authorization to increase such parking in the area known as the hub or the market street hub and making appropriate findings. >> ok. thank you, colleagues. this item was, again, sponsored by supervisor breed who's just joined us in committee. i'll turn it over to her. >> thank you. >> one minute while we get our microphones sorted out. >> thank you for your patience. colleagues, today i'm presenting legislation that will impose interim controls for the market street hub area, also known as the hub. the hub is the most eastern side of the market octavia plan and includes the intersection of market streets with valencia, haitt and goff streets.

it's currently amended by the planning domestic called the hub project to better reflect the needs of one of the most dense and transit-rich areas in the city. the hub project provides us an opportunity to better ensure that the area's growth supports the city's goal for housing, transportation, the public realm and the arts. recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a high-rise in the district. and a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c.u. for their parking. it brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. as long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become.

all of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. we know it and we see it. yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isn't a significant impact. we all know that is flawed. so, we as legislators have found our own ways of making sure that we're developing in a smarter, more sophisticated way. we're the most expensive city in the country and we must be more responsible about how we build. in the hub alone there are about six projects in the pipeline. imagine if every single one of those asked for 136 spaces. imagine what kind of impact that would have on traffic, which we all know in that particular corridor on market and van ness, it is constantly backed up. this iss a matter -- a major transit-rich corridor t. traffic is crazy as is and the van ness v.r.s., all the

delivery trucks and ubers and lyfts and you get a big mess when you put all those things together on a consistent basis. with planning amendments -- what planning plans to do, we can't afford to have new projects movinging forward in the interim with parking options that are counter to what is the ultimate goal of the hub and the market octavia plan. this legislation puts interim controls in place for the next 18 months until the hub project is complete. specifically it removes the conditional use option for conditional parking for new developments within the hub area. those already in the pipeline will be grandfathered in. but all new projects will have to work within these guidelines until the final hub area map is approved. this is straightforward, practical legislation that will help prevent new development from coming to the hub before we have a final plan, new

parking -- prevent new parking that will come to the area before we have a final plan in place. i have some clarifying amendments that have been distributed. they further clarify that these interim controls are intended for new development and projects that have not received an approval of a development application prior to the effective date of this legislation. happy to answer any questions and i would appreciate your support. thank you, colleagues. >> thank you, supervisor breed. supervisor peskin? >> so, we have gotten a bunch of e-mails with regard to the exception on page eight. and supervisor kim has asked that we consider a compromise amendment that, rather exemptioning affordable housing projects that instead -- and i just passed this out to you colleagues and i would support this amendment, that subsection

b would read will provide on-site affordable housing after the city's inclusionary affordable housing program and add where 25% are affordable as are defined under planning code section 401. so it kind of really requires a very robust affordable housing project before one can receive the exemption. >> ok. thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor breed, any comments? >> i just have a question for supervisor peskin on the amendment. do you know if any of the current developments in the hub are actually doing more than 25 affordable housing? >> i believe that there is only one project, which is the former city-owned 30 van ness property that is proposing on site affordable housing and i do believe that that one is, or

is said to be 25%. >> and just for clarity, your amendment will still require that if they want additional parking, they still have to go through a process. and get a c.u., specifically, for the additional parking. >> so i believe the answers to that, that is current law and that is not affected by the interim controls at all. so, the answer to your question is, yes, they would still need a conditional use. >> so, basically they would have what they have based on my legislation by right in terms of if their percentage is .25, if their percentage is .40 and so what i'm doing with my legislation is requiring that there be no c.u.s granted and you are adding an amendment to do an exception and that exception would definitely require a c.u. >> no. well, the -- currently the way your legislation reads, which can i am a proud co-sponsor of,

is that these interim controls shall not apply to any development that, a, has received an approval of the development application prior to the effective date of this resolution or, b, will provide on-site affordable housing under the city's inclusionary housing program, period. so, this actually further defines that as at least 25% on-site tooerable. >> thank you. and thank you to the chair, to my co-sponsors on this legislation. to supervisor peskin and supervisor kim, with that, i turn it back over to the chair. thank you. >> i'd like to move president breed's amendments as well as supervisor kim's amendment that we just discussed and once we take those amendments, would send the entire matter to the

full board with recommendations. >> ok. we have a motion, before we do anything, we'll take public comment. let me first do that. anybody wish to comment on item number two? come on up. we'll have two minutes. each. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the executive director of livable city. we just wanted to thank supervisor breed and her co-sponsors, supervisor peskins and kim, for bringing this forward. you probably recall the t.d.m. ordinance that you all approved a few month ago. and the findings for that showed that and the project provides the biggest single factor in how many automobile trips it generates. now we've seen the rezoning with the market in octavia plan and spot rezoning of the hub.

a huge amount of development coming in here. high density automobile development is untenable. but what we've also seen is a real abuse of this conditional use process. conditional use requires findings of necessity and desirability and excess parking requires an additional six findings per section, 304 of the planning code. 303, sorry. these get abused all the time. so, basically the only criteria in the planning department has been using for excess parking is did the developer ask for it. that's not protecting the public. that is generating a terrific amount of automobile traffic in the downtown, in our transit corridors and so on. so, we think that closing this loophole in the hub is important. it should be that's all you get. right? it's either permitted or not permitted since the c.u. was so badly abused and we think less is better for automobile parking in the hub. not only do you generate a lot of automobile trips, but there is a lot of data showing that

if you add parking to a unit, you increase the cost of that unit. what we're allowing developers to do is to up scale project, right? they can pitch projects in these transit-rich areas to a more affluent market and make them luxury products where they might be more affordable without parking. it is an affordability by design strategy to reduce parking. that was included in the home s.f. ordinance. >> thank you. next eke spaoer, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jeremy pollack here speaking as an individual. i would just associate myself with the comments of mr. radulovic, largely. one thing that would be helpful is to get some input from planning and the universe of projects that we're talking about to understand what the actual effect of this is. if i could have the overhead, sfgov tv. through my research, i've take

and look at what i could find and i found five projects that were in the pipeline, in the hub. three of which were requesting the c.u. for additional parking and sfgov tv, if you could show the overhead, that would be great. and so, you know, looking at them, i see that 33 goff is one project on the city college parcel where their preliminary project assessment shows that they're subject to an 18% b.m.r. requirements. there we go. and so i think -- then we're looking at, and seeking a c.u. for an additional 130 -- jeremy, can you push that down a little bit so we can see it? >> yep. oh. wrong way. not sure how well that is coming through.

right. so, basically we're talking about there are three projects seeking conditional use for an additional 400 parking spaces. i think at least one of them, 30 otis is one that's not seeking the c.u. the p.p.a. says it's already subject to the additional 25% b.m.r. requirement. i think, you know, on-site affordable housing is an excellent idea whenever feasible. but this idea of trading parking for affordable housing seems problematic. and lastly i would say the uncertainty that the c.u. creates for developers on the public is really problematic. that is something we've heard over and over again in the housing debate. madame clerk, because of the sfgov tv problems, can you extend his time by 30 seconds? >> thank you. i would just say the uncertainty that the c.u. process creates a lot of difficulty for developers and not knowing . -- developers look at this and expect that they'll get that c.u., the public that you hear

from here looks at what's principally allowed and expects that projects will abide by the 4-to-1 raich yo. and creates this uncertainty that is going to lead to, you know, each of these projects being debated again at the planning commission, which doesn't seem very helpful to us. i would urge you to just eliminate the exemption for affordable housing and clear up this process for all of us and save us all a lot of time. thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor breed. i really appreciate your comments. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors andy thornly, speaking for myself. thank you, president breed, for bringing this. thank you, supervisor peskin and kim for co-sponsoring. i wanted to voice my support for the interim controls. i do want to echo what tom and jeremy and others have said. i really do think it is important to not bring the

loophole for on-site inclusionary forward. on-site inclusionary, very important. i would not argue against that. more b.m.r., absolutely. to the extend that the city has existing policy and is found a junction between b.m.r. and parking, it is that we with incentivize developers by allowing them to provide less parking. last year we had a triumph at the board, unanimous approval of home s.f. and under that program, the local density bonus program, a developer is incentivized to add below market rate by getting some exceptions. and one of the key exceptions is that the developer can provide less parking as an incentive. down to a quarter of the minutes my permitted parking and down to 0 parking at 100% affordable. to the extent that this city and board of supervisors have adopted a finding that associates below market rate with incentives for parking, it's to provide less parking,

not more parking. so, i urge you to support this interim control. but i urge you to drop the loophole for the on-site inclusionary. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm gail bau. along with the apellant and the develop, we helped negotiate a settlement to get the ceqa appeal dropped. the conversation and the negotiations never included b.m.r.s on site. it was only about the interim controls on parking. we have four sites in hayes valley that will be zero parking and 100% affordable. i don't quite understand the relationship to attaching b.m.r. i see them as completely separate. thank you to supervisor breed for bringing this forward. the interim controls are very important for all the reasons

she mentioned both now and in the past. thank you for co-sponsoring this legislation. i do believe the amendment is relevant to the issue here, which is the cumulative effect of parking. but in terms of this ceqa appeal, there was no discussion about b.m.r.s on site as a connection to it a -- allowing a developer to have additional parking. thank you. >> thank you. next eke spaoer. >> good afternoon. my name is robin leavitt. for over 25 years, i've been livinging three blocks from the intersection of market and octavia. so i'm very concerned about additional parking in the area. as has been thoroughly discussed, parking brings congestion and delays muni service and has very negative health effects. safety effects and so forth. so, i'm -- i applaud the effort

to put in these interim controls on future developments in the hub area. however, as much as i support affordable housing and law, the effort to add affordable housing to these protons, to compromise the environment and allow parking in exchange of that and all the congestion it would brung, i cannot support the amendment to this legislation. and so i urge you to pass the interim controls without the proposed amendment. there are already incentives in place, sensitive bonuses, height, increases to incentivize affordable housing in this area. we don't need to add parking as an incorrective to build more affordable housing. we should find more ways, other ways to do that. thank you very much.

>> thank you. and if i -- if i may just to the last speaker who i've known for many years, i think the amendment actually addresses not all of the concern but the exemption is in the existing legislation. if we pass it as-is, the exemption for affordable housing is in the existing legislation. the amendment that i'm offering on behalf of supervisor kim can, further narrows the applicability of that exception. >> and i appreciate that. but i would eliminate the exemption all together from the legislation. >> ah. ok. >> i would want to -- >> you've had your two minutes. you can send whatever. thanks. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. and chair. karen babbit just speaking for myself today. i came here prepared to ask that you eliminate the exemption for the on-site affordable housing. i'm intrigued by what was said

today. however, in the time we've been talking, supervisor peskin proposed to do one plan and jeremy mentioned a second project. so, i would ask, this is my easy ask, we not send this to the full board today until we can look at how this proposed amendment -- today amendment -- actually applis to what's in the pipeline. just because i don't feel confident asking or saying this is great or not great until we can see what's actually planned. i'm going to repeat jeremy's request. can we hear from the planning department, some kind of report. as much as i love this spread sheet, it would be nice to have something official. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. and thank you, supervisor breed, for sponsoring this legislation. as we look at the possibly of as many as 9,000 units going into a few block area here, we don't want to create any incentives to increase parking

over the allowed amount for each lot. i don't know why supervisor kim has proposed this amendment. i agree that -- when i read the legislation or the digest, i thought it exempted 100% affordable. so, i'm confused at this point. >> ok. thank you very much. >> i'm jim with the neighborhood valley association and once again i'd like to thank supervisor breed, peskin and kim for this excellent effort to improve our city. if -- as all the speakers before have said, our concern is with

any exemption. it only creates confusion and we believe it is a much stronger document without it as gail bau mentioned, this was never part of the initial negotiation with one oak. and furthermore if you read, as i'm sure you all have, the market octavia c.a.c. document to you with more "where as" in two minute, they also detail why there should be no loopholes or provisions for having the c.u. during this 18-month period for any of the nonapproved projects. we strongly recommend that we not move forward with the exemption in any shape or form.

souled you for any reason decide to do that, supervisors peskin's comments are certainly very to the point of improving the originally submitted loophole. but i would even be much more strong in reiterating the necessariability -- or the necessity and desirability must be clearly demonstrated as an absolute provision of any c.u. that is the piece that we seem to always lose with planning and including that should you not decide to ban it out right and eliminate the exemption would be some protection. thank you. >> anybody else wishing to comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment's now closed.

i do understand, though, this amendment would be precedent. we'll have to hear if there is anything else in the pipeline that would be affected negatively or otherwise on this. perhaps we can get a planning department next week to come as we re-hear this back in committee. other than that, though, i'd be very supportive of it. supervisor? >> i was actually just going to say that legal counsel has advised us that this will require a continuance and depending on what happens in the intervening week, we, i think, out of an abundance of caution trying to get this done, sooner wrather than later would schedule it as a committee report for the 12th if it is the committee's will to ford it out subject to hearing mo from the public. i do want to say that as supervisors kim and i were working with president breed in and around the one oak matter,

that i was able to do a little bit of shuttle diplomacy from between the apellant, mr. henderson, and the project sponsor and president breed because it's in her district, and i do want to say that mr. henderson, i think, is supportive. i don't want to put words in his mouth and he has another week to weigh in with all of us. but is supportive of the item with the amendment that i introduced on supervisor kim's behalf. and he said i can say that. so i did. >> ok. with that, we have a motion to -- supervisor breed, sorry. >> thank you. i just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and also many of the folks who we work with on the issues around the appeal for one oak, members of the hayes valley association, including the president gail

bau and i know jason henderson wasn't able to make it today. but i just wanted to express exactly my understanding of -- and feeling of exactly why i i know the community is against parking. i know. people think, well, why -- why is parking such a big deal? and why are we putting parking above housing and that's not the case. i think the bigger issue here is we have an area that clearly is going to have thousands of additional units, an area that is already congested and the point of putting some controls on this is to just eliminate the ability for developers to get additional parking for their projects. and i appreciate supervisor kim's concern about, you know larger projects that are in the pipeline and desire to have those projects build on site

and not use the ability not to have the option of a c.u. for additional parking as an excuse to maybe fee out. it's a complicated issue. it's not as if by adding this particular amendment we're suggesting in any way that someone's just going to automatically be able to get additional parking space. there is still a c.u. process. it still could be appealed. and potentially to the board and i just want to -- i get the desire of the community to say, look, you know this is our volunteer time. we're volunteering our time to come to the board of supervisors for legislation like this. we're volunteering our time to apale things like this. we're volunteering our time because we care about the community and we don't want to further see -- we don't want to see additional congestion as a result of development and additional parking and the number of other things. i totally get that and i understand that. as a way to work with my

colleagues and come up with a solution, this particular amendment was proposed. i'm definitely open to hearing from members of the public in terms of their feedback on their concerns about this. but i do think there's still a layered process that will still make this a difficult thing to do moving forward. whether they choose to do on-site affordable housing or not. it would be interesting to know what specific projects in the pipeline are being proposed that have maybe an interest in doing this and whether or not those are projects that we would anticipate a larger percentage of affordable housing as a result of their desire to want -- desire to want additional parking. so, i think there's definitely more of a discussion to be had here. and since this item is going to

sit for a week be reviewed by my colleagues next week, i'm sure that will give everyone additional time to of course submit e-mails to us and then also come back to provide public comment at the land use committee next week. so, again, thank you all for being here and i appreciate my colleague's support on the amendment that i proposed. >> ok. thank you. so, again, supervisor peskin has made the motion to accept supervisor breed's and then the follow-on amendment from supervisor kim and then supervisor peskin can continue to add on this item for one week to next week's land use committee meeting. supervisor peskin has made that motion. we can make it without objection. thank you. madame clerk, call item number four. >> an ordinance to change the term car share vehicle to share vehicle and park in designated

spaces and making appropriate findings. >> welcome back. >> thank you. andy thornly back from lunch. [laughter] sustainable streets, s.f. municipal transportation agency. committee members, we're asking for the board of supervisors assistance, a very minor language change. even more minor than the share moped we just brought. but the matter before you is to amends section 7.2552, the transportation code which is the infraction for parking in nonpermitted vehicle in a designated car share parking space. the change that we're asking for is to strike the word "car" and put a "d" after the wor "share." we're beginning to move to talk about shared vehicles rather than car share and in changing the nomenclature, we realized

we were bumping up to this infraction. the full essence is only that one word and one letter. again, i'd be happy to give you as much background as you'd like. >> supervisor pes kin? >> thank you, chair. and i think this is really relevant to the amendment that's being requested today but gets to one of the underlying issues about the pilot program. in the m.t.a.'s letter of august 28 with regard to this matter, it says on the first page, based on the pilot experience, the sfmta found that only shared managed fleet vehicles produced enough public benefit to justify use of the public right-of-way. where does that standard come from and is it applied to other transportation-related uses in the public right-of-way? >> thank you, supervisor. what that is speaking to is, and i think district three is

painfully aware of this that we had three ride-sharing organizations qualify to participate. get around is a different sort of car share operator, peer-to-peer. i often say it is like the airbnb of car share, which you can take in a couple of different ways. >> i tough they were aptly named because they were getting around the law. but go ahead. >> right. [please stand by]

no interest in having a car idle or space because they don't own cars and don't have incentive to make sure that that space is being maximize for utility, they're interested in the line of the mtas as closely as zip car or city car share, as are we getting good use out of that 20 feet of cushion russian hill or wherever. both from the underutilization of the 20 feet and because they're putting private citizens' cars on the street, it's a random supply. one week, there would be a

monster truck. next week, a mini. neighbors need to rely on, there will be a 4-door sedan there and i can count on that it will be clean and get-around was not able to -- >> i appreciate your analysis of the different business models, but i'm asking, is there an objective numerical standard for establishing what is enough to substantiate the right-of-way. where i'm going, the recently announced plan to designate curb space as loading zones. and do you believe that uber and lyft produces enough benefit for the curb space as it relates to the mayor's recently-announced proposal. >> got it. >> numerical standard and

triggers benefit and do you think uber and lyft in this scheme meet that criteria. >> i will take the first one, which is more in my responsibility area, that the pilot we ran for a couple of years was looking at some fixed measures for a given space, how many unique users each month, how many reservations each day? how far did it go? on that basis, zip car knocked it out of the park. they had cars that were being used by 50 and 60 different people in a month. so we didn't come in with an absolute metric in a month, but you could see from the field of participants, that if zip car could get 60 people using a car, other folks better match that. we don't yet have an absolute threshold for that, but we'll develop them for this program. it's an important point. depending on the neighborhood. if you are further out, it may be a lower threshold than if you are on russian hill. short answer to the first, yes, we have general, hard numbers on

that. we'll put more hard numbers on this on street-shared vehicle program. your second question is tougher for me to answer and i cannot say yes or no that i don't have access to that. i will speculate, however ir responsibly, that at this point, no, the mta does not have a metric to evaluate whether a given piece of loading curb is at, below, above some standard for utility and public benefit. the mayor's pilot as i read about it in the newspaper is reaching at that, but it's not starting with, here's what success looks like as much as, is there a way to address this and make sense out of it? my understanding is, it's a reach to say, can we do something to make it less bad, rather than saying, here's what good looks like and can we hit

that point? >> i appreciate that candid answer and i suggest that in so far as the pilot you were in charge of that we're discussing today, has given some data and shown what the gold standard looks like and what the get-around standard looks like when it's not working optimally, perhaps there can be some communication between you and your staff and the folks who are reaching or overreaching in the uber-lyft manner. >> yes, absolutely. i will not just take that back. i will guarantee -- again, this is speculative, but i don't think it's possible that the mta will participate in a pilot such as the one we're talking about without setting some evaluation planning and driving some data and i know that you and other folks will want to know, what did you learn?

where did the meter go? it won't just be, let's put out curb and hope it works. i wouldn't want that. i will work from my side to make sure that doesn't happen. >> thank you, mr. thornly. any further questions? anyone wishing to comment on item 4? seeing none. item is closed. colleagues, questions or comments or motion to move the item forward? >> i'll move it. >> motion by supervisor peskin. we can take that motion without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. thornly. all right. we're on to item number 5. surprise, surprise. madam clerk, would you call number 5? >> a hearing to examine the last 10 years of production and preservation of work force in middle class housing and

development and preservation for the next 10 years, focusing on housing between 55% to 175% area median income. >> thank you. colleagues, this was sponsored by supervisor. i will turn it over to you. >> on october 3 of this year -- before we get to the presentation by departmental staff -- i called for this hearing to talk about work force and middle class housing in our city. and the reason why i wanted to talk about that in particular and to talk about what the projected development was and the preservation was and what had been done over the last 10 years is because it's become extremely, glaringly obvious to this body and to the members of the public and to others around san francisco that our city is

polarizing. many would argue that we've done a significant job of building enough market-rate housing, but statistics would say there's still a lot of demand out there for that housing. same with regard to low-income housing. we still have a lot more work to do, but relative to many parts of california and probably most cities in california, we've done exceedingly well, but we still have a significant amount of work to do. in the area of households between 55% and 150% to 175% a.m.i., or so-called work force, middle class housing, we've done extremely, extremely poor. and one reasons why is that we, our market in san francisco, has always taken care of that housing stock in the housing sector on its own, the richmond,

sunset, always been areas -- and many more -- of san francisco that took care of working and middle class families, but -- and this in many ways, this hearing is a continuation of the c conovversations that we had to talk about the housing and the focus is what are we doing to expand and fill in the gaps where the so-called missing middle or middle and working class families and low income are being left out of the conovversatio conversation. when homes are going far north of $1 million, we know we're extremely in a crisis in this city, as well as evictions, low-income housing households having to compete. obviously, that's something that's very well documented. this part of the conversation,

it's not so documented. it has not been in the fore front of the conversation. we'll hear from the planning department, office of economic work force, mayor's office of housing and community development and controller's office and our economist, ted egan. just a few facts for the general public and this body. san francisco is the second most densely settled city in the united states, only after new york city. we're close to 18,000 people per square mile. and new york city is north of 23,000, 24,000. the only thing that confines us are our borders and the only room to grow is urban infill and density and height. in general, i believe -- and we'll hear from from the economist, average median one-bedroom was $3,700 a month. and people and families and

housing costs are displacing our working and middle class families at an alarming rate. we're talking about janitors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, those that get up and make this great city work and are the backbone of this city on a daily basis, but now being forced to commute on a farther and farther commute on a daily basis. we're going to hear -- you are going to hear things about the housing allocation arena. those are things we need to focus on. this is not just confined to san francisco, but is a bay area problem. i think we learned recently for the first time this year that not only is the missing middle being underserved, but a family of four making over $100,000 a

year is defined as low-income and that's alarming. because of all the reasons and because of the idea of wanting to know what we've done and what we intend to do, i called for this hearing and i want to start to think about solutions. i want to think about what ideas i might have and what need there is to be filled and how we can begin to serve working and middle class families better through our housing policies. thank you, mr. chair. the order of people wee call all up, sara dennis phillips, economic and work force development. ted egan, controller's office. and josh whitsky from planning. sara, if you can please come up and begin, if you have something to hand out, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm sara dennis phillips, work

force development i'm joined by my colleagues from the office of economic analysis and the controller's office, planning department and mayor's office of housing and community development. we're here to give you an overview of the work force and middle income problem, production and funding creation and preservation of the units over the past decade. to give you an overview what we'll be talking about today, we're going to go over income levels and who we're really talking about when we talk about work force and middle-income households. we'll good over economics and why those households need housing support. we'll good over production and look at how much we're building and we'll go over our programs to look at what tools we have to produce the middle-income housing. while the federal and state government has many terms to try to define households by income, work force housing, they're not

one of those terms. as we try to define it, we're looking at a couple of facts. one, the majority of san francisco's existing affordable housing production and programs focuses on what we deem very low income households. households earning 60% of median income or below. the majority of federal and state subsidy that we receive addresses that very low income range of households. and most housing organizations across the state and outside the state define work force housing as households earning less than 60% of median income. for purposes of this hearing, when we speak of work force and middle income, we'll talk about people making above the 60%. those are the households not making enough to afford a home in san francisco but locked out of our housing programs.

who are those? it can be a receptionist to entry-level teacher up to a medical assistance or engineers. some of the households have children. some don't. all of them have trouble affording housing in san francisco. last week pedro peterson from the planning department was before this committee giving information on housing costs. he used a ballpark average of $4,200 as the current asking rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in san francisco. what is interesting about that, as we reference the history, we're not seeing much variation neighborhood to neighborhood. and that's something that happens again and again when we're in a hot housing market. it really flattens out in a high-demand period, which we are right new.

$4,200 comes from zillow's rent index. it's a date as of october, 2017. what does it mean in terms of households? you have probably heard you should not spend more than 30% of your income on rent. that's ideal, but not really possible here in san francisco. landlords look to see that your income is 40 times the annual rate. if we use 40% of household income, one would need to earn 160% of median income. so we're looking at everybody from 160% of median income as being cost-burdened. >> can i ask a clarifying question. you said 40 times the annual -- you meant 40%? >> i did. math was not my strong suit. >> i just want to make sure. >> yes.

that would be astronomical. >> it would be. >> for home prices, we're in an even worse situation. zillow's index listed home value in october as $1,249,000. home affordability depends on more than just income. it includes things like mortgage rates, downpayment availability, etc., you can safely say that a household would need to earn 200% of median income with an annual salary of $225,000 with a 3-person household to afford a home in today's market. as you heard from pedro last week, even as our population has increased, and as we've seen increases in very low and upper-income households, since 1996, we've lost households earning between 30% and 140% of median income. we're losing middle income

households as a result of our high housing costs. with that, i turn it over to ted e egan. >> i'm going to emphasize some of the same points that sara made that supervisor safai opened up the hearing, to talk about the role that middle income plays and associating the housing costs particular to that group. sara talked about the trends. this is a chart that shows the trends in household income over the past 20 years or so in san francisco from 1990. what it really shows is that there's a widening in equality within san francisco. the percentage of households that are 50% or below has grown since 1990. percentage of household over 150% has grown.

the group in the middle is stage nating or -- stagnating or declining. there are reasons, but it's at a time when there's been a change in the economy, where we're seeing a slowdown or a decline in middle income industries. so it's setting the stage of the problem that supervisors safai was alluding to. it's not a new thing. it's been several decades brewing. this is a chart that shows the working age participation rate. i've circled that middle-income group that we were talking to in the 60% to 140% range. i should say, san francisco is one of those places where the labor force participation is extremely high. most of the groups, 80% of working adults, are working or looking for a job.

national number is in the low 60s. the middle income group is the group is that is clearly part of the work force in the sense that there's an extremely high percentage of working adults are in the work force. when you talk about low-income groups, there are many people working in low-income groups, but it's more heterogenous. middle income labor force participation rate is higher than it is for both the lower income group below 50%, but also to the extreme right of this chart, higher than it is for people over 250% of a.m.i. they also have a lower labor force participation rate. so, clearly, we're talking about the work force when we're talking about middle-income housing. at the same time, we're talking about housing problems that other segments in the work force don't share.

this is a chart that shows the breakdown of households by income group, every 10%, look at a.m.i. this is the percenting of households that are spending more than 30% of their income on rent. of course, for low-income households, it's an extremely high number. for middle-income, it's a high number and higher than it is for upper-income groups that are another part of the labor force. so really when we're talking about middle income households in san francisco, we're talking about the group that's both a part of the labor force and also experiencing in some places dramatic housing burdens. the recent price escalations are not helping, as the numbers that sara alluded to are highlighting. this is a chart that shows where

san franciscans work. and it breaks them out by household income. the industries to the left of the chart have proportionally the most adults from middle income households. it's the industries that the folks are concentrated on in san francisco. and it's a concentration primarily of industries that have been struggling for some time like some of the blue collar industries like warehousing, but also education, health services, public administration, as well as some sectors that tend to be resilient like the tourism industry and the construction industry. i wanted to just close with another highlight. i've been talking about the long-term trends related to middle-income housing, but i came across this report last week that it's a snapshot of where the skill shortages in our regional economy today, that

really highlight the economic costs of the middle income housing problem. as everyone knows, we've gone three six or seven years of rapid technology group. that seems to have reached a pause. we have less tech jobs than we did a year ago and what linkedin is saying, if you have tech skills, you are not being hired, basically. these skills are in abundance and all the top 10 least scarce skills in san francisco and the bay area are the kind of tech skills that were very much in demand three or four years ago. conversely, the skills that employers want to hire now when tech employment has stalled, are really the set of skills that are associated with middle-income households, education and teaching and sales and retail store operation and working in logistics and marketing event management.

the challenge that these businesses have will be finding people to take these jobs, given the housing situation that faces middle-income folks in san francisco and our region. the concern here is if we don't address this problem, the economic good news is that it's continuing for the city, turns into a situation in which the jobs cannot be filled here. and they grow in other places to the extent they can. and i just wanted to say that there are a lot of reasons to tackle the middle-income housing problem. i wanted to highlight the broader economic implications of it. thank you. >> joshua switsky, planning staff. i will take you through some statistics on housing production and targets we have set for us by the state. first, we'll talk a little about

regional housing needs allocation. this series of bars shows you how we fared in the last three cycles. the lighter bar is actual production, broken out by the four categories that the state sets for us. as you can -- you may or may not be able to discern, green bar, modern income, is the least served end terms of production in this period. in 1995, at the end of that period, we had 12% of the minimum target. in 2006, 13%. and in 2014, 19% of the moderate income needs, the green bar.

and the notable, upward shift was the result of adopting inclusionary requirements just after the turn of the 21st century, which is why that green has slightly ticked up. nonethele nonetheless, you can see the green and the red are the least-served income levels. and this aggregates the last three cycles. the moderate and low are definitely least served in terms of housing production. low, 30%. moderate, 15%. you can see that contrasts with the other two ends of the spectrum. this is also a good time to point out some of the flaws and shortcomings of rhna in and of itself. rhna is often misconstrued as

goals or maximums. rhna is really minimum targets and each income is independent of each other. so looking at this chart, it looks like we so-called overproduced at the high end. what it doesn't do is reflect real, actual trends over the course of that period and it's only accommodating for growth and, a, what it would take to bring down housing prices, or b, what actually happens during that period. according to rhna, we produced more than our minimum target. what happened during this period is that we grew by tens of millions of households more than market rate housing for and it was substantial pressure on housing stock and lower-income groups. this shows you where we sit in our current cycle. it's a little hard to gauge what the final outcome will be.

you can still see from this chart that both the low and the moderate, work force housing targets, are suffering the least in terms of actual production. and so as ted showed you, the impact of all this, in terms of households, what households are we losing? definitely the 50 to 120. the city has lost tens of thousands of households in these buckets over the last 25 years, while the lowest income households at 50 and less has been relatively stable and over 140 has grown as a share and overall. in terms of the building pipeline, we have an unprecedented housing pipeline of 60,000 units. of those, about 14,000 to 15,000 are in the state of being built

or having permits issues. half of those, including hunter's point, shipyard, treasure island, and those, which will come over the course of multiple decades. and then we have over 17,000 units under review currently. so it's early for us to say how it will break brought in terms of incomes. there's a minimum 10,500 units of affordable housing in this bucket, but there will be more depending on how things shake out between inclusionary and other agreements over time. with that, i will turn it over to amy. >> i forgot to mention, amy, i'm sorry. amy chen from the mayor's office of housing and community development as well. >> good afternoon. amy chan from the mayor's office of community and housing development. i will present on what existing tools the city has in serving middle-income households. this is a priority for our office and we