written and shifted to the -- back -- to that. we do have a lot of changes to the legislation, and i am here to answer any additional questions. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am the manager of the exclusionary housing program. i just want to reiterate that we are also very excited that we are finally in front of you. the planning department has really been helpful in pushing us along and clarifying how important it is for us to move quickly. although it does not seen fit, -- although it does not seem clit, -- although it does not seem quick, i want to thank tara

sullivan. a lot of people have asked us how this will impact the current inflationary housing program, and it is also interesting to see where we are. i have an overhead that explains how the program [inaudible] if you can see this, what we see today, from the beginning of our program in 1992 through at least march of this year is about 30% of our units on rentals, and 70% our ownership, so that gives you an idea. in addition, you will see that a great majority of our units are on site. most developers choose on site, and most units themselves are on site units. the second reference book -- both in terms of the products themselves in the unit when you look at the unit total, is off site, and the final preference

is the fee. nothing has really changed through this program but that we cannot mandate mental anymore. why did we not exempt rental as some cities have done? he did not exempt rental units entirely and we did create an opportunity for them to develop through development agreement because we believe rental development is very important to the city. i wanted to mention a staffer for -- staff report. i wanted to mention a couple of changes that the mayor's office of housing is also proposing. we are proposing we work with the planning commission to address some stakeholder concerns that are coming up over the past few years in response to the ordinance. it is an exciting program. there are many opinions about the program both from those who own the units, but the units, assist those trying to get into the units, and it has been a

pleasure to work with everyone on their feedback and incorporate what we can. i want to highlight the challenges we have had with reselling units. although most of our units resell nicely, and in a timely manner, are resold at an affordable price to a qualifying households, some of our owners are facing some challenges, and i say about four dozen or so of our units are facing this challenge. what we are seeing is that some of our owners are unable to resell in a timely manner for two reasons. one, their units may have been priced in a way when they were first priced so that the unit is no longer affordable to the first house votes, so they were priced really high. a lot of these units are in the southeast portion of the city and are also facing the additional challenge of the following -- of course, with the real estate prices and declined,

prices have gone down in sand and cisco, and we have a few dozen units his initial purchase price are actually higher than the comparable market differences of the units around them. to respond to these challenges and to assist bmr owners, we suggest a one-time waiver of some of our qualifying rules, and we will work closely with the planning commission to develop strategy for allowing these waivers, and secondly, we plan to work with -- we are asking from -- for loans from need to work with the planning department to explore a situation in which the unit is priced at or above local market rate prices. supervisor maxwell: is that because the market has dropped? is that what you are saying? or initially it should not have been at market or above market initially, right? because they are below market

the units? >> it is a combo for some of the units. what happened is income levels are very high, but we also used a pricing level set forth by the planning commission in 2002 that was variable. that index rate that we were required to use set some of the price is very high in the beginning and in addition to that, they are facing this competition from the units. for example, we have about 64 units that were purchased between 2004 and 2006, and 14 of these units were purchased at prices that are now higher than market rate units around them, so even if they be sold at the price they bought them for and then 24 of them are within 24% of market value. example, candlestick point. here is a 3-bedroom unit.

this is a true scenario. purchased for $500,000 in 2004 under the below market rate program, which was considered to be a good price back then, but the current comparable market rate value is $437,000 in 2010, so the original purchase price is above what a market rate neighbor could charge for that unit. this is unusual. as i mentioned, most of our units are reselling nicely. they are still in great demand. >> what are you putting in place that would deal with that? >> what we are proposing we discuss with the planning commission is to amend our manual to waive some of the program requirements on a one- time basis only for the units, and that would be, for example, waving the qualifying household size one time. there have to be as many people in your household as there are bed rooms in your unit.

allowing an owner in a financial crisis to vent their unit for up to a year. perhaps awaiting the asset test for the next buyer household. adds in a certain percentage of the cash someone has in the bank and raises their income. perhaps we've in the qualifying income levels before marketing unit, just by 20% so did the next household can make a little money and perhaps of for the unit, and perhaps in extreme circumstances waving the first- time home buyer rules on a one- time basis only. >> so what is your goal? >> the goal is to assist bmr owners in reselling in a timely manner. >> -- supervisor maxwell: it is not to make sure we keep bmr units and that we have people who would not ordinarily be able to afford the units to be able

to afford them? >> it is in combination with that goal. supervisor maxwell: then how with making its so people with more money could buy the unit? how would that keep our goal? >> i think i understand your concern. what we would most likely propose -- let me give an example -- say we reprice a unit, and say they made 20% profit off the unit. we reprice the unit and tell the house told how much they can sell the unit for. if we decide to raise the qualifying income level by 20%, we would then require that the household selling their units sell it for perhaps the price they bought it for and make no profit off of it, so we would do everything we can to balance how much the unit is selling for so we do not lose that affordability, with a provision

that allows the unit to sell. the reason why it is still hopeful right now to raise the income level of a qualifying household is that it is so hard to get financing and most banks are requiring 10% or 20% down. supervisor maxwell: but as long as we're making sure that our goal is to keep the units affordable, what ever you do, but as long as that goal is so that another person coming in -- we do not want to get to the point where we do not have any bmr units -- >> exactly. i think that is what we are trying to do. supervisor maxwell: you are trying to do that, but you need to make sure. that is the bottom line. that is what is supposed to be the bottom line. the bottom line is that this unit is supposed to be affordable, and the city paid

bonds. we have done a lot to make sure that happens, so we have to make sure that you understand that is the base. >> i do understand. supervisor maxwell: i'm not talking about you personally because you might be gone tomorrow. i'm just saying as long as our policy is understood, that that is what it is. we should make sure that you have to come back so that we -- i do not mean you. we have to make sure that the policy comes back so that we know from the mayor's office that is what it is. thank you very much. and you are very good and safe in your report. -- s.s. st. in your report. >> i am with the mayor's office of housing. the rules we are suggesting are a one-time waiver, only upon this resale. everything else in the procedures manual will stay in

place. and it is a response to a special economic time we are seeing right now. the market in said in cisco has fluctuated up and down, and yes, the pricing for these units are inflexible. they say, so this will be a one- time waiver, and both the pricing and all of the other accompanying rules will stay. supervisor maxwell: i think those one-time will are fine, but i do not think we should waiver on the unit being what it is supposed to be because everybody is having a difficult time. we have people who may have been making a lot more but now are making less. city workers for instance are now making less money, so we are now making it more difficult for them to buy those units because we have given them furloughs and we in the state, so i just think

there needs to be a little bit more work on that part. maybe i'm not getting it, but i'm just concerned that even that one time to be an opening for other people saying, "we did it once." >> we share that concern. we do not want to be in a position where everyone wants an exception to everything. however, we are seeing that there are a handful of folks will have had their units on the market for over a year. they have lost their jobs, gotten jobs elsewhere -- supervisor maxwell: for those people, and more than willing. i just am saying that when you start talking about making people who ordinarily would not be able to buy their units be able to buy the unit, that means you are knocking some other people out, so there might be another way that we can do that.

if you are looking at people with higher incomes, you are not looking at people who could of originally afford to buy it. you need to continue looking at that. the need to continue looking at a number of tools. my suggestion is we keep looking at those schools and be very careful in what we do, even with the exceptions, and i do not want to have that debate right now here. >> i understand. >> if i also might say one thing -- the proposed changes as she was talking about the unit's unable to resell -- all of these are not -- they are not codify per se. what the legislation and the code would be saying is it would be giving the ability of the planning commission to formally modify the procedures manual and

incorporate some of, all of, none of these type of programs into the procedures manual, so i want to reiterate just because it is in this ordinance does not need it is something that is a done deal. the commission still has to be presented, and they have to adopt it. supervisor maxwell: great. i just hope this is part of the vending because we have gone through some things where we have made these low fares and where we have changed things. we had suits that went on for years in trying to make a difference, so i'm very aware of that and i want to make sure that the units stay where they are supposed to. >> we have talked about it, and another option is to subsidize the units. you can buy down the affordability. there is not a lot of money in the program. it is a requirement of private developers, so there is not necessarily a fund for that, but thank you very much for that

consideration. just one more change i would like to highlight is inheritance. although it has always been clarified that there is a notice of special restrictions on the planning notion that sets out the restriction on the units, many of our owners have asked us to clarify the inheritance policy, and we would like to work with the planning commission to clarify. although anyone can inherit a below-market rate units, the question is -- who can inherit the right to occupy a unit? who can inherit the right to say their loved one past, so they inherit the right to take over the unit and live in it? the answer to that would be a qualified child is income qualified, so we would stick with an income qualification only, and also a spouse or domestic partner who happens to

live in the unit with the person. supervisor maxwell: all right, public comment on this item? >> good evening, supervisors and listening audience. i'm here as a concerned citizen, and i'm also here to try to find out -- who is in control here in city hall? all these departments are coming to you, and they are going to be restructured, but my concern is who is in control? how did us community people get engaged of a community politics? it is something i have been talking to the mayor about. [inaudible]

there have not been any upcoming or follow-up meeting of the department heads. particularly the mayor's office of community works, development, so we in the community would like to know what the hell is going on here as well as the rest of the community. there needs to be a mechanism, and i'm going to lobby for that, that we bring in an institutionalized community reform, and that means we have to change the structure on how the city has treated the african-american community in dealing with city government. i am appalled that the mayor is bringing in right in front of our eyes, and it is going to be restructured without any input from the community. if the board of supervisors do not think that the community should have some kind of state on what is happening, maybe they should go around and ask attorney general brown before he

goes up to sacramento to investigate what is going on here at silly hall. the board of supervisors, in my opinion right now -- i do not think you have a clue of what is happening. the mayor is getting ready to tiptoe out the door to sacramento. we are going to be left in the new hole. this city right now is going to have to be sunshine by the united states because it is out of control. there is no one here that has anything that is controllable, and be in the community -- we do not know what is going on. i am in the press room, and i will be damned if i know what is going on. the city -- the board of supervisors must institutionalize community reform. the thing they are going to be very well received by the community. it says about the mayor's

economic work force working collectively with the community, and it also mentioned fillmore. community reform is what i'm going to be lobbying for the next -- [bell rings] supervisor maxwell: thank you. next speaker please. >> i am a resident of san francisco. i am an educator and the mother of a son who attends st. paul's elementary school. i am a community member in san francisco. san francisco is my home. i love it here and i want to stay here. one of the ways that may make it possible for me to stay here on my limited educate a salary, i

have to just make a complement to the mayor's office of housing and to the board for really providing an amazing surface -- service to san franciscans. now that i know about it, i have found the mayor's office of housing staff to be compassionate, well-intention, and very professional. what i'm speaking directly to right now is that one-time waiver of the requirements. i do understand your concern regarding making sure that before bmr units -- that the bmr units are maintained for their integrity, and i do think more people can benefit from them if those one-time waivers are considered. the restrictions right now for their requirements right now are

really -- it is a very slender margin of people who can actually qualify. my income has to be low enough to qualify, but i need to have enough assets in order to make the down payment and in order to qualify for a loan. with that slender margin, there are bmr units that are sitting on the house. i did not think for a dozen is a small handful. it is 40 units. right now, my purchase of a unit or someone else's purchase of some asset capital will make the difference in our lives so we can continue to afford to live in san francisco, raise our children here, continue to contribute to the economy here by continuing to be the hard working citizens that we are. people who work in social services are really, as you

know, the backbone of the middle class in san francisco. if we cannot afford to live here, you lose some primary participants in the community, so one of the things that i also want you to take away from this is just some statistics, okay? some empirical evidence. those units actually do sit on the market twice as long as market rate units. what are they doing when they are sitting? supervisor maxwell: thank you. >> thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: any further public comment on this item? supervisor chiu: i would like to ask that we adopt the amendment as a whole and we send it over to the next meeting. supervisor maxwell: at the next meeting, we will have more

conversations. supervisor chiu: these are amendments that have to sit. supervisor maxwell: we will hear this item next week. will you give us the date? >> october 25. supervisor maxwell: we will continue this item until october 25. next item, please. >> recommended changes for local streets and roads. >> the afternoon, supervisors. we recommend approval of this, and classification is used to determine federal funding allocations for the maintenance. we recommend changing the functional classification from local to arterial.

we also recommend changing the functional classification. from local to collector. an arterial provides the highest level of service, and it has the greatest speed in the longest uninterrupted distance and some degree of access control. the local street is primarily just local access with no through movement somewhere in between that collects and delivers them to the arterial streets. basically, it allows the federal government to decide what type of federal money you are eligible for.

arterial which not necessarily be a residential area. it was designed to have no driveways on a. those developments are from the side streets. it can provide that ability to get to that distance just as quickly. supervisor maxwell: would that be more residential? >> the examples here might be thomas avenue, while it does have some residences on it, it is more of a major street like one out of six streets. it delivers it to the arterial streets.

supervisor maxwell: the other one was the local street. >> it is not defined as arterial and provides access with little or no through movement. that could be the street within the neighborhood. unless you have any questions? supervisor maxwell: think you. -- thank you. public comment on this item? gosh i heard her mention griffith street. -- >> i heard her mention griffith street. that is all the way up on the hill. that is a very heavy traveled

road there. it might do three blocks. it is amazing to me that the city can start doing this and then it collapses. we have the football games that have started into those streets that are heavily traveled. we have a lot of homes on thomas and st.. we also have homes and businesses down the street there. you can look on the map. it is a five-block area that needs to be fixed up. >> this will help. depending on how the street is named will determine the amount of money. >> what about griffith street?

supervisor maxwell: she can come up and comment on that. >> i have a map here that shows which portion. the portion of griffith we are talking about is the portion between thomas -- i'm not sure what portion espinola jackson lives on. she is south of the map. she lives south of the map. the portion we are adding to the system is thomas east of it over to griffith.

thank you. supervisor maxwell: any further public comment? public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection? >> item number 12 on the status of community benefit programs. >> we are kind of having a different ed rendell. they are expecting economic development -- a different era. they are expecting economic development opportunities, and they should. utility has been doing that for a very long time. i wanted to have