II. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

A. HOUSING NEEDS

To establish the context for the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment, this section assesses San Francisco's housing market, both in terms of underlying demographic and economic trends influencing demand, and in terms of supply and price. The assessment also highlights those segments of housing demand that are not adequately served by the unassisted private housing market, to form the basis for the 2000 Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan.

As a result of economic, physical, and social conditions, many San Franciscans have become accustomed to overcrowding, indefinite deferral of homeownership, payment of unusually large portions of their incomes for rent or homeownership, and living in substandard dwelling units. The 1990 Census found that over 99,000 households with incomes less than 95% of the area median in 1990 either paid too much of their income for housing or lived in substandard or overcrowded housing by federal standards. Almost 35,000 very low and low income renter households were severely overpaying, or paying over half of their income for rent. Rent increases since 1990 have outpaced income gains, so this number is certainly higher today, with households on fixed incomes like Social Security or public assistance particularly affected.

The age, location and physical characteristics of the City's housing stock combine to create a relatively high need for rehabilitation compared to other urban areas. Over three-quarters of the City's housing was built over 50 years ago, and requires significant rehabilitation to maintain its habitability. Over three-quarters of the City's housing units contain lead based paint which create lead-poisoning hazards. In addition, San Francisco's geographic location makes its housing particularly vulnerable to damage as a result of seismic activity. With more than 21,000 housing units in unreinforced masonry buildings, a significant portion of San Francisco's housing needs seismic upgrading to protect the lives of its inhabitants in the event of a major earthquake. Some of the City's public housing is so severely distressed that replacement or substantial rehabilitation is needed. Other public housing is in need of replacement of outdated systems, lead and asbestos abatement; accessibility modifications for the disabled and extensive site infrastructure improvements.

Some 6,614 net new housing units were built in San Francisco from 1991 to 1998. With population growing about by more than 50,000 people during that same period, this production was clearly inadequate to meet demand. Furthermore, most of these new units were too costly to meet the demand for housing affordable to most low income households.

With the exception of the highest income groups, all segments of the population of San Francisco have been affected by high housing costs. However, the greatest gaps between supply and demand have been in the production of housing for low and very low income households, particularly larger sized households and persons who need supportive housing such as mentally disabled people, persons with AIDS, frail elderly persons, and people trying to overcome alcohol or drug-addiction.

An increasing number of the city's households cannot afford even the most basic form of shelter. The inventory of facilities and supportive services for the homeless has been unable to keep pace with the increase in demand. Like other cities around the country, San Francisco faces the challenge of providing increased shelter and social services with limited financial resources.

1. MARKET CONDITIONS

a. General Characteristics of the Housing Stock

San Francisco is the second most dense large city in the United States after New York. Although it has a substantial number of single family homes, the majority of housing units are in multifamily structures (see Table II-1). According to the U.S. Census, in 1990 San Francisco had a total of 328,471 housing units. Of these units, 55,494 (16.9 percent) were detached single family homes, while 49,656 (15.1 percent) were single family attached units. In addition, 78,889 (24 percent) were units in multifamily structures with two to four units, and 137,969 (42 percent) were units in multifamily structures with five or more units.

Table II-1: San Francisco Housing by Type of Building, 1990

Building Type		1990 Total	Percent of Total
Single Family Detached		55,494	16.9%
Single Family Attached		49,656	15.1%
Multi-Family 2-4 Units		78,889	24.0%
Multi-Family 5+ Units<		137,969	42.0%
Mobile Homes & Other		6,463	2.0%
Total Units in 1990		328,471	100.0%
Additions and Deletions to Housing Stock:
Units Constructed 1991-98	7,786
Units Demolished 1991-98	1,172
Net Change 1991-1998		6,614
Total Units in 1998		335,085

Sources: 1990 U.S. Census STF1, STF1A; San Francisco Planning Department; Bay Area Economics, 1999.

As shown in Table II-2 below, an unusually large proportion, 65.5%, of the housing stock (200,087 units) was renter-occupied, and only 34.5% (105,497 units) owner-occupied in 1990. This represents a slight increase in the percentage of owner-occupied units, which made up 33% of the housing stock in 1980. This can be attributed to the construction of condominium developments and owner-occupied 2-4 unit flats during the 1980s (Residence Element Annual Evaluation Report, 1992). . In 1990, San Francisco had a higher percentage of renters than Los Angeles, Seattle, and Denver, which were 60.6, 51.1, and 50.8 percent renter households, respectively. In the United States as a whole, only 35.8 percent of all households were renters in 1990.

Table II-2: Units by number of Bedrooms and Tenure, 1990

Size of Unit	Total	% of Total	Rental	% of Total	Owner Occupied	% of Total
Studio	49,178	15.0	42,452	13.9	1,292	0.4
1 bdrm	94,522	28.8	77,931	25.5	9,568	3.1
2 bdrm	102,964	31.3	55,049	18.0	41,293	13.5
3 bdrm	59,387	18.1	19,555	6.4	36,971	12.1
4 or more	22,420	6.8	5,083	1.7	16,390	5.4
>TOTAL	328,471	>100.0	200,070	65.5	105,514	34.5

Source: U.S. Census,1990.

NOTE: Figures for "Rental" and "Owner-Occupied" units do not include 22,887 vacant units.

Dwelling units in San Francisco are generally small. In 1990, only 24.9% of the units had more than two bedrooms, while only 6.8% had four or more bedrooms (Census, 1990.) Forty-four percent of the total units in 1990 were studios or one bedrooms, totalling 143,700 units. Another 102,964 units, or 31.3% of the total housing stock in 1990 were two bedroom units.

The shortage of large-sized units (with 3 or more bedrooms) is particularly acute for renters. Of the 81,807 units with three or more bedrooms, only 30.1% were renter occupied (24,638 units). More than 60 percent of the City's renter households lived in studio or one-bedroom units.

b. Rental Housing Cost and Availability

Rents

Market rate rent levels in San Francisco have seen substantial increases in recent years, due to the strong regional and city economy, a shortage of new construction, and the attraction of a well-known quality of life considered exceptional by many across the U.S.

According to RealFacts data, the occupancy rate in San Francisco averaged 96.9 percent in 1997, and increased to 98.1 percent in 1998. This extremely high occupancy rate has remained steady at 98.1 percent thus far in 1999. As a result of these occupancy levels, rents on newly occupied units in San Francisco rose 7.3 percent from 1997 to 1998, and increased another 8.3 percent between January and September 1999. These data are based on the rent levels of 14,262 rental units in San Francisco (see Table II-3).

Table II-3: Overview of San Francisco Rental Housing Market, September 1999

Unit Type	Number in Sample	Percent of Mix	1997 Avg. Rent	1998 Avg. Rent	1997-98 Change	1999 Avg. Rent (a)	1998-99 Change (a)
Studio	3,132	22%	$1,146	$1,249	8.99%	$1,352	8.25%
Jr. 1 BR	248	2%	$1,212	$1,391	14.77%	$1,493	7.33%
1 BR/1 BA	5,215	37%	$1,538	$1,646	7.02%	$1,786	8.51%
2 BR/1 BA	1,995	14%	$1,776	$1,849	4.11%	$1,940	4.92%
2 BR/2 BA	2,693	19%	$2,168	$2,248	3.69%	$2,399	6.72%
3 BR/2 BA	844	6%	$2,377	$2,536	6.69%	$2,871	13.21%
2 BR Twnhse	103	1%	$3,008	$3,265	8.54%	$3,639	11.45%
3 BR Twnhse	24	0%	$4,375	$4,749	8.55%	$4,749	0.00%
Totals	14,254	100%	$1,734	$1,861	7.32%	$2,016	8.33%

Note (a): Year to September 1999 data.

Sources: RealFacts, Inc.; Bay Area Economics, 1999.

In late 1997 and early 1998, the San Francisco Housing Authority commissioned a survey of current market rents to evaluate the ongoing viability of the Section 8 program. The Housing Authority survey also provided information about differences in affordability for various neighborhoods in the City. The data collected by Metro-Rent did not provide sufficient information to identify rent levels for all neighborhoods. In cases where ten or fewer vacancies were identified at the time of the survey (January 17-25, 1998), data for that neighborhood is not included here. In addition, information for studio and one-bedroom units were combined, and two- and three-bedroom unit rents, in order to reduce the irregularities arising from the relatively small number of units.³ The data tabulated represents approximately 830 vacant units.

Table II-4 below identifies the affordability differences for specific neighborhoods of the City as they were defined by Metro-Rent.

Table II-4: Rental Affordability By District, January 1998

Neighborhood	Average rent for studio and 1 bedroom units	Average rent for 2 and 3 bedroom units
Upper Market	$1,301	$3,388
Pacific Heights	$1,586	$2,899
Russian Hill	$1,563	$2,649
Marina	$1,525	$2,638
Telegraph Hill	$1,400	$2,675
Lower Pacific Heights	$1,194	$2,650
Noe Valley	$1,175	$2,650
Upper Nob Hill	$1,085	$2,518
Cow Hollow	$1,225	$2,338
Potrero Hill	$1,386	$2,150
Inner Sunset	$1,193	$2,325
South of Market	$1,700	$1,750
Laurel Heights	$1,225	$2,200
Inner Richmond	$1,138	$2,250
Glen Park	$850	$2,425
Upper Noe	$1,176	$2,000
Western Addition	$1,013	$2,150
Nob Hill	$1,138	$1,993
Twin Peaks	$1,013	$2,060
Upper Haight	$935	$2,125
Lower Haight	$960	$2,100
Richmond	$1,038	$1,875
Sunset	$950	$1,956
Bernal Heights	$892	$1,563
Mission	$906	$1,450
Tenderloin	$838	(none identified)

(Source: Metro-Rents survey, January 1998)

Vacancy Rates

Data for the San Francisco rental market from RealFacts indicate that the current vacancy rate for residential units covered by its inventory is 1.9 percent. These data suggest extremely tight vacancies, particularly for rental housing, and reflects a serious tightening of the rental housing market since 1989-90. At that time, the Residence Element 1992 Annual Evaluation Report reports a 4.2% citywide vacancy rate (for 1989), and the U.S. Census reported a 6.9% vacancy rate (as of 1990).

c. Ownership Housing Cost and Availability

The San Francisco residential real estate market is one of the most expensive in the U.S., with rapid price appreciation in the current economic cycle, making ownership of housing extremely difficult for many working people and families. In fact, according to a February 1999 report from the National Association of Realtors, San Francisco has the highest median price of existing homes in the United States, at $337,000. By November 1999, according to the California Association of Realtors, this figure had increased to $420,000. This figure represents an average of prices for single family homes and condominiums, with the latter typically more affordable.

Average home prices in the city rose almost twice as fast as average rents during the 1980's and nearly three times as fast as the overall cost of living in San Francisco. From 1980 to 1990:

San Francisco Cost of Living index increased: 64%

Average Rent for 2 Bedroom Unit increased: 110%

Average single family home prices rose: 186%

(Bay Area Council and Census, 1990)

d. Recent Trends in Housing Production

There are many elements at work in San Francisco that constrain housing production. A major factor is that San Francisco is largely built out, and its geographical location at the northern end of a peninsula inherently prevents substantial new development. There is no available adjacent land to be annexed, as the cities located on San Francisco's southern border are themselves dense urban areas.

Therefore, San Francisco is able to only add new housing units through construction in parts of the City that previously had not been residential areas (such as the industrial zones of SoMA and Mission Bay), allowing infill sites throughout the City to be developed as housing (such as former school sites and at low density public housing sites), and by increasing density on existing built residential parcels.

Housing development in San Francisco under any of the above scenarios is often controversial, and in many cases it is successfully opposed or reduced in density by residents. Resistance to new housing development is generally centered around concerns about lack of parking, increased traffic congestion, gentrification, and lack of compatibility with adjacent land uses.

Furthermore, land prices and housing development costs are substantially higher in San Francisco than in other parts of the Bay Area, and other parts of California. A 1993 study of housing construction costs conducted by Bay Area Economics showed that total development costs for rental projects in San Francisco were 78 percent higher per unit than for projects in Southern Alameda County, and were 357 percent higher per unit than for projects in the Central Valley. It is likely that the high costs of construction in San Francisco have only worsened since that time period.

Given this environment of lack of available sites, neighborhood opposition, and high building costs compared to other areas, housing development in San Francisco is not expected to increase dramatically for the next five years. However, the 350-acre Mission Bay development, a former rail yard in an industrial area in southeast San Francisco, is the exception to this trend. While the first phase of development includes office development and a new campus for UCSF, Mission Bay will ultimately include 6,000 housing units. Approved plans call for a set-aside of 1,700 affordable rental units in this project. Similar large-scale development is planned for Hunters Point Shipyard, although the site must be remediated before this can begin.

As shown by Table II-5, the total housing stock increased by 8,351 units, or about 2.5% from 1990 to 1998, the most recent year for which data are available. This average of 928 units per year represents a decline from the 1980s, when the average annual increase was 1,224 units. Most of this decline is attributable to a general unavailability of construction financing in the early 1990s and a plateauing of market prices and rents during the economic recession. In 1996, this trend began to reverse, with a steady increase in the number of units approved for construction from 1996 through 1998. According to the 1998 Housing Inventory, an additional 3,500 units in 57 separate major developments (containing 10 units or more) were under planning review as of May 1, 1999.

One consequence of a limited supply of land is that larger, multi-unit buildings will constitute a greater share of the city's housing stock in the future. More than 82% of all units added during the 1990s were in buildings with 5 or more units, and 69% were in buildings of 20 or more units.

Table II-5: San Francisco Net Housing Production, 1980-1998

Year	Units Approved	Units Completed	Units Demolished	Net Gain or Loss by Alterations	Net Change
1980	1,202	980	128	0	852
1981	1,242	780	288	0	492
1982	1,215	589	42	0	547
1983	1,167	1,400	233	0	1,167
1984	1,313	790	79	0	711
1985	1,479	1,568	105	0	1,463
1986	2,037	1,507	173	0	1,334
1987	2,442	1,553	127	0	1,426
1988	2,148	2,011	104	0	1,907
1989	1,508	2,573	228	0	2,345
1990	1,332	2,065	433	105	1,737
1991	987	1,882	90	(60)	1,732
1992	629	767	76	34	725
1993	1,001	379	26	(65)	288
1994	948	1,234	25	(23)	1,186
1995	525	532	55	(76)	401
1996	1,228	909	278	52	683
1997	1,666	906	344	163	725
1998	2,336	909	54	19	874

NOTE: Beginning in 1990, Net change includes units gained or lost through alteration permits.

Source: Planning Department, 1998 Housing Inventory.

Data from the 1998 Housing Inventory also shows that recent production of housing is not altering the preponderance of small units in the San Francisco housing stock. Table II-6 shows the distribution of new construction unit size from 1990 to 1996, compared with the 1990 base of unit sizes. Except for a reduction in the proportion of four or more bedroom units and a shift from one bedroom units to studios, the production from 1990 to 1996 is similar to the distribution of the existing stock. Therefore, the current shortage of housing for large families is not being alleviated by market trends.

Table II-6: Distribution of Unit Sizes in the Housing Stock and in Recent Production

Size of Unit	1990 Housing Stock	Percent	1990-1996 New Construction	Percent
Studio	49,178	15%	1,461	20%
One bedroom	94,522	29%	1,662	23%
Two bedroom	102,964	31%	2,314	32%
Three bedroom	59,387	18%	1,331	18%
Four or more bedrooms	22,420	7%	278	4%
Unknown	--	--	304	4%
Total	328,471	100%	7,350	100%

Source: 1998 Housing Inventory.

In the early 1990s few rental units were developed; almost three quarters of the new multi-family market-rate units built were ownership units. This trend has shifted in recent years, with both rental and ownership units being developed. Conversion of rental units to ownership condominiums has also continued, although the City's current Condominium Conversion Ordinance limits conversions to 200 per year.

There are also units eliminated each year through code enforcement (as illegal units) and mergers. An estimated 100 illegal secondary units are eliminated each year through City code enforcement. The Planning Department has estimated that there are a total of 20,000 illegal units in the City.

2. BARRIERS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

a. Affordability Standards in San Francisco

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes figures annually describing the current median income for households in U.S. metropolitan areas.⁴ In addition to the median income for a household of four, HUD also publishes defined maximum incomes for households qualifying as "Very Low Income" (earning up to 50 percent of median income) and "Low Income" (earning up to approximately 80% of median income). ⁵ These income limits are further adjusted to provide maximum incomes for households ranging from one to eight persons. The City uses the HUD-published figures to establish a range of maximum incomes for various housing programs. The maximum limits for 2000 for various household sizes and income levels are provided in Table II-7.

TABLE II-7: 2000 HUD Income Limits

Income Definition	1 Person	2 Person	3 Person	4 Person	5 Person	6 Person	7 Person	8 Person
20% Of Median	$10,500	$12,000	$13,500	$15,000	$16,200	$17,400	$18,600	$19,750
25% Of Median	$13,100	$15,000	$16,850	$18,750	$20,200	$21,700	$23,200	$24,700
30% Of Median	$15,750	$18,000	$20,200	$22,450	$24,250	$26,050	$27,850	$29,650
HUD Very-Low (50% of median)	$26,200	$29,950	$33,700	$37,450	$40,450	$43,450	$46,450	$49,450
60% Of Median	$31,450	$35,950	$40,450	$44,950	$48,550	$52,130	$55,750	$59,300
HUD Low-Income	$40,800	$46,650	$52,500	$58,300	$63,000	$67,650	$72,300	$77,000
80% Of Median	$41,950	$47,950	$53,950	$59,900	$64,700	$69,500	$74,300	$79,100
100% Of Median	$52,450	$59,900	$67,400	$74,900	$80,900	$86,900	$92,900	$98,850

For the purposes of the Consolidated Plan, HUD has defined moderate income as households with incomes between 81 and 95 percent of area median income, in contrast to the typical definition of moderate income as those between 81 and 120 percent.

For the purposes of further distinguishing needs within the category of "Very Low Income", two subgroups (0 to 30% and 30 to 50% of MFI) are used by HUD. The lower of these subgroups will be referred to herein as "Extremely Low Income". An Extremely Low Income Household might be composed of a single person working full-time at minimum wage, earning $11,960 per year. As may be seen from Table II-7, this amount is less than the maximum income of $15,750 per year for an extremely low income single person

This document will occasionally use a fifth category called "Lowest Income" for those households earning up to 20 percent of median income. This "Lowest Income" category generally includes most persons and families who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. It includes single persons whose income is limited to General Assistance (GA) payments of $4,140 per year, or 8 percent of median income for a single person. It also includes single parent families who rely on California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids Program (CalWORKs) to survive. As of January 2000, CalWORKs payments for a family of three were $7,512 per year, or 11 percent of median income for a household of three. This category would also include single persons on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), whose SSI payments total about $8,280 a year, or 16 percent of the median income for a single person.

The actual household income distribution for San Francisco according to 1990 Census data is presented in Table II-8.

Table II-8: Income Distribution of San Francisco Households, 1990

Income Group	Number of Households	Percent of Households
Extremely Low Income (0-30% of Median)	66,768	21.8%
Very Low Income (31-50% of Median)	46,178	15.1%
Low Income (51-80% of Median)	65,323	21.3%
Moderate Income (81-95% of Median)	26,509	8.7%
Above Moderate Income (Over 95% of Median)	101,206	33.3%
Total	305,984	100.0%

NOTE: Data not distinguish households at "Lowest Income" level (0-20% of median) from those at "Extremely Low Income"

Source: Derived from 1990 Census data.

b. Housing Cost: Rental Housing

Federal affordability guidelines indicate that housing is "affordable" if households spend no more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on all housing costs, including utilities. However, many households at a wide range of income levels in San Francisco pay a greater percentage of their income for housing. However, the 30 percent standard remains relevant for very-low and especially for extremely-low income households, because the absolute amount of the residual income after paying rent, which must cover all other living expenses, is small for such households.

Rents greater than 30 percent of income are a greater burden for larger family households, as the addition of dependents reduces the ability to pay rent (due to the added costs of dependent care) at the same time that larger and more expensive living quarters are required. The ability to meet housing costs becomes particularly difficult for single parents with dependent children, persons who are unemployed or unable to work, and those with high health care costs.

Housing cost burden is one of the major standards for determining whether a locality is experiencing inadequate housing conditions. A household expending 30 percent or more of its gross income for housing costs, including utilities, is defined as experiencing a cost burden; households spending 50 percent or more of their gross income on housing have a "severe cost burden."

According to the 1990 Census, 104,789 San Francisco households (38.1 percent) at all income levels expended 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing costs. Table II-9 shows the percentage of renter households at various income levels who experienced cost burden and severe cost burden as of the 1990 Census.

Table II-9: Cost Burden of San Francisco Renter Households, 1990

Income Group (% of median)	Number of House-holds	HH paying more than 30% of income	% of HH paying >30%	HH paying more than 50% of income	% of HH paying >50%
Extremely Low (0-30%}	44,053	33,040	75%	24,230	55%
Very Low (30-50%)	30,129	21,995	73%	8,437	28%
Low (50-80%)	22,335	12,285	55%	2,234	10%
Moderate (80-95%)	18,702	6,732	36%	562	3%
Total:		74,052		35,463

Source: 1990 Census

The 1995 Consolidated Plan reported that, at all low and moderate income levels, single persons living alone or in unrelated households pay a greater percentage of their income for rent than any other type of household. Elderly moderate-income households can generally find suitable market-rate rental housing in the city. However, moderate-income families have more difficulty due to the limited number of medium and large units available and the high cost of these units. These families do not ordinarily qualify for rental assistance.

To update this data, the American Housing Survey (AHS) was reviewed; this data source is published every five years, with the most recent series for San Francisco available for 1993. The 1993 AHS shows 137,900 households that expend more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs; this figure represents 45 percent of total households. Of this number, 61,700 San Francisco households (20 percent of total households) spent more than 50 percent of gross income on housing costs.

A further update of renter household cost burden will have to await the results of the 2000 census. However, there is little doubt that the percentages are significantly higher today. From 1989 to 1999, the median rent for a 2-bedroom unit has increased from $928 to $1,940, an increase of 109%.⁶ During the same period, as Table I-6 (p. 12) showed, median incomes rose only 52%.

Table II-10 shows the 1999 affordable monthly rents limits for households earning 25 percent to 100 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) in San Francisco, by household size. For households earning 25 percent AMI, the affordable monthly rent ranges from $316 for a one person household, to $453 for a four person household, to $598 for an eight person household. For households earning 100 percent AMI, the affordable monthly rent ranges from $1,268 for a one person household to $1,810 for a four person household, to $2,389 for an eight person household.

Table II-10: Affordable Monthly Rent by Household Size, 1999

Persons in Household	25% of AMI	30% of AMI	50% of AMI	60% of AMI	80% of AMI	100% of AMI
1	$316	$380	$634	$760	$1,014	$1,268
2	$363	$435	$724	$869	$1,159	$1,448
3	$408	$489	$815	$978	$1,304	$1,629
4	$453	$543	$905	$1,086	$1,448	$1,810
5	$489	$586	$978	$1,173	$1,564	$1,955
6	$525	$630	$1,050	$1,260	$1,680	$2,100
7	$561	$674	$1,123	$1,346	$1,795	$2,245
8	$598	$716	$1,195	$1,434	$1,911	$2,389

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; Bay Area Economics, 1999.

When comparing rental market data shown in Table II-3 to the maximum affordable rents for 25 percent to 100 percent AMI households in San Francisco shown in Table II-10, it is clear that the median rents in the market are mostly not affordable to households earning 25 percent to 100 percent AMI. For example, the maximum rent affordable to a three person household earning 100 percent AMI is $1,629. The average two bedroom/one bath unit rents for $1,940 per month. Thus even a household at 100 percent of median will be cost burdened in renting such a unit.

In the preceding example, the median market rent is compared the median income. However, the affordability problem is exacerbated by the fact that the range of rents does not match the range of incomes of the households seeking those rents. For example, Table II-8 shows that over two-thirds of San Francisco's population is below 95 percent of median, while by definition only 50 percent of the available units will have rents below the median rent. Moreover, about 37 percent of the households' incomes are below 50 percent of median; it is highly unlikely that more than a handful of units will rent at levels 50 percent of the median rent.

The city's rent stabilization program has resulted in a high percentage of households paying less than market rent -- at least temporarily. However, there is still a wide gap between "stabilized" rents and "affordable" rents, particularly for lower income households. Even when rent is subject to the Stabilization Ordinance, there is still a good probability that a lower income household will be overpaying. Clearly, the almost 50,000 households earning less than $15,000 per year would find little or nothing in the current housing market which they could afford. Loss of a unit with rents currently below market would create a very high likelihood of homelessness.

Single persons on General Assistance can only afford a rent of about $103 per month, including utilities⁷, a rent level virtually non-existent in a non-assisted housing unit. Single persons on SSI can afford at most a rent of $207 a month and a single person working full-time at a minimum wage could only afford to pay $299 a month for rent. A family of three receiving public assistance through CalWORKS could only afford $188 per month in rent.

c. Limited Availability of Rental Housing Subsidies and Below-Market Rentals

There is a heavy demand for affordable housing in San Francisco that, given current economic conditions, the private market cannot meet. With each passing year, the number of market rate units that are affordable to low income households is reduced by rising market rate rents.

To meet the HUD guidelines for affordability, programs have been developed to fill the gap between 30 percent of a household's gross income and market rate rents for lower income households. These programs are broadly defined as "rental assistance programs" and consist of public housing, rent certificates or vouchers (given to tenants), subsidies to landlords which enable rents to be fixed below market rates, financial assistance to non-profit developers which reduce building costs, and inclusionary zoning requirements which require for-profit developers to include below market units in larger multi-unit developments.

The number of households actually receiving rent subsidies in San Francisco is far below the need identified by the 1990 Census, much less the level of need which currently exists. There were 5085 households receiving rental subsidies in 1996, through HUD Section 8 programs. Subsequent to opening the Section 8 waiting list in March of 1998, 38,000 households applied for 10,000 slots on the Section 8 waiting list. During the past two years, San Francisco has been fortunate to secure higher Fair Market Rents (FMRs) to facilitate the rental search for subsidized families. Through an aggressive program to house families on the Section 8 waiting list, only 4400 families remain on this list. However, tenants participating in tenant-based rental assistance programs of the San Francisco Housing Authority continue to have difficulty in utilizing its Section 8 Vouchers due to the lack of available and affordable housing with owners willing to accept a tenant with a Section 8 subsidy.

Despite recent actions by HUD to extend the standard search period for Section 8 families to 180 days, when a low income renter cannot locate a landlord willing to accept his or her voucher within the allotted time period, the voucher expires and the tenant must return it to the Housing Authority. Tenants sometimes utilize the "portability" feature of Section 8 Vouchers to locate housing outside of the City, transferring their voucher to another jurisdiction. In 1999, the Housing Authority estimated that 26 % of voucher recipients used them to find housing outside of San Francisco.

In addition to the Section 8 tenant-based rent subsidies, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) administers a number of other programs geared to providing rent subsidies to tenants in privately owned housing. The Department of Human Services is funded for approximately 450 Shelter Plus Care (S+C) subsidies that are also administered by the SFHA. Currently, 368 households receive S+C housing assistance including tenant and project-based subsidies.

According to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, 728 individuals received HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS) supportive services in FY 1999. Care in five state residential facilities was provided to 182 persons, while 546 persons received rental subsidies. Data from DPH show that in 1999, supportive housing for persons who are homeless or at high risk of homelessness and earn 25 percent or less of area median income was provided to: 327 persons with psychiatric disabilities; 142 persons with substances abuse problems; 65 survivors of domestic violence; 110 homeless families; 159 extremely low income families in mixed income developments; 1,445 homeless single persons; small families, and youth; 183 people with AIDS, and 34 people with physical disabilities.

There are also approximately 8,600 households and 880 individuals in group housing who do not receive direct subsidies but paid below market rents on units produced by non-profit developers through state and local housing programs. Another 27 households pay below market rents on units produced through "inclusionary housing" requirements.

d. Losses of Affordable Units from the Private Market

Residential Hotel Conversions

As of the end of 1998, the city's housing stock included 19,786 residential hotel units in 565 buildings. Of these, 1,690 units in 43 buildings were managed by non-profit organizations. (Planning Department, 1998 Housing Inventory). Residential hotel units have been considered an important component of the City's permanent housing supply because of their affordability and their ability to house the large percentage of single person households in the City. Owners of these hotels seeking to demolish them or convert them to transient use are restricted by the City's Residential Hotel Ordinance. The ordinance requires owners to provide replacement housing for the units demolished or converted. Since adoption of the ordinance, the total number of residential hotel units lost has declined substantially, from 4,883 in 1975-1981, or about 700 units per year, to 110 units in 1994-1998, or about 22 units per year.

Owner Move-In Evictions

San Francisco's rent ordinance protects tenants from eviction by landlords without just cause. However, the rent ordinance makes certain exceptions to the just cause requirement, including permitting owners to move themselves or specified family members into rental units. As San Francisco's rental housing market has tightened, these "Owner Move-In" or "OMI" evictions became much more common and led, in turn, to changes in the rent ordinance to limit their occurrence.

In cases of legitimate occupancy by owners or their family members, the properties continue to be used for residential purposes. However, units selected for move-in are usually those where rents are relatively low because of long-term tenancies. Thus affordable rental housing is converted to ownership housing, or if rented to family members, to rental housing which may no longer be affordable. In other cases, the loss of affordability may be more direct: landlords may carry out owner move-in evictions simply as a pretext to replace a long-term, rent-controlled tenancy with (after a period of time) a re-rental at market rate rents, or to market the building as tenancies in common to groups of purchasers who will occupy the building as their residence. Such purchasers will pay considerably more for such buildings than for rental buildings with sitting tenants.

According to the San Francisco Tenants Union, the number of evictions in the City has experienced a sharp upswing in the past four years. There were 965 evictions in 1994, 1,068 in 1995, 1,354 in 1996, 2,291 in 1997, and 2,836 in 1998. While OMI evictions have ranged from 29 percent to 44 percent of all evictions over the past five years, the absolute number of OMI evictions in the past two years increased dramatically by 185 percent, from 439 units in 1996 to 1,253 in 1998 (see Table II-11). Many OMI evictions in the last five years have been concentrated in the Mission District, the Castro, Haight Ashbury, Hayes Valley, and Noe Valley.

Table II-11: San Francisco Eviction Data

Year	Number of Evictions	Number of OMI Evictions	OMI as % of Total Evictions
1993	974	290	29.8%
1994	965	344	35.6%
1995	1,068	360	33.7%
1996	1,354	439	32.4%
1997	2,291	831	36.3%
1998	2,836	1,253	44.2%

Sources: San Francisco Tenants Union; Bay Area Economics, 1999.

In response to this trend, San Francisco voters passed Proposition G in 1998 which requires owners pursuing an OMI eviction to reside in the rental unit themselves (or have a family member reside in the unit) for at least three years. Proposition G also limits OMI evictions to one per building, even if the building has more than one owner. In addition, Proposition G prohibits move-in evictions if a comparable apartment unit becomes vacant before the evicted tenant leaves. Another provision of Proposition G bars evictions of elderly or disabled tenants. According to the San Francisco Tenants Union, OMI evictions in San Francisco from January through September, 1999 have totaled 690 units.

Other Evictions

According to the San Francisco Tenants Union, the number of evictions in the City is significantly understated and the organization estimates that 3,000 to 5,000 evictions occur each year with no legal filing of unlawful detainer. In these cases tenants are not aware of their legal rights and permit themselves to be evicted through verbal notice, or through a written notice that is not filed with the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board. Since these evictions often result in re-rental of the unit at a significantly higher rent, additional affordability in the housing market is lost.

Ellis Act Conversions

Under California's Ellis Act, owners of rental property, by meeting certain conditions, are able to terminate rental use of residential properties and evict the tenants. San Francisco's rent ordinance regulates such evictions, but cannot prohibit them. As with many owner move-in evictions, owners who evict tenants under the Ellis Act are seeking to market the building as tenancies in common (since the Ellis Act limits re-rental of units which have had tenants evicted under its terms) or to convert them to a non-residential use.

In cases where properties are demolished or converted to non-residential use, Ellis Act evictions lead to loss of residential units. In most cases, however, the properties continue to be used for residential purposes. However, because of San Francisco's rent ordinance and like owner move-in evictions, the most attractive properties for conversion are units where rents are relatively low because of long-term tenancies. Thus, Ellis Act evictions lead to a marked loss of affordability.

Since 1995, Ellis Act evictions have increased dramatically in San Francisco, as the housing market has tightened for both rental and ownership housing. Owners with long-term tenants, who have not been able to take advantage of rapidly escalating market rents, have increasingly turned to Ellis Act conversions to maximize their financial return. The 1998 restrictions on owner move-in evictions is also likely to have increased the impetus to "Ellis" a building.

In 1995, petitions for Ellis Act evictions covering some 14 units in 5 buildings were filed with San Francisco's Rent Board. Data from the San Francisco Tenants Union show that from June 1998 to June 1999, 112 buildings were vacated through the Ellis Act eviction process. By 1999, the number of units which had been "Ellised" had risen to 845. Additional restrictions were enacted by the State Legislature and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1999, which may have the effect of reducing the number of conversions. However, economic pressures for conversions remain strong.

Fire and other Disaster Losses

As noted above, residential hotel units were at risk of conversion to non-residential uses until the adoption of the City's Residential Hotel Conversion Ordinance in 1979. Thereafter, fires and other disasters accounted for the most of the continuing loss of such units.

Historically, vacancy rates in residential hotels have been higher, and turnover of units much more frequent, than in other residential buildings. Therefore, the actual loss of units had a less critical effect during times when overall City vacancy rates were high. Tenants who lost housing as a result of fires or earthquake suffered greatly because they lost most of their possessions as well as their housing. However, in general they were usually able to locate other residential hotel units at comparable rents.

With the tightening of the overall residential market, however, residential hotel vacancies have also declined and rents have risen. Fires in residential hotels (and in other affordable rental housing) have consequently had a much more serious effect in recent years, because displaced tenants have increasingly found it impossible to locate units at rents similar to what they have been paying. Although no data has been located which allow specific conclusions to be drawn, anecdotal evidence suggests that most displaced tenants have experienced massive rent increases in addition to their other misfortunes, and many have had to leave San Francisco to find housing they can afford.

Table II-12 lists a number of the residential hotels which have been closed due to fires in the past 12 years. Strikingly, 63 percent of the units were lost within the three year period from 1996 to 1999, precisely when the housing market was tightening. Although some of these buildings returned or will return to the housing stock as owners apply insurance proceeds and other funds to rebuilding, their loss at a time of a severe shortage of affordable housing has added to the pressures at this level of the market.

TABLE II-12: Residential Hotel Units Lost To Fires, 1988-1999

Year	Hotel Name	Address	Units
1988	Hacienda	580 O'Farrell	70
1989	Holland	1411 Stockton	55
1990	Vincent	457 Turk	100
1993	Folsom	1082 Folsom	47
1995	St. George	395 Eddy	36
1996	Grand Southern	1941 Mission	58
1997	Delta	88 - 6th Street	180
1997	Star	2176 Mission	53
1998	Leland	1350 Polk	90
1998	Jerry	16th Street	20
1998	Thor	2084 Mission	50
1999	Hartland	909 Geary	150
1999	King	633 Valencia	75
Total:			984

Source: Mission SRO Collaborative, 1999

e. Section 8 Prepayment and Expiration of other Regulatory Agreements

The problem of prepayments of HUD mortgages and termination of Section 8 contracts is discussed at length below (p.64). As of January 2000, no units in San Francisco have been lost to such conversions.

As part of its affordable housing financing activities dating back to 1980, the City has a large inventory of units with regulatory agreements in place. As of January 2000, some 7,931 units in 164 buildings are operated as affordable housing under regulatory agreements with the Mayor's Office of Housing. Of these, approximately 97 percent are owned by nonprofit housing corporations and are not considered at risk of loss of affordability even after the expiration of the regulatory agreements.

However, the remaining buildings, owned wholly or partially by for-profit entities and currently subject to regulatory agreement, are at risk of eventually losing their affordability. These include:

1. Buildings receiving rehabilitation loans from MOH prior to 1983, when for-profit entities were eligible for assistance from the Community Housing Rehabilitation Program. As of January 2000, MOH estimates that, of the for-profit owned rental properties which received CHRP rehabilitation funding prior to 1983, 6 buildings containing 27 units have outstanding loans and remain subject to regulation of their rents. Although these loans are subject to prepayment at any time, the risk of loss of affordability upon prepayment is not considered great. Since these buildings were all built before 1979, they will be subject to the City's rent ordinance after the regulatory agreement terminates.

2. Rental housing financed by multifamily housing revenue bonds, typically providing 20 percent or more of their units as below-market rate rentals under regulatory agreements between the developer and the City. This housing was developed under regulatory agreements for a variety of terms, usually linked to the period the bonds are to be outstanding. In 1998, the regulatory agreement for one such bond-financed development, containing 26 below-market rate units, terminated after the bonds were paid off. Most of the remaining bond issues have been refinanced in recent years, and the term of affordability lengthened. No properties have regulatory agreements which will terminate during the period of the 2000 Consolidated Plan.

3. Rental housing developed under conditional use approvals of the Planning Commission, typically providing 10 percent of their units as below-market rate rentals under Notices of Special Restrictions recorded against the property. This category contain few if any units which are subject to loss of affordability within the next five years. Almost all (if not all) of the conditions of approval provide for an affordability period of fifty years. Since the City's inclusionary program was put in place in the late 1980s, these units will remain affordable for the foreseeable future.

f. Housing Cost: Ownership Housing

In San Francisco, housing costs for homeowners vary dramatically depending mainly on how long they have owned their home. Longtime homeowners may have mortgage payments and other housing costs that are much lower than current rents for a comparable unit. Due to the high cost of ownership housing, however, even many long-time lower income homeowner households overpay.

The 1990 Census reported that almost half (47 percent) of extremely low income owner households (4,878 households) paid more than 30 percent of their incomes to cover monthly housing costs and almost a third have a severe cost burden, paying more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. Surprisingly, households other than elderly households experience the greatest cost burden. While seniors would generally have lower incomes, they may have purchased their homes many years ago and have paid off their mortgages or have extremely low mortgage payments.

Existing lower income owner households may be in need of assistance to avoid foreclosure in the event that sudden financial crises, such as job loss or medical expenses, jeopardize their ability to remain in their homes. Counseling or legal assistance may be needed for these households to stabilize their living situations.

Existing owners, and especially seniors, often also need assistance in making needed repairs to their properties. According to the Department of Building Inspection, most serious rehabilitation needs are likely to be found in one and two unit structures, rather than larger multi-unit structures. Duplex units occupied by low income households account for the majority of rehabilitation needs.

For households seeking to acquire a home, existing homeowners often have substantial equity from sale of their current home to apply to the purchase. First-time homebuyers, however, find it extremely difficult to buy a home in San Francisco. Table II-13 shows the 1999 affordable housing cost limits for households earning 50 percent to 100 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) in San Francisco, by household size. The table also shows the monthly income available to pay for housing costs, and the estimated home purchase price that would be affordable to households at various household sizes, assuming a down payment of ten percent. For households earning 100 percent AMI, affordable house prices range from $168,125 for a one person household to $248,586 for a four person household.

Table II-13: 1999 Affordable Housing Cost Limits for Low and Moderate Income Households in San Francisco

	Household Income	Affordable Sale Price
Households at 50% of Median Income
1 Person HH	$25,350	$74,131
4 Person HH	$36,200	$114,361
Households at 60% of Median Income
1 Person HH	$30,400	$92,856
4 Person HH	$43,450	$141,243
Households at 80% of Median Income
1 Person HH	$40,550	$130,490
4 Person HH	$57,900	$194,822
Households at 100% of Median Income
1 Person HH	$50,700	$168,125
4 Person HH	$72,400	$248,586

Notes: Mortgage terms and purchase assumptions:
Annual Interest Rate (Fixed) 7.5%
Term of mortgage (Years) 30
Percent of sale price as down payment 10.0%
Property taxes and insurance $1,500 + 5% of annual income
Percent of household income available for PITI: 33.0%

Source: Mayor's Office of Housing Inclusionary Program

In order to compare the maximum sale prices for ownership housing that would be affordable to various income levels with activity in the marketplace, the San Francisco housing market was analyzed for the three month period from July 1 to October 1, 1999. Sales data from First American Real Estate Solutions (an on-line subscription source for recorded assessor's data) indicated a total of 1,420 full, confirmed, and verified sales for San Francisco during this period, as well as additional sales beyond this level representing either sales of partial interests or sales with unverifiable prices. Table II-14 shows that of these 1,420 full, confirmed, and verified sales, the median sales price was $390,000.

Table II-14: Home Sales in San Francisco July-October 1999

Sale Price Range	All Unit Sizes	One Bedroom	Two Bedroom	Three Bedroom	Four+ Bedroom
Less Than $100,000	0	0	0	0	0
$100,000 to $119,999	1	0	0	0	0
$120,000 to $149,000	15	1	0	0	0
$150,000 to $199,999	64	16	8	1	1
$200,000 to $249,999	111	18	18	9	2
$250,000 to $299,000	174	22	42	10	2
$300,000 to $399,999	351	27	73	33	6
$400,000 to $499,999	269	18	59	28	10
$500,000 and Above	435	11	75	77	31
Total (a)	1,420	113	275	158	52
Median Sale Price	$390,000	$293,500	$385,000	$489,750	$545,000

Note (a): Represents all full, confirmed and verified sales from July 4, 1999 through October 4, 1999 out of a total 1,545 sales. Sizes of 125 units were not recorded. Includes condominiums, attached and detached units.

Sources: First American Real Estate Solutions; Bay Area Economics, 1999.

Table II-14 indicates that at most, one sale was affordable to 50 percent AMI households, and a maximum of 80 sales were affordable to 80 percent AMI households. Finally, a maximum of 191 sales were affordable to 100 percent AMI households. In total, only 13.5 percent of the 1,420 sales were affordable to households earning 100 percent AMI or less. It is clear that the majority of market rate homes for sale in San Francisco are priced out of the reach of low and moderate income households.

In addition to the cost of San Francisco homes, low and moderate income first time homebuyers face other obstacles. To many first-time homebuyers, the initial cost of down payment and closing costs is a significant barrier to homeownership. Most private lending institutions require a down payment equaling 5-10% of the purchase price. Government programs through the Veterans Administration (VA) and FHA, have low down payment requirements of between 0-4%, but these loans have loan size limits which are usually too low for San Francisco sales prices.

First-time homebuyers often need the more lenient underwriting standards, such as higher debt-to-income ratios, lower reserve requirements, and less strict credit history standards, which some special programs for first mortgage financing allow. For many, particularly low income buyers, a troubled credit history or even no credit history can prevent them from obtaining mortgage financing.

g. Limited Availability of First-Time Homebuyer Assistance

Because of the failure of the market to provide affordable homes, low to moderate income first-time homebuyers need assistance to overcome barriers to homeownership. Below-market-rate prices or deferred second mortgages are vehicles to reduce the first mortgage amount and consequently the monthly costs of homeownership. Mortgage credit certificates can reduce monthly housing costs through a federal tax credit provided to low to moderate income first-time homebuyers equal to 20 percent of the mortgage interest paid every year.

During the period 1995-1999, San Francisco's first time homebuyer programs made available about 758 mortgage credit certificates (about 150 annually) and provided below-market rate purchase opportunities or deferred second loans to about 252 homebuyers (about 50 per year). The Downpayment Assistance Loan Program, begun by the Mayor's Office of Housing in 1998, provides deferred second mortgages of up to $50,000 to approximately 70 borrowers per year.

3. HOUSING QUALITY: OVERCROWDING AND SUBSTANDARD HOUSING

a. Overcrowding

The U.S. Census Bureau and HUD define overcrowding as the extent to which the number of persons in a household exceeds one person per room. According to the 1990 Census, the total number of overcrowded units at that time was 32,838, an increase of 50 percent over the number of units that were overcrowded in 1980. Overall, 10.7 percent of the City's housing was overcrowded, as compared to only 7 percent in 1980. The rate of overcrowding for rental housing was even higher, at nearly 12.5 percent.

Table II-15: Incidence of Overcrowding among Renter Households, 1990

Income Group (as % of median income)	All Renter Households	Large Family Renter Households
Extremely Low (0-30%)	16%	80%
Very Low (30-50%)	20%	78%
Low (50-80%)	16%	73%
City Average	12.5%	--

Source: 1990 Census as reported in 1995 Consolidated Plan

Table II-15 shows the impact of overcrowding on different income levels and on large family households in particular. Since overcrowding is largely a response to rent levels which are too high to allow a household to afford a larger unit, it is very likely that the 2000 Census will reveal a significant increase in this problem in San Francisco.

b. Substandard Housing and Housing Rehabilitation Needs

The U.S. Census Bureau and HUD define substandard housing as housing that lacks access to a complete bathroom or kitchen. Data from the 1990 Census show that 10,008 housing units in San Francisco (3.3 percent of occupied units) lacked access to a complete bathroom. Census data also show that 5,479 units (1.2 percent of occupied units) lacked a complete kitchen.

For housing quality deficiencies beyond this basic definition, there is limited current data on the condition of the housing stock in San Francisco. According to the 1990 Residence Element, an estimated 93,000 units in San Francisco (28.2 percent of all housing units) had rehabilitation needs, defined as requiring repairs, restoration or maintenance costing more than $2,000 (including seismic repair and retrofitting needs). To update this data, the American Housing Survey (AHS) was reviewed; this data source is published every five years, with the most recent series for San Francisco available for 1993. The 1993 AHS reports approximately 1,000 incidents of roofing problems (sagging roof or missing roof materials), and 8,400 incidents of the either missing outside wall materials (e.g., bricks, siding), sloping outside walls, boarded up windows, or a cracked or crumbling foundation. In some cases, more than one condition may apply to a unit.

Additional data from the 1990 Census show that 17,350 units did not have gas or electric heating, 4,957 had no heating source at all, 2,848 units were not connected to the City's sewer system, and 42 units did not have running water. In some cases, more than one condition may apply to a unit.

Certain categories of properties can be identified with particularly critical rehabilitation needs. The 1990 Residence Element describes a high level of rehabilitation need evident in many residential hotels, which are predominantly occupied by persons with low incomes. The Residence Element also notes that San Francisco has 21,000 residential units in 770 unreinforced masonry buildings. Because of the way these buildings were constructed (walls are not adequately reinforced and floors are not tied to walls), they are very vulnerable to damage or collapse in an earthquake. Most of these buildings were located in the Tenderloin, Chinatown, and along the Bush Street and Van Ness Avenue corridors. Half of the units are in residential hotels.

There are housing quality deficiencies in much of the City's public housing and the need for replacement of outdated systems, lead and asbestos abatement; accessibility modifications for the disabled and extensive site infrastructure improvements. Some structures at Hunters View, Alice Griffith and other sites are so severely distressed that replacement or substantial rehabilitation is needed.

4. BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING

While all low income families face affordability problems in San Francisco, low-income minority families are particularly vulnerable due to racial or ethnic discrimination and the limited supply of multi-bedroom units, given the tendency for minority households to have larger household sizes.

Racial minorities have historically been concentrated in areas of San Francisco which contain the highest percentages of substandard housing. These areas have also been the primary targets of publicly funded redevelopment efforts. Recently, these areas have also attracted the attention of investors interested in privately funded re-development, and particularly homeownership opportunities. The areas of the City most recently feeling these pressures toward "gentrification" include the Mission District, Chinatown, the Western Addition, the South of Market and the Bayview District. One result of both public and private redevelopment efforts in these areas has been the displacement of primarily low income minority groups in favor of enclaves of upper-moderate income households who are predominantly non-minorities.

a. Geographic Concentration of Racial and Ethnic Minorities

The patterns of geographic concentration of racial and ethnic minorities, as of the 1990 Census, is presented above beginning at page 13. Although the geographic concentration of low-income racial and ethnic minorities, as well as low-income persons with disabilities, may have originally been the result of historic patterns of discrimination, these patterns have now been reinforced by the differential affordability of neighborhoods in the City.

b. Discrimination

San Francisco published its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing in February 1998. The Analysis provided data on complaints of discrimination filed with HUD's Fair Housing and Employment Office (FHEO) and the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Complaints filed for each year from 1994 to 1997, broken down by category, are displayed in Table II-16.

San Francisco appears to have experienced a steady decline in housing discrimination complaints from 1994 to 1996. The figures for 1997, however, suggests that this trend may have reversed; if the year-to-date figures are annualized, they would total about 100 cases for the year, approaching the level for 1994.

The category of race maintains a fairly steady percentage of the complaints filed, at about one-third of the cases. The sex category shows a significant drop in the percentage of cases filed from 12 percent of the total in 1994 to 2 percent of the cases in 1997. Similarly, the disability category shows a modest decline in the percentage of cases filed from a high of 20 percent in 1994 to 16 percent in 1997.

Conversely, the national origin and family status categories showed moderate and significant increases, respectively. National origin percentages rose each year from 9 percent in 1994 to 15 percent in 1997. The family status category more than doubled in percentage of complaints filed from a low of 13 percent in 1995 to 27 percent in 1997. The increase in cases in the national origin category may be related to the increased awareness of immigrant status among both landlords and complainants. The increase in complaints relating to familial status may reflect the general tightening of the real estate market and increased landlord selectivity with a bias toward tenants with fewer children.

Table II-16: San Francisco Discrimination Complaints By Category, 1994-97

	1994		1995		1996		1997 (to mid-July)
Category	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Race	36	31%	26	33%	24	35%	17	31%
Sex	14	12%	12	16%	3	5%	1	2%
Color	1	1%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Origin	11	9%	9	12%	9	14%	8	15%
Disability	24	20%	12	16%	11	17%	9	16%
Family	19	16%	10	13%	11	17%	15	27%
Religion	2	2%	3	4%	4	6%	1	2%
Other	11	9%	5	6%	4	6%	4	7%
Total	118	100%	77	100%	66	100%	55	100%

Source: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, 1998.

Data has not been compiled from FHEO and DFEH for 1998 and 1999, but the San Francisco Human Rights Commission has provided on its complaint data for those two years. While the data is not comparable to that for earlier years, certain overall similarities appear. In the City's data, most complaints are generated around disability, followed by family status and race. The HRC data shows a significant increase in complaints from 1998 to 1999. The HRC has also noted that the vast majority of the 1999 complaints (85%) are generated from tenants who are trying to retain housing rather than those seeking to rent or buy a unit. The HRC data for 1998 and 1999 are summarized in Table II-17.

Table II-17: San Francisco Human Rights Commission Complaints Alleging Discrimination, 1998-99

Category	1998		1999
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Disability	115	37%	175	35%
Family/Children	97	31%	150	30%
Race	39	12%	66	13%
Source of Income/Economic Discrimination	30	10%	31	6%
Sex/Sexual Orientation	18	6%	44	9%
Place of Birth	9	3%	35	7%
Religion	2	1%	3	1%
Total:	310	100%	504	100%

Overall, the data on complaints seems to offer only a rough guideline of both the nature of discrimination and trends. It is doubtful that they represent more than a small percentage of the actual incidence of discrimination, and since certain types of discrimination may be reported more often than others, no firm conclusion about the absolute or relative magnitude of discrimination can be drawn.

San Francisco has active programs for providing fair housing information to the public, and for enforcing fair housing requirements, and cases of racial and ethnic discrimination appear to be somewhat isolated rather than systemic. This finding was confirmed by a 1998 study by Project Sentinel of single room occupancy hotels on 6th Street in SoMA that found no evidence of racial discrimination. However, another 1998 study by Project Sentinel of a Fillmore District apartment complex found racially discriminatory leasing practices. In this case the City required the property owner to pay for fair housing training for the management staff.

The San Francisco Housing Authority, while providing housing which is affordable to the lowest income levels, has found it difficult to address issues of historic racial concentration, accessibility, and other problems without new financial resources. The SFHA entered into an Agreement for Voluntary Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with HUD in May 1992. The SFHA entered into this agreement based on a preliminary finding by HUD that discrimination existed in the SFHA's pattern of occupancy. The purpose of the agreement was to enlist the SFHA in an affirmative effort to desegregate the various developments under its control, many of which had become racially identifiable.

The ongoing efforts to implement the Voluntary Compliance Agreement remains the greatest single fair housing issue affecting the SFHA. A number of steps have been taken since 1992 to attempt to deal with problems of racial concentration, with incomplete success. With the handover of control from HUD to a local Housing Commission in September 1997, the Housing Authority has been given a number of specific steps to take to address the issue. Much more will need to be done, however, before the problem is resolved.

The SFHA created an Office of Diversity and Training in 1998 to educate residents, develop strategies to better serve the diverse public housing community, which speaks 14 languages, and increase resident participation in the SFHA's multicultural community. The SFHA's Multicultural Task Force with the assistance of Resident Management Trainees and the Institute of Multi-Racial Justice, provides welcome orientations for new residents. At the orientations, residents are given information on property management and different programs within the SFHA in Vietnamese, Chinese, Spanish and Russian. The Office of Diversity and Training also maintains a Hotline with multi-lingual operators to assist residents and direct calls to appropriate SFHA departments and service providers. No SFHA practices subject any person to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, family status, national origin, marital status, ancestry, gender identity or sexual orientation.

In July 1999, the Housing Authority entered into a consent decree to establish a system of community-based monitoring of complaints of discrimination. The agreement resulted from a lawsuit alleging failure to investigate and resolve discrimination complaints by Asian residents of public housing. Under the consent decree, two community-based organizations would provide investigation, mediation and dispute resolution services to complainants for a period of three years.

Newly revitalized housing at target HOPE VI sites is offered first to residents who have been temporarily relocated from the sites. The housing is then affirmatively marketed in accordance with HUD approved Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans, including families in need of accessible housing. All outreach activity is documented by the SFHA in all appropriate languages. Records are maintained to provide racial, ethnic, and gender date on all applicants and residents, consistent with Affirmative Fair Housing. The SFHA offers accessible units at these sites to eligible families with disabilities in accordance with 24 CFR 8.27. Low density HOPE VI sites incorporate additional housing to serve moderate and/or market housing. In addition, income tiering is targeted at some sites to gradually move toward mixed income communities and provide housing opportunities for welfare to work families.

The Housing Authority has undertaken certain actions to increase accessibility in public housing units for physically disabled persons. As part of the Williams v. SFHA settlement agreement, the SFHA agreed to modify 300 units for disabled access. By the end of 1999, the SFHA had completed modifications for 307 wheelchair accessible units, 121 adaptable units and 81 hearing/visual units. In addition, construction is underway for wheelchair accessible units at Bernal Dwellings (30) and 951 Eddy (26). Accessible units will also be built at other HOPE VI sites as follows: (1) 30 wheelchair accessible at Plaza; (2) at North Beach 57 wheelchair accessible, 55 adaptable, and 8 hearing and visual; and (3) at Valencia Gardens 82 wheelchair accessible, 40 adaptable, and 7 hearing and visual. Planned for Hunters View, the next HOPE VI site, will be 75 accessible units, 6 hearing and visual units and 30 senior fully accessible units. Finally, a Youth Build Grant has been funded to provide youth with education, construction job training and counseling while modifying four apartments into accessible housing.

c. Regulatory Barriers to Fair Housing

In addition to the effects of discrimination and economic change, regulatory policies can create potential and even inadvertent discrimination related to the use of public funds and regulations. These include:

While the intent of the former is to exclude sites which "because of social and economic conditions, are unable to accommodate and sustain assisted housing," (Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 8, Pg. 4263) and the intent of the latter is to prevent the impairment of the "integrity of residential neighborhoods," the result may be to create additional barriers to affordable housing for low-income and minority residents. The potential for such discrimination may merit review of pertinent State and Federal regulations.

d. Other Forms of Discrimination

Efforts to remove barriers to fair housing focus on the categories protected by law: race, color, religion, gender, national origin, familial status and physical and mental disabilities. However, certain other categories experience discrimination which is not always considered illegal, including sexual orientation, economic status (as for example holders of Section 8 vouchers), language limitations and persons with social disadvantages such as individuals recently released from institutions (who lack traditional tenant qualifications such as credit histories, etc.).

State Fair Housing Law does not address all such categories. Consequently, there may be a need to develop appropriate local legislation and to implement proposals at the State level to authorize local ordinances, should they be preempted by State law.

5. HOUSING NEEDS OF SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

In addition to those households and individuals who have difficulty finding housing because of their income or race, there are others whose housing problems arise from certain "special" or specific needs. The number of persons who experience such needs in the lower income population is disproportionately high. The specific needs for the populations discussed here are for housing with specific characteristics or supportive services which allow these individuals or households to obtain housing which meets those specific needs and live independently.

Housing for specific groups may require sites with particular characteristics. Sites for the elderly and physically disabled require proximity to public transportation and neighborhood shopping, as well as relatively level terrain between housing and these services. Sites for families may benefit from being close to schools, parks, and playgrounds. Sites for terminally ill patients may need to be close to hospitals or medical offices. In all cases, the character and scale of housing must be compatible with its neighborhood and must take into account such factors as parking, noise, and climate.

a. Elderly Persons

As noted in the demographics section (p. 17), San Francisco has a relatively large senior population, and that group is expected grow between 2000 and 2010. Seniors develop needs for different types of housing as they develop health problems or have decreased mobility. They may need units which have fewer steps, require less maintenance, and have increased security. They may have needs for a continuum of care throughout their lifetime ranging from independent living to institutional care, with many semi-independent options in between. Non-supportive housing includes multi-family units that are less isolated and require less care and congregate care housing (independent units with central dining and social activities).

Supportive Housing Needs: The portion of the over-65 population who will require long-term care services is difficult to predict. One indicator of demand is the number of persons with mobility or self-care limitations.

A frail elderly person is one who needs assistance to perform routine activities of daily living, or has at least one limitation to Activities of Daily Living (ADL) or two limitations to Instrumental Activities to Daily Living (IADL). ADL Limitations include difficulty eating, bathing, toileting, etc. by oneself and IADL Limitations include difficulty using the telephone, getting outside, shopping, doing housework, etc. by oneself. The elderly and frail elderly have physical design requirements as well as supportive service needs. Some of these requirements, such as wheelchair accessibility, are similar to those for physically disabled persons who are younger. The need for certain social services, such as shared dining facilities and on-site medical care, requires facilities that are not usually included in multi-family housing.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 22.9 percent of persons 65 and over have mobility or self-care limitations. The Long-Term Care Pilot Project Task Force uses this figure to project that in 2010, 29,721 persons 65 and older in San Francisco will experience mobility or self-care limitations.

The Long-Term Care Pilot Project Task Force estimates that the City must develop a minimum of 1,500 units of supportive housing (i.e., affordable housing that provides a broad range of on-site and off-site services) for older and disabled adults who require long-term care.

General Housing Needs: Senior services advocates in San Francisco have identified affordable rental housing as the highest priority for San Francisco's low-income elderly and frail elderly population. Among seniors living independently, there is a significant need for small, safe, easily-maintained dwelling units. Seniors are also especially vulnerable to changes in Section 8 program eligibility requirements, since their ability to increase their income to compensate for loss of Section 8 assistance is extremely limited. Seniors who lose their rental housing involuntarily are also, in general, less able to cope with their crisis than the general population due to physical frailty, fixed income and other causes.

Lengthy waiting lists for affordable senior housing units in the City indicate the current level of need. It is estimated that most applicants for senior units will wait for five years or more to receive housing assistance. From 1990 to 1999, the City has constructed 582 new units in 9 developments to address this need, but during the same period the senior population grew by about 17,000 persons.

Seniors who own their own homes are faced with a variety of problems. Reluctant to leave because of familiar surroundings, and because alternatives are too costly, they may be burdened by a house too large for their needs and too expensive to maintain. Deferred maintenance and rising utility costs can particularly be a problem for seniors with limited incomes. Home weatherization, homeowner rehabilitation, and P.G.& E. assistance programs can provide assistance for these seniors.

Senior homeowners who are struggling with limited income to meet their housing and other living needs are, in some cases, able to use their housing as a financial resource. Reverse annuity mortgage, reverse shared appreciation mortgage, private deed annuity, life estate, or sale/leaseback financing mechanisms allow elderly homeowners to utilize the substantial equity in their home as supplemental income. Because these loan types have limitations, the availability of counseling to seniors on these mortgages is critical to avoid unnecessary loss of equity in their homes.

Sharing housing with others also provides both a financial resource of rental income and a perhaps welcome remedy to isolation for some senior homeowners. Counseling and placement services are necessary to help match elderly people in need of housing with those who have extra housing. The conversion of a portion of a home into a second unit can fulfill senior housing needs, as well as make more efficient use of the housing, while providing additional income to the owner.

b. Persons with Accessibility Needs

The age of housing stock limits accessibility for persons with disabilities even when landlord discrimination is not a factor. According to the Planning Department Housing Inventory, almost 77% of San Francisco's housing stock was built before 1950. Such characteristics of older buildings as narrow corridors and doorways, steps at the building entrance, and multiple stories without elevators are pervasive barriers for persons with disabilities.

According to Building a Healthier San Francisco: A Citywide Collaborative Community Assessment published by the Northern California Council for the Community, 11.4 percent of San Franciscans between the ages of 16 and 65 have a work disability, and/or a mobility or self-care limitation. Based on a population of 552,909 persons in this age cohort, an estimated 63,032 persons in San Francisco are physically disabled. Using different definitions, the 1990 Census data indicated that a total of 40,285 non-institutionalized adults had self-care limitations in 1990, of which 22,962 (57 percent) also had mobility limitations and, therefore, would need accessible housing units.

Assuming that the percentage of physically disabled persons that are low income reflects the population of the City as a whole, at a minimum, 15,885 physically disabled persons between 16 and 64 have incomes below 50 percent of area median income. While no estimates of the unmet need for accessible housing for this population are available, on the assumption that approximately 20 percent of this population need such housing, approximately 3,177 accessible housing units are required.

The term "accessibility" may also require a broader redefinition. For example, within the context of disabled accessibility, provision of controlled light and sound environments (for the mentally disabled) might be considered in addition to more routine accessibility modifications required for the benefit of physically handicapped persons.

c. Low-Income Large Families

Low income families with children face the special needs of securing decent, affordable housing located near schools and transportation. Large families also require sufficient numbers of bedrooms to house their members without overcrowding, a challenge that is particularly acute in San Francisco, where the rental housing stock tends to be constructed with small numbers of bedrooms. Families with low incomes also have a very limited ability to stabilize their living situation through homeownership, a goal that has been virtually impossible in many of San Francisco's neighborhoods as house prices spiral upward.

According to the 1990 Census, very low income large related households are the most likely of any household type to experience a "housing problem." Ninety-three percent (93%) of these households are either overcrowded, overpaying for housing, or living in substandard housing, compared to about 43% for all households in the City. Very low income large families also experience the highest rate of overcrowding (80%), a rate over seven times the overall Citywide average of 11%.

In addition to the need for suitably sized and located units, low-income families also often need a range of supportive services. To the extent that these services can be provided at the same location as their housing, the family's needs are much more likely to be met. Some of these needs may be transitional, and others long-term. A primary example of such services would be child-care facilities, but other supportive services might include services associated with recovery from substance abuse, mental health counseling, HIV/AIDS counseling, case management, information and referral services, money management, employment related services and daily living skills development.

d. Immigrant Households

According to the 1990 Census, 42.4% of all San Franciscans aged 5 or older spoke a language other than English at home and 55.5% of those reported that they did not speak English very well. This suggests that a substantial number of households have at least an occasional need for housing assistance services provided in a variety of languages.

Familiarity with and access to housing programs often depends on the availability of appropriate language services; without these services, it becomes especially difficult for immigrants to secure housing. Many immigrant households also require legal assistance, job training, or assistance in locating suitable employment. Absent these services, they face formidable obstacles to entering the city's housing market and are at risk of overpaying on their rent, living in overcrowded conditions, and becoming homeless. This need is particularly acute for the approximately 2,000 undocumented workers that come to San Francisco each year, since they are ineligible for public assistance and may have no other source of income. At any given time, there are an estimated 200 undocumented homeless persons in the City. (Residence Element, 1990)

Immigrant households will also be substantially affected by the recently enacted immigration status verification legislation. This will affect immigrant households who currently live in public housing or in other housing assisted by federal programs.

e. Persons with Severe Psychiatric Disabilities

The Division of Mental Health's Supported Housing Task Force has found that many San Franciscans with psychiatric disabilities have extremely low incomes and are consequently inadequately housed. Often, the mentally ill have too great a rent burden relative to their income and may be forced to live in substandard housing. Furthermore, they generally lack access to supportive services and assistance that would enable them to live independently.

According to the Division of Mental Health's 1995-2000 Supported Housing Plan, San Francisco currently provides inadequate resources to meet the need for decent housing and long-term support for those with extensive and prolonged psychiatric disabilities.

Since State hospitals began deinstitutionalizing patients in the 1970s and accelerated the pace in the 1980s after the passage of Proposition 13, private board and care homes have become one of the primary sources of housing for the city's psychiatrically disabled. However, the supplemental security subsidies provided to assist Board and Care facilities have not kept pace with the rising cost of patient care, causing many of the facilities to close. At current subsidy levels, board and care is financially infeasible for many operators (Housing the Mentally Ill, 1985).

In 1977, there were 1,278 Board and Care beds for psychiatric patients in San Francisco. By December, 1992, there were only 672 licensed beds left (San Francisco Division of Mental Health, 1993). According to the Department of Public Health, this number reached only 465 beds in 1995-96 before recovering modestly to 525 beds by 1998-99. Without intervention, the trend towards closure is expected to continue. Supportive services for residents of board and care homes can include psychiatric supervision and socialization, assistance with bathing and personal needs, planned activities, recreation, medical assistance, and food service.

One approach to address this problem would be the development of decent, safe, and affordable mainstream housing, linked to a flexible, personally tailored set of supports and assistance. A survey of 270 persons with mental disabilities in 1992 by the San Francisco Mental Health Association indicated an overwhelming desire on the part of mentally disabled persons to live alone or with one two friends in apartments with support services available as needed. The basic principles underlying such supportive housing approaches are that people with psychiatric disabilities have the right to a stable living situation, and to be socially integrated within their community. With appropriate ongoing support and assistance, such individuals can achieve stability and enhanced quality of life.

The absence of affordable housing linked to support services causes people to recycle through the acute care system. Too often, people use costly psychiatric emergency services and inpatient services when their basic needs for safe, secure, and supported housing is not met. Discontinuities in the service system compound this problem. The 1995-2000 Supported Housing Plan from the Division of Mental Health in the Department of Public Health identifies the need for 2,000 supportive housing units for San Francisco's mentally ill.

f. Persons with Alcohol or Drug Addictions

HUD defines alcohol/other drug abuse as excessive and impairing use of alcohol or other drugs, including addiction. This is measured by reports of inpatient treatment, assessment of current symptoms (blackouts, drunk and disorderly convictions, etc.), and assessment of current intake. Many drug or alcohol addicted people cannot find housing and are threatened with homelessness. Among these people are many who would make the transition to a healthier lifestyle if given the opportunity to do so. This transition is likely to be successful when counseling, medical services, and other supportive services are provided in a residential environment, and access to these services is available of an extended period of time.

San Francisco has a significant need for short-term detoxification and treatment facilities for current substance abusers, and for supportive housing for those who are recovering. With respect to current substance abusers, detox centers will not accept those who have repeatedly failed to follow through with treatment, and homeless shelters turn away those who are intoxicated. Consequently, these persons may have no alternative but to live outdoors, reducing the likelihood of eventual recovery.

Recovering alcohol and drug abusers have needs for supportive housing in sober living environment. According to Community Substance Abuse Services, San Francisco needs 200 to 300 beds of short-term (up to six months) residential treatment facilities, and 3,000 to 4,000 units of affordable supportive alcohol/drug-free housing. The 1999 Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis states that there are 5,693 individuals and 2,415 persons in families with children who require services for substance abuse. The Gaps Analysis also reports that the current inventory of substance abuse services meets the needs of 1,113 individuals and 342 persons in families with children; this reflects and unmet need of substance abuse services for 4,580 individuals and 2,073 persons in families with children.

g. Developmentally Disabled Persons

The range of housing types needed for the developmentally disabled include housing both with and without supportive services. The preference is for housing in small facilities or mixed with other populations within a building so that the developmentally disabled can be integrated into the community as a whole. Children tend to live at home with their families until adulthood, receiving in-home support services and legally mandated educational programs through public schools.

For adults, the "supported life" model has emerged as the preferred approach, where individuals live in apartments, condos, or shared single-family homes which they own or rent themselves. In this way, the developmentally disabled can receive support, training, or program benefits aimed at maximizing independence. Unlike institutions or other large facilities, such living environments are integrated into the community and are located in close proximity to jobs, shopping, and public transportation.

While there is no data available to estimate the number of developmentally disabled persons in San Francisco who need supportive housing, staff at the Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) estimate that close to 100 percent of San Francisco's developmentally disabled adult population earn far below 50 percent AMI and need supportive housing. According to The Arc San Francisco, this population is at least 7,745 adults. Of those capable of living in supported housing about 20%, or 1,471 adults, will need affordable housing within the next decade.

Currently, the GGRC has 1,366 adult clients, all of whom earn below 50 percent AMI, and all of whom need supportive housing. This population increases every year as approximately 30 to 40 of GGRC's clients who turn 18 each year also require supportive housing.

h. Persons with AIDS or Related Diseases

Residential settings required by persons with AIDS range from those offering independent living for individuals who can manage alone, to those offering home care and hospice service for people needing assistance with daily activities. Because of the nature of this illness, it is necessary for the City to offer supportive housing that adapts to the changing health care needs of persons with HIV/AIDS. The best approach would be to provide a continuum of housing with varying degrees of supportive services.

The San Francisco Five-Year HIV/AIDS Housing Plan Update, prepared in June 1998, shows that in December 1997 there were 7,963 people living with AIDS in San Francisco. The HIV/AIDS Housing Plan Update shows that the total housing resources dedicated to people living with AIDS in San Francisco provide 1,377 beds and rental subsidies to 1,102 persons, as shown in Table II-18.

Table II-18: Housing Resources for People Living with HIV/AIDS, 1998

Detox beds	29
Transitional/treatment beds	215
Permanent beds	167
Residential care beds for the chronically ill	114
Skilled nursing and hospice beds	52
Emergency hotel vouchers	800
Transitional rental subsidies	80
Permanent rental subsidies	766
Partial rent subsidies	256

Source: HIV/AIDS Housing Plan Update, 1998.

Data from the Update also show that 75 percent of the cumulative AIDS cases in San Francisco (through December 1997) were Caucasian, 11 percent were African American, 10 percent were Latino, three percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than one percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native. The Update also indicated that 38 percent of the people living with AIDS in San Francisco in 1996 were low-income.

These available resources do not meet the need for supportive housing for people living with AIDS. According to the San Francisco Five-Year HIV/AIDS Housing Plan Update, there are 3,000 individuals on the HIV/AIDS Housing Waitlist who are waiting for housing. In addition, there are 1,500 inactive waitlist members who have not had contact, have moved, are ineligible, or who are now deceased.

6. PUBLIC HOUSING NEEDS

The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) operates Public Housing and the Section 8 Leased Housing Programs in San Francisco. The general mission of the Housing Authority is to promote the well being of residents through the provision of decent, safe, sanitary affordable housing and to expand opportunities for tenants for economic stability and essential human services. It has been providing such housing for low-income families and individuals since 1938.

The SFHA is the 16^th largest public housing agency in the nation, serving over 25,000 eligible low-income residents by providing affordable housing. The SFHA manages 6,252 units⁸ of public housing stock in 47 developments scattered throughout the City with an occupancy rate of 98 percent and the Section 8 Leased Housing Programs. The Housing Authority derives its revenues from federal operating subsidies and from rents (residents pay 30% of their income for rent).

Public housing unit sizes are distributed as follows: 1,529 studios, 1,035 one bedrooms, 2,458 two bedrooms, 1,124 three bedrooms, 330 four bedrooms, 50 five bedrooms, and 6 six bedroom units. There are currently 14,967 families and individuals on the waiting list for public housing in San Francisco. Based on the waiting list, the need for senior housing is forty-six percent studios, 40 percent one bedroom and fourteen percent two bedrooms. The need for family housing is thirty three percent one bedrooms, forty percent two bedrooms, twenty-three percent three bedrooms, three percent four bedrooms and one percent five, six and seven bedrooms.

In addition, SFHA also administers housing subsidies through management of the Section 8 leased housing program for 5,419 families and individuals. The program includes 4,117 tenant-based certificates and vouchers and 1,529 project-based Section 8 subsidies in Moderate Rehabilitation, McKinney and other affordable housing developments. These units have the following unit sizes: 239 Single Room Occupancy (SRO), 1,302 studios, 1087 one bedrooms, 1468 two bedrooms, 1285 three bedrooms, 242 four bedrooms, and 23 five bedrooms units. The overall vacancy rate for the variety of tenant-based vouchers and certificates as of January 2000 was 1 %.

Approximately 51 percent of the public housing residents are African-American, 24 percent Asian-American, 16 percent Caucasian, 9 percent Latin American, 1 percent Native American and 7 percent other. Of the 25,000 residents who live in public housing, nearly 38 percent are children under the age of 18. Single heads of households represent approximately 78 percent of families living in SFHA developments. The average income of a SFHA family is under $10,000 per year.

Approximately 26 percent of public housing residents are 55 years or older. Twenty-two of the developments are for seniors and disabled citizens, containing 2001 units, while the remainder are family complexes.

The immediate capital improvement needs for public housing units, excluding currently funded HOPE VI sites, total $120 million or $19,672 per unit, and the 20-year needs total $345 million or $56,557 per unit. Most of the Housing Authority buildings are more than 30 years old; due to age, heavy use and inadequate and diminishing subsidies, major portions of these structures have suffered substantial deterioration. In addition, many of these developments suffer from poor initial design, which have exacerbated structural and management problems.

The Housing Authority's comprehensive capital improvements include: emergency replacement of antiquated fire alarm systems and boiler systems; replacement of sewer and waterlines; repair of sidewalks; roofing and waterproofing; mandated lead and asbestos testing and abatement; and mandated handicap accessibility compliance. These funds are also used for a variety of other activities that are critical to the agency's recovery including security, administration and management improvements. Since 1997, the SFHA has significantly rehabilitated all 22 senior high-rise developments and completed extensive HQS improvements at eight of the largest family public housing developments with Comprehensive Grant Program funds.

The SFHA accommodates for the needs of physically disabled residents by providing fully accessible apartments. In addition, special accommodations are made based on need including ramps, grab bars, and electrical outlets for special medical equipment. As part of the SFHA's 504/UFAS Compliance effort, we are also constructing accessibility improvements to common areas. Three architectural consultants completed surveys, Design Manuals, and Construction Documents for Common Space Accessibility in the senior developments. Construction has been ongoing for the past three years and most improvements have been constructed. Family developments are also being upgraded.

The status of Common Space Upgrades is as follows:

24 developments plus 5 HOPE VI developments

1 development - partial access upgrades

951 Eddy Comprehensive Modernization - under construction

5 developments - planned Comprehensive Grant Program common space upgrades

5 developments - no common space

The developments listed as HOPE VI and Comprehensive Modernization will be redesigned for full compliance with current accessibility codes. The developments listed as upgraded, either have been previously redesigned to comply with earlier accessibility codes, or have been recently undergoing upgrades as part of the SFHA's UFAS compliance under the guidelines established by the Court and as monitored by the Special Master.

The above comprise most of the SFHA's developments. Construction is being accomplished by SFHA in house construction teams. The remaining developments are planned to be upgraded in the Five Year CGP Plan.

The status of unit accessibility modifications is:

Wheelchair Accessibility: The SFHA currently has 409 accessible units, including pre-existing units, modified units, newly built units and units under construction. Of these units, 184 are in family developments and 225 are in senior developments. The new HOPE VI developments, Valencia Gardens and North Beach, along with the new Howard Street/TODCO development and planned additional modernization, will provide additional units bring the total of accessible units to 617 units.

Adaptable and Hearing/Visual: The Authority currently has 121 adaptable units and 82 H/V units, and will have 216 adaptable and 91 H/V including currently planned units. The H/V units are modified upon resident request.

A major campaign to revitalize San Francisco's public housing is being financed by HUD's HOPE VI program. Four HOPE VI grants that total $115 million are leveraging an additional $145 million in other public and private funds to revitalize five severely distressed public housing sites. The sites are Hayes Valley (195 units, completed 1999), Bernal Dwellings (160 units, under construction to be completed in 2001), Plaza East (193 units to be completed in 2001), North Beach (229 public housing units and 131 moderate income units to be completed in 2003) and Valencia Gardens (246 units of public housing and 74 moderate income units to be completed in 2003).

The SFHA will submit an application for HOPE VI funds to revitalize Hunters View in 2000. Several other high priority sites under consideration for future comprehensive revitalization are Alice Griffith, Westbrook, Hunters Point East and West, and Sunnydale. While San Francisco is very fortunate to have been awarded four HOPE VI grants, it is important to note that during the construction phase of each project, existing residents must move out, thus placing a further burden on housing availability in San Francisco. The Housing Authority will request replacement housing for all public Housing demolished and not replaced on the existing sites as part of HUD Demolition Application/Replacement Housing Plans. If approved, an allocation for Section 8 Tenant-Based Housing would come directly to the Housing Authority from HUD, out of the national annual appropriation and not from the city's annual allocation. The tenant-based housing assistance would be earmarked for the shortfall of replacement housing lost to the demolition of public housing.

If less than the full amount of Section 8 Tenant-Based Housing is awarded in response to the Replacement Housing Plans, the Housing Authority does have the authority to use up to 15 percent of the local Section 8 Tenant-Based Certificate Program inventory for Project-Based housing subsidies. However, this form of assistance will not be used to the detriment of the Section 8 inventory of units and the production of new affordable project based Section 8 housing. HOPE VI revitalization comes with the expectation that replacement tenant-based assistance will be applied for when considering the replacement needs for demolished Public Housing units on a one for one basis.

7. NEED FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING SECTION 8 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

In the mid- to late 1960s, the Federal Government created both a set of mortgage and rental subsidy programs designed to encourage private developers to build rental housing affordable to low income families. Government-backed (sometimes low interest) mortgage programs such as the Sections 202, 221(d)(3), 221(d)(4), and 236 programs were created to help build this affordable housing. Rent subsidy contracts for low income residents were signed for many of these same housing units in the form of Section 8 Contracts (where the landlord lists a rent price, the resident pays a monthly equivalent of 30% of income, and the government makes up the rest). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has managed each of these programs.

With many of the housing developments being built under these programs in the 1970s and early 1980s and carrying commitments of 20 years (for the Section 8 Contracts) to 40 years (for the mortgages), the requirements are now ending. Added to this, HUD and Congress are now only committing to renewing these Section 8 Contracts for one year at a time. These new one-year commitments implicitly leave both the owners as well as the residents with little security that the subsidies will continue to remain available to them beyond the year contract period. Further, some owners compare their current HUD-regulated rental revenue (or standard disbursement) to the skyrocketing San Francisco housing market, and see the opportunity to increase their profit by converting their developments to market rate rent levels. Some owners simply no longer desire to be regulated by HUD.

Currently, there are 88 such developments in San Francisco, representing 8,934 units of affordable housing. While 55 of these developments are nonprofit or cooperative-owned (thus having little likelihood of market rate conversion), 33 developments comprising 3,178 units are owned by profit-motivated individuals, corporations, or limited partnerships. These 33 developments are considered the most "At-Risk" of conversion; and 28 of them will have faced at least their first Section 8 contract renewals by 2005. As a result, many are concerned that the City could loose both affordable housing and a portion of its community if any of these At-Risk developments were to go through a market rate conversion. Preservation of both of these resources becomes very important.

8. NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION IN HOUSING

A number of conditions in existing housing create environmental hazards which require special attention. In San Francisco, the principal such hazards are created by lead-based paint and by mold, mildew and other triggers for asthma.

a. Lead-Based Paint

Lead-based paint (LBP) in housing has increasingly become recognized as a serious potential hazard to children under the age of seven. The effects of lead poisoning are irreversible and can cause IQ reductions, reading and learning disabilities, decreased attention span, hyperactivity, and aggressive behavior.

While lead was banned from residential paint in 1978, more than 75 percent of the homes built prior to 1978 contain lead-based paint. Units which tend to have a higher incidence of LBP hazards include deteriorated housing units, particularly those with leaky roofs or plumbing, or units that have been renovated with unsafe rehabilitation practices. There are no significant differences in the incidence of LBF hazards by household income, home value, tenure, or between single- or multi-family housing.

Title X of the Housing & Community Development Act of 1992 defines a "hazard" as any condition causing exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, soil, or paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible or friction surfaces. Lead-based paint hazards result from exposure to lead dust through deterioration, abrasion impact, or disturbance of painted surfaces. Risk assessment requires on-site analysis to determine the existence, nature, severity and location of lead hazards. Abatement measures include encapsulation, enclosure, and permanent removal.

An estimated 78% of the existing housing stock in the City, or 237,999 units, contains lead based paint. The estimated 154,116 rental units with LBP represent 77% of the occupied rental housing stock, and the estimated 83,883 owner-occupied units with LBP represent 80% of the owner-occupied housing stock in 1990. An estimated total of 87,858 units with lead based paint are occupied by lower income households, 52,456 of which are very low income households and 35,402 of which are low income households.

According to a 1992 survey by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, about 1 in 12 children in the City has lead levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl). This would make the City's problem with Elevated Blood Levels roughly comparable to the prevalence of Elevated Blood Lead Levels found for New York City in a 1988 study, and make San Francisco one of the top ten metropolitan areas in the U.S. for the number of children at-risk for lead poisoning.

b. Mold, Mildew and Other Asthma-Causing Conditions

In May of 1999, the Children's Environmental Health Promotion Section of DPH conducted a survey to assess the health concerns of family childcare providers. The survey, which was printed in 3 languages (Spanish, Chinese, English), was conducted with the assistance of the Healthy Children Organizing Committee, Children's Council, Wu Yee Children Services, and the San Francisco Childcare Association.

The survey found that 31% of the respondents indicated that asthma was a major or moderate problem for children in their care; 27% care for children with asthma and breathing problems and 24% assist childcare with their asthma medication; and 59% would like training and information on environmental hazards maintaining a healthy and safe childcare environment. Respondents considered the following to be greater than moderate problems in the homes of the people they serve: substandard housing (74%), lead-based paint (69%), cockroaches (64%), tobacco smoke (63%), rats (59%), excessive dust (59%), outdoor air pollution (58%), indoor chemicals (53%), substandard childcare/school facilities (52%), and mold or mildew (50%). In addition, 86% of respondents rated asthma as a moderate to major problem.

Research indicates that among the most common asthma triggers are molds and mildews, dust mites, and cockroach infestation. In housing where there is deferred maintenance or housing that is otherwise substandard, these problems tend to be common. Further, all of these asthma triggers find San Francisco's damp climate hospitable. Since this dampness also contributes to paint failure, many of the structures in which a lead hazard is present also pose an asthma hazard.

National data indicates that approximately 7.1 percent of the US population has asthma, and that 5.6 percent of Americans have active asthma. Active cases tend to be higher among African American (6.9 percent), residents of large cities (5.9 percent), the poor (7.9 percent of Americans with incomes below $10,000 per year), and children ages 0-14 (7.4 percent). Specific asthma rates are not available for San Francisco, but asthma-related hospitalization rates in San Francisco are well above the statewide average. Further, these rates are highest among African-American children, and rates among the Latino and Asian/other children ethnic groups are among the highest in the state. DPH has determined that asthma should be a priority focus as a public health issue. Bayview-Hunters Point is the neighborhood with the highest rate of asthma-related hospitalizations in San Francisco, followed by the Tenderloin, the South of Market, and the Western Addition.

In 1999, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Department of Public Health submitted an application to HUD for a Healthy Homes grant to address these problems. While the City was not successful in obtaining a Healthy Homes grant, the needs identified in the course of preparing the application will provide a basis for future applications and ongoing programs.

B. HOMELESS NEEDS

Homelessness is a problem which usually results from the combined effect of other problems, including the high cost of housing, low income, and a variety of social conditions which make it difficult for the homeless individual or family to overcome homelessness. For this reason, it is treated separately from the analyses of housing needs and community development needs; resources from both areas are needed to address the problem. This section of the Consolidated Plan will explore the root causes of homelessness in San Francisco, identify the current inventory of shelters and services and gaps within the system, and offer specific strategies in the use of Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to address some of the gaps.

1. NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS IN SAN FRANCISCO

The exact number of families and individuals living on the streets and in emergency shelters in San Francisco is unclear. During the first few months of the year 2000, the City and the Local Homeless Coordinating Board have taken steps to identify an approximate number of homeless families and individuals. The Local Homeless Coordinating Board, with assistance from the Department of Human Services, estimated the number of homeless in San Francisco using national statistics and local data to derive numbers of persons and families experiencing homelessness. These figures appear in Table II-19 (HUD Table 1A on page 74). According to this analysis, there are 3,125 homeless families and 9,375 homeless individuals in San Francisco in at any point in time. This table will be included in the City's 2000 Consolidated McKinney Application to HUD for competitive funding for homeless-oriented projects.

On April 27, 2000 the Mayor's Office on Homelessness conducted a point-in-time survey of persons living on the street and persons in emergency shelters. Based upon their survey, the Mayor's Office on Homelessness has reported that there were 3,610 homeless persons on the street and in emergency shelter that evening. The Mayor's Office on Homelessness plans to conduct another point-in-time survey in October, and do this count biannually. A copy of their report which describes the survey methodology is included in Appendix 7.

The following text discusses some of the main causes of homelessness, which include the regional affordable housing crisis and strong economy and federal welfare policies.

a. High Cost of Living

Despite San Francisco's strong economy and the robust regional economy (please refer to the Community Profile in Section I), many residents of San Francisco have not benefited from the City's current economic boom. Many individuals and families in San Francisco live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to meet costs for housing, food, child care, health care, and other essentials.

A recent study completed by the California Budget Project shows that a two-income family of four in the Bay Area requires an income of $53,736 per year to maintain a modest standard of living (covering housing and utilities, food, child care, transportation, health care, payroll and income taxes, excluding public or private assistance). This figure is 324 percent greater than the $16,600 in annual income established by the Census Bureau as the 1998 poverty level for a family of four. According to the California Budget Project, the differing income levels are due to the fact that the Census Bureau sets a national poverty threshold that does not reflect regional cost-of-living variations. According to the California Budget Project, the differing income levels are due to the fact that the Census Bureau sets a national poverty threshold that does not reflect regional cost-of-living variations. Family income estimates from Claritas, Inc. show that in 1999, 14,988 San Francisco families earned less than $17,000 per year; this figure represents 10.2 percent of total San Francisco families in 1999.

b. Lack of Affordable Units

Data presented above in the Market Assessment section show that the current vacancy rate for rental units in San Francisco is 1.9 percent, and the average overall monthly rent for a unit is $2,016. However, a four-person household earning 50 percent AMI can afford only $905 per month in rent, and for households earning below this income level, the affordability gap is even more severe, creating a continuing risk of homelessness for substantial numbers of San Francisco's households.

The production of 1,816 affordable housing units from 1994 through 1998, and current approvals for an additional 1,470 affordable housing units and 713 SRO units, has done relatively little to reduce demand for affordable housing by households earning less than 50 percent AMI in San Francisco. The private market will not supply any significant number of units to meet that demand, given the high rents such units can command upon re-rental.

c. Welfare Reform

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program is California's program to implement welfare reform. As this program is being implemented, the impact on the housing needs of San Francisco's families receiving public assistance has been dramatic, creating an increased need for services and housing to prevent homelessness.

DHS data from 1998 estimates that approximately 33% of all CalWORKs families spend more than 60% of their income on rent. At the time this analysis was done, the average cost of renting a 2 bedroom apartment in the City was more than double the maximum aid payment for a CalWORKs family of 4, and the average cost of renting a 1 bedroom was also double the cost of the maximum aid payment for a CalWORKs family of three. (Source: DHS 1998 Housing and Income Data for CalWORKs Families)

DHS administers the Personal Assisted Employment Service (PAES) program which provides employment and job training assistance to adult receiving general assistance and food stamps. According to June, 1999 DHS PAES demographic data, 36.3% of PAES participants (2,037 persons) were homeless, and another 3.9% (218 persons) were receiving rental assistance through the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. October, 1999 DHS CalWORKS data reports that 145 families, or 2.2 % of all families participating in CalWORKs are currently homeless. (Source:10/99 CalWORKS Quarterly Survey Results, DHS)

There are currently 6,200 families on CalWORKs in San Francisco. While some families with employment experience and job skills have secured employment, much of the remaining CalWORKs caseload are long-term recipients who have minimal job skills and other barriers that require addressing in their progression toward self-sufficiency, such as mental health and substance abuse issues, and unstable housing. The Department of Human Services reports that in FY 1998-1999, 69 percent of the 1,087 unduplicated families, who received emergency shelter services, reported CalWORKs as their primary source of income. In other words, 750 CalWORKs families required emergency shelter services in FY 1998-1999. As benefits are withdrawn, it is expected that this need will increase substantially.

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act also eliminated the entitlement of legally documented immigrants to receive a majority of federal benefits (including housing), and allowed states to deny benefits to both documented and undocumented immigrants. While a series of changes to welfare reform at the federal and state level has restored some of these benefits, there is still a need for homeless services among documented and undocumented immigrants.

d. De-Institutionalization of Mentally Ill

The movement away from long-term state psychiatric care and involuntary commitment to mental institutions has meant that counties have become increasingly responsible for the treatment and care of persons with severe mental disabilities. Many San Franciscans with mental disabilities have extremely low incomes and therefore cannot access permanent housing. Often, these individuals are shut out of the shelter system and must attempt to subsist on the streets.

According to staff in DPH's Division of Mental Health, 30 percent of homeless shelter clients receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because substance abusers are not eligible for SSI payments, mental health services providers estimate that the majority of the 30 percent of homeless shelter clients who receive SSI assistance are eligible because of a psychiatric illness

e. Substance Abuse Problems

The exposure of homeless persons with drug or alcohol problems to violence and crime is significant, and a cycle of homelessness, incarceration, hospitalization, and rehabilitation often prevails. Not surprisingly, substance abuse frequently occurs as a result of homelessness. A 1992 national study in published in Hospital and Community Psychiatry reported that 19 percent of homeless adults developed alcohol abuse problems, while 11 percent reported illegal drug use after one to five years of homelessness.

Data from the Department of Public Health show that in FY 1998-99, 4,727 unduplicated homeless persons received substance abuse services. During that same timeframe a total of 2,659 unduplicated homeless persons received detoxification services.

f. San Francisco as a Destination Point

Historically, San Francisco has attracted individuals and families from across the country as well as from across the world. San Francisco has earned the reputation of being a tolerant and compassionate City. Due to this reputation, families and individuals in crisis come to San Francisco in search of assistance and a better way of life. Analysis of recent data shows that a significant proportion of homeless families and individuals accessing shelter and services in San Francisco became homeless in other counties prior to coming to San Francisco. The data indicates that 40 percent of homeless families accessing shelter and services were not from San Francisco at the time they became homeless. A total of 33 percent of homeless individuals were coming from outside the City and County of San Francisco to access services. (Source: DHS Connection Point Survey, 7/1/99 - 3/31/00 and DHS, Profile of the Single-Adult Homeless Population, 1998)

2. PROFILE OF SAN FRANCISCO HOMELESS

The following narrative presents a profile of certain segments of the homeless population: youth, families and individuals.

a. Youth

According to San Francisco's 1996 Continuum of Care Plan, public and private agencies providing services to homeless youth served 1,330 unduplicated persons between the ages of 10 and 21 during a six-month period (first six months of FY 1994-5). Of the total number, 77 percent were below the age of 18, and 23 percent were between 18 and 21 years old. In terms of ethnicity, 48 percent were Caucasian, 22 percent were African American, 16 percent were Latina/o, four percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and two percent were Native American. Another eight percent were other/unknown. Females made up 48 percent of the youth served, and males made up 52 percent. It is important to emphasize that the above figures do not reflect the entire homeless youth population in San Francisco; an unknown number of youth who live with relatives, friends, or on the street and never access youth services provided by public or private agencies are not counted.

While as many as 38 percent of homeless youth are able to return home, for 62 percent returning home is not an option due to physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or the inability of the family to provide for the youth due to substance abuse or poverty. The majority of youth who are unable to return home are caught in a double bind because they are without viable means of support, and as minors they do not have access to benefits. Furthermore, many homeless youth lack a high school diploma and have minimal job skills. All of these circumstances combine to place homeless youth at extreme risk for substance abuse, survival sex, and exposure to HIV. The 1996 Continuum of Care Plan reports that 17 percent of homeless youth who were tested for HIV were positive.

Individuals who leave foster care, group homes, San Francisco General Hospital, or jail are frequently at risk of homelessness. The Department of Human Services estimates that 150 youth turning 18 leave foster care or group homes every year with no financial support or family support networks to prevent homelessness. Experts in youth services state that studies nationwide have shown that 40 to 60 percent of youth aging out of foster care are homeless within the first year. With no savings and limited skills, these youth frequently turn to public assistance or illegal activity to support themselves.

b. Families

The 1996 Continuum of Care Plan estimates that 25 to 30 percent of the homeless population is made up of families. From information collected by DHS (Source: DHS Profile of San Francisco Families seeking Emergency Services at Connecting Point) by 175 homeless families accessing the shelter system during the period between July, 1998 and June 1999, a detailed profile of homeless families emerges. A total of 1,100 families were served during the survey period, representing 3,485 persons. Over 2,000 of the family members were children. Approximately 90 percent of the primary caregivers were women, and more than 70 percent of the families were single-parent families. Almost half of the homeless children are five years old or younger, and over 10 percent of these children were below the age of one. In terms of race/ethnicity of homeless families, 43 percent were African-American, 26 percent were Caucasian, 17 percent were Latino, 3 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2 percent were Native-American.

Almost three-quarters of all homeless families accessing the Connecting Point shelter and service delivery system were experiencing homelessness for the first time. Prior to becoming homeless, one-third of families lived with family or friends, another 25 percent lived in a hotel or SRO, and 10 percent were previously in a shelter. The major causes of homelessness for families were: being asked to leave (26 percent), legal eviction (14 percent), substance abuse (12 percent), domestic violence (11 percent), relocation (11 percent), and family conflict (10 percent). 51 percent of homeless families reported having a history of domestic violence.

With regard to victims of domestic violence and their children, the need for funds to cover move-in costs and rental assistance to move out of emergency shelters and into safe housing is acute. Access to legal services to ensure that victims have legal representation and are aware of their rights is also important. According to the Commission on the Status of Women, in FY 1998-1999, San Francisco's three emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence served 494 women and 393 children for a total of 27,533 bed nights. However, during this same time period, 2,703 women and children fleeing domestic violence were unable to be assisted at these facilities.

Approximately 29 percent of the homeless families last resided in the Tenderloin, 13 percent lived in the Western Addition, 11 percent in Bayview-Hunters Point, 7 percent came from the Mission, and 5 percent last lived in SoMA. Upon exiting the shelter system, the majority of families, or 21 percent, moved to the Tenderloin, 15 percent moved to the Haight, 12 percent moved to Bayview-Hunters Point, and another 12 percent moved to the Western Addition. According to data collected by DHS between July 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 on homeless families assessed by case managers at DHS-run shelters, 40 percent came from outside of San Francisco to access shelter and services

In terms of educational level of the primary caregiver, 25 percent attended high school but did not graduate, another 25 percent had completed highschool, and 18 percent had attend college but did not graduate. The main of income for 71 percent the primary caregivers was AFDC. For those caregivers that had previously worked, 18 percent has last worked in clerical positions, 15 percent had jobs in food services, and another 9 percent had been employed in health services.

A total of 29 percent of the primary caregivers self-reported accessing mental health counseling prior to entering the shelter system, 9 percent reported having been hospitalized for mental health issues, and another 9 percent reported receiving mental health care in residential programs. Of the primary caregivers who answered survey questions regarding substance abuse, 19 percent reported not using drugs, while another 35 percent reported using some type of drug, with the majority (11 percent) indicating that they had used crack/cocaine, and another 10 percent used alcohol and crack/cocaine. Alcohol was identified by 6 percent as the drug of choice by the primary caregiver, and heroin was reported by another 6 percent as their drug of choice.

The types of services that homeless families typically accessed during their at a family shelter were the following: advocacy (49 percent), childcare (42 percent), clothing (71 percent), employment search (31 percent), family counseling (34 percent), food box/vouchers (31 percent), housing search (57 percent), medical services (33 percent), money management (33 percent), referral to education program (25 percent), referral to employment/vocational program (26 percent), and transportation services (47 percent).

c. Single Men and Women

According to a survey of 1,087 single-adult homeless persons at four shelters conducted from April through June, 1999, 68 percent of the survey population is male, 31 percent is female, and one percent is transgender. Sixteen percent of the survey respondents are between 18 to 30 years, 65 percent are aged 31 to 50, 14 percent are 51 to 60 years, and five percent are over 61 years old. Forty-two percent of the population is African-American, 30 percent is Caucasian, 18 percent is Latino, and 10 percent were made up of different ethnic groups. Thirty-three percent of the population served within the City's Continuum of Care system came from outside San Francisco to access shelter and services. It is also important to note that of the homeless singles population surveyed that had established residency in San Francisco prior to experiencing homeless, 37% had lived in housing less than four months before losing their housing.

The survey data also show that 51 percent of the respondents cited either lack of income or loss of job as the primary cause of their homelessness. Seventy percent of respondents lived in San Francisco at the onset of their homelessness. Sixteen percent of respondents have either a temporary or permanent disability that prevents working. In terms of education, 20 percent of the respondents had a high school diploma/GED, while 18 percent had some college or a college degree. Approximately 10 percent of respondents were incarcerated in the previous 12 months. (Source: DHS, Profile of the Single-Adult Homeless Population, 1998)

This survey also found that 13 percent of the survey respondents were veterans, and an additional two percent of respondents were disabled veterans. Three percent of respondents cited domestic violence as the primary cause of homelessness. Five percent of respondents cited mental health issues as the primary cause of homelessness. In addition, 11 percent of respondents have a permanent or temporary mental disability that prevents working. 13 percent of respondents cited substance abuse as the primary cause of homelessness. In addition, 53 percent of respondents reported using drugs and/or alcohol.

According to San Francisco General Hospital, 11,000 unduplicated homeless persons were discharged after receiving in-patient or out-patient services through the Community Health Network clinics and emergency medical care facilities in 1999. An undetermined percentage of these persons recycle back into the hospital, the hotel program, and then to the streets and homeless shelters.

According to a status assessment of county bookings conducted for the San Francisco Sheriff's Department in 1994, 39 percent of adults discharged from the San Francisco jail system have no housing, income, or support networks after release. Many of these individuals become homeless or live in shelters, and an undetermined number recycle back into the jails.

3. ANALYSIS OF INVENTORY AND GAPS IN THE CURRENT SHELTER AND SERVICES DELIVERY SYSTEM

The City has a great need for certain types of homeless housing and supportive services as represented in Table II-19 (HUD Table 1A). This table identifies the current inventory of shelter and services for both homeless families and individuals, and estimated need for shelter/services, and the unmet needs. Finally this table lists the relative priority the City has assigned to the different needs.⁹

The 2000 Gaps Analysis found that the need for increasing the inventory of emergency shelter beds for both families and individuals was a medium priority, whereas the need for expanding the number of transitional housing for individuals was a low priority. For families, the gap between existing transitional housing and the need for transitional housing was determined to be significant enough to classify the need as medium. Permanent housing units for both populations was determined to be a medium priority. While the provision of emergency shelter and services is an integral component of the City's Continuum of Care system, it is also important to provide homeless families with permanent housing with or without supportive services. On-site supportive services can provide formerly homeless families and individuals with the necessary services required to ensure that they do not cycle back into homelessness. Therefore, the City has made the decision to emphasize permanent and permanent supportive housing options for families and individuals that are homeless. It should be noted that MOCD will continue to provide ESG funding to assist in the on-going operation of emergency shelters, crisis services and transitional housing.

In terms of supportive services, the local board and the City have determined that there is a great need for the following supportive services for homeless families and individuals: job training and placement programs, case management programs, substance abuse treatment, mental health care, housing placement, money management, life skills training, and advocacy and legal services. Additionally, the City is taking a more aggressive approach to homeless prevention, through the provision of funding for tenant/landlord mediation, anti-eviction legal services, and emergency housing vouchers.

Table II-19 also identifies the homeless sub-populations that are most in need of shelter and services. For homeless individuals and families, the sub-populations most in need are: chronic substance abusers, seriously mentally ill, the dually-diagnosed, veterans, persons living with HIV/AIDS and victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the needs of homeless youth have been given a high priority designation.

Table II-19: (HUD Table 1A) Homeless and Special Needs Populations*

Estimated Need

Current Inventory

Unmet Need / Gap

Relative Priority

Individuals

Example	Emergency Shelter	115	89	26	M
	Emergency Shelter	3,000	2,081	919	L
Beds / Units	Transitional Housing	1,688	1,019	696	L
	Permanent Housing	4,688	2,628	2,060	M
	Total	9,375	5,728	3,647
	Job Training	6,938	1,051	5,887	H
	Case Management	7,969	1,760	6,209	M
Estimated Supportive	SubstanceAbuse Treatment	6,094	579	5,515	H
Services	Mental Health Care	4,688	1,721	2,967	M
Slots	Housing Placement	8,063	630	7,433	H
	Life Skills Training	7,031	232	6,779	H
	Advocacy and Legal Services	5,531	982	4,549	H
	Money Management	6,000	862	5,138	H
	Chronic Substance Abusers	35,573	5,316	30,527	H
	Seriously Mentally Ill	20,925	2,706	18,219	H
Estimated	Dually - Diagnosed	25,903	3,303	22,600	H
Sub-	Veterans	21,598	2,863	18,735	H
Populations	Persons with HIV/AIDS	13,646	1,684	11,962	H
	Victims of Domestic Violence	6531	813	5,718	H
	Youth	20,431	2,657	17,774	H

Persons in Families with Children

Example	Emergency Shelter	115	89	26	M
	Emergency Shelter	781	175	606	M
Beds / Units	Transitional Housing	625	200	425	M
	Permanent Housing	1,719	357	1,362	M
	Total	3,125	732	2,393
	Job Training	2,313	220	2,093	H
	Case Management	2,656	115	2,541	H
Estimated Supportive	Substance Abuse Treatment	2,031	240	1,791	H
Services	Mental Health Care	1,563	126	1,437	H
Slots	Housing Placement	2,688	20	2,668	H
	Life Skills Training	2,344	55	2,289	H
	Advocacy and Legal Services	1,844	267	1,577	H
	Money Management	2,000	20	1,980	H
	Chronic Substance Abusers	6,626	404	6,222	H
	Seriously Mentally Ill	7,830	449	7,381	H
Estimated	Dually - Diagnosed	5,385	316	5,069	H
Sub-	Veterans	2,120	116	2,004	H
Populations	Persons with HIV/AIDS	3,700	198	3,502	H
	Victims of Domestic Violence	9,555	547	9,008	H

*This data comes from the draft 2000 City and County of San Francisco Consolidated McKinney Application.

a. Homeless Prevention

1. Rental Assistance

The need for funding for rental assistance and move-in grants to prevent homelessness is substantial. According to the Department of Human Services, San Francisco has four rental assistance programs. The 70 social services agencies making up the Homeless Prevention Consortium reported a 300 percent increase in requests for rental assistance to prevent eviction from 1995 to 1999. The Catholic Charities Rental Deposit Guarantee and Rental Assistance Programs report turning away two out of every three eligible households due to insufficient capacity. Overall, demand for rental assistance and move-in grants is twice as great as the funds available.

2. Legal Assistance to Prevent Evictions

According to the San Francisco Tenants Union, the high rents and low vacancies in San Francisco's rental market have led to a sharp increase in evictions during the past three years. Filings for unlawful detainer (evictions) increased from 1,068 in 1995 to 2,836 in 1998. This number does not include 3,000 to 5,000 evictions estimated by SFTU to occur each year through verbal or written notice with no legal filing. Many evicted tenants are not able to access legal representation, or are unaware of their legal rights that would forestall illegal evictions. According to the Homeless Advocacy Project, tenants threatened by eviction who are represented by legal counsel are evicted far less often. Tenants without legal representation often do not receive the full range of public benefits to which they are entitled, and are at a greater risk of homelessness.

The Department of Human Services newest initiative provides a funding stream for singles to be represented in the San Francisco Eviction Defense Collaborative. The SF Defense Collaborative provides assistance to tenants representing themselves in eviction lawsuits. Data from the Department of Human Services indicate that eviction prevention services are provided to 1,363 clients per year.

b. Supportive Services

1. Childcare Services

The majority of homeless families in San Francisco are unable to simultaneously find housing and participate in work and training programs, as required by CalWORKS. Many homeless families obtain an exemption from the work and training requirement due to domestic violence, mental health issues, or other problems. When a homeless family does not participate in work and training, with or without an exemption, the result is that they are not eligible for the CalWORKS child care subsidy program. This "Catch 22" is unique to California's TANF program and is not found in any other state.

According to the Department of Human Services, childcare services are provided to 341 children annually who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. (Source: Homeless Services Expenditure Overview FY 98-99) Affordable childcare is essential to enable homeless families obtain housing, enter the labor force and achieve self-sufficiency.

2. Food Assistance

Data from a survey conducted by the San Francisco Food Bank in 1997 indicate that 45 percent of soup kitchen clients are homeless, and another 35 percent live in marginal housing. Eighty percent of survey respondents stated that had no place to turn for food assistance other than emergency food providers or the government. More recent data is not available because the study has not been updated.

Hunger for the homeless is caused by the inability to afford food, as well as the lack of ability to store or prepare food. Lack of access to food assistance programs, the concentration of many services in one area of the City, a fragmented system of food assistance, and lack of coordinated access to food service information are inter-related problems.

3. Substance Abuse Treatment and Psychiatric Health Care

Information form the Department of Public Health indicates the significant need for supportive services targeted specifically to homeless persons dealing with alcohol/substance abuse issues and/or have also been diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities. For example, drug and alcohol detoxification services are provided to 2,348 clients per year. Current estimates for the need for residential treatment for people with psychiatric disabilities or substance abuse issues is provided to 722 persons per year.

4. Clothing Assistance

A survey of homeless persons conducted for the 1996 Continuum of Care Plan reported that 25 percent of homeless adults cited lack of proper clothing as a barrier to obtaining employment. A survey conducted from July 1998 through June 1999 of 175 unduplicated families who accessed family shelters and stayed four or more nights indicates that 71 percent received clothing assistance.

5. Other Services

Other key supportive services which help move homeless families and individuals from homelessness to more stable and suitable living arrangements include case management, life skills training (including money management), job training/placement, housing placement and benefits advocacy and counseling. As indicated in Table II-19, the existing inventory of services does not meet current demand. While the need for these particular services significantly exceed current service levels, the largest service gaps are for life skills training, and housing placement.

c. Emergency Shelter

Emergency shelters provide bed space to families and individuals in crisis for a short period of time, usually no more than three months. On any given night, there are 2,081 beds available for homeless individuals and 606 beds for homeless families. In addition, 6,607 emergency housing vouchers are issued per year. San Francisco's emergency 800 telephone numbers and other emergency assistance lines respond to 3,400 inquiries per year, and drop-in centers in San Francisco provide service to 5,700 clients per year. (Source: draft Gaps Analysis Update; Harder + Co.; 2000)

d. Transitional Housing

Transitional housing offers homeless families and individuals the opportunity to live in a safe, hospitable environment for an extended period of time while accessing supportive services that will aide them in their move to economic self-sufficiency and empowerment. HUD's definition of transitional housing is somewhat different from what experts working with the homeless consider transitional housing.

Currently, there are approximately 40 transitional housing programs for individuals, some of which provide residential treatment services. In all, it is estimated that there are 1,019 units for homeless persons. The City's Continuum of Care system has another 200 units of transitional housing or homeless families. (Source: draft Gaps Analysis Update; Harder + Co.; 2000)

The information presented in Table II-19 indicates that there is a gap between the number of available transitional housing units and the estimated need is significant, for homeless individuals and families. As with most other components of the Continuum of Care system, the need for transitional housing exceeds what providers can currently offer. However, when the need for transitional housing is compared with the need for permanent housing, it is clear that the greatest gap is for permanent housing for homeless individuals, followed by homeless families. A more detailed discussion on permanent housing needs follows.

e. Permanent Housing

1. Need for Permanent Supportive Housing for Individuals

The gaps analysis chart assembled for San Francisco's 1999 Consolidated McKinney Application provides data regarding permanent supportive housing needs for individuals and families with children. The current inventory of permanent supportive housing slots for individuals is 1,605 while the estimated need is 4,792 slots, resulting in an unmet need of 3,187 slots. According to data prepared for the 1999 McKinney Application 25 percent of the need for permanent supportive housing for individuals is for chronic substance abusers, 15 percent is for the persons with severe psychiatric illness, 10.5 percent is for the dually-diagnosed, 22.9 percent is for person with HIV/AIDS, four percent is for person with other disabilities, and 22.6 percent is for the general population.

According to data from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, in FY 1999 728 individuals received HOPWA supportive services. Data from the Department of Public Health indicate that in 1999 supportive housing services for persons who are homeless or at thigh risk of homelessness were provided to 327 persons with psychiatric disabilities, and 183 people with AIDS who earn 25 percent or less of the area median income.

2. Need for Permanent Supportive Housing for Families

The gap analysis chart from the 1999 McKinney Application shows that the inventory of permanent supportive housing slots for families with children is 688, while the estimated need is 2,025 slots. This indicates an unmet need of 1,337 slots. According to data prepared for the 1999 McKinney Application, 25 percent of the need for permanent supportive housing is for families with chronic substance abuse issues, 15 percent is for families with psychiatric disability issues, 10.5 percent is for families with dually-diagnosed issues, 22.9 percent is for families with HIV/AIDS issues, four percent is for families with other disabilities, and 22.6 percent is for families in the general population.

3. Need for Permanent Housing Linked to Long-Term Stabilization Services

Data from the Department of Public Health show that health, education, vocational and social services linked to permanent housing are provided to 3,673 persons annually. Out-patient services for mental health and substance abuse is provided to 3,206 persons per year, and vocational and employment services are provided to 783 homeless persons annually.

Information provided in the 1995 Division of Mental Health Supported Housing Plan show that the existing mental health system includes very little permanent affordable housing linked to flexible, individualized support services for the mentally ill. The 1990 Strategic Plan for Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Forensic Services describes how homelessness and lack of safe and stable housing directly interferes with the ability of mental health providers to stabilize their clients in the community.

According to the Supported Housing Plan, individuals who reside in institutes for mental disease and in jail generally do not qualify for SSI or Medi-Cal reimbursement for treatment in those settings. Discharge planning may not ensure that SSI eligibility is re-established upon discharge, and some very disabled people are unable to complete the SSI application process. Funds are therefore not available for housing costs and many mentally ill people become homeless immediately when they are discharged.

According to staff at the Department of Public Health, the ideal model of permanent housing for persons with severe psychiatric illness is a congregate living facility with on-site staff and a strong program of special services dedicated to assisting this clientele. The Master Leasing Program is a significant new initiative in this direction whereby the City or a non-profit housing organization is master leasing five SRO hotels with a total of 732 rooms. Enriched on-site support services such as medical teams, crisis intervention, and organized tenant activities provide the type of stability that is essential in treating persons with severe psychiatric illness.

C. NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND STRATEGIES

1. INTRODUCTION

In this section of the Consolidated Plan, MOCD outlines the non-housing community development priorities and strategies that it will pursue over the course of the next five years. The discussion of needs, priorities and strategies is based upon MOCD's demographic research (presented in the Community Profile section), and information obtained at meetings, public hearings, and focus group sessions. A summary of public hearing and focus group comments is also included in this section.

The next section identifies MOCD's priorities and strategies for addressing non-housing community development needs that are within its purview. This section identifies the strategies, goals and outcomes MOCD proposes to address the needs of low income residents and target neighborhoods, and lists other potential resources to support MOCD's efforts.

2. SUMMARY OF NEEDS IDENTIFIED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS

Over the past several years MOCD has been committed to funding programs that improve the livability of target neighborhoods and the economic empowerment of the neighborhood residents through workforce development programs (and related essential services which help to transition individuals and their families to full employment), and economic development assistance. In order to determine whether MOCD's neighborhood-based emphasis to empowering low income families and individuals is a relevant approach given current and projected needs, MOCD held 5 public hearings throughout the City, convened 4 focus group sessions, and met with staff from key City agencies.

a. Public Hearing Comments¹⁰

A total of 109 persons provided comments to MOCD during the public hearing process on community development needs for the next five years. In all 74 persons spoke at the public hearings, and another 35 persons wrote letters. The top five needs described by the majority of speakers and writers are: affordable housing; employment-related services; services to immigrants; youth services; and a need for more community-oriented facilities.

Of the participants identifying employment services as a priority issue, nearly 49% felt that there should be more employment training services, and 40% believed that job placement programs should be expanded. With regard to immigrant services, the majority of speakers/writers described a need to improve access to English-as-as-Second-Language (ESL) and increase the number of ESL classes offered to the community at large. Additionally, bilingual job training programs and placement of persons in jobs not requiring English proficiency were also consistently identified by the public as important needs currently facing the immigrant population.

As indicated in Table II-20, 18 percent of all public hearing speakers/writers identified the need for programs that target youth. In general, the types of youth programs needed as identified by the public were after-school art, recreational and tutorial programs, bilingual programs, and job readiness programs. The other need that was identified by a significant proportion of public hearing speakers/writers was for community facilities that served either specific targeted populations, like the elderly or youth, or served all residents of a particular neighborhood. For example, the majority of speakers at the public hearing convened in the Sunset requested that a that a neighborhood-based facility be located in their neighborhood that could serve both the elderly, youth and their parents.

Table II-20: Number and Percentage of 1999 Public Hearings Participants and the Housing and Community Development Needs Identified

Needs Categories	Number of Participants	Percent of Total Participants
Affordable Housing	59	54%
Employment	55	51%
Immigrants	24	22%
Youth Services	20	18%
Community Facilities	14	13%
Coordination	8	7%
Crime Prevention	8	7%
Senior Services	8	7%
Childcare Services	7	6%
Disabled Services	6	6%
Housing Counseling and Eviction Prevention	6	6%
Homeless Services	6	6%
Counseling Services	5	5%
Domestic Violence	5	6%
Economic Development	5	5%
Transportation	5	5%
Community Organizing	3	3%
Environment	3	3%
Infrastructure	3	3%
Substance Abuse	3	3%
Health Services	2	2%
Capacity Building	1	1%

b. Focus Group Sessions¹¹

In early December, 1999, four focus group sessions were convened for the purpose of providing MOCD with more information on certain topics: services for the disabled, immigrant-oriented services, workforce development activities, and small business and microenterprise programs. (Sessions focused on certain populations such as youth or seniors were not conducted because of the relative availability of current information from other City sources.) As a result of the input from the public hearings, MOCD wanted to learn more about the needs of immigrants. A focus group session on disabled services was organized to provide MOCD with updated information on the current state of services to the disabled and become more familiar with the issues that are of concern to disabled service providers. The session on workforce development services was used as an opportunity to gain a more global perspective of MOCD's role in supporting workforce development initiatives. The session on microenterprise and small business assistance programs was convened to provide MOCD with a better understanding of the current service delivery system, identify gaps in the service delivery system, and reassess MOCD's role in supporting economic development initiatives.

For disabled service providers attending the focus group session the most pressing issue for disabled persons was equal access to non-disabled related services. For example, focus group participants noted that a person with a disability in need of job training services is more likely to be turned away by the more mainstream service providers because staff may feel that they are not equipped to handle such a client base. Additionally, there is a need to improve the coordination between disabled service providers that serve different segments of the disabled community. This coordination should also extend beyond disabled-oriented service providers however and include the other services-oriented organizations that may not be as directly focussed on serving the needs of the disabled as they could be.

For participants of the immigrant services focus group, the linguistic access to necessary services was identified as a pressing issue. The group consensus was that English-as-a-Second Language classes are not culturally or age appropriate, and the English that is taught in the classroom is not relevant to the needs of the immigrants who are trying to find employment. Participants also recognize that it is important to provide services to immigrants where they live, especially in those neighborhoods with limited services that have experienced large influxes of immigrants.

The workforce development session focused on the gaps in the currently service delivery system, identification of those segments of the population that will not be able to participate in most welfare to work initiatives, and effective ways for MOCD to target its funding. Due to the constraints of the Workforce Investment Act legislation, a significant percentage of immigrants, and persons exiting the criminal justice system are not eligible to participate in many job training/placement programs. Participants also stated that there is a need to enhance the current array of employment-related services to the workforce development services continuum.

During the economic development focus group session, participants identified a great need for technical assistance to borrowers during two different phases - pre-loan and post-loan. Given the high failure rate of small within three years of inception, technical assistance is a useful strategy to counteract this trend. Pre-loan technical assistance for entrepreneurs includes assisting persons develop business plans, assessing the viability of the business, finding a suitable location, and helping them navigate through the City's permitting/zoning/licensing requirements. Post-loan assistance includes assessing the success of the business, hiring and keeping employees, and identifying strategies to improve market share.

3. NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

Table II-21 (HUD Table 2B) presents a broad range of non-housing community development activities that are generally recognized by HUD and other Federal agencies as activities that are potentially eligible for some form of Federal funding. HUD requires local governments to complete this table, and recognizes this table as an "inventory" of community development needs, which can be shared with the United States Congress. While this table is supposed to represent all possible needs that a City may have, the prioritization of the needs is based upon whether or not MOCD will allocate CDBG funding to the activities listed on Table 2B. Therefore, the activities with the high and medium priority need designation are those to which MOCD will allocate CDBG resources over the next five years. While a certain activity may be prioritized as medium or low by MOCD, it does not necessarily mean that the City considers the activity to not be a low priority. Activities with a low priority designation will not receive funding from MOCD, because more than likely there is another, more appropriate source of funding for such activities. In some cases, such as children, youth and family issues, San Francisco has developed local revenue streams through tax revenue. Additionally, while there is a need for parking facilities in San Francisco, MOCD does not fund such developments, and therefore, this type of activity is considered of a low priority.

The second part of the non-housing community development inventory is the estimation of the level of funding required to address priority needs. The amount of funds needed to address a specific need does not necessarily bear any relationship with the priority level designation. In many cases where MOCD has classified an activity as a low priority, the amount of funding needed to address that priority may be significant. For example, it has been estimated that $150,000,000 of funding is needed to upgrade existing City solid waste facilities, although MOCD has ranked solid waste public facilities improvements as a low priority. HUD requires MOCD to report estimated funding amounts needed for all priority activities, regardless of the priority level.

It is also important to note that the amount of funding needed for the types of activities listed on this table are only estimates. In many cases the figures are based upon recent studies. Other numbers are projections based upon data maintained by various City agencies. MOCD has made a good faith effort to accurately represent the estimated amount of funding necessary to address the HUD-defined non-housing community development needs. However, in no way should HUD Table 2B be treated as the clearinghouse on information related to the amount of resources needed for the activities listed on this table.

Table II-21 (HUD Table 2B): Five- Year Non-Housing Community Development Needs

CDBG Eligible Community Development Activities	Priority Needs	Estimated Funding To Address Priority Needs
Public Facility Needs 12
Neighborhood Centers	H	$100,000,000
Park/Recreation	M	$141,000,000
Health Centers	M	$500,000,000
Parking Facilities	L	$100,000,000
Solid Waste Facilities	L	$150,000,000
Asbestos Removal	L	$74,000,000
Historic Preservation	L	data not available 13
Youth Centers	H	$80,000,000
Child Care Centers	H	$80,000,000
Senior Centers	M	$50,000,000
Other Centers	M	$150,000,000
Infrastructure 14
Water/Sewer Improvements	L	data not available
Street Improvements	L	data not available
Sidewalks	L	data not available
Flood Drain Imprvmnts	L	data not available
Other Infrastructure	N	NA
Public Service Needs 15
Disabled Services	M	$25,000,000
Transportation Srvcs.	M	$130,000,000
Substance Abuse Svc.	M	$50,000,000
Employment Training	H	$250,000,000
Health Services	M	$300,000,000
Other Services	M	$120,000,000
Anti-Crime Services 16
Crime Awareness	M	$15,000,000
Other Crime Svcs.	M	$5,000,000
Youth Programs 17
Youth Services	M	$50,000,000
Child Care Services	M	$50,000,000
Other Youth Services	M	$10,000,000
Senior Programs 18
Senior Services	M	$95,000,000
Other Senior Svcs.	M	$10,000,000
Economic Development 19
Commercial or Industrial Rehab	L	$387,170,000
Publicly/Privately Owned Rehab	L	$100,000,000
C/I Infrastructure Development	L	$165,930,000
Other C/I Improvements	L	data not available
Micro-Enterprise Asst.	H	$5,000,000
ED Technical Asst.	H	$10,000,000
Other ED	H	$18,000,000
Planning 20
Planning	H	$2,000,000
Capacity Building	H	$2,000,000

Return to Previous Section | Next Section