Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

The city not the project sponsor how section 802, 810a work relative to the replacement the types of trees and what is significant and is that a 36inch box . I had very specific questions. None of which mr. Rich even remotely touched on. So and i mean this is your problem but that was not what i originally asked. And none of that has been responded to at all, which is why i nicely said that mr. Richs comments were not wholly satisfactory. But proceed. Ill touch on a couple of things. As mr. Rich did say supervisor peskin, we are not at a level of plans yet. So i couldnt tell you the exact size of the boxes that will be put back in. But the street trees, as you mentioned, there are 15 existing street trees along california street that were referenced earlier. They are new Zealand Christmas trees. Those trees will be removed and replaced around the site perimeter with 88 new street trees. The street trees along california that were referenced are going to match the street trees that were recently replaced at Laurel Village Shopping Center. They are fruitless olive trees. There are some mediumsized trees but those will grow into fully mature trees. And the number of trees that are in front of the site, the 15 you referenced, will be replaced with 31 trees in the project. I cant tell you right now the exact box size, but we tend to want to maximize the size as feasible. And we are committed to working with the department of urban forestry and dpw to do that. So just so that this is a very complicated multifaceted project. And i am very interested in having over 400 units of housing. And i appreciate the fact that you had your come to jesus moment and did 25 percent and all the rest of it. Im actually focused in this sliver of it on item 3, which are properties of the city and county of San Francisco. So those are very different than property than trees on private property. And maybe i just need to defer to the City Attorney. All im asking for, because i actually did read, not every word of this, but a lot of it. So im just maybe City Attorney, im asking what i think is a very simple question. I found this, 15 street trees replaced by 88 street trees. 19 significant trees replaced by 49 significant trees. And payment of tree removal for 12 trees. What does that mean pursuant to section 800 802 810a of the code. I was going to say why dont we have the from dpw answer that. Deputy City Attorney john meddle man. John mandelman. The replacement of significant trees, which is under section 810a of the public works code and street trees which is under sections 800 are the same. So its the same replacement standard that applies. Ill read to you the basics. Thank you. The species needs to be suitable for the site conditions. Needs to be a minimum 24inch box size, have a minimum one and a quarter inch caliper measured at 6 inches aboveground. And theres a few other standards. But i think the critical thing is they need to be an equivalent replacement value. And as one might imagine its very difficult depending onsite conditions, the age of a tree, to replace the exact same kind of tree or move the tree in different locations. So replacement value is defined in the public works code. And i think this is probably an important part of this definition that certain trees are landscape material because of their size, species or historical significance cannot be replaced from available nursery stock. In such cases replacement value shall be determined pursuant to the evaluation formula adopted by the International Society arboar culture, et cetera. I think as mr. Rich had stated that with the experience of the urban forrester they would look at the trees when it comes time to actually replace them and try to determine an equivalent replacement value for the trees that would be replaced, either onsite or in the sidewalk. So the way we got from 15, 88 and 19 to 49 plus in lieu for 12 was based on an evaluation pursuant to 800 . Thats correct. When it comes time to remove the trees the replacement species would be guided by the standards in the public works code. Supervisor stefani. Thank you. Thank you. Just in terms of maintenance of the trees i just want to ask whether or not it will be the city or the project sponsor maintaining the trees. That is very clearly set out, it will be the permittee. Right. But i want to make sure Everybody Knows that. And i want to make sure, and we can confirm this as well, that its my understanding we are going from 208 trees to 512 trees, more than doubling, is that correct . John, again, john from the City Attorneys office through the chair i cant speak to the number of trees. But in terms of maintenance, for the street trees, which are the ones on the sidewalk, there is a minimum requirement for the permittee to ensure the survivability of the trees. So i think theres a two to threeyear initial Maintenance Period, at which point under pop proposition e responsibility to maintain those trees shifts to the department of public works. Unless theres a voluntary agreement between the project sponsor and the city to allow the project sponsor to maintain the street trees. That is to the trees onsite, the major encroachment permit specifies those will be the responsibility of the permittee. Im sorry say that again. I thought this provision on page 5 line 20 through 22 rules, the permittee shall assume all costs for the Maintenance Repair of the encroachment pursuant to the permit and no costs or obligation of any kind shall accrue to the public works or any other City Department by reason of this permission granted. I think theres particular provisions that apply to the significant trees that are in the agreement. The major encroachment agreement. So you are saying that the words in the ordnance are super ceded by language in the agreement . The permit and the agreement go together. So the board is approving both of those by this ordnance. I understand that. But what im asking is in so far as it says the permittee shall assume all costs for maintenance and you are saying the agreement actually supercedes that. That provision applies to the longterm maintenance obligations that are associated with the major encroachment which are for select portions of the public right of way. So the landscape planners corners differentiated paving but not maintenance of the street trees . Thats correct. The ordnance cant override proposition e. Public works once more. We have Many Development areas, for example, mission bay, various locations, where new street trees are installed. And in many of those cases historically what has been happening based upon approved legislation approvals that after three years Maintenance Period those trees are transferred to the city for operational maintenance. However in many cases, the Development Team or Homeowners Association decides that they would rather continue the upkeep of these trees after warranty and Maintenance Period and an agreement needs to be entered between San Francisco public works the Homeowners Association or developer or corresponding groups to have this documented and ensure that future maintenance would then fall to the Homeowners Association or the development group. If that makes sense. All right. Thank you. That does make sense. I appreciate it. Someone has a little experience with trees. I think thats part of the confusion is about the significant and definition of significant. I appreciate City Attorney defining that. For the purposes of this conversation, significant is important because the way in which they are treated in terms of the year of the tree, how old the tree is and the approximatety to the Property Line of the city determines whether or not the city has the right to ask for the replacement of that tree. Not necessarily the size of that tree as defined in what was read into the record. But its important to note that because they would fall under essentially jurisdiction and protection of the city. I think it is important to note that theres a significant number of trees being planted versus the ones that are existing in terms of replacement. But i appreciate the City Attorney making mention of the fact that proposition e was a mandate of the voters. Its not something that can be overridden. And i can say from experience in parts of the city where there are Homeowners Association and existing agreements between the city and the homeowners often get into conversation about the desire to remove those trees, maintain those trees or switch those trees out. When it falls under the jurisdiction of the city, the city has the right to protect those trees and determine whether or not they should be replaced of my so i certainly am in favor of anything in the public right of way determining in the jurisdiction of the city for that purpose in particular. I think this is an important part of the conversation. I understand that this is a significant green space and proximity to a lot of peoples homes. But i do understand that we are creating, in terms of the proposal the developer will be putting forward, a significant number of trees. I think that allows for the opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to be involved in the process of choosing the types of trees and working with the District Supervisor to choose the types of trees. We often do that in my district. We have conversations about the type of tree canopy that people would like to see. So i think thats certainly a worthwhile conversation but i wanted to add my two cents to some of the clarity around significant and in terms of the ongoing maintenance. Again, its important. This looks like it was sat down between the developer, the city and the permittee to negotiate an appropriate formula for the replacement of trees both significant and not significant and street trees. Thank you. Thank you for those very helpful policy comments supervisor safai. So before i turn it back to the sponsor of these three measures, i would like to associate myself with the comments of the former general counsel of the California Coastal commission, mr. Peterson and a previous speaker as it lets to parking in what i would say is a quite richly public transitserved area of the city. And mr. Rich, if you can address that and any additional changes that this committee might want to recommend should we be in a mood to recommend anything to the full board of supervisors. The floor is yours. Thank you supervisors. Ken rich. Somewhat unusually, the walnut component which is 184 do i have that number right . 186. Senior units is parked at one to one in the current proposal. And we can confirm various folks here from mercy housing can confirm that we dont need that kind of parking in the senior building. So one idea to put out there would be to reduce that down to a. 5 ratio. That would have the effect of not only reducing the overall ratio of parking in the project, but it would also allow for stackers to reduce the amount of excavation the project would require which then reduces construction time and construction impacts. So correct me if i am wrong but i think the Planning Commission already insisted on stackers. I dont know. I would ask one of my colleagues. Is that the case . The commission did want one to one parking. Some of it may be stackers. But what i was suggesting in terms of changing the Walnut Parking ratio would be a new change. And deputy City Attorney that would clearly not be a significant change. And as long as we afforded that without recommendation, we could forward that, is that correct . Thats correct. All right. The stackers requirement was not in the Planning Commission motion. It was just the maximum amount of permitted parking within the contained project. Okay. So you are recommending that the one to one in 186 be reduced to. 5 . Yes. We think that that will allow the larger units in the project were predominantly two and three bedrooms to be a reasonable rate and to be able to reduce parking on the site, reduce those impacts for folks who are generally not going to drive as much. Yeah. Thank you mr. Rich for that. We are not done. I think we can do better than that, actually. I mean, i really do. I honestly think that we can do a lot better. I totally agree not agree understand that people rightfully are concerned about a decade and a Half Development on the horizon. And i get that. But the longerstanding impacts and im not saying this in the context of ceqa, is that as our world changes as we are trying to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions as we are trying to get people onto other modes i mean, if i have i mean, this was recommended to us unanimously from the Planning Commission. Johnson, koppel moore but i think where they missed it was on the parking. Generally the Planning Commission looks at Something Like this and gives it the appropriate haircut. So if theres one thing this board of supervisors and this committee can do is give it the maximum feasible parking haircut. And to me,. 5 on the senior is a good start, but i think theres more there. Do you have a second offer . I dont think we have one prepared. But its certainly within the committees purview to have that discussion. And we are here to do that. All right. Supervisor stefani. Thank you, chair peskin. If you are making offers i based on feedback from the community, i think the fact that it went through the Planning Commission without a reduction in parking was actually somewhat surprising. But the need for parking in the area was explained at the Planning Commission. I am comfortable with the reduction from. 5 and from 1 to. 5. Going any lower than that right now i dont feel comfortable with that, based on the fact that a lot of the Community Outreach and a lot of the feedback i have received has been around parking concerns. And i know, yes, the world is changing, and yes we need to get out of our cars and everything. But maybe we can ask mercy housing, doug shoe maker is here. I think if we land at. 5, i think that would be a good compromise. And i would be comfortable with that. Mr. Schumacher, as to the walnut street phase 3 186unit land dedicated escrowed Senior Housing project the floor is yours. Im very comfortable with the. 5. I think ordinarily in other parts. City we are able to build with very little parking. This is a slightly higher income than we are used to developing Senior Housing for. And a location that is not as transit rich as some. So we are comfortable with. 5. And we often build with less. So you would be comfortable with less than. 5 . In this location, supervisor honestly, we are not familiar with developing housing for seniors at this income in terms of their parking demand in San Francisco. Its most of what we develop in San Francisco has been much lower income seniors than this. So i think. 5 is the right place to stop on the senior. So not to exceed. Not to exceed. All right. Deputy City Attorneys of which we have a number, this would be a change to the Development Agreement, correct . Because i dont think this is a change or maybe its an sud . Sud item number 4. Yes the committee would amend the sud. Whether it would also require a change to the da, we would from v to have to discuss. So supervisor stefani and it sounds to me and you are welcome to motion to this committee, but that would actually have to be figured out by attorneys as to items 4 and 5 as it relates to the parking. We may or may not have remaining questions about the trees. Supervisor stefani, what is your will . Thank you chair peskin on the entirety, on all three items, are you asking me or just trees and parking . Well you do have some amendments before us on the Development Agreement item 5 on the zoning map item 4 no changes to item 3. So we should probably discuss those. And then talk about what we want to do with parking relative to items 4 and maybe 5. Okay. First of all i do want to thank everybody for coming out today. This has been a project long in the making. I believe one of the public commenters said ive been involved in a long time since i was a legislative aid in 2014. More meetings at the jcc with the committee. I was county clerk for two years while this project continued. Came back as supervisor. Ive been supervisor for a year and ten months. And we are still talking about this project. So i want to thank everybody who has been involved. The neighbors have put a lot of effort into this, so has the project sponsor. The intent is to come up with a project that fits our community and provides us ohio more housing. Not everybody is going to be happy. But i think at the end if we concentrate on getting as much as we can in terms of what fits within our neighborhood and we focus on Affordable Housing, which district 2 hasnt developed much over the last decade, and we focus on Senior Housing which of course ive explained why that is particularly important to me, given what we are seeing with the state of our housing crisis for seniors in San Francisco. I also want to talk about the original development proposal. It had an Office Building planned for the site across from the jcc. The project in the beginning only had 558 units house. The neighbors were concerned about that with all the traffic going in and out from an Office Building. We worked with the developer to eliminate the office space and instead to build this 186 units of affordable Senior Housing, bringing the total up to 744. I want to celebrate the fact that despite widespread agreement for some people, but we all do actually agree and it seems everyone is settled that 744 units of housing at this site is acceptable, warranted and even desired. So i want to thank everybody for that. I also want to acknowledge that since i have introduced this legislation back in july, ive heard additional concerns from our on or abouts about the parameters of the retail allowed at this site. As part of my initial negotiations on the Development Agreement, i was able to reduce the amount of retail space from 60,000 square feet to 35,000 square feet. So we have definitely reduced the size of retail after hearing neighbor concerns. We also made sure the retail would be placed along california street so we maintain the Laurel Village merchant corridor which connects the retail on california street from spruce street to presidio avenue. Im committed to making sure we have retail zoning that can allow Laurel Village to thrive. I know there are many concerns about Laurel Village. And we know that since ctc left, our businesses and our merchants have been suffering. We want to ensure also that we have neighborhood friendly businesses in the area. So today i do have amendments that im introducing to address the retail based on feedback from the community. Im also asking that we add a letter of intent for the project sponsor with the following three agreements. And i believe that everyone on this committee has a copy of that letter. The agreements include one, the project sponsor will partner with the Laurel Village Merchants Association on Cross Marketing and branding strategy to increase the visibility of the Laurel Village Shopping Center for local residents, specifically highlighting the new retail mix walkability and convenience. Two the sponsor agrees that if the two existing Grocery Stores in Laurel Village are in operation, that no retail space contained in the 3333 California Property shall be leased to a general Grocery Store as defined in section 102 of the planning code, except of course with prior written consent of Laurel Village Merchants Association. And three in response to concerns about increased parking demand, the developer agreed to create a validated Parking Program that will guarantee free 90minute validated parking at 3333 california street for customers of retail on the 3400 block of california street, which is the current Laurel Village retail. And with regard to the special use district, im asking for amendments to address some of the specific concerns i heard from neighbors about specific retail uses and hours of operation. The special use district specifies that the new retail will be zoned ncs which is the same zoning as Laurel Village. My proposed amendments would restrict hours of operation to 6 00 a. M. To 12 00 a. M. And the current zoning would allow businesses to stay open till 2 a. M and i think we did hear the community on that. I think thats too late. I think 12 00 a. M. Is a reasonable compromise. Would also remove certain types of commercial uses including auto services, mortuaries and driveup facilities. Im asking for an additional requirement of a cu for liquor stores, massage facilities anding a can you agriculture. I want to clarify never permissible under ncs adult businesses are not permitted under ncs and will not be permitted under this sud. There is a lot of misinformation out there. And i absolutely cannot stand misinformation. Adult businesses are not permitted under ncs. And they will not be permitted under this sud. I believe that these retail amendments will help to ensure a healthier merchant corridor while addressing concerns raised by neighbors over the past several months. I really want to thank all those for coming out for my colleagues on this committee for listening and asking some very pointed questions, especially about the trees and parking. And with that, i would like to move the amendments, i believe you have a copy first on the sud. Do you all three have copies of those amendments . We do, supervisor. Thank you. Well, i cant move since im not a member of the committee. But i would ask somebody on this committee would be so kind to do so. So that would be as to the sud item number 4, uses that are not permitted that include auto service, driveup facility mortuary notwithstanding any other provisions, the uses that would require conditional use liquor stores, massage neighborhood agriculture. So those are the changes in item number 4 item number 5. Can we take a moment of time . We can take a moment of time. I make a motion to propose those amendments as read into the record. The only one you didnt read was the time, from 6 00 a. M. To 12 00 a. M. That is correct. That is on page 4 line 10. So supervisor safai has made a motion. And supervisor haney if you have no objection, we will take that amendment. And then we will ask the City Attorney to draft the aforementioned amendment as it relates to the reduction of the walnut street Senior Housing development at. 5 on parking. So we will take that yet undrafted amendment and send item number 4 to the full board as one and a half times amended without recommendation upon the advice of counsel to the full board. And supervisor stefani. On november 4 november 5 im sorry. November 5 is the date. That would be election day. And then on item number 5 supervisor stefani has proposed on page 2 at line 21, 857 Parking Spaces that will come down. So that is subject to amendment including ten car share spaces. And by the way, i would like to work with supervisor stefani, which i can do because she is not a member of this committee. And the project sponsor and oewd to see if we can further bring that amount of parking down between now and when this gets to the full board on 5 november. On page 3 line 25, if approved by the citys Public Utilities commission, page 5, subsection b starts at line 8 also additional language. You missed one on page 3. If approved by the citys pc. I did that one. I did page 2, i did page 3. Okay, got it. Page 5 language with regard to the puc as it relates to the auxiliary water supply system benefit fee would be added. And again any changes that need to be drafted as it relates to reducing the parking that we spoke about. And i reserve my right to further reduce the parking when it gets to the full board. A motion made by supervisor safai. And we will take those without objection. And we will send that item to the full board with recommendation. Without recommendation, excuse me. And item 3, we can send to the full board with recommendation. Is that correct, counselor . All the items should go to the full board without recommendation pending appeal. Understood. We will send all three items two amended to the full board without recommendation without objection. Thank you everybody, from the community for coming. Thank you supervisor stefani. Thank you to oewd and the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and the project sponsor. Stay tuned. Madame clerk, while the chambers are clearing could you please read item 6 and 7 together. I would like to welcome supervisor gordon mar to our chambers. Item number 6 the planning code to modify the housing linkage fee by allowing indexing of the fee requiring payment of the fee the time of first certificate of occupancy. Monetary limits for the small site funds under the Housing Program and appropriate findings. Item number 7 a hearing on the budget and analyst job housing report that evaluates the current and planned Housing Stock in the San Francisco relative to the projected jobs at different income levels. Determines existing and planned housing is adequate and affordable and provides information on the contribution of the citys jobs housing linkage program. Thank you. Item number 6 is introduced by supervisor haney. Item number 7 saharaing by supervisor mar. Supervisor haney, the floor is yours. I believe we are going to start with the report. Yep. So supervisor march 1st. Supervisor mar is first. Supervisor mar the floor is yours. Thank you so much, chair peskin. I really appreciate this opportunity for a housing on the report that i requested from the budget and legislative Analyst Office and the opportunity to hold this hearing in conjunction with consideration of supervisor haneys legislation to update the job housing linkage fee. Its a much needed framework that analyzes Housing Production by affordability relative to job growth by wages. Job housing fit is a new analytical tool that will help us do a better job of managing growth in our city, addressing the Housing Affordability crisis and reducing traffic gridlock. Commissioners have been asking for this data for years. Most recently when they were considering the essential plan. And staff had not been able to provide this sort of job housing fit data and housing by affordability. As you will hear from analyst fred in his presentation, the report provides important new insights into our housing crisis including causes, impacts and needed solutions. The report highlights how our city added more than 200,000 jobs over the past decade including a relatively equal number of high wage and low wageworkers. The biggest takeaway from the report is we are exceeding housing projection for high wageworkers but we are failing miserably at providing housing affordable for low to moderate income workforce and their families. We know the city made sweeping Economic Policy and land use decisions specifically granting tax breaks to grow the tech sector and up zoning large areas without adequately planning for housing and other impacts based on the kinds of jobs created. Supervisor haneys housing workers ordnance today addresses this imbalance. Moving forward, we need job housing fit data every time the Planning Commission and board of supervisors consider a Major Development project or area plan. What jobs are being created . For whom . And who will bear the cost . How will these workers be housed . If developers do not pay the full cost of impact, how will the city and its taxpayers come up with the difference . Its time we face the data when making Economic Policy and land use decisions. And its time to confront the housing and other impacts on low and moderate wageworkers and families. Im proud to Work Together with supervisor haney on a legislative package to house our workers and make economic policies that serve the needs of our workers and our city. I think we are going to, for item number 6, we are going to start with a presentation from fred from the budget and legislative Analyst Office. Mr. Brusseau. Good afternoon chair peskin, supervisor haney and supervisor mar. Im fred from the budget and legislative analysts office. Today im going to summarize our report prepared for supervisor mar on the jobs and housing fit. Ill start with a quick overview. San francisco between 2010 and 2018. And you can see here, on this chart the increase in the population of 847 new 84 84,000 jobs. Theres a big drop off between jobs and Housing Units in that time period. But in terms of the Housing Units that have been added and the households theres been a significant change between 2010 and 2017. And thats shown on this slide. And what we see is a decrease in low income households, moderate income households and an increase in highincome households. The distribution is shown in number form in the chart but then also graphically in the bar chart with an increase in highincome households from 41 percent of the total to 55 percent of the total between 2010 and 2017. And the decrease in low income between those same years of 44 percent to 31 percent. And the details are shown in the chart above on the numbers of households in each group. New jobs by wage bracket are presented on the next slide. And this is just for the threeyear period 2016 to 2018. In part thats because we could get data for those years. But another significant point about those years is that we were well beyond any recovery from the recession by 2016. So to the extent that new jobs were created after the recession in 2008, they could have been filled by existing residents. But by 2016, we were beyond that and very comfortable presenting this as a net increase in the San Francisco area. And by San Francisco area, that means city and county of San Francisco and San Mateo County, they are grouped by the Employment Development department of california, which collects this information. So this is more than what we would find in San Francisco. But we believe its reflective that the two counties have a lot in common in terms of their job composition. And later we break out just the San Francisco portion of it. But here whats interesting, i think supervisor mar mentioned, the increase in both high wage and low wage jobs. And the Employment Development department breaks those out by occupation and wages and what weve seen over this period is the increase that i think many of us are familiar with, which is growth in certainly the Technology Industry but also other kinds of businesses and finance and industries that contain a lot of highincome jobs, highwage jobs. But at the same time, a Significant Growth almost equal in lowwage jobs, which include taxi drivers and personal assistants, inhome Supportive Service workers and so forth. In terms of job growth, and alluded to that earlier here it shows the increase in jobs the 210,000 between 2010 and 2018 and the increase in Housing Units during that time, which was 24,671. And just for comparison the ratio, then, of jobs to housing in 2010 was 1. 5. And in 2018, 1. 9. So for every job or excuse me, for every housing unit, that is the ratio. And then when we look at what was built and what was added to the Housing Stock between 2010 and 2018 it increases significantly to 8. 5. So there arent as many Housing Units being produced relative to jobs, as has been the case in the past. And it was the baseline when we looked at 2010 and 2018. The breakdown of the Housing Production during that time period is shown on the bottom of the chart with the lowincome housing that is for households with incomes under 80 percent of the area Median Income, 2,782 Housing Units added. And then the market rate making up the difference getting us up to the 24,671. So affordable, which is the housing in the low and moderate categories was 25 percent of what was produced. The next slide shows Household Income needed to rent or buy. The changes ive just described and the small amount of Housing Production relative to jobs and population growth during the period of 2010 to 2018 is reflected here in changes in median rent and the Household Income needed to rent for a fourperson household between those years where the median would be was 133,000 in 2010, increased to 180,000 in 2019. And the third line there shows the third row the percentage of Median Income for a fourperson household being 133 percent needed in 2010 and up to 146 percent in 2019. For purchasing a home, median sale price of 703,000 in 2010 and 1. 3 million in 2019. So again its the same phenomenon just the numbers are larger, jumping from a Household Income needed of 135,000 for a median price for a fourperson home up to 243,000 in 2019. So we made attempts to estimate the current deficit in Housing Production relative to need. And we looked at this from two different ways. This is starting with whats called the Regional Housing needs allocation, thats developed by the state of california. And they prepare goals for the entire state and allocate them to cities throughout the state. So what you see in the first column, housing goals 2015 to 2022 is what the state had allocated to the city and county of San Francisco as goals. Those arent necessarily based on jobs. They considered jobs, but they also consider in and out migration birthrates and so forth and other factors affecting the city. And the goals there as you can see for the period from 2015 to 22, were 28,869 Housing Units and some would be low income, 5,460 moderate. We then looked at actual production as of 2018. Thats not the full window for this set of goals. But you can see that the numbers there about 25 percent of the goal had been achieved for low income with 4,270 units. Only just under 5 percent for moderate income with 816 units produced. And about 70. 4 percent with 12,071 units produced at the high income, which is the same as market rate i guess at this point. And then the next shows the percentage of Production Target achieved. So we are at 96 percent for the high income or market rate housing. And then the deficit is shown on the right as of 2018, with a total of 11,247 deficit for low and moderate income housing. And on the next slide, its a we approach the question in a different way. This is our own estimate going back to the Employment Development Department Statistics that are collected for that period, 2016 to 2018. What we did is then peel out the number of jobs that would be for San Francisco only to remove the San Mateo County portion for their database. And here you see the growth and high wage jobs, moderate jobs, low wage jobs just for San Francisco our estimate, which amounts to 61,728 jobs just in that threeyear period and of those moderate and low. And using the ratio the jobs to housing ratio from 2018, we came up with 14,498 units. What has been produced during that period is 2,913 units leaving a deficit of 11,585 as of 2018. And that number is a coincidence, but its similar to what was the results on the last slide using the Regional Housing goals for San Francisco. So we have a similar deficit number as of 2018. So what is the city doing to address this . We identified and have some information in the report about the jobs housing linkage fee. Thats tied to commercial development only, Nonresidential Development for developments over 25,000 gross square feet. And next the analysis was completed this year by an outside consultant, prepared for the office of economic and workforce development. And it identified the various needs shown in the chart here. And it doesnt recommend fees but it comes up with a framework so that the number of employees per development can be identified. And by that, then the need for housing can be deduced and linkage fees can be established. Again not establishing analysis but by the board of supervisors. So the nexus analysis for office which has been the biggest area of Nonresidential Development in the last eight years is 238 employees per square foot in a typical Office Building. And then the analysis further divides that out with 33 percent of those identified as needing Affordable Housing and the rest able to use marketrate housing. And the factors then are determined in the nexus analysis, affordable unit demand factors. Fees can be applied to them to determine how much can be charged per square foot for each development. And these are the currencies in place shown here for each type of development that fees apply. So getting to the period, 2018 to 2019, this is the amount that was collected for use by the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development from jobs housing linkage fee. Theres about 89 million for the period of which 30. 2 million has been expended to support development of 527 Housing Units. So its a big gap between the numbers we identified above like the 11,000 approximately units that were needed as of the end of 18 and then the additional well well talk about the future need in a minute. But mohcd pointed out that they have another 63 million committed for 543 affordable Housing Units into the future. And thats from a combination of fund balance from fees that have been collected and then what they are anticipating in the near future. So that gets us over 1,000 units. Still a far cry from the need. However we know more than that has been built during that time period. Theres about units. That tells us the fees arent segregated so development is necessarily rolled out in the order in which the fees come in or to build the number of Housing Units that would be required for the types of development that have occurred and for which the fees were charged. So collecting the 89 million, it didnt all get expended during that time period. I think part of the explanation for that is the funding from the nonresidential side the jobs housing linkage fee and then funds from housing or other Development Impact fees are all combined and used for Development Projects. And the mohcd has defined sites and put the financing together for the entire project working with developers. So it doesnt all get spent in the same time frame or in unison with the collection pattern and may not result in the number of units being built that the nexus analysis would tell us should be built for the Square Footage of development that has occurred during that period. It may happen eventually in the future but we dont know what the timeline for that will be. So then looking at the future, we have taken projected jobs by wage level and then identified housing needed for San Francisco only for 2016 through 2026. So this is built off projections prepared by the california Employment Development department. And just to summarize what is shown on this table theres a need for 34,664 Housing Units based on the jobs projected and about 20,000 of those are the low and moderate wage categories as you can see there. And then this table is showing whats in the pipeline. So we looked at that housing need and then that pipeline information from the Planning Department about how many projects are underway and how many units that translates to in the various stages of entitlement. So thats broken out here. This is as of the Second Quarter of 2018, because that was when we could get data for which the various income levels are broken out. And you can see that most of the entitlements when you go to the furthest right column are in the highincome housing bracket. Although there are some that are to be determined. There could be some changes in this as time goes on. But clearly the bulk of them are not in the low and moderate income brackets for what is entitled as of 2018. And then we took this finally and compared the housing needed that we identified in the previous steps that entitled as of 2018 and came up with a difference. So what this tells us for the future going through the 2026 is theres a need for 15,629 lowincome units, 2,810 moderate income. And theres a surplus placed on this approach of 4,605 highincome units and net deficit of 13,834. A footnote on that, this was 2018 data. And we have seen summary data for 2019 but not the breakout by income level. But it appears progress has been made, more housing has been entitled. So we believe that difference is probably coming down for somewhere in the 9,000 unit bracket as of 2019. What hasnt been updated from 2016 is what the job projections are. So all these pieces keep moving and changing. We tried to give you a snapshot. And i think it reflects the magnitude of the issue. But as soon as a new Development Project is proposed and entitled, the numbers change. As soon as a new business opens in San Francisco, the numbers can change again. So its a moving target. But by looking at all these years and different sources theres a clear conclusion of the deficit in production of low and moderate income housing. We do have two policy options in the report. One is to request the Planning Department to prepare annual projections of jobs by income segment a new Affordable Housing completed and in the pipeline so we get a snapshot from a single source. And planning of course has the best Pipeline Data and can analyze that the best. And they also get jobs data from various sources, including the census bureau. But also we have a second option too for the board of supervisors to request the mohcd track new housing as i was describing earlier a lot of it hadnt been used in the 2010 to 2018 period. It may be used in the future but we dont know what the timeline is or when the projects will be completed to fulfill the need. So we think that kind of information coming to the board on a annual basis would be helpful and honey toring and managing the production monitoring and managing the production of housing in San Francisco. That is my report. Im happy to respond to any questions or comments. Thank you so much for all of your work on this report. I just yeah, i think the data and the statistics speak for themselves. I just wanted to add that i am following up on your recommended policy recommendation number 1 in working on legislation that would require the Planning Department to conduct a jobs housing fit analysis on a analysis and also do it for large Development Projects and area plans. So thank you. I also feel like this analysis and the report that has been released is really good, makes a good case, a strong case for supervisor haneys proposed updating of the jobs housing linkage fee. So im glad we are able to hold the hearing on these two items together. Thank you. All right r all right. Thank you supervisor mar for your work on this and your partnership and for commissioning this report. And thank you, for the report. I think what it makes absolutely clear is we have consistently failed to produce enough Affordable Housing as a city. And that this has very clear concrete impacts on who is able to live here and who is displaced from our city. I think one of the most striking data points in there which i dont want people to miss, which is that during that sevenyear period, the number of lowincome households in San Francisco decreased by 23 percent at the same time as the highincome households increased by 44 percent. Thats a massive change in the demographics of our city. And its clearly connected to who is able to afford to live here. I also want to underscore that weve talked a lot about numbers. And there are a lot of numbers in this report and even in some of the things im going to talk about with the housing for workers legislation. But we dont want to miss the fact that these arent numbers, these are human beings, these are people, these are families. This is children who are being squeezed by this Housing Market and impacted directly by our failure here as a city to build adequate housing for them. These are workers janitors people working cafeterias, office workers, who are being forced to live further and further away from their jobs and in some cases forced to leave their jobs altogether because of a lack of housing. These are folks in the district that i represent who are in sros, who are waiting for years and years for permanent housing. These are seniors who are at risk of being homeless. Or the over 8,000 People Living on our streets who we are failing as we saw in that report not building adequate housing particularly at the lower level. We do have with this legislation, an opportunity to take an important step towards addressing this failure and beginning to