this gives you a pie chart, talking about all of the households with children. you can see that 57% of households with children are on either end of the spectrum, either over 150% or less than 50%. this relates to some information about middle income housing, where san francisco tend to be a barbell sort of city. you have a high number of households at the low-end, a high number of households at the high end. there is a much smaller range in the moderate to middle income level. this reflects that. >> maybe this was answered before, but we do not have the comparative data with other cities? >> not with other cities. this chart is what was referenced by the director in terms of the first 5 data.

this talks about the decline in the last 10 years in number of children overall. in the last 10 years, the child population declined by about 5%. however, the number of children 5 and younger increased by 9%. you can see that increase of 9% was more than outweighed by the decrease in children 5 to 18. chairperson farrell: it just exacerbates how big the difference is with the five to eight teen group. i think there is a big difference for us as legislators in city hall to think about. if this is a national trend or national issue, that is ok, but that is different than if this is something san francisco is doing good or bad. i think that is important to look at. >> this is the other chart that was referenced earlier.

this can lead to a great deal of speculation. this is the zero through five childrens' population by neighborhood. even know there was a 9% increase overall in the city over the past 10 years, it was surprisingly not distributed evenly across the neighborhoods. south of market and embarcadero had a huge population increase. chairperson farrell: is there a way to blow that up? >> i do not think there is a zoom. i will tell you what is at the top. at the top is south of market embarcadero, based on an 865% increase. that is not surprising when you think of the recent development in the south of market district. you concede district 6 has the largest increase in population over the last 10 years.

the next highest percentage increase was in treasure island, then the financial district, the presidio, potrero hill. at the bottom, mission bernal heights had a 14% decrease. visitation belly had a 13% decrease. -- visitation valley had a 13% decrease. chinatown had a decrease. chairperson farrell: for folks looking at the screen, are trying to -- the neighborhoods higher on the chart have seen the highest increase in percentage of children in their neighborhoods. is that correct? >> that is exactly right. on the column to the far left is the name of the neighborhood. the next column is the current zero through five population. the next column is the overall% of the city population.

the third is the percentage change the last column is the increase in sheer numbers of children from 2000 through 2010. again, it is often reflective of other kinds of issues occurring in the neighborhoods. often, in south of market, there was a huge increase in development in certain neighborhoods. this was just a quick chart to show within the different income brackets if there were differences in the percentage of households with children. it is relatively even, ranging from 16% of low income families up to 19% of very wealthy households. let us move on briefly to the housing market.

we know about the inexpensive housing market in san francisco. let us talk about the rental affordability gap. the line and goes right across the center is the medium gross rent in san francisco, which is 1385. this may seem a bit low, but remember rent control is different from the rent you would get going straight out into the market. what we put out here is the affordability gap for a three- person family. if the median gross rent is 1385, we look at the median income of households at 80%, 100%, and 150% anu,'-- ami. chairperson farrell: when you

look at media numbers, the mean it tells another story. >> we have a look at it. you are right the median does not tell the whole story. it also does not indicate what people are willing to pay. you may be at the 50% ami. what is affordable is usually defined as 30% of their gross income. in san francisco, we know the average percentage -- they are usually paying about 70% of their gross income toward rent. that are making a decision to purchase a place that may not be affordable for them because of the overall market. chairperson farrell: to purchase? >> i am sorry. to rent. chairperson farrell: with homeowners, how does that pair? home ownership in san francisco

is very expensive, as is right. i believe it is a fact that we pay more in san francisco as a percentage of gross income on whether you rent or mortgage. >> what this chart is trying to get to is that if you are at the 120 to 150%, you are generally able to find, if you search long enough, an apartment that is somewhat affordable. the picture changes dramatically when we talk about home ownership. you are at 100 per -- 100 to 2% -- 100% ami. you are not able to get up to the median sales price. you're pretty far from it all the way around. chairperson farrell: this is that 30%? >> 33% for home ownership. affordable is defined at 33%. you and i probably do not know

many people who are paying 33% of their income. chairperson farrell: i think lenders right now -- the standard -- i have been in discussion with lenders about other policies around home ownership. that are lending even jumbo loans for some folks at 50%. and that is the tightened restrictions today compared to six years ago, when money seemed to be free. >> exactly. this is just an interesting chart we put together to show that affordability does differ according to different neighborhoods. at 120% ami, if you look at affordability, only 23% of the houses are technically affordable, meaning 33% of their income. that does not mean it is the same across all the different neighborhoods. if you were going to look at

bayview, 87% of the houses on bayview would be affordable to someone at 120% a year my -- ami. the housing pricesn the southeast part of the city are lower than the rest of the city. it parallels, in a way, from the choices those in san francisco have to make. do i live in the city? if i do, what neighborhood do i live in? or do i choose not to live in the city? do i want to live in san mateo? we know the affordability gap has decreased, meaning housing prices have gone down a little bit. it is not quite as hard to buy a home. the affordability gap has decreased more dramatically in every county that surrounds san francisco. it is even a little cheaper than

it was 10 years ago. it is a far better deal to go to sonoma. those are trade-offs. chairperson farrell: if you keep that chart up -- methodology -- because nobody really pays on home ownership 33% in the city -- it is nice to think about, but i do not think it is reality. if you put it at 50%, is that a linear chart? do those bubbles grow together? or does it look different? >> it would be roughly equivalent. we do have a chart that is a little bit above what you are doing. we can do it at 80% amide. -- ami. it does tend to grow proportionately. the darker blue become darker and the lighter become lighter.

it does match where you're saying. this next table just talks about the affordability gap. you can see between 2000 after the housing bust, the housing prices went down dramatically. obviously, it is not as a household incomes increased to me that change. what is san francisco actually building? we have shifted to a higher density housing, largely condos. single-family homes tend to be much older. we are not building any of those. only 2% of new units built were single-family detached homes. we are not creating stock. for some families, that might be attractive. chairperson farrell: there is a bit of that the economy in san francisco. we want to attract war families. i think there has been a general policy, if not explicitly

stated, to increase density across our city. how do you think about that? >> is an interesting question for us, in terms of our ability to finance affordable housing. the only financing vehicles that are viable for what we can produce are in the multifamily setting. we do not have a vehicle to do single-family detached homes. by the senses, people report about 33% of individuals say they live in single-family homes. we think that is overstated. the census has said people do not understand, when you ask them -- they say, "i am not living with anyone else, so i am in a single-family home." in boston, only about 18% of families say they live in single-family homes. san jose, 70%.

oakland 48%. if you are comparing us to other options like oakland and san jose, people are still able to go to areas of cities where they are more likely to find single- family detached homes. president chiu: one other question. the above comments on the high density low condo buildings we have? how many have the multi-room spaces that are large enough for families? i continue to hear we do not have enough three-bedroom, four bedroom places in our condo buildings. i wonder if you have a reaction. >> we do not have the break down, but i can get that for you. chairperson farrell: i see a number of folks in the room that are familiar with housing

production. i think a lot of families would prefer a single-family detached home. if you were able to in sent some of these larger spaces, would that help or not? -- president chiu: >> the tiny blue that you can barely see are the single-family detached homes as a percentage. we looked closely at -- there was a 2006 working group on housing. these were the six items adopted back then. create a definition of family friendly housing. crit housing for vulnerable families. make sure there is a 20% minimum of family-friendly housing. and create a permanent dedicated mobile source of funding for housing for families

with children. chairperson farrell: family- friendly housing is probably subject to a lot of subjectivity. how you phrase it? >> in terms of what came out of this policy council, when we were creating family units, is the design family-friendly of the overall building? for example, picking one at random, in a multi-unit residents, do you make the hallways to go from unit to unit wide enough so that kids with tricycles could go down the hallway? is the kitchen large enough to support a family cooking in there? it is really design elements. there is a requirement that you have enough bedrooms. besides the number of bedrooms, how is the actual design of the unit built to maximize usage by families? there is probably about 12 to 15

design elements the requested to integrate into all of what we call our family novas, or notice of funding availability. this report came out in 2006. since then, we have put out three different notices for affordable housing developers to put forward their request. in june, we issued another 9 million. in october, another 8.3 million. we wanted to focus our funding on families. i think we have only had four issued since then. three were focused on families. the fourth was on transition-age use. -- youth. this talks about what we are doing in response to those recommendations, integrating those family-friendly recommendations.

the neighborhood plans to require a 25% up to 40% two- bedroom units. we have produced up to 700 two- bedroom plus units. we are trying to increase access to families to increase affordability. hope sf, we are focusing on revitalizing certain public housing, to preserve public housing for those families. prevention work was an interesting recommendation, not only to build housing, but to keep families from being evicted. the last, as you are aware, is the housing trust working group, which i think president chiu has been part of, along with the mayor, to create a dedicated funding. chairperson farrell: is two bedrooms plus defined as family friendly?

>> it is defined as family housing. i think it probably relates back to president chiu's question. if you have five kids, is a two- bedroom really going to be enough? what is the ability to finance either at market rate or in an affordable sending those multi- room units? i think it is a challenge. i cannot speak to all the intricacies of financing. it has been a challenge to create those additional units. the affordability gap, even on the rental side, increases dramatically, if you need five bedrooms in a rental situation. it is very difficult to find those larger units, rental or ownership. chairperson farrell: it is not

just someone who has one child, or maybe to that can be in a room together. when you start to have families, or parents want to have larger families, are the automatically priced out and gone? i think that is part of what we are talking about. it would be interesting to find more data. >> just a few more. overall, this talks about what are the citied the-restricted units we have. we have about 22,000 the- -- deed-restricted units. we do have the down payment assistance program, which has helped about 3000 lower and middle income families. if you talk about what it looks like in the future, we have talked about what our pipeline is.

these are the units that are currently in development, that we have not put out. we have about 4000 family units. about 69% of our total pipeline are family units. it is not surprising that 69% of all the units currently in the pipeline will be family units. those are in development at some stage of construction. chairperson farrell: when you say ppipeline, is this total units in san francisco? >> this includes the hope sf units, but not market rate. i do not like living on a somewhat depressing note, but we did want to talk about the city- allocated federal housing resources.

in the past three years, i think we have shared the decline in our community block grant dollars, in the federal home dollars that supported new construction. if you add in redevelopment, taking it back to 2007, you can see it is an 85% anticipated decline. a huge percentage reported affordable housing. this does talk about the resources we had to create affordable housing units. even now we have 4000 units in the pipeline, it may be some time before we get them out. overall, i guess i would say that although i have tried to adhere to the policy recommendations that came out of the working group, we have done our best to integrate family-friendly design elements. we have tried to prioritize

family units. overall, the city stock is about 5.8% of all of the housing stock. the answer is unfortunately not going to be entirely within the portfolio, especially given the decline in resources. i wish i had a complete answer for how to you -- how to do that, but i wanted to start the conversation. chairperson farrell: i appreciate that. the goal is to start the conversation, laying it out. when you talk about age- restrictive housing and families in there, you find families saying, "i do not want that option and would rather move where it is more affordable for me, even though i can obtain that, because down the road i want to gain the appreciation on the house and" -- housing"?

>> it depends on the income of the household. if they are looking at an ownership unit at 100% ami, if they feel they can stretch a bit and tell the full appreciation of that unit, sometimes it becomes a little frustrating for them. if that are at 80%, they would never be able to appreciate. i think the program is a little more challenging for people. as you move closer to 120% and think you might be able to stretch and purchase something if you wait it out, you concede that appreciation. it depends how feasible they think they are to actually buy some kind of market rate unit. in some neighborhoods, the below market rate unit -- sometimes,

the original price is higher than the market rate has gone too. in the bayview, the market rate -- chairperson farrell: what is happening to those families? >> that are under water. they want to get out. it was not anticipated the market woods change so drastically that you could be under water on a bmr unit. in has been hard to sell those units in some neighborhoods. chairperson farrell: any other questions? thank you for being here. i appreciate it. next we have maria, our director of the department of children, youth, and families. i appreciate it. you are the lead department in

city hall. i want to thank you for coming. >> thank you, members of the committee. i apologize. i am a little under the weather. as a parent of two children, one of which is a second grader in our great public school, and the other hopefully will one day be in kindergarten, i am very susceptible to germs. you guys know. chairperson farrell: unfortunately, yes. >> thank you so much for calling this meeting. it is really important to shed some light and eliminate some of the strategies we are currently using, and some of the strategies we can develop and refine. my presentation today has very little numbers, because i think bryant and my other colleagues have done a great job in framing

and laying out the scenarios. what i wanted to do today is what you through some of the reports that our department and the rest of the city has done over the past 10 years. i have the reports here. i and not sure. do you guys want to? just to start, san francisco's prosperity depends on our ability to insure that all children and youth have the opportunity to thrive. when children grow up healthy, obtain a quality education, live in safe, supportive homes and communities, they have a solid foundation for a productive future. san francisco has recognized that communities benefit when children thrive and families stay here. i just realized i keep using the word thrive. hopefully my friends will not be upset with us.

my department was created by the residents of the city through legislation passed in 1991, and again in 2000, which created not only our department, but the special funding source we all affectionately called the children's fund. our city was the first in the country to set policy, to create policy that calls up the importance of protecting children, and created dedicated funding sources to create direct services for children. over the past several years, we have established -- we have expanded our reach and depth of work to also serve young people up to the age of 24. today, what i want to do is briefly walk you through some of the reports that our department has issued, but also the progress. it will perhaps shift the conversation and a little bit.

we know san francisco is not the only urban american city struggling with a declining children population, rising cost of living, housing, and a downward trend in quality of life. unfortunately, this is reality for a lot of urban cities. however, we in the city are doing a lot to mitigate these factors, to support families to stay in the city, and to attract new families to come into the city. i, for one, and a transplant from the east coast. if people were to ask me why i came to the city, and number of things. i love the environment here. i love the culture. i want my children to grow in a place that has lots of diversity. i want my children to be exposed to the way of life and thinking in the city. one of the reports you have in front of you is dated 2005-2008.

it is called tackling family flight. back in 2005, mayor newsom tasked the city to strengthen the foundation of support for children, youth, and families. we know the only way to really tackle family flight, because it is multifaceted, is by creating a collaboration with in the city and with our private partners. i believe this is the key. we need to get everyone in the city on the same page having this conversation. it is one thing to have city officials having this conversation, but we need to bring philanthropic and corporate partners. the council identified seven key areas that impacted family fight. nothing surprising. nothing new. housing, cost of living, transportation, workforce, and