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 develop should reflect the social economic and racial breakdown and income levels of the neighborhood it goes into rather than being disparate. thank you very much. >> thank you very much >> good morning supervisors. fur nando [inaudible] with counsel of commune tay counsel organizations. thank you for listening to the measure and encourage you to support it and move it on to be in this novembers ballot. we worked with the superriser to address this. [inaudible] around the

process this measure sets out to define how surplus sites are used. this measure follows a state measure passed, led by assembly member tang and approved by governor brown this last november and sets rules somewhat different from what the mayors office and what mike martin is setting out around the public land measure. the state requires that any surplus land that is disposed by a loickal agency first be presented to affordable housing, parks and the school district for use. what this measure does is looks at affordable housing of the state measure and sets out the process for how tatoo accomplish that. the second thing that is important is in the process with the mayors office of housing does is look at the feasibility of developing the project. who else than mayors office of housing who works on affordable housing day in and out who

should determine the feasibility of housing. either 100 percent for [inaudible] or low and moderate income or mixed use of housing for law, moderate and [inaudible] the mayors office can taerm determine it isn't feasibility and come back to some of the ideas mr. martin set out earlier. it sets out a path fwrai developing affordable housing. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. martin >> good morning. my name is james [inaudible] director of community organizing [inaudible] supervisor kim, thank you so much for doing this important work and happy birthday yesterday. so, i was one of the organizers that

helped bing the surplus property ordinance toort. it was a process of research with homeless people with low income people working together with people from legal and affordable housing background and we all that amazing work there are a lot of holes in the original ordinance and this goes a long way in laying a clear pathway to make it work. we only got 2 buildings out of the original campaign, which is wonderful but not enough. very clear laef one of the reasons the surplus property ordinance did not achieve as much is because the board of supervisors didn't pay enough attention to it so thank you for your attention and know that one of the most gratifying pieces of the legislation is the fact the board of supervisors pay attention to what is going on and build more

housing for low income, moderate and work force populations. it is small but very important piece of taking the city back. thank you >> thank you mr. tracey. >> bruce will representing san francisco community land trust and [inaudible] we are in support of this and james tracey didn't mention but what pegged the work he did earlier called, right to a roof speaks to this particular legislation and it is blt time. i urge you tawork it through and make it happen and list toon all the suggestions that we have. thank you >> thank you mr. [inaudible] >> good morning supervisor, daniel [inaudible] representing the non praurnt housing association of northern california. i thank you for taking up this very important

issue today and recognizing that affordable housing is indeed a very important issue we are facing in the city. sites of residential development are more competitive and available homes for those who earn a lower wage are sh inking. this pressure resource can be use frd public benefit and helpathize city meet the affordable housing needs. further more as supervisor kim brought up, the revision to had ordinance will bring it to match the recently passed california assembly bill 2135 as a non profit we worked very closely with the sponsors in the house to write that bill and we thank you for your time and hope you place this ordinance on the bill. thank

you. >> thank you mr. nuvela and also for bringing up assembly mens bill, i do want to recognize alice walker. the author. alice walker from assembly member phil changs office is here present as well and available for any questions on the state bill. thank you for being here. >> my name is theresa empyreal for [inaudible] housing program and thank you for introducing the surplus public lands ordinance. as a community service worker, we are-this is very important. we see a lot of client not just from sourt of market but all over the city and of course it is a very

common story everyone is look frg affordable housing. this-a lot of working class families are homeless and we are seeing a lot of families coming into our offices that are also working in non profit that are even-have salaries that are pretty much living in cars, so this public-surplus will help our mandate this really for low income and now income families and for [inaudible] 4th and folsom is a very important site and really want to see that site to be mandated for what is really needed in our community, so thank you. >> good morning supervisors. rien [inaudible] and community

organizer with [inaudible] we ask that you support this ordinance. it is clear we are not meeting the demand och affordable housing, there is a lot more we can do on the supply side of providing more opportunity to people in san francisco. it is clear when you look that housing balance report there is a clear disconnect production numbersism some districts having over 300 percent loss of housing balance within san francisco. i appreciate the conversation arounds the kools and education, but i also want to reiterate the point there are thousands of homeless youth within san francisco and need to do more to house them so they can go to school and be educated. i don't know how you can't bow sickened by the numbers and the thousands of evictions throughout san francisco of seniors and elders and families throun out on the street. it