part of this ordinance as well. >> supervisor mar the challenge with respect to certainty given the fund sources includes two prospective saddles that will not occur before the end of 2015 and 2016 the proceeds from van ness and others that will be difficult to mandate certainty when we don't have the sales yet so i have the same struggle how close to certain we can get on this yield of 33 percent affordability so i'm not sure we're hundred percent certain on that and the other thing i'll add of we have the funding source locked in this is a redevelopment subject to market

conditions; right? we the city have to vacate the property in a timely manner we don't know what the marketed cycle looks like in 2019 when someone puts their stack in the ground so i want to be honest about there will be a level ever uncertainty give a redevelopment project we are here to deal with that first the transaction. >> okay. colleagues if not other questions open up for public comment i have a few speaker cards (calling names). >> anyone else wishes to speak line up on the side and get going. >> i'm fernando with the

housing organizations i was welcomed hearing referenced back to prop k the mayor supported and we got behind in september 2nd/3rd's of the voters voted for it it mandate 33 percent of our housing here and into the future be low to moderate heirs and 50 up to middle-income housing you may remember that recently the giants made a proposal before the voters saying the same thing from mr. updyke 33 percent wait, wait, wait the mayor said the voters said 50 percent of our housing in the future should be affordable to a range of income levels the important thing that is not going to happen on all private sites market rate affordable housing it is not going to

happen when we have public sites the only way to reach the mandate for the voters is to dictate our public sites to the standards set out by prop k one thing i've heard mr. updyke say we don't want certainty certainty is a good thing not deal with the board of supervisors the ability to change something we've agreed it with the development partner we want certainty oh we don't want certainty in writing into the legislation how much affordable housing should be developed when developers go before any proposal they know what their commitment and googdz and fees that needs to be worked into her 50 percent prop k voters have spoken thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon. i'm jose

perez i wanted to put out there the sale of thirty an van ness is being rushed by the mayor's office to be a full board vote on the 21st so the mayors rushing this so you guys to vote so we like i said reneed affordable housing for low income families and kids thank you. >> thank you is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak seeing none, public comment is closed so colleagues i'll weigh and we'll have a vote on that item any potential amendment discussions from my prospective first of all thank you mr. updyke for working on this and mr. rose our report and analysis and you're clear differentiation of the issues from your prospective i think the goal for everybody here when we talking

about i understand the surplus discussion i'm compel comfortable the goal to maximize the value it accrues to the affordable housing and that's the intent the question from my prospective how do we go about doing that i appreciate mr. rose's prospective i also understand that prospective of you know developers in the city not thinking or wondering if they approve a project if they come back to the board of supervisors if they have to increase some type of affordability payment we have all the right in the world and doing our duty as a board of supervisors to set perimeters i have no problem asking ourselves to do that up front we can mandate whatever we want to and

discuss but setting it up front i agree would increase the value of final dollars is smart policy i understand we haven't done that before, however, i surely appreciate that prospective and this is something i will consider doing for other projects again, this self-wave the way our ability as a board to weigh in here and set perimeters for price or anyone else but all of ours to maximize the dollars i do subscribe to the fact that is the best way i'm very much going to give mr. updyke and his team the ability to do that supervisor mar. >> just wanted to say i'm appreciative of the report and the suggestions from the budget analyst i feel

be have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the the city ordinance to this parcel i think we need a legal analysis of the potential risks and the ordinance affordability andstasis statistics by the public in avenue, i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> we have any by supervisor mar a second. >> no second to that motion the motion fails. >> supervisor tang thank you. >> hold on a second apologizes. >> you guys were a 3 person committee you don't need a second a roll call vote. >> madam clerk a roll call vote. >> on this condemn to the call of the chair supervisor mar supervisor tang marry no

supervisor farrell no motion fails. the motion fails supervisor tang i want to reiterate the compromise that might workout in this situation that allows for the where had to see what the deal is and still have the opportunity to weigh in without continuing the item i know that mr. updyke will have to work out the lack with the city attorney's office but to amend something and forward this anti to the full board if possible >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> so mr. updyke and i spoke about that the concept we're talking about on the side i think goes along what with you suggested supervisor tang that at some point the thirty days before the closing the director of properties to the board about the deal then if by a certain

date the board adapts a resolution rejecting the deal then the director can't move forward we need to i think play with the dates. >> what works and exactly how that process can happen i'll recommend i understand your intent coming up could you u coming out of committee but tuesday to nail it down and write it so everybody knows exactly what it looks like when you vote on it. >> mr. gibner would it be substantive. >> no. you make the amendment on tuesday and still pass it. >> so i will taylor reserve that for tuesday, i understand the challenges supervisor farrell statistics it i understand the changes the director is dealing with with the reality of the market although i'd like to see the

final deal proposed before us i will make a motion to forward out this with a positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> motion pie supervisor tang madam clerk a roll call vote. >> supervisor tang supervisor mar marry no supervisor farrell two i's one no. >> the motion >> okay. thank you everyone madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> we're adjourned thanks

>> san francisco parks, golden gate park transforms into one

of the greatest music festivals of all time, let's journey, inside, outside land. ♪ >> to this, our 6th year doing the outside lands and our relationship with san francisco, rec and park. and we work very closely with them in the planning and working very closely with the neighborhood organizations and with the city supervisors and with the city organizations and with the local police department, and i think that the outside lands is one of the unique festivals in the world and we have san francisco and we have golden gate park and we have the greatest oasis, in the world. and it has the people hiking up hills and down hills and a lot of people between stages. >> i love that it is all outside, the fresh air is great. >> they have the providers out here that are 72 local

restaurants out here. >> celebrating, and that is really hot. >> 36 local winerries in northern california and 16 brewers out here. >> and you have seen a lot of people out here having a good time and we have no idea, how much work and planning has gone into this to make it the most sustainable festival in the united states. >> and literally, in the force, and yeah, unlike any other concept. and come and follow, and the field make-up the blueprint of the outside land here in golden gate park and in the future events and please visit sffresh

parks.org. 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