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 pace

with that this graph shows how that interreerated with supply of housing. the red line decreasing is housing units per resident. as we have grown with our booming economy and people flocking to san francisco we reduced the number oaf units per resident and at the same time the green line represents the medium rent of 2 bedroom apartment so that continues to rise as a inverse measure to the decrease of supply rel ative the the residence in srf. obviously we have a challenge of trying to address our growing population. it is not just about supply and demand. what we learned throughout the prop k process and the current dialogue at sate hall is we need to find way tooz address all income level squz not just the market rate. this chart shows the association of bay area government dem ographic

projection for each city. in san francisco [inaudible] to keep pace with the growing population. as you can see here, both low and moderate income housing has lagged behind the dem ographic projections sort of counter intuitively marden has lacked more greatly behind those projections and partly housing for incomes below 80 percent income have federal and state subsidies that help those projects get built. we are not meeting the demand in that income level we is see a policy challenge to get at thamoderate and middle income level called out in prop k. a little bit of context for the income level, sorry the slide is hard to see but we want to put face tooz the numbers. we go to a lot of public meet frgz public lands

for housing and talk about 120 percent of income and don't know necessarily who that is. who you see there is electrician level that is 120 of income, 82 thousand dollars butd the professions to the left the people in that valley between marth rate and low income. police, fire, ambulance, elementary teacher, construction worker, those are the types of people we need to build new tools subu such aspublic land trance action to address those needs. moving up from 120 percent we have key occupations that represent the glue of the sitdy that ween can't continue to have that is all market rate and subsidized housing, the working class needs to find a way to stay here for the cultural i

economic and environmental viability of san francisco. so the backdrop-that is sth backdrop to proposition k. the target of 30 thousand units developed by 2020. [inaudible] 50 percent to middle income and within that we saw public land for housing that focus on enterprise departments in playing a key role in trying to [inaudible] setting a goal of 50 percent of the units portfolio being affordable to low and moderal income. in addition we want to foind opportunities to get at the next income level, the middle income level called out in prop k that needs subsidy but it is how we find those opportunities and tools to make that happen. just our first 4 sites announced in the public land,

200 for r affordable housing and low income. 1950 mission street and the [inaudible] the other 2 sites, 4th and folsom, the air rights over the sfrl subway station owned by san francisco mta as well as balboa reservoir. we are looking frd a mixed income model i would like to talk more about. it is also referenced in the proposed initiative measure as well so we want to talk about the interplay with that with the rest of the intent of the measure. our portfolio for public land for housing, we want to get to the community early and let them understand the city whide wide policy needs to address. people understand the need for housing for all incomes. in addition i think we see the larger sites in public land for housing as a opportunities to bring the mixed income forward. it is

model that hasn't been implemented in many places. it is something we are trying tonishate and this plan can give the opportunity to not only implement that model in one place but demonstration for city and private transactions from there. dynamics of affi najsing affordable housing, something to make clear, to development below market rate housing it require as local subsidy in low income context to the federal [inaudible] has to put in a subsidy for each unit to make a project feasible. that leads into the second spoint the mayor afs stated the funding sources are programmed through 2020 to achieve it low income target of prop k. right now the existing fundsing source are spoke frn

and can we move ahead with other transactions that don't require those funding sources in the mean time to support that goal. lasty lai want to point out, thanks to significant vertical development capacity have building safety requirements that increase as you go higher and those construction cost increases sort of presents a challenge for low and moderal income development that are being subsidized on a perunit basis. opposed to a shorter building that doesn't have construction cost, you are required to put in more dollars for each unit which eats opgreat deal of public subsidy. is there a way to bring in other investment and financial sources that doesn't use up the cities finite supply of subsidy sources and add the same time moves housing forward quickly in term said of developing the low and moderate income units.

more on the mixed income model. the ultimate goal is use not thonl land itself and land value to the extent that is possible, but additional affordability subsidy strategy including the [inaudible] allowed for project based tax increment so but for revenue to be put back into the that project. we feel like no one has done that yet but it is interesting way to bring forward this type of subsidy in the wake of the demise of redevelopment agencies in the state. in addition, there is proposed affordable housing obligation bond that can provide subsidy sources and there are grants and other things we can put toward developments that address the squlou moderate income

affordability gap. we feel like the benefit thofz mixed income housing model allows in the especially the taller building scenarios with higher construction cost to build to the higher development capacity. in addition with this subsidy approach we think there are ways to get at the low and moderate income and middle income working class level in prop k. it isn't part nof portfolio goal but see these trangz action tooz find our way into that income level. we feel the tublt to find the right sfrite the mixed income level we think is critical to success of surplus property or public landss program and that present as challenging choice. if we force a tall site into a

low or moderate income context that presents the choice if you build to the full development capacity you use up our limited subsidy funds to move quickly or wait for the funds to come in. we would like all the above strategy, a multipronged strategy that brings the mixed income proposals forward as well. to close i want to say i think in working on public lands program with planning department and real estate division and my office, economic of work force development and enterprise department, we worked together as well as with the mayors office to think about the context of the work we are doing what this ordinance does and fully support and frankly appreciate the effort to provide a more efficient and transparent process to [inaudible] the opportunities as departments become, show they need a certain property

lessism we appreciate the idea of adding flexibility among homeless, low income and moderate income levels that is shown in the current initiative. all those things i think we think are additive and complimentary of what wree have already worked. the concern we have that [inaudible] we feel that misses out on the tall but small horizontal site with increased construction cost. the only way to move out of the prioritizeization is if the mayors office of housing and community development says the site cannot be developed for low and moderate income and represents a presumption we can't overcome because you can build less than site capacity if you choose to do so and we feel that leaves a opportunity

thon table for those sites less than 2 acres but have a great deal of total supply it could add. in addition we feel like there could be additional things that improve the reporting process and finally because this is a voter approved measure this limits the boards ubltd to wave the provision or change course on a specific trance action based on surrounding circumstances. the boards practice to date is make the public policy choice squz we feel the amendment provision does limit their ability to do that so i think those are concernwise the current 96ative but as i said we'll fully support this effort and appreciate the chance to [inaudible] today. that's all i have. >> thank you for your presentation. really appreciate the information. supervisor kim do you have any remarks? >> actually let me let supervisor tang make remarks but i did have follow up

questions >> i just want to thank supervisor kim for bringing this forwards. it is a good effort to address some of the short comings of the surplus ordinance and time to make adjustments to it. i had a couple questions, one is actually dirk the staff presentation that the annual inventory has not been din since 2007 and only 2 properties are developed. i wanted to know why the annual inventory wasn't done. >> can i refer to mr. updike on that one? >> john updike. the annual inventory has been done. the question is have there been additions to those properties noted by departments as surplus or underutileized and that's is where the reporting mechanism and the shrink in the current

ordinance simply seeks their input. it doesn't have a lot of consequences for non reporting that we like to follow up on sus spected surplus. i'm really pleased the word in the budget moving forward from my decision, budget and finance approved a resource in that budget dedicated soly to surplus property. not only disposing and developmenting but locating and identifying and moving forward with those. we just lacked those resources so pleased to see that but we have done a annual reporting. in 2007 is when we stopped printing a book. there was a book that showed each property all 2000 parcels owned by city and county of san francisco by the lot and block. we migrated

to a own line system. that is increasing transparency and reducing printing cost and it is available to the officials and staff and it is a resource available to the public. you can pull up the information andquiry against the report and it goes into a excell database so feel that is a better mechanism to report. the capital plan finally is the mechanism to inform you as the elected officials of the kats of each of the assets so that was what was trying to be of a deeper dive into not just note the property said we own, but their condition and where we have a duficiency where do we make a investment? that capital plan is far more robust over the past few years so in that process we tried to inform and educate and fund deficiencies as we see them and bring it forward to the capital

planning committee. >> thank you for that explanation. i do appreciate it is brought on line rsh but i think that given my previous role on the government audit and over site committee we heard reports [inaudible] in may of 2013 and we learned that i think the recording and actually having properties deemed surplus is very-i don't know if it is difficult or not done appropriately so this measure addresses what else we can do after a property is deemed surplus but to get more properties to be listed as surplus property is something i hope to address. i don't know if that is something that can be done through this measure. for example in our district-the school district, we vahuge building that is

underutileize squd can't do anything with it now because they are doing analysis to see if we have a need fl another school but there is no timeline or follow up consequences, no restrictions which i think the grand jury recommended is there should be some sort of time frame for when a surplus property stays on a list. i think there are properties out there that maybe we would like to take advantage of but it is hard to get it deemed as surplus property. that is something i would like tasee addressed soime interested hearing from supervisor kim about that. secondly, i do appreciate this measure allows for more development of housing for income levels up to 150 percent ami that is 2 acres or more. i'm curious based on our kind of i guess initial list of what the surplus properties

are, how many buildings or properties do we think are 2 acres or more. i know there is obviously a huge demand for developing house frg the low low incomes, lower ami levels. for me as mr. martin pointed out there not a lot of resource frz middle income families. there is no federal grant support so i wanted to just have a better understanding how it is we can actually better utilize this measure to also help with middle income housing. >> thank you supervisor. mike martin again. i think to your point there is a need for creativity for those income level because there isn't federal and state subsidy support there is for low income. one project we are working on is balboa reservoir which is 17 acres so a large

site which we feel can be developed while developing aminities for the community. using the size of the site we can try to work with identifying a appropriate component of market rate housing that provides a boost to get fair market value for [inaudible] but also bring other subsidy sources in on the wurn hand subsidize different income levels including federal and state sources, but we think a opportunity for work force housing both in general for moderate income for the population at large and working with citycology to see if we can house their work force. it is those types of opportunities that we feel like would be potentially constrained. this site particularly gets past the criteria in the current initiative ordinance, but if there are more infill developments in more urban

areas of the city that don't have the acrog but have the capacity to do hundreds of units over 150 units, we feel like that same approach that using some market rate housing combind with other subsidy sources to provide a raw number of affordable units that is significant is a useful way to move these developments forward and address different income levels at the current time. so, i think as drafted the current initiative ordinance gives me concern on whether we have-i don't think all a lot of over 2 acre general fund surplus sites now so it is the potential infill opportunities coming up going forward as we have the more robust reporting process and that is what we hope to reserve the opportunity to pursue in the more broad based transaction structure >> thank you for that. my concern is there are not many buildings that are 2 acres or more on surplus ordinance list.

i know for example in our district as we look for creative ways to develop more housing we basically our only pool is infill. i just wanted to see if maybe supervisor kim could address the earlier points about how it is that we can i think do a better job of getting buildings on the listings and secondly, how it is that we could maybe work within the parameters of this measure to figure how we can address income levels up to 150 percent ami. even some teachers fall into those category and heard a desire for help with those income categories so i'll turn it over to supervisor kim >> that was a number of different questions. first let me address the question about sfufd and citycology. the

original ordinance it roughered to them didn't cont plate how we can best work with the state entities on their surplus property and i served on the board of education and something that really struck me while on the school board ask we didn't have enough money or enough teachers or pencils and supplies, bullet we had a abundance of land that could be better utileized even to help address our opportunity gap. if we know student are not coming in ready to learn in the classroom because they don't have affordable and secure housing or access to fresh healthy food, why not leverage the land to bring value. part of my work is on the surplus property list at the school district and then when i came to the board of supervisors insureing we were able to

purchase 1950 mission which is 100 percent affordable housing. the site in the sun set i would love housing to be on that site as well. because they are a separate entity we can't require them but it encourages them to participate in the same process and it makes it more specific as well and to ask them to include their properties on our list. the second piece i think is really important, i appreciate that the reporting is on line but in some ways even though it is very accessible to the public the public has not been accessing or may not know about it so have to do a better job at out reach which is why we require the reporting comes to the board of supervisors and allows for public comment. this forces the community on a annual basis to look through the list of available on line and enforces us as board to be on top of it as well since i

haven't checked this report annually either, so we will be held accountable and be able to provide feedback. if there are properties that departments don't put on the list but we look at the larger list that we may be able to put that back on the list or provide that feedback. we also expand the definition beyond surplus because we find departments are not putting the properties on the list because they know it has to be allocated to the production of housing for formally homeless or that if we sell it it has to go towards the development of affordable housing for the homeless so we want to look adunderutileized sites and also sites with development potential. i understand there is a lament number of 2 acres parcels but there are parcel thazerate under utileized. parking lots we can build on top of and want to

examine those sites. i don't think anything in the measure stops the mayors office from examening [inaudible] there is nothing restricting that examination and encourage it. on a certain level we wanted flexibility to the city as wem understanding the lem naigdss sites under 2 acres have but the ordinance doesn't limit that type of examination. i'm not sure-there were a number of question. s. supervisor tang-we would thruv work with your office because we want to make sure we make this as strong as possible. over the last 10 years we want to address the gaps that we see in the previous ordinance in fulfilling its intention. i did have a couple follow up questions with the mayors office but know there are a snb of member thofz public here today. if the chair would love

to begin public comment >> let's do public comment and let you call the cards and if you have the questions of the departments you can ask afterwards. [inaudible] while don't we have you come first. >> [inaudible] we are such a financial support. [inaudible]

>> thank you. i just have a clarification of what is on todays agenda. it is a measure that is put on the ballot by 4 signatures. there is also another measure that is identical to this one that

is-can be amended so that is heard next week. this is basically the first bite of the apple. if there are ideas that come forward we consider amending the other measure we'll have the ability to do that but this measure is wrun that cannot be amended as it is written. okay so we have a number of cards here on the table and why don't we hand those to supervisor kim and she'll read them off for people to come forward. please come as your name is called. supervisor kim >> thank you chair avalos. i'll call 10 names at a time. christopher [inaudible] james tracey. bruce [inaudible] fur nando mar tee. anthony-my aology if i mispronounce or cannot read your hand writing. [inaudible] theresa [inaudible]

daniel nujella. brian bear. chelsy boiler. >> thank you supervisor avalos and supervisor kim and supervisor tang, i'm chris bowman. i'm [inaudible] the city attorney basically defined what measure is going on the ballot which is the measure supervisor kim and her colleagues introduced on the 16th, because the item that was on the agenda is not the samitem. in fact it leaves out 3 sections on findings and purpose of the measure, so i'll speak to the measure that will be acuring on the ballot unamended and would ask that the priority on housing be changed so that we solve what the mayors office said that 19 percent of housing needs of

people between 80 and 120 percent for medium income are addressed versing roughly 80 percent for those below 80 percent. i think it is important we put that as a first priority and for mixed housing and work for a average work force housing, low income work force house{homeless at the 4th because if you only have 4 thousand potential units of housing you might never get to the middle class or even the working low income working class because you'll be focusing strickly on the homeless. the second thing is that density and character of the neighborhoods is really important. we had the problem of jen fuication where people are high income people moving into low income neighborhoods. i think whatever housing is