conflict with processing permits to do that work and it's a high priority. i'm going to bring it up. others will bring it up when the budget is at the board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you t.s next eke spaoer, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen. you have a big queue so i'll keep it short. i happened to walk in and hear that there was some critique about the technical advisory committee or inclusionary policy. so that's all compelled to give you a little bit of a counterperspective. just to roll the clock backwards, the city went through a fairly elaborate process with the technical advisory committee for almost a year to do a feasibility analysis of the prop c measure. in fact, that ended up with a adjusted set of inclusion nicer requirements and it passed through unanimously with the board of supervisors and the mayor. it was uncontested.

we realised the n.b.s don't like inclusionary. that is one thing. but from a technical standpoint, that was very well vetted. it was run by the city controller's office by ted rosenfield and ted egan. they had four. -- four consultants. one follow-up piece is specific to the fees to make them as much as possible equivalent to the cost of doing the on-site affordable which was set in the previous round of feasibility. this is a equivalency analysis which is down in the weeds. they concluded that a week and a half ago and that is what will be coming forward in more trailing legislation to button that up. we're not re-opening a large policy or ideological conversation about inclusionary housing. we're truly going to get down into the details to make it work right. simultaneously, we're very involved in a much more serious conversation about construction costs, which are going through the roof. this whole thing about throwing inclusionary under the bus because it is a convenient target doesn't have any reality.

the conversation about construction costs and the market rate and affordable site has to do with labour shortage, materials costs, and it has to do with the cycle of markets so -- and land prices. so, we could have a great conversation about this and you might even think of inviting some of the city leadership digging into that issue. i would just ask you not to get caught up in the red herring that the inclusionary explains every trend or permiting. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tom ruiz and i'm a neighbour of the michael and connie ward's family at 79 28th street. we are very concerned and we have petitions signed by over 200 neighbours that are in the file and i'd like to give the commissioner our latest neighbourhood newspaper which has an article on it.

michael and connie, as i mentioned, have lived there over 29 years. and we are very concerned that rather than trying to reach an appropriate agreement, the project developmenter went ahead and played an ellis act card on them when they refused to take his buy-out offer. recently, there has been some progress in that the project developer has been willing to agree to mediation as a way of hopefully settling this. but if michael and connie are out of their house on april 28, it is obvious that the mediation is going to take a much different form. so it's very important that the parameters that the commission establish via discretionary review hearing be held before that session. and we would like to ask the commission to please help give some direction to the planning

department staff, to schedule that discretionary review in march so that the project developer really has an understanding of what will be possible as well as hopefully reaching an accommodation with michael and connie so that they can continue to live on the project -- at 79 28th street. hopefully under something similar and innovative that the commission did with the [inaudible] type solution. but for that to happen, they need to be in their house. and after april 28, they won't be in their house. so we are please asking the commission to move that discretionary review hearing up to march so that we can have a successful mediation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is kathleen hogar. i'm the owner of 75 and 77 28th street. next door on the other side from the previous speaker and this home at 79 28th street has been a home to an elderly couple and protected tenants for the past 29 years. the land lord wants to essentially demo this building to build a luxury single-family home and a sham unit in the back of the garage. he is also ellis acting our neighbours, these same seniors in their 70s, who have been our neighbours for 29 years. we filed a d.r. in november of 2017 to stop this project. but the project sponsor has informed the planner that he will submit revised plans but nothing has been received yet. we feel the project sponsor is

purposely delaying the hearing date in order to have a vacant building free of tenants. we have concluded that the project sponsor does not adhere to the intent of the mayor's executive directors, the general plan or the controlling policies of the housing element. all of which mandate the retention of the existing building. the existing building includes another unit that was rented all along, but the tenant, a young man, vacated the unit for fear of the future demolition. the owner has already gotten rid of one tenant and is ellis acting the other family. that is why he is stalling the d.r. hearing on this project until after the ellis act due date. our d.r. hearing date is -- has now been postponed and we fear that the senior tenants in occupancy will be forced to

vacate as their ellis act eviction date is april 28. please, we request a d.r. hearing as soon as possible. thank you very much for your time and consideration. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ken hogar, the other half. and i am the owner of 75 and 77 28th, next door to michael and connie. we filed for a d.r. hearing in 2017 in hopes of a quick hearing date as the current tenants who were seniors in their late '70s have been living there for 29 years and have been subjected to an ellis act eviction by april 28.

the planner, chris towns, has attempted to schedule a d.r. hearing date in march with an rdat date of january 17. on january 15, the sponsors architect, russell phlegmings, requested a delay so his clients could resolve the tenant issue. one week after chris town said he would schedule a hearing date in march, he called me to tell me that the developer was revising plans and we would not get a hearing date until may. at the earliest. on february 8, the project sponsor's attorney, jake marquez, requested postponement of his client -- as his client was offering a mediation solution. on february 16, we indicated a

willingness to end mediation, provided the revised plans promised by the architect as a result of our d.r. be presented prior to mediation. how could we mediate if we don't even know the plans that they're revising? we're in a catch 22 situation. we cannot mediate on these -- on plans we haven't seen and the clock is taking on the tenant's eviction time. our conclusion is that the project sponsor is purposely delaying the d.r. hearing in order to eliminate the main planning issue of providing affordable housing and retaining housing for our most vulnerable citizens. we request a d.r. hearing date as soon as possible. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you, sir.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. about 29 years ago, michael and connie juarez moved to a house on 28th street. they were relatively young and never in their wildest imaginations they thought that they would have to move out of their home at the age of 75. overhead, please. this is the face of eviction. this is michael juarez, who along with his wife, are forced to leave their home of 29 years. why? because it's being remodeled into a luxury home with a sham unit behind the garage. luckily the tenant's union was alerted to this and filed a d.r. adjacent neighbours also filed d.r. and you heard them today. they were here talk about the same issue. but the d.r. date has become a moving target. and at this rate, michael and

connie will see their eviction date before the d.r. hearing date comes along. so, that's why we were here to ask you to -- it is within your power to move the d.r. date to ask the staff to put the d.r. date well before april 28 so their case could be heard by you. it is, commissioners, within your power, you could actually change the outcome of this case. you've done this before. you've done it for the conservator of music and you've done it with other tenant cases, unjust cases that were presented to you. this is, again, another speculator that has taken advantage of a house that was occupied by long-term tenants as you know, these types of homes are usually anywhere between 14 to 25% cheaper. and when they come in the market, they're usually snagged by a speculator that knows he or she could buy them much cheaper than other comparable

homes and dwellings and then they get busy with getting rid of their tenants. this particular speculator has paid $1.1 million for this home. and, as you can see on the permit application, he is going to be paying $440,000 to turn this very modest unit that has been occupied by the elderly couple for the past 29 years,s to a 30,000 square foot luxury palace of fine arts and 700 square foot little unit or a.d.u., whatever you want to call it in the back of the garage. how much do you think he stands to gain after this? we're talking about close to $1.6 million, cost of his expend khufrm and i assure you, 3700 square feet will bring him close to $4 million once it's done. this is a very lucrative business. but this is -- what i put on

the overhead is the face of the eviction and this is the cost. so please. the march calendar doesn't seem to be too crowded. we appreciate if you could give us a date in march so we could bring the case before you and get the case heard. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kathy lipscomb and i'm involved in senior and disabilities action, among other groups. my neighbours con i.n.s. and michael juarez are senior latino couple in their 70s who live in fear of an ellis act eviction, as you know. this april 18. they've been in their home at 79 28th street for 30 years and should not have to go through this special kind of hell. they are quite naturally very frightened. who wouldn't be? quite frankly, one of the

things that would lift their spirits would be to have their d.r. case moved up to some time in march or earlier so at least they might have some chance of a landlord changing his mind, the land lord gene crystal, in terms of the april ellis. negotiations and mediation are ongoing. but the sword of domacles is hanging over their head. another san francisco couple, filipino americans, melinda cortez, 87 years old and alex cortez, have recently been forced out of the their home of 22 years by the same gene crystal. this home is in soma at 53 rush street. they would be here today, in fact. they met the juarezes at a rally in front of gene crystal's office building in daly city a few months ago.

gene crystal is not going out of the land lord business. he is in the business of making miserable the lives of others. we need this dr. r. date brought forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david on behalf of the housing action coalition. not surprised that i have to say this. but i just want to remind people that people live in units, not in percentages. and that, you know, when we talk about affordable housing, and talking about the expense of construction, it is 100% true. i've been up here saying construction costs are through the roof. and if we don't look at how ever piece fits together, we don't have control of construction costs. we don't have control. what we have control over is the inclusionary pentserage.

so, to say that the yimbies don't like inclusionary? i don't know where that comes from. every conversation i've had they are pro-inclusionary. what they're not pro is not being able to build affordable housing, to not being able to build it. and when pentserages are built too high, we get nothing built. and to get up here and say that this process -- everyone's happy with it. you know, there's -- it was passed unanimously by the board of supes, everyone kumbaya, moved on. supervise source told us that they would like the tactical advisory committee to relook at the inclusionary pentserage because he is not sure it's set correctly. it is not everyone says that this is right. and that the inclusionary plays a key role in that is a part of the housing that we can -- it is a policy that we can move up and down.

we can try to affect housing cost, construction costs. in fact, i was here last week saying we should be looking at mass timber at the joint d.b.i. meeting to say is that a way to bring down construction costs? but do not -- do not -- don't conflate that if someone is saying hey, i'm concerned about the inclusionary, that, therefore, they don't support inclusionary. and they don't support affordable housing. that is lazy. and that is a misrepresentation of what the real conversation is. we want to see as much housing built at all levels of affordability. and if we are getting no market rate housing, the costs are too much. therefore, we get no affordable housing through the inclusionary. and so these things all go together. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. from senior and disability action. i'm here to support the moving up of the date for the d.r. on the 28th street building. this sounds like the perfect picture example of speculation that the ellis act was designed for old-time landlords to go out of the business of being a land lord when they were of age when they just didn't want to deal with that anymore. and so the idea of buying one building and evicting people and buying another building, that is -- you went out of the business of being a landlord. so, this is about money, this is also using a buy-out to force another tenant out of that same building before using the ellis act to get the elderly couple out. denying them the protected class that they are awarded because of their age and length of time of living there.

if you try to put a halt to the end of this speculation, move up the d.r. date and honour, please, our san franciscans. we need care and do something about the existing tenants as well as those buildings that they're not the idea of merging two units and adding an a.d.u. and saying that it is equal. and for those that live there is very limited. so, please move up the date. thank you so much. >> thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner rich ards? >> a couple of points first. on the zoning administrator bulletin, i guess one of the things i want to make an observation of is that the last date that the -- was used for the city assessor's data was 2015. and i looked down here, it is $1.63 million. i don't know if it went up or

not. maybe there's been an update since. i looked at the construction costs and having renovated a unit. i don't know who can get anything done for $240 a square feet. finished. that wasn't even the rough-in budgets for us. we're up to $600 a square foot these days. we should talk to the zoning administrator about where these numbers really come from. the issue about the d.r. on 79 28th street, i'm sitting here listening to a lot of people talking about that. kind of reminds me of the executioner transmiting to the supreme court saying i'm going to change my brief on why i should execute the prisoner, but in the meantime, he's executed the prisoner. so i think that delaying plans and making minor change on them is a real -- it is a way to just get these people out of their unit and i think that we should go ahead and take d.r. before they actually have the

eviction data. we should rise to that occasion and do that for the elderly tenants. the others one about -- and i asked the chair and v.p. to consider that. the other one interesting enough, mr. david, they talked about this whole issue of permits going down and going through construction costs, i completely get it. maybe i misunderstand. i -- misunderstood. i thought the feasibility study had a if this goes up, this goes down. these are the assumptions we make. when the assumption change, something changes. that's set in stone. i'm uneducated on that. and lastly this one on 3847 18th street is in my neighbourhood. $11.85 million? we almost fainted when we read that on hoodline. and it's crazy. it was three units and now it is down to two units. i don't know what happened to

the third unit and how they got rid of it because i knew someone who lived in this building before it was renovated. >> on that, too, i point out that the r.i.t. would have gotten to it. i know you didn't like elements of it. but i talked about bringing pieces of that back. again, it encouraged people, instead of building monster homes, to build three unit where is we had rh-3 zoning. i think we threw that out too early and should go back and look at it. there's certainly elements of it people didn't like. i think it generally had a lot of things that would do exactly what we don't want to do in these types of projects. so, yeah. i think that is a good example. and we'll work on people giving us a compelling argument on the 28th street property. we can work with staff. we'll work at our officer's meeting to bring that up into march so i can inform the rest of the process. all right. we can move on to the next item. >> very good, then.

that will be under the regular calendar for item 16. the residential pipeline dash board informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is teresa ojeda. i'm here to talk about the residential pipeline quarterly dash board. what it is and how it came about. and also to propose the new format for the dash board. this hearing is for your information only and no action is required.

the genesis of the residential pipeline quarterly dash board or housing dash board can be traced to a january 2012 performance audit of the san francisco's affordable housing policies and programmes. conducted by the san francisco board of supervisors budget and legislative analyst. the study found that the planning commission and the board of supervisors does not receive a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation of the city's achievement of its housing goals. among the audit's recommendation is that the planning department staff provide its commission data and expected unit types and income levels of projects and house its units to address the city's fair share of the regional housing need. this audit prompted the board of supervisors to sponsor and approve ordinance 237-12 in december of 2012.

this ordinance added section 10e.4 to the city's administrative code and called for the monitoring of san francisco's housing preservation and goals. they were instructed to provide the commission with pipeline data and evaluate how the units will affect or meet the city's arena production goals. administrative code 10e.4 required three separate reports to be produced and submitted to the planning commission. what is called a housing production summary attachment to be included in every case report submitted to the planning commission for proposed projects of five units or more. a second is a quarterly housing production report providing an analysis of current production in the regional housing needs allocation for san francisco. the third requirement essentially legislated the housing inventory, a report the planning departments has been

producing since 1967. at the behest of management, and in coordination and with input from the planning commission, the first reporting requirements were matched into one report that was called residential pipeline quarterly report entitled housing units or simply the housing dash board. the report's secondary title states its focus is on entitled units, it included only projects with planning department approval as and building permits to make way for construction. three major development projects that were not expected to be built within the arena report period at that time were excluded can and were not counted in the report. for context, i handed out the most recent data with the

proposed format. this most recent format was a one-pager and already a redesign following commissioner's input. the first two years's worth of reports covered 2000 to 2014 arena reporting period. we're now in a new eight-year psychle with a reporting period from 2015 through 2022. we just completed a third year of those eight years. we're just showing up to the third quarter of the third year. the housing dash board was initially submitted to the commission as a supplement attached to case reports for projects proposing five units or more. part of the report's redesign, as suggested by the commission, included a collapsing of the low income categories into one. in time, the one-page report was deemed to need more vizability and in july of 2014,

at the commission's request, was added to the weekly director's report to the c.p.c. as you can see here, the table in the most recent format showed arena goals, actual production toward meeting the arena goals, units entitled by planning and the percent of arena goals as met by the built and will be met by entitled units. herein, one of the concerns have been of consistency and that the arena progress report with the state is that the arena progress vorts submitted annually on april 1 of each year and covers the previous calendar year's production. just for clarification, the number submitted to h.c.d. includes not just new construction but also acquisition, rehabilitation or preservation of units to the extent allowed by law to meet the arena affordable goals -- affordable housing goals. this means up to a quarter of the arena affordable housing

goals can be met by acquisition, rehabs or preservation of units. by the way, we already reached the allowance for the low income category. the commission should also be reminded that arena progress report numbers come from the planning departments and, therefore, were consistent with the progress report numbers since we are those numbers sourced. however, since the housing dash board is required to be updated on a quarterly basis, the c.p.c. gets a preview of sorts with the first three quarters of each calendar year. the proposed format is a response to concerns raised to the commissioner several weeks ago. in addition to claims of inconsistent si with h.c.d. numbers and the missing number of very low income units, the dash board's numbers are seen as misleading due to table headings or labels. this leads to a misunderstanding of what the

numbers stand for and that they are being used i don't want -- used beyond what they were intended before and that is to provide the commission with a set of pipeline stats. the proposed format is now a two-pager and will continue to be apented into the written director's report to the c.p.c. it separates the low and very low income categories consistent with the arena progress report template and the report breaks down production and entitlement into greater detail. the report's first table explodes and makes time expand the component of the city's progress towards meeting the 2022 arena production goals. these numbers are current to the third quarter of 2017. the first table distinguishes actual arena progress from entitlements. in addition to the arena housing goals, the table includes what has already been reported to h.c.d., actual production in 2015 and 2016,

again what we mean by this is new construction rehabs, acquisition or preservation to the extent allowed by law. and the column includes production since the beginning of to 17 through the third quarter. we'll be reporting the 2017 calendar year's production toward meeting the arena goal before the april 1 deadline. then there is a middle column showing the total of the previous two columns with the final column showing the two component to get the arena housing production goals. we're using the arena production housing goals of 2022 instead of a pro-rated goal by quarter, assist feature with also input from the commissioners. as you can see, we're about 42% of reaching the total production goals. if one is to prorate the rhna goals, the production we're looking for is roughly 34% for all of these categories.

the next table is similar to the lone table in the most recent one-paint format and that it adds production so far to the select pipeline numbers. and how the two together compare to arena production goals. i will get to the details of the select pipeline, which is the third neighbourhood a bit. i would like to remind the commission that the point of the dash board is to look at entitled projects as they compare to rhna production goals. they go into the production category and are reported to the state h.c.d. again, the commissioners are reminded that entitled projects here include only those projects that are expected to be completed within the arena reporting period. you will note that in this case, there are now seven instead of the three in previous reports that are not included in the entitled numbers. the original big three, candlestick point and treasure

island -- only treasure island has not started to obtain building permits. candlestick point and park merced have filed for meer mitts and in some cases have been issued those permits t. other four projects that are not expected to be fully completed or are going to be phased in include hunters point, the [inaudible], hope s.f. projects and [inaudible]. as these larger projects file for an obtained building permits for face units, they're added into the pipeline. these seven major development projects have a total of 25719 net new units in which 5419 net new units will be affordable or approximately 23%. the third and last table details entitled projects by development status. as noted in the report, units under construction and units with building permits approved or issued will be very likely

completed within the arena reporting period. similarly, those projects with building permits file reasonable doubt also likely to be completed by 2022. and given the complexity of those projects that have been entitled by planning but yet to submit applications for building permits, most would be completed by -- within the remaining five years of the report, period. by the way, we're working on the fourth quarter pipeline and actually a number of entitled projects for filed for permits with the remaining having been entitled within the past year. i believe the fourth quarter pipeline will be completed in a week or so and the commissioners can expect a new housing dash board soon. before i end, i'd like the remind the commissioners of the various reports on housing production trends that the department produces and sends on to the planning commission. the housing inventory, which tracks housing production trends on an annual basis will

be released by the end of march. one of the tables included in the housing inventory is the summary of the rhna annual progress report. [please stand by] [please stand by

>> it's important to recognize what is arena is and

>> growth and recovery were te pit -- tepid. we know things have changed fast. as such, you need to be cautious about using and holding up these numbers as a true test of how we're achieving our housing goals and how the housing market is performing in the city. it's important to track it for various reasons. we know it's not the end-all-be -all in terms of housing performance. this current cycle, which runs through 2022 has an overall annual housing target for the

city minimum of about 3,600 units. since this was acknowledged that the numbers are insufficient to meet the city's housing needs. so we need to keep that in mind. a couple of last points. it's important to note that the state legislature has a bill that's proposed before them. 288, the if adopted, it would direct methodology to better reflect housing needs. you've seen this in our work program, the department is in the process of scoping and launching what we call the housing affordability and stabilization strategy. hopefully you will see this coming forward late they are year with some progress. one of the key efforts is to

provide a quantitative framework to measure process. so with that, we're happy to take any questions. >> all right. thank you. i'm sure we'll have some. let's, first, open this up for public comment, if there's any. >> todd david on behalf of the hac. i think this is great. this is almost exactly what i was hoping for, which is the numbers actually reflecting what we're talking about. so that's good. i also really want to really compliment josh. rena is a very flawed system. it has pluses and minuses. it's not an end all, be all from

hac's point of view. as pointed out, the senator is trying to put a piece of legislation, and we're part of the working group to update rena to have it be more valuable. we've been here for the past year really talking about how little middle income housing we've built in san francisco for the last 30 years. while we certainly don't have enough affordable housing low or, you know, very low housing. that middle income number is just really -- that 9% really sticks out. i think we really need to be thinking about that in everything we do. the only question or the only thing i kind of wonder about is the comment about the entitled projects, expecting them to be built in this cycle. as we were just having a

conversation not long ago, things change all the time. right? construction costs are through the roof. i wonder if there's a valuable tov on -- valuable to have on here. when you look at the entitlement number, and you see the 217%, you go, oh, so we're fine. so i hope we are. i hope every project gets built. i think it might be worth a little bit of a disclaimer to point that out. we don't know. rhna numbers, it bears repeating. they're set as a target. it's not like if we hit the numbers for rhna, we're great. it's a minimum number of housing

that we're supposed to be providing through the measurements that josh was talking about. so when we're talking, we're at 109% of our rhna number, we're 109% over the minimum we're supposed to be building. i just wanted to put that out. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> steven bust, again, with mission envy. i would first like to thank the planning department, the staff, for their excellent work on the quarterly pipeline reports. that is the data i used for my graph that i presented in the general public comment. it's great we have so much data from the city. i tried to get the same information from oakland, santa cla clara, and it's just not there. good job, san francisco.

to go back to zoning and how it's affected the pipeline, i feel it unfortunate that the incoming applications to planning are not represented on the quarterly report. it's only entitled projects, so it doesn't reflect when a project was first put either to the planning department or put in front of planning commission. as a concrete suggestion, i would like the first contact of a building project with the planning commission to be included on that report somehow and included in, perhaps, the proje projected -- whether or not we're going to hit our rhna goals. the rules did change in 2016. if my analysis is correct, then we'll start -- well, we're going to start missing all of our rhna goals for every demographic because we're not building enough of anything anymore. in addition to that, i would also like to request the

planning commission to recommend to staff they include things such as cost per square footage and prevailing wage, both union and non-union, so that we can figure out what are the variables leading to increases or decreases in production in the different affordability levels. so, yes, just those three requests. commissioner richards, it looks like you have a question for me? >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. carlton? >> commissioners, peter cohen, the community housing organization. so i want to thank staff for the excellent work. you should be very proud to have this hardworking staff, director. i remember the 2012 legislative audit that led to the

administrative code legislation and requirements and all the data crunching. and for five years, this has been fine tuned. i think this has been an excellent job of really trying to figure out how to implement those requirements into the code as much as possible. the bottom line of that budget was that policy was being made in the absence of a clear understanding of what's going on. i think now we have a lot of clear data to help you and folks over at city hall in doing so. so good work. we also agree the new format is fine. it's actually new and improved. i'm glad to stand here and say we agree with the hac and the mbs and updating the format of data is a good thing. so this tells a number of stories in some respects, creates some clarity. a couple of highlights, you will notice we're seven quarters into a 28 quarter, or seven-year, period. we've reached 15% of the need,

34% across all those tranches, so we're halfway there on our low and middle income. market rate, we're 60% over the need. we have a housing imbalance of production. that's a major theme for us. it's about housing for all, but housing for all at a relatively even pace. it's not just housing at whatever level happens to come through. we have a real structural problem with that balance. it's also interesting, when you look at the entitlements separate from production, we have 6,700 units that are sitting. they haven't filed for permits. 5,600 of the units are doing nothing at this snapshot at a time. so that's a question from a policy standpoint. how do you get 5,600 units to

move into building permit and construction. lastly, we want to emphasize to you folks, with all this good data, in its new format, how is it made readily visible to the public and for yourselves? it's supposed to be in every case report. i understand from mr. swingski and others, it's a little tenuous, but we think it should be in every director's report with a live link. for the public assessing your side, a link would be helpful. each quarter when it's updated, the director can actually present that briefly to the commission and the public. that would keep it alive and in the conversation. >> thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? >> i gave you the wrong thing, commissioner richards. that's the old one. if i could have that back, i

would appreciate it. >> i thought it was wrong. >> i will sent the pdf of the right one. it's 18.9 million. also, i know there was a tenant. you could see there was a tenant there. i have all these director reports from back in 2015 or so. i'm not a numbers person, but i looked at them. it seemed to me that the numbers seem fairly consistent within the certain range for better or worse, but the modern income did seem to be the lowest throughout. i think this is housing, as i've said for a while now, that must be preserved. it can't be vulnerable to speculative development. somehow, i think those numbers in there show that's happening there. to me, at least, they resonate with that. it's certainly happened in the

valley and mission and scattered around the city in the last several years. to me, the micro becomes the macro. i was in the sunset golden heights area. can i have the overhead, please. this is a house that was there. typical san francisco -- it was a dulger. i didn't see this. i got this from there google. it was an alteration, supposedly. this is as it is now. still a single family home. sold for 1.2, i think. yeah, 1.25 in 2015. no dr. these are all being missed by you. this is the staff. the staff can't do this. this is a dulger home. maybe it was a candidate for an adu, if you want to densify.

here is 1 across the street that just sold. it's really nice. the door is beautiful. i don't know what's going to happen there. that just sold in may for 3.1 million. is that the moderate? i think it is, unfortunately. but that's the moderate. and today, in laglosse, this is beautiful. had a knotty pine. downstairs bar. 995. i almost wanted to sell my house and go buy that. but that's my point. my point is something needs to be done to preserve these. the staff can't do it. you can do it. maybe you can't do it, but someone needs to do it because they're being run out of town by speculation. that one i just showed you, the first one is going to hit the market. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank the staff. >> all right. thank you. good to hear knotty pine is

making a comeback. [laughter] >> the staff work is tremendous. it is only a little part of the problem. the problem that we have dealt with in the community and the board of supervisors and the commission, has been the destruction of modern income and low-income housing. all the people here from noe valley, that's what it's about. also, it's about the conversions that are happening in tenderloin and chinatown. and the google buses, dumping the man from silicone valley into san francisco. that affects our housing. i wish to know, go back and find out how the rhna goals are

projected. do they project san francisco providing housing for mountainview, cupertino? those are the big places for the tech industry, and then putting them in buses and dumping the demand on san francisco. how much affordable housing is being required to be built in those areas? we have the battle for san francisco long before any of you were up there. some of us in the audience were here in the '80s to force the construction of housing tied to commercial development. that is a large part of the funding stream, not just housing. commercial development. we take that pressure off in san francisco in the same time. oh, they have a fine time doing their google buses with the cars

off the freeway. they're taking the cars off the freeway and dumping the demand in san francisco. so we have the battle of short-term rentals playing out by people wanting to make money out of effectively moderate income housing. so we can't just pump into construction the housing picture of the city. we need to honestly deal with how much is taken off by all kinds of crooks in state law, including the ellis act, including what we are doing to encourage the google buses in san francisco that are wiping out the mission and noe valley. >> any additional public comment on this one?

seeing none, we'll close public comment. can i ask a question. we had ami levels lifted. how come you took that off? is there a way to put that back on? >> sir, the -- >> no. in the old reporting you got called -- >> it was just an oversight in that, you know, we have a presumption of people knowing what the definitions are. if we can put that back. >> it would just be helpful. are those the same, except low income has been broken out to low income and very low income? >> yes. the commissioners thought that most of the very low income projects were -- you know, they were sponsored by the city mostly and that they did not

have much say in how many of those are going to be built anyway. >> in the moderate income category, is that primarily where inclusioniary will fall? >> we're to include adus now, secondary units, on non-restricted moderate income units. >> they go into moderate units? >> below 65% of ami. >> no. this is mostly 90% of ami. >> for sale? >> those are mostly for sale. >> the rental inclusioniary would be low income? >> yes. sorry. i should have clarified that. but moderate includes inclusioniary for sale and to a

small degree, adus, which we expected with more adus being built will boost the moderate income. >> so you include built adus in modern income category? >> we'll be including that as non-income deed restricted because they're considered affordable by design. >> i don't know. i would question it. i mean, you don't really know. >> sorry? >> i mean, i would almost call it -- i think it's a bit of an assumption on that. i would still put them in above moderate instead of moderate. i just don't think we know.

>> we're actually required to research the pricing for these adus so we adjust for that. >> and then, like, small site acquisition? >> those are included as part of the allowance that we're allowed for. it depends. it's either low or moderate. the mayor's office of housing actually knows what incomes those sites are targeting. >> yeah. and then when we combine, i still don't get quite this combination of entitled and approved units. i mean, i think it still gets confusing. i guess we're trying to get on what we project top by 2022, right? >> yes. so we've exploded that as well

by showing what's under construction, what has been given up, building permits, and also the projects that have applied for building permits, we've -- >> but as you get closer to 2022, will we not include those? i mean, if you get a project today, you're close to -- >> i looked at some of the -- because we've been doing this for five years. i see two years prior to the end of the reporting period, i think only the under construction will likely be built. >> okay. you may just want to reentitle that what our projected would be by 2022. because it will change, right? it's not just the lumping of entitled. right now, you're including everything except those that have entitled where no building permit has been filed, but i think as we get closer to 2022, you will start dropping off even

"under construction." okay. thank you. this is great. thank you very much. commissioner melgar. >> sorry, theresa. i had one more question along those lines. so what about condo conversion units? are they in this pipeline? >> no. >> no? okay. thank you so much. i like it. i talked to folks who are interested in -- and vested in this report. it seems to meet everyone's needs. that's awesome. that being said, i want to temper the enthusiasm, but this is not the whole picture, right? it doesn't include a bunch of stuff, as it was pointed out, you know, existing housing or folks that are being evicted, you know, any way we lose our housing stock, which is most san

franciscoens. that's great. what i would like to see, when i was at dbi, we would get a meeting, a pipeline report, of projects, you know, like big projects in the pipeline and where they were in terms of, you know, first permit all the way to certificate of occupancy. in theory, we have the technology that we can match these up. i know you're smiling. >> it's scary. >> it's scary, but it would be great if we could do that, right? if we could have a report that sort of has that full picture of how we're doing in terms of, you know, are we obligations and permits that are entitled and actually built so we compare it. and if we had it on a regular basis -- and i'm not saying, like, you know, every meeting,