thank you. operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: i couldn't agree more with the past two speakers and with supervisor mar. i want to state that -- [indiscernable] it has many opportunities or did have. they are being taken over by luxury housing. we are not going to 25 years. our objective is to preserve the rental housing we have that is reasonably affordable. we ultimately decided that our reach for the future was for a lot of senior housing projects.

[indiscernable] it is between high density housing and shopping and so forth. that hasn't happened. the commercial district is taken up by expensive condos. a few units that are affordable. those would be gone. i would very much like to speak to supervisor peskin about it. i will mention the only project recently that i know of was the one that i proposed and the mayor's office of housing agreed and david baker and everybody was hot to trot. that was the project supervisor peskin tried to save by landmarking. he was no longer in office and

david chu were not interested in a senior housing project. they tried to find affordable housing initially and reducing the price but didn't think there were any. operator: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: i am a research analyst and one of the things my job touches on is asking that the community evaluate what kinds of jobs is given hotel development might bring to the community and how those jobs will correlate to the ability of those workers to live in the same city in which they work. i am very glad to see that we are continuing to discuss this.

i am very glad the issue is brought to the forefront and that there is a mechanism for putting real numberings to the trends that we can all feel anecdotally. we all feel how difficult it is for community members to live and work in the city. i want to echo concerns about the details we learned in the report. the fact that higher income earners, housing was produced at 140% of the need or 139%, either way it is massive over production of housing for the group least in need and people such as our members that make between 30 to 60% of the median income are competing for a small chung of the pie. the odd numbers to eliminate the jobs and consolidating them out,

our members still need to work in person. the question becomes how far do they have to travel? how much damage to the environment from increased driving? how will this impact their lives and the lives of the community. i am concerned about the gap between the housing production and needs. i really want to encourage that whenever we discuss new development that we discuss -- operator: thank you. next speaker, please. items 4 and 5 on the agenda. >> caller: this is anastasia, district 8. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you, supervisor mar and to planning staff for the

presentation. racial and social equity is central to the central city

department report today is more likely to obfis indicate rather than enlighten. low and middle people has to be the planning department. mohcd has an opportunity to take the new mus numbers and commit o fulfilling more affordable housing in our city. i signed up to work with our planning presenters to work on housing element 2022 racial and social equity we must prevent people from being pushed out. thank you. operator: next speaker, please.

>> caller: this is sue hester. a couple things following up on comments. the work force has to be the priority to building housing in the city. when workers don't make enough money to afford hous housing ine city they create problems unless they are homeless to go in their car, they get on batter -- get . we are causing a problem for the region by not producing the housing in san francisco for the work force in san francisco. we need to revisit the fee we charge for big office developers downtown, update the fee, look seriously at the work force of entire building, including the

jan tores and the people who service the building. the concentration that happened in the past couple years o yearh income and high rent towers in the eastern part of the city is driving up the price of housing for the city and pushing people out. linda chapman is right. we have had a lot of sites east of vanness gobbled up by people that want to make a little fortune on those sites. we have to go back to look at the area plans that were developed with a different set of assumptions about the cost of housing and the need for housing in the east neighborhoods. there has been push back from the south of market and mission

because the presumptions in that plan are really out-of-date. it is still a deadweight on the city. operator: next speaker. members of the public on item 4 and 5 today call the numbers on the screen. >> caller: hi, i am senior and disabilities action. i am so glad, supervisor mar, that you called this very important hearing. i am disappointed the housing

balance report wasn't more detailed. we know we ar we are losing buis with many units due to the loopholes in buyout legislation over the past few years. the other result is that the units have been turned into luxury units expanding upward and out word. these are no longer units affordable to anyone of moderate to low income. that is a loss that we don't track and we have to track. the other thing is about the homes bought many, many years ago and that wealth is passed to the next generations. i think we need to be very, very careful in terms of racial equity when it comes to the

state laws coming down protecting those families, especially those families left out of financial, economic equality. for example, i am concerned about we need to be building for all essential workers that we saw in this period, they are traveling from so far away. they need to be here and walk to workplaces as they have in the past. for many, many reasons. i do think that job housing fit is very, very important. it also only talks about active work force not retired work force which is seniors, people with disabilities working just part-time right now or the retired, fully retired community. thanks.

operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i am with the council of community housing organizations. thank you to the planning department for making clear where the housing need in terms of income, housing balance report points out how little affordable is built and how much market rate housing is complete imbalance. 140% of eight year goal at 4:00 years into it. what does that mean? that report shows the represent controlled housing to provide stability for families is lost every year. this would have been interesting for the public to show what that looks like neighborhood by neighborhood. the reports don't show the racial impact of the housing

imbalance. the priority the planning department is giving to the race, this analysis should be the next step of research. what is the sf medium bit by etc group? what are the median income of the communities of color in the neighborhood? how do we create plans for housing to provide stability? how do we provide opportunities for folks so their only choices are not to move. there was a story from california and the data you presented shows why this is happening for so many people. finally, i want to say you talked about plan for building 5,000 units every year with two thirds luxury. how does this meet the need we have by the economic and racial

groups that are so desperately in need of housing. as you stated, 2019 was the first and only year we had adequate funning for the affordable housing needed. that is what you should work around. operator: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: i am a resident of excelsior. i don't see excess of luxury housing. the problem is the new market funded housing not a money user is luxury. that is it is a public disservice to make words inextricable. this is a shortage not surplus. the market price reveals the

shortage. my neighborhood has very little construction of luxury housing. most of the homes are million dollars, not created as luxury homes. they were by the overall lack of housing by the underestimated how much housing san francisco with need during an economic boom. market and filter are bad words. the failure that is driven by economic policies. i would appreciate that it is driven by the city's need to grow to economy to pay public workers and pensions in accordance with policies and set asides and state and federal laws. please endorse prop 15 this september. our tax system is regressive.

if we can get support for more housing in the city. we need to evaluate if we can build enough housing that way. 39% over the above market category is nothing compared to 35% below the overall goal. if we can't get enough housing outside market we should open market -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. we have 36 listeners with 13 in the queue. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this is peter cohen with the council of community housing organizations. it has been fascinating hearing. thanks to supervisor mar for

walling this needed opportunity to spend back and think about the big picture. we learned from covid-19 and the severen justices it exposed in housing. this is well timed. this is a hearing about housing needs. i want to point to a comment by supervisor peskin. it shows 22% of the city housing production is affordable over a 10 year period. that is vastly insufficient. those who try to build affordable housing need to not be always running in the negative. 22% affordable means behind the eight ball. what is shown by staff is the arena, regional housing needs.

the city's performance matters. 140% of market rate production is great. for the previous speaker maybe you should do more. what is more important is the affordable is not falling so far behind. everything should be at 140% not just some portions. that is the tremendous inequities we are experiencing. i want to point out this is not just a numbers game. this is not an argument over numbers of units built or o how big the housing numbers are. it is about the people the housing needs to serve. thathat is ununequal and unjust. we need to think about centering the conversation on the people we are trying to house. operator: thank you.

next speaker, please. two minutes. >> caller: i am district 4 resident. thank you, supervisor mar for keeping the spotlight on such important issue to people in the city. i wondered on the numbers the 140 for market rate. it is a question so we have less production of market rate can be attained the following year or however that is done. i am not quite sure. i am very worried about the planning commission and appointments there. we have to take a stronger look if we want to change things at

who is on the planning commission, who is appointed in the same way we look at the police commission at the moment. we want cutting edge people that are looking out for the needs of the communities and not coming from whatever real estate company they came from. that is why they got appointed. we have a problem on the commission. one, the idea of housing equity. all the rest need to be very well retrained. i am also very interested and glad that we are looking at affirmative action in san francisco and maybe the rate of return for people of color who have been priced out of the city. generational people.

about the more than 10 state bills that are at the state right now and will be approved or combined in the next month or so led by our very own elected state wiener -- operator: next speaker, please to items 4 and 5 today. >> caller: good afternoon, board of supervisors, members of the committee. i am representing united educators of san francisco. i am here because first to say thank you to supervisor mar for putting this issue up. today we heard from the planning department the report on the comparison between the numbers of affordable housing being built compared to luxury market rate. it is obvious this must change.

this is how it is impacting educators. many educators to be forced to make decisions if they should tip and work in san francisco due to the lack of affordable housing. our educators and student families should live where they want to. educators help workers and essential workers and the people of san francisco should live here. they contribute and provide to the city. if we can't keep the foundation of our community in the city that they live in, how can we came we have equity housing in the city? thank you so much. operator: next speaker, please.

>> caller: good afternoon, committee members. thank you gordon mar for introducing this topic. i am harry bernstein. several short topics. i appreciate the attorney's comments endorsing 100% affordable college and city college. there should be more efforts to support and promote 100% affordable housing projects. two, there is research showing less than 50% affordable housing creates more demand for housing than it suffice. three, the means of affordable in perpetuity. for the useful life of the building. this may mean that when the

afford built expires, it could be a situation like foster city where the rents jump up disproportionately so we make sure this isn't happening. 4. there is a consideration of a tax on businesses vacant six months. has the city tracked or will the city track residences vacant with a vacancy tax. the numbers of units should be reported regularly. last thing if we get the report card. production of low and moderate housing should be an f at 31 and 33%. low cost housing 51% is d minus. we can't consider giving an a plus to over achieving 140% for

luxury units. operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, sarah ogle be. i want to thank supervisor mar for making this presentation possible, and i am glad that it did touch on issues of overcrowding and density which i brought up in my previous public comment. california sent committee chair scott wiener makes the point that density can cure overcrowding. especially with covid-19 and the spread, we are talking about an adequate response especially with housing. one of the keys and i want to agree with the previousmentter. who are we building it for.

i would add where are we knowledgbuilding it. it is clear that san francisco has a lot of work to do when it comes to zoning. there is unaffordable luxury single family housing zoning in the majority of san francisco. we need to open up our zoning policies to welcome multi-family housing on the west side. look at the herself age of minorities. it is not right. it is morally wrong. we basically pushed defector segregation, and people who have been wage suppressed are going to continue to be able to not afford the single family housing

on the west side. please consider the need that is great and now that we need it on the west side to provide senior affordability housing units there. thank you. operat.operator: >> i am sam and i live from district 80 the border of the mission. i am calling to implore the supervisors to think bigger. with regard to the context of housing in san francisco ask themselves why there is all this controversy of building luxury housing on the east side. however very little on the

extreme luxury housing. $2 million mansions blocks away from the muni. you don't see people complaining about that is the definition of luxury housing. that areas are not doing their fair share in building sufficient housing for the future of san francisco. the question should be how to build enough housing for everybody to live in san francisco. the answer is going to be a combination of market rate and subsidized housing. where can we build that? it is clear if you look at the sense still so low density. houses are still expensive is a failure on the board. i hope they can take bold action needed to make housing more

affordable for everybody. operator: we have six in the queue. call is numbers streaming on the screen to speak. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am robert. i live in district 5. if you have been following the plans for the bay area. the next housing element will

mandate 32000 to 39,000 above moderate homes to say nothing of the 80,000 total homes required for our city. that depends on the regional allocation. it is still in the air. we will have to build around double the rate we have been building above moderate homes and we will have to build more housing in general to meet the goals. our average is worse than that. since 1970 we added 380,000 jobs and 67,000 homes. that is around five jobs per home for the last 50 years. to say the least, nobody will give san francisco an award for home production. the 2014 housing element does not affirmatively burn the housing. we will have to correct that for the next one. in the current one less than 14% were planned for.

these are neighborhoods the state deems the richest. we need to open these up to more housing to reimburse the trends over the last 50 years. i am glad we could institute a housing registry. the budget office suggests that we could have 1.7 to 3. $3.7 million per year rental. thank you. operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: i would like to thank gordon and aaron for recognizing that there is an excess supply of market rate and under supply

of affordable housing. basically the housing market is bifurcated. the idea that some people have is that by building more market rate housing the benefits are going to trickle down to the poorer people for affordable units. that is basically a smith. they believe that but if you look at the statistics that isn't happening. it is a bifurcated market. one of the things the planning department presentation did was talk about the 30 year housing targets. within that it brought up prop k. the benefit of prop k was that it required one-third affordable house willing. the whole idea behind prop k was you are using public land and it

is going to be able to make things cheaper. given that fact that it is on public landid shoul land it sho% not 33%. that is what is happening with the balboa park reservoir. it shouldn't be 550 market rate units. they are subsidizing affordable. if you look at their own feasibility memo it says that 17% or 187 units are paid by te city. the developer is responsible for 363. operator: thank you. this is item 4 and 5. callers we are on item 4 and 5 on the agenda. if you like to speak press star

3. if you are for balboa press star 3 to remove yourself. for those on items 4 and 5, please continue to wait. we will notify you that your line has been unmuted. you will have two minutes. next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you for having this hearing. for one thing i would like to propose that there be a moratorium on all market housing for the next 10 years and only be 100% affordable housing be built until parity is reached between available housing so there is an equal amount of 100% affordable as market rate housing on the market. we have done the math. a person making $15 per hour

makes $28,800 per year. if there is a house with two people making minimum wage which there are hows in that category that is $57,600 per year before tax deductions. therefore even if housing that is now affordable isn't affordable to those homes, to those people. those are the people most in need of housing. we would like to suggest that some legislation be introduced for a moratorium on market rate and truly affordable housing be built for the next 10 years in san francisco. we suggest the city assist owners of storefrontses now vacant and we can see that the many, many businesses are not coming back. we would like to see the city assist the owners to convert those to residential units.

they would have a nice source of light but that would go a long ways if those units could be affordable residential units, all of those vacant store fronts in the city. also, we would like to suggest that the full market developers change their business model and find a way to instead of seeking profits from commercial -- operator: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: this is russell davis, chairman of the mount davidson manor homeowners association. i grew up the bronx in a city-built, owned, managed housing development for low

income people. if the bronx can do it, san francisco can do it. any new developments in the city be 100% affordable. there is two other issues i would like the board of supervisors to consider. that is i never hear anybody speak about quality of life issues, only quantity of life issues. as new york city showed, high density sardine style living is not conducive to good health. most people don't understand that san francisco is already the second most densely populated city in the united states. i don't know why we are trying to over take new york. as one speaker density secures over crowding, that is ridiculous on its face. i don't believe high density is necessary in further developments in the city.

thank you for your time. operator: next speaker, please. we have 3 30 listeners and fourn the queue. >> caller: i am a district nine resident. i wanted to echo what the previous speaker said in terms of housing is a right, not a privilege. we need to make sure the people housed in our city represent all areas. especially those folks not making the money of tech workers. we have different families and not just rich families. a beautiful home and green space. with post-covid what san francisco will be like we need housing for families, not just singles. we need to make sure the people

here can age here and we are not forcing people out. i advocate more housing that it is family friendly for folks not making millions. thank you. operator: next speaker. you have two minutes. you will be notified your line is unmuted. you may begin. >> caller: i am cathy lip some. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to the desperate situation of housing. i am a member of senior disability action. two years ago we learned 75,000

san francisco single renters had an income too small to qualify for low income senior housing. what we did. we had a small campaign, put together to get bond money to build some senior housing and to apply senior operating subsidies to those who needed it. we included money to build housing for people with disabilities and families with extremely low income. certainly on a related subject. the a.m.i. metrics from the mayor's office on housing that tries ttries to align householde and income with affordable housing needs reworked to fit reality. the recently released report from the supervisors budget and legislative analyst says the city needs 9300 affordable

housing units or three times the number of approved units in the city's pipeline just to keep up with the rise of low wage jobs expected in the city over the next six years. certainly any resemblance of social and racial equity strongly supports that housing. let's focus on affordability. i stand with those and so does the senior disability action to focus on affordability. thank you. >> next speaker. this is for 4 and 5 on the agenda today. i am kenneth russell. i encourage you to look at the history of zoning. specifically look to the west

side to allow greater density so it won't remain exclusively high cost single family homes. i heard some say we have an excess of market rate housing. that statement is based on our previous number and how production lined up with that. those numbers were an estimate at the time. the market itself through our housing prices has shown us that was inadequate. if we had an excess of market rate housing the prices would not continually increase year-over-year. we need to build more housing both affordable and market rate. we are doing a poor job across the board. thank you. >.operator: next speaker. you have two minutes. >> caller: this is martin from

district 5. thank you for looking at our housing needs. i don't mean to pick on a previous speaker. the person from the mount davidson homeowners association grew up in low income housing in the bronx and successfully by a single family home in mount davidson. that is incredible. it is a testament to the way social mobility can happen when people are securely house 679. i believe from public housing. if we look at a racial red lining map of san francisco. you will notice that areas like mount davidson and the west side of san francisco were completely inaccessible to buyers or renters of color, specifically black renters. we see the only 5% of san

francisco is black or african-american that is down from 15% almost 30 years ago. unfortunately it is by design. when you look at the zoning map, our current zoning map of low density million dollar single family homes is the same map you would see 50, 60, 70 years ago during red lining era. it is illegal now the mistakes from the past are still seen today. the generational wealth from racist red lining shuts out people of color from the west side of san francisco. i hope the supervisors study the places like the hub which does need the racial and equity study. on the west side how do we get to houses built in the 40s,

50s and 60s on the 1, 2, $3 million. sometimes they are dilapidated. operator: thank you for your comments. next speaker please on items 4 and 5. you have two minutes. >> caller: greetings. i am jessie fernandez, district 11. neighborhood alliance of organizations with a rich tradition of people of color and immigrant led planning around the excelsior. over the past few years we experienced surge in market rate development which is the majority of the housing pipeline from district 11. as you reframe the strategy i would offer that our inclusionary requirement framework restricts housing for

the most vulnerable to market oriented which reproduces housing imbalance. it has been rolled back to 18% from 25. that reduced portion of bmr units to serve low income to increase higher income residents portion. we need a better understanding of the incomes of essential workers and develop housing goals around those. currently the majority of affordable units in excel see or are not affordable to those with the lowest incomes in the entire city and are left out of bracketts that are required of new tents for bmr units. we need to prioritize language access and participation from marginalized communities through leadership development that honors local expertise and

defers to the leadership of residents. i heard the planning department say these are one-time respons responses. that is the generational racial despair in housing generally. thank you for your time. operator: next speaker. two minutes. you will be notified when your line is unmuted. >> caller: this is jonathan randolph. what does the housing balance report miss? it shows a slice of the pie. what it misses is what is going on in the existing housing. one or two percent of households move to new housing every year. 10% move between existing houses per year.

the important role market production does is speer the rent of existing housing. the balance report does not support reducing market rate production we are meeting the so-called above moderate need determined in the last recession. instead we need to produce as much of the market rate housing as possible so it will reduce the rent of all housing because most people live in that housing. thank you. operator: next speaker. that completes the queue. >> thank you, public comment is closed to all of the speakers on

all sides because there are actually more than two sides of this. thank you for your comments. i will turn it back over to supervisor mar, who is the sponsor of items 4 and 5. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you to all speakers during public comment and thank you to the planning staff for all of your work on these various reports and for your presentations at this hearing. i did have some questions on some of the different reports. i will start more a comment about the housing pipeline. thank you, chai chair peskin abt meeting the vehicles for the different income level and hiding the fact we have exceeded

our goal through 2022 for above market rate housing by nearly 40%. i agree with chair peskin. that is the data we present to the public should be presented in a more accurate and honest way. in the housing balance report, i had a few questions regarding the cumulative housing balance percentage and i wanted to highlight -- chair peskin you asked a question if the planning staff could present information or a chart showing the cumulative housing balancing lance by district. that is a key part of the report not included in the main presentation. >> it is available when you want to see it. >> now would be a great time.

>> this chart includes expanded calculation which is net new affordable housing plus completed acquisitions in rehab and housing replacement and permitted affordable units. units removed from protected are subtracted then that number is divided by the net new housing built plus net built units. this is different from the housing balance calculation. this including the third column the replacement units. this is broken down by district. the last column is the actual percentage representing the housing balance by supervisor district. >> the column i spent the time on is the fifth from the left. units removed from protected

status. that would be units that were rent controlled and became trc or converted to condos or rent controlled units that were demolished or removed from rent control status, is that correct? >> yes fifth column removed from protective status. includes those removed including condo conversion and owner move in. >> it would not include other ways that people were removed from their units for other no fault evictions? >> no only those four categori categories. >> interesting numbers. >> chair peskin. can i follow up on this slide? >> i am just trying to

understand. the difference between expanded cumulative housing and cue lative housing balance. expanded gives us 28.6% affordable. 21.5% is the prior. the difference is the rehabunits, is that right? >> yes, that's correct. it is rehabbed and acquired units. >> are those units distinguished between units occupied and not occupied previously? if it is occupied then there is rehab. then it is reoccupied, we counted that as net increase of one unit? >> yes, we are included it because it then becomes confirmed affordable. in certain cases in the table 6

a and 6:00 p.m. of the housing balance report it is the number of buildings and number of units by district and includes acquisition rehab of affordable housing units, small site programs and the rad program. those three programs. >> it is an affordable unit that is rehabbed as part of this, it is still going to count as positive unit? i understand there may be situations where it loses affordable is not longer affordable. you rehab and that is affordable. that is plus one. here we are counting them the same if it was affordable before and after we factor it in here. i appreciate the clarity on it. it streams strange to count -- it seems strange.

it is important to improve the quality of housing. but to look at it in the housing balance report as additional unit seems, if i am understanding it correctly, seems misleading. am i understanding it right? >> the rental assistance demonstration is preservation of at risk public projects. it might be units not affordable any more. ththe continuation of affordability is an added net unit. >> i guess following up on supervisor peskin's question on the fifth column. if something is officially converted to a condo or he willlis act -- or the ellis act eviction. there is no quantifying the rent

controlled units to the market? we know there are thousands of units occupied by long-term tenants. it is reset to market level which is a loss of an affordable unit until that becomes below market many years later. that is not reflected? those would not be reflected in the fifth column, that is the official removals from ellis act, is that right? >> it doesn't include rent controlled that might be back to market rate. it includes those notices reported to the rent board. >> i have other questions but i know supervisor mar was making comments. i think those two columns we are counting units that were already affordable. we rehab and still affordable

towards positive. we are missing. it is hard to capture. i want to say that we are missing the units turning over if they are not ellis or removed from the housing market when rent control tenants are displaced for any reason and that unit then becomes unaffordable market rate. we are not capturing the loss of those units. that picture is more grim when we factor those things in. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair peskin. i wanted to have this chart to make the point that my district 4 has by far the worst cumulative housing balance negative 178% here. that reflects the market rates

versus affordable housing developments in district four as well as high number of rent controlled units removed from protected status. this is why i am committed and made a high priority to focus on expanding affordable housing for low income and moderate income folks in our neighborhood in district four. i did have a question around the overall city-wide cumulative housing balance percentage. whether that is 21.5% of the regular table a or the 28.6% in the expanded table. i agree with supervisor preston's point around the expanded table.

do we have a goal in terms of housing balance and what cumulative housing balance percentage should be? >> housing report is simple analysis. prop k to set city policy to construct or rehabitat 30,000 homes by 2020 and 33% which would be affordable to low and moderate income households. this is intended to supplement that analysis. one important thing is that the calculations do not specifically track performances towards prop k. the metrics do differ slightly and it is not the best

comparison. that could be something we potentially change if necessary until it does reflect city goals. >> one other question. i understand that the planning code section on the housing balance report states if the cumulative housing balance percentage policy load 33% and that is reflecting prop k goal in any given year that the mayor's office of housing shall derm how much funding is required to bring the city into the minimum 33% housing balance and there should be a strategy presented to the board to accomplish at least the minimum of 33% housing balance. i wanted to ask what is being done in terms of following this provision of the planning code section regarding the housing

balance report? >> this is miriam. thank you for the question. housing affordability strategy we have been working with the mayor's office on housing and community development to address what are the additional strategies that need in concluded to increase that affordability. the financial analysis, account of existing projects, cost of those projects are included in that report for your review and we will be happy to provide more of the specifics as needed. >> if i may interject, supervisor mar, supervisor kim at the time actually basically suggested that when we hit that number, luxury new housing starts would come to a stop. the very powerful luxury housing

developers were out and mayor lee at that time opposed that solution. that was a solution proposed and as far as i am concerned is still on the table. >> thank you, chair peskin. i don't have any other questions about the housing balance report. i do have a few questions about the housing affordability strategies presentation. you mentioned that -- it seems that the strategy is less about strategy to address housing affordability as it is a strategy to expand housing

production overall in the city. if the strategy just to further the status quo on housing policies which has really failed to meet the needs of the vast majority of residents in the city, working people, and specifically the housing affordability strategy sets goal of one-third of the housing to be affordable and two-thirds market rate. as we have seen what has happened over the last decade market rate housing are above moderate housing is overwhelmingly luxury condos because that is most profitable for the developers to build. what is the analytical basis of

the planning goals of one-third affordable when the housing requires 56% affordable. that is highlighted through this hearing. we exceeded the market rate by 40% through 2022. i just want to understand for the housing afford built strategy why are we talking about one-third affordable housing and two-thirds market rate? >> the intent of the report was to do an analysis that would allow you all decision-makers to adjust the targets as needed. the city wanted to accomplish

the specific goals. you have an analysis. if we are to target 1600 affordable new units and 1100 preservation of affordable units then we need $500 million. that can be adjusted to the number that our decision-makers decide to increase. we didn't do analysis we used as reference the existing targets that the current may horand previous mayor stated and that is a reference. they intended not to use this but to use the analysis included here to achieve the city goals and to our policies and investments to decide how we want to inform the housing element based on this analysis. this report was to give analysis not necessarily a

recommendation. >> if i can jump in. information is power, and every time we have hearings on this it is fascinating. it brings out the libertarians and the community-based folks who have been fighting gentrification. i am always fascinated by it. occasionally we change public policy as a result of these reports. thank you, supervisor mar and former supervisor kim for creating the context to have this conversation. i want to go to what supervisor preston says. if you look at the fifth column and because of the way my computer works i could not see the total number at the bottom. it was in excess of 3,000 units

over the time period. the reality is if we can stop the disruption of people of lives through speculation, eviction, gentrification, that is about a third of your units. there you go. 5,000 units. 3951 units. that is the fifth column. if we can actually stop people from evicting human beings from aging in place, there is the number. i understand the libertarians don't get that because they don't believe in protecting people. that is actually the way we can solve this problem in large part without tearing people of lives up.

you need not comment on that. i am commenting on something i have been working on for 20 years. those numbers used to be worse. >> i agree, supervisor peskin. i guess i have one final question around the housing element on presentation that is related to my concern about the housing affordability strategy reflecting the status quo in building overwhelming market rate house housing and luxury cs and not meeting the needs of the folks in the community struggling with housing instability right now. for the housing element, i have a question. from the presentation that you did on the housing element, it is not clear to me that the analysis is really going to

keeply reflect the current housing needs of low to moderate income residents of workers and families and seniors in the city. i am asking will the planning department include the housing affordability and stability needs of san francisco residents in the housing element including quantitative measures based on lost of rent controlled units and demographic trends and goals, family trends and goals, and also the impact of market rate development on gentrification and affordability of housing in surrounding areas. >> thank you for your question. we will be happy to share with you the fame work of analysis we are focusing on right now. there are some new pieces of information that are not available, but that is not an

excuse for not doing some of this analysis, some of the segregation of data by race and segregation of data by terms of displacement. it is very difficult to get. we will do an extra effort to figure out what is possible and share that with you over the next three months we are conducting that data gathering analysis. i hope it does flag nose issues that we need to address as a city and that you have clearly articulatessed from the beginning of this item. >> thank you. chair peskin, i don't have any other questions right now. >> thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor preston. >> than thank you, supervisor mr

all of your comments. i have aufew questions and comments. just to the last where we were asking about housing balance and expanded balance. i want to emphasize the bottom line there. i think for the public when you are looking at this document and presentation, i think it would be misleading to assume 28.6% of our affordable housing production has been affordable housing. i don't think that is the data. 21.5% is the more accurate. i don't want it to be a false comfort to near 30% when you look longer term at housing production numbers. i did want to ask a couple questions. i should start by thanking all three representatives from

planning department for extraordinary amount of work that goes into these presentations and crucial work not just for the board in setting policy but for the public to understand how all of these complex programs fit together and what the bottom line is. i do want to ask about a few other public comments. i think they were making a similar point around people and not just units. supervisor mar you made a similar point. i want to ask of the high end property, there is a market rate property. do we have any information about the occupancy rates? we have the numbers of units produced. is there any information regarding occupancy of the newly

constructed units? >> thank you, supervisor preston. we have limited information on occupancy. we have limited information on people and we are working to address that. the availability of data is part of the challenges that we are facing is not just around the situation but we tend to focus on buildings more than investment of people. that is part of the target. supervisor fewer and mar, started a more detailed housing inventory to get information about occupancy. who is occupying what? we didn't succeed in the resources and funding and prioritizing the effort at this point. this is something that we will

continue to explore and identify how we could secure that type of information. how we can track. when you have a project in front of you, you know who is occupying the building, when you try to address vacancies you know the units vacant. we have estimates from various sources but not precise numbers. >> thank you. i think it is essential that we figure out how to get on top of this. to just look at numbers produced and not look at the demographics who gets to live there. when i hear people seriously trying to argue that building market rate housing in more well off neighborhoods is going to 134 how how13torelace people ofe

wealth and income issues who can afford and not afford market rate housing. i think we need to look at ways to look at how many of these units are occupied? who gets to occupy the units? who are the followings living in san francisco earning 50% a.m.i. and moving to affordable unit? who are the people buying the $1.6 million condo somewhere? not just on income but on the equity analysis, who is able to occupy a different unit. that leads me to another question around the data gathering and i know there are delays in generating the housing jobs report and others. i am curious what is -- is there

a backlog on research and data collection side? if so, why? under staffing, lack of available information or am i wrong and there is no delay? >> there is a delay. we apologize for that. some of that is we lost staff, but some of that is related that the staff working on that data analysis had to go to support the emergency center, emergency response. there is challenge in securing the specific data in the regional form. nonow we realize we need to trak employment. given the concerns you are raising and we are hearing from communities. there are certain jobs that are being impacted the most.

tracking those workers that are severely impacted by covid-19 is something we should provide in this report and it will be a little more difficult to gather. however, we think by the end of august we are provide you at least the employment and wages information so you know what has been happening up-to-date from the data sources that we have. >> thank you. maybe it is a comment and less of a question. i want to be clear. some of this i raise not as criticism. what everyone is dealing with everyone understands not everything is done on time. we talked about some things intentional and structural. supervisor peskin alluded to the funning issues -- funding issues of the department.

i want to make sure that the planning department is not unintentionally favoring delivery of permits and the attention that it needed to development projects at the expense of the research and data collection here. i don't know if that is what is happening. i want us to be mind full going toward. i think tw two-thirds of the funding that comes into the department to fund the department are in the form of fees for services. we would be missing the elephant from the room if we didn't recognize that could lead to priorities within the department if folks know it or not. i wanted to make sure that the work of presenting this extremely important data and

doing the race and equity analysis i am thrilled the department is committed to doing. that we are paul mindful that doesn't take a back seat to the other demands, particularly those paying the bill for the planning department. is it two-thirds or three quarters of the money coming to planning from the developers or to others to whom services are provided? >> you are correct. the main source of funding is fees. we also welcome your critical perspective as we discuss with our commission. we need to own our structural problem to resolve them. it is going to be a major effort

but we think with all of your support we will be able to succeed in reallocating resources. as you will knowledge san francisco is a city with resources and people who care. we can make the changes with in the planning department is city deserves. >> thank you. it is a longer conversation beyond this hearing. we have to look at structural issues that put us in this position where each time we look at housing balance we see impressive numbers on the market rate housing production side and struggle on the affordable housing side. iit is pay big dent how from hoe fund. this is an important endeavor. i also just switching gears.

i was looking at the numbers around the specific district and was troubled by the numbers in table 2, 3, 4 which breaks down from looking at the end of 2019 some pretty dismal numbers from my district. i will let other supervisors comment on their districts. entitled, permitted, under construction projects 6.7% affordable at the end of 2019, the end of this last period. permitted under construction 8.2% affor affordable. no permit 2.4% affordable. this is why with such a pri