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 DevelopmentDepartment 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