Of the right of way. So to take it a little bit further, once they accept, once public works accepts these as public rights of way, the assessment of 4,000 will go away . Not quite. Its a twostep process. But in essence you are correct. The first step would be for the city to accept these parcels from ocii but in doing so, they would still remain a private parcel in public ownership. D. P. W. Would have to take the second step and incorporate, merge these two lots into the right of way. And at that point, what you said is true, it would no longer be subject to the assessment. Do we know how long that process takes and whether public works has that on their list of things to do . Weve had discussions with public works. It is my belief that the first they are aware of this fact, and second it is my belief they plan to incorporate this into the right of way once accepted. There is a little bit of a technical issue, because streets and sidewalks have to be have to meet certain specifications, so d. P. W. Would have to assess the sidewalks to make sure that they were, they met city standards. And now you are raising another question, which is have they done that, and what would that cost public works, and if we are accepting this, and it comes with an out year capital liability, is ocii going to pay for it Going Forward . I cannot speak for ocii but the proposal that is before us is the transfer of these to the city which would then become a city responsibility. Through the chair. It seems to me that thats fine, you can answer the question in a moment, but it seems to me that the analysis should be done, whether or not these will meet the specifications. As i understand that process fairly well, that you have to go through an acceptance process. I know it goes through the bureau of streets and mapping, and they have to determine whether or not it makes city specifications. But if it does not, right now you have listed that the city will be taking on this cost. So we have to ensure i would be more comfortable knowing that its going to be accepted, and the city is not going to have to reduce its allocation. Im Development Services manager at ocii and i appreciate the supervisors question. Its true, in our active project areas where we actively have obligations and funding to build infrastructure, those follow acceptance process. These sites are a little different in that they were completed many years ago and closed out, and we have no further authority under disillusion to do any improvements to them. While we certainly understand the citys concern to assess and make sure they are in a condition, our Disposition Authority is to transfer for governmental purpose as is, since we have no authority to expend funding on these essentially. So you are not paying the bill currently . There is no bill currently. Theres no bill to the Community Benefit district . Sorry. The two parcels, the sidewalks, we are paying the c. B. D. Assessments. Thats the question at hand. So if you transfer and all of a sudden it doesnt meet the specifications, who is going to pay that . Post transfer, it would be city. So i dont have a better answer than that. So i would say it would make more sense to find out if its going to be accepted. We have that answer before we make the transfer. I understand that. I assume we are talking about standard width sidewalks, the curbs, gutters . Correct. These were all improvements that were built at the time. All right. Is there anybody here from d. P. W. . Okay. Well, im sorry, we dont call it d. P. W. Anymore. But the charter does, and we are people of the charter, so we do. Thank you, chair peskin. I want to go back to the sidewalk issue at the end of the presentation but i wanted to continue on to the last proposed transfer of the day if we could have the slide. And that is the proposed transfer to the recreation and parks district. And i saw mr. Keens memorandum where he indicated on behalf of rec and park although rec and park hasnt verified that that would be no additional Maintenance Cost to them given the fact they maintain the rest of the park . Thats correct. They have been maintaining this portion of the park as well as the rest of the park for some time. Mr. Keen may have also informed you and for the benefit of the public, the rec and Park Commission has also passed a resolution accepting this parcel or recommending its acceptance. It makes sense that this parcel would go to rec and park because, one, they have been maintaining it for some time and also because the area has been dedicated for open space recreation. Going back to the ongoing cost, as was stated earlier, these transfers are at no cost to the city. Basically that means that the city is not paying a Purchase Price for these parcels. Ocii indicated that the only incremental cost for the operation and maintenance associated with these transfers is the issue of the c. B. D. Assessment which also happens to be the parcel that is related to whether or not d. P. W. Can accept those parcels as part of the right of way. So there is a cost balancing on either side of the equation for the acceptance of those street parcels. One, the payment of a 4,000 per year assessment, which is a known cost, versus an acceptance of those streets as part of the right of way which has an x factor as a cost. That cost may be zero or it may be some significant sum. I dont know if the board is willing or comfortable with moving forward with this resolution while those issues are being resolved. I have a proposal for you. Yes, chair peskin. I need mr. Spitz first. Jeremy. I have one other question, which is a simple question. It may be an ocii question. I think it is. Which is that this resolution applies to the aforementioned rightsofway in the Grocery Store and the park and any future additional assets not listed in the list of former agency Real Property would be brought back to this board for consideration. I just wanted to know, is there, i think only ocii can answer this. Is there any other Real Property or assets that are not listed in the list of former agency Real Property . Yes, there are. There are a known number of finite assets, and i can list them for the committees pleasure including the fillmore heritage center. There are future transfers of assets in our active project areas, for example parks that have yet to be completed, the Mission Bay Parks that are being built out which we leased that land from the city. So we would be terminating that lease. In some cases there are c. B. D. Funds that go with those maintaining those entities, the facilities. Those are fullydisclosed in our p. M. P. Document which is the finite list of what we have Disposition Authority for, but i have a summary if it is of interest to the board. I would love to have it, and any of those would have to be brought back to the board of supervisors for approval. That is my understanding. Our Disposition Authority is granted through the approval of the p. M. P. Which the Oversight Board approved. My understanding is it is a city requirement for the the supervisors for the by citi can accept that property on the citys behalf. Thats what it seems to say here at the bottom of page 2 at line 25. So it is written. Mr. Spitz. If this committee were to forward this item to the full board, you would have eight days to figure out whether or not this is going to cost nothing, a little bit or a lot of money to accept. And while he said on the one hand if we dont accept it, we just have to pay 4,000 a year, i think these streets should be accepted because they are parts of public rightsofway, and that is the right thing to do separate and apart from the 4,000 per year fee. But i would like to know if public works can, between now and a week from now, create and write down the potential cost of what it would take to accept these. Thank you, chair peskin. We will certainly do that as soon as possible. I havent gotten a time estimate from any of our staff, but i will do that right away to try to get that as soon as we could. So we have two choices here. We can continue it here in committee and wait for that, or we can send it to the full board with the understanding that until we get that information well just continue it at the full board. Its kind of six of one, half a dozen of another. And ill defer to my colleagues on that. I have a okay. I have a question about the Grocery Store. I want to add for the record that i have reached out to the district 10 Supervisors Office with regard to 345 Williams Street where the aforementioned Grocery Store would be transferred from ocii to the city and county through the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. And it is my understanding that the district 10 supervisor is in support of that so i just want to put that on the record. That was one of my notes. Supervisor safai . I wantedd to ask a question about the Grocery Store. So can you tell a little bit more about that . I guess it sounds like it has a deed restriction. Is the lewis use is the use limited only to grocery . Is there anything that happens in this transfer . It was purchased with Community Block grant money, and i think if we were to change the use, we would have to refund the 4 million of cbg money . Is that correct . Theres two forms of encumbrance on the 345 williams project. One is the lease. There are termination provisions on that lease. For default i would leave that to a conversation with the City Attorney but there are provisions for default. The options for extension are at the tenants discretion provided they are in good standing. They pay approximately 325,000 a year . 325,000 a year. So thats the lease. The other restriction if you will, its not a deed restriction per se, its that the property was purchased with c. D. B. Renewal. So the proceeds, right now the lease proceeds, solis revenues all go from occii to Mayors Office of Community Development. They program that for services in the bayview currently. So thats what i those lease revenues are going to, 100 of them. Those are, thats a process that mohcd controls through the cdbg process and annual plan. Should the property be sold at some future date, those proceeds would be income also, so they would go through that same programming process that the lease revenues currently go through. So it doesnt restrict the use per se of the property, but the proceeds that would be generated. Right. Does that answer your question . I understand that portion. I guess what i was beside the source of funds being cdbg, what was redevelopment . The cdbg funds, how did the Redevelopment Agency get involved . What was your interest interest in the property . There was an initial food desert essentially in bayview, and there was an ask to interest the safeway had closed, and there was interest in helping attract a fullservice Grocery Store to the community at that time. Did the Redevelopment Agency put money into the property . Thats what my question is. We did. We put some tenant improvements into the property at the time. It was an existing building from 1964 i believe. So it was built in 1964 and you bought it in 1990 . Right. And we had a small, i think it was a few hundred thousand, it was not a significant tenant improvement loan. Im asking if the bulk of the funds were cbgg why was the property under your jurisdiction and not the Mayors Office of housing originally if all you put in was tenant improvement money . I wasnt there at the time so i dont know the origin of the original ask. It was a survey project area. It was not a project area at the time. So why now are you transferring it . We are required to under dissolution law. I know you dissolved but you have a list of properties. Are there an existing list of properties that have been completed that you have not transferred yet . We are trying to transfer all our completed assets because you dissolved how many years ago . We were dissolved in 2012. We could not transfer anything until our longrange Property Management plan was approved in november of 2015. So thats when we then had authority and we started, the city with our partner, we have to work in tandem together to transfer those assets. Thats my question. I understand it was dissolved years ago, about five years now. Why are we bringing this one in particular . What is the process by which you decide over the last five years and Going Forward existing assets since your dissolution, that you are deciding to transfer . So under law, we are required to transfer everything. These are the completed, we are trying to transfer all our completed assets, otherwise obviously in mission bay, transbay, we cant transfer those yet. We work in tandem just as we developed the Property Management plan in consultation with our City Partners, we try to plan that work plan together, so we are prepared to transfer everything as quickly as we can, but we Work Together to manage that work flow. Thats the best i can answer. They are working their way down the list. Before we figure out what we are going to do with this thing, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this stimulating item, number 1 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. What is the sense of the board as to my 6of one, half a dozen of another . Have you had time to assess that . We think we would be able to do it before next tuesday or within a week. All right. Well, then, colleagues, if there is no objection, i would suggest that. May i be heard . Yes, of course. The one last thing i didnt get to in my presentation was the amendment. I was just about to do that for you but go for it. Thank you. I submitted to the clerk, red lines of the resolution, the form of deed and the assumption and assignments. And they have made the changes that you requested to make those documents grant deed and reference a grant deed by a quitclaim deed. So it asks that the board make findings on the revisions as well as the item. I was just about to do exactly that, so for those of you who do not know, the difference between a quick claim deed and grant deed is a quick claim deed is an instrument by which property title is transferred where in the transferrer, the seller, if you will, makes no representations to the buyer as to what they own or what encumbrances are on that title. As compared to a grant deed wherein that as a matter of law makes representations that the seller actually owns it and that it is generally free of many encumbrances. And i felt strongly that because this is a transfer from a former creature of state law to a city that i thought the successor agency, ocii should make those representations, the city and county of San Francisco. And thank you as i said earlier, for humoring me on that, and we will, if there are no objections, colleagues, make those changes. Well scratch quitclaim and insert grant deed. And if there is no objection, send this item as amended to the full board with recommendation pending information from public works as to what acceptance will cost and we will do that without objection. Madame clerk, can you read the next item . Item 2 is an amendment to the planning code to aallow yards and usable open spaces if they meet the specified requirements and allow bay windows that dont meet the specified requirements to apply for a waiver. She has a new, better revised Powerpoint Presentation on section 136 of the code. Another earthshattering piece of legislation. The floor is yours. Thank you, supervisor peskin. The San FranciscoPlanning Department. I also have with me maya small, designer of the urban plan team, and hopefully i have a Powerpoint Presentation. Bear with me for just a moment. There we are. Today we are here with a Planning Commission sponsored ordinance. It would amend code 136 which permits pay windows that dont meet the standards of section 136 to apply for a Zoning Administrator waiver. The first change would be to architectural projections. Currently they may be horizontal in nature. The vertical projection may not be longer than two and a half feet. At roof level they can extend no more than three feet over the allyways and setbacks and every other level they may extend no more than one foot over the streets, allies and setbacks. We have examples on the slide. The issue is under the current standards, many types of decoration encompassing new and traditional design do not qualify as permitted obstructions. So we have some examples on the slides there. So why this change . The Planning Department has received numerous proposals that incorporate interesting and high caliber architectural decorations. However due to strict nature of the code, they cannot approve them. New Energy Code Requirements often prompt the use of sunshades, however because they are largely vertical in nature, they do not qualify as a permitted obstruction. So give you an idea of what we are proposing, its fairly simple. We are deleting the word horizontal. So that means a projection may now be vertical, diagonal, anything in the middle. And to change that at roof levels we are going from 3 feet to 4 feet. And at every other level its from one foot to four feet. And i just