it shows a projection where we will be in 2014 based on current trends in the pipeline. every category below market rate we won't even get close to what our need is. even if we spliced that out, whatever portion that might be, i would assume that will also not be met. through a continuum of housing, we have a great need to fill. >> hello, supervisors. i have lived in the height ashbury coalition. i've had a home there for 30 years. we have a beautiful setting, a

lot of beautiful people. we know that you will do your very best because you are beautiful people, too. you want all kinds of people to live here. not everybody has been through the same with money. it is good, it is not quite great, but money is good. we have one big, huge family. i hope you will do your best. supervisor kim: if there is no more public comment at this time, can we close public comment? i know that my colleagues actually have held off on their questions. i want to call back of the planning department and the mayor's office of housing.

perhaps even a budget analyst as well. i know that many of the public, and jurors have left at this point. we had over 60 individuals that spoke today and it speaks to the pressing need of how we in the city have developed housing in the city. when we look at 0-120% emi, that is what the hearing was about. we see an incredible range of folks in the city. we are living in overcrowded housing to the working class individuals. our public school teachers are well below the 120% of median income. the developments don't meet the needs of current residents. both for more diversity of

housing and figuring out what tools we have. i am glad to see it, hopefully we can try to bring some of the steps together. sueprvisor campos: i apologize that i have to leave the hearing shortly. i have a meeting that i have to go to. i wanted to ask the mayor's office of housing and, if i may, through the chair, to ask about the agreements with support of housing operators and i am wondering why the agreements are currently for nine years.

i think it was a convenient term -- we are in agreement that they should be longer. the terms suggested was 15 years that will coincide with the tax credit. not it will reflect the 15-year period, there is transparency around these issues. it was a quick question for the

mayor's office of housing. it is something that one of the speakers said, and there are a couple of issues that i hope they follow up on and they provide a more detailed attention to. how that works and what impact it has had on the construction of affordable housing, i know that there is an interesting to follow up on that. and the development of housing and around public transit, and transit oriented development, it is page 19 of the report.

>> the need is of 5,545 units and we're only projected to build around 470. so that's a 16% -- it's only 16% of the actual need. and we have to do better than that. if you compare that to where other jurisdictions also in the bay area are. san francisco which usually prides itself of being at the forefront of these issues is well behind these jurisdictions like san jose.

79% of area median income. san jose has met, by the year 2006 had met 180% of the need. we had only met 52% of the need in that population. we're also lagging behind the city of oakland which had met 64%. i think we have to ask ours what are the other jurisdictions doing that we're not doing. is it an issue of commitment? unless we do something drastic, i think that trend will only get worse. i really think it's imperative upon us to make sure that we do something here. the last thing i would say is when you're talking about making san francisco more affordable where different people can live, it isn't just housing that has to look at. housing and public transportation are the two biggest expenses that families

have to face in san francisco. in my view you can't talk about affordability in terms of allowing people to stay in san francisco if the only focus is on housing. you have to look at public transit as well. it's not just about creating affordable housing and middle income families. it's all about creating accessible public transit for middle income and low income families. we have to do both. if you look at the region, some of the plans that are being proposed and some of the scenarios that are being looked at include that a low income family is going to have to spend about 85% of income on both housing and trance por -- transportation. how is a family supposed to survive in those conditions.

it also looks at transportation. there are other issues that are important. i hope that we go down that road. and again i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for calling for this hearing. and i look forward to working with all of my colleagues on all these issue. >> thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor o laly? >> i would like to thank the members of the public for this hearing. it must be hard to take time out of work to come here. so just wanted to thank you for having patience and sticking it out. i'd also like to thank the mayor's office in housing and the legislative department because i think this is an excellent report. i'll probably need more time with it. i did have a couple of questions based on some of the information provided here. your recommendations i think

are really spot on actually. >> but i think some of my comments or questions might be directed towards the planning department staff. so i guess with transit oriented development, one of the recommendations that i really appreciated was the suggestion that better coordination occur with the transportation agencies. and i think that's starting to happen now. is that right? where planning is engaging in those discussions? yeah. >> supervisor o laggy, yeah, it is. -- supervisor olague, yeah. one strong thing that came out of the eastern neighborhood is a memorandum of understanding where we signed all the structure heads what each

department was going do for the plan. a good example is the central quarter plan which is partially, i would say 30% of the work there is being done by the staff. so we're getting better. there's always work to be done, but yes, absolutely. >> that's great. and the other concern i've always had as it relates to this, i think it sort of touches on it. because when you go to page -- let me see if i can find it here, 29, and you look at the housing element, statements regarding transit oriented development, none of them really of the four that are mentioned here, at least none of them really emphasize affordability. and some of the -- sustainbility community strategies, i think is something where affordability is implied but not stated. that's something that, i don't know. you know, if there is even

language that could be added somehow to some of these policy statements that would include the issue of equity, sustainable equity, something strategy, or affordability. more references to that because when you see some of the information provided here it -- i'm not really, you know you see the conclusion san francisco oriented districts promote affordable housing development. i mean, that's always sort of highlighted but i'm not sure. of course, it's through the development in some instances on sight, below market rate units and also through the affordable housing fees. but i'm just wondering in general, i've seen that term applied to a lot of very -- maybe projects that don't provide very high levels of affordability on sight.

so i'm just wondering, you know, how are we really reaching those affordability goals through t.o.d.? >> i mean, think your question is a very good one and it points to how much work needs to be done. it's something that we often -- sometimes overuse the word t.o.d. here and other places. in addition to the sources you mentioned, one of the tenets of our transit oriented districts was to permit secondary units where you can actually construct smaller which are by nature most studies have shown more affordable projects as well. but that's a much harder thing to count because it does rely on an owner to take advantage of that. it's not like we've seen hundreds of owners to promote secondary units. that's one more to add to your lirs.

>> at some point i'd be curious to see the projects that have applied that term or that we apply that term to in the city. how many affordable units have been produced versus -- i mean this whole dashboard idea, i guess. what's the breakdown of -- of that. i -- there was some goals -- i'm curious what we actually did we end up with. >> also with the dashboard, it seems to me that the department was sort of hinting that there is some movement at least, towards, including that and the work play. and supervisor kim's office has been working very hard to create some legislation that would require it, you know, of

reports, you know, -- analysis around projects. do you feel at this time we need to introduce something like that? >> no, actually i think it progresses. if we can get the overhead to work. we're working with our neighborhood planning staff on this -- including this exact piece and we'll get back to you as we get there on changing our case report so it's actually inclureded. hopefully this will be in there. >> i think it's close to being done. they may want to check in with you sooner than later. >> i would love to talk to your office about that because we want to make sure we're meeting everybody's goal. >> especially with all of the projects by many of the speakers, that dashboard or even a preliminary version with that would be helpful and all

the members of the boards. >> good to know. >> my ultimate question is to what send in certainly there's not a lot we can do with certain information in terms of creating certain policies around it. i don't know what that looks like necessarily. but i think it will help in terms of how it applies. i'm really not clear about it and i would love to know that. i would love an answer to that question. i guess that would be mayor's office on housing. >> thank you, ms. dennis. how the in rufy's are being applied. >> i think it's our goal to be more transparent in what we do. i think we'll highlight what fees we collected and what

specific projects we apply the fees to so that the board and the general public have a better sense of how the mayor's office of housing is investing the public money in terms of projects. but this is something that we intend to start as soon as our next housing report. we expect to continue on an ongoing basis. >> thank you. you know, i think a lot of it -- a lot of my questions or statements are already in this report. the plan ling commission does not -- the planning commission does not receive the dashboard. planning department does not report the i packet oriented housing. all these points are made in the very first part of this report of like -- yeah, i mean, i'm not going to restate it. it's in your report.

>> and then finally -- so again, it's the whole t.o.d. and affordability mystery that's still out in my mind. i think finally for the care not cash -- was it the housing? there is a name for this. hold on, one second. i have my notes here. well, i guess -- it's my concern a little bit about some of the supportive housing and the -- is it the housing first -- let me see if i can find it. i just found it when i was working in the community with very low income clients. some of them weren't being prioritized on some of the -- for housing because of the care not cash program tends to

priorize people who are part of cap. so if you're a senior, or if you're a person living with disability, chances are you might get lost in the shuffle because you're not -- because care not cash tends to prioritize people are a part of this other program. so it's just something that i have a little bit -- i know i miss the shelter hearing the other day. i know that at some point even though -- housing first is definitely a housing. there is still a lot of seniors with disabilities. i heard this a lot from the transgender community that there still seems be a need for shelter that have the kind of emphasis or skill set from the staff that can deal with you

know, seniors and some people in these particular populations. at some point i would think -- i'm sorry i missed that hearing the other day. but i would like to understand that a little bit better. but that whole housing first and how it's implemented is something that i would like to look at a little bit more. the care not cash program and how people are housed and what that means for people with disabilities and people who are seniors. >> supervisor olague before we move on, let me just say that we decided to continue the last item. but i wanted to thank pamela levin from d.b.i. and michael for sticking around but we have lost our cue rom or will be. so please continue. >> i think this is the most -- i think those are the things that came to mind.

you know, obviously, everything that everyone said i have seen it firsthand in my dealings with low income tenants. so i didn't -- sadly it's just a real crisis in the city. but yeah. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> thank you, supervisor. >> i wanted to depive you a chance to make comments. >> i just wanted to thank the 60 to 70 people that came out and testified the really great and hard work by all the staff represented from the mayor's office in housing. thank you, ms. dennis and your staff, and thank you to john and others for being here as well. i wanted to say of interest to me besides sustainable community strategy, i know avalos and others have been looking carefully at this link

job housing linkage. i think it's so important for people to build on the priority development area but there are also areas in so-called p.d.a.'s that also need more affordable housing and diverse housing as well. so that's one question is if the housing prioritizing is along the corridors from 19th avenue corridor and 280. how do we build affordable housing and diverse housing outside of those areas? i also want to say that supervisor campos and wiener are looking at transportation. even with my role with e bag and with the bay area air quality management district they're looking to create more affordable housing and especially linked with jobs. so my hope is that we're not looking along those corridors

and not just the eastern parts of san francisco but also the west and other areas as well. but i just wanted to thank everyone for the great report. and when i heard loud and clear from the testimony is we need prioritize low income, affordable housing much, much more and have better strategies an monitoring within our different department. i'm all for a dashboard or better tools so question look at the bigger pishchur so we can make decisions on individual projects. thank you so much for your leadership supervisor olague and campos. >> i just found my questions finally. that's page 41 of the report mentioned -- the board of supervisors the does not receive information on local operating subsidies. i do have questions on supportive housing. i know that people who are homeless are placed in two

supportive housing situations and i just wonder about the quality of care that folks are receiving. i know t. -- tndc and other organizations i have full faith in. but sometime i've heard managers for buildings with 200 people and then limited availabilities. so when we say supportive housing what do we mean, really? and what is the eviction rate for people who are chronically homeless and who are placed in those units? what kind of support do they receive to ensure that they can remain housed? >> i cannot necessarily answer all the questions related to housing first because that's a program that human agency and the department of health run but we can talk to you about the operating subsidy program. we administer with money from

the general fund. however one of the requirements the local operating city program is hand in hand services. it's a requirement for subsidies to be continued. support services has to be provided to the services. if there's a question with the quality of the services we work with the department of public health to make sure that they're being provided to the clines that are receiving the subsidies. >> at sam: point i'd like to have more detail about some of that. >> sure. i know these programses are well intentioned but i just wonder about the specifics, the ratio between, you know, residents vs. some of the services, you know a little bit more in depth. >> sure. we would be happy to provide that piece of information. >> frequently people will make the connection between housing and cost of housing.

if you build more then the cost will go -- economics 101, sort of that we all learn. but it doesn't seem to apply in san francisco. so at some point i'm just wondering if -- you know, as we build more does that really have an impact at all on the cost of housing? rental or own irship housing in the city? -- rental or ownership housing in the city? >> i think you have some differing opinions on the question whether it's the creation of supply in and of itself affects the overall price of housing. i think that teddy from the -- from the budget comptroller's office had talked about what it would take to really lower the price of housing in san francisco. and he talked about an incredible production of 100,000 units to bring the cost of housing down on a production

basis. the extreme subsidying, you get x number of units are creating a creation of affordable housing. clearly there's something in between the two which is what the city will do in the long-term. >> we're about to lose quorom. ly not be able to ask my questions today. i was curious on how we report projects. i think it would be important to start including that of how we're meeting our goals and the with with with mayor's on housing, i have a question about the demographics of the people who live in that unit. we may be getting a report

soon. the ordinance and the assessment of that ordinance is and i think that it's important for us to continue to stay on top of that because that was important. i was really -- i want to thank everyone for all the time because it's really clear the immense amount of time that our department, legislative analyst put into the report that we have before us today. and it's disappointing to see that even in arena goals that we might be slightly declining in achieving our affordable production targets by 4636% to 33% and we as a city need to take a very important look at how we do better monitoring. we call this because you want to see better monitoring but this is only the beginning. we need to look at funding and land acquisition and something that we all have been talking about. we need to strengthen our inclusionary program which is

our housing program for our middle and moderate income. we heard a public comment is key for the redevelopment. i think all of the colleagues on our board is happy to see that the mayor is taking the lead. how do we take advantage of the city's limited land supply by using surplus project as some members of our community brought it today. and how do we sustain this rental stock? i think we all want to see both low income and moderate income housing built in the city. there is a disagreement tooze what modern income is. i just have to state that i am really looking at 60 to 20%.