housing stock does not meet their needs. that is kind of an overview, and you know all the other things in the document. i think it is 22% of the units have three or more bedrooms, and home ownership is extremely low relative to the national average and even the big cities, which are historically around 50%, where as only about one-third. those are just some of my comments. the other thing, and i think now have another layer to add to it, the historic layer. we have a lot of older, seismically challenged, somewhat dysfunctional housing on the east side of the city. it may look good from the outside, but a lot of the units are now configured to meet the needs of modern needs and families, and i think we have to look at our policies and see if we need to restore some of these units to their original configurations or make them more

family friendly. there are many barriers to that, and we are overburdened with smaller, undersized unit. that is kind of an overview on the general status of the housing in san francisco, to that extent. i think you are on the right track with this document, but it is a complicated document and needs to have a lot of vetting before we finalize it. i understand there might be some necessity to pass it in terms of getting funding for affordable housing. we have to be cognizant of those states, too, because that will be important, to make sure we do not hold those things up too long. i think the vetting process is important. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: there are large amounts of units which are held empty, off the market. i feel we could ask everybody in

the room how many units are held back in the neighborhoods on their street. one my own, i could probably count 20-40 within a short radius, walking distance. how we talk about growth, smart growth, when we are not enforcing existing units, intensifying the city for speculative development rather than an immediate need? and then commissioner antonini's comments on soft story and necessary rental -- i am not sure, that is a question i have, about smart growth and sustainability, but looking at the region, i did not see the region make a contribution and smart growth and sustainability. there are a number of communities, i don't want to mention them by name, or not even allowing outside use multi

unit dwellings in their communities. how does that at up -- how does that add up when we are carrying an undue burden of growth, but others have pulled up the moat? there are communities, and the director knows the ones i am talking about, that are getting away with not allowing townhomes. i am throwing that out to get a better handle on how we are meeting state requirements, and how is everybody else when spur talks about global and regional methods of identification and how that reflects on us. those are two questions i would very much like the next draft to address, including a possible

mechanism to release it in numerical handle on how many units are held off the market. president miguel: commissioner olague? vice president olague: i will make some direct statements. when it comes to the issue of density equity, i think we are in this slow economic time, so we do not see a lot of development. but i am hearing from a lot of individuals who are being displaced is there is no place for them to go. there displaced for "legal" reasons, whether it is that ellis act or owner movements. it sometimes is seniors and others who have lived in these units for a number of years and are paying very fixed rent, and then there displaced and there is no place for them to move into. that is where sometimes i think of the issue of density equity, where in the light of the fact

there is maybe a downtrend in construction, what we see it frequently is market rates. not affordable housing. affordable housing is happening at a rate that is not even match up to what has been identified as the need. we're meeting the need on middle-class housing. we're not meeting the need on middle-class housing or low- income housing either. they're still a lot of places in the city or a vulnerable population that does not have a lot of options. in many instances they are forced into single room occupancy hotels or homeless shelters or relocating to areas that are not familiar to them. sometimes you have a vulnerable population that is being displaced, and people leave the city, does not matter what income level, if you live to the city, 40 years, and be very low income. it does not mean that you love the city any less. special consideration needs to

be given to that fact, sometimes people have talked about the very controversial issues about increasing density and not height and bulk but density in areas adjacent transit corridors, including on the west side, which i don't think we should completely ignoring their. i think the whole idea of doubling up in san francisco needs to be considered throughout the city, not just on the east side. with the approval of a lot of these plans, we have seen an undue burden put on the east side when it comes to density. i am not sure all of the development that is happening in those areas is necessarily affordable. i also think about the issue of acquisition rehab and what the city is doing. i am looking at what are the tools, what are the ideas to increase low-income or affordable housing for outside

just new construction. because we cannot just rely on that for a solution to that. also, the impacts that market. housing -- that market rate housing, to look at the approval of that, and how that impacts affordability of housing in san francisco. i have said something similarly before, and i will see if i confined my notes at home. i have asked for this before, actually. the application of policies is something that has always been curious to me. i think some people -- i think it is necessary to have a housing element for a lot of reasons. i think it is important have the right language and the policies that support the general plan and other things. i think what mr. cohen raises is interesting, because i often wonder, sometimes i see policies are used to justify some type of development rather than

encourage the right kind of development. i don't mean to be critical. i just mean sometimes you see a report that says i will be general, this project, this market right project, 100 units of market rate housing, they are given to the fund -- which is important, because obviously we need an account of revenue we can generate from any development in the city. but then is sort of like, well, this is meeting some out and affordability. i guess it is in a way, but it seems sometimes it is the stretch. sometimes i would like to see more robust reasoning in certain reports that we see here. if it is really a market rate development, how does it meet the prop m or general plan for

housing policy rules? as relates to affordability? i am not sure we are clearing that, but we're getting there. i would just like the sound logic behind it. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: 1 as a question and one is a suggestion. in terms of presidio, and know it is not our land and we cannot program that, but i do not see it counted in the housing. is that because we don't have any management over and we don't bother to count that? >> if you are referring to the data section, it should indicate the number of housing units and i can look into that. commissioner borden: it would be interesting to have that association included, because even though it is not in our jurisdiction, it is still part of the units. we could figure out ways and the

future to work with presidio, if that is never possible. the other thing, when we talk about affordability, which bought about least to own. in other cities they have the least own concept -- lease to own concept. that is really common in other areas, but we never talk about it here in san francisco. this is an all policy document, but maybe we put in language about affordability and home ownership and other kinds of opportunities so we can think of other ways to incentivize those models. i think they are done successfully in other communities and i don't know why we cannot do that. i think a lot of the discussion we heard today centers around issues related to rental policy, and might be good to have a joint meeting with the renters to discuss how they look at

rental housing units and how they maintain the housing stock and those issues. they're dealing with it on the ground. but also be nice to talk to the mayor's office of housing and the agency is talking about the housing element, to figure out of the policies that we are executing in this document, how would all work together to ensure the outcome of the policies actually becomes reality. the only thing, braziel about the housing element -- the only thing controversial about the housing element, is just a document, but if we cannot do anything, it is just great words on a page and does not go anywhere. i think that is something we should figure out in this conversation, and at least have representatives from some of the other agencies to talk about those issues. i think it is critical. in terms of the reasons, it would be interesting to see how other areas in the bay area are

dealing with regional housing stock. ultimately , it sp-375 will allow these to move on, but i don't think it doesn't mean we don't do our part, it would just be interesting to know how this committees are approaching that. i think this is important because it brings back the things that matter to this city and the vitality of the city is about housing and the city and the people who could afford to be here, and you need different economic bases and different jobs and people to make the city a vibrant and thriving city. i think whenever we can do when it thing about how this document is implemented and used in the feature to achieve that goal is really, like, a port here. president miguel: commissioner lee? commissioner lee: a couple of things.

do we have that up on commissioner borden, maybe we should consider it -- compare ourselves to other counties. we take more than any other city, we take more homelessness, more homeless shelters. one of the things i want to find out, in san francisco, we have the highest percentage of subsidies of housing, to my knowledge, of any place in the united states. we have looked at red control, the amount of affordable housing, senior housing, and veterans' housing that we have in stock, i think we need to see the data. every time i think of the 555 washington, $15 million of affordable housing, and the project was killed for whatever the reasons were. i guess the key the general public has to understand is we do more than anybody else in the bay area, and i think pressure

needs to be pushed by our state legislators and the assembly saying, hey, we take our fair share, none of the other bay area counties have homeless shelters. we take them. i think the key is we need to let the public know and the bay area know, when are you going to pick up the slack we have taken up? i know for a fact we have more affordable housing units in san francisco that i think the whole bay area combined. you look at marin, they don't have a lot of density or affordable housing. you go to san mateo county, you don't find much. you find some and oakland, some in san jose. the think we need that data. -- i think we need that data. the second issue, we need to figure out how many units are a legal units, nonconforming.

because it's still concerns me after eight years that nobody at the board or the mayor's office has gone to try to legalize these units. when we have our next earthquake, many of these units, frankly, are going to be a safety hazard. for eight years, nobody has had the political will to do something about them, and that concerns me and we should be doing some regarding that. the other issues i like to look at as part of this, we're going to beat approving -- we're going to be approving, student housing. is there a way we can give bonuses for student housing? also, i think i have mentioned this before, why doesn't san francisco have their own section 8 type of housing, where we take affordable housing money to have san francisco aid and give it to the people who needed civic and rent out units and you

don't have to be stigmatized by saying it is section 8 and you use that money anywhere in the city and you diversify the people who are on section 8, san francisco section eight. that way you put more money back into the market. i don't know why we cannot do it. if the feds can do it, we can do it. then let the marketplace out. but you diversify. maybe lived in pacific heights. these are some of my comments after the eight years, the second housing element. i think we still need more data there. when we look into the future, my question is, we have more people here in the city, but because we have a lot of single people living here and they have more space, it seems to be more crowded. i think people have less children here now. we need to look at the number of children in the school district, public, private. we have the least amount of

children under 18. the question is, if we had more tests a day. if we had more density, why does it seem like we have less housing? i don't think our first housing element, we asked the same questions. why is it we don't have enough housing when there were more people here after world war ii and the 1950's? i think we should also require, if we look at more density housing, affordable housing, but how would actually add to the stock? if we take infill housing on the west side, and i agree with commissioner olague, the west side has not taken a lot of housing density, but i think there are parcels out there where we could give a bonus for higher density housing or affordable housing and maybe re

zone or give the ability for people to build more housing units. thank you. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: not to beat a dead horse, a little bit, but i always like to think of the housing element as a larger bay area at issue, i suppose. we do not have a regional government system, so obviously we don't have a mechanism through which to really enforce things. i know that abac does the original projection and valuation and the kind of give targets to each community. but they have no enforcement capability, to my knowledge. so that is contributing to part of the problem. it would be nice to have some kind of overview at some point

of how the overall regional housing system sort of works. not that long dissertation, so the speaker. -- not a long dissertation, so the speaker. but then plugging in legislation that would be affecting us, and i know we are looking at that. but somehow bring the whole housing element into perspective and context on a larger scale would be helpful. i think to echo some of the other comments, it is always interesting to hear that the city of alameda has an ordinance were you cannot build anything more than a duplex or something on that order, and actually have, they actually have an ordinance photos of buildings that are not allowed. when you think of the rejection of the developers not getting

their renewal, now i guess they're going to turn around and sue the city, but think of how that could pull off the development without multifamily housing in some regard is astounding to me that the city cannot realize they cannot make it work without that. that is an aside, though. but in any case, many -- maybe some kind of context for the housing element would be great. and then they take into consideration what commissioner olague and spur said an earlier document. maybe we should get some metrics on that to see which policies were eliminated or substantially changed or whatever. president miguel: i also want to do a little more research personally on that. i like to the original draft better in many ways than the

current draft. i appreciate commissioner borden's comments regarding the presidio, where have been involved many years. mildly side, on that is good luck. -- my only side comment on that is good luck. i have read the rental housing and keeping of market as somewhat telling. i know of many of them. i know of the number of property owners who have those units, and i know why. the comment was made because of the onerous situation in san francisco that is perceived by many small property owners when they have problems, the get stuck. a small property owner with two, three, maybe five units has that as the major income, it is

tremendously impacting them. sb-375, others, these are great concept. i have not seen them actually do any thing. i don't know if i will ever see them actually do any thing. i have a first cousin who is an architect who lives in alameda, and he and i just agree not to talk about the situation over there because it would disturb the entire family at family gatherings. but it is very true, for some reason, san francisco is supposed to absorb everything, and we are supposed to be the leading light and things such as projections and sb-375 projections.

but i don't see any thing coming out of the rest of the bay area. we do not have -- and i know the director has worked on the concept -- of a regional cooperation, but i hope it is not a totally frustrated because every time san francisco has attempted to do that, it has frustrated our administration here very badly. as far as the graph is concerned, i tend to like the original wording better. i think there is a great deal more information and background for the reasoning that could go into the document. it is a policy document. it should not be so prescriptive that it goes down to fine architecture concepts.

but it should give enough background that there are reasons why these are policies. and it might even give some lead it as to how these policies can come to fruition. just to state a policy without what comes before and what is anticipated after words leaves a little too much interpretation perhaps. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: just a couple of the things that came up and the other comments which i thought were good by the other commissioners. during the other housing element, one of the things i always asked to be looked at was the nature of the commuters into san francisco. i think if you look at the downtown business community and people who work there, you'll find a lot of middle-income families who might choose to

live in san francisco if their housing needs could be met, either in terms of cost or the actual structure of the homes, which don't meet their needs. that would be a good thing to try to find out. about 50% of our work force comes from outside of san francisco. i agree with a regional approach. unfortunately, there are not too many teeth in the laws for the other areas to provide their fair share of affordable housing and multi unit housing, which they don't do, and a lot of times they're having commuters come to their businesses even more than they come to ours. in terms of the market right affordable, actually in the last year, four of the six projects were on hunger% affordable. that maybe the fact that it is kind of a sign of the time there are not as many market rates being built. i think we have been in the high

30's in affordable housing production. we have been doing a good job. we can do a little bit more, and most all of that has been a rental and lower income, and we don't do anything in the middle income, and that is the area that tells police -- that is the area that has always been difficult. mission battery will be affordable units and will be new and clean and safe and we have to figure out a way to perhaps allow a tradeoff where people could remodel older units in challenged seismically unstable, on functional units, convert it to ownership in return for providing new affordable units that are under. control and return, just as we do in other areas. i think that would solve two problems. you have more middle-class family housing, but also provide more affordable housing in

appropriately sized come clean, safe housing. lee is right, a large percentage is controlled and one form or another, either rent control or public housing for senior housing or something, and that certainly has an effect of what remains as market rates because there's an upward force on that because its percentage is relatively small. finally, on the west side, i live out there, but i see opportunity areas that exist, and i think carefully -- there are areas where there could be single-family homes, which is what people with families like to have, and there are still some spots around the twin peaks area, laguna honda. i am not sure that ownership, but if they were in the province of the city, there would be a trade-off between open space and housing, but it needs to be looked at. there are areas where it does

not mean you will go real high or dance, but you could go a second floor on some of those places, add housing, and would make sense because that is a great transit opportunity. as long as there is enough parking and other things, i think it works. president miguel: the only other thing i wanted to add, i find it nearly impossible to find the term or definition or comment on student housing anywhere in the document of the city. including the housing element. we have definitions for s.r.o., we have definitions that cover boarding house in. we don't have anything regarding student housing. over the years, i have had the opportunity to talk to a number

of the schools of higher education, and i see mr. cohen nodding his head. he has chaired a couple of those groups at times. they all wished to be cooperative. i'm talking about everything from our colleges to hastings to ucsf. but none of them are going ahead, other than state college, and i believe that would be helpful if we had an actual definition and concept regarding susan -- student housing. that is part of the housing element of a major metropolitan city, in my mind, and i like to see that included. commissioner olague? vice president olague: