portable housing and compare that to market rate housing, you know the production is out of balance. it is out of balance in such a way the own report on the his points out that it is, in fact, not affordable. which is why as a supervisor kim indicated, there are working on the housing trust fund, it has benefits to the city and county of san francisco.

at the board of supervisors, we recently held a hearing on foreclosures that is something that is impacting the city in the southeast part of the city. we also last week talked about the conditions and shelters and the fact that many of our shelters are not acceptable -- accessible to the extent that they need to be accessible. there are a number of issues that need to be addressed connected to this. at the regional level, we are as a region engaging with discussions as to what the future of the region will be, when it will look like, it is at the forefront of that discussion, that the housing and transportation are the two biggest sources of the expense

for the family, and he looked at the difference that is being considered at the regional level, those requiring a low- income family spend up to 85% of their income on both housing and transportation. unless we do some thing to address that issue, but-income people -- but low-income people won't be able to live here. we request that the budget and legislative analyst conduct a very comprehensive audit on the city's affordable housing objectives and whether or not those objectives are being met. including oversight, the

effectiveness of meeting the housing needs. and the implementation of housing development projects as well as the ability to implement regional housing plans and looking at transit- oriented housing. it makes the case for why we need to pay better attention to this housing crisis and provide some context for the magnitude of what we are facing. it is something that i think represents a real challenge for the city. if we are going to be the kind of city that we want to continue to be, we will have to address this issue. not only as a city, but as a member of the region. i want to thank my staff that has worked diligently on this for the past few months. i also want to thank my ha

legislative analyst's for the jobs that they have done had of the departments that have been cooperative. i will turn it over to of supervisors kim. thank you for being here today, i look forward to the discussion. supervisor mar: i wante dd to add that this is important not just for the neighborhoods of the city, but the west side as well. it prevents displacement of working families in the kingdom hot report really shows that we are not keeping up with the need for low-income but also the types of housing home that working families in the richmond district are working. the report shows low-income and moderate-income isn't there. we are not meeting anywhere

close to the need for housing, and also, the affordable housing also creates jobs. already noted is the national association of home builders that even 100 new at low-income housing units generate more than 120 construction jobs. when construction is complete, and support roughly 30 jobs and a wide variety of industries. the building of affordable housing benefits putting people back to work and keeping working families in the city. i applaud you for bringing this issue to us. >> thank you, chair mar. i want to thank the house and advocates that have been working really closely. our legislative aide has been staffing this issue.

they kind of articulated what came out of the hearing. i want to call a the budget and legislative office. >> i am from the budget and legislative analyst up as -- office. will present a brief overview of the findings and recommendations. kay harrison enhance and smith are the subcontractors that worked on the audit. >> i will be presenting some highlights for the budget and legislative analyst's programs.

i have the power point presentation on the computer. as with the performance of eds, we conducted in accordance with the auditing standards. they have four main focus areas , those included in the planning department oversight of housing development. funding sources and implementation of housing development policies to implement regional housing policies. i am going to briefly highlight the major findings and give a little bit of background. it defined affordable housing as housing that cost no more than 30% of the annual income.

the general plan, 43% of the d p rental households over pay for their housing and 39% over paid according to the standard. you will see a table showing the housing goals from 1999 to 2006. these are developed in order to meet the housing needs within various income categories. o the seventh it is was able to meet about 86%, the city was well below its goal for the low and moderate income categories. we evaluated it until 2014 and will discuss the findings related to that in a moment.

the mayor's office of housing in the san francisco housing authority have been the main developers of affordable housing in san francisco. it takes about 38% of funding sources. affordable housing charged to developers, built by developers, tax credits, and financing provided by hud. it is the second source of financing after the tax credit. the dissolution will have a major impact on financing for affordable housing projects. every seven years, it develops housing allocation that establishes bay area jurisdiction as mandated by the

state. the fair share of this allocation is incorporated into the housing element of the general plan and the primary document for the housing policies. historically, san francisco has never met its housing goals other than for market rate housing. the city is on track to make 2/3 of its goals for 2013 with a large gap and moderate income housing -- in moderate and low- income housing. until recently, the planning commission received limited information on how approval of housing developments meet the goals of the housing element. while they supported goals for the planning commission to meet goals last august, these reports should incorporate more detailed assessments of current and future housing production and the achievement of housing

goals. we recommend the planning commission report on the process and organize a workshop on the process for commissioners. we included data on the income level for any proposed project. including how such units would address the share of the regional housing needs. we recommend the director resume providing the planning commission with quarterly housing production report and expand the death of the information included in the inventories reported to the planning commission. while regional plan has not yet been implemented, the association of bay area governments expect to develop a long-range plan by 2013 to

comply with state legislation. the plan for housing can be a identified in several area plans and zoning districts. the increased density while promoting affordable housing development and transportation alternatives. the planning commission can approve variations within the transit oriented district. approval of additional parking, payment of fees and other actions shape transit-oriented districts. compiling and reporting of the cumulative impact of such actions or approvals the to alter the intention of the transit oriented district should be more frequent.

city policies are defined by the housing elements, the consolidated plan for grants, the plan to abolish,, s, and the affordable housing ordinance. a has set a goal of 3000 units by 2014. but the mayor's office of housing does not report to the board on the achievement of these goals. it enters into agreements for only nine years that are not subject to board approval, although operating subsidies are not necessarily -- is currently $5 million a year. they should enter into a 15-year agreements that would require supervisors' approval. the revisions make the preferred alternative.

housing funded by these fees result in different types of housing that his belt by developers. the shift may change development for low and moderate-income households the house and for an extremely low and very low- income households. inclusionary housing does not require developers to make units available for specific populations. housing built by fees offer target specific regulations. housing units built between 2003 to 2010 with affordable housing fees. many of these units also target and the chronically homeless. the field of housing in its debt to be smaller than inclusion area that's, and more than half of the and it's hard to or more

bedrooms while 2/3 of feed-built housing are single units. housing built with affordable housing fees tend to provide rental use met -- rental units. inclusion area housing can be built on side of market rate developments or other offsides but nearby locations. they can be found in 26 different neighborhoods while housing built with these are concentrated in six neighborhoods. public financing varies by year but has decreased by 23% in fiscal year 2007-2008 through 2010-2011. the city refund affordable housing fees in 2008-2009 as well as 2009-2010. it has been the most stable

source of revenue. and the redevelopment agency allocated up to 40% for affordable housing each year. still, the city will lose up to $46 million a year in tax increment at tax increment bonds. the city's other sources of funds, how they are less predictable. the board of supervisors consider adopting a policy that 25% be used for affordable housing development, estimated to be $1.8 million a year. heck also consider adopting a policy that a portion of non- recurring revenues will be allocated. this is estimated to be $1.2 million a year.

the governor has talked about general-obligation approval for affordable housing. prior general-obligation bonds that the 55% threshold, but not the 67% threshold. >> can you go over the first two recommendations again? dodge the board of supervisors can consider adopting a policy of volatile of all revenues that is not assigned to the station reserved. this is estimated to be $1.8 million a year. the second recommendation was the board of supervisors also consider adopting a policy that a portion of non-recurring revenues will be allocated to affordable housing development.

>> of the second recommendation, it was based on the estimate that would be about $6 million a year be available, and we took a percentage of that. if they wanted to allocate more of those revenues to affordable housing. >> in conclusion, the budget and legislative analyst would like to think the san francisco redevelopment agency staff, and the planning department for all of their assistance during this audit. supervisor campos: i want to thank the budget and legislative analyst for the work that they have done on this product. i am wondering if i can ask a couple of questions to provide a little bit more information. i know that we are going to hear from the planning department very shortly, but in terms of

the kind of tracking that the planning commission and does, i will elaborate on what is the you keep track of and what it is that they don't. >> we found that the planning commission had asked for a quarterly report to give them a sense of how the city was doing. the planning department has produced that. they will resume shortly. they have information on the type of housing, the income level of housing. our recommendation is that it be expanded on the types of housing and that kind of thing.

they included a valuation of how it was in the proceeding here, contributing to the housing goals for each income level and the policies and objectives. in describing the expected impact on the housing goals at each income level. whether it advances various area plantss, the current project status compared to the city's housing goals.

between the housing inventory, the quarterly report, it should be made more robust. i think that those are the main elements that pertain to our recommendation. >> i know that when an individual project is being reviewed or considered by planting, there are certain things that have to happen. in the context of the project, is their consideration where it falls? >> the planning department staff presents each project with limited context. we want it to expand the description of how each large- scale development meets or

doesn't meet the housing goals. our finding was that currently the department uses the template to describe the housing element. but that it doesn't specify how howell each project will advance to the city's housing goals at each level of affordability. the recommendation is that it be included in the regular report that comes with the presentation of each. >> just a quick question, how many go through the planning commission or planning department.

maybe that is something the planning department can get to. maybe supervisor olague has a question. ok, we have the planning director here. we'll wait. supervisor olague: no, i think that that is accurate, actually. if i remember ait, i remember seeing analysis around a project that was how it was affordable or how it can be attributable to the affordable housing of the city based on the ordinance.

there would be a couple of paragraphs after the principles that include the affordable housing goals. there was never a numerical sort of -- >> that was one of the recommendations, that the department include the level of detail with the description of the project. supervisor olague: i'm just being vague here, all 100 units are 100% market rate project. because there is a contribution that is being given to the in lieu fee or off-site affordable housing -- is it 15%? is it 20 now?

>> i want to point out in response to that, that one of the recommendations is to include in the housing inventory report, how the affordable housing fees see the impact of that. >> i know that it is not clear where that money is going or how it is being invested, unnecessarily. -- necessarily. is the percentage going into the construction of new and affordable housing. it is not clear how the money is being used.

>> if i can bring up the next presentation from the planning department, i see we have the director of planning here as well. >> most of the presentation will be by the staff at the department, but i want to make a few opening comments. the number of you here today reflects the importance of this issue. i will say that this program, obviously, we're certainly only one player in many cities, and the inclusion very program involving -- it is a joint program between us and the mayor's office of housing. i want to thank the hon budget analyst officer for taking the time to understand how we do our work and getting into details on this. we generally agree with all the recommendations. the recommendations they are making is not necessarily in

that type of report, but in the detail of the report. we are working on the template to develop -- how that particular project is meeting the goals. in terms of the numbers, they are something less than 100 units a month. what is important is that less than half of those are approved by the planning commission. more than half of that number is on projects that are generally smaller projects. the planning commission only sees about how for a little less than half of the project. certainly, the reports will encompass a full range of projects. the one exception of about that number, the approval of the very

large project at the shipyard at treasure island. the historical averages something on the range of 2500 units a year that are approved. not all of those are actually built. that is the kind of nuance we have to get into. the purpose was to look that the whole program. there are the mechanics of how we approve the project as well as the regional housing needs allocation. she has been our primary contact on that. and we will report on how we are doing with some of the numbers. i will close by saying that there is a lot of the implication of the reporting requirement that is being discussed, that the department or the commission should consider different criteria for how and when we approved

projects. while that is part of the mechanics, it is clearly a much broader policy question that deserves a broader discussion. if we change the criteria by which we approved projects, it is a big deal. the we have to discuss what it means for the city as a whole. thank you for the hearing, for the work, and i want to thank others for all of their work on this. >> we do have a question. supervisor campos: thank you for working with the budget and legislative analyst and being open in terms of giving them information. i see this not so much as a criticism of what hasn't been done, but thinking about what can be done to even provide more information beyond what is alreth