tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 22, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
this system >> the planning commission regular hearing for thursday. detion 21, 2017. our final hearing of the year. i'd like to remind members of public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you do care to, state your name for the record. i'll take roll. [roll call] we do expect commissioners to
arrive shortly. item one, case number 2017-005617drp at 1339 through 1341 south van ness avenue. discretionary review is proposed for continuance to january 18, 2018. items 2a and b for case numbers 2018. at 114 lion street. are proposed for continuance to february 8, 2018. item three, case number 2016-oo578 at 88 broadway and 735 davis street. an appeal of the preliminary negative declaration as proposed for continuance to february 22, 2018. further commissioners under your regular calendar, we received a request from the project sponsor for item 15, 2227 fullsome street. they are requesting a three-month continuance to
march 22, 2018. i do have one with speaker card for lion's. >> ok. any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? tess? >> tess welborn, speaking in opposition for a continuance for 114 lion street. the planning domestic has the preliminary recommendation of this approval. i suggest that you go ahead and disapprove it now. the building has been a four-unit building. it's converted to one unit now and that is against san francisco housing policy. so please disapprove the continuance and disapprove the project. thank you. >> thank you. next eke spaoer, plea. >> my name is sean westbrook. i would also request that we do
not issue a continuance. there was a preliminary declaration of disapproval and i would appreciate if that was held up at the hearing because it would place one or both sets of tenants in those units. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items proposed for continuance? >> my name is eddie. i'm here if solidarity with the te thans of 2227 fullsome street. i just want to agree with sean that you shouldn't continue that item and you just disapprove the merger right now. the issues aren't going to change in three months so let's go ahead and finish the case. thank you. >> thank you. additional public comments? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner fong. >> move to continue items one through three. 1 , 2a and 3.
>> second that? >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> i'd like to ask that the continuance of the item 15 be explained by staff more fully. >> looks like the motion on the table right now is the >> not the continuance. >> i did not hear that. >> and the request is from the sponsor, not from staff. >> oh, ok. >> yeah. in fact, i think staff does not support the continuance on the folsom. sorry, i should explain that. thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items one through three as proposed. [roll call] >> that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> and i'm continue that item to february 8 as well. >> thank you.
acting zoning administrator. commissioners, i'll place it under your consent calendar. all matters listed here are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of commission of staff or the public so requests in which the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this future hearing. item four, case number 2016. 519 ellis street. conditional use. conditional use authorization. i have no eke spaoer cards. >> any public comment on the items being -- or the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner? commissioner koppel. >> move to approve [inaudible].
[coughing [ >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve all items under your consent calendar. [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and places us under commission matters. >> commissioner johnson. >> hi, everybody. i wanted to say that today will be my last hearing as a planning commissioner for san francisco. i have been a proud public servant in volunteer capacity for around 14 years now. i've served on citizen advisory companies. i was on the ocii commission when it was for the purposed and served the last 3 1/2 years as planning commissioner. i'm leaving to hopefully continue my public service if other capacities, but i wanted to give a statement here to the commission, to the staff and to
the rest of the city that i've been honoured to serve beside you and honoured to serve the city and just leave with a couple of words on this day. i was really sad coming into the building. so, i wrote some things down to make sure i didn't forget anything. so, ahem. my time at the commission, we've deliberated affordability, availability housing, shared use models for home and transit, and how s.f. should respond to our economic engine from the changing nature of retail and what our streets should look like to the coming role of cannabis which we'll see play out over the coming years. this commission has also delved beyond our borders to look at the city's workings. i kind of started it off. but we've had a number of joint hearings with other -- our sister agencies and we've really begun pushing to have all of us work together and work better. and i really appreciate the work of the staff and the planning commission on doing that. i want to leave with just a
couple of pet items and a few words for hopefully my successor who will be coming in the next few weeks. so the first one is i still want to push to continue a real discussion narrow view. the commission needs more time in the future. not less. because this is the direction of the city. we we need to be spending our time on city-wide policy and what our thoughts on how we should shape this city so that it's for everybody. and adjudicating private disputes between neighbours takes away from that time. i think we should be the tail that wags the dog in envisioning how societal shifts will impact what our physical environment needs to look like. we've spend a lot of time talking about the changing nature of retail and i really think it is going to require a reshaping of what we think about the ground floor as we look at our city and we need to look at ouren planning code to make some changes so our city
reflects what our society looks like. the coming revolution in personal automotive transit. i truly believe, sooner than we think, owning cars, people having personal vehicles is going to be as strange as someone saying i own a horse and buggy. and when that happens, we need to be thinking about how we physically change our city to accommodate what our city will look like at that point. and timely, continue to push the dp's agencies to come up with collective solutions. too many times people think of the planning commission and the planning domestic as the first stop so we get a lot of comments that really don't belong us to. but it is incumbent upon us to figure out where they go and make everyone work together. it may not be part of our mandate, but we should find out whose it is and encourage them to work with us. if those three things could move forward, i will feel like my three and a half years here
was time well-spent. i'm going to miss my fellow commissioners. you guys are some of the best co-workers i've ever had. i watched commission for years before ending up being appointed by recently passed mayor ed lee. i've never seen a commission with as much collegialty and as much commonality as this one in terms of working to solutions and being able to deliberate in a really great way. so, i hope you guys keep that going. i think you know the success -- successor, whoever that is, will fit in just fine. they won't be as fufnny as me. but everyone will get by. [laughter] i'll miss all of you and congratulationses on a year well spent. thank you to the city attorney. i really appreciated every time you raise your eyebrows at me and give me pretty looks. [laughter] and with that, thank you. let's continue on with our last meeting of the year. >> great. thank you, commissioner johnson. [applause]
>> and i'll just add, we will miss you. you were only in your first term here, but we often look to you for guidance. you act as if you've been here for years and you take it on with a broad policy perspective and help us do that. and focus on the bigger policies. we face in the city and perhaps not decks next to everybody's houses that we can get mired in and spend a lot of time in. so thank you for everything you've done here. it certainly wasn't time, you know, it was time well spent and i think we're impacted by it so good luck and hopefully your policy perspective will continue on in bigger areas. so, thank you. thank you, commissioner johnson. for telling us sad news and
leaving us with an upbeat challenge. you definitely kept us on our toes. thank you. on public matters comment, today we, just a few minutes ago, approved in con sent service station demolishing at 3601 largent street. i urge the department, i urge the director, i urge you that we get on to having our overview of where stations are and how we need to look at this. this is an outlying district. i'm not sure how many stations there are. by think it is an urgent matter. the second part this morning two important letters came in from the public and because they came if so late, i did fot have any time to read them. they are letters contributing to conversations we have later
today. i urge the public to send any letters that comes through earlier than the day before. it is impossible for us to get these letters in time to read them, these letters were very important. and i just like to positively under all of you to send those out no later than the sunday before so the secretary will see them on monday and we get them on tuesday. i'd appreciate if all of you could think about that. you have lots of important things to say, in particular the ones we got this morning really matter. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> thank you to commissioner johnson. we started about the same time, probably about a month or six weeks apart. i recall the first time we got together and went out to lunch. we were out looking at an m.c.d. in the outter mission. and she turned to me and i turned my head and i said what the hell are we doing on this commission?
we feel like the crazy auns and uncles up here and what do we want to accomplish and i got the action light going and all these policy things that we've been tackling. some successfully like section 317 reform, which we put on the side and then the u.d.g., all these different things that percolated the past couple of years and really have been a genesis from having this commission actually be able to start setting some good policy work and with the department and i want to thank commissioner johnson for the help that she gave the commission on that. i wish you the best of luck. and don't forget about us. [laughter] >> you guys don't forget about me. >> i won't. and commissioner moore's point, i echo what she said about getting some really substantial comments and feedback from the public, all very good. unfortunately a lot of them come in between 11:00 and noon on the day of the hearing. and this is crazy. we can't read everything. some commissioners may or pay not but then we rely on public
testimony or public feedback here at the podium. and that is really unfortunate of the person that wrote the feedback of the people that we should be taking a look at doesn't make it and we can't read it. so, anyways, please try to send those in earlier. thanks. >> commissioner fong? >> commissioner johnson, i'm sad that you are leaving but i'm happy for you. personally. you have so much dedication and have so many big ideas. maybe ideas that are too big for the commission. wherever you go, i hope that you are able to implement and push forward those big ideas of yours. >> commissioner milgar? >> thank you. i will also really miss you, christine. i think you are one of smartest people i've ever met and we sometimes disagree and you always make me think. and i think that that is such a
fantastic quality in policy government discourses to be able to add something with heft to the discussion and you never failed to do that and you also do it with grace. i have really appreciated sitting next to you as a human. you are warm and wonderful and wish you the best of luck in what you do next. i'm looking forward to your success. >> commissioner koppel? >> thank you, mr. president. i as well will be sad not having you next to me. as sad as i am, i am that more excited for you and your opportunities to come and this is a small city and i'm sure we won't -- not run into you. we'll probably be seeing more of you than we think. [laughter] so best of luck to you in the new year and congratulations again. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, sad to you see you.
-- see you go. director's announcements. >> thank you. commissioner, i guess just on behalf of the department, thank you for all your great work. we will miss your energy and your enthusiasm and just one item to point out is all your work on child care and moving that legislation through and i made a difference on our able to get support for that and move that legislation through. we really appreciate that. i will certainly miss your enthusiasm and hard work on this commission. so, thank you. >> commissioner moore recently told me i wasn't allowed to fraternize with staff. you waited three and a half years to tell me that? [laughter] >> this is the year and maybe uz ba it's year end, but it is also the year milestone, the last several weeks have been challenging here in city hall with the mayor's passing and it causes us all to reflect and think about change and how we are reacting to change. i'm about 10 days short of my 10th anniversary as planning
director and that paiks me think. and the one thing i will just say is to first of all thank you all for 10 years of support. that is not -- that is pretty extraordinary. and there are not many of my colleagues that have been in their position for 10 years. i appreciate your support and it has been a great honour to be here and i look forward to many more to come. and there will be a lot of uncertainty over the next few months. we all know that. it will be a challenging few months for all of us in city government, given the uncertainties and deadlines. but i think, you know, i think i am encourage by what i'm hearing out of room 200 in terms of staying the course with our work. i ask for your support in the coming months as well and really thank you all for the last 10 years. >> thank you, director. who was the last planning
commissioner -- planning director that served 10-years? >> dean macris. he was here for one length of time for 12 years but his most recent went he came back in acting capacity was about three years in addition to that. >> well, thank you for everything. we appreciate your work. >> commissions, item eight, review past evens of the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission hearing. there is no board of appeals report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. here to share a few items with you from yesterday's historic preservation committee hearing. before the hearing, the cultural heritage assets met to briefly talk about cultural heritage districts, what they mean for the city, fi sort of goals that they would like to establish. and give direction to the planning department based on some community feedback. a large number of attendees
were present that voiced their support for various lgbtq districts. also president boyce gave support. the this hearing was in preparation for the full commission's review and comment of supervisor ronan's proposed legislation regarding cultural heritage districts which will also be on your calendar in february. the full commission, two items to share with you. the full commission recommended approval of the diamond heights safety wallow indicated at clipper and diamond heights. they initiated this designation last month. if i could get the overhead, please. the d.p.w. and the arts commission are both examining
the sculpture for aesthetic deficiencies to determine the next best steps would be for rehabilitation and the community. this is a community supported local designation. the item will now go before the full board in the beginning of the year and our understanding is supervisor sheehy is in support of the designation. the second designation that the commission considered was for the peace pagoda plaza in japan town. this item has been continued a number of times due to concerns over the japan town community's rehabilitation of the plaza at a future date. the japan town task force was present and didn't ask the commission to postpone their vote on including the plaza in the designation, although everybody agreed that the plaza should be ultimately included in a final landmark designation. after some q&a between the commission and the japan town
task force, the historic preservation commission ultimately decided to keep the plaza as part of the landmark designation and to move it to the full board for consideration. and, again, that will be heard in the new year and supervisor breed's staff was in attendance and is committed to having some sort of discussion between the historic preservation commission, japan town task force and the rest of the community on next steps forward. so, that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> thank you, mr. frye. >> seeing no other reports, we can move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address members of the commission. except agenda items. with respect to agenda item, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded went the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i did have a couple of speaker
cards. >> yeah. jerry dratler and georgia sciudice. >> i have some materials to hand out. >> place them there, please. >> oh, i'm sorry. good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler. i served on the civil grand jury and city commission. i was a member of the 2012 civil grand jury that wrote the report that was very critical of d.v.i. a friend suggested that i watch the segment of the december 14 planning commission meeting that focused on the bogus architectural plans prepared by mr. santos for 214 state street. my neighbours and i have the same bogus plan experience in
2016. when mr. santos submitted plans that failed to show the existence of a three-storey bay at 25 17th avenue. my first response was to ask the same questions commissioner rich arts asked -- who is rodrigo santos and why is this allowed to happen? mr. santos is a structural engineer and former president of the san francisco building inspection commission. the organization charged with oversight over d.b.i. i sent a sunshine request to the d.b.i. and planning departments, both d.b.i. and planning said do not assess fines or penalties for filing false plans. this makes no sense. the response to my inquiry about prior violations was very interesting. d.b.i. said the building inspection litigation committee referred three of mr. santos' projects to the city attorney.
one of the projects is 214 state street. the planning department says they have seven of mr. santo's protons under review. i suggest that your planning commission have your attorney update you on the cases and ask your director of planning to discuss the status seven santos projects. you have copies of my sunshine request. i handed out a list of the 11 root causes of unpermitted construction and demolition if san francisco. that i presented at the november 2017 building inspection commission meeting. false or bogus plans is on the list as well as the planning department's notice of enforcement programme that does not assess penalties and fines. this also makes no sense. many of the commissioners in the november 2017 meeting suggested a joint meeting with the planning commission to tackle the root causes of
unpermitted work. i suggest you talk with the excellent planning department employees who staff the kiosk on the first floor of d.b.i. to better understand the type and frequency of violations they see every day to understands the profound impact these violations have on our city. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello. jumping off of what he said about next year, it is going to be a lot of uncertainty, unfortunately. that's why i came today to put the requests that you do a couple of things.
the first thing you can do is adjust the numerical demolition criteria in section 317. you could start that today if you wanted to. or in the new year. i think you should amend the demolition criteria and replace the word "and" with the word "or." i think it could possibly resolve the issues surrounding tant mounts to demolition. i also think that you should amend the demolition criteria and section 317 to make a little more sense. some criteria should be in a. if a building is sound and habitable, then if it needs that criteria, why should that allow it to be torn down? i never fully understood that. it seems like if a building wasn't sound and wasn't compatible and had violations,
maybe it should be torn down. if it didn't, why should that be criteria that allows it to be torn down if it is in good shape. and finally, i ask that you request the zoning administrator to adjust the value for the administrative approval for demolitions in rh-1 districts. it was last adjusted in 2015 and it's currently at $1.63 million or you could just eliminate it as was proposed in the r.e. t. i know you have a lot of stuff. santa has a big sack on his sleigh of things for you to do next year. but i do hope you will do that and i wish you all a really merry christmas and all the best for the few year and particularly you, commissioner johnson. you have a wonderful year in your new endeavours and all of you take care and happiness and health and let's hope 2018 is better than 2017.
this is for the minutes. thank you. take care. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i wanted to take a couple of minutes just to say that i think the director bulletin that came out a week and a half ago on the whole streamlining tangle was very excellently done. i don't know if it was kate or john or combination, might have taken the whole army to figure that out. it was very well done and clarifies a lot. i think it cuts through the rhetoric we've been hearing around streamlining, streamlining, streamlining and now we know how it works. i wanted to step back to say this has been an interesting path for the last three years. we have a number of layers of changes in local and state law that have created the outcome fou where our affordable housing projects are 100% buy right all the way through, including d.r. that was the big catch. no d.r. on affordable housing.
so, there is literally a clear pathway from start to finish. it started back in 2014, if folks remember the executive directive by mayor lee to figure out a way to speed up the process for affordable housing. went through a number of things with john's staff about coordination and ombudsman and other streamlining within the bureaucracy, so to speak. then in early 2016, the board unanimously adopted the legislation that made federal projects ministerial or principally permitted which took away the planning commission mandatory review. then the state did a couple of things. if you remember in 2016, they passed a state density bonus law which made state density by right. which mean they get the extra height without tripping any planning commission hearings, per se. and the last piece of the stack is the sb-35 bill which goes into effect in seven days which says that affordable housing in
san francisco for whatever is not already streamlined and will now be entirely streamlined, including the pre-- precluding the d.r. appeal and some people may argue that that is a bad thing. you know, where we are these days and some of the projects that our houses have had to go through. fine. let's get them through without the appeals process. and as you know, now the planning department has to figure out how to do this entire process in 180 days. so, good luck with that. and that is a very fast timeline to get through the entitlements and then we can figure out the financing and build. there's been a lot on the topic and it's overdominated the talk of housing solutions. at the end of the day, it is money, resources, sights and the kind of policy that creates the priority for affordable housing as much as it is the entitlement process. this piece is settled and i know folks are still talking about more. it's like selling you the same pair of shoes twice.
i think we're there on streamlining and buy right and i hope we can move as the next item will be into your agenda on how to get more affordable housing overall. thank you very much. good luck. >> thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, public comments is closed. commissioner richards? >> director, if you could forward to us via the secretary directors bulletin on the streamlining, i'd like to take a look at it if we haven't received it yet. >> ok. i thought you had. >> maybe we did. a couple of other things regarding the first speaker. it is incredible to me that people cannot reflect reality when they submit applications and drawings and things and that there is no penalty. and that -- i think that needs to change. absolutely. i think what happens in other organisations ends up in our lap and it affects public policy. here we are trying to save a
unit here and save a unit there in the d.r. process and keep people in their homes. yet there is a lot of other things that we don't know and they would be talking with the d.b.i. commission when we have that joint hearing next year and also if the director can maybe work with the city director to give us a memo on the rodrigo santos projects that would be great because we may be seeing them in the future. >> commissioners, ifs there is nothing further we can move on to item nine, case number 1996w.p. the 2016 housing inventory informational presentation. >> commissioner, i wanded to introduce you to a new staffer. she is a newly minted alumna of ucla luskin school of affairs.
he graduated in summer and came to us as an intern this summer and our outstanding commission and after -- after all, as teresa writes, her life before grad school started with stints at apple, square and google where she crunch lots of numbers and created compelling visualization of stats and figures that don't make our eyes glaze over. she may not yet know the san francisco planning code, but knows how to code. she is originally from portland and is a product from portland state where she earned a b.s. in geography. in addition, she has a lead green certification and is an ardent fan of "star wars" and has run a number of half and full marathons so we welcome her to the commission. and i think teresa will do a introduction first. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm principle planner and manager of the information and analysis group.
our group seldom comes before the commission, if ever. our group prepares a number of regular publication of which housing inventory is won. last week, you heard from one of our team on the commerce and inventory. today hearing is on the housing inventory which, at 50 years old, is the longest running continuous publication of the planning department. the housing inventory came about as unintended results with an ambitious and cutting edge, but ultimately inconclusive project. in 1966, the city received federal funding to compare computer simulation of the city's housing demand. this would be the city's first serious effort to integrate emerging computing capacities into urban planninging.
back then computers were huge and often in institutes of learning. who would take hours to set up and even more hours to run the programmes. despite the money important to this complex project, the model did not produce meaningful or useful results. however, there was one positive spin-off. the planning department decided to use the data compiled for the project to produce the first housing inventory in 1967. this is the first -- this is a copy of the first housing inventory published in september 1967. report detailing changes in the city's housing stock since 1960. and we have not stopped this annual tracking and reporting of housing trends in our housing stock. technically our report is to [inaudible] in the series because there were three years in the 2000s when we were not
able to produce the annual reports. but we did track all the statistics and the annual figures were compiled into one multiyear report. over time, some of the methodology changeded and new metrics were added. plus, technology we now use have advanced tremendously. the city-wide information analysis group is now poised to take on modernization of our long range planning information system and analytic capablabilities. for pursuing this effort over the past few years, we're exploring, learning and harnessing the power and potential of new software tools that enable easy data access, simulation, collaboration, visualization. ultimately we will apply all of these capabilities to our group's product and services.
our focus now and in the coming year is the housing data. we're looking to increase path online information presence including dash boards and interactive maps with customizable creation with compelling infographics and summaries. we're excited to explore and harness new informations technologies and geographic information system potential and we look forward to demonstrating our progress to you over time. but today we're proud to present to you the 47th in the series, the 2016 housing inventory. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the analysis group at the planning domestic. i will be presenting the 2016 housing inventory report.
sorry. the inventory is the planning domestic's annual survey of housing production trends in san francisco. it has been published regularly since 1967. this report is 47th in the series and presents housing production activity completed or authorized during the year 2016. the construction of new housing in 2016 totaled over 2715 units making this year a record year for housinging production. the year 2016 also saw a loss of 208 unit which is added together comes out with a condition of 5046 net units no housing stock. this total net edition is a 71% increase from the previous year and almost double the 10-year average addition, recommending an upward trend since 2011.
there were 30 units that were demolished, 72 units lost through legalization. 16 units lost due to unit mergers, 78 units lost to conversion and nonresidential units and 12 lost to correct official city records. affordable housing made up 16% of new units added to the housing stock in 2016. 802 total affordable units were completed including 449 inclusionary units and 65 second tear units. the number of affordable units completed increased 52% from the previous year.
bringing affordable housing units have 28 affordable households earning 20 to 30% a.m.i. 65 of those moderate income units are considered to be secondary units and not income restricted. next year we will have a inventory housing report to complete the secondary units. housing permits issued are an economic indicator of future housing production in the city. the department of building inspection permitted 4059 units for construction in 2016. this is 36% more than the total number of permitted the previous year. of the permits issued in
2016,88% of our buildings were for 20 or more units. san francisco accounted for 19% of total per mys issued in the bay area region. in 2016, there were 4221 units entitled and filed with the planning domestic. the fub of ewe notes filed in 2016 nearly tripled from the number of units filed the previous year. some additional highlights include new condo construction, which decreased 4% from the previous year to 2019 units. conversions to condos decreased 37% from 2015. according to the department of building inspection, the for-profit and nonprofit buildings have decreased by four buildings and their respective rooms have decreased
by 138. all of these are moderate income units. the inventory report also describes the progress that the city has made toward reaching the housing needs allocation. the target as determined by the state department of housing and community development and the regional households that earn up to 120% of median income of less. as of the end of 2016, 10026 housing units counted toward meeting the city's vehicles. 30% of the total were affordable to households earning up to 120% of median income.
production of market rate housing, making more than moderate incomes is at 55% of its unit target. these totals are slightly different from the housing inventory number and the state allows numbers to account toward meeting up to a quarter of the goals. the full housing inventory report is available on the planning domestic's website at sfplanning.org. this concludes my presentation. >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the department. we'll open this item up for public comment. on the housing inventory. excuse me.
>> you have a line-up of speakers. >> like selling you those shoes twice, right? >> i do have some handouts. again, peter cohen. it is very fortuitous that last week you had the congress and industry report and last week you had the housing inventory because one is jobs and the other is housing and it raises the basic question of, gee, how is our job growth doing compared to our housing dpro*ets and how is our workforce taken care of? that is the take-home question. so we did a little work to figure that out. this has the topline conclusions of a bunch of number crunching that we've done over the last couple of days. this is not some highly refined piece of work but it is pretty
darn good because we've been doing these analyses now the last few months. just here, this is intended to be a little bit folksy. so, what is the jobs housing fit that we really need for that 128,000 workers that has been generated over the last 10 years. that is what your commerce and inventory report said, right? it's not just compared to the 5,000 units that were built this year and those built over the same period of time. that is one numerical comparison and i know the social media folks have had a field day with saying 28,000 compared to 128,000. see what a mismatch that is. it takes a little more thought. you have to put it into worker households. we really end up with about 77,000 households that have been generated over that period of time because of the workforce. that equates to 28,000 units when you look at a combination
of single person households, multiperson households. this is all conventionally how things are done. then you can ask the question, how much of that workforce need has been generated over the last 10 years, about 37%. about one-third of the total unit production need for the scale of workforce has been produced. either speed up supply like the streamliners say or we find more sights and money to build more supply. whatever it is. but the big question is for whom. not all workers have the same jobs. everyone talks about tech and office. but as several economists including maurico morhetty says it is five to one after every high-tech worker. this is a breakdown of how much housing by income level is affordability of those worker households we need. not just total units.
as you can see, we've only done 12% of the need for affordable housing and 83% of the need for the high income. interestingly enough, those folks also have the opportunity to access the full real estate market of resale, too. so it is a little different calculation. i can continue or come back. >> i'll give you two more minutes here. >> sure. so, when you say who do we need to have housing for, it is important we look at the workforce as people who make incomes, who make households and can only afford certain things. i'll put it up here for maybe some others. but just do the glass. it gives you an idea -- [coughing] talking about, you know, affordable housing. it ranges all the way from very low-income folks up to, you know, middle income family and
everything in between. we've talk about this before in terms of policy. so, when we look at where we're not getting supply in our jobs housing fit, that dramatic underproduction, it's all those folks for whom housing is not being built. and all we do is ask you to think through the por refined question, how much housing is being bill, is it if you have and for whom is it built and how do our policies really need to balance the access to housing that is coming on the market and what kind of policies, resources that we need to do to do that. i didn't even take two minutes, commissioner. thank you for the extra time. happy to answer more questions. it is a lot of weeds of detail. >> thank you. any additional public comment? georgia? >> hi. beginning of the month, i stumbled on to the land use and transportation committee hearing on this workforce and
middle income housing. i don't know. did you all get that in i assume you did. i think it is mr. egan's report because he had it and i asked him for a copy and he was nice enough to give it to me. to fall along with what mr. cohen said. i think, too, what i've been talking about with the demolitions, that this report found that there is too many tech workers now. there are middlele income jobs as mr. cohen just brought up. i don't know. maybe it would be good to have us compare all three reports and see what everything says together. and, you know, just to remind everybody the median income -- the median price for housing, single family home 2011 was $625,000. that's just 2011. and now it is almost 2018 and it is now -- the median income
price for a single family home is $1.2 million. i don't know how. it seems like the three reports should go together more and this was really interesting so i home you get a copy of it. it's workforce and middle income housing. >> can you forward that to us electronically? >> i don't know. this is a copy. economic, office and workforce development and it says planning department, too. so it's somewhere out there. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> i guess question for mr. cohen. where did he go? i think about this a lot. if it costs to build a unit at $700,000 or $500,000 or whatever the number is these days, inherently they're unaffordable to a good many of
those people on your continuum. they're going up in price so much that you can't build them inexpensively. what would you do? >> commissioner, that is the question. and i guess what i'm saying is to shift to that from this idea that anything we build is working. the issue is that a lot of what we're building is working for some, but it is not working for the full range. so, we're to the point where the question you are asking is the smart one of, ok, what do we do? i would say, you know, things up to roughly about 80, maybe 100% of a.m.i. can and are currently with a variety of our city policies and subsidies basically being done through city investments. right? and there is different levels of subsidy and different kinds of incentives or requirements. there's different roles that the city plays directly or indirectly. so, frankly, from everything from 0 up to about 100% a.m.i.,
we're going to have to, as the public, figure out a way to subsidize or incent that kind of housing to be produced. that is why we have inclusionary and home s.f., that's why we have all of our affordable programmes. because the natural market is never going to touch those price points. when you get up to the high end, you know, from maybe 150, depends on where you are in the city, there's market rate housing around 150% a.m.i. up to higher levels, that is where the market is sort of taking care of that end of the workforce spectrum. the challenge is going to be between maybe 100 to 120 and up. to that 10. that is part of the midle that a lot of us are talking about. there is kind of a big almost exostential question about housing affordability in this day and age. does that mean we now have to start subsidizing that level of housing? in a way that we never thought. i mean, we never thought that it would require direct subsidy for housinging at that level. but is that the only way to
counterbalance just the given costs of the construction market? or is there some way that the real estate market could be incented to bring prices down to that level? i honestly don't believe the second is going to work as we have this tremendous inequity ofwell and income. it 's always going to drive price high. but if there is some way to have naturally affordable middle income housing in san francisco, it would be interesting to see how that would actually work. it does work in more suburban jurisdictions. you are seeing that price point happen outside of san francisco. but because of our crazy real estate economics and construction prices, we haven't been able to figure that out and the natural market. so subsidy, nonsubsidy, that's where we need the honest conversation about housing our workforce. >> thank you. just a couple of points. i read the ucla report on what
the counterproduction levels are going to need to be in order to reduce prices 10%. it said a 20% increase in the existing stock. which if you look at the housing inventories, roughly 400,000, that would be producing 80,000 units to have a dent of 10% and we're producing 5,000 on a really good year, which was last year. i'm getting the impression we're not even treading water, we're slowly sinking. that we're not being able to keep up with demand and if you look at the median price just in the last seven year, it's basically doubled. if it doubles again in the next seven years, we're really screwed. i don't know what it will take. we have to figure out how to produce things a lot faster and a lot more of them the we need to increase supply, period. i'm talk magnitudes, not percents. we are talking four, five, six, eight times what we produce today. i don't think we have enough construction capacity to do
that. so, we're up against a lot of limits. financing, construction, everything. and a 10% decrease on the median of $1.2 million to $1 million is still vastly unaffordable to that continuum of people that will require a marshal plan. the other thing is looking at displacement and homelessness. this market is kicking people out into the street, directly, indirectly. whatever. we see it every week and we have d.r.s that come where people will be -- thrown out on to the street. and some other statistics, one that i can recall is 76% of homeless people in san francisco are san francisco residents or lived here. so the question then would be how did they end up being homeless? it is not all substance abuse and mental health issues. they were squeezed out somehow from where they were living and
they're now homeless. that is why we have families that are homeless. and people that earn an ok income but can't afford a place to live. the other data point we have from -- i forget what report it is. current zoning allows us to do 141,000 units without expanding any zoning. how do we actually incent those units to be built? and how can we bring them on the market? there is all these data points that are like -- i think we got a way forward if we have the political will. but we keep talking a lot and things that don't get much better. even though we have record years. >> commissioner moore. >> to mr. cohen, thank you for adding your conversation points to the mix. thank you to the department.
it is quite difficult work. quite impressive as always. you prefaced your presentation with saying needed to absorb the city's growing workforce. the question i like to ask is it is the rapid growth of the region which brings many people to the attractive city environment that we offer. but they do not work here. and that does not get accounted for because it creates a bulge by which we can hardly assess our own job housinging balance. how many people do really live and work here? so there is something that there is a huge bubble overhead, which we're accommodating and all of these numbers don't stand up to that scrutiny. >> if you'll see in our summary, commissioner, we have a couple of caveats. this is artificially a closed universe because it is not the way the real world works for the very reason you just said. it's also not the real world
for every worker that lives in san francisco lives in san francisco. some people want to live out in antioch and want to commute. because, frankly, the kind of public policy debate in the media and that you get in kind of the chattersphere, as we like to call it, likes to equate job production to housinging production. that's the frame that we're left with in terms of a narrative and that is why we use this closed universe. i entirely agree with you, commissioner. that exacerbates the challenge that we have not just folks living in san francisco who live down south or elsewhere, but it is the high end of the income spectrum. it adds more to that upper end bubble of income that drives housing price. where as everybody below that at whatever level is scrambling to compete. whether they work in san francisco or silicon valley.
this is our big, big challenge. >> add a second part of the question. there's always a dark cloud. that arose last night after the tax reform plan was approved in washington and how it will in particular affect the state of california with tax incomes being capped at there 10,000. -- at $10,000. but the ability to deduct income and mortgage and state taxes. how do you see that further exacerbating the problem? >> i think for folks who right now are owning their homes, they're probably going to have less appetite to be generous with resources for others. for those of us who they be thinking about revenue measures for next years and beyond, i think we're going to face a voter population is suddenly realisinging that money is