commissioner moore commissioner moore: i appreciate the voices that have come to the meeting. i echo everyone's concerns. this group has been sitting since 2008, repeatedly and in accelerated fashion. this is the crescendo. voices are loud and clear. the lack of definition on what an institutional master plan needs to be, as in section 3 04 0.5, makes it difficult to drive the point home further than what is in front of us. i just want to perhaps support and elevate what commissioner miguel said. given the fact that we are here with a very complete, comprehensive, attractive imp's from other city institutions, i

would like to say that this is barely in the lower tier. it looks good, have the right graphics cover, the snappy binding, the heavy cover, heavier than any part of the content that is what is expressed in here. this is basically a light weight pr document, using commissioner miguel's words. since the definition in the code does not require anything other than that, i regret an institution, which definitely is doing some good things, on its own, would not rise to the occasion to show what they are doing. that is, indeed, a more thoughtful description of themselves, more 4-looking mission statement of where minim expressing that they want to be a good citizen in city matters, which apparently they have not, given the violations.

that is all watching old laundry. what bothers me is this imp makes it look like what architecture schools referred to as art 1. it tells me about the codes, the buildings, where they are. i deal with that every week. i do not need to fill the pages of this kind of plan with information which is obvious and accessible to all of us. i do not want to take this further. there is one thing, and i want to hang this out as a question mark. the success of the university. that is accepted, and that has been directed in the proper way, channeled in the proper way, its own benefit. however, while there is growth at indication relative to what is needed, i do not see a counterstatement with the many

students, how and where they would lift. that is basically at the core of the question here in the room for many. the institutional attitude towards future growth and housing, where would students live, in what buildings? and in what fashion? i think that needs to be addressed somewhere. perhaps part of the eir, i do not know. i believe this institutional master plan falls flat on its face because housing, if you just take the sound bites, is one of the biggest concerns. with the increase in housing, there is a major concern about transportation. the transportation has to go hand in hand with roads and housing, including the mission and rapidly changing the attitudes of our transportation, how the current university

operates, relative to what they will be doing in the future. i think that is a disclosure statement need to have as part of this document. commissioner olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i partially disagree. i think this imp is comparable to what we have received from other universities and institutions. it is longer because it has to be, a much more complicated situation. obviously, many institutions are very small in one location, so a two-page sheet, with a rough sketch, is certainly adequate for their imp. because of the complexity of the situation, and it points out a lot of things. it is not to be a document with complete problem-solving, but rather, a document that presents what is there and what is planned for the future. that is what this does. many of the issue will be

discussed as part of the eir, which has been mentioned by other commissioners. i think that is entirely true. just a few observations. they make a good point in the document about housing impact. you have a lot of students, they are going to live somewhere. i was a student in san francisco and i made an impact because i took up housing that somebody else could have. it is a zero sum situation whether or not the university owns the housing or is owned by others and the students live there. that is the subject we are taking up. that being said, we have a success story in that we have an institution, as was pointed out , bringing a lot of revenue into the city, employment into the city, students, and there will be impacts. of course, that is what we will analyze in the eir, but we cannot discriminate housing for students just as valuable as

others. students often of the lower income level than some of the other people. it does not mean that they necessarily are higher income people, in most cases. the traffic thing, again, and eir issue. we have to live just beyond the university and the entire impact of buses all over, including businesses that run big buses through san francisco to institutions on the peninsula, such as google and apple, genentech, and our own muni. this is an issue that we have to look at globally as we look at the use of transportation, particularly, diesel buses, and see if we can somehow make them more efficient. a couple other things that i would suggest, and this is not

necessarily part of the plan. i am really happy that this is moving forward, and we should try to reinstitute monthly meetings and quarterly reports. the more we talk, the better things work. also, one of the things in the informational master plan is no duplication of facilities. on this housing issue, working in conjunction with ucsf, the dental school, and all the other institutions throughout san francisco who have lots of students and housing needs, if we can create new housing to accommodate their needs, both for the academy of art university, as well as these others, that is a great idea, and is part of the housing concept, or perhaps conversions of existing commercial or retail space whose needs have changed and are available. another thing that has happened here is many of the acquisitions of the institution,

which are pointed out in the informational master plan, are basically white elephants that were very expensive, could not be demolished. if it was not for their acquisition, they would be vacant. that is something that we do not dwell on often enough. i think we have some understanding, i hope, as we move forward with the environmental impact report, we will stay with the scope of what is in use at this time and will not be any additions before june of 2012, so we can actually get our arms around what is there, analyze the impact of what is in use, and therefore, begin to move forward, after hopefully, and accepted eir, and then move forward with the other steps we need to. i think there are a lot of things that are not brought up, and that is the fact that,

according to their documents, there are a lot of students who are educated, placed in jobs, becoming productive members of society. every institution has students to graduate, and often times, many public institutions, where they cannot find a job. one of the good things about this is a lot of the education here is very practical in nature and is geared toward where jobs are available, and that is an important thing that we do not see too often. anyway, finally, there were some comments we received in writing about the behavior of students that we have to look at, make sure the behavior is appropriate, that neighbors are not disturbed and the same sorts of things that are important to look at. i will say in general they are

clean and well maintained, and i am very frequently on the area around sutter and post, and i have had to make phone calls on a building that is not owned by the academy of art university. it is owned by someone who has market for development, and that developer has done nothing to keep it clean. i've had to make four or five calls to the individual himself, saying we have got to get this thing cleaned up. anyway -- i think we do have institutions to some degree. we of situations like nyu, the university of phoenix, the other types of universities that are not in the historic format of what we are used to. so, i think we have to realize there will be a lot more of that in the future and to move forward. those are kind of my observations. i can go into those at greater

length and we go to the environmental report. commissioner miguel: i did not want anyone to win for i was being critical of the company. -- i did not want for anyone to win for i was being critical of the company. you were doing what the client asked you to do. i to understand. i do want to complement sue hestor as a wordsmith with her term "metastasize." [laughter] i agree with the comments of the other commissioners that we might take a better look at section 3 of 4, because it may become even more confusing in the future. however, i actually want to get beyond this and into the

enforcement action and into the eir and into the conditional use items. that is where the worth of this commission will take place. >> because the closing of the hearing does not require a vote, what i am hearing is a desire to close the hearing? >> [unintelligible] >> which would then allow the acceptance. i use that term very deliberately. closing the hearing and "accepting"the mass your plan does not mean that you are agreeing with. you are accepting the information. i want to give an update on where we go from here and the other processes as a commissioner. we have pending on many of the

properties -- to be able to move up forward on those. the environmental impact report is under way. to be clear, the eir is not required for the master plan. there has been confusion about that for some time. de eir -- the eir is required for the properties. we have asked for the draft eir to be released next summer and we would go from there with the normal process of the eir. the commission has to certify the eir before you can approve the occupancy of any building. we're moving forward with the enactments and the eir. next year will be an important here to try to bring this to resolution. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, if there is no

further discussion, or deliberation, madam president, i would ask the closing of the public hearing and the substance of the i.m.p., i would ask that you close this meeting. president olague: meeting is adjourned. supervisor campos: good morning, and welcome to the thursday,

november 10, 2011 meeting of the board of supervisors government audit and oversight committee. my name is david campos, the chair of the committee. i am joined by supervisor mar ferrell, as well as president david chiu. the clerk of the committee is andrea ausberry. covering the meeting for sfgtv are mark and derek. do we have announcements? >> yes, i would like to ask that you turned the cell phone ring nurse off. any documents presented will be included as part of the file and send it to the court. items acted upon today will appear on the november 22 board of supervisors its agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor campos: thank you. please call item number 1. >> hearing on the status and effectiveness of the police in the community loan program. supervisor campos: this was introduced by supervisor mar ferrell. supervisor farrell: thank you. i called this hearing today.

this has been a number of months ago now, really to get a sense of how our current police in the committee loan program is working in san francisco. this will be a relatively short hearing, but i have asked a number of people to speak about these statistics and how the program is working and how we can make it better. for me, the genesis of this is a belief that having our police officers, but i think we will also expand that conversation in a future date to include the first responder community in san francisco, having them live in our city and neighborhoods makes this a safer city. you can think about living in our neighborhoods and in san francisco on a daily basis, but also as you think about san francisco, and we have to be ready for the next big earthquake. it is not a matter of if, but when, that comes. we need to have the first responders on the ground to make sure our city gets back on track as quick as possible. i have asked three people to come better here.

first, brian from our mayor's office of housing. it currently administers our police in the community loan program. second, i see mickey and jennifer from our department of human resources, to come talk about some statistics about our police officers here in san francisco. also, gary, the president of our police officers association, to have an inside view on how this is working in the police department and what we might be able to do to make it better. i will ask brian from our mayor's office of housing to come up. >> i think we will rely in the handout. i am the director of community development within the mayor's office of housing. with me is the manager of our down payment systems loan

program. what we put together for you today was a brief series of slides describing the police in the community loan program, a program that was created back in 2008, and we issue our first loan on may 28, 2008. these loan funds are made available pursuant to the mou between the city in the police officers association. it allows up to 220 out of the dollars be placed in the city's mou reserve fund to be drawn down upon by our department. since the time of its creation, 14 police officers have applied at have been approved for loans. all loans have been for the full $20,000. the property's purchase must be single-family residences. that must be owner-occupied. the borrower must be a full-time police officer in good standing. the borrower must never have owned a primary residence in san francisco. of course, that must be able to qualify for a 30-year mortgage.

the loan can be used for either down payment or closing costs. and if the officer remains with the police department for five years after the loan is approved, the loan will be forgiven in its entirety. then, of course, if the police officer is rendered disabled or four killed in the line of duty, the loan will be forgiven immediately. with those 14 loans, we were able to give one alone in the first fiscal year, five in 2008- two nine, three loans in 2009- 2010, and then five loans in our last 2010-2011 year. i have some information about the kinds of houses being purchased, the average purchase price for those 14 loans was $510,000. the average household income, there is no income eligibility requirement on this loan. the average household income was a little over a $130,000.

i also included a permission about what the borrower contribution toward the down payment was. it was almost $36,000, and the first mortgage loan amount in the dumping about $456,000. on the last page, i included the zip codes of those loans made, so you have a sense of what it is -- it should actually be 14. you can see is a mix of locations and neighborhoods. the program itself is wrapped into our overall down payment systems loan program, so the information is placed on our website. if you go to the web site, you'll see a listing preparation for potential homebuyers. then a listing for all of the downpayment assistance loan program. down the list, you'll see the police in the community loan program listed there. interested parties will call our friend does, and the front desk refers them to us, and we will

work with them and their brokers will help them through the process. supervisor farrell: thank you for putting this together. as i understand, you said there is 225 out of dollars per year potentially in this program. obviously, given these statistics, it has not been used up every year. that money goes back to the general fund, right? it does not roll over into future years? >> no, it is not rollover. supervisor farrell: image and its single family residences. does this account condos, as well? >> yes. supervisor farrell: ok, thank you. those were my main questions. is that correct -- can i talk to you for a quick second? i would love to understand kind of the beginning of the process and what happens. someone will call the mayor's office of housing, and the call will be routed to you. how you interact with them and provide assistance? >> we will point and to our

website, so they understand the procedure. we have an application process there. we ask them to go to the homebuyer education housing workshop. then they go to a lender. the lender will do the approval process. once they do that and they know how much they can qualify for the loan and how much they can qualify for the housing, they look for the purchase price. then we help them go to the -- go through the application process. supervisor farrell: so they have to go through a home buyer training workshop that you put on. in terms of the qualifying for the market loan in the private market, are there any additional criteria that you or the program itself puts on a them or is it just it you can qualify, if someone will lend you the money, that is great? is there anything else that the

press room it's on the them in terms of the debt to income ratios and so forth? >> we do want to let the debt to income ratio, because we want to make sure the person is qualified for a loan and able to make the payment. we want to make sure the debt to income ratio was there but there is no purchase price limit. they can do any purchase price that they can afford. as long as they can afford the mortgage payments and the purchase price, they can buy anything with in the city of san francisco. supervisor farrell: as i looked through the criteria the other day, the debt to income ratio, but also qualify for a 30-year fixed loan. that seems to be pretty critical. a lot of people in the country and in san francisco got in trouble with floating-rate mortgages and so forth. to put our officers are anyone else want to support in this program into that situation, that is obviously some the will

want to avoid. i was really happy to see that. so that is great. anything else in terms of, from your point of view -- i think this is the first step, and informational think of anything from your end that you think would improve the program right now operationally, the program itself, anything from your end? >> knowing that the san francisco purchase price is a very high, [unintelligible] i think the $20,000 might not be enough for downpayment assistance right now. supervisor farrell: i think most people would agree with you. >> the loan program is a very good, because it is more like a grand, and to five years for a given. supervisor farrell: thank you very much dih. supervisor campos: i think this program is really important, and

it is actually something that i worry about, what happens if there is a natural disaster and we have so many of our first responders who, for economic reasons and other reasons, cannot live in san francisco. has there been any thought of connecting with some of the other city agencies, not just city government agencies but agencies like the school district, to essentially expand the pool of money that is available or expand the opportunities? i know that at the school district, for instance, with the teachers union, it is actually part of the union contract that the school district is supposed to develop housing for teachers. whether it is teachers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, you know, whoever is, wondering whether or not that is something that has been explored. >> we actually do have a teacher next door program. it is a similar down payment system for teachers with a

similar upper limit of $20,000. the funding mechanism is a different. we can get into that at a later point, but we have a similar program with slightly different eligibility. we have received some degree of interest from some other law enforcement agencies, such as the sheriff's department. we have not actively pursue that, because this agreement was agreed pursuant to negotiations. but there has been some interest. supervisor campos: i am wondering whether the mayor's office has also considered the city itself developing any kind of housing. i know that in some jurisdictions, i think this is like santa barbara, where cities have -- or the one asset that you have made the land. that could be developed. i know that the school district has at different times considered that. is that something we're, you know, you guys have looked into or thought about? >> i can say it has been the topic of discussion.

certainly the concept of work force housing has been of interest around the country. but i can go as far as to say it is a topic of discussion. supervisor campos: thank you. >> thank you free questions. opri next, the department of human resources will give you a perspective. what i have asked her to talk about is not only statistics for our police officers, but i have also been working with our department of emergency management had to think about how we can find our first responders in san francisco that relate -- that are really critical. i will ask her to talk about that. >> thank you peter i am from the

department of human resources. just a follow-up on the presentation, i will not restate the fact that you have already heard that i think the police in the community loan program has been underutilized, but the rental relocation, which is part of the -- only four officers had taken advantage of it in four years, and of course the 17th or so with the home purchase assistance. when we first negotiated that in 2007, was the chief negotiator. the board at that time was interested in trying to promote this. we viewed it as a pilot program. frankly, we figured out an amount of money, and it was not scientifically determined, but we thought, well, this would be enough to help people move into the city. i think that what we do not know is whether people are going to move here anyway and we just helped them to move or -- i think if somebody was laboring,

that might have put them over the edge to move into the city. we have heard that for a $36,000 down payment average, a gut $20,000 from the city and state in the job for five years, that it's a pretty good portion of your down payment. i think on the whole it is a good program, it has been underutilized, and i would favor considering amending the program on a future date. we can talk about whether the police union would be willing to consider that although the contract is closed, it is a mutual interest. the union has been supportive of programs that support the police in at the community. so it is a conversation we could have in the context of our general fund concerns. to look at this in a broader perspective, as you may know, the population of this city work the population of this city work force, the majority -- it is