i could not figure out how to do this until my legislative aide helped me figure out how we could do it legislatively. what you have before you today is actually a pilot program, we hope that it will take effect for two years in districts 4 and 11, where both districts, i think i could speak for supervisor safai, here as well, that we really want attract more businesses to the commercial corridors. it's very hard, our districts are further from the center of the city. we have less foot traffic and so these businesses don't always do very well out there, and so to the extent that we can offer incentives to locate in the neighborhoods, we would love to do so. centers around the change of use notification process and the beauty of the legislation, it can be custom tailored for every district. so, when we have permitted uses going from one permitted use to another permitted use, so, take,

for example, a clothing store, retail, going to become a restaurant, we want to eliminate that change of use process when one permitted use is going to another permitted use. because that is often where the hiccup comes in terms of the delays, neighbor notification, scheduling, appeals and so forth. i know that the sound of neighborhood, removing neighborhood notification may be scary for some people but i would say that looking back in my almost 12 years in the district 4 office i cannot remember a single time when a business that even if it went through a conditional use permit process was denied. the only time where that might have happened had to do with, say cannabis retail and so i wanted to assure you for cannabis, bars or anything with the liquor license, and at least district 4, formula retail as well as massage uses, those will still require conditional use permit process and i think i

mentioned formula retail. those, and live entertainment, we know those, generally speaking, our residents care more about and may be more impacts to the community. so, one other thing that we do want to add to our legislation that was not included as part of there, but hope it's part of your discussion today, allowing the nc1 and nc2 districts to allow for arts activities on the ground floor. again, we did not include that in our named commercial corridors for irving, on other location, we want to change that, i'm not sure why it was there in the first place but we noticed that through the tables for district 4. and add reporting requirements given it's a pilot program, we want to be able to measure, monitor and see whether this legislative change will help our businesses. i hope it will and hope it will shave off months of time off the permitting, so again, very

exciting, i hope this works and thank you very much for your consideration. >> president hillis: thank you. >> with that, i'll bring up my colleague, supervisor safai. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you. i am also very excited about this piece of legislation. it's funny how when you are working with colleagues you find out that you might have similar interests and so we were working on a parallel track. when i came into office one of the things i wanted to tackle was the very high rate of vacancies and empty store fronts, and i was super excited we were going to get a new cafe, and i got a call a month and a half into office from the owners of excelsior cafe, whom i had met going door to door who told me they had a dream of opening a cafe in the neighborhood and a year later they had found a spot. unbe known to them, they moved into what was a woman's clothing

store, it was actually after hours illegal gambling and prostitution spot, which we had a significant number of those. played a lot of defense year one, shutting down a lot of illegal activities. we worked with planning staff and the police department to shut down about 6 or 7 of those. but in the case of excelsior cafe, because the current use was a clothing store, at least on record, they then had to go through neighborhood notification, change of use and 312, and the landlord was not aware of it, new business was not aware of it, we had to intervene and write a letter to ask for rent abatement for a certain period of time, landlord agreed, but it took 6, 9 months to go through that process. that was the genesis from our office. and i can tell you like supervisor tang, we had identified the arts activity use was one that was not allowed on

the first floor. we have it in our tables and one applicant right now is about to open up a new space in the district for a place that had been sitting dormant for over ten years. and because there legislation is pending, planning staff knows it's coming, we hope it will pass with full support. so, immediate success along with excelsior cafe. we wanted to allow for businesses to open up in an expedited manner. we have a significant, significant amount of empty store fronts, and so we believe this will accelerate that process and help us to keep the c.u.s for the businesses that we want to have additional review and those to expedite and move quickly and revitalize our corridor we are excited about. i'm having to find out that supervisor tang was working on the same piece of legislation so

we decided to make it a pilot, we did not want a larger city-wide conversation. in the process, the mayor's office and others have gone through the 312 clean up, we think in probably a short amount of time it might be something that could expand to other parts of the city. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much, supervisor safai, supervisor tang. open it up, or you want to finish and then public comment. the department supports the ordinance, identified sources of economic growth is beneficial to the city. the department believes neighborhood centers, job training centers and social service uses are integral to community and retail corridor well-being. these uses can serve as community gathering spaces and they also attract foot traffic, which benefits other businesses

in the corridor. in this light, the department intends institutional, neighborhood centers and others in the case report should remain principally permitted in the outer mission ncd. the department is also requesting the ultimate recommendation with the mayor's process improvement or stream lining under board file 10823. this is requested but that is modifying the planning code here, we are asking that you do that. so that concludes my presentation, and we are here for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: any public comment on this item? >> eileen bogan speak on my own

behalf. it's my understanding the terraville park side merchants association, known as the people of park side sunset or pops, supports this legislation as currently drafted. from my perspective, i would urge the commission to propose an amendment to legislation which would include a one-year review, based on that review, to have a one-year sunset or the option to extend the small business attraction program for a second year. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm with youth art exchange and we are located in district 11, and for this process, we have been looking to have a space and to open an art center and so this really is relevant to our means and we are currently in former meat market and going to be opening an art center, and we have looked long and hard for a space among the

number of vacancies that are on the mission street commercial corridor, and we finally found a location and stumbled through this while the arts are an allowable use. so, we are really in support of that. we do think there should be additional consideration for some of the institutional uses mentioned by planning staff. but for the arts use and for the two-year pilot program, we are very much in support. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> hans hanson, i own a local commercial real estate firm that specializes in basically mom and pop and local businesses throughout san francisco. i can tell you i'm so excited that, to see this measure come forward here because i deal firsthand with the tenants that are looking to open, and just an example, there was a bakery that i represented, 900 square feet, they came here with a budget of

$250,000 to open up, and we fully expected that we would be able to go through the change of use process in about 4 to 6 months. it actually took one year. and their end budget, by the time they put in everything they needed to do, was over $750,000. this is a typical example of what we have to deal with all the time because today neighborhood retail is being threatened by so many different things. number one, you've got online threats that are coming from online retailers. you've got the high cost of labor to hire people and the inability to hire people. code compliance issues and so forth. and the landlord side, a lot of the neighborhoods are owned by smaller investors, not institutional players and they are looking at my god, i'm going to take this tenant and wait six months or longer to find out if the tenant will go through the process. that's what's killing

residential retail right now in the neighborhoods. so i strongly support this measure. >> president hillis: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hi. those numbers were quite something. i strongly am in favor of this. it's common sense legislation to make it easier and faster and cheaper to start a business in san francisco. it's something we should definitely promote, and i'm very excited to see the results of the two-year trial so we can, you know, continue it, assuming good results, not continuing today, but going in the future. don't get me wrong. thank you. >> president hillis: additional public comments? seeing none, close public comments. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i am really excited about this legislation as well. for somebody in district 1 which also really struggles with vacant store fronts, feel like

every time i walk down certain corridors, balboa, another one of our legacy businesses closed i wonder what we can do to really help support our small businesses. i love this legislation, because i think it's common sense legislation as was said. i think it really cleans up the code. and i am hopeful that this legislation ultimately does expand to other districts. i know there are many districts that could use the support. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i don't think i understand how we have to do a notice for a permitted use to permitted use. so, must have been a good reason in the past to do it, but i don't think there was given what the gentleman from the commercial landlord agency had said, why would need to do that now, and common sense as everybody says and absolutely fully support it. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: i also very much support this legislation and i'm wondering what will happen at the end of the two-year period.

what data we will collect and the next step will be. like commissioner johnson, i'm very interested in seeing how this can be applied to district 1, 9, 10, in addition to 4 and 11. i think it would be really great to get some data and figure out what is the next step. >> legislative aide to supervisor katy tang. so, i've been talking to staff at oawd and planning department on what we want to capture. i think we want to capture the use, so, whenever the legislation hopefully becomes adopted and restaurants are applying to come into district 4, we would want to know on that permit it's a restaurant. so, you could pull up how many businesses are coming into district 4 basically by their type or use and see if they benefitted or didn't benefit from the legislation and from

that, sort of make like sort of, you know, say ok, well, this restaurant benefitted because it did not have to go through a change of use process. so, and personally, i'm excited about this, as someone at the planning department and worked at the counter for many years, i've seen people, business owners come in tears when they realize that they are permitted use but have to now do a change of use and they have already paid three months of rent and they may not actually have the ability to continue on. so, i think for district 4 in particular, we are really excited to have restaurants come, other uses not -- that are permitted come and open up. >> i was going to say, the data is so important. i think it was about a month and a half ago shared those. so if we can prove that this approach does affect, you know, have a percentage effect on the vacancy rate on this corridor or that corridor, it would be powerful economic incentive for

other supervisors to want to extend that as well. >> and while i'm up here, clarify one of, additional recommendation we hope the planning commission makes. it's our named ncs that got left out, so all permit the art activity on the ground floor and conditional use on the second and above. so -- >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i think as a tool it's very creative. glad we are doing it right now. we have small business expedited permitting but i'm not quite sure how that is working and as to whether or not this is really more comprehensive and specifically location focussed. i think if each supervisor is really able to bring it forward and take stewardship of how it's done, it would involve neighborhood business organizations to support it and sort out how much they need and

take it out of the larger abstract into the more specific -- specific needs of the district. i like the fact that massage and live entertainment are not included, that includes the broader view, which i think is better guided by a different set of eyes looking, looking at it, and i think as a two-year pilot, i think we can see how it works, and in can join, should be experience similar problems as we knew for years in the outlying areas that there are more vacancies, less variety and less quick opportunities for business to spring up. so great, great die dee. >> commissioner richards: we have been knocking off the action item, commission action item, a big clip. another item we'll hear is as a result of that, we do have retail on the action item list i

think this would actually play into the larger discussion when we are ready to take that up as an item and understand the state of retail and how we can actually improve it. zoning-wise and otherwise. so, i do make a motion to approve with the modifications as requested and adding the named ncds for the arts. >> second. >> seeking clarity due to other amendments other than what supervisor tang's aide had -- >> those would be -- just the amendment to the named ncs. that was part of the proposed modification. added. >> president hillis: ok. that's ok with the motion maker. >> very good then, commissioner. a motion and seconded to approve this planning code amendment with modifications proposed by staff as well as including the

amended modifications to include the named ncs to support arts activities and the reporting requirement. on that motion -- [roll call vote taken] so moved, commissioners. motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, item 11 for the caltrans grant, this is for your consideration. >> good afternoon, commissioners, long range planning, grantor letter from the california department of transportation. i do have a map of the project area in case that helps lend a little bit more reality to -- so, commissioners, we are bringing a resolution before you today to confirm the planning director or his designee ability

to enter into contract with caltrans, essentially to accept this grant amount. the budget and appropriation ordinance for all the departments for this year board file 180574 are ready and confirms this in the department's budget. i should also note joined by sheila, our department grant manager should the commissioners have any questions about the department budget relative to the city's approved budget. we were awarded this grant, which we pursued jointly with the municipal transportation agency to study the project area that's here on the screen, and we are working with our port partners and other peer agencies to finalize the grant scope and resubmit that to caltrans for the final description of the statement of work. so -- i'm available if there are any questions about the content of the grant and again, sheila

is available if we have any questions about the physical as spent of it. >> president hillis: ok, first see if there is any public comment on this item. seeing none, close public comment. commissioners. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: move to approve. >> second. >> preside >> commissioners, a motion and seconded to adopt a resolution authorizing the director, on that -- >> vice president melgar: i wanted to say really great job, staff. almost half a million dollars into our budget, really good job. thank you. >> we have the world's best grant manager in our department. >> thank you, sheila. >> right behind us. so, absolutely. >> commissioners on that motion, then. [roll call vote taken

f so moved, that motion passes 6-0. item 12 for case number 2017-007933cwp, housing needs and trends report housing affordability strategy. informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning staff. housing is the foremost issue facing the city today and you probably know elevated housing issues feature prominently in the work program. you have heard from the chief of city-wide planning about our work program and our priority projects. today you will hear from pedro peterson and james pappas regarding housing and launching housing affordability strategy. in the past mention of the existing housing study which we started based on ongoing

inquiries of the older housing stock. it became clear we needed to broaden the inquiry to include trends significantly influencings the city's housing and demographic outcomes, including trends and income and fork worse, household composition, and longer term comparison with the city with the region. so, reframed as the housing needs and trends report, launching for the affordable study which you hear about today. with that, i'll turn it over to pedro. >> josh -- thank you, josh. pedro peterson, here to talk to

you about the housing, san francisco housing needs and trends report and i'll be followed by james pappas, who will talk about the housing affordable strategy. i'm presenting data today, some of the highlights of the data analysis we have done in the report and the full report in front of you now on our website for members of the public has a much fuller set of data that i encourage you all to look at. so, the topic i will cover today include trends related to the housing stock itself. household income and housing affordability. socioeconomic and demographic changes. and then also summarize some of the additional data included in the full report that isn't here today. the purpose of the report to

better understand the housing stock and how it serves the residents, and trends impacting housing supply and demand across the region. so the process of putting together this analysis has taken more than a year, and we have compiled data from a number of different data sources, including analysis of census data, using the public use micro data sample, which has let us cross tabulate individual and household characteristics to understand occupancy trends, in terms of income, race, household type and other variables. also a major survey of san francisco residents to fill in the gaps that the census did not cover, in terms of ten-year and vulnerability, how households find their housing, different attributes they value and so on. this work was done in conjunction with acom

consulting. and made use of city-generated data from our own department and other agencies like the mayor's office of housing and community development, and sources like zillow. by way of context. report covers 1990 to 2015. we thought it was important not just to look at shorter or cyclical periods but number of economic cycles to look at long-term trends and the population increased 724,000 to 865,000, added roughly 62,000 units and one theme you'll see in the presentation, really employment has surged faster than housing and population in this period by more than 20%. so to get into the meat of the presentation here. the -- san francisco is a majority renter city. 65 of our households live in

rented units. 40% of the full housing stock and 60% of the rental stock is subject to rent control ordinance. 9% of all the units in the city are affordable housing, 100% of the project built with tax credits. inclusionary units, below market rate units. older housing units and so on. and 35% of the housing stock is owner-occupied. one of the interesting trends we saw specifically in our rental stock is that folks have been staying in their units longer recently than they have in the past. and so in 1990, about a third of residents had moved recently into their units, so in the previous two years, only 25% did by 2015. and, and then on the other side of that, 20% of residents in 1990 had ten years or 11 or more

years. by 2015, almost 30% had tenures longer than ten years. another interesting finding, fairly even distribution of building sizes, defined to the number of buildings in san francisco compared to the region. 30% are single-family homes and 30% are units in buildings of 20 or more units, in the region, the region is dominated by single-family homes. so, 62% of all units in the region are single-family, 15% in the larger buildings. however, the geographic distribution is not even. so, we see that in the western and southern parts of the city 75% neighborhoods, 75% of the neighborhoods are single-family homes. on the northeastern corner of the city, the majority of the units are in the larger

buildings, 20 or more units. we also see that buildings with five or more units have more than half of the city's housing stock. but occupy less than 20% of the city's land. and then the flip side of that, single-family homes are roughly 30% of the city's units, but they occupy more than 60% of the residential land of the city. so to get into some production trends, long-term production trends. since 1990, we saw in the 1990s, a fairly slow amount of housing built each year until the end of decade there and early 2000s, the bottom fell off during the great recession. we have seen the production pick up since the end of the great recession. built 4,000 per year since 2014 and a peak of more than 5,000 units in 2016. and it's worth pointing out 28%

of the units built since 1990 have been deed restricted affordable housing. so, switching here now to some of the more demand side here, one of the factors that's clearly driving increased demand for housing in the city and the region is this economic expansion where we have seen thousands of jobs added, particular particularly high paying jobs. number of jobs across all categories, particularly, you know, particularly, you can see that in jobs that pay more than $100,000 per year. so, since 1990, we have added a total of 90,000 jobs paying more than $100,000. and just to be clear, this is all insulated for $2,015 also. so it accounts for inflation. and to put that in perspective, we had 70,000 of such jobs in 1990, so we have added more than

the amount of jobs we had in 1990 in jobs that paid more than $100,000. and we built roughly 30,000 market rate units for 90,000 jobs. so what this increase in high wage jobs has meant, a change in the composition of the households. between 1990 and 2000, 100% increase in high income housing living in the housing stock. make 200% or more of median income, and increase in the number of the households. we also saw an increase of about 25% during this period of above moderate income households, earning between 220 and decrease in households between 30 and 100% a.m.i. during this period.

and the growth in the high wage, high income households, happening in the region and more aggressively in san francisco. and one interesting point, we have actually increased the number of extremely low income households during this period, so whereas we used to have, yeah, so, by about 25%, and this growth also occurred in the region, but you know, the -- that kind of bucks the trend of the low income households are no longer in san francisco. so, we looked specifically at the rent control stock. estimated the rent control stock with census data by looking at multi-family rental units built before 1980, and so looking at that stock specifically, that

continues to be a bulwark of affordability in the housing stock. as you can see, we have about, sort of the top chart there, about 100,000 units that currently are rented at rents that would affordable to households earning less than 80% a.m.i. however, a clear' range of motion of that affordability. in 1990, almost all units were affordable to those households and you can see those orange lines are getting smaller in the top chart and the blue and green lines are getting bigger, because the rent control stock is increasingly becoming only affordable to households earning above the median income. and in the bottom chart there, you can really see that in stark terms, the units that are, that have been rented in the previous two years. in 1990, almost all of them were affordable to housing making less than 80% a.m.i., and by

2015, only a small minority of those units. even as we have increased the number of high income level households, we have seen increases in rent burden for households. so, pay more than 30% of their income on rent have increased and severe rent burden, households that pay more than 50% of their income on rent have also increased across income categories, including above income households that did not appear to be rent burdened at all, and you see that creeping in in recent years. and we also see some interesting changes in terms of the household types in san francisco. so, we see large increase in couple households, childless couple households and roommate

households. these are specifically households that tend to have multiple wage earners and fewer nonworking household members and a slight decrease in households with children, and absolute numbers, not even percentage. absolute numbers. and if you drill down into that a little bit more, we actually saw a slight uptick of households with one child, fairly significant decrease in households with two children, and particularly true among low income households. and lastly, we have also seen fairly major changes to our racial and ethnic composition. so, our african american population, in 1990, 11% of our households is now down to 5%. small decrease in the number of white house holds as well. and then increases both in asian pacific population as well as

small increase in latino population during this time. so in addition to the information presented today, mostly in the executive summary i shared with you last week. the full report includes fuller analysis of data from our housing survey. we have discussion of changes and characteristics of the city housing stock, as well as socioeconomic and demographic changes, in addition to what was discussed today, and go deep into cross tabulating these housing stock changes with the demographic changes. so, i encourage you to look at the report. and so my colleague james will discuss the housing affordability strategy now. >> thank you, pedro and commissioners. so the housing needs and trends report is sort of the first phase for a project that we are calling the housing affordability strategy.

we hope that it will build off of the information that we have organized in the housing needs and trends report and try to do a better job to address the challenges that the needs and trends report lays out and that we are all too familiar with. so, in the report i'll discuss the project purpose, not sure why the presentation went away. there we go, thanks. not so great to see yourself talking, i would rather see the slides. so, talk about the project purpose and how it supports our housing work. we'll talk about how we'll be developing goals and evaluating tools to improve affordability. talk about collaboration with stakeholders, technical experts and the city colleagues and the project timeline. so, the housing affordability strategy, what we hope it will do is provide a framework for us to evaluate our housing policies and plans, and how they work

together to address housing affordability for our diverse population. we want the strategy to include quantified housing affordable goals as well as inventory and evaluation of tools relative to those goals. so, the affordable strategy obviously has overlap and complements other work we do at the planning department and other departments. so how it will specifically address or complement our housing element on our targets, well, it will allow us to look specifically at things like housing cost burdens that we currently don't have a plan to address and that the rena goals when developed don't address those, cost burdens. and look more closely at how the current funding and tools will preserve housing affordable at low and moderate incomes, and

work to improve affordability. so, in the housing element, currently we kind of have assessment of how much it would cost to build all the affordable housing included in rhna, and it's a lot and we don't do it and have not done it in years. this will be an opportunity to explore different tools and approaches to take us further towards our goals. and income growth and higher income households have sort of inundated the housing market and major impacts on housing affordability. so, how will the strategy help with the work that we do? as i said, it will allows us to holistically assess the housing policies and plans in relation to each other and the goals that we'll be developing. so, a lot of times we talk about individual housing policies in isolation, and this will give us an opportunity to consider them

in, as part of a range of tools that we are using to achieve outcomes that we want to see. it will allow us to ground the housing policy decisions with additional information and analysis, and it could inform our 2022 housing element updates. so, when i'm talking about goals, what are these likely to be? well, they will focus on, we want them to be numeric, and improving housing affordability but want them to be developed in relation to the kinds of outcomes we want to see for the city, and we'll be working with stakeholders and experts to identify those outcomes and try to translate them into the goals. so, what are the kinds of outcomes, stabilizing reversing low and moderate income households, reducing costs and costs burden, housing needs of diverse groups, and of course supporting our city's existing

framework and to address homelessness. what are the tools that we'll be thinking about? well, broadly speaking, we'll be thinking about protection and community stablization. affordable housing production and preservation, and funding sources, as well as about different programs that we have through the code or other means to produce affordable housing. and then overall housing production and how that fits into our efforts to improve affordability. so, how will we be working with a diverse array of stakeholders and experts to inform the project? we'll be having a number of workshops and forums to discuss the needs, outcomes and tools, with diverse community members. we'll be meeting regularly with housing advocates from different policy perspectives, and we'll also be coming regularly to the

commission and meeting with other decision makers about the project. we'll work with technical consultants and experts in housing finance, economics and demographic forecasting. also be working with our planning colleagues on related projects like displacement strategy, department of homelessness and supportive housing, etc. so, the timeline runs for approximately a year, and -- i don't want him to give me a sad look. so -- >> president hillis: no, keep going. >> needs and trends report. we have been conducting some stakeholder engagement and it will continue, and inventory and evaluation of tools has started as part of the community stablization strategy and we will continue that to early next year, as well as the development of goals with our consultants and technical experts, and like

i said, we hope to have a document by the summer of next year. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. do you have any cards on this? >> i do not. >> president hillis: if people would like to comment, i imagine they would, sign up on the screen side of the room. miss charles, if you want to come forward, go ahead. >> thank you. i have an idea to promote building affordable housing all over the city. anyway, you have seen some map like this before, right? the green is where you can build affordable housing, right? where multi-family housing is permitted. as you know, affordable housing has to be multi-family, you have to be able to build like 50 apartments at a time. 80% of the city you cannot build an apartment building like that. you just can't. so, the idea is to have eye affordable housing overlay,

means if it's market rate housing, zoning is what it is. if it's 100% affordable, a different zoning and the different zoning would be, i think, whatever you need to make your project feasible, given, of course, it's still safe, you know, building codes, you still will follow those. this, i'm really excited about this idea because when you look, i did a little rough estimate of how much it costs to buy a half acre of land that is zoned for single-family. that means about seven lots. you get seven lots, you know, seven single-family house, half an acre, about $12 million. and affordable housing developers are paying like $18 million for a half an acre in the eastern neighborhoods. that's a significant cost savings. also opens up the possibility for philanthropic homeowners to leave their houses to affordable housing developers when they die, you know, that's something you could do.

you could just donate your house to mission housing or something. to help them accumulate lots. and people will do this. my grandmother in law, she donated her house to a university, why, i don't know why anyone would do that but she did that. so yeah, so it opened up -- a lot of the stuff that you guys hear about, right, all the time is that market rate housing, market rate multi-housing competing with multi-family subsidized housing and look what we did in the city? like 80% of the city off limits. 20% of the city market rate, multi-family and affordable family have to compete with each other but we could open up acres and acres of land and we would start to integrate the city. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> everything that she said.

cory smith. impressive work, you and your entire team. a couple things i thought were interesting i thought about is racial diversity. so the trends and changes i thought were particularly fascinating, and calling out talking about the latino population in the mission. that's decreased and also know, and i knew before this, increased city-wide. so often times, when it comes to race, difficult conversations to have. but we value diversity. i think we do. one of the things, this top one, the number of rings multi-family units built and who is it affordable for and we see the trend by and large smaller and smaller percentage of homes are available to people that are not rich, and i personally believe this is a byproduct and a result

of the decisions of not making it building housing since the 1970s, 1980s, and into the 1990s, and the last few years, the city, i don't believe, has had a pro housing income levels agenda. the bottom of this states older rental stock remains relatively affordable, but affordability has eroded. knowing we will have the hawkins conversation later this year, and we cannot expand the rent control stock, that may change in the future, we don't know. but we do know, generally speaking, that over a long period of time housing that is relatively expensive when it's built does become relatively more affordable to a greater percentage of the population. obviously understand the income demographics of the city is also changing. more wealthyer people here now as a percentage of overall citizens than previously.

reiterate a short and long-term strategy and the magical word we like to argue about sometimes, concept of filtering, which is old stuff becomes more affordable as it gets older. number of times i am told it does not work and it's a fallacy is remarkable. nobody has claimed that it happens overnight. this is generational issue. my generation got [bleep]. we are not able to live in the city, we will not buy in the city because of decisions made by previous. let's not do the same to the next. >> thank you. mr. cone. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter cone, council committee, housing organizations. from practical policy, to big level thinking and data. if there's one thing that the hack like and others like, it's

data. all be data geeks together. this is good stuff, and looking forward to james and the team and the coming months and all these. a few comments, use the overhead for a minute. if you are talking about trends, one trend that i suggest y'all consider in this report is what the department already produces for the last three years, a quarterly pipeline report of housing production by income level and you can see the trends we have there, i think they map well with the charts. i did not see this particular document referred to anywhere in the trends report. and so i suggest the staff connect the dots. the second idea is as you are doing trends and different kinds of ways of cutting data, it's to do a job housing fit analysis. we have been talking about this the last year or two, it's not that difficult but helpful to understand what the job production is, what the incomes are, what the worker households can afford and matching that

with affordable. and so specific comments on the housing affordability strategy so far that i want to make for the staff, for y'all to consider, under goals, i saw something about family sized housing, that has been an issue this commission has discussed. there was a report last year on the lack and declining amount of family size housing. it would seem to me that would be a goal to build into the affordable strategy. under factors, page four. what's missing here and a big part of the policy debate is speculation. it does not account for real estate speculation and like it or not, that is a business practice, buying and selling and flipping housing, whether it's short-term rentals or flipping and condo conversion, that aspect of the real estate market is a factor of housing affordability the staff should consider. and a quote and something to

remember, i think we are glad to see this housing affordable strategy underway. on page two, i quote, the city has struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low and moderate income households and does not have a comprehensive picture to achieve affordability outcomes. a lot of grandstanding, but what this is saying we don't have a game plan. we have been throwing a lot of stuff at the wall and may differ over certain ideas, but this is thoughtful there is going to be a comprehensive view of where we are and what it will take to achieve some of our affordability strategy goals, so, thank you very much to your staff. >> thank you. all right. >> steven bus, with mission again.

first, i would like to commend staff for excellent work. really great as always. and i want to, a few, three points i want to talk about. the first to respond to something that mr. cohen said. you know, i just blanked on -- what i was going to respond to. to -- ok, i'll go back to my main point. in the report it says that tenure had generally increased and you can kind of look at that as a good thing or a bad thing. right? it's good in that people are in their homes longer but bad because a lot of people are staying in their homes because they cannot move. i mean -- rent control is really good at keeping people where they are. but our lack of supply means that they could never move. if their family grows, they are faced with a choice. do i move and pay five times as

much, or make it work. but two people in the living room, maybe. so, we need, and negotiation you always need to have a best alternative to negotiated agreement. and when you are renting, that means it always goes somewhere else. we need to increase supplies so that people are not trapped where they currently are. there has to be a way to say you know what, my landlord sucks, he never fixes anything so i'm going to move across the street. that can only happen if there's adequate supply. and second, i found it really troubling that we have increased very high and very low earners in san francisco. hollowed out the middle class through slowing down the production of new housing and protecting low density areas from any kind of change.

and so i strongly agree with what sonia said, we should have an affordable housing overlay as a first step. you should be able to build multi-family, eight stories, ten stories, 15 stories affordable housing anywhere in the city because we are in a crisis and we need to treat it like a crisis. finally, i just read a report that said since 2006, number of san francisco households with kids and a mortgage have dropped by 31,000. at the same time, renter households with children has grown by 57,000. we have robbed a generation of families from establishing equity in the city and building wealth for themselves by not building enough. we have to give people options to buy, to rent, we just have to do more. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you.

[please stand by] -- not at the rate that the need increased at by any means. the crisis has raged on and this is great data to show us what that really looks like in excrutiating detail. i am really excited that the planning department is saying that rhna numbers are not good enough going forward, to understand what the jobs housing needs are. the rhna numbers were originally developed in the recession when there was no way to predict the

jobs growth that san francisco and the region has seen and we need to be doing the forward looking policies that are going to accommodate the growth of the region that has been astronomical, that should have been a good thing. the fact that there are a whole lot of high wage earners moving to san francisco, those taxable people who could be paying for all the good stuff that this city needs. it should have been a good thing that we suddenly had all these wages to tax and put towards our social safety net. it could have been a good thing. and instead, it meant the max ex do you say of a middle class and lower class people who are unable to take at vang of the boom we had. we all know it, hear it, here's the data. i hope it's enough to create the fire going forward how we are going to change it and ask more the graph that i think everybody should be looking at is that

map, that map -- where are we asking and who are we asking to take on what comes next? we have asked a lot of our eastern neighborhoods, we have asked a lot of our historically low income and minority. put a lot in former industrial. and we have not asked much of our formerly red lined neighborhoods that were designed to exclude people. we can do better. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. additional public comment on this item? >> 21 seconds left. thank you. >> good afternoon. i've read the report and it's very interesting, i think it's a pretty good start. i understand acom did a survey and i looked at the report. planning website currently,

overhead, please, states that the survey is forthcoming, the survey data. actually, i looked at the survey data and i did not sunshine it. it was actually posted up there early this morning because i got up in the wee hours of the morning when everyone is sleeping. but now it's not there, for some reason. but anyway -- the memo submitted to the staff october 9, 2017, sample size about 4600, and the map that everyone keeps referring to on the overhead, i understand that most of the city in the south, east and west is low density. it's not just the sunset or the southwest that's low density. actually, bayview has a lot of hr1, and i was not aware of that until several years ago. so, g there is a lot of low density in that side of town, too. ment not just east, west kind of thing.

what i would like, however, is additional data, like what we don't find out from the surveys and the report is how much rent is actually all these people paying. how many of these units are actually being rented out, not rented, but used for the short-term rental, actually they aren't all registered and i know that because i see them in my neighborhood and they are not registered. and so these are the units that are being taken by people who visit, but not really for the residents and the workers. so, i still see that as a problem and i'm not sure how to solve that. also i would like the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods to please be put on the list. this is where the survey showed appendix a, 25 organizations at the table and we were not at the table. i'll submit this for the record, too. so that's the overhead. >> shrink it. >> it shows certain

organizations were there, including many of the ones here today. many of the ones here today but were not on there, and i think the neighborhoods actually could help out with some of these issues as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss hillson. >> good afternoon. i like the report, too, it was really interesting. i was glad to see it. i am so glad that mr. cohen mentioned speculative because that's what i've kind of been talking about for four years. everything that has come here has been speculation. the two that i mentioned earlier today in the general public comments, speculation. individual decisions being made by people all across the city have an impact that cannot be ignored. i don't know how you deal with it, but can't be ignored. here is just another example. may i have the overhead, please. this is a house in glen park on

the corner. there is the rest of it. it's got two garage doors, so hypothetically could have been an a.d.u. in there. it's beautiful. it was beautiful inside. i mean, it was classic san francisco. now here it is today, all gutted, there is a side door, it's being made a single-family home, it's hr2. it sold for, not affordable number i know, in 2014, 1.5 million. so, you know, i -- that's something that -- i don't know what the occupancy thing is that the planners mentioned that's in the data, but i would be interested to know all those condos downtown, how many of them are occupied? that's housing there. is it sitting there for second and third homes? is it just somebody holding the money there like it's a bank? these are all things