to see fore themselves. to those that haven't responded to our unhave itation, please do so. it's really important that you see this. adam just had a really good recap now about the light and the air and the concern about the pollutants and all of that. i think this project has two things. there is one side, which is the environmental side, which is the health and the quality of the air that that wall will cause. the other side is it's the design side. i'm going to talk a little bit about the design side. we all, and commissioner his said in our meeting on the 29th, that he was looking for a design that is a more neighborhood friendly or neighbor friendly design. after our meeting on the 29th, tide water came back with some changes, and they proposed that to the department. you can see here what they

proposed. it's -- i can't even fathom what's in their heads. they open up a hole in the middle with glass. that's their proposal to us after the meeting that we had. it is so ridiculous that it doesn't even -- you know, i can't even think of what's in their minds. this is the same drawing from -- looking from our side, from the bay crest side, and here -- here's a closer picture of that opening. what they fail to show you in this picture is what adam showed, all the trees. these are mature trees. these hare 25-year-old trees. we have a whole eco environment going there. that wall, as you can see, it's going to kill everything in there. i mean, from an urban design guidelines, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

you know, we are all for housing. we want to have a neighbor next to us. we welcome 429 beale, 430 main. we want a good neighbor there, but we just want something that actually has synergies with bay crest. we have a proposal, a two tower design. it is here. you know, this is the picture of a slicing in the middle. you see bay crest there. our courtyard open. the air will flow from side to side. commissioners, we have three courtyards here. we're struggling to have them. give us an inch in one of them. we're still not having anything in the others, but thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

my name is bruce bowen. i'm from the delores heights improvement club. i'd like to bring an issue to your attention, something that's come up a number of times before. this -- this is 3790 21st street. it's the corner of 21st and noe. it was approved -- there was a d.r. on this a couple of years ago. it was approved in 2016. it's being remodelled. i'm not here to talk about the remodel, but the excavation. excavations are problematic because they're increasingly common, especially in our neighborhood and many others. as i understand it, the excavation is covered by the categorical exemption under ceqa, so it's approved by the commission, but jurisdiction of the excavation, review of the excavation and also monitoring of the excavation by

contractors who are maybe not qualified to actually do the work for significant excavations is problematic. this picture was sent to me yesterday, taken by the neighbor downhill on noe street. there's rebar coming up through his basement about five or 6 feet over the property line. he contacted the dbi and was told by the dbi inspector, this is an insurance problem. call your insurance. i don't know, but this is something i wanted to bring to your attention. excavations are problematic. smaller ones and even larger ones create problems that are severe for homeowners more than other kinds of remodel activities. i'd like to thank commissioner richards for bringing up sb

828. the april 9th amendments have in them what i believe is a stealth up zoning provision and also a transit oriented provision. a couple of amendments slipped in right before the demise of 827, so the comments are coming back from 827 into 828. the upzoning is a little complicated, so we'd like some help in understanding what the language is to make sure we understand that that's what's going on, but i believe it is. and also, also to thank you, the commission for having the hearing -- the joint hearing last week. as was already mentioned, it was extremely educational and appreciated. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i just wanted to speak real quickly about the conditional use authorization for 214

states. this was on your calendar on the march 12th, and at that time, we had lots of people from the community and from our side ready to testify. if you'll recall, the project sponsors asked for a continuation because of the b.i.c. joint hearing, and you'll remember it was continued to may 3rd. so the -- the joint meeting could occur. unfortunately, after the continuation part closed, we realized from our end, nobody could really show up on may 3rd. so we came up at the public comment such as now and let you guys know that, and you mentioned to work with staff to make a change. so now that the joint meeting has happened, and we've been working with staff, but nothing's really happened yet,

i'm just here proactively for the community saying that we're trying to work for a continuance, and as it's slipping away, coming close to may 3rd, we just hope that if it turns up at may 3rd, that we're asking for a continuance then in essence agreed upon before, that you'll afford the same sort of deference to the community that you did for these project sponsors. so that's all. just wanted to let you know we're trying to be proactive. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. cohen? >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cohen with the council of community housing organizations. i hate for us to come here and sound kind of whiney, 'cause that's about what we do, but i'll whine today that this is about the third time we've mentioned this. your pipeline dashboard, we had a really interesting set of

hearings here a couple of months ago because there were some complaints that the data wasn't quite organized properly. we spent a lot of time with your staff, you've done a new format. it's all fine. it's still buried. nobody knows it's out there, and so our suggestion was to put it as a live link on your weekly agenda. here's april 12th. it's not on the agenda. here's april 19th, today. it's not on the agenda. it hasn't been on the agenda for a month and a half, and i do recall quite clearly on the record that the planning director assured the commission that it could be added to the agenda as a live link. now, it may seem again nitpicky and whiney, but you do a lot of data analysis, and it comes out every quarter. it's frankly the best real-time snapshot that you and all the political leaders at city hall has about what's going on in our housing production and our housing entitlements, and

having it buried three clicks deep on a website that nobody knows exists doesn't make it helpful. we just came out of a very good hearing in sacramento around sb 827, and one of the things i get is how people understand how things work. most people don't have any idea what they're talking about. so think of your dashboard as an educational tool, not just a pile of data, and not something that's hiding something threatening and you know e folks will spin the data however they want. that's fine. that's what folks do, but think of it as a way to actually educate the general public about how things actually work, to have more intelligent conversations, more intelligent policy. so i really implore you all to get that live link on there and start being proud of the fact that the planning department produces something that is

unique in california. believe me, there's no other jurisdiction that has better tracking and reporting and intelligence about its housing policy and production. get it out there for everyone to use. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i just want to thank mr. cohen for sharing his comments. i think that one of the things that i love and have really enjoyed about being on the planning commission is just how engaged the public is in wanting to know and understand the mechanics of what's happening and wanting the data to really understand and be part of informed conversations about the present and future of our housing stock. and so i'm just -- i would love to hear from the department if anyone wants to share or just to see some action taken to make that data accessible as quickly as possible. thanks. >> president hillis: commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: i think instead of hiding the data, i think we need to recognize miss rogers for analysis on 827. i think it's just an oversight that the link's not live. i think it's probably an easy thing to do, so i support commissioner john's statement, as well. on 14 states, i believe that's agendaized on the b.i.c. meeting in may, so having it scheduled for the 3rd may not be a good idea. maybe we should schedule the 19th like we did the other item, so you might want to check with president -- >> president hillis: so we've got it on the 18th. we would have to ask staff to move it to that date and that would be helpful. director, did you want to comment on the live link? >> i think it is an over sight,

and perhaps miss ojeda can comment on it on the housing inventory today, unless you want to comment on it now. [ inaudible ] >> okay. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further commissioners, we can move onto your regular calendar. item 8. [agenda item read]. [please stand by for captioner switch]

. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve, commissioner fong -- excuse me --

[ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, item nine. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: this is also a planning code amendment. >> president hillis: you want to take item ten, jonas? sorry. >> sorry about that, commissioners. audrey backas, planning department staff, but before i make my comments, john updike is here to present on this item. >> president hillis: no problem. welcome, mr. updike. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john updike, director of real estate. thank you for hearing this item today, and giving me a moment

to provide some contextual background. all of this is found in the very detailed background report on this matter. staff did a get job putting together a complicated package. as noted in the october 2017 from the city administrator to the board of supervisors, the deteriorating condition of the hall of justice required the city to take very swift action to move the hub of our criminal justice system to safer more resilient offices. following months of searching within soma for suitable locations and frankly, after going through a few pairs of shoes walking the district with our brokers, we security three sites that collectively addressed our space needs. 350 rhode island, 945 bryant, and a subject, 777 brannan street.

that totalled just under 200,000 square feet, so it gives you a sense of the quail of the undertaking we have been charged with by the city administrator. in the fall, the board approved the lease of rhode island and the letters of intent for bryant and the subject property on brannan. in the past week, we have introduced final legislation to the abort to approve the now negotiated final leases for both bryant and the brannan locations. those are scheduled to be heard in early may by the board of supervisors. the subject's 27,000 square foot building on size provides a direct match for the san francisco police department's evidence storage division and is in close proximity to the hall of justice. that was a critical item given that the court operation will remain on that same block where the hall of justice is today. we felt the current use of self-storage minimized most of the upper floor tenant improvements, thus saving the city's general fund

considerably in the reconstruction phase that would be required for our evidence storage needs. while the city would be entering into a ten year initial lease with potential for option periods taking us to 2038 and the city has a right of first offer during that time period, so we may end up becoming the owners of the property, ownership did condition their agreement to a lease on being assured of the ability to restore their current self-storage use upon termination of the city's lease. thus, this matter is now before you. i'll have the planning staff get into specifics, bipted to personally say how -- but i wanted to personally say how pleased i am that we were able to rise to the challenge of this site, happy to answer any questions that you might have about either our lease agreement or our overall hall

of justice exit strategy. thanks. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. okay. so again, audrey backus, planning department code. this would allow the to resume a preexisting self-storage use after the city vacates the property. this would be allowed and the facility would be leased for the purpose of storing police department evidence that is currently stored at the hall of justice. as of this morning, the department has not received any public comment regarding the proposed ordinance and the department recommends that the commission approve with modifications this proposed ordinance. the planning department recommends the following modifications: reorganize legislation to follow chronological order for permitting and process. as currently drafted, the legislation is unclear as to the order of the process that should be adhered to.

reorganizing this section in a chronological format will create a clear and concise process. recommendation two is to remove several requirements for lejt miezing the existing self-storage use in section 183 c 4. several requirements necessary for obtaining a permit are repetitive, unnecessary or inaccurate. recommendation number three is to clarify the fees associated in section 193 c 4 c. the transit impact development fee is the only fee that would have applied to the building permit permit, and right now, the language in the ordinance refers to the owner's payment of any and all fees, and that's a little unclear, so represented to clarify that. our fourth recommendation is to add language where applicable to add notice of discretionary review and possible

requirements. the transfer of evidence storage files to the facility at 777 brannan is a vital piece of the urgently needed move of staff and resources out of the failing hall of justice. although the approval of the legislation will mean that the space at 777 brannan retains a right to remain self-storage after the city vacates the property, the legislation is narrowly constructed, which ensures other nonconforming self-storage uses are not permitted to retain their self-storage use an the abandonment of this self-storage use. the proposed legislation is also aligned with many aspects of the general plan, including the community facilities policy to locate police facilities in

a manner that will enhance the effective, efficient and responsive performance of police functions, and the community safety policy to reduce the risk presented by the city's most vulnerable structures, particularly privately owned buildings and provide assistance to reduce those risks. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i started my diatribe on comments on 123450ugss ainstitutions and it's nice to see that san francisco follows its own rule and comes here to the planning department. pat on the back, san francisco. i see no other commissioners commenting, so i move to approve. this makes second. >> president hillis: second. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think staff made it clear that this is an exceptional circumstance, and the exceptional circumstance is so obvious, that there is no reason not to support it.

>> clerk: very good, then, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with modifications. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that item passes unanimously, 7-0, and places us on item ten. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, president hillis, members of the commission and planning department. david brosky, planning department staff. the ordinance would amend the planning code to correct text wal errors and the readability of the code itself, proposed amendments will help complete article two and seven reorganization as well as overlook the items within the cannabis ordinance. as stated at the initiation

hearing, the majority of these amendments are not considered substantive. there are a few exceptions, however. one is the proposed amendment to section 145.4. the code is currently silent on this but has provisions for all other districts in the code. the second one is from the cannabis ordinance which would remove duplicative noticing requirements. this change is consistent with the intent of the recently adopted cannabis legislation and the failure to remove this provision was a drafting error. my third substantive amendment came at the request of the mayor's office of housing and community development. the proposal was to change the word median to market in section 415. they contend that the -- using median as a benchmark is not a valid standard for the problem that this provision is attempting to solve. the department's recommendation is approval with modifications.

the one modification in the recommended summary is. this was inadvertently deleted as part of article two of the reorganization. additionally, a member of the public requested amendments to sections 209 and 2.3, and i apologize for not printing out handouts, but can i get the projector. so as currently worded, it seems to say that three requirements are required in the rm and r-c-3 districts, the subject's lot is still allowed to have three units, so the language is going to be amended

to clarify this, so it would actually read up to three units perlot or up to one unit per-800 square feet of area. this part of the section would be deleted. also, further amendments were received today regarding nonresidential uses in the polk mcd, but there was not time to investigate these. staff will investigate, and if found to be nonsubstantive, will include them in the ordinance. this concludes my presentation, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: all right. we may have. let's see if there is any public comment on this item. seeing none, we will go to mr. cohen. >> i was just talking with --

peter cohen. i just want to make sure that we clearly understand that one amendment, changing the word median to market, and i think we understand we've talked about this, where it's coming from, but i want to be sure to have some clarity, if you have your benchmark as market, that will be all over the place, and i think the intent was that you're having a level benchmark, that you're 20% below a set point. so i'm wondering if we would be able to combine the two. i know the intention was not to have median rents, because you're including rent controls housing, which has potentially lower rent, but it should be the median of market rate housing. it should be the middle point of what things are in the market. you're going to have a $5,000 a month, you're going to have a $3,000 a month apartment. so your median market's going to be four. i think there needs to be some way, and i'm thinking this live

with the mayor's office of housing that that doesn't become a complicated thing to set down the road when market rents are all over the place. happy to work that without with the mayor's office of housing and come back with you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. did you have a comment, mr. starr? >> i just wanted to elaborate on we got three proposed corrections from supervisor peskin's office this morning. they look to be nonsubstantive, but we haven't had time to evaluate them. they're amending section 121.2, the nonresidential use size limits in nc districts, polk street ncd should be listed under for 2,000 square feet. in there right now, i think it's 3,000 or something, and also under table 723 for polk, it currently says permit up to 1,999 square feet.

conditional use for 2,000 to 3,999 square feet, but what's missing from that is not permitted above 4,000 square feet, so the intention was that, and we'll look into that to make sure that the intent was clear. and then under section 178, there's an abandonment period of 18 months that appears in one section of the code but also needs to be repeated in another section of the code, so that's another clarification. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a procedural question, if i can direct it to mr. brosky or mr. starr. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner moore: -- commercial, residential commercial, etcetera and mixed-use districts. there is requirements for ground floor residential design, but these ground floor residential designs particularly in the formulations that it's proposed in this legislation do not exist at the moment, so it's legislating something for which

the tool itself which this addresses is not even there, is that an issue or was it poerlly done that way? that's kind of like an empty container for that particular reference. that's page 22, section 145.1. it's actually page 14. do you see it? >> ground floor uses in the union districts? >>. >> commissioner moore: yes, and then you're referencing guidelines for ground floor residential design, which is a subject matter that has not been resolved at the moment. >> i believe we do have them, it just hasn't been adopted. >> commissioner moore: that's what i'm saying. you're legislating something that hasn't been adopted.

it is obviously a new way of naming ground floor guidelines. at the moment, there is nothing there to legislate. >> yeah. we're not adding that language, though. what we're -- [ inaudible ] >> i think they just haven't been formally adopted by this commission, so we can -- >> commissioner moore: okay. so it's a procedural thing. ultimately, it will be something which will be used. it's just funny to legislate something that hasn't been legislated yet. i caught that, and i just sort of thought it was funny. >> president hillis: any

additional comments? or a motion? commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve. >> president hillis: i think we're making a recommendation to the board, and i think -- the mayor's office of housing, do you want to come up and -- [ inaudible ] >> we agree. our intention is real hly justo exclude affordable and rent controlled units from being calculated, so when we're talking about rents, we're looking at median rents any way, so i think that clarification is fine. >> president hillis: okay. did you want to put that in the motion? >> yeah. >> president hillis: that's okay with the seconder?

>> yeah. >> president hillis: without additional recommendation. >> clerk: rig >> commissioner koppel: right. okay. >> clerk: so the motion is to approve this planning code amendment with the modifications read into the record by staff as well as combining the terms median market for purposes of evaluation. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 11. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: informational

presentation. >> good afternoon. commissioners. i'm with the information analysis group at the planning department. this feels a little bit like deja vu because i was here in december with the 2018 housing inventory report, and today i'll be presenting the 2017 housing inventory report. this is an annual survey of housing production trend in san francisco. the report details changes in the city's housing stock such as demolition, construction, and condo remodels. it has been published regularly since 1967, and this year's report is 48th in the series. construction of new housing in 2017 totalled over 4,500 units,

which represents an 8% decrease from the last year. the year 2017 also saw a loss of about 70 units which added together with the new units comes out to an addition of 4,491 net units of housing stock. this total net addition is a 12% decrease over the previous year which is still 60% above the ten year production. there were about 4,270 new construction units that were completed last year, expansion of existing structures or conversion of residential structures to nonresidential made up about 240 units. the net total of 70 units lost in 2017 due to demolitions or alterations is 66% less than in 2016. there were about 18 units that were demolished, 44 unt others lost to illegalization, and two units lost via conversion to nonresidential uses.

for affordable housing, this past year, affordable housing made up 32% of new units added to housing stock in 2017. 1,466 total affordable units were completed last year, including 421 inclusionary units. breaking the affordable housing units down, approximately 690 units are affordable to households earning between 30 and 50% of the area median income or ami. about 220 units were made to be affordable to moderate income households earning up to 120 ami. about 99 of those moderate income units were considered to be accessory dwelling units.

the housing inventory report also describes the progress the city has made towards meeting the regional housing allocations or reha targets. it calls for a total of about 28,870 units to be built by the end of 2022. about 57% musting affordable to how's holds earning moderate incomes or lower, meaning households that earn up to 120% ami. at of 2017 about 14,470 housing units contributed to that goal. approximately 30% of that total is affordable to how's holds earning up to 120% of the area median income. production of market rate housing, built about 80% of its

reha target so far. these totals are slightly different in that the state does allow jurisdiction to s see -- [ inaudible ] >> so it might be a little bit more than what's recorded in housing and inventory. so housing permits issued are an economic indicator of future housing in the city. they issued 66% more than the total number permitted in 2016, and of the permits that were issued in 2017, # 3% of for building wz 20 or mo-- buildin with 20 or more units. san francisco accounted for about 20% of total permits issued in the bay area in 2017. santa clara accounted for 34%, and according to these numbers

that were recorded last year, about 73% of this new housing in the bay area will be in multifamily units. in 2017, there were about 7,680 units entitled and about 5,120 units filed by the planning department. the number of units filed in 2017 did decrease by about 24% from 2016, but it does still remain above the five year average of 4,800 units. the number of projects undergoing review is an indicator of current building interests and product expectation in the following years. other findings from the report include new condo construction, which increased almost 60% from the previous year, and then conversions to condos decreased about 30% from 2016, and according to the decht of building inspection both

nonprofit and for profit -- [ inaudible ] >> the total number of units that were rablthed for affordable housing was about 119 units last year. and this year, we did include a new statistic on accessory dwelling units. in 2017, there were 233 new that were completed and about 76 adu's that were legalized which created about 280 new adu's added to the housing stack this year. it's a pretty big effort to gather all this data, clean it and then provide consistent data results for housing production annually. although this report itself provides clean and consistent data moving forward for various other studies including the balance needs report, the area plan monitoring reports, and the annual housing progress

report, so those are just an example of what this data does feed into. in the full housing inventory report is available on the planning department's website, and the data used to calculate the findings is also available on that website and will be available in the coming weeks. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any comments and questions. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. any public comment on this item? >> i just wanted to assure the commission that we are in conversation with the commission secretary to ensure the link to the dashboard be made visible absent a director's report, as the commission well knows, the report used to be a matter on that written director's report. we will continue to work with the commission secretary staff to come to a decision on a

suitable spot for the dashboard link. i also would like to update the commission that the housing balance report will be out in may and a hearing has already been scheduled for the 24th of may, and that the next dashboard will also be out in a couple of weeks. i believe the 11th of may, as well, the pipeline database. the data for all of these reports will be available on-line. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. all right. public comment on this item? if there's any, mr. smith. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i love data, so this was a cool thing to see and quantify some of our goals. i think some good and some bad.

i think the number was 83% increase on subsidized and affordable housing. i would love to a year from now see another 83% increased. i think most of us would. obviously, this stuff takes place over a long period of time. i don't know if any of you are familiar with an organization called open land, they were formerly called state craft, and they look at pipeline information based on the planning department's available data, and what they look at is total affordable applications through, when they go through the process, they try to make some projections about what we're looking at in 2018-2019, so we're looking forward based on simple metrics, like how many units are currently under construction. it's really fascinating to look at. we've hired them to create our own dashboards on a similar basis, and a year from now they're projecting we're going to be looking at 26, 27, 28 on

# 00 units. each individual mayoral candidate at least in the polling have all committed to that goal. i'm not breaking any news here, especially when we look at the ami levels, those are really, really difficult to achieve. the 80 to 120% is not going to have the same subsidies that the lower income will. i can't afford a market rate place at all, but i make too much money for traditional subsidized affordable, but even if i did, i'm one out of 100 people that might be lucky enough to get that unit.

so just continuing to push forward, continuing to look at the facts and data whenever possible is really, really appreciated and look forward to working with everybody here to making sure that we do have success both in short-term and long-term in terms of our housing production. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hi, foexz. peter cohen, council on community housing organizations. of course, first is congratulations to the department on producing yet again a fantastic piece of work. i will tell you again, there is ae no other city that does this. san francisco's unique in the sense of how we as a city and a community and an activist community recognize the value of this kind of data analysis to help us understand where we're going. there was an interesting article in the mission local yesterday talking about the housing inventory. like i said, they just got it kind of wrong. i realize there was a certain

intention to create a dramatic story: san francisco builds fewer housing unlts than in 2016. well, a, we've got to remember cities don't build housing. cities don't build the majority of the housing. what the housing inventory actually shows is some interesting things. the two things that the city actually does have in its control are one, investing resources went up. 83% increase in affordable housing last year, and we should of course continue to rise that number. but that means the city actually used a tool at its disposal to step up its game. the second thing that cities can do is permit and entitled things to be done. permits were up by 65%, and entitlements by the planning commission were up, over 7,000

newly entitled units and over 6,000 construction permits. these are tools within the city's control. the fact that actual units completed and built went down doesn't have anything to do with you folks or dbi or whoever's sitting in room 200 or 202 or the housing action coalition or the yimby's in this room. that's a financial investment decision. so however folks in the media intentionally or naively make it sound like the city is doing all kinds of bad things, in fact the city is doing more and continues to do more within its control and the market does weird things sometimes. i also want to point out what's interesting in your housing inventory highlights is the region. if i'm not mistaken, three counties accounted for 82% of all the housing production, 82%: alameda, santa clara, and san francisco. san francisco's a city-county,

and most of the development in santa clara, san jose, and most in alameda are some core cities like oakland and the waterfront. so you're talking 83%, and we get folks coming up here, telling you you're not doing enough? this is a good news, folks. let's keep doing better, but let's keep it in context. great report. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss hester. >> i learned something by reports like this thinking about the data that's presented and listening to peter and others. couple things. there is righteous anger at the lack of housing, but it doesn't come back to here, and when you go to these tables, it doesn't

tell you exactly what the role of the developer is in the way of taking out the permits. tables -- the tables in here, except for table a-5, talks about dbi construction, and there's some gamesmanship that happens, getting your entitlement and marketing your entitlement to build. and there have been commissioners here that have said after certain period, if they don't have a permit, they should come back to the planning commission, and it should be a reasonable time. i think it's really two or three years is really pushing it. so i would ask you to consider that again. the second thing i thought about in reading this is it doesn't document the number of units that are truly lost because we lose housing by them not being rented or that when

they're sold, they're not getting occupied by a person that's using them as their primary residence. the latter is a category that especially is condos that are newly built that people land bank for other reasons. like capital happens in san francisco as well as in new york, and as well as in london. we are a flight capital city. and so i've talked to people who have been at newly opened condos for other reasons and they notice that there's very few people actually living there, because they basically use these as rent vehicles when you've got them along the waterfront especially. and it's one of those things

that we really don't have a report back. i'm not asking you to do it. i think the city has to do something around the assessor, because as a homeowner's exemption if you actually live in the unit. i have a homeowner's exemption. i'm sure most of you do. but you're not supposed to claim it unless you live there. and so at one point there should be a report by the assessor's office on what of the new condos are occupied by people taking a homeowner's exemption or if there's actually a third and fourth and second unit that is not really occupied. i know because i talk to people who deal with these buildings after they're built, and so we're losing housing that is not on here. that you have no role on the

owners at the front end of the newly built housing and the existing housing that is not really rented, especially we've had a problem with sro's. so putting on my thinking cap, i'm going back and saying we have a lot more to do and not you. the public has a role. one of the things i'm very well aware of is how we got the money for affordable housing. it came from a large amount of community pressure. the fees on developers to build affordable housing -- the affordable housing doesn't have any time wag occupancy. when it's done, it is occupied the following week because there is such need for it. but we have to go back and really get into the face of san mateo and santa clara can county, not just san francisco.

san francisco was a really good model, but it hasn't been followed, or silicon valley, and they're creating a lot of problems for us. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. seeing no comment, director ram? >> there's two things. one is i think the regional math is very telling. three counties are producing the vast majority of housing as mr. cohen points out, and i think what's particularly interesting is, you know, not to point fingers, but san mateo county where the vast majority of jobs are being created is producing only 5% of the region's housing right now. i was made aware this week that the -- perhaps you saw the report that in oyster bay,

where the biotech cluster is there, the developer had proposed 1400 units of housing, speak th and that proposal was withdrawn under the pressure from other developers. on the other side, mountain view has already approved their plan for 10,000 units or almost 10,000 units in north bayshore. and it would be good to see those projects move forward. but the second thing i wants to make is on the distinction between entitled and built, and we find there is a growing discrepancy between those two. in our new applications, we're seeing an increase in entitlement applications, but a decrease in building permit applications. we're really challenged by actually getting things built that we all approve, and that's a real challenge that i think the region needs to address as

we move forward because there's an increasing backlog of units that are not being built. >> president hillis: commissioner richards richard richarrichard -- richards? >> commissioner richards: so on that, a tie in, we have the data in two separate places. we have a list of entitled, but it doesn't say what's going on with them. i'd love to go to one of those projects and say okay, 123 main street, there's a nice little synopsis, status approved, about then what's the world status, building permit pulled, whatever so, we can actually try to understand this. and then if there's a chance if we can say reason it's not being built, that would even be more powerful because we need to understand why we're

entitling all these units, but then, the amount of units being built is actually falling. so -- and we're doing everything in our power to make it happen. it's the market, and the market is construction costs, it's financing, it's everything. so i think that -- i think an analysis around that in this report since it looks like we have most of the data if not the reason to tie together what would really be powerful. the other one is, and i know we talked about doing a survey of the units in the city, the rental units, rental registry. who's living in these units? so we constructs, you know, 4500. how many are -- somebody's really living in there or you know, somebody's -- hey, i sold a condo february 22nd to somebody that doesn't live in this area and who's not going to live in the condo permanently. it's for when they come to the

opera or visit their kids or whatever, so it's a unit we added to inventory that's not really a unit that's being used. so i'd really like to understand the level of use of what these are. so a vacancy rate, a rental registry, something, and i know the director supported conceptually these things in the past, and if you have any comments -- >> yeah, i think two comments. one is the -- the drk-who's living in these units is of course extremely challenging to get that data. we are -- we are in process of doing an inventory of the city's existing housing stock to understand as much as we can on that issue. secondly, the idea of a rental registry has been discussed. we're looking at a couple of other. berkeley has done one for quite sometime. it makes me a little nervous. i will just say it requires an enormous staff effort to

maintain and manage such a registry. i mean, if you compare it to what we have for short-term rentals, which is roughly at its peak, i think there were something like 9,000 rental -- short-term rental listings. we have six people just doing that work, so we would need to figure out the appropriate staff -- it may very well be planning, but it requires an enormous effort in our city in terms of maintaining the registry. i can understand the reasoning for it, but we're just struggle to make it work. >> commissioner richards: so if i may, there's so much big data out there that it doesn't have to be as massive as we think it needs to be. i.e. if we have an intern comes in who's a data scientist or getting a degree in data engineering to actually be able

to show us how he can do it. it can be a representative sample. but there are ways -- i am not a data scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but just going back and pulling who's available in the public domain, i could tell on certain units that people were evicted from, whether the person moved in, you know, and what their occupation was and how old they are. it's really rich. you can see the amount of seniors living in units, you can tell through voting records, all kinds of things. you can get a pretty good composite. and i know some supervisor's office did this around the residential hotel occupancy rate when we are that come up about a year ago i think so there's a lot of big data available, and we should get that a go and see what we think of that. but it's incredibly powerful to have all this data, and again, i hope you would start hiding because you'd be courted by a

lot of companies to have the talent that you put together, you and your team. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i think it's an amazing piece of work because we're able to compare what is, what was and what will be trending. we're discussing the future of the bay region without putting this into people's face. i always hear criticism about what we are not doing, although we are doing the most and leading by example. if you look at the resources that santa clara or san mateo have, i think san francisco is doing more because we're packaging this in densities that are not anywhere near of what other people can or need to do to meet the numbers, so that's very interesting. on the point of entitled versus built, at some point, director,

we had repeatedly asked for potentially firing excavation rates because we feelt that the commoditying certain things should already have us -- have the red lights flashing because the trend is already in the application itself, and it's clear to me what they are going to do. and perhaps they are tiered extra costs associated with delaying with asking for extension of entitlement or clearly setting excavation dates where indeed you don't get your driver's license's anymore because it was just simply expired. comment on rental registration, rental registration are totally common, as you say know, in europe, where the majority of housing stock is in rental, so each time you move to another city, including as a student,