data. if we do is more frequently than quarterly, we're going to have inaccurate numbers. it does not seem to be important. on the amount of housing we're seeing, we're talking about 1% give or take we will move by doing it on a quarterly basis rather than real time. that is very small considering the accuracy we will get by tagging it to the pipeline report. i will shifted over and will be available for questions. -- i will shift it over and be available for questions. >> how are we doing? over the last five years, units

were built. about 500 of these units were affordable. this is 37% of the units that are affordable compared to what the -- what we are mandated to produce, which is 60%. this is a breakdown of the targets by affordability. 59% of the total production targets have been achieved. 36% of affordable targets have been achieved. you will see the darker column is the actual production. light blue is what the targets should be. you will see that we are doing fairly well with market traits and not so well with low and moderate income.

this report is based on the most recent support the report rates submitted to the state -- this report is based on the most recent report we submitted to the state. we were on time. >> not so well is an understatement given the lack of affordable housing. that is an understatement. we need to do much better. >> hell are we to meet the shortfall? -- ;how are we to meet the shortfall? this is a breakdown of where these units are in terms of development. just under 3500 are under construction. the units in the pipeline are entitled. this is because of the citywide

projects. about 200 units are under review. as far as the immediate pipeline, these are expected to be completed by 2014. about 1700 are expected to be affordable. that represents 27% of the units that will be completed by 2014. this is how all those units would break down. approximately 60% of the production targets would been an -- would have been achieved by 2014. in the 2006 report, san

francisco achieved 86% of that, even if the units are similar. it is just that the expectation for 2014 is much higher than we were expected to build before. 6300 units or 32% of the targets would have been achieved for border ability before affordability. approximately the same number of units were built but we were able to meet 40% of the target. this shows it simplified.

the project sponsors filed applications with building inspection. they are reviewed for compliance. the planning department approves or grants entitlements that allows sponsors to file for building permits. they then issue the permits that allow for construction. when construction is completed, dbi issues these to to give a final completion. i am not even including any of the p.o's here. supervisor chiu: we have a question from supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: a couple of things. a question for planning. this also has to do with the report. in previous reports including the complete budget from a couple of months ago, and in

previous materials i have seen, when you look at the income breakdown, 0 to 50 is low. 120-150 middle. 150 and above being general market rate. i noticed today most of it seems to stop at 120 and classified everything above that as market rate. 125% is lumped in with 300% of ami. i wondered about the rationale on the change. >> it is more difficult to attract -- track that, although

we can make assumptions. supervisor wiener: i am curious why in previous reports it was broken out. this is academic. i think 150% ami at the top of that is about 100,007 dow -- is about $107,000. it is a key part of any help the economy having people of that income range and it is worth tracking. putting it together, i am curious as to why that change happened. >> it is not actually a change. when we worked on the most recent housing element, middle

income was an issue the city has started talking about. it is a recent issue with in the last five years. it is not anything -- it is not even a term that i think exists beyond san francisco. it is something we developed because we have the extreme gap between moderate income in being able to actually purchase a median-priced home. it is something we developed in terms of the projection in the housing element. we did that by looking at the incomes of san francisco and tried to figure out how much of that should be between 120% and 150%. we just did that for illustrated purposes for our policy goals to produce lower cost yet market rate housing, which is something the city has physical. there is no way to track it. -- which is something the city has as a goal.

there is no way to track it. anything that is not subsidized, we do not know. the city has no way to track that. rentals to meet people of moderate incomes. those rents are not reported and not going through the planning department. we cannot track or monitor them. it is something we will keep in the housing element and our policy papers as a goal to try to push back, but it is not something we have the ability to track. we do not have the information coming through. supervisor wiener: i understand it is more challenging to track. when we look at global housing needs, you have to go well beyond what the government subsidizes. i wish we had all the money in the world to be able to subsidize additional housing, but we do not. we do rely on non-subsidized housing to meet our moderate

housing needs. to eliminate that category from consideration in meeting our housing goals, it does reduce our ability to meaningfully no -- know whether we're meeting the needs of the middle class. there is a world of difference between 100% and 300% of ami. one would be part of the middle class and one may not be. i want to put that out there that it is important. >> i will be talking more about the reporting that we did. supervisor wiener: i do have another question about a number. on page 3 it says units will be

affordable. it is defined up to 120. i think that is a zero to 120. it is on page 3. is that 0 to 120? is that the projection to 2040 or 2022? >> 2040. sorry. it is 2022. supervisor wiener: is that in any way broken down or could it fall anywhere in the range? >> is just an estimate. supervisor wiener: is there any for the -- further breakdown

sides -- besides 0 to 120? if there is a further breakdown? >> we will provide it. back to the production process. once the . it is issued a visa to begin a final completion, it is considered complete. we count that as part of the housing inventory. the planning department tracks development projects from application filings to construction in the pipeline report. we started publishing the report in 2006. it was not until the last couple of years we actually were producing this on a regular quarterly basis. the report covers both residential and commercial.

the pipeline report only covers those in the pipeline, not those that are completed. once completed, the planning department tracks them in the annual housing inventory. this report has been in existence since 1967. the 2011 housing inventory is the 42nd in a series. the data accounts for all new housing construction, demolition, alterations. it provides an overview of housing production trends. it is reported citywide by district and also by affordability. we also take into account

conversions and changes to sro's. we have dependants -- appendix a projects completed. this includes addresses, number of units, income, number of affordable units in the projects. when we are able, we track the sales prices and rentals. this is where we could summarize in response to supervisor wiener's request that we track the gap at 120 to 300. it is difficult. we see sales prices advertised. it takes a while before it gets reported.

we will be tracking cnct and rto units as recommended by the audit. a housing inventory is the basis for the annual reporting. we have submitted the report. it was due the first of april. we submitted on time. we intend to prepare quarterly summary of progress to come back to the commission. should the supervisors want this, we could also provide it to them. i also wanted to note the planning department tracks production. we have produced those reports

in the last couple of years. this includes not just units entitle but also would have been completed. that concludes our report. supervisor chiu: i did have a quick follow-up question. do you know what percentage of san francisco population lives within the different ami's we were just speaking of? >> the 10 do that. unfortunately, the data would be based on a survey that is not exactly the most -- >> what is your general understanding? >> we can provide that. we should be able to break down the income categories.

my colleagues do have a number of questions for the planning department. we do know members of the public want to speak. i want to get through the presentations quickly. we may follow up with clarifying questions. we still have one more presentation from the mayor's office of housing. >> i seem to recall 70% is 150 or below. it is possible i am below -- wrong, but that is what i recall from a previous hearing. >> we do have the mayor's office of housing. i see them here. >> olson lee, director of the mayor's office of housing. our goal is to put into context

the affordable housing we have done. the family began our presentation -- before we begin our presentation, i wanted to put that into context. up until the point of the dissolution of the development agency, we were the envy of many communities around the state. not only did we pass a housing bond. we also had redevelopment funding that had committed 50% of local tax increment for affordable housing. in most communities with redevelopment agencies, the committed only 20% to affordable housing. the other thing i would like to put into context is how the redevelopment agency and the mayor's office of housing, with

the urging of the board and the public, used that money. we did not just to low-cost housing that met the definition of affordable housing. we took the extra step based on your encouragement to the special needs housing, housing for people disabilities, a variety of things that many of their communities do not do. they are supported even further by the store -- board and the general fund in terms of operating subsidies for those special populations. if you look at the goals and production goals we have to do, you do not get a sense of the richness of the program that we together have put together that are serving a variety of needs,

not just individuals with low- cost housing. i will put the goals into context. at the dissolution of the redevelopment agency, the 20 years of redevelopment tax income funds provided approximately 12,000 units of affordable housing. we're looking at goals that basically double that going forward. that gives you a sense of the context we're looking at in terms of the loss of redevelopment funds for affordable housing. teresa will be talking about how we structured financing, leveraged outside resources, and the importance of local funds, whether it is a bond issuance, general fund, or tax increment. clearly tax increment financing is the largest local source over the last 20 years.

it i would like to give thanks to the staff of the budget analyst, mo and sfra. this is a huge undertaking to pull this information together. it has been a valuable experience for us. we are very pleased to the board is taking so much interest in affordable housing. we truly believe in our mission to build and create more affordable housing. we appreciate the board's interest in our work. i would like to thank my staff, sally from the redevelopment agency, and teresa who will be presenting on this item. i will be back to the recommendations and conclusions. -- i will be back for the recommendations and conclusions. thank you.

>> good afternoon. i am from the mayor's office of housing. we will try to keep the presentation brief. we do have a lot of ground to cover. we will try to be as thorough but succinct as possible. we will be covering housing needs related to rhna and beyond. , how our office addresses those housing needs, highlight the accomplishments of our office and the redevelopment agency, housing funding used for affordable housing, having a pipeline to me before housing needs, and the recommendations and conclusions. >> thank you for having us here today. rhna focuses on the future housing needs. it is important to also focus on

the existing needs. i will be talking about other measures of housing needs in san francisco. we will consider the context in which we devote our affordable housing resources. it is not only to meet the needs of people coming into the city for new employment or for new household formation, but also to meet the needs of the existing population. a couple of ways we generally think about housing need in terms of the consolidated plan, housing element, and other affordable housing documents, one is households paying so much for housing that they cannot afford other things. that is called cost burden. the other is also the living in overcrowded conditions and households living in substandard housing. we do not have great data on the overcrowded conditions or substandard housing. it is more common for us to look

at overpayment on housing needs. that is what i will look at next. hud considers any household pay more than 50% of their income to be severely cost burden. he might have heard people mention pay more than 30% of income. because so many households pay more than 30%, we took a more conservative approach, looking at more manageable numbers in terms of policies solutions that may be able to address the need. we are finding about 53,000 households in san francisco are severely cost burden. they're paying more than half of their income. if the 3650 -- 53,650. of those, 70% are very low income. 38,000 are very low income households, pay more than half

of their income for rent. this is not a perfect reflection of need. it is and underestimates the true need. it is missing households who are reducing costs by living in overcrowded or substandard housing. when we look at a moderate income group, it is difficult to see what is going on. the hon data is focused on hud programs --the hud data is focused on the hud programs. it is difficult to see how the households with breakdown in more fine detail. the upper income households may be choosing to devote a larger share of income to that to live alone or have a nicer apartment. those in the upper income groups can afford to spend more than

50% of their income and still have enough over -- left over for necessities. another way to think about housing needs -- supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener has a question. supervisor wiener: so, in terms of how you name the classifications, moderate is 81 to 95. above moderate is 95 plus? >> moderate should say 80 to 120. hud does not provide that. it is an unfortunate and limitation of the data. supervisor chiu: do you track necessities? transportation? >> food, transportation costs.

we do not track that. that is what hud would put in the category. another way to think about housing needs at different income levels is to examine the average cost per knicks. for different types of households. on average, we're seeing very low income households under 50% ami spent almost 60% of their income on housing. those earning between 50 and 80% of median income, second on the left, they are spending about 35% of their income on housing on average. these residents are often low wage earners. they could be an office clerk or construction worker earning about $40,000 a year. moderate and above moderate

households are paying less than 30% of income for housing. that does not mean there are no households in this category that are not cost burden. it does mean the average cost burden is under what hud considers reasonable. supervisor chiu: supervisor cohen has a question. supervisor cohen: when is the cost burden, union struggling to afford to pay? >> it is spending 30% of your household -- of your income on housing. that is what they consider you can pay and still have enough left over for the necessities. cost burden, i am saying they're paying less than 30% of income on housing. hud would say you probably have enough left over for necessities. supervisor cohen: does have taken to a consideration the high cost of living in the bay area -- does hud take into

consideration the high cost of living in the bay area? these are the same mechanisms to evaluate oakland as marin? >> is not a set number. it is a percentage of income. you would see it go down in places with lower wages like oakland. it is not going to. reflect cost of living. it will adjust its slightly -- it is not going to exactly reflect cost of living. it will adjust its slightly for different wage rates. it is kind of surprising we see these groups are able to's avoid able high rental prices -- are able to afford san francisco's high rental rates. east bay ridge