colleagues, can we take that without objection? the motion is approved. congratulations and good luck getting this done on time and on budget. all right. with that, thank you supervisor sheehy. madame clerk, could you please call items four, five and six together? >> item number four is a hearing on housing costs and information tracking. item numbers five and six are hearing resolution improvinging the biannual housing balance report. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you so much. and i believe that i have someone else joining me for items four, five and six as we have combined our hearing. today we -- >> [inaudible]. >> today we are hearing our annual housing balance report from the planning department. as many of you know, in 2014, voters sent us a clear mandate

to set a goal of 33% of affordable housing in our new production. under proposition k. to do this, requires a careful balance of both preservation and protection of our existing affordable housing which by and large are rent-controlled units as well as planning for and producing new affordable housing. whether it is through our on site inclusionary policy which we just amended the year, on-site acquisition or through our area plans. today we're holding this hearing and votings on the resolution because part of achieveling this affordable goal is to have accountability and monitor the efforts of city. the report is clear that while we have increased our overall affordable housing production since last year by 1.6%, the reality is that over the last 10 years, for every three affordable units the city built, we lost two rent controlled units. as our housing rights advocates have stated, it's three steps forward and two steps back, which can be incredibly

frustrating and this is disconcerting because we only have an estimated 1.6% of future entitled projects that are affordable in my district. in 2015, i worked alongside many of the tenant advocates that have come today to advocate for tenant eviction protection 2.0, which since its passage, we have seen a two-year decline in no-fault evictions. from october 2013 to september 2015, there were 4304 evictions filed with the rent board. compared to eder from october 2015 to 2017, where we saw reduction of 200 filed evictions. and the greatest increase seen in no-fault evictions. last year, i worked with president breed, supervisor p/esskin and supervisor saifai on one of the largest reforms and amendments to our inclusionary housing ordinance, which added to our housing stock more on-site affordable units.

we'll continue our series of hearings on the soma plan which as you recall set a minimum of one-third as our affordability target. again, part of the prop k intend and mandate. i want to appreciate the mayor's office of housing and community development's work on their site acquisition strategies as this is an important prong in our protection efforts and look forward to hearing more about this. there are things that we can currently do now that will also help us immediately lower additional no-fault and fraudulent nuisance evictions that our community leaders are considering at this time. one is the fully-funded right to legal counsel that the tenant unit is advocating for and collecting signatures to put on the june 2017 -- 2018 ballot. we can also support state-wide efforts to repeal and also look at how we can impact residential vacancy and thank you to supervisor furor for leading the efforts and our advocacy in sacramento to

repeal it. much needed. finally i want to recognize the planning department for its commitments to this important work in keepinging the public apprised of the city's progress toward achievinging the mayor's housing balance goal and state mandated housing elements requirement. as this is an important way for us to achieve our goals making sure that we're housing everyone as we're housing multiple income brackets here in san francisco. i want to first call up anne-marie rogers from the planning department and then we'll be asking tara -- i'm sorry. from the planning department. and then we values kate hartley as well as robert colins from the rent board as well. thank you, ms. rogers. i don't know if there are anymore comments from members of this committee before we begin the presentation. thank you, ms. rogers. >> thank you very much,

supervisors. i'm anne-marie rogers from the planning department. happy to be here in my new role as city-wide director. >> congratulations. >> thank you very much. i'm looking forward to coordinating our work most closely with this important body. when it comes to today's hearing, good data, of course, is critical to good decision-making. it will be a great deal of the department's energy. we regularly produce about half a dozen products on data just in relation to housing alone. many of these products are mandated either by the state for the reno reports or the general plan, which mandates the housing inventory or by ordinance like today's housing balance. other reports are voluntary and have become indeed much used like our quarterly housing typeline report. this takes a lot of staff time and resources, both financial and technical to produce the increasing amounts of and complexity of reports needed by

the public and lake city. we typically have not been given more staffing or financial resources to secure data and produce the reports to meet these evolving needs. it is important not just to our pride as professionals but essential to decision-makers that we published only data that we believed to be complete. so this means that we need to spend a great deal of time cleaning the raw data that we get to make sure it is accurate. the richest data product on housing that we produce is called our housing inventory. this year is the 50th anniversary of the housing inventory. so, we're celebrating that important victory. i'm sure you are all remembering 50 years ago today when it was created. in 1967. and watching consistent data sets over time is really important because it helps the city get context for today's changes. this report covers a broad array of housing data you can see from production to affordability levels for both sales and rental prices of new

units and with specific info on completed projects. and we'll talk more during the presentation about the importance of this context. now as new flavors of data are desired, the most efficient approach is to augment or adjust our existing reporting instruments. and here the housing inventory plays the most flexible and long-standing housing reporting product. i understand that part of today's hearing is to consider adjusting these reporting frameworks. here's a couple of thoughts on that. first with regards to frequency. it's important to be cognizant of the frequency and the granularity of available data. typically reporting more frequently than on an annual basis, it is hard to get good data. even when you could get new data that's refreshed that often, when you look at these shorter increments, it can be just reporting seasonal variation or some ideosyncratic noise so it is hard to get an a understanding of what the real

trends are unless you are looking at the bigger picture. also, it's important to note that some of the data sources have one to two years of lags in availability of data. like i believe possibly some of the day that we're trying to get. and we should consider number two, the data sources and availability of resource. some of the data that we use in our reports is made -- is originated with other city agencies and in some cases we may need to acquire or data from third-party sources, including those that may not be available in formats that lead us ready for analyzization. this is a great opportunities to talk about broader trends and we hope to highlight the data in the context of policy which you might which to set. i wanted to be here personally as a new city-wide director to reinforce the importance of

this work and this body's reception to the work. and for our presentation, first you'll hear as the supervisor said from teresa ohaida on the housing report. thank you. have. -- thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is teresa ohaida, principle planner with the city-wide policy planning section. i'm here to talk about the housing balance report. this is only for your information and no action is required. but first i would like to acknowledge the presence of kate hartley, director of the mayor's office of housing and community development. amy chan, who's also representing the mayor's office

of housing and rob college, director of the rent board. what is the housing balance report? in april of 2015, the board of supervisors approved ordinance 5315 to add section 103 to the planning code. this new section directs the planning department to monitor and report on the balance between new market rate housing and new affordable housing reduction. the housing balance is the proportion of all affordable housing units to the total number of net new housing units. over a 10-year housing balance reporting, i will be reporting on the third report which was submitted to you in late may and covers the period from the first quarter of 2007.

to quarter 4 2016. this will be the third presentation under housing balance before the board of supervisors mandated. so why a housing balance? one stated goal of the ordinance is to ensure the data is meeting affordable housing targets city-wide and within neighborhoods informs the approval process for new housing development. just to remind the commissioners, here separate housing affordable production targets cited on the man da*itsz and each have its own monitoring and reporting requirements. the housing balance report gives context to these different passing production goals. the housing elements mandated by the state to be updated periodically sets a production goal of about 8,000 net new units built between 2015 and 2022. this is commonly called rena or

regional housing needs allocation goals. 57% will be affordable to lose and moderate income households. this means about 16, 333 units built are substantially rehabilitated in eight years. the planning department submits an annual report in the city's progress in meeting this goal to the state department of housing and community development. the planning department also prepares a quarterly report to the planning commission based on the same production goals called the pipeline-board. proposition k, passed by san francisco voters in 2014, set a goal that 33% of 3,000 net new units be affordable. this is about 9900 units. this is the goal that the housing balance report will be aiming for. so what is the 10-year historic affordable housing trend?

if we are just to look at new housing production, net new affordable housing made up 23% or just under a quarter of net new housing units built in the last 10 years, i'd like to add that this is about the proportion that has been more or less consistent in the last two decades or more. the housing balance calculation, however, looks beyond new housing production. in addition to new housing production t housing balance calculation also looks at rehabilitation completed and the small sites program, public housing placements completed can. rad stands for rental assistance demonstration. essentially older public housing projects. entitled and permitted

affordable units minus units removed from protected status. essentially these controlled unites moved from the rental market through ellis act, demolition, and owner move-in evictions. this is collectively called net affordable housing stock for the purposes of this report. this affordable housing stock is seen as a proportion of net new housing built and entitled net new units. these figures are all for the 10-year reporting period. this presentation covers the second -- the first half balance report so the period covering the first part of 2016. the affordable housing stock totaled 8480 units. this net affordable housing stock over 36538 units is about

33%. this is the city-wide cumulative housing balance over a 10-year period. the ordinance also requires that the housing balance be calculated by board of supervisor districts and by planning districts. the housing balance for the board of supervisor districts range from negative 206 and in the district to. 74% in district five. the negative balances are due to larger numbers of units removed from protected status relative to the net new affordable units built and the net new housing bill overall. districts five, six, seven, eight, nine and 10 have positive housing balance while the rest -- >> could we just -- i just had

-- >> go back? >> no. no. i just wanted to ask a couple of questions. two slides previous to this. so, my first question is, you talk about what our affordable housing goals under rena and proposition k are for 2020 or 2022. but could you tell us where you fared -- at least prop k wasn't in place at that point. but how we fared in our housing elements rena goals for 2007 through 2017? >> i actually have the numbers in my notes but i don't have it right now. but can you provide them by the end of the presentation? >> oh, yeah. >> i think it is helpful for us to know how we've actually met our rena housing element goals. >> i will be -- i will do that. >> for the years that we actually -- but going back to the slide.

that we have in front of us. so in terms of removal from protective status. do we have any sense of how these units are removed? generally what the large patterns are. these are units removed from protected status. >> they are rent controlled units removed from the rental market through the ellis act. these are demolitions. >> i know that. but do you have a sense of the breakdown? >> we do have to breakdown in the report. >> ok. >> it is not part of the presentation. i'm afraid that i did not bring my copy of the report.

>> i just think it's important. we all have access to the report. >> it's mostly o.m.i. >> could you present that at the end of the presentation, too? since it's in the report. i think it is important as we talk about this usual -- issue for all of this to be out for the public to understand as well. so, why are we losing housing, right? because we -- for example, we look at supervisor tang at the negative 205% but she isn't losing the most units. it's actually, according to this, this is actually district eight that has lost the most units from protected status at 655. and i think it is just important for this board to understand if you are going to counter loss of protected units, what is that we're losing it to. what is the breakdown amongst these categories. that is why i asked that question. >> i will be able to provide that after -- >> do you want to jump in? >> thank you. if you have that data by districts also, i think that would be very helpful. >> yes.

this next slide shows the distribution by planning districts as required by the ordinance. these districts, by the way, are consistent with the boundaries used in the annual housing inventory reports. again, there's a range of balances between the planning districts with the outter sunset which is roughly the same geography as district four. and bruno heights with 85% and the western addition. the ordinance also requires a projected housing balance. essential lynette new affordable housing units proportion of net new units in projects that have received entitlements and have yet to

receive building permits. the slide provides the projected housing balance -- well it shows that the projected housing balance is at 16%. this is about the same as in the previous 10-year reporting period. again, this is provided at the district and planning district levels. >> could you go back to the 508 units that are t.d.b. does that mean that they either become low or moderate? >> we don't know what the affordability is yet. >> right. i assume you're countinging the first three in the total of affordable units. you are saying the 508 will either end up in the low or moderate categoris? >> that is correct. the housing balance ordinance

specifis that three major projects have been entitled but do not yet have building permits not included in the projected housing balance, that is until a unit of -- until facing of these projects move to applying for and receiving building permits. all together, the remaining faces of these projects will provide about 22,000 net new units of which 22% will be affordable. also not included in the projected housing balance are projects currently under review. for about 18600 units under review of which just under 10% are in, 100% affordable housing projects. another 100 market rate protons would roughly -- 11 thousand units will be subject to the city's housing requirement. that could mean about 1400 new

affordable units if built on site. the second phase of the rad program has been included this year, representing over 2,000 units in 14 projects. i will now talk about miscellaneous housing balance matters. the housing balance is by annual reporting period. reporting schedule as stipulated in the ordinance. the report will come out the first of march and the first of september. we've had some difficulties because of staffing, but we should be able to catch up shortly. the ordinance also requires that an annual hearing be conducted before the board and we normally have it in april, but due to scheduling, we're

just being heard now. the office of housing and community development and the rent stabilization board are being represented today and are available for questions from the board. and, um, the planning department has also created and maintains a website specifically for the housing balance report as required by the ordinance. the report as well as previous ones can be downloaded from this site. that is all for now. thank you. >> excuse me. before we go to the next topic, we have the answers to the questions that you just asked. >> thank you. supervisors, leading to the question of the breakdown of the sources of the loss of protected units, for the numbers in the balance report. of the -- a little bit under 4200 units that were losts to protected status, about 2300

were due to owner move-in evictions, about 55%. >> did you say 53%? >> 55% or about 2300 units were due to o.m.i.s. about 13% -- 1300 units was due to ellis act, about 32%. demolition was about 478 units or 11% and condo conversion was 69 units or 2%. >> what was the last number? >> 69. >> 69? sorry, you say it softly. >> sorry. >> no, it's ok. it's really helpful to have the breakdown and it would be great to get it by district because i'm happy to see that district six has the lowest removed from protective status at 135, but it's helpful to understand why certain districts have more or less as we consider policy considerations. thank you. >> supervisor p/esskin? >> if there are 200 condos converted a year, why is the number only 69? >> good question. i don't know.

that is a number that was in the report. that was -- -- i think our staff calvin welsh has an answer. [laughter] >> i don't know if i have an answer. >> i was actually talking about calvin. >> oh, i'm sorry. i'm sorry. >> calvin, we would like you to -- >> you are working off the ticks, if you'll remember legislation that was done four years ago now. in lieu of condo conversions. you allowed ticks to be converted to condos. you were working them off in the annual rate and they go first. that is why they're low. >> right. thank you. that was during my time off from the board. thank you for that reminder,

mr. welsh. are there anymore questions from members of the committee? i think we still have the trends . >> right. oh, are we now going on to my part of the presentation on housing costs? >> we might be. supervisor tang? >> thank you. thank you for this report. every time i look at it, of course i look for district four and it is horrible. but in terms of housing balance, so recently the mayor had announced his executive directive around housing goal each year, 5,000 units. annually. and so, you know, he brought together all sorts of different department folks trying to ensure that the permiting process would be done more quickly, more efficiently. i just want to make sure that, especially when we look at the housing imbalance and in

district four, for example, that as parz of that directive, the permiting process for smaller project, whether it is a.d.u.s or home extension that those are all included as part of it because i think that that is, you know, smaller-type units that are being added. they do add up over time and that is the only way, frankly, that i think district four will be even close to housinging balance of some sort. so i just wanted to make sure that as the mayor announces his executive directive recently, that the planning department and all the other different departments are working towards a more efficient process. not just for the large projects, but for smaller ones, too. >> yes. our department will be providing our response to the mayor's executive directive in early december. i believe december 1 is the target for that, and of course we would be looking at all essential housing especially affordable housing.

>> great. thank you. i'm look forward that in december. >> supervisor? >> thank you very much. as we're going on to the second part of the presentation around housing costs, i think the housing balance report is an important tool that we have for understanding how our neighborhoods are changing over time. and how well, how poorly we are meeting our housing production goals. however, as valuable as it is to know how many affordable units are created and lost, this does not give us the full picture of housing affordability in our city. we need to understand how the loss of units relate to the actual cost of housing. we all know that san francisco has become one of most expensive cities in the world, yet even as policymakers we don'ts have a clear data on how much it costs to buy or rents a unit in a given neighborhood at any given time. in order to fully understand the significance of our housing balance report we should also know how costs change in our districts as we lose and gain affordable units. when we are told that building more units with a market rate or affordable will bring

housing rates down, this [inaudible]. when rent control units are lost, we lose not only the often long-term tenants who live in those units but affordability because we do not have the ability to place price controls on rent-controlled units the. and when a massive number of wealthy residents are po*efing to a neighborhood where high end housing has been built, we assume that sale prices will increase with those units that exist around these new developments. however, we cannot know unless we have regularly updated information. today we will hear from the planning department about how rental and sales prices for housing have changed across our various districts over time. staff will also briefly discuss the factors that are driving this increase. pedro peterson, planning from the planning department city-wide division sibl here to make a presentation. >> good afternoon. thank you, supervisor, for vietszing us here today present on housing cost trends in san francisco.

my presentation today piggybacks on the housing balance report work which my colleague just discussed with you. the presentation will be broken up into four sections. i'll give a little bit of context into why we were invited out here today. i'll then show you some housing cost trends over time and across the city. [please stand by 1234*678d

-- we've seen a real divergence since 2010-2011 where the curve in san francisco have shot up dramatically. the same can be seen in rents in all three geographies, san francisco bay area and california. though we do see since 2015, at least in the zillo data, there's been tapering in the san francisco and bay area a plattee plateau but the median rent is

still above $4500 a month. using a slightly different -- scluz me. we don't have it broken up by different size it's just median. this is another important distinction. it's not the asking rent. it's not what current residents pay for units because they may be lower due to rent control. it's the rent a tenant would face in the market today. and this is using a slightly different data set to look back further to 2003 comparing median rents and inflation to see how

much more housing has gone up when compared to other prices. this is the inflation rate minus shelter compared to median rent and home values in san francisco. these trends are happening throughout the city but it's important to highlight how districts vary differently. these are home value increases overlaid with supervisor districts bay view, the mission, western addition has experienced rates of increase of almost 100%. the western side of the city we see rates mostly above 75%. and even where the rates have gone up the slowest on the northeastern corner there's still above 55% since 2010.

we see similar trends. the neighborhoods well served by bart and cal trans or caltrain and sort of increases throughout the city above at least around 20%. so what are some of the potential drivers behind these trends? so we pause it for explanations. one is the rapid expansion of employment coupled with rising wages. lagging housing production that hasn't kept up with the increase in jobs and wages as well as regional challenges that create job housing imbalances in jurisdictions throughout the bay area.

so this chart shows increases in jobs by wage classes in san france since 2006. as you can see they're going up in every wage category. we have roughly 150,000 more jobs today than we did at the bottom of the recession in 2010. and more jobs than the previous peek in 2008 so fairly dramatic increases in the number of jobs but they don't tell the story. the chart shows employment growth since 1995 has been about 30% in san francisco. this chart was put together by the office of economic analysis in the city. in the meantime, housing has gone up about 100%. a better explanation is the combination of number of jobs and rising wages.

so the total income in san francisco has gone up almost 90% so closer to the rising home prices. supervisor -- >> supervisor: can you repeat what you said? >> the previous slide showed how mroi employment has gone up by 90% and housing has gone up 100%. what may be a better explanation is employment and wages. if you multiply the number of jobs by the number paid we get a total income for san francisco which has increased about 90% since '95 adjusted for inflation. >> supervisor: that's how much income has gone up as a whole for the city? >> yes. >> supervisor: okay. >> and that compares with what housing prices have done. they've gone up about 100% and

total income has gone up about 90%. >> supervisor: okay. thank you. >> supervisor: but we're looking at the new employment that's come into san francisco is the ones driving that higher wages? those are the ones getting the higher wages. can we make that correlation? >> we haven't looked into this for this particular presentation but i think wages overall are going up. certainly wages in the tech sector. >> supervisor: frankly, city government the wages go up 2% or 3% not by this percentage. you're seeing a disparity amongst people who have employed by city and county, for example, and people in a private industry which i think has implications also not only for our housing costs but our workforce too. what you're telling me is there's an increase in employment that's come in.

our city government has basically stayed stable but the jobs coming in are much higher paying jobs. higher actually at a higher rate than actually what the rest of the population has been able to afford. >> that's right. that's correct. i do want to show in this chart, for example, we show there are jobs at all different wage categories. the number of jobs are increasing overall and there is a discrepancy with higher income jobs going faster and incomes for those groups are also going up faster. so the combination of the two factors is what is in this orange column there. the good news is we have increased housing production in recent years. can see in the chart by 2014, 2015 we reached the housing

production levels from before the recession and in 2016 that has increased more to about 5,000 units per year. potentially responding well do the policies this body has approved i'll discuss in a minute. >> supervisor peskin: i note on tomorrow's calendar the board of supervisors -- and i imagine they'll all be approved, there's over 1,000 units of subdivisions on tomorrow's calendar. >> okay. hopefully this will help inform that conversation. >> supervisor peskin: unfortunately, most are market rate. >> the flip side of this increased production is that we are producing a lot more jobs throughout the region than housing units. as you can see here, san francisco has produced one housing unit for every 1.65 jobs

created. and other counties this has been even higher. in san mateo there's 3.2 jobs almost for every housing unit built in that county. this discrepancy of jobs and housing is an issue throughout the bay area. really, the production though we've shown production has picked up, take longer term look in the 1970s the bay area added 450,000 new housing units. whereas we're projected to build less than 150,000 in this decade if we continue with current trends. so there is an imbalance between the amount of jobs we're adding and incomes jobs are paying and the amount of housing. >> supervisor: would you mind repeating that? >> so throughout the bay area

over the last few decades, there's been a steady decline in the number of housing units even while the economy expanding. there's a mismatch between the adding of jobs without the commensurate number of housing units to meet that demand. so if i can offer concluding remarks. the increase in housing costs say long-term trend as we see but it really has intensified. the housing rates are increasing everywhere in san francisco. housing production hasn't kept up with job and wage growth and this is true both in the bay area and in san francisco and other bay area cities that have added a lot of lower jobs and housing which exacerbates the

problem. these are some policies implemented by this body and the state to address the housing crisis. there are additional efforts underway and we welcome the opportunity to come back to you and discuss these in more detail. so thank you for the opportunity and i'm here if you have any questions. >> supervisor: i think we should open it up for public comments. >> the clerk: any members of the public who wish to speak? even if you didn't fill one out you can, please, come up. >> i'm from the san francisco clearing house. i'm assuming we're talking about the fifth report of the housing balance. i'd like to suggest a couple of

things that might be done to improve the accuracy of the housing balance report. it is beyond understanding to continue to count public housing. public housing as part of the housing balance report as if simply perpetuating the number of public housing units we have is somehow adding to the affordable housing stock. i don't think that it is of much value at all to continue to count public housing rehab since it's no net new. it's unlike acquisition of existing housing for affordable housing. we don't move public housing from the market to the affordable side. it's affordable going in, it's affordable now.

the only thing it does is confuse readers in seeing 26% of the units are affordable under one measure when you count public housing construction versus new construction which i think is the real issue here. in which affordable housing is only 16% of the production of housing which is dramatically down. finally, we're not counting short-term rentals. that is beyond my understanding of why we're not counting short-term rentals. there are 10,000. there are overwhelmingly rent-controlled units and kept off the market given san francisco's ordinance yearlong. there is no limit. i think we ought to start counting in the housing inventory short-term rentals.

thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. teresa flanderick. what i didn't here is the buy-outs that are not and when i look at the figures for 2016 that was published in january, i don't see three address where's i know tenants have been forced out. those who tried to stay for 18 months fighting the harassment of either you accept this buyout or we'll evict you. i know that is much greater because there are the pre-apps noted and there's a huge difference between those filed and i'm talking about those that were never filed and will never be filed because there's a means of skirting the law so there's no constraints on the building. we have a condo conversion

moratorium in place. so these buildings are now being turned into tics with the hope of being able to convert to condos. one example is 590 lumbard where susan and richard and his children lived and the owner died. building was bought from a company out of lafayette who is in the process of converting this to luxury units that include two penthouses with entrance from the top and a media center and wine cellar in the basement. so no person from san francisco i know will never be able to return to this rent-controlled city. this is happening throughout the city. these are numbers not counted as a housing balance in lost units. thank you.

specif >> supervisor peskin: and i know that case well. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. members of the board, peter colin community housing organizations. i'll speak to the housing balance report and just to say thank you to the planning department for doing this work and supervisor kim you sponsored it and it's one of the most useful things that comes out twice a year and tells so many things about housing need and production and where we're falling short, what we can do from a public policy standpoint in learning from that. again, i'm glad the staff is so committed to digging in the weeds. cumulative housing balance is an honest way to think about our housing production and the report before that is 12% so we're doing better but far below

what anybody might consider to be an acceptable threshold. so this might sound like the sort of same old thing we as we keep saying is we need more funding and more sites. that's how we increase production. we also need to do more acquisition. we need to get more buildings off the speculation market as the buildings come up and tenants are threatened with eviction there are tools and policies. they're not cheap or easy but there are ways to correct the housing balance more structurally than nibbling around the edges. i encourage you to learn and act from this. i also want to speak to interesting information from the last report. i found it eye-opening the incomes in san francisco have increased 90% since 1995. that tells us so much about why we have a housing affordable

crisis. it's not just units produced but the incomes chasing units changing the price. that can't be lost on us, folks. thank you. >> deepa varma from the san francisco tenants. the data shows we have nowhere near enough data and it showed what other speakers touched on how more affordable units are being lost as we build more luxury units through buy-outs and people being harassed out. i know multiple units near i live and work in the mission district where whole buildings are empty and they don't show up in any of these registry. we can't build fast enough to

replace the units. i'd like to talk about the other way to address the bleeding of these units and hopefully well get to that in push for state reform and realizing we need to concentrate on building more affordable units but also need to stop the bleeding. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. erin rece. thank you for putting out the data it's important to see how we're meeting housing goals. it's particularly invaluable because it tells a clear story and points to clear solutions. like others have said it makes incredibly clear we're not producing enough affordable housing and need to increase our production of affordable housing to pete the needs of the folks here and those coming. we need to produce 60% or more

affordable housing. that should be our number one development and priority. the second is clear unless we slow the last of units that are currently stably housing people we're running in place. two steps forward, one step back won't solve the crisis. we need to curve production with protection of tenants and expanding rent-controlled units which is why we're excite about the resolution later on the agenda for the hawkins repeal. we pride ourselves on be innovative and data driven. let's listen to the data. the story's clear. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i work at housing rec, san francisco. i want to stress the need for deeper rent control units. it doesn't capture the range of

perspectives landlords use. a key example i want to hone in on is the largest private landlord in san francisco, veritas. they formed a partnership with airbnb. they began taking out gigantic loans to buy rent-controlled buildings. there's 61 buildings spread out across 21 san francisco neighborhood. it's a joint venture between veritas and a boston-based hedge fund. the founder has been in the news because he has $30 billion in assets and owns $911 million in puerto rican debt. goldman sachs owns the debt.

the portfolio is 95% and across the 1,126 units with an average rent 35% below market. standard and poors analyzed the loan and found it had $23 billion in potential rent if r veritas can raise rents. they've been doing what they've been aggressively doing since 2011. since 2016, 57.1% of the units in the portfolio or 986 units have been vacated, renovated and raised to market rates. the remaining 42.9%, 748 units, provide an opportunity to achieve rents closer to market levels once renovated. what happened to the tenants in those units? what will happen to the tenants in the other building? this is a chance it do more

when homes become construction sites and rents rise. i want to leave it now to a couple tenants to show what's happening underground. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> my name is lennon and i live in district 3 at 634 powell street. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the record and the significance for me as a long-term rent control tenant. i was born and raised in san francisco all my life. i'm a freelance forever and work in two san francisco restaurants. i have lived there since 1996. veritas bought my building in 2016. since then i've fought months of construction and scaffolding around three months. when the construction came

regular water shut off and heat outage during last december nearly two and a half weeks. and there's dust from painting being speckle through the windows with no notices and ongoing infestation. i found long-term tenants fought off buyouts and others left with two units being used as two short-term rentals. then we got hit with rent increase bond and water bond and opening and mans maintenance and set for december 1. i'm seeing my neighbors struggling to face an increase of 120% in holidays and i know i'll get mine soon. rent control is the only way i

can afford san francisco housing on a restaurant worker's wage. i hope this shows the need for the need to plug the loopholes for companies to exploit. thank you. >> supervisor: can you go over that? >> it looks like most folks are lined up so rather than call them just get in line. go ahead. >> i'm ameda rubio and i live on 634 powell street. the report is important and i want to thank everyone involved in the production. i'm a rent control tenant of 25 years at my home. a student at san francisco state and teacher. i live under veritas investment

the largest private landlord in san francisco. while the housing balance report covers many ways we lose rent control units it didn't cover what's going on to more than 250 buildings owned by veritas and their investment partners. together with the housing rights committee and other tenants i've been to other buildings approximately, 20, owned by them and have seen to the same things happening such as constant construction and services without proper compensation and unlawful evictions for reasons tenants don't understand across the board. it was clear to me veritas bought our building to make a lot of money and pay down debt.

as the predatory equity. when an investor pays more for the building than the current rents cover. i've seen an opportunity for this body to dig deeper and i urge the supervisors to do so. this has happened before in san francisco. many of us remember city apartments and the millennial family. it's time hip corporation and we need to stop it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for holding these hearings and giving us a chance to speak out in favor of repealing cost to hawkins in favor of changing the great imbalance in housing in the city.

i live in an upscale reputation and growing richer as tenants disappear. did i an informal survey of the shopping district from grand view to del ore he is and there were 1,000 rent-controlled units above the shops on that street. district 8 has lost in the last ten years 655 rent-control units to the ellis act and conversion. i don't enjoy my walks there as much as iized -- used to because buildings are suddenly covered with scaffolding and for-sale signs. we have one a few battle but more and more feels like an avalanche of money during yet another makeover of our neighborhood. it would be strongly advisable for the land use committee t