>>

>> good morning today is friday

july 10. welcome to rules committee of san francisco board of supervisors. my name is john avalos joined by catty tang who is vase chair and to the left is supervisor kim. our clerk is alisa samara and todays meeting is broadcast by sfgtv tom lofts and charles crim nack. if we have a motion to excuse supervisor cohen. >> so moved >> madam clerk if you can call your announcements and the first item >> silence all cell phones and

electroning devices. complete speaker cards to be submitted to the clerk. items wilt appear on july 21 board of sfr visors agend a. item 1 is a hearing to consider the initiative ordinance submit pd wie 4ory more supervisors at november 3rd, 2015 election. up hpidate and expand the surplus ordinance and the public process, expand the affordability criteria. restrict for 120s days property to be considered and [inaudible] >> thank you madam clerk. we'll hand this over to supervisor kim who is the author of the surplus property legislation and i'm cosponsor and happy to do so. >> thank you chair avalos and thank you for your cosponsorship of this item. colleagues thank you for hearing the item today and calling a special committee for this item. i introduce adbalt

measure with supervisor cav av lose compose sw mar to expand the surplus property ordinance which kreckts the city to prioritize affordable housing on public land that doesn't serve city functions. nob naib and achieving our goal of 33 percent affordable housing and 50 percent including middle class housing mandated by proposition k last november. the balt measure is adding a tool in the tool box to address the cities wereening housing crisis. the ordinance written in 2002 and a-minded in 2006 nive, while many intentions in the ordinance was good, tej years later there limitations in the ordinance that presented the city from fulfilling the intention. in 2015 it is apparent we have a limited number of land suitable for housing development. land in

san francisco is most pressure commodity and the single most expensive line item in any development project in san francisco. more thoon labor construction and material cost. in conversation with city policy makers a comment that comes up is, i wish we bought that apartment building, that office building or bought the land parcel to build housing during the recession. the city ouns land and one of the most affordable and easiest ways to increase production of affordable housing is building on our lands where we have site control. this means surplus property under utileized site and opportunity sites, sites where the city can build on top of existing sit a funshzs using tooms like air rights. in fact san francisco has many examples of affordable housing built on other facilities including city

property. one example is 77 bod way in china town where we build affordable senior property on a parking lot. there sufordable senior housing on top of a post office on bush and larken and we also built on top of elementary schools when we finally rebuilt the international hotel demolished inl 1977. the city can do the same. we can build on storage sites and schools and parking garages. this initiative does a number of things which weal rer be sharing a power point presentation which april [inaudible] in myophilus will put together but a number of other things i want to say is this also conforms the law with the state surplus land act ubidated boy phil tang. the ability to submit a first right

of negotiation on property considered for disposition. we aults encourage stfd and citycology to follow these standsers on their propt as well. a key aspect is provide citizen participation and oversight to insure the property ordinance is carried out. this is create chb, thoughtful and smart in a affordable way to increase the supply of affordable and middle class housing. san francisco residence made clear this is the type oof production they would like to see. what ask the eastier way to do this is on lanld that is publicly owned. we expect sth private developers to acheechb these levels at the michb mm and should place the expectation on the city departments as well. i would like to bring up april [inaudible] who is the lead legislative leace onon the balt measure >> good morning. april

[inaudible] with supervisor kim's office. i would like to make a presentation foogo over the key component of the legislative balt measure. the legislative intent for the measure largely supervisor kim explained it but i want to go over it again, expandss the city existing surplus law by making affordal housing a priority when a publicancy wishes to sem or lease sites appropriate for housing and sets minimum requirements for housing affordability when public land is developed. in term thofz need for affordable housing we continue to be in a housing affordability crisis and land is a extremely precious resource and a constraint in dwemb housing. there is a finite supply of these sites suitable for building housing and taken up by market rate housing which is

unavailable to the vast majority of san franciscan. 60 percent of san francisco residence need afford nl housing. many city agencies own land in san francisco that have no longer needed for their core spungz is this is a public resource that should continue to serve the public interest. our current public lands builts upon the surplus property ordinance that was enacted in 2002. the ordinance established 3 use priorities for surplus or underutileized property and allows the proceeds from the sale of the sites to be use today finance affordable housing. the priorities for the current surplus property ordinance are affordable housing for people who are homeless, services and non profit space for people who are hometless and people making up to 60 percent ami. in 2004

the ord nnss was updateed with the formation of cac and included a jurisdictional transfer of 15 properties. annual inventory hasn't been done since 2007 and only 2 properties have been developed since the jurisdictional transfer has been done and that is 15078 oats and nob nub broad way. we drafted this with affordable housing advoicates and community members to bring it up to alignment with the current prop k goals of 33 percent affordable to 120 percent ami as well as expanded to include middle income housing for 150 percent ami. what does the measure do? requires pub lb aenls to

annually report all underutileized of property a 4th of a acre or larger. one of the things that the community learned over the years is that one of the difficulties with the surplus property ordinance is it required transfer to am meau so this stream lines the process and identifies the sides suitable for for affordable housing so that is the idea of limiting the scope of the annual review of 4th of acre or more. these are sites that are most fropet affordable houdsing development. here is the mayors office of housing first tinet to acquire sitess suitable for housing from publicancy that wish to sell or lease unused public land. sets the priporties for homeless families, low income work force

housing, mixed low and moderate income homes and for sites larger than 2 acres allows mixed income housing which would include at least 50 percent affordability dependent on the feasibility. in terms of the comparison to the existing surplus property ordinance or the definition of affordable while also maintaining the prioritization for homeless families. the measure also sets a minimum 50 percent affordable requirement for prop k for sites that the city sell squz leases for private development if not built for 100 percent affordable housing. some of the things in the legislation that build upon the lessens learned is to streamline the sknrauss give the mayor office of housing opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of a

property and on a site for affordable housing prior to the the jurisdictional transfer. it requires a annual review of surplus properties. january 1 county agency including enterprise department must submit a list of all property a 4th or acre of large toorb the city admin strairtd and education district are also require today submit inventory. the city administrator compiled a property report organized by supervisor district and based on information submitted by the agencies. this is to be done by february 1. march 1, there shall be a hearing at the board of supervisors on the surplus property report and the determination of which property are to be reviewed by the mayors office of housing. and

finally on march 15 the mayors office of housing evaluates the feasibility of each property, sites suitable will be transferred to mow and sites not suitable for affordable housing there is a report required to the board of supervisors regarding their assessment. recognizing that all properties are not feasible to affordable housing development, we want to increase the opportunities for affordable housing on surplus property and bring a level of transparency around the disposition of properties. allows sites to be used for a range of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income with pritorties to guide the mayors office of housing. sites larnler than 2 acres allows mixed income by affordable housing dwem with at

least 50 percent for prop k. sites not suitable for development, the city and the city disposing of development requires at least 50 percent of those properties that are disposed be affordable for affordable housing. and requires the notification to the board of supervisors and members of the public to identify a potential for the hearing if the property is not deemed suitable for affordable housing. a lot of this works builds upon the may rs office has done a public lan process and the incorporated some of the idea that came out of sth community property through their listening session. lot of the community members also desired laevl of transparency to be able to identify sites and participate in the process.

and finally, the legislation strengthens the local implementation of the state surplus land act that was updateed by assembly men [inaudible] it requires the mayors office of housing to identify of intent to dispose of a property a 4th of a acre or larger by any agency and it giveathize mayors office of housing a 120 days to negotiateate a site of feasibly. the board of supervisors may holtd a informational hearing on the evaluation of the site. during the 120 day period-and if the site is owned by city and county agency, not acquired by mow and the site is disposed of for private development at lease least 50 percent of the housing must be affordable for

prop k goals. encourages all other agencies not directly under the pervee of the city and county of san francisco to assume 50 perlt affordable housing in daeming the fair market valuef of the property for disposition and it conforms the state law allows for locing aensh agency to sell or lease property at less than fair market value. that is sth main points of the legislation. >> thank you. >> thank you. sorry i lost my breath there. >> thank you. so that is our presentation. i do want to recognize that ken rich and [inaudible] are here from the mayors office of economic and work force development and also have the dleckt director of the real estate department john updike who has a lot of interest in the work and participate in development on city properties.

>> if there is a presentation or discussion from city staff, we are welcome to hear. >> good monchish supervisors. mike martin. thank frz the opportunity to speak today. i'm going to speak a little about our work with public lands for housing program which focused on enterprise department. i think it share as lot oof the objectives of this legislation and i appreciate the reference to the sort of dmunty work we did with

that program because it shows up in the thipging behind this legislation so we'll run through that real quick and here to answer any questions. so, just a real quick backdrop, i think everyone knows the facts. the economy is moving. this chart shows the labor force over the last 15 years. the important line is the blue line in the middle, it shows increasing the employee to residence by over 20 thousand in just the last year and this is over 60 thousand more than the peak of the.com boom in 01 so we are a grewing group of people who live in san francisco who need housing. i think our goal is to try to figure how to address those needs across all income levels. so, as that growth of residence increases and if the development has not kept