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, you have to reregister with the community you're living in, particularly because you are part of other larger community planning issues that affect

your being there. there's nothing punitive, there's nothing whatever. here, we mostly do it with a driver's license, but a driver's license does not yield of type of data and the type of statistics you need to extract from rental registration. i think it would be a very good idea to also look at if it's constitutionally legal. if it says nothing, big brother is watching you. it's just a simple city by city administrative tool. i actually ran across one of my earlier rental registrations in europe the other day when i was cleaning up drawers, and i said e on, that's the way we need to do it. so as soon as you're there, like six weeks into being there, you have to go and get your registration card. >> may i ask, commissioner, is it the actual tenant who's registering. >> no, you have to go yourself. >> the tenant? >> the tenant.

>> not the property owner. interesting, because in berkeley, it's the property owner has to go. >> a little i.d. card, and you have to show i live there. you don't have to go ask pg&e, but you do have to show your little card that you live there. as far as the question on adu, we had 99 adu units which are not income restricted. given the overall quality of adu's and issues which have to do with liveability, i would still like to find an angle on adu's which really would put them more by size and general disposition into the affordable categories, but that is not a question that we can resolve, but i'd like to examine it as policy as we move forward. >> commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you. so i again will join the chorus. thank you so much for putting

up so much good stuff. i also had questions about the adu numbers. it would be great at some point to see the distribution of where they are, they've been permitted but also the pipeline because it takes a while, and it would be great to see that. and then, also, the number -- i had a question about the demolitions -- i don't remember where it was. what is that? like, what is considered demolition? you know, we just had this whole controversy about what is the definition of demolition under dbi and under planning. what is this? what is this? >> for the adu's, we will have a report out later this year which will publish the location, the size, part of the report is to reach out to property owners to find out how much they might be charging tenants. i'm not sure how -- if it's going to be, like, all the adu's that have been built, but

it will hopefully be a large proportion to figure out what the trends are. the edi also includes classified information. it's pretty easy to pull out based off of certainly keywords. that's something we can definitely do. for the demolitions, it's a specific form number. there's different forms different folks fill out for different types of permits, and for demolition, it's form number six. >> so i will also -- i have some strong ideas about the rental registration industry. i think it should happen. i'm not sure at all that it belongs in planning. i think we're better at it than anyone else for sure, and sometimes you're a victim of your own success. >> i actually think it belongs in the dbi, and that this is something we should maybe take up in our joint meeting.

dbi already conducts housing inspections of multifamily housing, and they already have a database. now they're not real good at keeping the data and using it in a systematic way in the same way we are, but they already do that. they already have a system for inspections. they already have most of the housing inventory that's for rental in that database, and perhaps what we should do is have a work order, have mr. ojeda's team and expand on that and work on that because they do have surplus that they need to use for inspection purposes, and i think that would be a really great idea, but that's my two cents worth. i think this is a perfect area to do a collaboration, not just to build a database but the system going forward because it will live in the sls somewhere and that can be picked up on

both ends. and the other thing that i think is a good -- makes the case for it being dbi is the code enforcement housing program contracts with various, you know, community organizations that respond to low income populations to your point about renters, you know, registering themselves or, you know, some system like that. it is usually the lowest income, most vulnerable tenants who won't do stuff like that. so having, you know, a system that includes the community organizations that are already working with vulnerable populations in rentals, i think would be ideal. they already have a contract, a system, they meet every month, so to me, a hybrid system that includes the greatness of miss ojeda's team along with the existing system that dbi has would be ideal. >> president hillis: thanks.

commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. just want to echo what everyone has said, just being delighted by this you see hoing report. thank you so much for putting it together. you know, i think that the last slide does show that we're doing well, but there's some populations that are still being left behind or forgotten, and i want to just call out particularly the sfreemly low income. less than 30% of ami still -- that includes the homeless, and it cls includes low wage individuals and families, and we're not providing housing to them, and so we had this conversation at the last hearing that navigation centers are great, all of our community services to try to house and stablize people are wonderful, but we need different types of classes of people who are kind of falling between the cracks of different levels of income and affordability, including the extremely low income. i just want to second a call that making sure that we are

working towards rental -- a rental database would be wonderful, and i think collaborating with our nonprofit partners would be wonderful. it's a huge undertaking, but it will have ripple effects that will help so many advocates and the city, and so it feels like it's something we should invest in and work alongside those stakeholders. i also want to make sure we have a hearing and look into what's happening around the discrepancy between what's going permitted and what's actually getting built. i suspect that construction costs will continue to be high. this is probably a problem that's not going to go away for a while, and so really understanding what's happening project by project and citywide will help us develop new tools to deal with that. finally, again i would say on that last slide that does show we're doing our part in

building housing, sb 827 is gone for now, but it did highlight a potential tool for the state to use to push other counties and municipalities to do their part in building housing, so i just -- i think that we should all get together and think about how we could be proactive in just looking at what other things we can do to get other regions to do their part because it's clear that even with all of the success in building that we're doing, it's not enough unless they join us. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so interestingly enough, maybe i've been sitting up here all this time, these four years, and i don't understand all the various permutations on the development process. i understand we develop something, it's shovel ready. it's got financing, it's got the contract, labor locked in.

then we got something, and they go shop for financing. i don't understand the percentage of those different types of processes. i talk to developers, and they say oh, we don't have financing. i'm like we went through all this, and now you're going to the bank. i know one year i went to a hack event, and eric tau did a presentation which i thought was really good. he went all the way through an entitlement process, and it was really good. i throw that out there to see if other commissioners might feel that it would be beneficial. i went for an address change at dbi recently, and on the form it said, is this a rental, is this under rent control, how many tenants are living in there? are there any over 60, are there any disabled? i mean, i couldn't believe it for an address change. so i do want to echo what

commissioner melgar says, there is data in dbi somewhere because i filled it out all, and they know who is living or not living in my unit that i sold. and i think this is a great place for us to work together with dbi, there is an enormous collaborative effort, and if we put it in excel, it could be diced and sliced pretty easily. maybe we don't own the database, but we work with dbi on the public policy goals and try and understand what the data tell uses. from a point of view -- was san mateo part of plan bay area? were they supposed -- they are. so on page 13 was the numbers here fore san francisco, which is interesting. i guess two or three questions i have is one, is the production deficit and the production target percent

achieved, should we be viewing that linearly, if it's between 2015 and 2022, each year, should we be going up by one sevenths? it's 2018, so we should be three-sevenths of the way there. on the above line, we're above 18%. at this rate, with more than half to go, we should exceed 100%. is that how we should read this. >> i think the arena -- typically, you know this better than i do perhaps -- i mean, it's typically a seven year period. >> i think what we do is have the 100% goals in here instead of prorating it by year. we could easily do that rimpds

richards the reason i'm asking is sb 35, you have to be at certain levels at certain times. >> yeah. we're looking at that. we're also in talks with hcd on how to proceed with our reporting of the rena numbers because we are actually reporting on completed units, what has been delivered. we're the only jurisdiction that does that. oufr, they are trying to convince us to use permits instead of delivered. the only reason we've been doing delivered completed units is because they're there, and so -- >> commissioner richards: if sb 35 were to be put in effect because it's only entitled. >> no, permitted. >> commissioner richards:

building permitted, etcetera. mr. cohen said, we can't control everything. some stuff has to be sorted out by the private sector. the sb 35, your understanding it's based on entitled and building permits issued. >> permits, yeah. >> commissioner richards: and i think that's a key distinction. so if it's a seven year period, and you're halfway through it, we would expect it should be at 50%, right? >> yeah, almost. >> commissioner richards: so as i look down here, we're at 18% on not at moderate, but if you look at very moderate and low income, we're at 50%. we don't see projects that come that are totally moderate income. that's just the weird thing about it is -- skbl yeah. it's mostly inclusionary

richard richar. >> commissioner richards: so those were inclusionary units on low income projects. >> and also, we consider adu's that are affordable by design, and they're not income restricted, so we put those under moderate because we believe that that's where, you know, those are the -- the population's -- >> commissioner richards: well, the interesting thing is because there's no mechanism just for those product at that level, i don't think we're ever going to be meeting the number, right? unless we have a massive subsidy for these two income brackets. >> or we have other funds. >> commissioner richards: or we're at 1,000% above moderate, and 100% on these -- it's very hard to achieve with what

mercnichmer mechanisms we have now. it would be really nice -- i'd love to see this data for the nine counties. where is san mateo at? >> we could get the information from -- >> commissioner richards: an appendix. but really good stuff. we're doing pretty good in two areas. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: one additional comment on renter registration. it may be interesting to also tie it to the assessor's office. tieing it to dbi, it cannot be tied into enforcement. rental registration is not about enforcement, but rental registration is almost like being allowed to live into the city. when i hear it all ties into dbi, i'll concerned you'll get into over crowding homes, etcetera, rather than just k w

numerically holding who lives here and where, i think we may have more reasons to have a gent ral registration than we ever had before. >> commissioner richards: did you have to report what you paid in rent, too, or just that you lived there? >> commissioner moore: just that you lived there. this is your name, your age, and your address. >> president hillis: commissioner. >> if you look at the forms that berkeley uses, which i just saw this week for the first time, there actually is a number of requests that they make for information, just like you were saying about the address change. there's a request for the amount of rent and all that stuff, so we'd have to look at that, and where such a registry is will be discussed. whether it's dbi or the mayor's

office of housing or -- i don't know. i'm happy to hear commissioner melgar's thoughts. i do think while there's a lot of data out there, it's probably not as robust as what you do get from an actual registry. the only other point i wanted to make, and i know i've been emphasizing this point about entitled versus built units a lot, i do need to make sure you understand that the majority of those are in the big projects that are covered by development agreements. so we don't have the ability on those projects to go back and say you are -- you have to built within three years or lose youren teet willment. and i think it's part of the reason for the delay is those problems are much more complicated to get financing particularly for the early phases. so i don't want to -- i don't want to mine miez that point that there are -- those larger projects are much more complicated. having sa