /kopbts. continue.

you finished your comment i think. the fillmore heritage center -- the garage portion, is that being sold with use restrictions? i believe it is. >> well, not so much use restriction, but i mean, it's for use of the garage, it would be sold as a garage. >> i think that the proceeds from the sale are restricted, yes. >> so the cdgb proceeds which i know are restricted, but is the garage parcel, are there any restrictions around the garage? does it need to continue to be attached to the commercial

center parcel in the fillmore 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