>> you asked about a few detailed questions. you asked questions about affordable housing. we invited craig to come talk to you about that. the bulk of the presentation after they covers that material will be the differences between the draft one and the draft two. i know you have been receiving a number of com hents. we received some as well. i'll spend time going over what we see as the major issues and then turn it to you guys before that. i wanted to give craig a couple of minutes to talk to you about the federal housing piece that you asked about at the last hearing. >> good afternoon, craig

adelman, i don't have much this the way of remarks, i am mainly here to answer questions. i know there were questions before you in the past about -- about we -- lease to own housing opportunity which is is not something that san francisco has traditionally done and not been real common in california and in particular, as you may or may not know, the mayor's office of housing and the redevelopment agency serve as having -- an agencies -- agencies and one of our primary impacts on affordable housing in the city is to finance private developers with -- with a number of programs, both local and leveraging those dollars with federal programs. to facilitate the production of affordable housing, both rental and ownership housing. our primary vehicle that we used to leverage as many of you may be aware is the low encome

housing tax credit, the housing tax credit has been around since 1987 and is used in the majority of affordable housing production rental production nationwide. the tax credit is specific to affordable rental housing and -- specifically rental housing targeted at & median income of 60% or below. in particular one of the reasons why nationwide that the tax credit per irs guidelines only requires a -- a minimum of -- affordability period of 15 years, throughout much of the country, particularly in -- in republic decades, competition around the tax credit has been fierce and one the key ways that a locationality and states in particular have -- have tried to leverage the value of the tax

credit is to require much longer terms of affordable. in california, we in essence have a minimum affordability period of 55 years for huffing that is produced with the low income housing tax credit. which this turn requires that housing remight not as rental housing for the 55-year period and precludes the opportunity to do a he's to open structure. beyond that, we -- we -- it is not that we're against home ownership opportunities, we have a number of home ownership programs again where we use local dollars and leverage that with low interest pnsing available at the state level. so we do provide home ownership at some points, so i'm in the sure if there was specific questions or what the thoughts were regarding the policy vance of a lease to own program. again we don't look to develop

affordable rental housing at the -- at the -- without ols having an aa home ownership component. we have programs this cover both ends of the spectrum there. i -- i think beyond that, it has been our pleasure to work with your terrific staff and members of the san francisco community in developing and bringing the housing element to its current state, we look forward to being one, as always, as the key city partnerships in had terms of implementing the plan that is ultimately approved and adopted and in inevitably a critical component of reaching the -- reaching the goals inside the housing development will provide subsidy and other financing tools. bringing those to the table which inevitably the mayor's office is a significant part of and we look forward to continuing to play that role and

working in partnership with the planning department. as you -- you almost certainly will note both from past experience with housing elements and just -- just the nature of or housing market in san francisco, you -- you'll see that the housing element draft has -- as it stands today points out that perhaps the biggest impediment to meeting the goals is a lack of capital resources to do so. we have some -- we're always in search of others but inevitably in good times and bad, dealing with -- with a shortfall in terms of meeting the needs of a community such as san francisco, which has such -- a stressed housinger market in terms of -- of where the market is compared to affordability levels. with that i will turn it back to the planning department staff. i'm available for questions.

>> so, as i said before, the main focus of our discussion today is really the differences between draft one and draft two, there was a year separated between the two of them. and before i get into that, e want to spend time talking about how we got to where we are, sarah and i and some other staff at the department has been working on the housing element for for over two years now. we started -- with started with a community advisory body that included members from each supervisor district. we used them as the working body to develop the first draft. following that we also did over 30 public meetings throughout the city, hosted by various neighborhood associations. we had an online survey and a few hearings before you including the release of the first draft. the com moments we received on the first draft are online. here's a summary matrix. i believe that's been circulated in your packet before.

so the draft with us published in june of 2009, following that we -- we received a number of comments. all are in the matrix in your packet. i believe there's a last appendix. these are circulated drafts and subsequently received more comments. we really feel the strength of this housing element, especially on the 2004 is the energy and the staff time and -- sort of the community input that has been involved in really crafting and -- getting to -- getting the different policies ironed out. in -- we, the comments we received although a number in that really focus on a few key issues. i think we're going to sort of focus our discussion onthat pop just sort of a, for the public and -- i know many of you have had the pleasure of serving or being involved in the 2004

housing element, what we're trying to do with the housing element update. in fact that's a revision we felt we should make between the version one and version two is really clarify, what does the housing element do. it is an at some point for -- for the city to man for growth. to manage the growth that we see coming. it is our communication to the state to show that we are actually able to accommodate the growth that is projected for our area. it is for tove think about -- to have everybody think about this. what it does not doo is implement any changes. the adoption of the housing element does not result in changes in the zoning, it does not result in the approval of any projects. it doesn't sir come vent any

standard public pearmings appearance processes for -- for, policy adoption. so, it kind of sets a policy framework, and then all of those pieces would go through the standard public process and legislative process, which includes community heergs and public hearings and this commission and the board of supervisors as well. just to sort of get that cleared up, the document the we're talking about. really, the comments we received between draft one and draft two, and sort of on the changes that were made, really focus on two main issues, one what is the relationship between community planning and the community planning process and how high we plan for housing. the second is -- the relationship between how we man for housing and new development or smart growth. i'm -- on the first one respect community planning process, we heard a lot of questions about what did the word we use mean.

what does neighborhood supportive mean? what does community supported mean? how do we -- are we being clear enough with -- with explaining what the process is and the procedures would be when an area plan was implemented or when a new project was started or anticipate of the things that -- that the housing element discusses or calls for. we did -- our best to work between draft one and draft two to try and clarify and articulate and make sure that people understood the processes we used that we think held up really well in the better neighborhoods and eastern neighborhoods would be used any sort of future efforts. we're looking for a -- for you're feedback and advice on sort what -- what is the best way to communicate the relationship between the community -- community planning process. the second is trans-- development. there's a lot of sort of

planries words and smart growth, and kind of starts sounding like the same thing. i think it create at lot of confusion in the community, this is maybe left over from the 200 housing element, i think there was a lot of -- of public energy and discussion around a map that came out with a large buffer zone, kind of showing -- showing a growth area throughout the entire city almost, and there was a map again in the -- in the first draft of our housing element of 2009 housing element. it created a lot of just comfort and -- discomfort and confusion. in this draft we tried to really be as specific as we could about what does -- what does trans oriented development mean. and this is a housing development for the next seven years and sets the framework for where we're moving in the next 20 years. so, we are really looking for feedback on -- on where the commission would like us to move

with that specific issue. there's one policy that was in draft one. at that point it was policy 1.5. it read support new housing projects on sites located close to major transit. that created a lot of -- it generated public comment and people thought it was ambiguous. we pulled it out. the thought that's one place between graft one and two, we think we could do work. with all of you and the staff as well, you get that to a good spot. we like to get direction from you on those two issues. and inal going to leave it this. if staff is here and vibble no expes and comments. thank you. >> for questions and comments.

is i'm -- represent san francisco tomorrow. -- thank you for my hat. my comments refer to -- to the question of staff guidance. i have two proposals. up front. we need a discussion format, so you better understand and we better understand how e.i.r.'s and the housing elements interrelate in their complexity. this is not a good format for discussions and understanding. secondly, nonconflicted expertise needs to be called in that is not on the payroll or benefits the -- benefit financially from what goes on here. i suggest people like mr. hartman or anthony -- carl anthony for example, who knows