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

major implementation agreement between ocii and transbay powers authority. if we could get the projector going i seal i'll show you what it looks like today.

staff is requesting authorization hard and soft costs for a turnkey delivery of the realigned off ramp and the total cost is estimated to be $2.833 million which includes hard cost, project reserves, construction management services and other construction support costs as detailed in the table attached to the staff memorandum. zip since the project will not

bid until early 2014 is awarded contract price will not be known until the spring of 2014 and the staff will provide an update to the commission at the time, but we need an agreement now prior to the issuing of those bid documents. my staff is also proposing a somewhat different approach to contracting policy in this agreement, as explained in your memorandum. traditionally the former agency such as the department of public works when entering into contracts like this off ramp.

for the remainder of the amount of the contract we are actually still negotiating with the transportation authority about the exact type of lbe versus sbe programs to use. the city has an lbe program that has a disadvantaged component. the transportation authority does not use that program so

we'll continue negotiate /w-g them to try to use the city's list. we weren't able to get agreement on that before this meeting, but we'll continue to do that and if we're not able do that we'll comprise the commission of the status of those negotiations, but /tphas the way the agreement is written right now so if there's any change to that we'll let you know as soon as we know. and then secondly for local hiring, sfcta doesn't have an adopted policy in that case, but they eve expressed a preference for the city's local hire policy. after careful consideration of this issue staff is proposing to apply the city's local hire policy on all construction work. this is the approach they would have used if the local hire policy had been in place at that time, but the city only adopted the policy in december 2010 and the agency didn't do any contracts for intrastructure work after that. this is the first one where

they'll be applying this policy to one of its projects. the alternative, which we also considered would be to have the transportation authority require the selected contractor to enter into a construction work force agreement similar to what we typically require of our private developers when we do a disposition and development agreement. the differences between the two policies are described in your staff memorandum and i'll go through them again if i could get this on the overhead too. this table was in your staff memo and as you can see, it shows the differences between our construction work force agreements and the city's local hire policy. as you can see, while ocii's construction work force goal for other agreements is 50 percent of all project work hours, it is a goal. by contrast, the city's local hire policy has a minimum

requirement of 30 percent and includes requirements for hiring disadvantaged workers. 50 percent of all project work hours be performed by local apprentices which helps lay the ground work for future san francisco workers. we believe these have strong /pher merit, but ocii /spwoepbdz to retain the office of economic and work force development to monitor the ta's compliance with this local hire policy and oewd has had significant experience enforcing this local hire policy. in addition the requirements for disadvantaged workers and local apprentices address important policy goals that are not present in the work force agreement. finally, although this is a relatively small project at under $3 million, staff would like to try the city's hoe cal

hire policy. on this /kraebgt contract in order to compare that policy with ocii's construction work force agreement and help with any future policy discussions that may take place. the use of the city's local hire policy on this contract doesn't bind ocii to use it on future contracts, but at some point the commission may wish to consider using that policy for future contracts. that concludes the presentation on this item. myself and or senior civil engineer and the project manager from the transportation authority are all here to answer questions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? i have no speaker cards. >> thank you very much. commissioners, questions, comments? >> i move that -- >> okay. >> yes. i had a question on a statement

you made regarding that we were trying to have the transportation authority use the city's local business program. everyone knew i would raise this issue. so why is it such a tough sell? >> i don't know that it is, we just haven't been able to get clearance from the transportation authority. they had a lot of people out of town and this issue only came up in the last day. what the problem was that we had language in the agreement which was not defined to their satisfaction and so they wanted to get a definition from us and we were only just able to get that to them today. we'll have to go back and check with them before we know we're able to prove that, but i don't know that it'll be as tough a sell as it might be. >> given that the authority is the board of supervisors -- >> yes, we totally agree. but the authority currently has

not adopted that policy so they'll have to affirmatively approve it. >> for some reason i totally misread the memo when i got it. i do appreciate the fact that we are trying something different here and i would just ask that if you can provide us with regular updates on how the whole process goes as opposed to our current work force policy. just a comment. >> thank you very much. i have a specific question. i know we have the info item on [inaudible] is that being released tomorrow? read the whole thing tonight at 3 o'clock in the morning with a question you'll get back to me? >> absolutely. we still have an opportunity to make ed edits before tomorrow if you have them? >> unfortunately i got married last weekend so -- >> great excuse. >> okay.

i guess i didn't know we were releasing it so soon. on this particular item, appreciate you using the city local hire ordinance. i do think that that will end up, setting a precedent for us. we did approve the predevelopment cost for the exact same project so those two items are connected. thanks. i think commissioner sing has moved the item to approve the resolution. any other questions or comments? second? thank you very much. madam secretary, please call the roll. >> the vote is five i's. >> thank you very much, please call next item. >> item five e, authorizing a ground /hraoesz with california

limited partnership for the development of 120 very low income single at 1751 carol avenue. , formerly known as 5800 third street, block 5431a lot 42 . >> commissioners and members of the must public, thank you for sticking with us. this particular item, carol avenue senior, really this action before you is a continuation, it's really in furtherance of previous actions you've taken. in september you approved a permanent gap financing for the project of approximately $19 million and an option to ground lease. as you heard from previous speakers, the particular disposition was identified in our property management plan so now this ground lease is a

disposition for your consideration today because we'd like them to get started, get moving on this development, which is very critical for the bay view and bay view hunters point as a whole. with that, i'd like to ask pam simms to present this item. >> good afternoon commissioners, president johnson . i think that's still your last name. >> for now. >> for now? i'm pam simms, i'm a project manager and i'm before you this afternoon to present on item e which is the ground lease associated with the development of carol avenue senior housing or the senior housing project in the former bay view hunters point redevelopment project area. specifically the request is to approve a ground lease.

the ground lease is necessary for the development of the senior housing project, which includes 1212 -- 121 units and a ground floor senior center which will serve the residents of the building and the larger community. the approval process for this much needed housing development began approximately three years ago, although the idea was more than a decade ago. when in september 2010, the redevelopment agency commission authorized the purpose of 5800 third street. shortly thereafter in january the commission approved an initial predevelopment loan of $684,000. there was a subsequent predevelopment loan allocation of $3.2 million approved by the loan committee. in february 2013 the over sight

approved $20 million for the carol avenue development as part of 1314a. and as a note, last week the developer learned that their applications for funding to the state were received, accepted and approved. quickly i just wanted to show you a site map to point out 5800 third street housing will be in relationship. it's lot 3. lot 2 will be family house that will be developed sometime in the next year and on lot 1, that is facing third street and there's a condominium development and retail on the

ground floor. 5800 third street is the first phase of alice griffith. as a background the hunters point shipyard obligates the successor agency to rebuild alice griffiths. they commit the successor agency to use property tax revenue for the housing obligation and finally the dda states the successor agency will seek other sources of funding to help develop the site including state and federal funds. to that end, in 2011, alice griffith public housing was awarded $35 million. the redevelopment agency as a commitment to an implementation of the transformation plan which is required under the cni grant.

further they agreed to be responsible for the implementation of the neighborhood component. the developer identified and agreed the senior housing project would be /tpauz one phase one of the alice griffiths development who may want another housing option. all the alice griffith housing units will be placed on site, any qualified residents who want to live off site will be prioritized to live at the senior project site. and typical with various affordable funding sources, ocii funds, tax credit equity, tax exempt bonds, iig, which is

infill and infrastructure grant funding. the population who will live at the senior housing ing development are seniors aged 55 years and older. if must believe at or that would be $35,450. 37 of the units will be targets at or $21.250 for a one person household. all 120 affordable housing units will have the residents paying no more than 30 percent of their limited income towards rent. priority pop haitians will be the /praoefsly stated alice griffith residents, /sert

certificate preference and potential referrals entities include the southeast community health center and the providence foundation. quickly, the development consists of two wings. the subject development is on lot 42, the building includes the housing lobby, the senior center lobby, offices for the senior staff. there's also to the rear of the development landscaped courtyard and potentially vegetable herb garden for the seniors to work in. interior development consists of 117 one of those is a managers unit. common area amenities include

sitting areas, a living dining room, exercise room and laundry areas which are sprinkled throughout the development and adds to the community experience which pulls the seniors out of their units and to mingle with other seniors. the bay view senior center will be relocated from its current site to a larger approximately 14,000 square foot site within the senior housing project. in addition to the relocation of the program, the third-party payee and housing assistance programs will be relocated to the cash site. the ground lease itself allows the development of the affordable housing project. ocii will retain control of the land through a ground lease throughout the construction period. at project close out the ground lease will be all transferred

to community development per board resolution 112 which moans the mayor's office of housing is a successor housing agency. the terms of the ground lease are an initial term of 55 years with one 44 year /opg option for a total of 99 years. the annual rent would be $564,000. if there's any cash -- and it'll only be due to the extent that there's cash flow available to pay the residual rent. in order to have consistency with the loan agreement the ground lease has the same restrictions such as affordable, construction, reporting and contracting policies. community support -- the bay view hunters point community has been consistent and

enthusiastic supporter of the senior housing development, especially the senior center. as part of the community, the project area committee was always supportive of this development and as recent as may of this year, the development received support at a meeting held in the community to discuss specifics of the development. next steps, next week we will go to the oversight board and have them consider the approval of the ground lease for carol avenue and if the oversight board approves this item then it'll be sent to department of finance for its approval and will be able to execute the ground lease. staff will start the bond issuance process with the board of supervisors in november and finish in december. they will finish the ground