Descriptive Title: Proportion of housing production to housing need by income category

Geographic Unit of Analysis: County

Housing production and housing demand, San Francisco
Income level Housing demand (ABAG/HCD production targets 1999-2006) Production* (Actual housing production 1999-2005) % of demand met Production needed to meet goals
Very low (50% AMI) 5,244 3,666 70% 1,578
Low (80% AMI) 2,126 1,097 52% 1,029
Moderate (120% AMI) 5,639 555 10% 5,084
Above moderate (Market rate) 7,363 9,870 134% -2,507
Total 20,372 15,188 75% 5,184
*Production is calculated by the SF Planning Department to include all new units built, units rebuilt after demolition, and new net housing from acquisition and rehabilitation (older, dilapidated residential buildings that are bought and rehabilitated into permanently affordable housing).
Housing production and housing demand, San Francisco
Income Level Housing demand (ABAG/HCD production targets 2007-2014)† Production* (Actual housing production 2007-2010) % of demand met Production needed to meet goals
Very low (50% AMI) 6,589 1699 26% 4,890
Low (80% AMI) 5,535 202 4% 5,333
Moderate (120% AMI) 6,754 901 13% 5,853
Above moderate (Market rate) 12,315 7915 64% 4,400
Total 31,193 10,717 34% 20,476
† Housing demand based on Regional Housing Needs Determination.
*Production is calculated by the SF Planning Department to include all new units built, units rebuilt after demolition, and new net housing from acquisition and rehabilitation. Production figures for the corresponding demand period (2007 – 2014) are currently only available through 2010.

Why Is This An Indicator Of Health and Sustainability?

High housing costs relative to the income of an individual or household result in one or more outcomes with adverse health consequences: spending a high proportion of income on housing, living in overcrowded housing conditions, accepting lower cost substandard housing, moving to where housing costs are lower, or becoming homeless. Spending a high proportion of income on rent or a mortgage means fewer resources for food, heating, transportation, health care, and child care. Sharing housing in crowded conditions can increase risks for infectious disease, noise, and fires. Lower cost housing is often substandard with exposure to waste and sewage, physical hazards, mold spores, poorly maintained paint, cockroach antigens, old carpeting, inadequate heating and ventilation, exposed heating sources and wiring, and broken windows. Moving away can result in the loss of employment, difficult school transitions, increased transportation costs and the loss of health protective social networks.  For additional information on the connections between housing and health, visit: The Case for Housing Impacts Assessment by SFDPH, Program on Health Equity and Sustainability. Accessed online on October 19, 2006: http://www.SustainableSF.org/etc/004_HIAR-May2004.pdf

Homeownership positively impacts the social cohesion and civic participation of a neighborhood, which in turn can impact health. Homeowners are more likely to feel invested in their community. They are more likely to participate in nonprofessional associations and vote in local elections. Additionally, a higher rate of homeownership in a neighborhood has been associated with fewer years of life lost due to cardiovascular disease for residents.a

Interpretation and Geographic Equity Analysis

The State of California requires the Division of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to allocate expected future housing demand to each local jurisdiction. Demand is estimated for four income levels. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) produces the estimates in cooperation with local jurisdictions, called the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The San Francisco Planning Department maintains an inventory of housing production based on its own data and data from the Mayor's Office on Housing, the San Francisco Housing Authority, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

Due to the high demand for affordable housing opportunities in San Francisco and a State mandate, the city adopted an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in 2002. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) laws vary among various jurisdictions. The essence of IZ is to place a portion of the burden of developing or paying for affordable housing onto private developers with the goal of increasing the number of affordable housing opportunities without public subsidies.
In San Francisco the IZ ordinance was recently amended in August of 2006 to increase the mandated affordability levels; increase the percentage of affordable units required; and include strict requirements for the location of the units. The new law pertains to all development that was not pipelined when the legislation was signed. The law requires all residential developers of five units or more to provide 15% on-site units affordable at 100% of San Francisco median income for for-sale units and 60% of the median income for rental units. The law allows units to be built off-site, in which case, 20% of units are to be at affordable levels. The new law requires that off-site units be built within one mile of the project area to create more economic integration. Developers are also provided the option to pay fees, as determined by the Mayors Office of Housing (MOH), into the affordable housing fund administered by the MOH. This law is applicable to all new residential developments.

These tables illustrate housing demand by income group in relation to housing produced to meet the demand for each income group. AMI means Area Median Income. Percent of Demand Met is calculated by dividing production by housing demand. While housing demand projections for the years 2007-2014 are available, production figures for the corresponding period are only available through2010. The current data suggest that housing production for all income groups will not meet the expected demand through 2014. However, the production of housing for the above moderate income group exceeded the  demand in 1999 through 2006 (134%) and the expected percentage of demand met for 2007-2014 is at 64%, indicating that there will not be as much of a need for affordable housing among this income group as with the other income levels in San Francisco. The State of California requires the Division of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to allocate expected future housing demand to each local jurisdiction. Demand is estimated for four income levels. In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) produces the estimates in cooperation with local jurisdictions, called the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The San Francisco Planning Department maintains an inventory of housing production based on its own data and data from the Mayor's Office on Housing, the San Francisco Housing Authority, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

Due to the high demand for affordable housing opportunities in San Francisco and a State mandate, the city adopted an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in 2002. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) laws vary among various jurisdictions. The essence of IZ is to place a portion of the burden of developing or paying for affordable housing onto private developers with the goal of increasing the number of affordable housing opportunities without public subsidies.

In San Francisco the IZ ordinance was recently amended in August of 2006 to increase the mandated affordability levels; increase the percentage of affordable units required; and include strict requirements for the location of the units. The new law pertains to all development that was not pipelined when the legislation was signed. The law requires all residential developers of five units or more to provide 15% on-site units affordable at 100% of San Francisco median income for for-sale units and 60% of the median income for rental units. The law allows units to be built off-site, in which case, 20% of units are to be at affordable levels. The new law requires that off-site units be built within one mile of the project area to create more economic integration. Developers are also provided the option to pay fees, as determined by the Mayors Office of Housing (MOH), into the affordable housing fund administered by the MOH. This law is applicable to all new residential developments.

Methods

In order to calculate the percentage of housing production to housing demand by income category, SFDPH staff extracted housing production values through 2010 from the Association of Bay Area Governments’ San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan (2007-2014). Percentage of demand met was calculated by dividing the current production values by the estimated demand values for each income levels and multiplying by 100. 

Limitations

The RHND estimates housing demand based on future economic and employment growth and do not take into account unmet current demand for housing at all income levels. ABAG uses county-level area median income from the 1990 Census in its estimates of housing demand while the San Francisco Planning Department uses area median income for the San Francisco PMSA (includes San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties) to disaggregate housing production data.

According to 2000 Census and 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, San Mateo and Marin counties have higher median household and median family incomes than San Francisco county. Thus using the San Francisco PMSA may overestimate housing affordability for San Francisco residents and underestimate the demand in very low, low and moderate income levels.

While housing demand may vary year to year with demographic and economic changes, ABAG estimates a constant annual demand within each period.

Data Source

San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan, 2001-2014. Association of Bay Area Governments. Available at: http://www.abag.org/planning/pdfs/SFHousingNeedsPlan.pdf

Regional Housing Needs Determination for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2001-2006 Housing Element Cycle, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2001-2006. Available at: http://www.abag.org/planning/housingneeds/report.html

San Francisco Planning Department, Housing Production within income levels from 1999-2005.

San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Housing Inventory 2010, April 2011

  1. Franzini L, Spears W. Contributions of social context to inequalities in years of life lost to heart disease in Texas, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(10):1847-1861.