the support for the become -- legislation hn

growin

>> maybe we can wait a moment until supervisor kim's office gets here. and i know we have a lot of affordable housing and a tenant organizations that are here with us today, i thank you all for coming in showing the importance of this issue. we are joined by, not just the three land use committee members on this side, but supervisors kim, campos, and olague. it is great to have all of you. i need to the knowledge that we have reached a quorum, but this has been duly noticed on the land use agenda. take it away.

>> supervisor mar has outlined the basics of the hearing with supervisor campos for the affordable housing policies and programs. we have had several hearings over the last couple of months that shows a tremendous need for affordable housing in the city. we held a hearing on the shelter system, we heard testimony about the difficult time people have in the shelter system not only obtaining shelter reservation but accessing permanent housing. we also heard from residents about the impact of foreclosures.

we will hear presentations from city staff and comments from many of the residence and constituents that are here today. in addition to the land use committee, we are joined by supervisors campos and olague. we want to better understand the needs with the various income levels. to understand the source of funds at the federal, state, and local level. and began discussions with the production gap. many of the advocates, we have a housing trust fund that is a local and permanent source of funding, something the city has not had a number of years since the expiration of the bond for affordable housing. we thank city staff and advocates on a solution, and hope that it helps the

discussion taking place. we will be hearing brief presentations from the budget and legislative analyst's office. the planning department and the mayor's office of housing. the supervisor and his staff helped shepherd the audit. >> to want to thank the chair and the members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to be here today. as a supervisor kim indicated, we are facing a housing crisis in san francisco that is impacting san franciscans, if

you have been looking at the production patterns of come 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