deceased ones. >> [inaudible] >> those are the ones we had a address for as the initial certificates were dispersed, there were over 6 thousand people that are on our site records and we do have site records of each household that was displaced under all of the different programs that cop encompasses. >> so the difference is that you don't have addresses? >> right. >> current addresses of the other-- >> and we never did. so when they received whatever they received at the time of displacement, they didn't provide a forwarding address or they did but they are not there anymore and we can't-we

don't know >> you did do a out pp reach, i think you hired a group to look for all of these individuals on your list and now you have the currently active 4138 on the record, you have e-mails or addresses or- >> the active list is more like 800. it is much smaller. when people use their certificate twice we take them off that list and when people tell us they don't want those mailings anymore woe take them off the list and get many people who say stop sending this stuff, i'm here and not moving and leave me alone so that is why the list is more like 800 of active people. >> hoping to within the

lottery-the lottery is for both rentals and for sale? >> yes. >> 4 thousand to 800. >> it has been many yearsism some of the feedback we get from people is they are settled where they are now whether it is in the city or someplace else. but when we did send out the meeting we got a lot of feedback saying they were glad we reached out to them because they may want to go xh back to san francisco and didn't realize they had the opportunity or didn't -perhaps they were children at the time of displacement and so they didn't know what that grown folks business was so they didn't realize they had this opportunity to go back to had place where they grew up. >> and the new 125 is included in the 800? >> yes. >> that is a pretty good. so,

when you do the lottery these are the folks who qualified >> we separate them first outside of the general public or those who live or work in san francisco or any preference at the project, we take the cop individuals first. any the new preferences, the displaced tenants none of that matters to cop. if there are 5 units and 5 cop people the 5 cop would get those. we do a lottery among the cop people just to prioritize >> and you do a lottery the next for the other preferences? >> that's right. >> then those who are the cop when they join the lottery they are

qualified already? >> no. if they are purchasing a home they need a prequalification from a lender. >> so if they win or get-they will be able to take advantage of that. >> that's correct >> what about the rent? >> the rentals they don't need to be requalified. we require the developer put on the marketing material what the criteria is for the rental. we say if it is a senior building they have to say only seniors or any other criteria they have for that building-credit score or deposits. >> still tied to the ami, right? >> yes. >> then credit, whatever requirements the developer has. >> but they don't have to qualify to be in a rental lottery. they can throw their hat in the ring and they

will be assessed once >> they are selected or win. >> right. >> just like what commissioner singh has indicated, i would love to attend one of these and get a sense of how the lottery works. there was discussion earlier that your office or maybe it was you was thinking of another process aside from the lottery. any update on that? >> yes. >> how is dahlia doing? >> she is doing just fine. she is very slow to move >> did we add more fertilizer? >> yes. so, we hope to soft launch the listings of affordable units in dahlia in january. in fact, i have to go in a

little bit to go to a meeting about that. so, that means there will be a listings page so that anybody who wants to know what affordable-city sponsored or ocii sponsored affordable housing developments that are accepting applications they can go in one place and look it up, put in their information and see what they qualify for. in the first quarter of next year, 2016, we hope to have them to be able to apply through dahlia when they are looking at a listing. in the second quarter so after april, we hope that the lottery will come from the dahlia system. what that means is that-right now likeory developers are using tickets like circus

tickets- >> i saw a photo of the lottery tickets >> with dahlia the applicant is get notified of their ticket number in their account that they set up or the housing counselor help them set up and they will-they can find out what the status is through the system, so it really greatly improves the communication of where people are in the lottery pros process >> they don't have to be present? >> no. >> thank you and love to be invited to one of these things and be able to witness and see how the process works >> absolutely, we'll definitely invite you >> and look ing forward to dahlia.

>> i have a few questions, of the 593 folks who have not used the certificate, do we have dem graphic information on where they are? are they san franciscan's versus non san francisco residence? if in san francisco what neighborhoods? do we have that data, ethnic and racial and gender data? >> we definitely have the where they live data. traditionly since the program degan, ethnicity and income data was not collected. until we now are starting to collect it, so we have partial demo graphic information about

the 500-but we can tell you where they come from and where they are living now. >> because i saw a article in the paper, i can't remember when it was but before thanksgiving before demo graphic information that participate in the lottery and wondered where it came from? >> that information came from the-ime f i understand the same information, it came from a lack at since 2012 the lot tery applicants and winners. not all applicants, lottery winners in the last couple of years since we started collecting that demo graphic information. >> nigh my other question, do we know the preference of these folks between renting versus home ownership? >> we don't know, no, but we

started talking to people about that and asking them about that. i wouldn't say most people, but a good many people want it to be left-they don't-they want to be able to use either one. their dream may be home ownership but don't know if they will have to use the rental first, so i don't have a sense more people are-if you talk about what their goals are, what they want, if you are looking at their capacity of what they are able to do, that is a bigger question i think where we have to really dig into their finances to see what-how to answer that, but we are

starting that survey question when we issue new certificates and we can do more to ask that question. >> it seems to me and said this before that if there are 593 seems a manageability number in light of the unit coming on line in the next 5 years and i have mention today our executive director there has to be a way to survey the population, understand what the preferences are even if the desired location is not tomorrow, but it is a year down the road, somebodys first preference is transbay but the transbay units they qualify for isn't on line for another year or whatever. there has to be a more direct 21 century way of matching in the tech capital the world if not the united states. people have been on the list for

decades or families have been on theplist for decades, before some on the commission were born and we have been around for a while. it is frustrating to me. now that we have this universe that is so manageable, we have to be able to know where folks are, what their desires are, what they qualify for, when the opportunity is coming up and if they don't have to compete with other certificate holder frz those spots coming up that they qualify for i think we should have a plan. >> okay. >> that is the last time i'll say that. if the commission needs to have a smaller group of a commission to work on this or with staff, i think there is one or two that would be interested in that. it can't be quorum for the commission.

>> dahlia can definitely do if. dahlia can absolutely do it. yeah. or just eve an questionnaire >> like a survey monkey. >> exactly. >> thank you. >> commissioner singh. >> [inaudible] what happened [inaudible] >> if they pass away while they are renting? >> yeah >> usually in a rental situation if the person on the lease passes away the landlord-it is up to the landlord to extend a new lease to the family members, but say in a below market rate rental situation, the existing people in the house hold will have to qualify for that unit, so they would have to be under the income limits and be

able to afford the monthly rent payment to be able to stay in the house when someone passes away. >> they have to start all over again then? >> if they can't afford the rent and can't get a rent subsidy then they would have to start again. >> okay. >> okay. yes, willing to entertain a motion. commissioner singh made a motion and commissioner mondejar has seconded the motion. please call the roll. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name. commissioner pemental is absent. commissioner mondejar, yes. commissioner singh, yes. commissioner bustos is absent. madam chair rosales, yes. i have 3 aye's and 2

absent. >> the program is extended. great. good luck on those lotteries in january. please call the next item. >> the next item is 5 d, adopting environmental review findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act. conditionally approving a major phase application with hps development caemp lp, which includes a schematic design and ancillary documents for phases 2 a and 2 b of block 48. generally boupded by navy road on the north boundgies oakdale road on the east and south boundary and griffith avenue on the west. for a total of 216 housing units. hunters point

shipyard project area, discussion and action resolution number 78-2015. madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, this action before you is part the development currentry underway under the hunters point ship yard phase one disposition and development agreement. it is one block but multiple subblocks approximately 200 plus units. you previously apruchbed density bonuses associated with this block at a commission meeting a number of months ago and back before you is the spinge design for a number of subblocks. with that introduction [inaudible] the hunters point ship yard senior [inaudible] >> thank you and good afternoon chair rosales. [inaudible] i am joined here this afternoon by randy jurisen, brian

[inaudible] and many young of [inaudible] as well as their design team, peter waller of [inaudible] architect [inaudible] as director bohe mentioned, this afternoon we are presenting the major phase application for phase 2 of block 48 known as the hill side for the phase 1 hunters point ship yard project areas. ths design for this phase includes 7 buildings with 216 units of housing of which 31 will be provided below market rate. a quick overview the presentation for this afternoon i'll provide back ground and over view and more specifically focus on the block 48 phase 2 major phase application which includes project housing data table, the form [inaudible] small business and workforce development and the

designs. we'll conclude the presentation with praub project update and next steps mpt to orient member thofz public to the project site, this is the project in its entirety including phase one which includes hill side and hill top and phase 2 development at hunters point shipyard and candlestick point. outlined in red are the phase 1 development that includes the hill top. the commission has already approved the design for all the private development lots on the hill top with ex session of plauck one. in front of you today is the hill side, which is only known as block 48, it is one mega block, so accordly it is developed in phasing, so pardon me if the phasing gets confusing and let me know and i'll help clarify that. already in the neighborhood are the housing

under development at the hill top site, block 1 is the only site in this first phase to have a commercial or retail space, however, there is a store house that opened on the project site which is in the ocii modular building at the corner of gal vez and coleman. just a note also situating the hill side parcel t. is sloped site that has views to the south over the future open space that will be provided in phase 2 of development and of course out to the bay. a quick note regarding transportation and transit, the hill side site is already nestleed into a existing neighborhood within hunters point ship yard and served by 3 muni lines. the 19 polk, 24

monterey [inaudible] the transit improvements relate would phase 2 will additionally serve the site and block 48 including a stop along the [inaudible] which will connect the ship yard with cal train and balboa [inaudible] hpx will be a rapid line that will stop in the ship yard and connect downtown. the developer is providing their voluntarily a free shuttle to provide transportation for current rez dents at the hill top and as discussed furfb isthe presentation, the parking ratio is one space for each unit of housing, but we did alter the streetscape of the lot to make it more urban and that will provide for more street parking than was initially anticipated. as

i mentioned, the development of the hill side will occur in phases. the commission approve march of this year phase 1 a as well as a basic concept design for the entire site. i'll go into more detail in a couple minutes. so, here there are this 1 a site is all the way to the right side the page and east side of the site. the item in front of you today is phase 2 which are the blocks in the middle bounded by navy and oakdale road. there are 7 private development lots in this phase, so buildings, b, f, j, emi and l. they include 216 units of housing and 30 below market rate. buildings f and j are community builder laults which are required under phase one community

benefits agreement. the hill side already has planned public open spaces including the hill side central park which divides the second phase of development down the middle and also includes 4 pocket parks that are named 1, 2, 4, and 5. we are not creative. just a note-the commission did approve the schematic design for the parks in 2007. here is design for the hill side stral park which is a snairbd neighborhood scale park. so, in march of this year, this commission approvered resolution 11-2015,

which included basic concept design for all of block 48 and all the associated phases and in that approval the commission approved a density bonus which permitted 8 additional below market rate housing units provided on block 48 and increased 65 units per acre to [inaudible] from 125 square feet to 80 square feet per junt i a height increase from 32 feet to 35 feet. the current major face in front orphyou include the design for 2 phases of phase 2. phase 2 a which includes 164 unit and buildings b rks f, j and m and b includes 52 units, ei and l. it includes the project housing data table

and the [inaudible] and development agreement. regarding affordable housing on this site, there is a housing data table which i will present and additionally a market rate plan and marketing plan that requires first preference to go to qualified stift of preference holdser squz a second preference is given to the ellis act preference holdersism the remaindser of the unit available will be decided by lottery. for qualified applicants. i also want to provide the information on the left side of the slide which includes typical costs of the [inaudible] units, all the below market rates units in this phase will be provided at a for sale rate and either 80 or 120 percent of area

median income. 80 percent of ami for family of 4 in san francisco for this year we won't know what it will be when the units come on line, is 81500 rr. the cost of purchases a 1 bedroom home is 165 thousand dollars or a 2 bedroom is $230,000. they change based on hoa fees but want to give a sense of what it meant in dollars and cents. similarly for house hold earning 120 percent ami which is 122, 300, one bedroom would cost 300 thousand and 4 bedroom 400 thousand dollars.

so, block 48 has 3 categories of below market rate units that are available and those are inclusionary units. this the developers responsibility under our disposition and development agreement to provide between 5 and 20 percent of total unit in each phase to be available at 80 percent of ami. there are true up units, the 5th amendment required that each of the project mile stones at the 300 mile stone and 600 mile stone in units the developer meet the requirement of 10 and a half of the units within the development. the bmr inclusionary units. finally, there are density bonus units on this site. these are additional bmr units that can be provided at 80 or 120 percent ami. the developer will result block

48 [inaudible] in which we granted the density bonus. the housing data table for this phase is shown on the next page. organized here by the block or building number, the number of unit and the type of unit included mptd you approved phase 1 a in marp march so we are implementing phases 2 a and b which are the 7 buildings in front of you today. building phase 2 a rather are the 5 buildings in which the 600th mile stone is provided which is why as you will see under the dda, 80 percent bmr column in the middle. they provide 10 and a half percent for each build{provide the 6 catch up units. finally, per the approval of the in march they will be providing 1

additional density bonus unit which will be available at 120 percent ami for a total of 24 bmr units provided in phase 2 a. for phase 2 b, the developer will provide a total of 6, 80 percent bmr units and one additional density bonus unit at 120 percent ami for a total of 7 bmr units. wanted to quickly highlight the developers participation in the small business enterprise program. we have a goal that 50 percent of the work go to sbe's here for block 48. 62 percent sbe participation on the hill top and hill side. on block 48 there is 53 percent participation rate and specifically for these 7 buildings there is a

par tisuation of 68 percent. the projects similarly has a goal 50 percent the workforce will be local residence for a preference if bayview hunters point. phase one to date had a 22 percent with bayview renzdants accounting for 25 percent of all the work force hours. block 48 there isn't construction activity so no data to report. with that i would like taintroduce brian [inaudible] for the presentation of the schematic design. >> good afternoon madam chair and commissioners. my name is brian [inaudible] development manager for block 48. we will be presenting a developed set of drawings for phase 2 approved by the commission in march.

this will include architectural rendering, elevation and sections. includes 216 homes, 3 one are below market rate includes 4 pocket parks and a regional park. we have worked with the knhunty building for [inaudible] with bishop george lee. we are also work wg 2 [inaudible] sellvens represented here is a local women owned business, sbe firm that is in san francisco for over 16 years and leading the design of the largest building on block 48 just not phase 2 alone. something to note, or goal with block 48 is diversity. we have one bedroom flats and 3 bedroom flats for. recent project history, this is a

summary of our cac meetings. we had great support from the community and cac for block 48. 7 community meetings over the last year for the vertical development including 3 exclusively for phase 2 which culminated in unanimous approval on november 9 for phase 2 design. with that i'll turn over to peter [inaudible] to begin the zine part the presentation. >> thank you brian, good afternoon member thofz commission, madam chair. we are going to do a brief walk through here of the design and i'll kick it off and have me me join us and see if i can

test my system here in terms of moving forward slides. very good. so, as i think everyone understands we are focused on phase 2 and outlined in blue in the slide and that is divided into 2 elements. views from that site which is spectacular you are familiar with the great panoramic views across the south basin out to san bruno and beyond. it comes with pretty dramatic slopes, about 70 feet top to bottom. challenges and also a fabulous site. fabulous place to live. and in terms of the design there is a lot of thinking about how to take best adventage in terms of the layout oaf the streets and open spaces. there are 4 different buildings types, a

lot of different unit types all of it carefully situated to take best advantage of this overall arrangement. the basic concept is there are lower scale buildings in phase 2 b along oakdale and the higher scale buildings are on the upper portion that allows them to take advantage of the views. that is a key element all the way through the design. in terms of the open space, the parks are critical in this phase there are 3 public pocket parks and link from navy down to oakdale. they look out at the views, they take great sun, they also are flanked by active uses or units on dwelling units on each side so all well activated and well supervised. common open space and nice roof decks

that the rez dents can use and private open space, terraces and patios. i think the overall data is covered, glad to answer more questions about that. 216 units overall. just to walk around the neighborhood, starting actually with the buildings down on the lower portion of the site, 2 b along oakdale. this is building i and you can see it is a series of 2, 3 story elements that stepwise the hill side. there are nice corner units. there is bridging elements that connect those buildings. there is variety in not just the [inaudible] and materials and color to create variety. also the windows and private open space wraps around and faces the pocket parks on the left. and then as we go up that site, buildling l similarly steps up

the site, has the san francisco character of open circulation of breathing space between the building elements and a central entry in the middle and access to garages between the buildings and looking at that in plan you can see on the upper plan you see those individual parking courts and a individual garage for each unit. there is a ground floor unit in those buildings right off the street that is fully accessible and walk up units, 1 and 2 bedroom flats at the upper levels, all with nice corner views. staying on oakdale there is building e, at the lower end of phase 2 b. this is the location where the slope is steepest and the back of the site there is a tall retainic wall so the goal is put the living spaces on the front side, the south side

taking advantage och the view. the goal is create interlocking town homes stacked on top which allow the living room tooz face out towards the view and you will see that in a moment. and also make sure the units are linked to the street. there are a number of stairs coming down to the street. there are terraces at the second level and 4th level. in plan view you see how these are arranged as a lichbing room looking to the view, bedrooms at the back and a second bedroom up or down stairs . it is a private master suite. these are good for families and most have their own private open space. just to give a idea in section how that looks, you got building e at the lower portion. the

tone on those unit ind caughted where the living rooms are towards the front looking over the street. you the upper building is high enough above those units can see out atop over this building. stepping up the hill along navy to phase 2 a, you got the elevator served buildsings which create this nice strong neighborhood frontage and building f is articulated as a series of elements broken by stair towers and a entry. articulated with the wood grain material that highlights the living areas and creates a weaved pattern. building j, which is next door, actually takes a little more of restained approach. using the

classic san francisco bay form in a nice horizontal siding material and brings it down to the grounds in a simple way. strong breaks in the building, the elevators and stair elements integrated into that facade. building m, which is -takes more of a consistent vertical element up and down from the ground, alturninated light and dark colors combined with rich accent colors, so it has its own character. the thinking about this building and the site we think of as a neighborhood and how to get the variety and at the same time get continuity. one of the critical things in that regard is the landscaping between the side walk and

the building, the planters, the lighting. the right amount of lighting so this is a safe, secure place to wuck in the evenings. then i'll turn it over-briefly on the plan view of the elevator buildings you have a centrally located entry in each building, a elevator, so all the units on the upper 3 levels, on all the levlgs are accessible and have stoops on the street and they all accessible. with that, i think i'll turn it over to me me and let her talk about building b. i'll move it forward for you one. >> thank you madam chair and commissioners, good afternoon. me me sellven with [inaudible] as brian mentioned wree woman and minority owned sbe in san francisco for the last 16 yearsism we are excited to be on the team and as brian also

mentioned, we are working on building b which is here in the model. the largest building in the project. as you look at building b what you notice are 2 distinth building elements with a prominent entry in the middle. the building step down on the ends especially on the left which is where the pocket park is, and going down the street you notice 2 story beys creating a top to the building. the beys also create a pedestrian scale experience below. sorry about that. going backwards. sorry about that. there we go. so in the plan

view again i'll direct your attention to the prominent entry in the middle of the block and as aiomove through the building you get a sweeping view to the south. you also notice that the building bends with the street to reduce the scale as in other buildings in the development. we capture the views with large corner windows and then also like to quickly say this is the only build wg 3 bedroom unit in phase 2. that is adjust brief overview and i'll turn it back to peter to talk about material. thank you. >> thanks me me and just to-we are not up on the screen. i think just the last thing is touch on materials and have additional boards here. this is just a overview of some of the common materials we use in the neighborhood. these are all drawn from-they are good

quality materials that hold up over time and drawn from san francisco tradition, good quality, horizontal siding materials and stucco materials using concrete at the base patterned when the building come tooz the ground and connects to the landscape and combine work and contemporary elements in terms of railing, metal work, so we can really create the variety we want . you see there is additional material elements that come into each building at a layer of variety to the buildings and individual character. the landscape materials very carefully selected and thought about to work on this hile side and microclimate, drought tolerant and colorful. it creates a nice street frontage and the landscape, the side walk squz walk squz built in planners are designed to connect to the the character of

the building so there is continuity between the street and the character. with that we'll set up a slide with contact information for mandy and brian and glad to take any questions. >> thank you. >> just a couple more slides to walk you through. so, in terms of ocii staff determination squu nalsis of this phase, staff determined the major phase application is complete and consist wnt phase one disposition and development agreement, compliant with our redevelopment plan and the phase 1 design for development and we recommend approval with conditions. as brian mentioned the cac e reviewed and approved the designs. walking through those conditions they are general

conditions and building spinge condition. i will start with general conditions which include [inaudible] study the relationship between garage doors and the gates within the court yard to produce a architectural study of the impact the rear elevations of b, f, j and m on the hill side development perceived from the commune tay and if necessary provide enhancement or modifications. the last general cishz is study how enhancements to the side elevations facing the pocket parks and central park ajaistant to the mid-block open space can better activate those open spaces. the building spinge conditions of approval for building e we request the height shouldn't exceed the 45 foot maximum. for

building l to study how to enhance the residence entry to the second structure on the west end to reduce the appearance or grade of the downward ramp with consideration of ada accessibility to this particular unit and the necessary level landings and study improvement of the roof line variation. for building b, further study for portional relationship oz thf building base to the upper stories and building j to provide a grading plan and study to improve the relationship between the units and eastern modulation of the structure. this is insure the units are located above grade or have the appropriate relationship to the street and very the roof like to enhance the block modulation consistent with the elevation change on this lot. so, with

that in terms of next steps the developer pending approval of the schematic design will submit design development drawings that meet the stated conditions of approval, followed by construction documents submit today it department of building inspection. [inaudible] start phase 2 in the 3rd quarter of 2016 with completion with all phases by 2018. with that, thank you and we are available for questions. >> thank you. before we take questions from the commission, do we have public comment? >> i do. mr. ace waish wash. washington. >> i am all most in tears. i have been coming to these meetings for over 20

years. let me continue on. can i get-i'm not as delicate and don't have the budget to put up-just want to show something on the screen. i will request-i think there has to be community reform and the first thing is people like myself that have been in the community and deal with the community but don't have the credentials, you have all these staffers to present and all we get is 3 minute and what we say goes in your ears and out so i ask for the city attorney to say as a representative of the community we need more than just 3 minutes. i do because i cannot get up here and spill out on 3 minutes what they have studied. let me show you what the real deal is. community right here this is african american, that will be institutionalized in our community. right here is the stud y and graphics of what is going on in the

community. the main issue is here, the out migration because all of these things set us, me, a person that looks like me mpt for my study we will be obsolete and no where around. [inaudible] you tell cofy i need to sit and talk with him. [inaudible] i sat and talked about the future and here we are 10, 15 years later. i need to go to the board of supervisors talk but i'm appalled of the procedures that the city and county of san francisco have that give you all the rights to bring and all these high level consultants but i don't see nobody that looks like me to study. that is a violation in itself. why don't we have no black african americans or people of color under these people that give these figures? it is unacceptable.

there is a tren in the city, the trend is the black population is going down. therefore, what you all talk about doesn't make any difference to us because we will be no where around taqualify, to do anything. so, i will take tupawn myself to go past [inaudible] travel up to california and talk to governor mayor-what is his name? governor brown. [inaudible] the next governor will be lieutenant gaven nusem and i know that man well. my question is i have to [inaudible] in the southeast, don't you repeat what they done to the fillmore street. >> thank you. >> anyone else thatps to make public comment?

>> commissioners, questions, comments? yes, commissioner singh. >> it is a very nice color coordination and i have a question about the parking. what about the parking, each unit have parking? >> yes. so, there is as required by our design for the development guidelines the developer is providing one private space per unit within the building and we made the change toog the streetscape where before there were multiple entrances for the drive way curb cuts and those are removed for one curb cut. >> [inaudible] >> so, there are 216 units in

this current phase, phase 2 and 216 off street parking spaces provided. >> so, 400 together? how many total units? >> total units are 404 on block 48 and believe the units are one to one. >> currentry we anticipate we will park at a minimum of about 1 to 1 off street, but once the site is developed we will be creating roughly-this isn't a exact number but anticipate 131 on street parking spaces that are not currently availability. >> when you saw [inaudible] >> it is along the >> [inaudible] >> within each building that is when we have a 1 to 1 parking ratio, one unit, 1 parking space but outside the

buildings we will aums have approximately 131. >> that's is for everyone? >> correct, anyone. >> it is currently not there. >> thank you. >> i had a question on the cac. >> continue with your questioning. >> i want to ask mr. lee --[inaudible] [inaudible] everything is inordser? >> to the best we can tell it is. lunar and their team have been working with us and engaging in their selection of consultants. >> thank you.

>> commissioner mondejar. >> i just have a couple questions. they say you all look the same. i will get lost if i'm in building l. are they all complimentary colors? >> i'll let brian speak more to the colors but buldings f, j and m have the same floor plan but we worked to insure variety on the exterior and facades of the buildings to insure there is diversity to make sure it isn't monotony of the building. [inaudible] for buildings that do have similar [inaudible] >> are the units for example the one bedroom, 2 bedroom units, do

they all have 2 and 3 bedrooms in every building or some buildings have those and some not? how are they spread out? >> it is a small print. jorks no wonder i couldn't find it. >> so, there is this unit count table which i'll bring up on the screen. >> that is the one, okay. >> it is similarly in the memo. so, what is being done on phase 2 is there are similar types of buildings. the buildings with similar floor plans so they have the same mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms. then there are buildings e, i and l and you can see the bedroom mix

as well. the one, one means one bedroom and one bath and 2, 2 means 2 bedroom, 2 bath on the unit type column on this chart. >> okay. so, the bmr units have the same materials as the market rate units? >> yes. [inaudible] goes above the standard which is to provide reasonable quality and they finish out the bmr units exactly the sames the market rate units. >> and even the larger units, they all have across the board the same materials? >> yes you can't tell the difference. >> how are we in marketing this? how are they or we marketing the units? do you have the dem ographics of who are

being targeted and outreached to? >> the marketing plan is currently developed since this is a year or 2 out from being where marketing and- >> don't we have an agreement, where the market is way in advance before it was like when the buildings all most done but where thought there was a amendment to that? >> yes it is way in advance but just not now. it will be coming soon >> wewill be given a update on who is buying and who is being targeted? >> yes, happy to do that. >> you did address the transportation piece. aside from muni and the free shuttle. the free shuttle is

up to somany years? >> maybe lunar can speak more. it is voluntarily provided, phase 2 it is required mitigation measure so they do this voluntarily opposed to a project requirement. >> so with-brian [inaudible] with regard to the current voluntary public shuttle we are running, i don't have the information in terms of what the anticipated timeline is to run that but know the bus lines [inaudible] >> okay. thank you. >> no problem. >> just a follow-up-they are private shuttles? >> correct. there is the bus lines that are currently there running on eastern and western side and there is a private shuttle for the community on hill top that is running. i don't think it is contemplate td what

we will do with hill side. people are using it. >> excellent. that is great. okay, so i have a question of the mr. washington isn't here but would like to address the cac process and no one from the cac is here i don't think. i want to know-i get the notices, i don'ts know if other commissioners do of the meetings and when they are canceled. i know it is going on and is there a handful of people that show up. you say it has gone through 7 different meetings, is there-what is the public participation? >> in terms of outreach for meetings we have a site office and do mailings to

approximately 300 residents within bayview and hunters point in addition to a blast of e-mails that you all receive in terms of notification for the subcommittees and the full cac. in order for the vertical projects to be approved they need to present and receive endorsement of the housing subcommittee and the planning, development and finance committee and the adoption enfront all members of the cac, so there is a minimum of 3 public meetings at the cac which the projects go through. i would say attendance varies. some meetings are very popular if it is a project like alice griffith and others have a lower turn out. it is issue that our chair is very aware of, chair honeycut and working on outreaching so more members will come

to the cac meetings because it does enrich the project squz conversations so it is ongoing challenge to engage the bayview and hunters point community. >> okay. have to think more how to do that because the last thing one wants is you go through the process and folks like mr. washington come up and say, where is everyone. we don't have a answer other than we thought they knew and they should come. i think the only question i had was on the-i think it is small business and workforce information. not small business because commissioner singh asked that question. on the workforce there is 50 percent goal as we know and

to date the goal is at 42 percent which is a good achievement. 25 percent of the 42 percent are bayview residents? >> [inaudible] no, that isn't correct. 25 percent of the total. >> 69 percent of the san francisco total >> [inaudible] >> how is it folks in the bayview know about these opportunities? through the traditional channels of city build, the general contractors, the unions? >> correct. we have a mou for work force monitors and implementation so through city build and the programs they have. the city builder academy through the walk in centers

recruit folks. there is also local community based organizations that work with alice griffith residence. there is a lot of avenues to participat but city build is the primary engageer. >> okay. i don't hear anyone complaining about lack of access to jobs or little more on contracting but not so much on jobs. great. good. i should ask mr. lee, the dem ographics, i'm interested and know we don't receive the rurts on a project by project basis but of that number of bayview residence do you have a breakdown of demo graphics? >> not of the top of my head, i know a fair majority is within the

african american community but don't have the specifics. i'm happy to break that out in the semy annual report. >> great. thank you. do we have any other questions? commissioner singh moved the item. commissioner mondejar has seconded. please call the roll >> commissioner members please announce you vote when i call your name. commissioners pinmental is absent. commissioner monhar, yes. commissioner singh, yes. commissioner bustos is absent and madam chair rosales, yes. i have 3 i rr and 2 absent >> the motion passes. look forward to the project as it progresss. thank you. thank you for the very full presentation. nice. okay.

please call the next item. >> the next item is 5 e, authorizing apersonal service contract with hawk engineer. a california corporation. provide infrastructure, technical support service for hunter point shipyard phase 1 for development agreement and candlestick point phase 2. for a initial term of 1 year with 2, 1 year options to extend the contract. not to exceed 1, 525,000. hunters point shipyard redevelopment and bayview hunters point. discussion and action, resolution 79-2015. madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners, as you know the

scope and scale of hunters point ship yard candlestick point phase 2 project is very large t is a multiyear, multiphase projeblth. the development covers well over 700 acres. this is land, streets, roads, public improvement and parks that do not yet exist. that infrastructure work is necessary to advance the housing development that you saw. they need a pad, so to speak and roads in order to build on. in terms of resources, the agreements do provide for the former agency, ocii to contract out and to support this emns technical supportive work. not just our office but the city because this will eventually be accepted boo the

city who will have to operate and maintain. the city or the developer and in this case we propose a contract with engineering firm, hawk engineer inc. to support the scope and scale of the work. kevin [inaudible] is senior engineer with ocii will present this item. >> thank you executive director bohe. good afternoon madam chair rosales and commission rbs. conserveen mu pseudoa and civil engineer with ocii staff. this item authorizes personal service contract with hawk engineer inc. a san francisco based small business enterprise to provide technical support for phase 1 and phase 2 of the hunters point shipyard candlestick point project. ocii entered into 2 disposition and development

agreementwise lunar urban, the developer for the planning and development of approximately 780 acres located in the southeast water front sector of san francisco of hunters point shipyard and candlestick point. a interagency cooperative agreement among city departments sets up the framework for cooperation between ocii, the developers and the city agencies with respect to review and approval of permit applications needed to support the construction. the ica allows for a third party consultant to be hired to assist city and ocii staff in coordination with department of public

works with efficiently fulfilling the respective obligations and expeditiously processes permits related to the implementation of the project. this slide illustrates the approval permitting process. according to the dda, the developer is required to plan, design and build the critical public infrastructure. this work is given primarily by floor plans. the infrastructure, transportation, parks and open space and sustainability plan. as the developer progresss rkss design work through construction documents are required to submit a series of increasingly engineered drawings and specifications together forming the application. the drawings and perm applicationerize reviewed by city agencies as you can see on had

right hand side of the table, including ocii, public utilities commission, san francisco municipal transportation agency and the fire department. the multiagency review is coordinateed by a team at the department of public works called, the infrastructure task force and they are shown in the center box of the illustration. the for n frustructure task force they are charge and implement the planning design and [inaudible] of infruc structureture. the rfp process. july 8, 2015 ocii requested approval for technical support services with a term of 1 year with a option for 2 aadditional 1 year term extensions. the rfp was published in the san francisco chronicle, ethnic newspapers and posted on the

city and agency or city and ocii websites. august 10, 2015 ocii received 3 proposals from hsu inc. [inaudible] and hawk engineer inc. a evaluation panel consisting with members of the developer, ocii, ship yard cac, puc and dpw evaluated the 3 proposals. ranked the hawk engineer propoles as the highest among the 3 and further more, recommended negotiateated a new contract with hawk injnch ears for infruc structure technical support. hawk engineer is a small business enterprise locaitded in san francisco, in business for 33 year jz qualified and suited to perform the

required services outlined the rfp. they have supplemented task force since [inaudible] working on mission bay project, ship yard and hunters view. according to members the panel, hawk engineer provides quality and cisen reviews of the work projects need today push the projects forward. staff negotiated the scope of services and budget for the contract with hawk engineer covering the initial one year term and two aupshzal one year extension years. the proposed contract provides coordinating and processing infrastructure applications, support for design and cordsination of inprovement, assist with subdivision map jz trouble shooting issues as they

arifen. ocii also has vested development goals in the hps and cp project areas with respect to infruc structureture hawk engineer will assist with projects including the alice griffith housing [inaudible] and development of ocii owned affordable housing parcels. the budget has been set for contract amount not to exceed 450,000 for the initial term with the next 2 calendar years at 475 ,000 and 500,000. ocii contingency is programmed at this time of 100,000 to be used to handle any additional services. the maximum contract amount

including the 2 one year extension squz ocii contingency is 1, $525,000 the contract is allowed to be extended twice for a total authorization for 3 years mpt [inaudible] authority to approve the 2 optional one year contract extensions and extend the ocii contingency budget. other considerations. ocii staff informed the cac subcommittee on october 26, 2015 of the results of the rfp as well as this personal service contract. expenditureerize include in the 16 b period of the [inaudible] and will be included in the following period for the remaining term the contract. the

services are founds to be within the scope of the eir documents of ship yard phase 1 and 2 developments. so, this concludes the staff presentation . i would like to introduce dawn miller representing hawk engineer and mrs. barbara moy who is taken the lead at the department of public works infrastructure taskforce. so, we are available to answer any questions. >> thank you. do we have speaker cards? >> i have ace washington but not sure-- >> he went down stairs. he may return. >> is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? >> no. questions commissioners? commissioner mand har.

>> have we worked with hawk engineer before? >> yes they support the mission bay project and hunters view and have a limited contract with ocii that is-takes us through the end of the year. >> okay, thank you. i just wanted to see. >> who is the third ags and recognize the name. what is the name of the third competitor? >> [inaudible] they are a engineer firm in santa rosa. they are more interesced in work in san francisco and they have been doing engineering work for mission day development group. >> okay. 3 good competitors.

i don't have any questions. happy to hear a motion. commissioner mondejar make as motion. seconded by commissioner singh. please call the roll. >> commissioner members please announce your vote quh i call your name. commissioner pimentel is absent. commissioner mondejar, yes. commissioner singh, yes. commissioner bustos is absent. madam chair rosales, yes. madam chair i have 3 aye's and 2 absent. >> the contract is approved. please call the next item. >> the next item is 5 f, authzaizing a personal surfbs contract with urban analytics, a california limited liability corporation, for fiscal consultant services in amount not to

exceed $170,000 related to propose issuance of tax allocation bonds. discussion and action 80-2015 >> there are a proposed 5 bonds sales in 2016. to do that it take as great deal amount of work. as part the bond sales you took previous action relate d to mission day and new tax allocation for mission day south and since sb 107s approved we expect to issue new bonds in the spring rilated to housing for that and in order to dothat we do need a fiscal cuj sultant to help verify what is on the rules and what is available to issue those bonds. staff is here. i believe john daigal

or financial analyst will present this item. >> thank you director bohe. good afternoon madam chair rosales, members of the commission. item 5 f authorizes a fis consultant contract with urban analytics which is a san francisco lbesbe. the scrope of the contract is

bond related fis clt consultant services primarily. not to exceed amount is $170,000. the source of payment for the contract is bond proceeds if the bonds are sold and tax inrument if the bonds are not sold. this means this is compensation is not contingent upon the completion of the bond sale which is usually the case with bond counsel. if the work is done and the bond not sold we are still have obligation to make payment. this is paublg and we mention the contingency, this never happened. on the contract also includes services related to security exchange commission

mandated secondary market disclosure and other tax increment work that may come up over the course of the 3 year term the contract. fiscal consultant services are required by the ocii debt policy to provide tax increment data and analysis to be included in the official statement for each bond. the official statement is the primary official offer ing document of the bonds so it become as repository of everything material is accraes and completeness is critical of controlling the liability of the issuer. we also -our debt policy requires the secondary diz closure done annually contains a

table that is prepared by a fiscal consultant, a third party verification of the data. it is a restatement of the information in the original fiscal consultant contract so that the investors can be updated with the most critical information on a annual basis. as direct orbohe pointed out, this covers services of the ish united states of mission bay north refunding bonds, 16 b refunding bonds and e, new money bonds as well as the subordinate 2016 d mission bay south new money bond and the proposed 2016 e housing

bonds which hopefully will be the first of many. the work includes the preparation of the tax increment tables and which information about the project areas and the history of taxation delink waess and there is a document coded the fiscal consultant report which is all the tax information about the all the project areas and goes to about 45 pages. it is a great source if you are look frg a summary and detailed information on the revenues. the scrurts exchange commission mandated secondary market disclosure reports and those includes the

-updateing of that information i mentioned earlier. we have 4 required annual reports because we have 4 separate credits. we have mission bay south, mission bay north, the large cross collateralized credit and with the 2014 b and c bond that we did, the rtfpp bonds zee a new credit so that is 4 and each requires a separate report that looks at the specific revenues. each year we do 4 reports and this contract covers 3 years of 4 reports. we also provided for the contingency of one additional report that is needed if for instance, the housing bond had itself a new credit and that isn't certain yet. we dont have the legal interpretation but we wanted the

nexability to include that report should it be required. we also have a small provision and additional bond related work that may come up in the course of the 3 years covered by this contract. it happens from time to time, there could be a dispute about the tax roles and we need outside exprt ert help looking what is going on and want to provide for that and not have toam back. sometimes we need a timely response. regarding the selection process, urban analytics was unanimously received the highest scores from the panel member jz ifp was issued the economic advisory pool, 16 firms in the pool. we received 2 responses, one from kaiser [inaudible] and one

from urban analytics. a panel was formed consisting of myself and [inaudible] ocii senior development specialist, bob gamble of [inaudible] the financial advisors. the financials were scored on the experience the firm and project staff, compliance and quality the proposal and the proposed fees. this is a detailed summary of the budget and [inaudible] it shows in the first-there is a listing of the 5 bond deals with the fees expected and the total. there is provisions for bond timing

contingencies. we expect to issue b and c under the same offering documents. in that case the same fiscal report covers both and the charge for that is only 25,000 even though there are 2 series oaf bonds. if the new money splits and gets done separately, especially if it moves out past 630, we then have a new set of data that has to be prepared and it becomes a unique service so there is a $25,000 timing contingency there. if 2016 d goes out to the next fiscal year the same situation applies where we look at updateing based on the then current tax role so that is a additional 10,000. the maximum

for the bond ixuance of the combination of the [inaudible] the expectation is the 120, but we want to be prepared and not held up if these other contingencies were to develop. the other services i mentioned earlier again, the housing-annual disclosure reports are 2500 dollars each. if zee a new cred tit is 3 reports, that would be 7500 dollars. the second is additional bond related work if needed up to 7500 dollars over the course of 3 years. this brings not to exceed grand total of $170,000. with that i would like to introduce david nealy who is the principle of urban analytics. >> that concludes my

presentation. thank you. >> thank you. any speaker cards? >> ace washington is not here and that is the only speaker card i had. >> okay. question, comments, motions? one motion and one question. commissioner mondejar >> it says on the overview for a source of payment bond proceeds if sold-have we ever not sold our bonds? >> no >> we have always sold all of them? >> exactly. post disillusion with the [inaudible] flexibility is limited so we need to make sure we recovered for our contingency however unlikely. it is true that the services are-payment for the service is due if we

had a market reduction that prevented the sale or another obstuical we need payments >> but we have always sold all of our-- >> yes >> cure yss about our history. thank you. >> i'll second the motion. >> it is moved by commissioner singh and commissioner by commissioner maunds har, please call the role >> announce your vote quh call your name, commissioner pimentel is absent. commissioner mondejar, yes. commissioner singh, yes. commissioner bustos is absent. madam chair rosales yes. >> 3 aye's 2 absent. >> correct is approved. please call the next item. >> the next agenda items for 5 g and h in regards to calipers will be heard

together and acted sep rattly. approving cal per authrising contract between calpers and the successor agency and authrising the tax differals of calpers, member contributions under section 414 h 2 of the internal revenue code, discussion and action resolution number 81-2015. 5 h, authrising the implementation of the provisions of section 414-h 2 of the internal revenue code to tax differed emplyee contributions to the california public emplyees retirement system. discussion and action, resolution 82-2015. madam chair. >> through the chair, this

california pers item the commission passed a resolution of intent. oci employs are provided calpers retirement benefits. calpers asked to enter into a new contract and there is a added benefit to the employee if those are pre-taxed the employer contsbution which was negotiated through mou's so these are 2 implementing steps observe before you. bree [inaudible] will walk through these 2 actions for your consideration. >> chair rosales, commissioners my name is bree, [inaudible] here to 202 resolution both of which deal with our retirement contract with calpers. just to put things into context for

you, retirement benefits were provided to employees at sfrda through calpers and post disaleutiancally pers required to enter into new contracts. the calpers contracts are continuations of the existing contract jz no change to employee benefits. to provide context to what happened to date, we met with union local 21 and 1021 regarding the new retirement contract in the midolf october. we came to you at the end of october with a resolution of intention to hold a employee election so the employees can validate and approve the contract. that was held over a 6 business day period from november 19 to the 16 where 100 percent of our employees received ballots and the vote

for the new contract passed unanimously. so, what we are now required to do is for the commission to take action on a calpers provided resolution, the form of which is dictated by calpers and attached to a ocii resolution. your action of approving resolution 81-2015 would also approve the calpers resolution authorizing a contract. pending approval the resolution authrising the contract, the commission secretary will prepare the certification of final action of a governing body and submit thiss to cal per squz the new calpers contract would be effective the first day of the pay role period following the commission action. the next piece of business that wie are handling today with regard to our retirement contract is cost sharing. cost sharing

is essentially where the employee pays a portion of the agencies burden to pay for the future retirement benefits of both current and retired employees. ocii entered into cost sharing agreements as part of the negotiation with our labor partners in the 2015, 2017 memorandum for the agreement. at that time we agrewed with the labor partners employees would pay a portion of the cost providing retirement benefits and that would be phased in over time and that those cost sharing agreements would be done pre-tax. however, that the same time calpers informed us we were required to implement a new contract prior to any cost sharing being implemented pre-tax. the series of action is a

little confusing because prior to [inaudible] must first approve the new contract in resolution 81-2015. we have already implementing the cost sharing in july 1, that was the first trarn and the second came with the colea increase in october and the third and final increase will come in july one acomnyed by another colea increase which is total of 3.5 cost sharingism we met with local unions in october and held a election to approve for the employees to voice their pain on cost sharing. that election was held at the same time as the same contract. 100 percent of the employees received a ballot and cost sharing passedue nan masly. today you need to take 2 actions to

implement cost sharing pre-tax. the first is approve resolution 81-2015. attached is the calpers to differ member paid contributions which is deck taitded by cal per. what that does is converts the employer contribution to employee contsbution which then makes them eligible to be picked up on a pre'tax baseess. the second thing is approve resolution 82-2015 attached to which is a irs resolution, which would evidence the agencies intent to establish a proper pick up. this is dictated by the irs. pentding proval of resolution 81-2015, we would submit a

executed copy of that resolution to calpers and employee contributions convert from being paid post tax to pre-tax on the first day. it is benefit to pay sfr retirement contributions pre-tax rather than post-tax-. if you have questions happy to answer them >> any speaker cards? >> i do not have speaker cards. >> not even one from mr. washington? >> i have one, but he is not here. >> yust want to make sure. questions, commissioners? commissioner singh. >> we have the city pensions at the same time when [inaudible] and the prs. [inaudible] >> as the ocii commission you may only take action on activities

related to ocii staff pension and retirement. the retirement for ocii for city staff who are located and perform for ocii is governed by the san francisco city retirement board and they are members of the calspers. >> they are a member of both after we approve this? >> they are already members of both. >> i know that but they will be double dipper? >> when they separated from the agency, if they were eligible for retirement benefits by meeting the calpers requirement, they would receive a calpers pension upon retirement. if they retire out of the city and meet the cities eligibility requirements they receive a retirement benefit from calspers but say a employee

works 20 years, 10 years for the redevelopment agency or ocii and 10 year frz the city, the value of the benefits is paid 10 years by calpers and 10 years by calspers so they are not double dipping. >> 10 years service they will get? >> it depends on every- >> suppose you make 100,000 >> it is calculated by the years of service, the age you retire and your highest slry of employment in ocii and you are a classic member who is the member of the retirement system prior to 2013 reform. if you joined ocii post [inaudible] your retirement is slightly different. the formula is the same, but you are not eligible

to retire until 62 and i believe it is the highest salary in your last 3 years opposed to throughout your career. it is a formula dictated by calpers and dependent on individual employ ease >> in addition to the employee contsbution does the department pay also? >> we do. for classic members we pay 9 percent and [inaudible] we pay slightly less than 7 percent the employees slry. >> okay. >> commissioner mondejar, do you have questions? >> did i hear 9 percent? >> percent the employees salary. to calpers. >> i just have a point of clar fiication, slide 5 we

approvered the employee contribution of calpers and there is a new contract that needs to be approved which is what we are doing here. what happens to the benefits we provided in the interim? >> they have been-what happened is the commission by its action och approveic the memorandums of agreement with the unions approved the concept of cost sharing and the schedule beginning july 1, 2019 [inaudible] calpers in that same intervening time period all successor agencies had to get a new contract, hourfck, we have moved forward-because the new contract is a continuation och our existing contract, we have been on a day to day operational basis operating as if we had a existing contract. the

employer pays its share and employees pay their share, people that are retiring get their benefits. it has been pretty much business as usual with the exception of the fact between july 1, 2015 up until the first day of the pay period following todays action pending approval employees have been paying their share post-tax instead of pre-tax. >> there is no way making this approval ret row active so changing the character >> they will not let us change the form of the resolution even to put it on a different piece of paper. they are not very flexible. we have spent months and both the general council and i have had many extensive phone calls, e-mail exchanges, conference calls- >> that is not fair to

employees. that is post-tax versus pre-tax can be significant. >> once we negotiated to no rather than yes we moved forward with as much haste as possible to move the items through the commission and calpers process because we understand what is a burden it is to employees and want to correct that as soon as possible. >> okay. that was my question. commissioner singh. >> who else in the city department have the same type of system? >> i believe it is only the sheriff that are in calpers and any sheriff hired after i think probably-in the last 3 years came on in

calspers so as [inaudible] eventually all city employees be in calstrs >> nobody else other than sheriff department have this? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. alright. we have 2 items we'll take them separately. do i have a motion on if fifen g? moved by commissioner mondejar and veblgd by commissioner singh. please call the role >> please announce you vote when i call your name for ajena item 5 g. commissioner pen min tell is absent. commissioner monhar, yes, commissioner singh, yes. madam chair rosales, yes. i have 3 aye and 2 absent. >> the contract is authorized.

next -same call for motions? >> yes. >> please call the roll >> this is item h. commissioner pen men toll is absent. commissioner mondejar, yes. commissioner singh, yes. commissioner bustos is absent. madam chair rosales, yes. 3 aye. and 2 absent. >> 5 h is also adopted. please call public comment >> the next item is agenda 6, public comment on non agenda items. the only comment card is from mr. washington and i don't believe he is here. >> i don't see him. please call the next item. >> item 7, report of the chair. >> i do not have a report. >> the next order of business is item

8, report of the executive director, 8 a informational memorandum on the recognize obligation payment schedule for july 1, 2016 to june, 2017. 8 b, informational memorandum on the determination letter from the state department of finance approving the lodge range property management plaplan. >> thank you. commissioners we just received a favorable letter from department of finance for 15life squaen b which is the second half of your fiscal year, now it is time once again to prepare another recognized obligation payment schedule which is a expenditure plan that is required by state law that listed every expendsure

we expect to make through the course of the fiscal year. the good news is through changes in state law the governor signed in september, sb 107 we only do the process once a year. the bad news is that it is accelerated whether the due date is due to the state department of finance, the due date is now in february instead och march so we did praent presentation to the over site board yesterday. there is informational materials in your packet and the big news and this shaearly look at our budget will come back on january 19 to praent full workshop walking through the changes from last year. in essence it is preview the refined budgeted but the big-air us are no surprise. issuing housing bonds in all our

project areas as well as infrastructure bonds in transbay. now that ewoo move forwards on there parcel development it is time to complete the parks public benefits so thaes are timely with the mixed income and commercial development. those are the big moves. happy to entertain questions now but we'll have a robust workshop in january when we have refined numbers on the property tax and source of other funds. other good news, after 2 plus years of reviewing on the property management plan which sadis position plan for our assets that are required by our multi-year multi-projects in mission bay, hunters point and transbay the state has finally approved that without changes. we made corrections

due to the passage of time and part the work program this year and reflected in the budget advancing assets including the yerba buana gardens and fillmore heritage center transferring that to had city and import to us and the city. as development builds out perseent to those contracts we transfer public improvements to the city. once built and complete by private contractors or contractors we engage in transbay or affordable housing once complete will transfer to the sate through mayors office och housing. that represents a huge mile stone and staff works hard across the discipline tooz get

across the finish line. that concludes my report. >> there are early reports was that in waiting and witting for approval it is amazing 2 and a half years now. we are all on the commission 2 and a half years at least. need to ask for public comment on these items? >> just have one from ace washington but here is not here for the record. >> very good. next item, please. >> the next order of business is item 9, commissioners questions and matters. madam chair. >> any questions or matters? >> [inaudible]

>> okay. there are no question or matters. now we have closed session. >> i have to read it. the next order of business is item 10, closed session. 10 a, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation pursuant to california government code section 54956.9 d 1. the 765 market street residential owners association versus city and county of san francisco, superior court san francisco city and cpf 14513433 and 765 market street. residential owners association versus city and county of san francisco

. [inaudible] superior court san francisco city and county case number, cgc 14540094. discussion and action authorizing a settlement between successor agency and plaintiff petitioners requiring developer fund improvement related to 706 mission project. resolution number 83-2015. in regards to the [inaudible] antitrust litigation redevelopment agency of city and county of san francisco versus bank of american ndl 1950 master docket number, 0802516. federal district court southern district of new

york, discussion and action authorizing setmment agreement between successor agency regarding payment of funds based on the pro-rate of share of damages from the following parties. [inaudible] 16, 425 dollars. [inaudible] lv, 4106 and national westminster bank poc, 2156 and george k bond in amount of [inaudible] resolution 84-2015, 85, 2015, 86-2015 and 87-2015. >> i need to ask anyone not involved in the matter that isn't legal council

--at this point? okay. we have any members interested in addressing these items >> i mr. ace washington speaker card but he isn't here. >> mr. washington is not available to address the commission. then i will continue and ask any member ash available to address the commission. then i will continue and ask any member of the public to [no audio] [commission in closed session] [commission reconvened]. >> okay. looks like we are back on the record at approximately 4:20 p.m. our closed session is concluded and i will take the liberty of saying there are no reportable actions at this time. so we can call item 12. >> yes. the next order of

business is item 12, adjournment. madam chair. >> yes, the meeting is adjourned at 4:20. [meeting adjourned]