>> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, july 27th, 2020. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin, joined by vice-chair supervisor safai and members supervisor dean preston. our clerk is ms. erika major. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating remotely. this is taken pursuant to the stayed wide stay at home order and all local orders and committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available

on each item on this agenda. channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. they're opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling (415)655-0001. again, that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146-729-4222. again, that's 146-729-4222. press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when an interest of interest comes up dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from

a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. if you may submit public comment. e-mail myself to the lapped usee and traffic clerk at ericamajor. if you submit public comment' a e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors included as part of the official file. i was asked upon are expected to appear on the board of supervisor agenda on august 11th unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. >> clerk: item number one to allow arts activities and social service or philanthropic facilities and covid-19 recovery activities as a temporary use in a vacant groundfloor commercial

space and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. -- press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already please press star 3 to lineup to speak. you are only need to press this once to get in line. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. major. colleagues, we heard this last week. we had to continue it for one week given the amendments. i believe that ms. amy bine art is here on behalf of the chief co-sponsor of the legislation that's been co sponsored by myself, supervisor haney, supervisor fewer and ms. binear, is there anything that you would like to say before i open this up to public comment? >> this is paul, supervisor and i'm staffing on this item.

we contributed a lot to this agenda so i apologize for confusion. we appreciate supervisor peskin and preston and safai and encouraging legislation. we discussed in the week prior to make it more responsive to the covid-19 we're in so you will notice the amendments of helping facilitate the greater use of vacant spaces with covid-19 recovery and response activities so we welcome any additional feedback from the public and will take any >> supervisor peskin: colleagues , do you have any questions for the chief sponsor or members of the planning departments who are available for questions? >> no questions. >> supervisor peskin: i'm sorry, say that again? >> i just said no questions. >> supervisor peskin: got it.

so, seeing none, madam clerk let's open this up for public comment. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. operations can you check to see if there are callers in queue. if there are callers that are ready. if you have not done so press star 3 to be added to the queue and your hand is raised and you will be notified. any callers? >> there are four callers in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> caller: hello, everyone. my name is mary. i'm a resident of the district 1. i'm also a parent and former student of city college, san francisco. i'm here today to comment on the balboa reservoir contract --

>> ma'am, ma'am. we are going to get to that item. that item is further down the calender. i'm sorry, go ahead ms. major. >> clerk: so, again. this is for item number 1. it's the planning code to allow arts activities and social service and philanthropic facilities in covid-19 recovery activities. if you are in line for balboa, please press star 3 to get out of line. next speaker, please, for item number one. >> caller: i was originally here for balboa but i also believe that having some form of arts and services open or accessible to the public is crucial in

these times. thank you for your comment. feel free to comment on the balboa items later. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm here to address the issue of non essential construction that is taking place in tenant occupied multi-family apartment buildings in san francisco. am i in the right spot? >> supervisor peskin: no, sir. i am the author of that legislation. it's not on today's calender. there will be an opportunity to speak about that in the future. today, it is not on our calender. >> caller: my apologies, we were given wrong information. >> supervisor peskin: there was a thought it would be on today's

calender but it turned out not to be the case. >> caller: is that now posted elsewhere on the website? >> supervisor peskin: no, on the website you will not see it. we don't yet have a date. we're working on a date. hopefully we will see it soon. it is not on today's calender. if you e-mail me at aaron.peskin@sfg.org i will have our office keep you informed. >> caller: ok. excellent. thank you, very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> ok. public comment is now closed.

colleagues, do we have a motion to send this item as heard on july 20th, as amended on july 20th as heard today to the full board with recommendations? >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor safai, madam clerk, on that motion a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion as stated, supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. can you please read the next item. >> clerk: item number 2 is an or dennance amending b planning code for the conditional use and approval process and the application fee for a uses of commercial space and affirming appropriate findings if members of the public wish to provide public comment, call the number (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146-729-42222.

press pound and pound again to speak. if you have not done so already press star 3 to lineup to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when we get to public comment you will notify that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, ms. imagine o i would like to thank my co sponsors, ronen, fewer and haney and invite my colleagues on this panel to feel free to join as co sponsors. i do really want to thank my chief-of-staff who came up with a catchy phrase, c.u., conditional use. commissioner mandelman had a report in march

>> the meaning through this legislation and i think we've all experienced this, arose out of mine and other offices work to help small businesses through the permitting offices and where we've all repeatedly encountered frustrations as applications would get lost on the desks of staff at planning department or more often repeatedly be transferred from one planner to another. we also reeyes th rerealize thee storefront conditional uses to be treated in much the same

manner as conditional uses for extremely large developments which were aimed at regulating things like off street parking consistent and curb cuts consistent with longstanding policies of the city. the poster child in my district for this legislation is (inaudible) which took some 340 days after submitting an application, which should have been streamlined and as i said earlier super mandelman's report really showed all of the deficiencies. the fundamental premise of this legislation is that rather than the first way, which is everything is subject to (inaudible) long-time-consuming

conditional use or second wave which is everything is principally permitted as a matter of right. what this legislation does is finds the third way. it gets rid of the conditional use process but still allows healthy, meaningful community input and dialogue and is we really dug into the planning department's community business priority processing program which they had some cute name for, which i can't remember, which the commission adopted by resolution in 2030 and it was well intended but has been less than perfectly implemented as demonstrated by accounting and more recently, tractor-trailer big apple. and under this legislation,

those projects who have been automatically eligible for a hearing on the consent calender of the planning commission within 90 days, not 365 days. and there is still a staff report that would have to address whether the project meets the criteria of conditions and that is necessary and desirable but there's no reason that small business owners, particularly during this pandemic, should be hiring lawyers and permit expediters to make their case. lastly, this legislation, would slash the fees in half which is, i think, commonsense during this pandemic and i commend this legislation to you and with the support of the small business commission and i also will, in a minute, invite supervisor ronen's office through a binard to address the committee and i

want to thank supervisor ronen for being my first co-sponsor on this effort. but most importantly, i want to thank a whole series of community-based organizations and individuals. betty lilly, with the china town merchants association and the north beach business association that voted unanimously to support this legislation and the golden gate restaurant association and the san francisco chamber of commerce with that i would like to call on this. amy -- >> i'm just unmuting myself and thank you so much. chair peskin and committee members. ledge lay -- >> supervisor peskin: we can barely hear you. >> is that better? >> i will speak loudly.

so i just want to take two minutes, first to express supervisor ronen's strong support for the legislation, which she's signed to as co-sponsor. this legislation, for most neighborhoods is a reasonable and effective way to remove unnecessary burdens and costly delays for small businesses that are able to take the lead to get started during this time of so much uncertainty. but second in the main reason i wanted to speak is to thank supervisor peskin and especially legislative aid lee hephner for working with our office and the calle24 district on amendments that chair peskin is going to introduce today or has always speculated to the members. the calle 24 was added to the planning code in recognition of the need to protect the historyy and culture of the latino cultural district in the heart of the mission. calle is not a destination but home to newcomers and long time families, artists, mom and pop

stores and it's been hit by overwhelming displays and now the brunt of the covid-19 crisis. the cu process has been used by calle to ensure community input and to proactively and effectively engage with merchants to the corridor. we're happy to continue working with planning and the cultural district to refine how the c.u. process works on 24th street but for now we really appreciate it's being exempted from the new rules. i just want to say thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. and, i do believe the originations of the 1986 neighborhood commercial district legislation long for even my time was the notion neighborhood self-determination. so, i completely welcome those amendments, which i have in deed circulated to my colleagues and will go through shortly but before i do that, on behalf of

the planning department, i believe we have mr. sanchez. are you there? >> i am here, yes. thank you. thank you, very much. good afternoon, supervisors, diego sanchez with planning department staff. supervisors, on may 28th, the planning commission considered this ordinance after some deliberations the planning commission voted 4/3 to recommend the ordinance with modifications and the modifications include in lieu of essentially codifying the priority processing program or going by the cute name of cb3p we should permit at the first story use that contributes to retail vitality for a period of three years and -- other measurs limiting them. that concludes my remarks and i'm available for questions, thank you. >> supervisor peskin: so,

colleagues, do you have any questions from mr. sanchez? >> no, sir. >> supervisor peskin: seeing no questions, and this does not happen very often anymore because the legislative and the executive branches are actually working much closer in collaboration than has historically happened. many, many years ago, my colleagues, supervisor jake introduced proposition d and amendment to the charter that split the appointment on the planning commission to the board of the exercises supervisors ano mayor. as mr. sanchez just said, this was a 4-3 vote at the planning commission. three from the appointees of the people's house, the board of supervisors, who actually agreed with the legislation without

amendment for to the executive branch that actually wanted to go with the two choices. one of the two choices. the choice of everything is principally permitted but, i think we've done a pretty good job of parsing this and we've done that by making sure that those kinds of uses, adult entertainment, tobacco use, a number of other uses that are traditionally very controversial and impactful to neighborhoods, are not set into the context of this legislation. quite frankly, there were a number of things that went before the planning commission relative to peer relief that planning department staff did not comment on and with all due respect to mr. sanchez, actually the department, and mr. star, there are a number of things

that were put forward relative to the types of uses that they could have recommended to the commission. instead, we ended up with as, mr. sanchez represented by a 5-4 vote but three came from the board appointees and the fourth from the executive branch. with that, why don't we open this up to public comments, unless there are any questions from my colleagues. >> i just had a quick question, chair peskin, maybe for you, i'm just curious of the exempted uses in the legislation that you mentioned from the ones that are likely to be more controversial and requires some input. does that track the -- what is already exempted under the existing planning program or are these new classes of exemptions? >> yes.

so, the answer to supervisor preston is that does track what the -- i forget the fancy term they use, the cp3p or 3pp or whatever it is, whatever the fancy term was, jess, that tracks and fundamentally, what we are doing is co cot a -- and we're bringing the time down to the neighbor groups so desire and if that does not happen, the fees are refunded in whole to the applicant.

so with that, let's open this up to members of the public for public comment. madam clerk -- >> clerk: thank you. we have 18 listeners with two in queue to speak. operations is double checking to see the callers. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added for item number 2 to speak. that is the planning code conditional use review and approval process. >> supervisor peskin: first speaker, please. >> my name is lakula and i'm a resident of district 11 and african american woman, who has lived in this area for 70 years. i'm a lifelong learner and a retired r.n. with the city and county of san francisco. i have witnessed, over several

years, 20 years, the continued efforts to privatize the lands of the puc has long granted to the -- >> supervisor peskin: with all due respect, i do not, in any way, want to interrupt you and i very much would like you to comment on the balboa reservoir items which are 7 and 8. >> let me finish, sir. i'm very concerned and adamant leo posed to the puc and other parties attempt to privatize this public land. this is not acceptable to our community. i dissen franchise the african american community, the city college land and usage of the -- >> supervisor peskin: with all respect, and your comments have

been heard and noted by me and my colleagues, we are going to get to that item. right now, we're talking about streamlining conditional use authorization in our neighborhood commercial districts. you are welcome to come back and comment under item 7 and 8 and we have heard what you have to say but madam clerk, are there any other individuals who would like to speak to item 2 on today's calender? >> >> clerk: operations is checking. this is public comment for item number 2 on the agenda, the planning code on conditional use review and approval process. folks that are waiting to speak on items number 7 and 8, the balboa reservoir project should not be in queue. if you are in queue express star 3 to remove yourself. if you would like to speak on item number 2, go ahead and press star 3 if you have not already and we'll call you and

your line will be notified that you have been unmuted and you may begin. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is chevy and director of public policy at the golden gate restaurant association and i am calling on item number 2 and we're commenting here to show support for this ordinance which will save small businesses and especially the independent restaurants we represent both time and money. we've continuously advocated for the city to look at how to make it easier to open and operate a small business in san francisco and this legislation does that. thank you to supervisor peskin and supervisor ronen, fewer and haney for sponsoring this ordinance, we hope this committee will show support and continue it to the whole board. thank you so much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, members of the board and supervisors. my name is gale gillman, a 20-year resident of north beach. i'm calling in support of item

number 2. in a time when small businesses are facing numerous challenges due to covid-19, and the recession our economy is entering into, legislation to streamline and cut these in half to incentivize small businesses is critical. san francisco is a community of many small villages. it include streets to irvine avenue to grant avenue our small businesses are the life blood of san francisco. i really hope the board of supervisors will continue this forward to the full board and i fully support passage of item number 2. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. gillman. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is robert and i live in district 5. i support this legislation but i would appreciate some amendments. i see 24 there's language that still would allow neighborhood

groups to appeal or to lengthen the approval time from three months to five months and according to the budget and legislative annalist office, the average wait time for a planning commission hearing is around 10 months. so effectively in the worse case, it would cut the approval time in half. five months is still pretty pathetic for approval time. we're still requiring small businesses to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the rent while they wait for a hearing. [please stand by]

>> it's interesting that the speaker addressed that because

there are very few instances where an establishment of an organization that has been recognized by the planning department, has objected to see this kind. i do believe what this legislation is aimed at is giving businesses to get with the neighborhood, to have that dialogue and give them modicum leverage but it has been used very few times. remember, at the end of the day, any of this can be brought to the board of supervisors. it's really good when neighbors and businesses work it out of the front end. i appreciate those comments. next speaker please. >> i'm chris shollman. i'm a resident of district three and nonprofit director. i wanted to call in and support

this legislation. the cost and time for going through conditional businesses in several ways. in addition to the time enter d it also prevents businesses moving forward on projects. we had number of projects in my neighborhood that did not move forward because businesses did not have resources to go into commitment. i appreciate this legislation. i fully support it. i ask for honorable committee to forward this to the full board. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> i have a question only. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible]

i'm wondering about the liquor license issue here. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. chapman. unfortunately, this is not set up for dialogue.

are there any other members of the public who like to speak to item number two? >> yes. i'm president northeast business association. we totally support this legislation. encourage the board of supervisors to pass it as soon as possible. for years we advocated that conditional use permit and permit process should be streamlined. i want to speak for the organization and my own personal position as a business in north beach. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker please.

>> i wanted to respond a little bit supervisor peskin. this only applies to long established neighborhood association. the law does not state that. it says association d11 and d4, -- [indiscernible] it's been previously used for giving associations leverage to force us start up businesses to pay rent and i will try to -- i wish they take that provision out. there's no vetting here. contrary to what supervisor

peskin said, anybody can be a neighborhood organization. i can be a neighborhood organization if i register myself with a department. either take out those provisions. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public who like to address item number two? >> clerk: that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, public comment is closed. let me say, neighborhood organization has to actually be in continuous good standing for a number of years and apply to the planning department in order to receive that coveted status. there are fewer and fewer of them overtime. i do want to say to supervisor

preston who asked a question that i did not answer entirely correctly because my staff said couple of things which is that number one, the way the planning department has done this both informally in 2013 and formally five years ago in 2015, required individuals or applicants to apply for either the expedited permit or go through the traditional process. it was very rare that planning department said you're in the wrong bucket, you should go to the expedited situation. this actually requires automatic screening of all applications to make sure that you qualify. also, we actually expanded the eligibility to provide priority processing for uses that were

not a part of the planning department's regimen of the last eight years. i wanted to put that on the record. with that pursuant to the request from supervisor ronen's office and colleagues you are in receipt of this. i will go through it. some of these are minor technical insertions on page 1, line 21. the insertion of the file number page 23 insertion of the date it went through the planning commission and resolution number that is repeated with file number and the plannings commission resolution number on page 2. then there is the language with regard that you see on page 3 which speaks to the fact that this is a community that is all

laid out at on page 3 and one line on page 4. reiterated on page 5 at lines 9 and 10. i would like to make the motion for the amendments who are not substantive and do not require rereferral to the planning commission with regard to the pages requested by staff supervisor ronen. madam clerk? >> clerk: on the motion as stated by supervisor peskin. [roll call vote] >> supervisor peskin: colleagues , i would like to invite you if

you want, no pressure, to cosponsor the item as amended. >> please sign me as a co-sponsor. >> me as well. >> supervisor peskin: on the item as co-sponsored by the two members, my two colleagues on this committee, to send this item with recommendation to the full board without objection. roll call please. >> clerk: [roll call vote] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. could you please read item 3. >> clerk: [agenda item read]

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. i want to congratulate supervisor fewer for not only getting prop e on the ballot all plot to her staff and doing lot of the staff work but getting it passed about. this is subsequent legislation to help implement that. we're delighted to be joined by supervisor fewer. the floor is yours.

>> supervisor fewer: the legislation before you today is prop e that passed almost 70% of voters. i want to thank my cosponsors of the initiative, supervisor peskin, haney and walton as well as the mayor and entire board of supervisors for supporting prop e and helping us ensure the voters overwhelmingly passed it last year. i want to thank planning staff, the environmental team for all their work on the addendum to the e.i.r. one of my top priorities during my time as supervisor of district one has been to bring more affordable housing to the west side and that's why i wanted to author this initiative. i'm proud to say that thanks to the passage of prop e and the prop a affordable housing bond in 2019. we have a 100% affordable senior

housing project moving forward in district one. i'm so grateful for partnering with my office to deliver 100 new permanently affordable homes to seniors in my district. this project alone has made my offices work on prop e worthwhile. it is not the only project that seeing the benefits of this passage. the educator housing project has benefited from the zoning and streamlining provisions of prop e. tndc is in due diligence phase for another potential site. we're excited about this project. ordinance before you today will expand these affordable housing opportunities even further by establishment baseline height of 50 feet for 100% affordable

housing projects and educator housing projects. and reducing the minimum lot threshold from 10,000 square feet to 8000 square feet. removing the minimum threshold for vacant lots in surface level parking lots. my office work for the affordable housing developers and financing experts to develop both their original proposal and this amendment based on practical real world experiences. thank you to the council of community housing organizations and their affiliates for partnering with us on this important legislation. thank you also to supervisors mar, peskin and haney and safai for cosponsoring this ordinance. thank you to the planning commission for the recommendation of this legislation. thank you chair peskin for allowing me to speak on this. i hope i have your recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor peskin: thank you

supervisor fewer. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm audrey maloney. planning commission heard this item on july 16th. after some discussion as supervisor fewer stated, voted unanimously to approve the item as proposed. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. that is music to my ears, except when you guys opposed legislation when it's not. okay. why don't we open up for public comment. >> clerk: thank you mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there's callers in queue. we have 23 in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, first speaker please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is george fleischman. i'm an attorney representing the appellants and balboa reservoir. i want to speak briefly on this item. i feel like it is related. this item is about affordable housing and it's about educator housing. it's about facilitating 100% affordable housing. my clients believe that's an extremely laudable goal. we encourage the board to do everything it can to increase that kind of housing. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm theo gordon. i'm a renter in district five calling to support this legislation. i would like this to pass and go further. prop e was a watered-down version what the mayor originally proposed to do birate

process for affordable educational housing. let's expand this much further and say if you building anything, that has this amount of affordable housing or any type of land, you get year permits automatically if you go through fire and safety. there's no reason community groups or neighbors living in multimillion dollar houses should be able to put a break on people who are most needy guess housing. progressive city doesn't ask for permission before build housing for needy people. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> hello i'm a renter in district one. i want to say i think this really important first step in addressing the city's affordable housing crises. i strongly support it. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: are there

any other members of the public who like to comment on this item? >> i'm here representing united educators of san francisco. we're here to ask for your support of the legislation as proposed by the planning commission. i want to be able to say that together with this leadership of supervisor fewer and peskin as well as with community partners and affordable housing organizations came together and worked on this legislation. we urge for your support. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you to the united educators of san francisco. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm robert. i live in district five.

i'm enthusiastic support of this bill. i ask you to go further, actually. in district five, they're looking at 730 stanion street. which is 100% affordable housing development. it's great we have a site zoned for 85 feet in height. i think it will be great if we could have 100% affordable housing sites zoned across the city, especially on the west side where we unfortunately have not seen enough 100% affordable housing development. this is a great step forward. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello supervisors.

thithank yousupervisor fewer ant cosponsors for bringing this forward. the conversation was had at the planning commission about the size of parcels. i'm glad that such projects will be constructed on parcels greater than 8000 square feet which contains only surface parking lots do not demolish any existing buildings. i'm fully in support of this. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> this is jonathan randolph, i want to say opposite of her comment. planning commission did discuss the 8000 square feet versus 3000 square feet limit.

i thought it was odd to hear him arguing that we should keep it at 8000 and have less opportunities for affordable housing down to the 3000 limit. you probably will keep it at 8000. i want to hear one concrete argument for why not to keep it -- why not to bring it down to as many parcels as we can down to the 3000 limit? otherwise, i think this is really good legislation. please pass it. i was wondering about that part. what is the actual argument for keeping it at 8000 square feet instea?thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker please.

>> i'm the policy manager i like to take the opportunity to thank supervisor fewer and all of those who championed prop e and worked on the legislation. i want to express our support for this item. prop e is making strides in our community. as supervisor fewer stated in the process -- [indiscernible] this amendment will further expand outside opportunities for what can be affordable across the city. additionally we are extremely supportive the prop e amendment that will help ensure viable projects for educator communities in san francisco. thank you. we are in full support. we look forward to seeing our

entire city benefit from this. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm cheryl ogilvy. i'm supportive this legislation. i think it's wonderful. i think we can go little bit farther. this can go farther. it should definitely be used to the benefit of building much more affordable housing especially since we are pushing toward our element. i think it would be important since the numbers for our arena. san francisco should push to them toward the ceiling.

i think it's really important for us to understand that there's a lot of overcrowding, especially in my district. which is district nine. i appreciate seeing more affordable units to be spread throughout the city along with md9. i think it's very important for us. we need to prevent overcrowding and we'll require lot of housing at all income levels in order to do that. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker. i'm not sure how you reduce overcrowding increase density. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the counselor community housing organization.

i'm happy to support this very important piece of legislation. thank you supervisor fewer. is the things we're talking about. the fact that was presented to the voters and passed overwhelmingly carrying other important measures with it is as important as the measure itself. the idea that san franciscans from the west side to the east side support more density when done right when it took talks affordability and keeping generation in the city and providing opportunitys for newcomers who not as wealthy to live in the city. it's critically important. i'm so happy to be part of the city that supports this kind of work. thank you supervisor fewer and

looking forward to seeing this move forward. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker please. >> clerk: that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: all right. see nothing other members of the public for this item, public comment is closed. supervisor mar, you're name is on the roster. we're joined by colleague, supervisor mar. >> commissioner mar: i wanted to thank supervisor fewer and her legislation and all their work on proposition e. this has been stated. this is extremely important streamline 100% affordable housing development. this is important on the west side which hasn't received its fair share of investments in affordable housing. really excited to see this

impact of property and starting to play out on the west side with low income senior affordable housing project that supervisor fewer mentioned. for the educator housing project, in the outer sunset, prop e is really going to allow 134 teachers and educators to move into their new affordable homes up to a year sooner than they would have without prop e. finally in district four, we identified over 50 potential development sites affordable housing. those will be smaller sites and many of them are in that range of 8000 to 10,000 square feet. these amendments that we're

considering today will benefit and streamline 100% affordable housing development in my district. >> supervisor peskin: before i go back to the primary author of this legislation, i do want to say in the almost 20 years that i've been on and off the board of supervisors, some of the supervisors were moderate and some of them were progressives. all opposed additional density on the west side. those supervisors like myself and supervisor preston who come from the east side of the city, have lived with density for over 100 years in not all of us are as old as i am. the entire electorate and their elected representatives on the west side of san francisco has

profoundly changed in the last decade. when i first try to pass legislation, a set of progressives and moderate supervisors rallied together and killed that legislation. it later on became the law of our little land. the notion that this kind of legislation would be forwarded by westside supervisor embraced by another west side supervisor from the richmond and sunset respectively, means that we are turning a page in san francisco. i welcome it and embrace it and was glad to be part of that. i want to thank my chief of staff who worked on this. i want to thank all my colleagues who showed up in supervisor mar's district when it kicked off the campaign. it was a great morning.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much for your early support. i wanted to say that, these amendments before you today were developed by really on the ground experts. that build 100% affordable housing. they know that affordable housing at 3000 square feet will not be built. this is a practical experience for people who built affordable housing. that's why we're changing in the legislation today from 10,000 square feet to 8000 square feet. i wanted to add that with this other amendment is making the threshold at 50 feet, that they can also add three stories of density or height to their development on top of the 50-foot baseline height. i think i was very remiss in not

thanking my outstanding legislative aid and your outstanding aid. kudos for all their help on this. i think it is something that the west side supervisors are looking at the lack of affordable housing in our district and looking for ways to build. there are 100% affordable housing. some people said it's the thing of the past. we have proven it's not true. thank you chair and thank you colleagues. i hope you will support this legislation today. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor fewer. before i call on supervisor preston, i have to not to get in congratulatory nonsense, really shot out supervisor katie chang

who was one of the first west side supervisors who was going to go down that road at their own political peril. >> supervisor preston: thank you chair peskin. thank you supervisor fewer for your leadership on this. proud to support prop e and like to see added as a cosponsor to this legislation. i find legislation like this refreshing. i think so much of our discussion around housing, often intentionally by those that profit for market rate housing. intentionally try to conflate the discussion around market rate housing, which is one discussion with a discussion around housing that is affordable to working class in san francisco. what you saw in prop e, what you see in this legislation is a

clear signal that we're serious about housing for the working class in san francisco. that we're serious about housing our educators and we're not going to buy into this frame which decides who is pro-housing, who is anti-housing all that based on what one thinks of multimillion dollar luxury housing. which does not allow a discussion of affordable housing to be held hostage to discussion of high-end housing. i'm happy to talk about market rate housing and happy to talk about affordable housing. i appreciate the legislation for being clear on the issue right now that is one of the greatest challenges of the city. which is affordable housing. we'll talk about the housing balance later in the agenda. we are absolutely failing as a city to build affordable housing. the way that we get there is

through 100% affordable projects. that will be expanded based on this legislation. i want to recognize and really associate myself with the comments that chair peskin made about my colleagues in district one in district four in neighborhoods that historically have not always welcomed greater affordable housing and high density affordable housing. supervisor fewer, supervisor mar, i want to express my appreciation for your ongoing leadership in making sure that we are creating affordable housing opportunities for working class here in san francisco, all over the city including on the west side. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you mr. chair. thank you supervisor fewer for all your wonderful work on this.

thanks to the united educator, preview mar, everyone. district 11 is one that falls little bit on the east side. we've been a good example in the last three and a half years, we've been able to push forward 375 units of affordable housing. two of those projects are 100% affordable. i can tell you that accelerating the process saved significant cost to the project. quicker things can move, the easier things are able to be built and the overall financing of the project changes. with the help of yourself, supervisor fewer and the work we did with the mayor to get the additional matching funds, that then ultimately able to accelerate state financing process. when people say, what's the point of doing this.

why do we need to streamline. that is one of the biggest reasons. we want to get people housed quickly as we can. educators and others that are being forced out of the city because they are no longer able to afford to live here. two, the quicker we move, the quicker we're able to finance the project and keep the cost down. i want to appreciate all the hard work. i want to point out that it definitely can be done with the right community process and what we've experienced in our district over the last four years, moving these projects forward is that if you do the right outreach, if you talk about the project in the right way and you express not only that there's an ability for those in the neighborhood and the application process to benefit from it. they see there's a stake in the process for them. i wanted to thank you all for your hard work and proud to support prop. >> supervisor peskin: thank you

supervisor safai. if there are no other comments from the author, committee members or supervisor mar, colleagues who would like to make a motion on behalf of supervisor fewer to send this item with recommendation to the full board without objection? >> so moved. >> supervisor peskin: roll call plaza. >> clerk: [roll call vote]. you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. this entire conversation has been a perfect segway into the next two items.

please read items four and five together. >> clerk: [agenda item read]. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. before i call on the requester for these hearings, supervisor mar as i've been going down trip down memory lane and in booking my former colleague, supervisor tang. with regard to both these items and underlying policy that surrounds them want to invoke the name of supervisor jane kim. who's the author of the housing balance report concept and a different proposition.

i want to state that for the record. with that,ly turn it over to supervisor mar. >> commissioner mar: thank you so much chair peskin and members of the land use committee for your time to discuss the importance timely topic of housing affordability and housing stability needs. the global pandemic and our shelter-in-place responses has revealed the importance of stable and secure housing and the public health of the growth inequality we've accepted in san francisco. the housing policy decision made here in san francisco have allowed a segment of the population to work remotely. some of them quickly migrated to other cities after coming to san francisco during the recent tech-driven job and economic boom. it also forced working class essential workers who are highly dependent on public transportation, travel from

suburbs risking their lives to work in a period of high unemployment. renters cannot pay rent, homeowners cannot pay their mortgages and we anticipate eviction or foreclosure in the coming months ahead without government intervention. the future of jobs and work is uncertain. we don't have projection data on the scale of the impact. this is the context of today within which we should be looking at housing policy. with where we are and what we need to do to focus what's ahead. in addition to responding to new challenges caused by covid-19, we must reflect on our city's housing policies to date and the path forward to solve housing affordability in a more strategic and impactful way. the planning department has been working on report and strategies before the pandemic. it's right now initiating the process for the state mandated updated element.

the housing element is our road map for housing policies. the timing of this update is important as we see what the pandemic and economic crises is revealing about current housing policies. planning staff will be presenting on these today. my goal is to discuss how they fit with in our housing needs of low to moderate income workers, resident and communities. last year, i commissioned a job report from the budget and legislative analyst office. the board of supervisors unanimously passed an ordinance they sponsored requiring an annual report from the planning department which was due this past april. i'm disappointed that the report is still not complete. but today we will hear from planning staff about the scope of that report. we'll get precise completion time line. the budget legislative analyst revealed that job growth over the past decade has been uneven

with high wage jobs growing by 14% but lower wage jobs by 11%. the b.l.a. said housing production has been exceeding the needs of high wage workers, we fail to build housing for low and moderate income house holds. low income households have declined by 23% despite growth in low wage jobs in san francisco. now, during covid-19 health crises, this disparity has become a matter of life and death, depending on who can afford to shelter-in-place and who cannot, who can live close to their job here in san francisco and who must commute great distance. this pandemic as well as the racial justice movements are quite a tragic killing of george floyd highlights what we known. we need a new framework for housing policy it's centred on having affordability and

stability and centred on racial and social equity. we should not be led by the whims of private market development and real estate speculation and housing dictated by profit motive. we need to be guided by our city's actual housing needs for its residents and workers. the status quo does not work for the majority of san franciscans. even with one of the biggest developments in city history. the status quo ignoring the role of economic development policies on housing and -- we are meeting the need of our residents and communities. we need to ask the right questions and get the data to tackle the problem. this includes data on racial demographic, resident affordability, homelessness, commute patterns pattern and hg

trends. in the mist of a pandemic and economic crises, we need to rethink our existing frame work and focus on facilitating more and more market rate housing. i look forward to our discussion on how san francisco can refocus our priorities to meet the actual housing needs of our residents and communities including families, seniors and low to middle income workers. we have planning department who will lead the presentation. supervisor peskin, i want to make a request if you're okay with it. if we can hear public comment after the presentation from the planning department? >> supervisor peskin: yes, supervisor mar. as we discussed for you and i, not form of the committee. we'll turn it over to planning then we'll have public comment. they will bring it back for the members of the committee and

supervisor mar and any other supervisors that want to join to discuss the subject of these two hearings. with that, we'll open up to the planning department. >> good afternoon chair peskin. good afternoon supervisor preston and supervisors safai. as supervisor mar has noted, this is not normal times. these are critical times. we need to assess our work, to be able to identify what needed strategies and policy and plans to meet the needs of our

community. we'll start with a brief context of our challenges. this is our transdata report and share some key highlights. some of those are the reports that supervisor mar has requested. they will follow with a presentation with some of the recent reports. i will provide overview -- [audio breaking up].

today, supervisor mar has already discussed san francisco and most of the work is battling with the pandemic like never before. this is impacting all of us at many levels. many businesses and schools are closed. many people are experiencing mental health challenges. in this context, it is very clear that communities of colour have been hit the hardest. if we look at the latin-x community, they only represent

15% of the population. if you see the map, the neighborhoods where we have communities of colour or lower income communities are the ones that have been impacted the most. >> clerk: looks like we're having trouble with the presenter. merriam, may i suggest you turn off your camera? >> is this better? >> clerk: i think so. >> i was indicating -- it's a problem. our housing challenges are not new to the city. covid-19 has highlighted some of

our problems in the city. even few months ago when san francisco was experiencing growth for 10 years, we have severe homeless problems. our black population was shrinking. the latin-x workers couldn't find affordable housing. what covid-19 has done, it helped us recognize our historic racial and social inequities. planning was playing a role, if we look at the racial inequity we can go back to the 1400s for our indigenous people. we can go through some of the ordinance that we passed.

most recently, some of the predatory lending practices and exclusionary zoning for which government is responsible. we can see the cumulative impacts on american indian, black and other communities of colour today. lack of affordable housing, homelessness, displacement is a major issue. this kind of crises, we're also opening some new possibilities. we have the ability to imagine the possibilities.

we are directed to centre our planning work on racial and social equities. in this context that we're reframing our housing work, we can say that we're not starting from zero. since 2016, we started developing a racial and social equity plan. much work remains. that work can only be accomplished through a process of collaboration with our community. here is where we need to define or redefine our data reports. [indiscernible]

this work also require collaboration with city partne partners. it's something that impacts our neighboring cities. we're going so start first reviewing update reports. michelle? >> thank you. good afternoon supervisors. i'm michelle littlefield. i'm the data and analytics manager for the planning department. before we dive in the specific report, i want to give a brief overview of the reports we do prepare for the department specifically within citywide. then we can dive into the

specifics of the housing data, housing inventory and the housing balance report. we do three major reporting that are released to the public. the first group of reports are with respect to areas planned monitoring. you can see here, we do variety of reports that are done varying frequencies throughout the year or over multiple years. really focus of the area plan are to report on the development activity that is within each respective community area plan and also other metrics that have been identified including the status of transportation initiatives, fees that have been collected through impact fees and other economic information

that is collected with respect to those specific target areas. these have different reporting requirements across the board. but the majority of them do hit on today major things with respect to housing, with respect to development and with respect to other major initiatives that are really targeted towards specifically targeting the issues that have been identified that each area plan has been identified to be monitored for that area plan. >> supervisor peskin: if i can interrupt you for a second. we like to look at colours. is the reason that these places all the same colours because they are all part of the eastern neighborhoods rezoning? >> yes, that's correct. these are actually grouped into a much larger report. which is for the eastern neighborhoods.

that explains the colour coordination for the respective reports. >> supervisor peskin: wasn't western zuma done separately? >> as far as i am concerned, they were done -- the timing when these reports were completed were at the same time. the date for this last report shows the time range between 2011 and 2015. >> supervisor peskin: this is your reporting, not when legislation was passed to create the area plans. >> create. these reports are specifically related to the area plan monitoring following the adoption of the plan. >> supervisor peskin: got it. thank you. >> great question. next slide please. the next set of reports, which is the subject of our

presentation today are next group of housing reports that are related to housing projection within san francisco. there are four reports that specifically focus on this area of development. one is the 2019 san francisco housing inventory. that's something that is done annually. which we will be hearing more about shortly. the other one is a quarterly data set that is developed -- that is published on the planning website. this focus on the housing development pipeline. what is currently under construction in san francisco. there's two other reports. one is the housing balance report which you will also be hearing about shortly. that is done twice a year. once in the spring and once in the fall. finally, this new report, jobs housing report is something that

is new for this year for our work program. that is something that is currently being designed to identify what is appropriate methodology per the requirements of the ordinance that was just passed. that has not been completed yet. that is something that staff is working on. just couple of slides i will show you new schedule that we have for all the monitoring reports that we do with that. the next slide please. final step are category of reports we do are the industry inventory which is done every year. the other report, which is called interagency plan implementation committee annual report. known as the ipic report.

it's a very broad analysis of the job and workforce and the general data that is related to the economic activity within san francisco and that is done on an annual basis. the ipci report is something that tracks the impact fees that are collected from major development project within san francisco. it identifies the fees collected within area plan and how those fees are reinvested or appropriated to go back into the communities from which these developments have been upgraded. this is just a general timeline that we have what has been completed. so far which is the housing balance report and the housing inventory. those have been completed on time. those were due back in april. i would like to take a step back

for a moment and kind of provide some context around this schedule that you see before you. due to the circumstances arising from the covid-19 pandemic including the deployment of analytic staff to serve service workers, providing data and analysis support for ongoing covid-19 recovery efforts as well as the hiring freeze that resulted from the projected budget shortfall which impacts the department's ability to fill vacant analytic positions, we expect delays on the delivery of locally mandated reports. i wanted to just emphasize these monitoring reports is ones i just signed over are locally mandated reports. they do not include state mandated reports which include the h.cd requirement for the annual regional housing

allocation report that is due at the beginning of april each year. the other one is the california department of housing -- excuse me, california department of finance housing change report that is due also around the same time frame. those reports are not included here. those reports were done on time as well. usually when it comes to housing, housing reports, those are typically -- the bulk of those are typically done within the first quarter of each year. there's usually a big push. we have both state requirements that require submittal of the state reports as well as the two that you see that are completed here. which is the housing balance report and the housing inventory report. given the circumstances under which we operating. we have a very short data analytic staff that is responsible for preparing these

reports. what we anticipate is for the rest of this year for the quarterly pipeline reports, we expect those to be on time. the ones that are targeted for completion where we expect delays to happen are things that include the jobs housing report. that is something that we hope to get to the board by end of this quarter. you will definitely -- we will definitely provide update it is there are changes dependingen whether or not there are additional deployments from analytics staff. we'll keep you posted on that. there are two area monitoring plans that are also due, which is the market and octavia monitoring report and the downtown monitoring report. then of course, we have the two last one on our list, which is commerce industry and housing balance report. both of which -- both of which

expected to be completed by the first quarter of next year. there's an effort, merriam will expound on this little bit as part of our presentation, there's an effort to wide range of efforts. there's an effort to improve the way we connect the reports so it's easier to consume for the public and also to improve the way that we collect data to support these effort. with that, i will turn it over

to her who will be presenting on the housing data and housing report and the housing inventory >> supervisor peskin: ms. little field before you turn it over, thank you for that presentation. thank you to supervisor mar for calling this hearing. do you present any data in any of these reports that look at the rest of the region? granted, we as lawmakers and society are responsible for our county. relative to regional housing needs assessments and other reports, i don't ever see anything that i can recall but there are lot of reports that shows for instance, what's happening in san mateo county and marin county. >> as part of the housing

inventory, there is one section that does point to housing construction activity in their region. that's actually really great feedback. if i'm hearing correctly, benchmarking opportunity to see how well we are doing relative to other jurisdictions within the bay area. this is something -- this is an ongoing conversation. we are in communication to look at regionally more broadly how can we share data more efficiently. that's significant undertaking. we are working with over 100 jurisdictions across the bay area. just trying to find simple ways. we all require the same thing to the state. if we can start there, we can begin to kind of work through the different agencies and their

i.t. departments and their data team if they have a data team. really moving towards creating data standards across the region with respect to permit and permit activities. there's a regional goal and effort right now to move towards that. >> supervisor peskin: it would be great to see an apples to apples dashboard for the region. >> i agree. thank you for the -- i appreciate that. that's something we're looking at. >> supervisor peskin: you mentioned that you are understaffed and under-- underfunded. how the half of you funded? if you don't know the answer, it's not leading question. do you come out of permit fees? how do you prepare these reports get funded?

>> i don't know the exact breakdown. i can get back to you on that question. >> supervisor peskin: last but not least, relative to policy recommendations to the director or to the commission or to the law making body, other than information, how does that percolate upwards? >> how does -- >> supervisor peskin: what policy recommendations -- like merriam put something forward that talk about rate history and exclusionary housing in the modern time. do these reports say, hey, planning commission, you should adopt these policies? hey board of supervisors, mayor, should adopt these policies? >> merriam can certainly chime

in to this as well as she goes through and with james on the strategy piece. i think that is something that as policy initiative are being developed. these are conversations that we have internally about what data are we collecting. if we're not collecting the data, are other agency collecting that data already. if not, do we need to source this new data and kind of foiling out how to -- figure out how to fund that. especially in light of covid, this is something that we are definitely keen on and trying to identify what data is being collected right now. there's a lot of opportunity through the economic recovery task force and the work that is being done on the disaster service worker deployment arena. there's data that is actively collected on the ground now to support and inform emergency response by the city. that is definitely potential

there to connect with those agencies and the task force to really identify whether or not they are collecting that new source of data and to literally connect it. one question, how can we make it easier for people to understand and number two, how can we draw clear line between the data that is being collected and the policies that they are intended to inform. that is an ongoing process. >> supervisor peskin: last but not least, it is my recollection that the department used to, i think it stopped in 2013 or 2014, correct the data on the number of new tendencies and common that were being created and cease doing that. do you have any information

about that? >> that question actually does sound familiar. i believe we got a similar question around that, mentioning that recently as well. that's something that we can look into. with that would require -- there's definitely a data collaboration between planning and some of the other permitting, affordable housing agencies. that is an area that i think we could definitely look into and consider including that as part of the effort to improve these reports. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. littlefield. if you can look at my contention and historic recollection and tell us whether indeed the city through planning or mohd gather that information. when it stopped and why it stopped and why we ought to do that again. that would be well received.

we'll turn it over to your colleague. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, michelle. good afternoon supervisors. i'm a senior planner with the data and analysis group and land use community planning team at the planning department. today i'll be presenting on various housing reports published earlier this year starting with the 2019 housing inventory report. the housing inventory is a planning department's annual survey of housing production trends in san francisco. the report details changes in the city's housing stock including housing construction, demolition and alterations.

>> supervisor peskin: when you say units lost, do you mean units lost to demolition or do you mean units lost because they were no longer affordable? >> if units lost to demolition, unit mergers, loss of illegal units and also if there was a correction in records. >> supervisor peskin: that would not be for instance a historically rent controlled or affordable unit becoming a

market rate unit. that would not be included in that number? >> no. that wouldn't be included. this is just the physical loss of a unit. >> supervisor peskin: those numbers would be included in the housing balance report? >> yes, that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> next slide please. the construction of new housing unit in 2019 -- sorry, go back one more slide. construction of new housing in 2019 totaled about 4850 units. if you go to the next slide, that affordable housing made up about 31% of new units added to the housing stock in 2019. about 1456 total affordable units were completed in 2019 including 405 inclusionary units. total number of units completed

increased 126% from the previous year. >> supervisor peskin: when you say affordable, do you mean -- what a.m.i. constitutes affordable in that number? >> this is anything below a 80% a.m.i. basically, affordable units includes these districts affordable units. the 1456 units that are counted as affordable units include that's counted very low income, low income and moderate income units as well. >> supervisor peskin: that gets you to a total of 1456? >> yes, that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> while production numbers

increase substantially from the previous year, the number of applications permitted to construction decreased. housing permits issued are an economic indicator of future housing production in the city. the department of building inspection permitted by 3000 net units for construction in 2019. this is 52% less than total number of permitted in 2018. this trend is reflected across the bay area counties, the total number of permitted units last year decreased overall as well. in february of 2020, the planning department published the most recent pipeline report. which reflects snapshot in time of development activity during 2019 q4. during this point, there were approximately 74,000 net new units in the pipeline as a text box at the top shows. about 19% of these units are affordable units. not all projects under review

have confirmed to be affordable. this number may change overtime. about 39% of total net new units are multifaced projects. now i'll be going over findings from the most recent housing balancing report completed in march of 2020. the housing balance report is completed biannually to monitor report on housing balance between new market rate and new affordable housing production. the housing balance is defined as the proportion of all new affordable housing units to the total number of all new housing units for a 10-year year accounting for any loss of units removed from protected status. the housing balance report found that the city housing balance is 21.5%. the expanded cumulative housing balance is 28.6%.

the expanded cumulative housing balance increased by little bit more than 1% from the previous year. we also submitted our regional housing needs allocation to the state by april 1st of this year. the regional housing needs assessment is the represented housing need for each jurisdiction. we authorized 3297 units in 2019. we have met 65% of our total allocation.

>> supervisor peskin: we built 17,373? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: do we get an award for being almost 50% above in that category? >> when we report our rina goals to the state, we address whether we've made met -- met that initl goal. we met 50% above moderate income level. >> supervisor peskin: relative to the question i asked ms. littlefield about how that compares to other cities or counties in the region who have exceeded their market rate by 1%

or in this case almost 50%. how does that compare? >> we haven't yet conducted any analysis of comparisons for income levels across the bay area. i do believe that abag and h.c.d. look at comparisons across the state. particularly with comparisons to cities of similar sizes. i can definitely look into that further and get back to you with specifics with how other cities compare. >> supervisor peskin: just doing the math here, which is the rina goal was 12,536. the total units built was 17,373. instead of saying that we achieved whatever the math is, 140% or whatever, why do you stop at 100%?

why don't you say we overachieved? >> we could look at this multiple ways. i do think that in this case because we are just reporting on whether we've met the goal or not, we measured the progress by how much initial goal we met in this case, we did meet it 100%. you're correct. in report -- in term of reporting to h.c.d., we do state that we met that minimum goal. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not trying to argumentative. couldn't it say in that box, 100% goal met 140% built. it feels a little bit like we're lying with statistics.

looks like we met the goal 100%. but in reality, in that category, we overbuilt while on the other three categories, very low and moderate, we met at best 50% and worse 31%. we don't say that relative to luxury housing we overachieved about. it seems like -- if any member of the public, including the supervisor saying, great we met one out of four. in reality, we overachieved in luxury category and underachieved in every other category. >> lot of our moderate low income communities are tied to the other categories as well. for example in 2019, we built about 1450 affordable units and about 400 were inclusionary units about third of last year's

affordable housing production is actually directly tied to the above moderate income category. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not talking about how things are financed. i'm talking about the way data is presented. relative to the fifth column, total remaining rina by income levels the bottom right hand box say zero, should say minus 3800. that's the way you do math and present numbers. i'm not talking about the fact that a developer is making less profit because the developer had to do some amount of inclusionarinclusioninclusionar. >> we do in various reports always explain that 100% metric means that we've met the goal but we have not actually --

we're also explaining that we've met the minimum goal but that the additional that we've built above that goal does not actually stick to rina allocation. we do plain that in the report. we can take that under consideration and be more fair about the specific percentage. >> supervisor peskin: at minimum an asterisk in that box. we produced -- i guarantee you that if we did 140% of very low, low or moderate, we would proudly show it as 140%. it's kind of telling that in the luxury box, we pretend we just hit our target in reality, we

overachieved on that side and underachieved on the other side which is making the argument you made. maybe inclusionary rate should be high. >> i agree with you. i will think about reporting it that way in our future report. >> supervisor peskin: next planning department member please. >> my name is james pappas i'm senior policy planner. i'm going to talk about our housing and stabilization strategies work that the planning department has undertaken over the last few years. these projects include three main efforts. the first is community stabilization initiative completed in fall of 2019.

next is the housing affordability strategy completed in spring of this year. then the current recovery strategy which is under way in response to the pandemic and economic crises. these are all one time efforts meant to respond to pressing concerns of community members and policymakers. they analyze existing and potential policies, programs and investments. the community stabilization initiative focus on protecting and stabilizing communities, especially vulnerable populations as well as mitigating displacement. the project looked at how all residents but especially vulnerable residents, can try and benefit and contribute to the city culture and economy. the project has two main

deliverables. one is an inventory and assessment of policies and programs including both existing and potential policies. the second is an executive summary and report that offers an overview of existing conditions, current efforts and priorities for ongoing stabilization. the community stabilization strategy looked at five key areas of existing state policies and programs including tenant protections and housing stabilization, affordable housing preservation and production, culture stabl stabilization and workforce development program. community stabilization effort identifies potential policies for programs to expand or

implement new. for example, some of these key potential policies include a housing registry that would allow us to track occupancy and housing costs in particularly in our erental housing. we can work with state policymakers to expand local authorities to provide tenant protection. we can continue to expand and support those experiencing homelessness and provide services to those vulnerable populations. we now turn to the housing affordability strategy project. the project coordinated with the stabilization, focus more on the question how do improve affordability and the reach the citying housing target. project was a collaboration between planning staff and team of consultant to analyze

policies and investment. it also included extensive outreach with public forums around the city and community focus groups in english, spanish as well as engagement with advocates, nonprofit and for profit developers, community-based organizations and researchers. the analysis from the housing affordability strategy, as well as citywide and neighborhood housing planning. [please stand by].

>> then we looked how we could sustain these efforts over time, which is the way we know we will make progress over the long-term on our housing affordability challenges. we looked at 30 years. the affordability target included in the strategy project would meet our current low and moderate households through production of new units as well as preservation. we came very close last year to

our overall housing production targets. we have struggled in the past coming in with less than half of this number of affordable units as well as lower level of production of housing overall. i wanted to add that we did not exam whether these targets were the perfect targets or acknowledging we have struggled to meet these targets in the past. we wanted to look at policy and investment to allow us to meet these at minimum and leave that discussion open to the public and policymakers about whether different targets should be pursued in the future. one of the key policy issues we explored was where new housing would be added and what it would look like. initial analysis showed that we do need to add additional capacity for housing to be able to sustain the level of

production at 5,000 units over the 30 year timeframe. what this map that you are looking at shows is our past reductions since 2005 in pink. the pipeline is shown in hollow circles. it is on the east side around downtown and a few major plans such as candlestick and treasure island. as part of this analysis, we looked at feasibility of different types of developments and different locations and building types. something that came through is high construction costs which have been affecting the housing industry as a whole for the last few years are definitely a major barrier to producing and sustaining market rate and affordable housing over time. those harder to quantify process

and definitely also has an impact on housing costs. as part of this examination of where housing could go, we looked at three concepts for future housing growth. on the last you can see east side concept which essentially envisions additional housing being added to the east side areas where we have added much of our housing in the recent past. the next concept looked at adding more housing on major corridors which would receive additional infrom from structure -- infrastructure development. this would be lower rise than the east side concept, but the transit corridor would be more mid-rise as development type five to eight stories again focusing on transit corridors. lastly, we looked at residential

growth in the map on the right in the orange color. this looked more at dispersed housing growth throughout the residential neighborhoods. much development was projected to occur on major corridors since that is where the larger parcels are. in this concept we did not exam any high changes so we are looking at 40-foot as currently exists in most of the residential neighborhoods. we looked at each of the concepts with an equity lens, looking at how much inclusionary housing they were likely to produce, and i am getting a message i have poor network quality. can you hear me. >> yes, we can hear you.

>> okay. so we tried to layer that additional analysis of different equity implications, the financing and production of affordable housing through inclusionary and feasibility of building type depending on the development concept. another key issue to meeting our housing targets included in the project were looking at affordable housing funding. we worked with our consultant be team to estimate we need approximately just over $500 million, $517 million per year to reach these affordable housing production and preservation targets. you can see on thegraph that we have close in 2019 and 2020. this represents a real investment from the city reflected in this affordable housing bonds that have been

passed, funds dedicated and various sources. you can see on the path we have struggled to get a similar level of investment. we have a significant amount of investment against through the affordable housing bonds in the pipeline. funding will drop off in the future without additional action. i wanted to note that homelessness and stabilization programs such as tenant legal services are not included in this figure. they would be in addition to this amount. to summarize in the key policy issue areas we looked at as part of the project. we looked at increasing housing potential with focus on equity, sustaining affordable housing funding. we looked at helping to lower

construction costs and streamlining approvals or other things to lower development costs, and finally the stabilization strategy to look at programs and policies to protect vulnerable residents and continue the expansion of homeless

we have a specific mandate to think about the racial and social equity impact and how we can improve on the current state of affairs. before participating in this work, planning worked with consultants and city agencies to identify key areas of potential strategies we would carry into this work and so these four main areas include avoiding longer term eviction debt and foreclosure crisis to speak to what supervisor mar brought up

and to prevent homelessness. ensuring the city continues to build new housing and increasing and leveraging public investment to preserve existing affordable housing and lock in affordability for the future. with that, i will pass it back tbackto miriam to talk about our housing plan. >> this data is what is forming our plans and policies. the most significant plan in front of us is the housing. as you know, a requirement of the element of the general plan required by state law.

[indiscernable] >> you are chopped up. you are hard to hear. >> i am having the same problem hearing her that you are. >> the connection is choppy. >> is this better? >> yes. >> sorry about the technical problems. i was indicating that the state has very specific requirements for the housing element.

in san francisco we go beyond those state requirements. we do have a much more extensive housing needs and data analysis, some of which is based on reports you have seen and additional data analysis that helps us understand some of our specific challenges from overcrowding to some of the data that needs to be breaking down by race and ethnicity. we also have an environmental impact report which we are the only city in the state of california completing this level of environmental analysis, given our current challenges. most important is how we are reframing this. if we were to do an update like

before, we will be failing the challenges and opportunities as supervisor mar indicated at the beginning. through previous efforts we have been engaging with our communities to understand what are some of those core challenges and what you see in front of you we have summarized the input at 4:00 level. racial and social equity, displacement, housing choices in all neighborhoods and neighborhoods resilient to climate and health crisis. these are some of the input that we have been hearing from our communities so far. we just started the first round of community engagement for the housing element. we are talking to various communities across neighborhoods.

we have convened a housing policy group to discuss those issues. we are planning two more rounds of community engagement, one at the end of the year and one next year. we will still need additional time to complete a drafting to present to you and complete environmental review process to move towards adoption. this data and strategies forming our plans and policies are substantial and need reframing as you have indicated. in addressing that, we are flagging the racial and social equity issues pressing today to allow us to respond to the health crisis, to the economic crisis, to the crisis of political unrest that not only san francisco but many cities across the u.s. are

experiencing. we can only accomplish that by working closely with our communities. we are doubling our community engagement efforts. it is only through that that we will be able to reorganize data analysis report and improve the access of the data to you and community organizations. it is relying on that type of information that we will be able to develop recovery strategies that can confront this crisis and introduce major revisions to the housing element. we are mindful the level of housing affordability is lower than what we need and can accomplish. san francisco as a city who cares and with resources should be able to deliver more and the planning department hopes to be able to help that adjustment, change and take on this

opportunity. we would very much welcome your enframe how to reframe the report to address our current crisis and best inform our plans and policies. this concludes our presentation. thank you very much for having us and sharing our work up-to-date. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you. chair peskin, i would like to request that we allow public comment right now and then we could have board or committee questions and discussions after public comment. >> before we do that, to the planning department. usually when we get the housing balance report we get a little presentation what the over and under was in all 11 districts.

i didn't see that part. >> we were trying to cover the multiple reports in a succinct matter. we sent the link to the report. if you desire we can put together a more detailed presentation. we were concerned we were already taking too much time. >> all we have is time. all there is yesterday and tomorrow. if you want to put up the slide that shows the most recent housing balance report and you can do it after public comment relative to how we are performing in various districts at different level of a.m.i., we can come back to you. with that why don't we open up to public comment. any members of the public to speak on these items 4 and 5? >> thank you, mr. chair.

32 listeners with seven. >> first speaker, please. [roll call >> caller: hello. a couple things. i will be quick. one, i appreciate the planning department's report. it sounds like they really are trying to change and make our opportunities for workers and affordable housing issues more available and prevalent around the racial and economic divide of the city. number two, i wanted to suggest that it is very, very important

and critical as a person from the labor movement to tell you that it is not just racial and economics, it is also included workers and they are the essential people. we have found out that the people who can work in their offices can work anywhere in the world and still do work here, but those who are essential teachers, nurses, doctors, janitors, security guards, transportation. they need to live here so in order to work here to provide vital services. the labor council is in the process of gathering data about the workers unionized in the city, where they live here or outside the city, what they make and what their affordable housing needs are. when we say market or luxury rate. we are talking millionaires. not even the highest paid

workers qualify for the affordable housing principles that we have in the city. we will produce that and be talking about it in the labor movement. i can't speak for the labor movement here. who i want to speak for is myself and my children and grandchildren who live here now who are thinking about moving. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> caller: joseph smith. thank you, supervisor mar for this important hearing. prioritizing the needs of people of color and low income. in this time of global health crisis resulting in economic crisis, the health and economic needs of people with low income and color, including those we acknowledge as essential workers could not be more clear. until we take concrete steps to change the way we do planning, the resolution will it is as an empty jumble of words. we need a new framework for planning. from the start of our process in the richmond district we are from the framework to make this a true call for meaningful change. we call this new framework

dapss. de segregation, affordable, production, sustainability. these needs to be addressed deeply. the only way to address the systems of segregation is to create de segregation systems. we have to demand an answer to the question what are we building and who are we building for? you can read about this in the people power media.org. thank you, supervisor mar and mir iam for bringing forward the concerns of the vulnerable in the community. operator: if you wish to provide public comment. call 415-65-5001. meeting id1467294229.

pound and pound again. if you have not done so please press star three to speak. this will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors, i heard the presentation. i think the planning department has not taken into consideration how long this pandemic will be. while they were doing the presentation, they have started before the pandemic began. realistically speaking, they are

not keeping up with what is being done reasonin regionally d nationally related to the pandemic. it is here to stay until 2023. if you think that by addressing something that happened before the pandemic and sugar coating it and that some of us believe this, that is not going to happen. our planning department fundamentally is still racist. our planning department in san francisco fundamentally is still racist. sometime ago you supervisors

looked at the housing act of 1956. what i will state is the racist laws our state is perpetuating. you are trying to do something, for which we give you kudos. let me state again. our san francisco planning department is racist. racist. thank you very much. operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: my name is arnold town send resident of district

five. we have been talking with the planning department over some weeks, and we applaud their efforts. i have been concerned for many years about the lack of relationship the planning department has had with the african community. it has been negligible as best. i want to caution that when it comes to the affordable housing this city for too long has had an all lives matter approach. when all lives matter, black lives don't. when we talk about disparity and when we talk about people of color, we don't usually mean black people. we have to become specific in our intent if we meet the needs of the african-american community. i hope the board of supervisors will do as we change dynamics

how and where we deal housing that you will when it comes to black americans in san francisco that you will get the same courage that it took to say we don't care what the law says in this town same sex don't have a right to marry. i hope you will takethe same courage we don't care what the law says. thithis is a sanctuary city we e not treating immigrants in any inhumane manner. when we approach the needs of black people instead of courage we hear prop 209. i am hopeful this means it will be a breakthrough and we will really see the needs of black people that we have been ignoring for 53 years that i have been in this town. thank you.

operator: next speaker, please. we have 18 in the queue to spe speak. >> caller: resident of d5, the filmore and senior disability action. reading the housing inventory and balance report, it is year there are two glaring trends of inequity. one is government agencies so busy chasing people who might be here by 2022 or 2050, they are neglecting the people who are here now. that is the people with the greatest need. extremely low income folks under 30% of area median income. who are they? thousands of low wage essential workers, families of color yous r under popty line, 75,000 social security seniors and

others priced out of housing and tax credit housing and closed out of private public housing and sros. the second trend is that city agencies are excluding those with the greatest need. by reinventing the definition of affordable. planning does it when they include the units when we know new a.d.u.s start at market rate. they push affordable to incomes higher and higher. planning does it when they go to 5,000 affordable units in 10 years with 120 for the extremely low income. zero for 2019. we have no extremely low category. the reports show we will never achieve racial and social

equity. we will never adequately house the people with greatest need until we stop reducing affordable housing. that is deeply affordable housing. that need is growing. the voices are getting louder. thank you very much. operator: next speaker, please. >> caller: this is stewart flash man speaking on this item. i feel it is related to the balboa reservoir project. i want to thank supervisor mar forgetting this presentation presented today. it is an eye opening presentation and to me what it says is the current planning process is not working. we are not getting the affordable units we need. we are getting a surplus of market rate units.

why? the way the system is working we are piggybacking affordable units as bonus units. it is going to fail. we are building four or five market rate for every affordable unit. that shows in the statistics. what we need to do is sever affordable from market rate and focus on affordable. let's not put affordable as piggybacking on market rate. furthermore, the market rate units compete with affordable units for construction materials and that means that the affordable units end up being second class citizens. i want to point out one of the things pointed to is work force training. one of the major sources for work force training is ccsf that is ignored in the city affordable housing policy.

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 priority

for us in the hub with the project that did move forward to make sure our affordable housing was built on site and why that is such a priority for me and i know for a number of other supervisors, but i guess if they challenge to myself and others. it is that we need to be dramatically improving the percentage of on site affordable. i think we are on the way to do that. wawas there a dif to not get in the weedings. iis that the approval which didn't have on site affordable? we are under 10%. that is very concerning up to 2019.

>> we can look at the specifics and get back to you. i am not quite sure exactly which projects were counted under each district. i will get back to you with the details. >> more generally, i am curious for any of what do you see as the main cause for what seems to be the imbalance here? is it the money allocated? what are our biggest barriers here and how can we change this from your perspective? >> this is a substantial question. there are different factors we discussed from construction costs to zoning, to development,

to investment but one could focus on the you have alluded to we have the structural issues where our system is designed to make investments in a particular sector to bring the resources for affordability we haven't been able to get to that scale. we lost federal funding. state funding is limited. the city of san francisco when we compared to similar cities of our size has been producing more affordable housing than our counterparts but nowhere up to the level we need. we have to put substantial thinking into how to increase

resources. private sector, corporate sector? public sector? i think the current crisis gives us a window to make the changes that were not possible before. we were not able to house our homeless population as we are doing right now. we were not able to address some of the critical investment that we might be able to. we want to be mindful the economic crisis we are facing now is very substantial, dramatic. if we are able to realign our distribution of resources in ways we were able to do before, we are not coming up with a new history. we are able to produce higher level of affordability in the past and question is how to do we get there? what do we need to do today to

bring public and private investments to those level of affordability? how can we engage developers who succeeded in building the project to serve the population? to produce a product to serve a different group of folks in a different community? >> thank you. final comment. i think that when we are producing affordable housing 19, 20, 21%, there is a significant argument we are stepping backwards for overall equity. we do as a city, as you all know, have an obligation for affirmatively fair housing. this developers have bottom lines to deliver for investors. they can be pressured to provide affordable minutes to make

concessions regarding labor practices. at the end of the day it is this balance and this discussion that is at the heart of whether we are furthering fair housing or not. when we are having the neighborhood around 80% of the units unaffordable to working class units disproportionatesly available to white folks. we are taking steps backwards. i appreciate your work on this. we are in a point of urgency on so many fronts. thank you for your time put into this. i appreciate it.

>> this is one of the most robust discussions i have had and i want to thank planning department staff for signaling a new direction. thank you, miriam and your colleagues. i want to say a couple things. one of them is a policy desire. i think it is low hanging fruit. i mentioned it earlier. historically when we wanted additional information for these types of discussions from the housing balance report, we had to legislate it. [please stand by]

. . . . the libetarian folks who are very, very engaged in this issue and have recognized the densities and that the adjoining counties to north and south with a lot of work to do. i think it would be also good to focus this conversation regionally through the