the trump a administration and i think how each of the artists has responsibilitie responded ss interesting. the common >> would to remind people to silence their mobile devices. and when speaking before the commission, state your record. roll first on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

2109-002217, legitimization program for certain nonresidential uses at 3150 18th street. item 2, 2017-0092242, 601 van ness, for indefinite continuance. i do have good news on the discretionary review, item 13, 2017 -013841, 295 coso avenue. this has been withdrawn. i have no other items for continuance. i have no speaker cards. >> president melgar: public comment is now closed. >> commissioner koppel: move to continue items 1 and 2. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, on that motion to continue items as

proposed, commission hillis? johnson? richards? moore? melgar? so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing this on the consent calendar. it's considered to be routine by the planning commission. there will be no separate discussion of this items unless the member or staff requestses. it shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. 2019 already 00475. 863 haight street. >> president melgar: does anyone want to provide public comment on this or pull it off the calendar? with that, public comment is now closed. >> commissioner hillis: move to approve. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. on that motion to approve, item

3 under your consent calendar. [roll being calling] so moved, commissioners, that passes unanimously, 6-0. item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 4, 2019. >> president melgar: does any member of the public wish to comment on the minutes? okay, with that public comment is closed. >> commissioner koppel: move to approve draft minutes. >> second. >> jonas: on that motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll called]. so moved, that passes unanimously, 6-0. item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president melgar: commissioner koppel.

>> commissioner koppel: nothing. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to do a shoutout to the planning department or the performance at the conference that started last friday and ended on tuesday. just to test basics, i actually chose two mobile workshops to anchor myself in the discussion and see how we together really do what are the on the ground results, and i chose the displacement workshop. those were excellent workshops and i can remove myself from having a stake in this discussion, but look at it in terms of what are we communicating to others who do look for us as a learning laboratory. i thought the presentations were excellent. i wish in a certain way that some of us -- benefit to look at the results of what we're doing, not to participate just in the

process. i'm seeing that particularly with respect to accessory units, where i was able, being myself quite critical of the process, so three or four success stories how it should be done. we hear the things in here how it should not be done. but as the department themselves said, they have learned a lot. i wish the department would make a presentation of what has really worked and created results of livable attractive accessory dwelling units and where do we still have problems? because we have not eliminated problems. all in all, i was very impressed. i also participated in a seminar. something which everybody across the country is concerned about, gentrification and i'm very happy to send my thank you to

the department in everything they did >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner richards: the los angeles city council 12-0 this week -- voted last week and this week against sb50. i know we voted 9-2. do we know whether the mayor signed it, pocket vetoed it? >> i don't know. i've been tied up with the conference. i haven't heard the latest. >> commissioner richards: great. interesting enough there was a piece in the examiner tt last wednesday. cindy was a former planning commissioner. they drew a map of the mission and talked about the communities and how the process works under sb 50. and literally, you can have someone across the street from the track, inside of the community or outside, and it talks about displacement and how

neighborhoods should be looked at in their entirety. when we have an update on sb 50 if we can understand how this does work, i would appreciate it. there were amendments made to the bill as well, that weren't in our march review. one other thing, the economy grows, the wealth gap guidance racially, san francisco ranks a miserable 84 out of 100 in u.s. metropolitan areas on wealth between races. white folks earn 70, and african earn $40,000. that gap is widening. building cost were at the top in "the chronicle", we're the most expensive place to build -- i believe in the world, even surpassing new york. so all those units we have

sitting in the pipeline are not getting built because construction costs are so high at this point. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i just wanted to name that this week we got an e-mail stating that the planning department had 100% of existing staff have gone through basic social and equity training. which is very exciting. there is an invitation for us as commissioners to get trained as well. i'm really excited about that being completed and excited for the opportunity of myself and my fellow commissioners to take that basic training as we continue to expand our racial-social equity frame works. >> jonas: seeing nothing further. department matters, item 6, director's announcements. >> thank you, good afternoon. i was going to make comment of the conference. it turns out we learned on wednesday at the close of the

conference that the planning conference attracted a record of, 60,500 came to the conference. i heard nothing but great reviews of the city and the conference from my colleagues. it is gratifying, in our day-to-day work we take our city for granted and it was gratifying to hear other folks say what a great place this is. i was pleased at the results. commissioners, i'm not sure, you may be aware of this housing legislative working group that has convened. the mayor has asked me and ken to represent the city on the task force. it is meeting weekly for seven weeks. it's a fairly big time commitment. we've had two meetings. i attended the first, was not able to attend the second.

it was convened fairly quickly at the request of many board members to analyze the huge number of bills that are pending in sacramento, of which i believe there are 240. so that group is a group of representatives from all nine counties. the staff of abag and mtc are doing analysis of the most pertinent of the bills. they've identified 36 that will have the most impact. and they're going through a fairly rigorous analysis process of the -- you know, the impact of those bills. obviously, it's not just san francisco focus, but regionally focused and statewide focused. these meetings are open to the public. the next one is this evening at 7:00 p.m. at the metro center on beale street. they are weekly meetings, however, they are not at the same time. i would say members of the

commission and the public to check the website. i'll certainly bring back any of the results from that staff analysis to the commission and staff as it comes forward. so hopefully -- i guess there is five more meetings left, including this evening, and i'll be able to report to you as we go. thank you, that concludes my presentation. >> jonas: we can move on to item 7. review of past' events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> reporter: good afternoon. at monday's land use hearing, they presented the balance report. briefly the report found that between quarter one of 2009 and quarter 4 of 2008, that net new housing was affordable. the cumulative housing balance is 25%. although this does vary by district. the projected housing balance

city-wide is 20%. three major development projects were excluded from the projected housing balance. calculations until site repairs are contained. this would increase the projected housing balance to 22%. during the staff presentation, supervisor peskin interjected there needs to be a way to track units that were lost, stating that he knew of examples that were not included in the report. after staff's presentation, supervisor safai wanted to know about the owner move-in data. and supervisor haney wanted to know how to track different forms of housing for different populations. the committee then accepted the report and closed the hearing. at the full board this week the landmark designation or 906 broadway passed its second read. the interim zoning controls to convert a child care facility to

another use was adopted. the board heard the appeal for 3620 buchanan street. commission, you heard this item on january 22 and voted to approve the conditional use. the ceqa appeal issues were related to the potential of public exposure to hazardous materials, including the project sponsor's request for a rear yard modification. historic resource impacts, loss of air from the adjacent new building on bay street. supervisor peskin and stefani had concerns, however, staff was able to alleviate the concerns. stefani asked for confirmation that the site would be cleaned up like the process for 1598

bay. the ceqa appeal was denied through unanimous vote. that concludes my report. >> president melgar: thank you very much. >> i have no reports from the board of appeals. historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, but nothing of interest to the planning commission. [laughter] coming forth. general public comment, commissioners, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public, that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to the agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i did have several speaker cards. >> president melgar: we have kevin, george, caroline, who filled out speaker cards. come on up. >> i have a presentation or handout for the commissioners.

>> jonas: go ahead and start speaking. your time is running. >> hello, my name is kevin. i would like to talk about the dramatic changes to 3847 18th street. the property made dramatic changes. they went in multi-units to tenants to single family residents, to rentals, to $85,000 per month mortgage not including taxes or insurance. from $1.5 million property to $1.9 million. numerous planning and building code violations were committed to make these changes, such as the merging of units, tantamount to demolition, work without permits, beyond scope of permits, overdemolition. enlargement, expansion without public notice. excessive excavation.

there were missed enforcement opportunities in the last three years. many whistleblower complaints were not investigated. when investigated, staff often determined no violation existed. finally, investigation started in july 2018, culminating in revised plans and public notice. it is like a fatal hit-and-run violation was being addressed with a fix-it ticket. one example of the violation, excessive excavation. the project filed for an over the counter tt permit intended to dig out 22 cubic yards. project dug out 822 cubic yards. due to misrepresentation and fabrication on the drawings, there is an estimated over 1,000 cubic yards being dug out from this property. you can see it in the drawings. how could this happen? what should be done?

the planning commission should require conditional use application for this project. should request dbi investigate the full permit history and present to the planning commission. and should continue discretionary review hearing until the application is reviewed. there is case precedence for these actions. 282011 worth street was completed and sold. the planning department determined that -- [bell ringing] that a conditional use application be filed or the property returned to its original state. hopkins street, a property investigated, even though it was not presented to any other commission other than this body. i hope this commission takes action to investigate further and to continue the hearing. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. next public comment, please.

good afternoon, georgia. i'm going to talk about excavation, i have a different take on it than mr. chang. last week, you had the b biodiversity issue. i want to be clear i'm talking about yards that are done under speculative projects. and i think these are projects that the staff sees and that you may see. if i could have the overhead, please? that is one where you can see that is not real grass. that is astro turf. this is the whole yard. as redone. it was excavation there. but you can see the surrounding yards are still pretty natural. so i think as projects proceed in front of you, or with the staff, you want to look into that and see if that is an issue that you care about in light of the biodiversity.

with regard to the excavation, this is a project that you had before you. here it is just the other day. it's really hard to see, but i think you get the idea of the amount of cement and the complete excavation of the lot. most of them is complete. this one is not totally complete. there is a little bit left. here it is in march, just about a month ago. if you look closely, it's hard to see, but you can see the rock that has been, you know, carved away and the shoring up. here it is in january. so from january to april, the progress has been very slow. here it is when it started back in september. and you can see there is still yard there. there is a lot of work. my point is, when you have

excavations like this, whether or not you decide to look at them or the building department, the building inspection looks at them, um, they need to be looked at in terms of how long it makes the project last. this project that i showed you the four pictures of, this has been off the market since 2015. so thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners and planning director. my name is caroline kennedy, i chair the neighborhood association west of delores park. this week with easter, passover and the spring sunshine, it's had me reflecting. i've been thinking about why i'm worried about senate bill 50. i don't feel well planned density. we're seeing that now on the large quarters and on the corners and near transit.

what scares me is, we don't know the impact that the tidal wave of development that sb 50 can unleash on san francisco. in march, the planning staff prepared a great memo. it showed that sb 50 will up-zone 95% of san francisco, will allowed increase heights close to transit. now our leaders, including this commission, need to know how many people can live here under the sb 50 provisions. how many transit capacity do we need? and how quickly can we build it? how much infrastructure, especially water, sewers, schools, do we need? we need to know what is the city's ability to absorb this kind of population growth. you've done very thoughtful work to keep pace with the city's current growth. and conducted environmental

impact analysis for the eastern neighborhoods, the affordable housing bonus program among others. and today the pipeline report shows that the city has entitled 70,000 units. 15,000 are fully permitted and ready to go. that accommodates 100,000 more san franciscans, however the embarcadero analysis of paloalitio said it will trigger 3x growth. that is going to put us at 2.7 million people. so how much -- what is the development capacity? how many units does sb 5050 unlock in the city? how much population will that add? how much more affordable housing will we need that shows that .35 units are needed for every one market rate that we build. what transit do we need? where?

what other impacts do we have? how do we mitigate them. these are some of the questions that me worried please analyze how sb 50 will transform san francisco? i think this piece of legislation is so far reaching and so transformative to our city, that we owe it to ourselves and our city to fully understand what will happen if this bill passes in its current form. >> president melgar: thank you, ms. kennedy. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm going to speak as an individual today. overhead, please. zoom out. so i'm sure everybody in this room probably received this mailer yesterday, or today.

from an organization called the aid health care foundation, which it's paid for by healthy -- [inaudible] -- michael weinstein who runs a nonprofit called a health care foundation in southern california. with a hit piece on senator wiener invoking quotes of james baldwin from san francisco's troubled and documented history. there is a variety of things this mailer has gotten a lot of play over the last 24 hours or so, looking at our mayor's tweet. sb 50 is about tackling housing. it has nothing to do with urban renewal. and suggesting it does. for those who do not know, michael weinstein, the health care foundation has been heavily involved in land use.

they were, like weinstein, put the prop 10, the hawkins ballot on last november. he's one of the primary funders to livable california, who has come as a strong anti-growth organization here in the state of california, who has targeted sb 50 and other things. so i get that the bill and the proposal has a lot of opinions. and this is kind of the center of our conversation right now. so really, really curious to hear commissioner comments about this specifically. and about where i think the overall conversation is about sb 50, because as somebody who is knee-deep in it, in a bunch of different ways, you know, this is stuff that is not totally uncommon. and then on the overhead -- really, interestingly, so i'm sure many people saw messaging, bob mack, if you're watching, i

did a poll in the neighborhood about how folks feel about sb 50. as you can see, 59% coming out in support of the poll. 35% oppose. this has 223 votes. i know a friend of mine is running another poll showing about the same results. we're seeing about 25 delta in support of the more homes act, sb 50, that is one thing we're really optimistic about. we think the city needs more homes and apparently the city agrees. >> president melgar: next public comment, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for listening to me again. first i want to thank you for the demo rolls you're working on. i'm sorry to harp about this, but this is an issue to me. we've been discussing it for years and now it appears we're

moving along faster. that's what appears. but with this, we have better enforcement. there are cases that are coming that need to be in front of commissioners and there are cases that may not be. that's because there are different varying levels of violation. the house that collapsed during repair to put it back to the same size, it's a violation, because it was a remodel and it fell apart. it was fire-damaged badly. is that the same level as the case with fire walls that need to be fixed or dry rot. it's not the same level as the guy who takes the house apart and ends up with nothing. so i would to suggest maybe some triage of different cases that might be at different levels. does someone have to wait to put his house back? and also this will vet out the final version of the rules.

i don't think these rules are going to be done in a couple of months. in the interim, there needs to be rules, spelled out, about what is a fire wall? methods for construction. how to deal with hazardous materials? this dry rot is one of the biggest issues. when you find it, you don't take it out. you have to work with the building department and planning on that. but i think rules would be helpful in the interim and it would be a test drive on the new rules. you'd see how things would work out. i would like to suggest as a structural engineer, seismic is not counted on a historic building. if you're putting in a steel frame and removing framing to put in a seismic, that does not count under a historic building. but for some reason, it does on a non-historic building. i think that is totally cross-purpose to what we want,

that whenever you're doing an upgrade to a building, particularly seismic, it shouldn't count for any building. anyway, i'd like to suggest a triage during the interim and possible rules for guidance until we have the final version and these rules might help vet out the areas of concern. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? with that, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards: interestingly enough, mr. chang bringing the 3847 18th street. i live two-and-a-half blocks away and when we heard this $11.5 million house was for sale, we were like, what happened? how could a house be worth this much on this street? pacific heights maybe, but not here. as i look through this, i'm amazed if this is how true, how this did get done. i would ask the department to at

least look into what is there and what needed to actually happen from a planning permitting point of view. i guess, to mr. smith -- sorry -- you know it's interesting, we have the mark study. we had a sentence -- census, perhaps you could look at the impact to minorities during up-zoning. let's see what the data says. >> jonas: if there is nothing further, we move on to item 8. case number 1996.0013cwp. 2018 housing inventory report. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm with the information analysis group at the planning department. today, i'll be presenting the 2018 housing inventory report. the housing inventory is the planning department's survey of housing trends in san francisco. the report details changes in city housing stock, including housing construction, demolition, and alterations. in addition to other topics such as accessory dwelling units and affordable housing. the report has been published regularly since 1967. this is 49th in the series. and has housing production completed or authorized during the year 2018. the construction of new housing in 2018 totaled about 2700 units, which represents a 40% decrease from the previous year. 2018 also saw loss of 111 units, which added together with new

units, comes out to 2579 net in the housing stock. this is a 42% decrease from the previous year and is slightly below the 10-year average, signifying a lower year production. about 2300 units were constructed last year. expansion of existing structures, secondary units or conversion to residential from nonresidential made up 380 units. there were also 141 accessory dwelling units added to the housing stock, which is 42% increase from the previous year. the net total of 111 units lost in 2018, due to demolition or alteration is 17% less than the five-year average. there were 20 units lost. one unit lost via conversion.

53 units demolished. 31 removed as nonconforming units. and five lost due to mergers. i'm going to switch gears to talk about authorizing what is in the pipeline across the region. having permits issued are economic indicator of housing in the city. this is about 9% less than the total number permitted the previous year, but it's 30% higher than the five-year average. of the permits issued in 2018, 88% were for 20 or more units. looking the this regionally, san francisco accounted for 19% of total permits issued in the bay area in 2018. alameda counties leads with 24%,

and santa clara follows with 23%. san francisco has the highest proportion of permits issued with multifamily units with 99% allotted to multifamily units. the number of units authorized throughout the bay area increased slightly from the previous year. now i'll be sharing details on types of units produced in 2018 based on affordability and through various housing programs. affordable housing made up 24% of the units added to the housing stock last year. 645 total affordable units were completed in 2018 and this included 163 inclusionary units and 141 accessory dwelling units or secondary units. breaking the total number of affordable housing units down, 40 are affordable to household.

about 400 units were affordable to households earning between 50-80% ami and 200% to moderate income households earning up to 120% ami. the housing inventory report also describes the progress the city has made toward meeting the regional housing targets. the arena target as determined by the state department of housing and community development for the planning period 2015-2022 calls for a total of 28,870 units by the end of 2022. of the total, 57% must be affordable to households earning moderate income or lower. as of the end of last year, about 17,160 housing units counted toward meeting the city's goals. approximately 30% of the total was affordable to households

earning up to 120% of the median income. units affordable to households making more than moderate incomes, built about 96% of the target. i'm going to take a moment to explain housing preservation programs that have had contribution to the housing stock in the city. in 2018, the mayor's office of housing and community development acquired or rehabilitated 50 units of housing. in 2015, they implemented the first phase of the rental assistance program. rad is a voluntary conversion of public housing to the section 8 housing program. since 2016, 3443 units in the public housing properties were transferred to private agencies to rehabilitate. in 2018, about 1170 units were transferred to the rad program.

about 20% of the units were low-income and 80% were very low-income. although the units do not count toward the total number of housing production, because they're not created, they do provide homes in much improved conditions for existing households. accessory dwelling units is a housing program that began completing new units in 2015. 79 new adus were completed last year. creating a total of 141 added to the housing stock in 2018. this year, we added more data about state density bonus and home assess projects to the report. there are currently 43 projects in the pipeline with applications either filed, under review, entitled or with building permits issued and they

propose 145 units after implementing a bonus. as i wrap up the presentation, i want to bring back a few points. in 2018, 708 projects, with 5416 total units, were filed with the planning department. this is a 5% increase than the number that was filed in 2017. and is about 9% above the five-year average. planning department approved and fully entitled 72 projects in 2018. these projects propose a total of 4552 units. two of the largest projects filed in 2018, include india basin, which proposes 1575 units and 30 otis street, 406 total units. they were about 6100 units authorized last year. the low in 2015 for authorized units is largely reflected in

the lower number of units built last year. looking at the number authorized, we can look forward to higher numbers of construction. the housing inventory is a foundational project. such as the housing balance reports. the full housing inventory report is available on the planning department website. the data used to calculate findings for the report will be available on data assess.org. this concludes my presentation. before i open up the floor for comments and questions, we'll have additional details on the housing pipeline. thank you.

i would like to take this opportunity to give context to the housing authority. and we included in your report a short memo on the 2018 -- 2019 -- sorry -- 2018 pipeline. as of the end of the last quarter, about 8017 units were under construction. this is one of the highest numbers we've had under construction at any one time. additional 8700 net units had building permits to start construction and building permit

applications have been filed with projects with about 6200 units. these units, about 23100 in total, are expected to be completed in the coming five years. of the projects that i've received planning entitlement, there are about 29,360 in multiphase projects. these are candlestick point, treasure island and -- [inaudible] -- all of which have started construction -- building permits or construction have started in these units already. another 14,380 net units are in projects under review. those are projects that have filed for planning entitlement or planning -- or building permits that have yet to receive the department approval. of these units, a total 4,000 are in two major multiphase

projects that were already talked about. i also wanted to give context to the dip, what is perceived to have been a dip in production in 2018. i guess for people who have been working on the housing numbers, this was not entirely unexpected. the number of building permits in 2015 have dropped. and therefore, we were expecting a drop around, you know, 2018. it was also a matter of accounting. a number of projects that were fully completed in 2018, actually had units counted in 2017. therefore, the numbers that would have been counted in 2018, were not counted then. if we were to count those

numbers properly, meaning, counting the project's when they were fully completed, the numbers would be more in line with what is the 10-year average. and it would not have been 42% dip. rather it would have been an 8% dip. these are in three projects. 800 indiana, 801 brannen, and 41 tacoma, with a total of almost 1200 units, but almost 800 of those units were counted in 2017. and so i just wanted -- we just wanted to let the commissioners know about this matter of accounting. and not worry too much about the noise that comes with these numbers. that is all, thank you.

>> president melgar: okay. we are going to take public comment on this item. i have one speaker card. cole brennan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i also attended the conference this week and found it very educational as a new planner. and i attended today's earthquake -- 1906 earthquake ceremony as well. i was reflecting on our housing inventory and our recovery from that earthquake which happened in about six years and i was -- i thought that the -- sorry, i'm nervous -- i thought that we could do a better job even

though we're meeting some small portion of our housing growth. it's the first time in 20 years we've come close reaching our market rate housing goals. so there is years of catching up to do. i think it's great that we're getting there, but there is still a lot to do. i also wanted to reflect those are minimums and not maximums. we can build a lot more and we have built a lot more. just because the buildings aren't falling down, the people are leaving san francisco. my coworkers at the grocery store are leaving san francisco. it's not an easy place to afford. so there is plenty of room for san francisco to do better at meeting its housing goals. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, again, cory smith on behalf of housing action coalition. i want to thank the staff for

putting this together. it's really interesting to us in looking at trends. they do a great job with the visuals. so thank you to everybody involved. back on what the previous speaker said, curious to see where, not only in this arena cycle, but previous, what we were doing. i know in the last one we completed 56%, so roughly half of where we were supposed to be. if you take that out to the regional impact, we're not hitting across the board and at the end of the day, what we do in san francisco makes a difference in oakland and vice versa. and the other thing i'm curious about, we've talked with different folks that look at data. and it seems like we should have the opportunity to really see and understand what is going to come on some market in 2019, simply based on things like how many units are under construction today, what are the estimated completion dates for the homes?

so we can have a little bit of looking ahead without putting too much work on staff. i know they're doing a lot of good stuff as is, but to have an idea where we're going. a couple of years ago, mayor lee put out a directive to build 5,000 new homes every year and he did that after we hit that number. for the last two years, we have not hit that number. so we failed at that specific goal. i'm going to get we're not going to hit it in 2019, based on what we're hearing and the projects sitting there because the financing is not working anymore. so if all of a sudden we're a couple of ways away from a housing increase in production, it seems like we're drying up in terms of opportunity. so we're really concerned about that. we want to be doing whatever we can to add as much housing at all income levels to the markets, so folks have the opportunity to live where they

work and get out of cars. but again, as always, really fascinating stuff and we look forward to continuing information that comes out to the public. thank you. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. sue hester. i think this is a good report. but there is more to do. the housing area in these reports don't give us an entire picture. the housing for working class people, poor people, is especially threatened and you all hear it every week, because people come to you on individual cases, especially in the mission. but there is a need also in the south of market, and the

planning department has the ability to drill down, i think you need to do that. one of the areas that you should drill down is what are the units you approved sold for? i think it could be done as a directive from the planning department, rather than going to the board of supervisors, but i will go to the board of supervisors if necessary. because if we build housing that is affordable to people making $200,000 a year, that is not working class housing for people who are working in grocery stores. that is not housing for people that live in the neighborhoods already that are threatened, that are single-family neighborhoods, but are working class housing in the western parts of the city. we need to build housing in all parts of the city. and we have built housing in a larger extent to the other -- overhead, please -- that is designated south of market on

your planning. and south of market includes dog patch, all the waterfront areas, real south of market, south of howard street, and rincon hill and mission a. i would suggest to you there are huge differences in the populations of those areas. and huge differences in the amenities in the areas. i've been working with people in the true south of market for the past couple of months. and the low-income community between 4th street and 11th street in the south of market from market street to folsom street, harrison street, is very different for the people who live in luxury abodes south of

market. luxury condominiums. and we need to dig down and you need to dig down and produce this area -- that information. also, we've lost a lot of housing that is not on the list because it's rented out to airbnb, or taken off of the market, or people are enticed to move out so that the owner can -- [bell ringing] -- that needs to be a part of what we dialogue about. >> speaker: thank you, ms. hester. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commission, peter cohen with the community housing organizations. we always love all the data, so here we are again, annually, and thank you, teresa, and your team. i want to emphasize or talk about a few things in the housing inventory. the headline from the newspaper was housing production is down.

housing entitlements have been constant. your job, what you're doing, it's at least as good as last year. let's separate entitlements from construction. roland lee had a great article. it got past the rhetoric of finger pointing. plus a severe construction labor shortage, which we've had a lot of conversations about and spike in steel prices contributed to u.s. and china tariffs. because of those things combined, the prices and the costs, projects are stalling. that's the conundrum to solve. we have jetsons on the ball and we're working together. we're having labor conversations about getting the pipeline of workers back up and running. but i thought that was helpful, and that's a real problem

instead of finger pointing. there are a couple of things in the housing that are important. i would disagree with the previous speaker about building more, we're at 56% of our total need. the arena, on page 13 of your own report, it's aggregated by income level. what we have in this city is a big problem of imbalance of production across the income levels. from low to very low, to middle ener income, san francisco only at 31% of the arena need. if you look at the same chart, it's 96% of its need today. it doesn't mean there is not enough market rate. but the imbalance is a serious problem. it should be at the same level of production. that is a big challenge that is before us. and lastly, i want to point out what is happening in the regional levels.

for a long time, san francisco, fatih oke land and -- oakland and carried the weight. this year, it's gone down, 2018, it went down, which is good news, because what that means, if we try to imagine it, we're spreading out production to other parts of the region, which should be our goal. it shouldn't just be san francisco is going to load more and beat ourselves up about not doing enough. we've done a lot and can do more. i think we need to press the region to do more. the numbers are good news to show the fair share housing production. thank you. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> i was curious about the neighborhood of knowy valley and page 63, it's broken out in the report. so somebody was kind enough --

may have the overhead -- to send me the actual list of the addresses she used. i want to start with units gained through alteration. 1560 delores street, that was an alteration that added a unit, but unfortunately, they're renting the building for $20,000 a month and it's marketed as a single-family home. here it is under construction. that's my definition of a demolition. 439 al, you approved that as mandatory dr and the rationale was that it wasn't a speculative project. when i saw that, i said, oh, gee, if i was a person looking to develop housing and i saw that the commission would approve housing that was because it wasn't speculative develop, the families could live there, maybe i'm worried if i come with

my speculative project and demolition. maybe that was the start of all those remodels that were really demolitions. it's still not done yet. 4041 is complete, but it also is 4039 and it's being rented at $13,000 a month. so those numbers are all different than the numbers you have in the report. going down the list, units gained through alteration. most of those were legalizing a unit. which is a good thing. one added an adu to a 7-unit building on church street. units gained through new construction. the one on 24th street, those rent -- i won't talk about the building, but the range in price on those is $1.1 million to $1.79 million. that's four units. one unit is at $6500 a month and

they range from 788 square feet to 1450 square feet. you know, it's too bad they couldn't be rent control, but that's a problem you dealt with last week. and 439 -- oh, 645 alvarado, excuse me, 645 duncan, that was on a vacant lot and that just sold for $6.6 million. so on my list that i gave you back in the fall, i had picked out six buildings i think should have been demos and they sold for average $3.62 million. so i really like the report. i like that i could look at things for the valley, but i think what i learned from that is that speculative projects, speculative domos, whether they're alterations or demos, are a big problem. and i don't know how you deal with that, except keep trying. thank you.

>> president melgar: any other public comment? with that, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: good report, good data. what concerns me is that on the same day that we're hearing this report, i'm reading in the paper that funding gap plagues treasure island affordable housing projects. and that is a shock, because it is a large project. we're looking to deliver the most urgent housing that we need and that is affordable housing. i'm not sure if the director has any insight what is behind this. again, construction price is the obvious, however, that project was conceived on the original idea that affordable housing would be delivered simultaneously with building luxury housing.

>> president melgar: go ahead. >> this is an issue that we've learned of fairly recently and since the project was approved in 2011 or 2010, they are attributing that concern to construction costs which have more than doubled. that project still must deliver, i believe it's 25% affordable housing and it must deliver it in phases along with market rate housing. that obligation still exists and is embedded in the d.a. the challenge right now is the construction costs. >> commissioner hillis: thank you to staff and for folks who came out to comment. it's an interesting report. my takeaways, we're doing okay. we're producing as much housing as we've done in the last 20 years, which i think is okay. i mean i wouldn't pat ourselves on the back, especially given the housing crisis we're in, we have to do ten times better than

okay, especially on market rate housing and affordable housing. and we're doing average. so i think there is -- we've got to change how we look at this and how we approach it. things that i thought were interest are 30% of the units we currently have in san francisco are in buildings that are ten units or less. i think what we consider kind of neighborhood, more affordable, type housing. what is being built is less than -- it's about 7%. 7.5% of those units. what we're seeing is mostly condominiums, mostly built, 50 units or more in south of market and downtown. i think of the 2800 units or whatever we showed here in this report, 2000 of them were south of market or downtown. there is big inequity of where housing is being built in the city. it's interesting, she can tell us about