Supervisors press city on how it will finance 13,981 extremely low‑income units; MOHCD estimates $4B capital, $2.6B operating shortfall

The Land Use and Transportation Committee held an extended hearing May 6 on how San Francisco plans to finance and build the housing element goal of 13,981 extremely low‑income (ELI) units over the next eight years. Presentations from the Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAS) and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) set out population data, current portfolio counts and the subsidy challenges needed to reach deep affordability.

Rose Johns of DAS told the committee that about 42,000 extremely low‑income households include a senior or disabled adult, roughly 33,000 of those are renters and about 24,000 of those renter households face rent burden (paying more than 30 percent of income on housing). "We're starting here looking at all extremely low income households with a senior member or a disabled adult member," Johns said, noting DAS convened the 2022 aging and disability housing needs assessment.

Dan Adams of MOHCD said the city currently has about 14,400 units serving ELI households and roughly 2,300 units supported by the local operating subsidy program (LOSP) with an annual LOSP budget of about $36,000,000. He described a senior operating subsidy (SOS) pilot, noting 53 units in operation and about 200 in the pipeline and explained differences among tenant‑based and project‑based vouchers.

Adams presented a high‑level cost estimate for meeting the RHNA ELI target: "We arrive at a little more than $4,000,000,000 just from the capital side," he said, and added that the operating subsidy needed over a 15‑year horizon would be on the order of $2,600,000,000. He cautioned those figures assume continuing availability of state and federal matching funds and explained that tax credit changes such as income averaging help but do not produce large numbers of deeply affordable units without operating subsidy.

Supervisors pressed MOHCD for more concrete plans and options. President Aaron Peskin and Vice Chair Dean Preston asked how RHNA calculations intersect with existing vouchers and whether proposed local tools — including a potential regional bond or Prop M rental subsidy revenues (an empty‑homes tax enacted earlier) — could be committed to ELI subsidies. Adams said MOHCD will coordinate with the Housing Authority on Faircloth‑to‑RAD work and expects to engage stakeholders on an allocation plan should a bond or other regional fund become available.

More than two dozen public commenters — representing Self Help for the Elderly, Community Tenants Association, Asian Law Caucus, Young Community Developers, Senior and Disability Action, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and many residents — recounted long waits for vouchers, units that remain unaffordable even when labeled "affordable," barriers faced by seniors and people with disabilities, and racial disparities in ELI representation. Speakers urged the Board and administration to prioritize dedicated local operating subsidies that make deep affordability feasible.

President Peskin closed the hearing by urging frank conversations during budget season and about ballot asks to secure ongoing local operating subsidy funding. He moved to file the hearing with the understanding there will be subsequent, specific policy discussions; the committee voted 3‑0 to file.

Next steps noted in the hearing include MOHCD follow‑up on detailed counts (project‑based vs tenant‑based vouchers, continuum of care units), coordination on Faircloth‑to‑RAD, work on Prop M revenue projections and development of an allocation plan if a regional bond moves forward.