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%. that's a drastically different choice than the choices that i have to make which is choosing to live with a roommate or choosing to live in a one-bedroom apartment or

choosing how many vacations i go on versus housing. i think we have to be clear about what it means to built moderate income houses and how we zies that. i just wanted to say that today. >> colleagues can we continue item number two without objection? for item number three we're going to continue that to the call of the chair without objection. thank you everyone for coming out. meeting adjourned.

>> thank you for joining us for this press event to announce the first annual local hire report. my name is naomi kelly. i'm the city administrator for the city and county of san francisco. this last year i have had the

honor of working with board of supervisor john avalos. mayor ed lee, all of the city departments who are responsible for delivering capital products and co-chairing a local policy hiring working group. last year we were able to put our heads together, work collectively to implement this landmark policy to bring to wherever -- whenever we are implementing our capital projects to make sure that our monies also go to providing local jobs to this communities that are impacted by our capital projects. we work together with a different department head to maximize existing resources and to minimize costs and we have successfully done that. i want to thank all of our department heads here today, department of public works

mohammed nehru. teresa sparks from the human rights commission, the public utilities commission. i would like rec and park for hosting here at the playground. this is one of the projects that is under construction and that are hitting its local hire goals already with 10% progress on this project. i want to thank all of our community partners, whether it's young community developers, the a. phillip randolph institute. i want to thank bright line institute and i he was want to thank our partnership with the unions, local 261 and local 22 and the operating engineers, i see you all here today. thank you for your participation. without all of these partner ships, we would not have been able to successfully achieve this first year of implementing the local hire policy. i also want to introduce the mayor who under his leadership

when he first game the mayor a year ago, it was very important to him to create jobs here in san francisco and to make sure that our local residents are going -- that our local residents are having opportunities to have are employment here in san francisco. and it's his support with the board of supervisors and all of the departments that he is very -- that he is here today to announce our great progress with local hire. so mayor ed lee. [applause] >> thank you, naomi. welcome, everybody, to this wonderful occasion. about a year ago, supervisor avalos and i and a number of other hopeful departments and union leadership and community people gathered together at a playground to announce the beginning of an ordinance that we both worked very hard on.

and we knew at that time that we were transitioning as a city to be less dependent upon just words of faith that we have been operating on for some number of years to real life transformation to see real faces like the people that are standing behind me, people whose lives are beginning to transform because they earned their way to a decent job on city projects. and we knew that the real secret is for us to transform ourselves as policymakers and program directors -- don't mind if i pause while these trains come in. that we wanted to have something to hold ourselves accountable to the goals that had been loftly crafted in this ordinance. so we went about the business

to working together with the goals, with the trades, with the unions, with the training centers and with the departments about city-funded projects and to make sure that we could really have a city build local hire program that had goals that could be accomplishable and measurable. and so we decided that we would do this in a multi-year fashion where the first year, you had 20% goal and after that, by different measurements, ultimately our vision would be 50% of all working folks on these projects would be people from san francisco. and so this first year was really a test of what this lofty goal ordinance would do if we all concentrated on the

seriousness of performance rather than words. so we all got together and we all not only looked at ourselves in the face, we actually made agreements with companies like elations to really get accurate reports, with the labor units to really bear down on the trades that were going to be welcome, really bear down on our training programs to get the preapprenticeship programs up and running and then we went to work with our communities, all of our communities to make sure our doors were open and to make sure that their anticipations could actually be met. all of that working together has produced this final report that we're handing out today of one year worth of performance and i want to announce today that after the first year, we have hit not just the 20% goal that we had anticipated we would try to do, but because of

the very deliberate work of the departments, the unions, the apprenticeship programs, the and all working together, we have accomplished 34% of all work in local hire, 34%. this is part of a commitment that we have always wanted to markings a good foundation and we knew it wasn't going to be easy. we knew, in fact, if john and i had some minutes, we would go back, the supervisor and i would go back and identify all of the challenges that we had this past year of tearing out our own hair and kind of going back and forth with different representatives of different unions and still talking with advocates to say whether or not we could be able to accomplish this. now we got a good foundation. now we have the reason to move forward with everybody.

we gave ourselves enough flexibility in the language of this ordinance to really try to do and learn things as we went along. but the reality is that this ordinance is a live one. it's a live one because we have committed people in every aspect of the city and in the private sector working with contractors, the subcontractors to the enforcement staff of our office of economic and workforce development, our city build leadership, our departments, as well as the workers themselves believing that we're all watching each other with the very clear hope that we want to accomplish. that's why we get good results. we're breathing life into an ordinance that had in the past been simply good strong language of faith. and so breathing life into it means everybody has goals to be accomplished. the most important goal, though, in my opinion, is not so much the ordinance, not so

much the departments because we all have jobs, it's the people who didn't have a job a year ago now transforming their lives and giving hope to their families as well as they come here. that's the real transformation that we wanted to have happen. that's the real performance, because when we do that, and we do that with our city money in wonderful places like this park as you see today under construction with rec and park, we have the commitments of our own folks in our city believing this program works for them, a lot of other things take care of themselves. and there is not only hope, there is real progress going on in the city and i am very, very proud of people who have faith in our government to get into these programs and help change their lives. it also makes other announcements that much more significant.

as we gain the success of this 34%, we can can now have a dialogue around other projects that are forthcoming and in the works, projects that other departments are excited to bring into this fold, projects that we know will result after we pass the parks fund in november, right, supervisor? yeah. you know because the public now sees there is a direct benefit when our residents work off these wonderful projects that we pass where we're willing to tax ourselves to get the revenue, but we see the actual benefit in the more than just one or two ways. we're going to get beautiful parks. we're going to get great streets. we're going to get fantastic cultural institutions all done out of these bonds. we're going