under redevelopment, 80% of the tax increment was to flow back into the redevelopment area. with the dissolution, we were told that absent any substitute agencies this money would flow into the general fund of the city or county; in our case the city and county of san francisco. under successor agency, with a redevelopment funds or criminal tax funds clawback of the area or to the general fund? >> the answer is yes and yes. anything with the tax increment, 60% infrastructure, -- down the line to the district. in those areas funds do flow pursuant to the contract in place to the taxing entities, in the format described, 80-20%. -- it requires an increment in infrastructure to make it happen. 100% of 0 is 0. once development happens, we are looking at changes to state law to try to capture the increment and the upfront investment required to make that kind of brownfield site go. and flow through the general fund. all things considered obligated, they have underlying contracts; if for some reason the tax increment would flow to that obligation or contract and when paid off like

redevelopment area that certain [inaudible] from the development apply, is that correct? for example, commissioner wu, i think commissioner wu was saying that there was a higher affordable housing component, and that's associated with the redevelopment area, is that correct? >> that's correct. if i can get the slide up there, if i could put the map up to clarify. so, you can see the plan area is the more purely rectangular broader plan area of market street to folsom, the redevelopment area, you can see it on your screens in front of you better is a more regularly shaped subset, it occupies 2/3s of the planning area, all of the housing is within the redevelopment area, we do expect some units to be built outside of the redevelopment area, you know, maybe as much as as about a thousand units but most of the units are within the redevelopment area and regardless of whether built on private parcels or public parcels in the redevelopment area, it has a 35% affordable requirement, so you are correct in that. >> okay, thank you. >> and basically then, most of the proposed incre

tiffany -- director of the redevelopment agency. redevelopment was abolished, february 1. -- -- anything with the contract, something valid under state dissolution law, all of the payees associated with those contracts must be painfully lifted out, line item by line item, with source of funding on a schedule. that schedule is approved by the oversight board, the state department of finance every month. this test import -- jason indicated -- our surviving major redevelopment projects, equivalent to 20 billion, candlestick phase 1, and 2, mission bay, state -- transit center, all part of one redevelopment plan and other true wind-down activities honoring our commitment throughout the city whether in the third street bayview corridor, like a bankruptcy, wind down pay off the debt so the tax increment in the series is available for distribution to the taxing entities, city, county, bart, schools. free up the taxes generated for distribution to the other entities. in the case of san francisco we do have a lot at stake. a number of these

it's about recognizing that redevelopment allowed a certain portion of money to be used for redevelopmentit's not about recreating redevelopment, in fact that's a closed chapter in history. lastly the idea we are reducing the mixed income housing is also a sort of fallacy. there is a purpose to providing an incentive for developers to do what's called mixed income housing, providing some of their units are affordable to mixed income households. most developers do not do that and this is an incentive for them to do it. this is providing a set of programs that are funded providing all the way for folks who were formerly homeless to folks who are middle income to be and stay in san francisco. >> any final comments, starchild. >> it sounds like peter is saying on one hand, well, no, it won't subsidize middle income people then he's saying there is a range all the way from middle income people all the way up to -- he doesn't say what the top range is. there's a guy named jim reid who is a contractor here he built himself in his own back yard a single unit house that he built for $12,000, very

if anything, the uptown and redevelopment tax is ahead of schedule. that is why we are no. 5 on the new york times list, in many ways. what i think is the lemons from lemonade -- the fact we have had these blighted areas and these long old industrial areas are now becoming the hot areas. i see the estuary being very much like what happened in mission bay and near the airport and coliseum, areas that can be massive for research parks or office spaces. as well as integration of industrial uses other areas. we continue a fairly diverse economy. i think what we are saying is when you are the major you have to represent the 100%. i took my little 99% button and changed it to 100%. we need to grow the entire city. in our case, we are looking at an economy that has industrial roots, historically. we are rivals for a new, green, and tech industries. at last count, we had 250 of them. when we move forward in these new areas, redevelopment was very helpful in terms of the land, the cleanup of the brown fields. i think there will be some state programs that will

redevelopment statewide is in need of reform. san francisco is a model for redevelopment and it needs to stay intact. >> let's talk about the role of sports. are you happy with the plans for the america's cup? should the city spend money to keep the 49ers'? >> i am thrilled about the america's cup. it will not just be an economic boom that creates jobs and long- term economic development. it will help us shore up our aging and deterioration appears -- deteriorateing piers. it will help us clear of deferred maintenance. it will be a >>> promotion for the city. people will see the panoramic views of san francisco and want to come here. i would very much like to see forty-niners stay here. what that means, we will have to talk about it. i am not a big fan of massive public subsidies to sports teams. i think we should work hard to keep them here. >> we're almost out of time. are there any other issues or concerns we have not discussed? are there any other specific issues you plan to concentrate on throughout your turn? >> a couple th

the place is being redeveloped. and if it's being redeveloped, then they should be redeveloped for the individual that is currently living in the place because we fought so much to get the housing to be fixed up for the residents that were living in housing that was not sufficient enough for humans to live there. and it would just be inappropriate for all to not make sure that the same residents and the same reason, the same purpose that we have engaged in the redevelopment process to begin with, that the same folks would not benefit from that. you know, from that standing, from that reason that we're here. so, i'm in support of it and i hope we all are in support of that today. thank you so very much for your time. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is madelein howard. i'm a staff attorney with bay area legal aid. we represent low-income tenants. we partner with housing rights committee and sarah short to help ensure that subsidized housing tenants can stay in their homes. so, we are here to support this am

>> the large projects both in the redevelopment area and outside the redevelopment area, but yes, it's all funding the program. >> okay, thank you. and i guess we have a couple more speakers. i want today make -- wanted to make a motion. >> distributed before your meeting was a sheet that included technical corrections, the last items were correct ined the draft resolutions, you can see that by in large, most of the corrections are the planning commission's motion adding reference to the recreation and park commission motion and correcting some grammatical errors and then in the exhibit, i would add the national qualitative [inaudible] for portsmouth square, correcting that, and as it relates to willie woo woo wong, but it was just a typographical error. i thought we would propose that any motions pr the commissions would impose that. >> if i'm the maker of the motion, it would include that. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, back to staff, just to follow up on commissioner hillis, so that we all absolutely understand the import or implication of approving the cumulative limit, if we appr

while the first round allowed for redevelopment and successor agencies to be part and parcel of city government or county government, depending on the jurisdiction, this round of legislation literally requires them to be separate from city and county. as of the effective date of this legislation, the successor agency is technically a separate entity from the city. in addition, the legislation that the mayor put forward that the board passed would create a separate board so there would be two entities. the oversight board i sit on would continue to exist but only be responsible for the fiduciary you responsibilities, the financial obligations if you recall what is called the recognized obligation payment schedule that we are required to submit to the state every six months. the second board would be composed of citizens appointed by the mayor, endorsed by the board, which would review entitlements, review projects and somewhat of the same capacity the former redevelopment commission board did. again, this is the result of -- to be honest, changing their mind on these things. we are co

the total amount paid by the redevelopment agency from the low mod housing fund was $17.8 million. since the edition solution of the redevelopment agency earlier this year, the mayor's office of housing has assumed ownership of the redevelopment agency parcels on octavia boulevard. * dissolution since the market octavia plan was adopted the city has sold or signed purchase agreements for seven additional parcels beyond the ones i already mentioned. oh, i think i'm one slide off, i apologize. let me find my place back here. okay. since the market octavia plan was adopted the city has signed or sold or signed purchase agreements for seven additional parcels s, h, j, p and v for a total of 21.7 million dollars. * f the city made a conscious decision that beyond the sale of the aforementioned parcel to the redevelopment agency -- i see, my notes are in a different order than the slides. i apologize. let me go back. all right. i apologize. my notes are stapled in the wrong order here. let me address this slide here. the city made a conscious decision that beyond the sale of the first pa

tiffany -- director of the redevelopment agency. redevelopment was abolished, february 1.

i do expect that because this priority due to the redevelopment that that's going to be resolved fairly quickly and we'll be able to move on, the slow process of filling positions. the other thing tom mentioned is that we are providing i think as i speak, if it's not this week, next week, the unions, the information on housing inspectors. we will provide that description to the mayor's office and the board of supervisors so that we will get concurrence as we go through the recruitment and we won't be stopped by any, we will have done our due diligence and getting everybody as happy as we could. that has been kind of the last focus is trying to get those going and rosemary has done yeoman's job on that. >> with regard to the holding, so i know for example dpw were going through hiring. is this across all departments or just dbi on hold? >> it's across all departments. what happens is that, for instance, in this case it's a management decision, like a very kind of the lowest level management assistant, the second lowest. and so we had a job description, we provided that to dhr, they looke

. >> governor brown has proposed to eliminate funding for redevelopment agencies. what is your opinion of the plan? >> we knew that by electing a governor brown he would have to make incredibly difficult choices. i do think this through development proposal goes a bit too far -- redevelopment proposal goes too far. it would be catastrophic to many developments and proposed developments. i hope the ongoing conversations to change his proposal will modify it into something that will continue to help localities and counties like san francisco. i think we can get there. >> water some of the biggest land use issues in your district? >> in addition to the america's cup planning, there is a discussion around the development of cpmc. it would be the largest hospital project our city has seen in decades. it would probably be the largest land use project discussed this year. it is right on the edge of my district. it is seated at the intersection of several separate as oriole -- supervisorial districts. there are issues around displacement, the impact of a large hospital on

with the legacy of redevelopment and the more recent predications in the stock of public housing as a result of the federal hope 6 program, my district in particular and other districts have experienced its share of permanent displacement of low-income tenants. this displacement has broken positive community bonds, destroyed tight-knit communitis and contributed to african-american out-migration. with this legislation, no longer will san francisco endorse or fund public housing rebuilds that displace residents outside of their communities or out of san francisco. this is the first step of many that this board of supervisors can take to demonstrate that the city has learned lessons from the ills of redevelopment and has intentionally developed a plan to be more conscious of the families fact impacted by redevelopment type of activities. this legislation gives a family that is forced to move a choice in priority to return to the site where their homes once existed. it also begins to rebuild in addition to housing trust between residents and the developer teams charged with redeveloping

in 2009 you adopted a master plan for the -- development, appeared in concert with the redevelopment agency at that time. under the loss of redevelopment this year the side was not mentioned as one that could move forward under tax increment because there was no contractual obligation that made the site possible to move forward under redevelopment. this is one of those plans weather was brought consensus; the community was very supportive. we all feel the pain of not being able to move forward as plan in the previous version. the good news is that we are working with the office of economic and workforce development. we are re initiating work on the community to see what we can do with the tools in place, and with the current development climate. to that and we were having a first public workshop which will take place next saturday the thirteenth at 10 a.m. at the visitation valley library. sarah has been working closely with the community and with the developer, there is a workshop for the public and the commission. with that, again i'm happy to take questions. i know there are some

however with the dissolution with the redevelopment agency the successor agency has requested to transfer responsibility for the project and grant funds and match funds to dpw. this is recorded in a june 2012 memorandum of understanding between dpw and successor agency. in august of 2010 the redevelopment agency commission passed a resolution assuring the agency would provide 959,450,000 in non-federal matching funds, creating an enforceable obligation for this project. this accept and expend is the last step required to finalize the transfer of project funds to dpw. here today are the project manager from dpw and a representative of the successor agency. we would be happy by to answer any questions from the board. >> thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, shown on page three of our report, table one, which is on page four, summarizes the $2,340,400 project grant -- total project cost. 2,340,400, then the source of funds are shown in the following table on page four, table two, coming from the former san francisco redevelopment a

the redevelopment agency has a long history some would say of racism and certainly cronyism, lack of accountability, that's one of the reasons they were closed down last year by the democratic governor. we believe that was a great decision and shouldn't be brought back until 2042. >> peter, similar elements what we're seeing in this proposition almost four times, set asides in 9090 and the bond measures proposed in 2002 and 2004. can you describe how this may be different in its effect in how it's being brought forward to the voters? >> sure. well, as i said, the immediate context, the crisis, if you will, is that the city stands to significantly lose funding for its programs. i mean we're talking about a program cut. so that's quite different in some respects from previous attempts, but the similarity is that for many years we've been thinking about how to stabilize the funding that we need for affordable housing programs over the long-term. not everything can be done immediately, sometimes there needs to be long-term planning, there needs to be bonding, it's a complicated process o