That is one of implications. In terms of producinging Affordable Housing because it will affect the tax programme. There is a number of analyses that have been done. But it is tens of thousands of units worth of Affordable Housing that will not be available to us in the next five to 10 years. What happened, the money we just won sacramento, the new permanent source of 250 million a year and the sb3 bond that is going to be on the november 18 ballot, assuming we win it, the 3 billion bond. That will fill the hole that the federal government just took away for the next years to come. We end up even once again. This has been the world of Affordable Housing. We seem to be running in place while simultaneously the private Real Estate Market with all the thirst for living in San Francisco is on fire and sort of further creating the disruption and displacement that commissioner richards talks about. How do we get ahead of the curve when the feds and state keep pulling the rug out from underneath us is the challenge can. We keep going back to the well for San Francisco voters. They are incredibly jealous. The solution is local investment. But it is hard when they have been slaped with this tax production hit. I want to take my chance to say commissioner johnson, i wish you well. Im sorry i didnt say goodbye to you earlier. It has been nice to have you on the commission. Thank you. The only thing that i may add is the real question that still stands if the room and it is not part of this discussion is what is the number of vacant units in the on the affordable market side. And what is the fub of units unused for deck ates almost sitting there underutilized. Those numbers are scary because they are in the numerical accounting of the reality of what is going on. I encourage all of us, all of us, to continue this discussion beyond with what we hear today. Today is the annual report of this issue. It is far, far deeper and i hope that we can continue being really actively involved in asking ongoing questions. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. When i said at the beginning that the commission needs more time to focus on the big issues, this is what i meant so im really happy that were having this discussion today. And there will be things that well have an opportunity to talk about or you guys, rather. I wont be here. To have an opportunity to talk about in 2018. Peter cohen made a bunch of great points that i want to touch on as commissioner richard and commissioner moore. So, ill just high light a few things. First in terms of report. Obviously thank you to the staff again. Always great to have the great graphics. Ive been to s. F. Data, the site. But there is nothing like actually having it analyzed and in front of you to be able to see those trends. Again, great twork to the staff. Ill point out a few things. There are a couple of chars to talk about. Units aproved versus actually constructed and demolished and i want everyone to highlight that we definitely still have and well get to my thought on this, more units authorized that have not been built. We had years where thousands of units were authorized and maybe a few hundred actually built. And so in recent times we had a boom seeing cranes and the number of units authorized to units actually built are much more similar now, right . So maybe 4,000 approved but 4,000 also bill. We had a good threeyear stretch where 3,000 or 4,000 approve and maybe 8900, if that, built. I think that is really important. Getting to commissioner Richards Point and he pointed out a ucla study saying that there is going to be you know, you need to have this huge number of Housing Units to be built to make a dent if housing prices. We have the ability to start. I have been a proponent of getting those units on the market and the way to do that is to say your entitlements will go away if you do not build those units. Im v. For revocation hearings. I think that timeline should be two years. Get it together. Put a shovel in the ground. Three years what the professionals say you need, then fine. Those hearings need to be scheduled. Even when im not here, ill continue to shake my fists to get those units on the market. I want to challenge if you dont build those units and this is what im talking about market rate housing at the moment, that we wont be able to make a dent. Weve seen the data from zillow and other providers or purveyors of information that rents are beginning to soften. Is it softening enough to make it inexpensive or much more affordable . No. But its softening in the sense that it is not going up and in some places it is going down. And you have developers of new condos having to redo their performance because of the supply coming on the market and saying what can we get, particularly in the rental market. I want to challenge the fact that unless you build tens and tens of thousands of units immediately, there is nothing that you can do. Every step, every unit counts tom that point, i think that there is a couple of things i want to focus on and ill get to the Affordable Housing and what i think about how to finance that particularly in light of tax reform that has recently passed. Commissioner richards also pointed out that the report said that the current zoning has an unused capacity of around 140,000 units. I think there is something we can do about that. The Planning Department and the commission can sponsor legislation to say that you are required to maximize the zoning on your lot if you are doing x of work on your property. We should not have anymore Single Family homes in rh2 and rh3. Im not talking about changing zoning or anything like that. We should be able to maximize the number of units we are getting in the current zoning that we have. We have a fight over heights and all of that. But we can build so much. If we added one floor to every building in San Francisco, that is tens of thousands of new units. Right . That is 20 of 400,000 right there. I really think we should think boldly about sponsoring legislation ourselves and working with the boater of supervisors to find somebody to bring it up to the board level. That is something we should be looking at. The next thing i would say is maintaining affordability is about creating new Housing Stock and more importantly about protecting existing Housing Stock and making sure that people are actually living in it. For existing Housing Stock, i have been a proponent of it. Sometimes i get shot down because it is a countercyclical programme to be the most effective. But i think the small sized acquisition programme, if we were to do version 2. 0 of that with some tweaks, could actually be a very strong tool to both maintain existing Housing Stock and promote Community Ownership and wealth creation. That is how you keep people in their homes by keeping them in their homes, not by building a new one that they can have when they are displaced. The key to displacement is to keep people in their homes. That is how you do it. So, an accusation programme, you need money for that. So, how do you do it . There have been proposals most recently for a public bank. That is a great opportunity to take advantage of the economic engine of San Francisco and put it back to the Housing Stock for our city. Rather than work on commissioner or mr. Cohen mentioned, you know, it is tough to get some of Corporate Investors to the banks that have more of an International Investment portfolio to want to invest in those sort of things. You know, a public bank of San Francisco definitely could. Im a huge proponent of that. Then we get down to, all right, what else can we do . Vacancy tax. Its hard to get data on how many vacant units are there. But weve all had the anecdotetal evidence of a building thats empty or half empty, whether it is market rate, not a rent controlled or maybe it is an s. R. O. Or something. So, you know, that is something that we should be looking at and also add to the pot of funds to protect existing Housing Stock which will and the people in there, right, which will decrease displacement which will decrease this fear that if you build new housing, that will push people out. That is a false equivalency that ive seen. Those are things that i would say. I think i see a lot of the data in this report that backs us up. Getting back to the actual charts that are in here, really look at that mismatch between number of units that are authorized and number of units that were actually producing. And, you know, start thinking about whether or not we need to recycle some of those entitlements and what they should be today. It might be time to rethink, you know, are those projects still relevant today. Other than that, great work to the staff and hope the commission keeps talking about this stuff. Thank you. Commissioner . Thank you. Thank you to the staff for a fantastic presentation. I really appreciate your work and the presentation. Welcome. So i have a few observations and a couple of questions about the presentation. So as an observation, i would be really interestinging to see the spatial distribution of where these units have been built. And particularly the increase throughout the city because i suspect it is not evenly distributed toward the city and that, you know, is a point of discussion and ity that to commissioner johnsons point, there are vast parts of the city that are underbilled. But maximizing the zoning in those parcels not the same. In the mission, in the bayview as it is in st. Francis woods. The impact they have on the surrounding neighbourhood and the neighbourhood demographics very different. So i would be really interested if seeing what that really has looked like on the ground. What i fear when we talk about, ma might asing the zoninging and Housing Development is the impact on stock of rent control housing. And as we have not defined the tant demolition. But less affordable units that dont have the same people livinging in those neighbourhoods. By would be interested in seeing the spatial distribution. I would be interested if seeing that juxtaposed with the racial demographic in neighbourhoods. Where theres been the last couple of changes in the distribution demographic distribution in those neighbourhoods. And to mr. Cohens presentation thank you that was also added so much to the discussion. I really i wonder about issues of longevity and ten your in these numbers. We get and were observing the real life. What happens is people get to their 30s and they partner with someone else and they have a couple of kids and if theyre in a b. M. R. Unit with a onebedroom, its really hard to, like, you know go on to the next step of your life because you cant have two kids. You cant have more income. Im wondering how our current production is kind of skewing the demographic changes in terms of families and all of that. That is another thing that was not in the presentation but i know you have it because i know [inaudible]. What the distribution is by five. How many of them are family units. That is interesting and we had tracked it in previous years and i know that it colored the conversation that we had when we had a supervisor yee who came to present about his Family Housing initiative so that would be really interesting to see as well. Yeah. So, the question that i had for you was about the change the only decrease that i saw in the presentation was a new condo construction, condo conversions. So i was wondering what your theories were on that. And what the trends were. That you were seeing. Is it an issue of return for the investment . The condo conversion numbers are kind of startling to me. So yeah. Thank you, commissioner. Just going back to your first comment on the spatial distribution. We do have two tables in the report, table 24 and table 25, that list Housing Stock by planning districts and we also have Housing Units completed and demolished by Zoning District as well. We dont look at size of bedrooms spatialically. We really dont have that information this this report. Beyond in the appendix and table a1, we lists the top major market rate housing projects and in those two lists, we do list bedroom size, but not any other section that i know of. But we do, for your question on condo [inaudible], we dont analyze the data to actually core late, you know, or try to figure out what the reasoning is behind it. But we are thinking it could be related to the number of rentals versus [inaudible] for sale. If it is a rental, it is not listed as a condo so that could be why maybe the number is decreation over time. Decreasing over time. Ok. Thank you. Commissioner richards . So, i guess when we see excellence all the time, we kind of expect it. And i guess to your team, i should be saying thank you. You always give us excellence and i take it for granted so i wanted to acknowledge i. Its excellent. I need to tell the director that we need to bury you deep inside the department so they dont lose you to another asset. [laughter] i think what i heard from all the other commissioner was this report has a lot in it. But you cant take the report by itself. Theres so many other reports that can feed in to give you a more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground, whether it is racial disparity, income by neighbourhood, all these different things. The capacity. So, it is really tying all these things together that we can actually think of a path forward or solution. A couple of other points besides that is, theres also commissioner johnson raised the issue of capacity when it comes to building up to the zoning potential. A Single Family home in rh2 is not desirable. This brings me to a statement, size does matter. The average size of a home in San Francisco is 1200 square feet provided by the department 12 months ago. However, we get these applications, not only are we underbuilding, but building a Single Family house in rh2, but everything that is 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 square feet is called public housing. If an average house is 1200 square feet, if you need 3,000 square feet to survive, youre probably smoking something because we can probably fit three units in that same space. Lets not look at units but the size of the units. We can get more units in if we make them more reasonable and we should be looking at that when were definitely trying to maximize the density. Lastly, two commissioner johnsons point, i completely agree. A lot of Property Developers are looking at their proformas. The risk is the rents are justifying the risk involved given the cost to construct. If they start falling, i hope we dont have a disincentive to not build. So, it is becoming a vicious circle. A vicious cycle. Thank you. On that question, the 4,000 units that were built over the past year, do you have a sense of when they were entiets ld . Entitled . Like it would be interesting to see kind of. Because we have faced this issue a little bit. There is the one side that says we need to bill. But it would be interesting to see when those were actually entitled. I dont know if you have any sense of that. Thank you, commissioner. We do have information as to what quarter theyre built in and the date of the entitlement as well. So, we can definitely get back to you in terms of how many are by quarter or by month. If theyre entitled, they were mostly entitled in 2012 or 2008. To me this report shows a couple of things. One, if you do look at that neighbourhood page where housing is being bill, over half is built south of market. That includes goes down to dog patch pretty much. So, not what we would necessarily think of as south of market and quickly drops to number two, which is the western edition which i sense is octavia boulevard and protons there and along market street. Going up octavia market and south bay shore which is close to the shipyard projects that are being done. It shows the planning weve done in the past is paying off. That is precome fanlly where the units are being built. Which i know were having growing pains with all of these plans. That is where we planned for it and i think that is where its appropriate that it goes so it is paying off. I think the commissioners question about the gap in affordable, that is real. The units as well as existing units are way out of price range for most folks trying to buy these and two work in the city. And you have to figure out what subsidies you can do for a. M. I. And state programmes that arent necessarily geared to subsidies associated with that. But its a real issue. How we build more Affordable Housing both at the lower income levels and in increasing that to about 150 of a. M. I. I think that is the biggest question that comes out of this. The jobs issue you brought up, i think the gap in your analysis is regional. And i think weve go to look at that regionally because, you know, it is gooed to see actually i was a little surprised to see there are other counties. Even though were out in front of most building housing. And its where you would expect. It is in alameda and santa clara so its around the san jose and oakland kind of central quarters and it is a where we should see it. San mateo, where there is a lot of jobs is woefully behind and gets o its to these bigger regional issues. We should be building the majority of housing along with alameda in santa clara because that is how transit information is built. Or at least we should be having the majority of jobs and housinging should be built everywhere. And that is certainly san mateo, there is tonnes of opportunity sites to build and housing in marin, also. It definitely gets out that regional question of how we can get more housing being built throughout the region. So thank you. I think this does lead to a kind of policy questions that i think notably the regional issues and Affordable Housing. [please stand by] [please stand by] [please stand by] finally moving forward with their big first phases, right .