it means that we carefully examined the cumulative financial burden of the impact fees on housing production supervisor wiener mentioned at the beginning of his presentation. it means we continue to capture a portion of the net economic benefit generated by market rate housing to grow the subsidy by for subsidized or below market rate housing production. i should reemphasize and say we can do this but there are smart ways to do it. and some ways to do it. the smart ways do not discourage housing production. the dome weighs do. finally and i think this point is not set enough, we need to build regional partnerships and strategies to address what is a regional housing supply problem. it would be exciting for san

francisco to take the lead in such an effort since our problems do not and that our city boundaries. with that i will pass the partnerships and presentation of to the mayor's office of housing. thank you. >> thank you. would you like to say something? >> i wanted to tell you we're at the table on this issue. it is not just while we think a lot of issues there are things that can be done to help this discussion and we're working with the mayor is of to housing office. i want to say that we are working very strongly on the job side of this equation. i do think that we are trying to look at the whole pie here. we will be happy to work with the department to figure out

what is in our long-range planning work and the code we can do to address this issue that is a reasonable approach. that is all have to say for now. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. we're joined by supervisor christina olague. the mayor's office of housing. >> i will go back to the powerpoint. >> maybe once they finish their presentation if you would like to add anything, that would be great. >> we will talk about who are the middle income residents that we're speaking about.

we will talk about how our house -- what our housing study found. we will draw some conclusions about the housing needs and at the end, our director will lead a policy discussion about how we might better serve residents of these different income levels. because we will run through a lot of data, we wanted to give you a preview of the conclusions so people can get a sense of where we will be leading you to. for very low-income households, we will reach the conclusion that for this population, virtually all rental apartments are out of reach in terms of affordable rentals. this population is the target for deed restricted rentals. those rental units where the city had put some dollars in and can restrict the rental price. for low income households, 50 percent -- 50% to 80% ami, there is a gap.

we are producing fewer deed restricted units to serve the population. for the moderate incomes, 80% to 120% ami, most for sale homes are not affordable. this is the city focus for the affordable ownership program. for the above moderate incomes, 120% to 150% ami, there is an affordability gap but smaller. let's talk about definitions. we talk about households, all the people who occupy housing unit. it does not be -- need to be a family. in san francisco, we have about 781,000 residents who live in households and of those, 781,000 residents, there are 346,000

households. that is 346,000 households. that is area median income. we're talking about the midpoint. half of the population is below and the other half above. the income comes from all the people in the household. in the last time -- study over the five-year average, the median household income for san francisco was about $71,000. that is the median. when we talk about very low and low-income, we wanted to put a human face on it. very low income, 0% to 50% sigami. low income, 50% to 80% ami, one makes $45,000 and the other

works as a waitress, bringing in tens and dollars. for moderate income, a single man earning $67,000 might be moderate in, or two flat mates, . above, 122150. a married couple with two children. what makes 85,000 and the other one make 65,000. a single woman making 100,000 could be above moderate. for the upper income, 150% or above, that could be a married couple without children. a police officer making some 5000 and nurse making 100,000. that gives you an example. when we talk about ami, it gets complicated. the area median income depends on how many people there are in

those households. it can see a chart with those median incomes and you can see the highlighted areas are where each of those people we describe fall on that chart. >supervisor wiener: just some context here. i know in the last week the speaker of the state assembly put out a proposal statewide for state college tuition. anyone with a household income of $150,000 would qualify for a dramatic reduction in state college tuition. 100 tricky thousand dollars in modesto or fresno or other parts of the state would translate to a significantly

higher equivalent standard of living. in terms of justice a note, with respect to these different categories according to the speaker of the assembly, $150,000 is -- for households statewide is some sort of our rule of thumb or indicator of people who are struggling financially require assistance. just to put that out there. >> this tells you in san francisco who falls within these categories. as supervisor wiener said. we can always cut this chart up in different slices. what we chose was 050, 50 to 80,

82120 at about. the largest part of 27% falls below that 50% ami. 44% fall between 50-150% ami. the largest is 29%. in terms of the 345,000 households, that means that within the 120 to the 150% ami, there are 135,000 households. there is the representation of where we are. >> according to the airport, the growth is in the very extremely and very low population. that population boomed and there

is growth also in the upper income category as well. >> you will see in the next slide what you stated. that is the visual representation. you can see on the left-hand side those households with less than 150% amnd over 150% have grown. moderate is constant with a little bit of an increase. you add this up those three segments in the middle have declined slightly over the past 20 years while the very low and upper has increased. this next slide is the same information that you can see dramatically that the increase is on the low and the upper and lower.

moderate remains flat. we know there are many different factors that can lead to that. it was hard for us to isolate any one factor. some factors are neighborhood preferences, the jobs available. san francisco does not have the same quantity of single-family detached homes as other areas. and the cost of living. san francisco is much more expensive than other sections. what we did was focused on housing affordability and how that might serve to contribute to this trend. we will talk about rental housing and then about ownership. for rental housing, let me set the stage and i apologize for these numbers. in san francisco, we have

346,000 occupied housing units of rental and ownership. 36% are rentals. we have 36% rental and 64% ownership. -- i'm sorry. 36% ownership, 64% rental. the overall occupancy rate is about 92%. 92% of all of the units in san francisco are occupied. we have 90% on ownership and 94% on rental. when we talk about affordable housing, we are meeting that 30% of our gross annual income is being used for renter ownership. if we're talking about cost burden that is 40% of their

housing costs. we talked about be restricted for housing. here, meaning that we're legally bound to rent or sell the house sold under an -- unit those are units we contributed something to and overall we have 21,000 units of steed restricted affordable housing. here you can see the challenges for rental. for people at the various different ami levels. at 50% we're looking at 50% ami, and what percentage of those rentals would be affordable to people at 50% ami. only 6% of the studios are affordable. when i go up to 80% it goes up to about 54% and 120%, 93% of all the available rentals are affordable to that population. again you can see at 50% it is

very difficult to find almost any affordable rentals. at 80%, it becomes slightly easier. at 120% even for three bedrooms, you've still have 51% of those units available. just as a point of reference in terms of the point about rent burden, in san francisco, 36% of all renters pay 35% or more of their income toward their housing costs. if we're saying rent burden is 30% we know that 36% of renters, 72,000 rental households pay more than 35% of their income. toward their housing cost. supervisor wiener: those numbers you just quoted, that was for a

studio. if you look at two bedrooms for 80% of ami, 6% is affordable. ito go to a one bedroom for 80%, only one-third. >> right. supervisor wiener: for a two- bedroom, 40%, 16%. >> this reflects the number of two-bedroom and three bedrooms available so at the lower ami, the smaller apartments are the ones the become more affordable more quickly. as you look for larger apartments, it becomes more difficult even at 80% ami. it becomes much more challenging. the more bedrooms you need. supervisor wiener: even if you are at 80%.

even going from a studio to a one-bedroom is a dramatic account -- increase in -- decrease in affordability. >> a decrease from 54% of the studio's available. once you need a one-bedroom you are down to 30%. this is the same chart. supervisor olague: the low income set, those families who are in need of our bedrooms and units that are bigger than studios and one bedrooms, do you find a lot of very low income families are forced into small units in order to stay in san francisco? >> that is a good question. we do not have data on where people fall. it is a combination of people congregating within a smaller

number of bedrooms than would be optimal. there are other choices. if you are willing to go out you can find those larger apartments but it does not mean your rent burden will increase and those of the choices. either pay a great deal more money or you are going to live in a much smaller unit then you would otherwise choose to. supervisor mar: some are staying -- in anotgheher bedroom where a whole family is staying. >> this goes back to what we were speaking to before in terms of when is there no longer affordability gap between what the fair market rent and 80% ami would be. as supervisor wiener pointed

out, at the studio or one bedroom level, there are no longer the gaps between the fair market rent and what it -- is considered to be affordable but is -- as you go up in bedrooms size, there remains an affordability gap. when to get up to 100% of ami, the gap does tend to go away. again some people have looked at that and said that does not make sense because i have seen many apartments a go for much more than that. again, remember we're talking about what is the fair market rent and clearly we know that there are units priced above and below that. we will talk a little bit about what the city is producing in terms of production of rental housing. when we produce rental housing, we do our best attempt to

leverage outside funds. this represents the funding that was available over the past nine years or so. the sources of public financing for affordable housing, you can see, and i think we will highlight here. it is a little hard to see. over the past nine years or so, the city has put in 34% in terms of tax increment revenues and city general funds and has leveraged another 64% of outside sources. this gives you an idea out with our limited funds what we need to produce these kinds of units. supervisor wiener: a couple of slides back there was a comment for people making 100% of ami that there was no affordability gap at any level? >> this talks about the fair market rent so the fair market rent as set out by hud. we are comparing the fair market

rent to head with would be affordable to people at that rate. that does not mean that people have to pay more than that if they want another kind of unit. it just says this is what is on the market and this is what people can afford. supervisor wiener: how does that jive with the fact that at 80% of ami, 16% of to better minutes are affordable at 20%. 6% are for bowl -- 2% of one bedrooms, 79% at 120. it does not seem like there is no affordability gap. it seems like there is an affordability gap, i should say. >> what the challenge is here, what we are looking at here on the first chart, let's say 8%.

54% of all the units on the market -- but say a studio. 54% of the studio would be affordable to you. 54% of all the studios on the market. on this chart, if you look at the fair market rent of the studio, as compared -- and compare that to what is affordable, to someone who was making 80%, those numbers their equivalent. it is not comparing the same thing. d.c.? here is 100 units on the market. how many of those would be priced as a studio for someone making 80% ami, and we're saying those are 54%. the other number is looking at what is considered to be a fair market rent for a studio by hud which is 1238. if you look at what can someone at 80% of ford -- afford.

it does not mean they can afford every single studio apartment. supervisor wiener: when you look at the real world grants, there is an affordable gap -- affordability gap. we are talking about when you look at the actual rents, there is an affordability gap if you are making 100%. >> if you look at all the studios on the market and compare to what someone at 80% can afford, some of them will not be affordable to them. that part is true. supervisor wiener: it could be as high as 80% for two bedrooms for someone making 80% of -- 84% of ami. >> we are not comparing can that

person afford to buy all those houses or to grant all those units. what we're comparing to is what the media and is for all the studios on the market and does that match what that person could afford? it does mean there will be a substantial number of studios that are about what that person can afford. that -- we are not saying there is no affordability gap. that someone at one end% could afford to rent all of them. that is a gap about what they could afford to pay and what the fair market rent which is close to the median, that is all we're saying. supervisor wiener: when you look at the range for two bedrooms, 84% of the two bedrooms would be not affordable to someone making 80% of ami, if you look at the full range. >> yes. supervisor olague: the lower

your on the economic spectrum the fewer options you have as far as housing. >> yes. supervisor olague: is that reflected in this data? >> when you are looking -- when we are talking 50% ami, even at the steady rains, it -- only 6% of every single studio would be affordable to people at 50% ami. supervisor olague: it would be important to understand how this impacts the quality of life for families, particularly who are below the 50% ami level to find out where they're living and how. i do not know of that data exists but it might be good to do. we could export more deeply. -- explore that more deeply.

>> i will go back to the powerpoint here. we can go back to that side again. -- a that slide again. -- to that slide again. we are talking about the universe of rentals. there is 212,000 rental units. the number of the restricted affordable rental units the city has, that is 18,000. that is 80% of the total. of those, 76% of our deed- restricted rentals. 18,000 is the population. 76% target folks at the very low income.

another 16 target 50-60% and a small number, 7% serve the 60- 80% ami. within this, what is part of this deed restricted units include those units we produce through moe or sfra. ordoto give you how much we produce, we're talking about production. we have averaged 800 units in terms of what moe and sfra have produced. as you know the agency money is going away and that will go down to 400 units. on the bmr side, we have averaged 33 rental units per year.

this average 33 a year. in the pipeline, for bmr rentals, we probably have 725 units set to go within the next five to 10 years. something for people to think about is historically on the below market rate program, it is 72% or so have been ownership and maybe 20% have been rentals. that ratio is flipped. for the next five to 10 years, it will be closer to about 70% rental and 30% ownership because of what the owners feel. does something to think about. some people have passed about -- asked about the rental units. it is because of the poor leveraging ability. you might know we depend on federal and other funding

sources and you have state sources. for up to 60% ami, you are limited to di. here again, this is what we have talked about 0-50% have the of hardest but -- time finding an apartment. virtually no rentals available. from 60-80% their reigns difficulty finding an apartment. this population is unserved by city rentals. when you get up to 80%, the larger bedrooms, it becomes difficult and there is that gap that exists especially for larger families as you mentioned. but stopped about on the homeowner shipside.

this time i promise to get the figures right again. for owner occupied units is 36%. rental is 64%. to give people perspective, california is 57% and in the u.s. nationally it is 67%. our 36% is on the low side. we are not the lowest of all cities. nyc has a 33%. christsupervisor olague: what ws the other percentage? >> 67% nationally. supervisor olague: that is the total number of persons eligible. >> it is 67% vs. the rental. >> it is 67% vs. the rental. california is 57%.