setting minimum street with four access roads -- that one comes out of an international fire code. what is that? my understanding is date codes are requiring us to make those changes, but our requirements are often more strict than the state, but this one comes out of a recommendation of an international fire code. >> it is made up of one this document came -- before it got to the state, it was the international fire code, and the state took it and amended it and took it into this document. that particular section for st. with -- for street width is similar to most of this code, which is the model code requirement for firemen access. supervisor maxwell: all right, why don't we open this up to

public comment? actually, maybe it would be easier if we just have all the departments come up at this time and we have public comment after that? any department who would like to come up because there might be some changes you are having, even if they are minor, we would like to find out what that is. thank you. >> good afternoon. the form of building inspection. -- department of building inspection. there is a three-year cycle. the city of san francisco adopt amendments to the mandatory california building codes on this cycle. it has been approximately a year-long review to get to the point where we can bring forward amendments that we believe everyone agrees to in the city. the only minor changes to that are brought forward by our director at this time.

>> yes, good afternoon, supervisors. what is happening -- have been working with the other departments very closely, with the public utilities commission and the department of environment, to make sure that the building code incorporates all of their requirements also so that the code becomes a code for the whole city instead of just for the building department or the department of environment or the public utilities commission. with all the changes that are happening with the energy conservation, the water conservation, storm water control and things that are going on, changing monthly it seems like, we need to be able to change the building code and use more restrictive codes, so we may propose some amendments to the language and building code so that we can actually deferred to the of the departments' code as the more

restrictive. the other clarifications we have going on regarding water management plans between the state's definitions of some of the items and our city definitions of some of the items for plans that we already have in place with the city which are more restrictive than the states, so we want to make sure we have all of those amendments in here. the other part with the first two paragraphs has to do with the commencement of work on expired permits. what is happening with the economy, a lot of people cannot start work on their permits, and inadvertently, these two sections were inadvertently left out of the code and not brought forward as they have been for many years, so we needed to put

those back in. we talk to all attorneys, and they were considered non- substantive. i should clarify -- supervisor maxwell: i should clarify about the fire department. the idea was it our streets are narrow were -- narrower, it makes it safer. in the southeast sector, we have more city streets that we are really creating. when i was in seattle, we went for housing developments that they were doing and be doing.

the fire department, along with the form of housing, have come from -- have come a long way in determining what they could do to make those streets and no work. you heard today that if the developer put in sprinklers, that they could narrow the streets. in talking to the fire department, they agreed that that would be ok, and it gives some flexibility and does not compromise safety. again, i want to thank them going to that extent so we can do what ever it takes to make our streets safer. next department, if anyone would like to speak to their apartment. no one else? >> i posted a reference, all covered under the san francisco building code.

>> all right, why don't we open this up to public comment? public comment on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. on the amendments that have been brought forth without objection, so moved. and then, on the items as amended, without objection, thank you very much. all right, reid items 8 and 9 together please. >> 5 and no. 8, resolution authorizing and directing the city's civic control of to prepare a report for infrastructure financing district num ber one, and item nine, resolution of intention to establish an infrastructure financing district number one, rincon hill area. supervisor maxwell: why don't we hear from the mayor's office?

>> good afternoon, board members. the office of economic work force development. we are passing out updated versions of the two resolutions before you. i believe it is items 8 and 9. minor technical amendments have been proposed, which are outlined in black line form on those draft resolutions. these two resolutions are the first steps forward in the planning committee scope of work that you authorized a month and a half ago. if you recall, there was a resolution forming a committee, was not shared by the capital planning committee with members of various infrastructure and finance agencies and for public stakeholders. to be determined, but two

members, one from the eastern neighborhood cac, one from market octavia, and two at large vendors -- the resolutions before you initiate what will be probably a four-month process. we hope eventually to launch a pilot project for rincon hill. these projects did not commit or authorize the city to do anything other than these projects. one of them authorizes us to begin to prepare what is called an infrastructure financing plan, which is the blueprint, the study required to determine the fiscal impact of forming one of these districts. >> and that is a state law? where state laws come into play? >> yes, and in fact, all of these resolutions, and i apologize in events that state law requires many resolutions. i will be back with at least

four more resolutions before we even get to the point of an ordinance. the state law has been for the drawn-out process which i think is important, given this is a very new concept. we discussed it briefly when i was here presenting on the committee, and i would be happy to rehash it if you would like, but this initiative process of us exploring financing district, and it allows us to form an infrastructure for repair and draft an infrastructure financing plan, which is primarily a fiscal impact study, saying how much revenue could there be and what effect it would have on the general fund and our ability to fund city- wide services to create one of these districts. remember, these are many tax increment district. in a sense, many middlemen areas without any of the powers of redevelopment. the sole purpose is to fund infrastructure. as you may or may not know,

there is a significant gap in most of our infrastructure planning. in the case of rincon hill, the cost of infrastructure propose in that plan was estimated in 2005 at about $26 million. updated estimates today estimate that might range from $35 million to $40 million. we anticipate between $16 million to $18 million of impact fees, you can see that leaves a gap in the range of approximately $20 million, so this is an opportunity we hope to fill that gap and be able to build that infrastructure. one of the resolutions and then allows us to launch the financing process and eventually released the financing plan to the public. the other one declares your intent -- intend to pursue this in the future -- your intent to

pursue this in the future. supervisor maxwell: if this work, we could use it in all of our other area plants? >> that is our hope. i should remind you as well, simultaneously or concurrently with this, we have the committee that will be working on drafting a policy that will be a citywide fall midget policy here is the same consultant we got to do the technical analysis to assist us with issuing this plan will also be looking at the eastern neighborhoods broadly to determine whether that is possible. so we are laying the groundwork for the eastern neighborhoods. the policy criteria we would bring to you about where it could be applied, and the obvious examples are market and octavia, and any new area where there is significant about zoning. the reason i say that is because the concept is not to take from

the general fund, but for those neighborhoods that embrace smart growth and that accept a certain amount of new developments beyond the baseline, that the city would reinvest some of its general fund revenues in building the infrastructure needed to accommodate that density. >> we talk about infrastructure -- we are talking about bus service? >> we are talking about the bottle, so it would not be operations and maintenance. it would be physical stuff. parks, buses, streetscape improvements, library books, community centers, fire stations -- supervisor maxwell: transportation is extremely important because that is what we talked about a lot with muni not being able to expand. when we talk about mission bay, we still have two bus routes. >> our hope is by creating this

new stream of funding for infrastructure, perhaps we can then find other sources for maintenance and operations. supervisor mar: i just had a question about stakeholder and community-based involvement in creating coyotes for these neighborhood and area plans. what is the plan to involve different stakeholder groups? >> as you know, our planning process has evolved considerably over the last 10 years, and i know supervisor maxwell was instrumental in that, and we are at a place now where we have cac's that are part of the process -- excuse me, a citizens advisory committees. getting into acronyms. it was not created for rincon. i think there is a good question

as to whether we should update that. because there is no formal body for rincon. i will say that the infrastructure proposed was a result of i think an eight-year community process, so to be fair to the planning department, a ton of work went into scoping out what was the appropriate amount -- what sort of streetscape should be designed, the parts, the community center, the library, all this stuff proposed in this infrastructure was vetted thoroughly by the community. the question now is there is no formal body. there are in formal bodies. we have suggested, and i know supervisor maxwell is aware of this, that the head of the ring, hill committees served on the committee that is overseeing this work, so that is one avenue. but i think all of us would be open to figuring out a way to have more feedback.

supervisor mar: are there good communications with the supervisor from district 6, chris daly's office? >> john has been in communication with their office on the whole process. that question was raised specifically about once we start to get money, and the whole point of this is to bring more money to infrastructure. the question was raised how do we get representation in terms of priorities, because there is a list here. you have to start somewhere, so i think that is a really good question, how do we formalize that feedback? just to emphasize, this does not change the existing condition at all. it just brings more money to the table. supervisor maxwell: i also might add that when this money -- this model, if we decided to adopt this model, it goes to area plans in general, and most of those area plans have been

planned and have had a lot of community input, and we still have the community-based planning group that will oversee, and the only one mention was rincon hill, and we should put something in place. >> there is a similar stabilization fund committee, but it supervises a different basket of dollars, for what it is worth. supervisor maxwell: all right, thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. without objection, on items e n nine, so move. -- on items eight and nine, so move. >> will these items be going as committee reports? supervisor maxwell: i don't

believe so. i have not heard that. they are on the agenda? then yes, they will be. >> item 10, ordinance amending the planning code and administrative code regarding the residential inclusion very affordable housing program. >> thank you. i would like to invite the chair from the planning department. this is legislation that has been in the works for many months, in part to address the court case that passed last year to run the home decision and also in part to create additional ways to insure that we are able to develop affordable housing as quickly as we can. i want to thank the planning department the tremendous work you have done to clarify this, and i would like to ask ms.

sullivan to summarize the legislation. we do have a number of amendments we do need to make. i understand these changes are substantive, so the legislation will need to sit for another week, but i understand this is the last round of changes, and we will need to focus before the full board and finally move forward with this package. >> thank you. as supervisor chiu did mention, we have been working on incorporating some california court changes into our inclusion very affordable housing program since, basically, last december. we introduced interim controls in january, which the department,moh -- the department and moh have been using, as well as taking a good, clean look at the program and incorporating

some of the additional requirements that have come up that were not included in the code, as well as other changes the moh needed to update programming requirements planning -- to update programming requirements. the planning commission needed to update requirements, some of which were discussed at that hearing, and the others were given to moh to work out all of the details. chandra egan from moh is here to work out all of those. i do want to note that the program itself is not changing. it is still an inclusionary housing program. the percentages and the triggers are not changing at all. any project that has five or more units must comply can must use the affordable housing program. the percentages for the fee as well as the on and off site is not changing.

the percentages and requirements for all of the eastern area plan as well as the market octavia neighborhood plan is all staying the same. what we have done and why it did take quite some time was, as you are familiar, article four came into our planning in july, which essentially moved everything into a new article, so we had to massage some of the language and update the program. the first threshold when someone is treated to this inclusionary housing program is that they have to pay a fee. there is an inflationary housing fee that projects must pay, but there are alternatives to paying his fee that if a project developer needs, they can either build on site or off site. the main difference of what has occurred through the court decisions with that, the city cannot mandate until units for on-site or off site. that is not to say that they cannot be used, and the department and moh will still in

kurds that to be the first choice, but the only way a developer can utilize on seidman to lose if they commit to doing ownership-only units. if they signed a development agreement with the city, which entails being passed by the board of supervisors, for if they receive financial contribution and thus did exempt from the cost of hawkins' state law, those of the three main exemptions to paying the fee, and then other than that, you have the on-site and off site requirements. the entire program was basically 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,