tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 17, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
programs. so this is something that we are very focused on right now and i think that we've seen an increase in applications from a wider variety of communities and that we have -- we're continuing to do that outreach so that we can have more people signed up for our opportunity and applyi applying. the barrier to entry to application has gone down significantly. it used to be very difficult to apply more affordable housing opportunity. it's much easier now but more people are in the lottery pools. so it's just a matter of continuing to try making that application and you can do it from your phone. >> i don't know if it was -- is this something that happened in the committee meeting recently? it had nothing to do with you, but i remember it was a certain
department that went into chinatown and instead of having human being translators or presenters, they use some software or something online. and the translation was so awful that nobody understood it. it was jus not translated corre. do you know whose department that is? >> i can speak to that. right now we are working on our new consolidated plan. it's a plan that's -- it's a five-year plan required by hud and it analyzes housing need and our response. we're working on affordable housing strategy and an hiv howing plan. so our staff with planning staff went out and conducted about ten
large community meetings in every single district. it was very-well attended. and i would say nine out of ten of the meetings went extremely well. unfortunately, in chinatown, there was an overwhelming response. typically we were having about 60 to maybe 80 people attend and in chinatown 250 san francisco residents showed up. so, unfortunately, we did not have enough good translators staffing that meeting because we did not hear from community leaders that they were bringing so many people and it's great that so many people came but we just didn't have the information about attendance. so what we've done is gone out to those communities, had very focused meetings, hearing from residents with good translation services. we're doing surveys now and
we're working through them with good translate services. so we -- it's a very expensive outreach programme that will be successful and, unfortunately, there was that one bad translation incident that got press whil. while the other successful meetings didn't. something to learn from and to plan better next time. but just to reiterate, we've been back to chinatown, to the chinese community members that were upset about that incident and provided very focused interactions with them. >> thank you. >> secure mandelman. >> thank you, chair.
>> i wanted to talk about a few things and one is, you had mentioned earlier, think, the capacity issue around doing more development presencer ratiopress that have not seen affordable housing production and i was wondering if you could talk what you and your office are trying do to build capacity. how will we get to a point there are developers who are able to do projects in the rest of the city? >> so i think aid work in progress. fortunately we have the funds that are flexible and we can use them accordingly. so the first step is just to look at the existing affordable developers who to small sites and say, what do you need? in some cases, it could be a
convulsioconstruction manager. >> and they seem swamped. >> they are. >> like, way overwhelmed. >> it may be more staff, front-line staff, management staff. we need to hear from them what would be helpful for them to expand their capacity. the second thing is is to look at the barriers of entry in the programme. for example, if we provided more developer fee on a per project basis could we attract more people and that's one thing. we could benefit from the involvement of some small market rate developers who could do acquisition and turnkey rehab and turn it over to an affordable developer who could own and operate it and ensure the continued afford ability. ability. this are tax exemption issues so
we need to structure the acquisition and the rehab in such a way to take the best advantage possible of our tax rules. but that's a possibility. and then, one of the staff recently -- we were brainstorming and proposed what i mentioned earlier, which was a bmr preservation idea. you know, there are a lot of market rate developers buying and rehabbing properties and what if we were to provide funding on a per-unit basis so some portion of the billions, 20%, 30%, could have a deed restriction that ensured permanent affordability. that way it would be a funding mechanism without the need for additional staff added to already over-stretched development teams. i mean, it would all be additive. we're very grateful for the excellent work of meta, ccdc,
some of other providers and so we want them to continue on but we want to reach more buildings. >> and what do you see as the timeline on which some of the yeahs mighideas might come to f? >> wwe're working on them. but small sites began as an effort and we want to keep that grass root's flavour to this and we need to meet with developers with the participants and continue the brain-storming and issue new guidelines and rules and then roll it out. >> and i applaud your desire to preserve the grass root's elements of the programme, but it's also urgent to be bringing on many, many, many more
buildings and units, particularly while we have these windfall funds coming in. it seems like we have opportunities. and i just wanted to -- related to that, and i want to say this, you had talked about the efficiency challenges around doing affordable development in more expensive parts of the city. and i think that is completely true and should guide you and it makes sense to be doing the most units possible to help the largest number of people. at the same time, we cannot be a city where all of the middle and low-income people live in some districts and every other district is inhabited exclusively by hyper affluent people and the only way to keep that from happening is public
intervention right now. so i know you're trying to find way to get more affordable housing in districts that have not had as much but want to encourage that. the last thing is, you know, those numbers about market rate versus affordable production and where we are in terms of our goals is complicated because we know the rena process probably understates need more affordable it's worse because we need probably more affordable units than are coming out of the rena process but even if the process is right, we're still just meeting a fraction. not to too fine of a point on it, but the reason for that, we do not have the funding that we need to close the gap between what we're able to produce and that need. we need a lot more funds. i don't have a great sense of the scale. i mean, we're pushing forward
with the affordle housing bond of some size and the supervisor is talking about setting aside the future anticipated dollars for affordable housing needs and we can think about real property transfer tax. there's a lot of things we can think of, but it would be nice to know and maybe the city knows this in some document, what the target is. do we have a sense of what the amount we should be providing in annual subsidy would be that would allow us to be meeting 100% of our affordable production and preservation? >> the production numbers are so low that i think trying to a dollar number on new production to meet those goals -- >> or what the city contribution to other sources would need to be. >> i'm sorry?
>> assuming the city is not paying 100% of the cost of the units we would need. >> right. i don't have the number for you. i will say that i think that we might want to think of things differently and this came up in the homelessness discussion. there are so many rent-burdened homes in san francisco that the creation of a shallow rent subsidy may go a long way and be less expensive to keep people housed. the difficulty of that is that once you're in, it's permanent and it's a very costly situation. section 8 used to do this job, the power of the federal purse should be the federal government is disinvested in affordable housing. one of our biggest obstacles is san francisco is the most expensive place to build in the world. you all saw the headlines last
week. we have created a housing production and housing preservation situation that means that putting a dollar value on what could we do -- how much could we have to solve our problem? when it costs 7 or 8 or $9,000 to build one apartment, that's a hard number to really pursue. but that's where we are. and we have a skilled labour shortage that i don't see going away any time soon. >> but because the numbers are so da damn large and we talk abt the affordable housing bond without any context of what that is. so i think -- i don't want anyone spending a ton of time figuring out what that number is, but i think understanding the affordable housing bond, a $5 million affordable bond gets
us 5% of what we would need to meet our housing goals over the next five years i think would help to contextualize when asking for additional dollars through eraf or a band o bond or taxation to understand wow, this lets us do important things. and we need a whole lot more. >> we can definitely a number on that, just to get to 100% production, of the rena for moderate income. >> it would take hours. >> i think it would be interesting to know the number. >> our gap is about $300,000 per unit, so it's simple math. we can do that. >> great, thank you. >> supervisor ronan. >> thank you, i want to continue the line of questioning of supervisor mandelman. so, basically, we don't have a source of funding that is
regular any more for production or acquisition and stabilization because all of our inclusionary fees are going towards the public housing restoration, you had said. we use up bonds in two seconds and we no longer have redevelopment. so we don't have a stable source of funding for new projects. >> well, if i could clarify, the rules around inclusionary and jobs housing linkage fees are that we are able to says those fees because the creation of new market rate housing produces the need for -- >> i know. >> -- for a workforce. so those are restricted to new production. we do not use inclusionary -- >> i thought you said all of the trust fund many is going to the
programme. >> we have a housing trust fund that started in 2013 at 20 million and rises 2.5 million a year to 30 million and has a 30-year life span and we spend that on hope ss because we cannot usual inclusionary money or job link afteage fees becauss replacement fees. when you think about it that way and because hope sf is so important, our trust fund is going to housing stabilization, primarily, not totally. and then, we have the rules around inclusionary fee and job's housing linkage fees. we got $100 million in fiscal '16-'17 in inclusionary fees that has funded a lot of units, new units, extremely low income and permanent supportive
housing units. of course, that dropped in '17-'18 to hardly anything. and then the bonds, of course. in the bond-working group, for the new bond before voters in november, is that if we could get housing as a regular part of the capital planning cycle, then that would be a regular source of funding that we could count on, that we could direct to the greatest need at that time and it would be tremendous from our standpoint. >> that's not to constantly harp on proposition c, but i regularly come back to being so sad that we didn't get that two-thirds threshold because it would be that regular $300 million a year that really could have started to a dent in the type of housing we need.
>> right. >> both on preventing homelessness and building the thhousing we need and that's the type of funding that's not one-time infusion of cash. i just can't underscore that enough and i'm having a hard time getting over the disappointment that hopefully will win our court case and we can see that money. but in the meantime, we're suffering so much because we have this urgent need at the moment that we can't meet. what about redevelopment? when the governor -- have you heard any good news out of sacramento about new sources of funds more affordable housing. >> the voters passed props 1 and 2 that has $6 billion more into
programs. worwe're setting up all developments so they're competitive and can take advantage of that money. it goes to this question about where do you build and how do you build and how do you prioritize? if we know that there's a programme at the state that would give us s 10 or $15 millin and you have to set rents at a certain place, in order to take advantage of those resources, we do that work to be competitive. but also the governor has $750 million in his budget for a production fund and so for localities that come up with good ways to increase their affordable production, you're eligible for that money, as well as an incentive pool that if you meet your goals, you can have access to another $250 million that can be use on the other hand whatever yoused on whatever
parks, increased transportation elements. so for the first time in a long time, we have really strong leadership in sacramento, not just the governor but also senator weiner and assembly member chu, working on -- assembly member chu is pushing hard for a regional solution, that could be a great new resource that would allow us to further our affordable housing goals mere in san francisco. the proposal for those funds is that 75% of monies raised go back to the locality of origin. if you can provide a good affordable housing development. so there's a lot of good things happening in sacramento and it will be something that we historically, all of the state money we have taken advantage of
successfully and i expect we'll continue to do so. >> ok, thank you. >> supervisor stephanie. >> thank you, chair. i just want to focus on senior housing. do we have any idea how many units we may need for senior housing below market-rate units? is that studied at all? >> i don't have those numbers here today, but i'm sure i can work with my department of aging service's colleagues and get that to you. >> i just think that's a real need. we talk about it all of the time. if we don't know what we should be planning for, it's hard to understand where to invest the dollars or what type of pressure to on developers, but we know we have an aging population. we know they're on fixed incomes and we know we need to do something about it. the supervisor mentioned seniors living with dementia and it's a huge problem, i think that, one, it's getting brushed under the rug and one we're not
addressing. so i'm just very curious and i feel very passionate about making sure that we are focusing on the low income senior housing and we're studying it in a way that's effective. >> that's it. thank you very much. >> thank you very emergency. much. >> and thank you to the pub waitinpublicwaiting here to spe. we have one more speaker here and that is mary kate, the homeless service providers association. (please stand by).
the crisis with the community his most impacted our processes are citywide, and each budget cycle, we develop a highly consolidated and prioritized set of asks that we believe are achievable for moving the needle to reduce homelessness during that budget cycle, and this year , our ask represents a total of $13.9 million for new and baseline funding for fiscal 19- 20, in fiscal 2021, and that breaks down as follows. about half of that is going to be allocated for housing subsidies and emergency services they represent about 40% and emergency services represent about 11%. the balance, the other half, will be allocated about 12% to critically needed mental health services, 6% a workforce of element and employment services, and 20 7% roughly to homeless
prevention services that will keep people retained in shelter and housing. to put that number, that 13-point million-dollar ask in context a bit, the departmental budget funding homeless service programs in san francisco represents, maybe less than, 3% of the city. [cheering] combined 11 billion-dollar budget, and to put that budget in context, we are working in the bay area economy where it is routine to spend $11 billion in a fiscal quarter in certain industries. our ask represents highly prioritized sets of services that we believe can really move the needle, and specifically what we are planning to do is provide housing subsidies for 338 households. that includes individuals such as seniors and people with disabilities, families, and transgender individuals. we are making emergency services accessible to the thousands of people citywide to our sheltered
and unsheltered experiencing homelessness, providing prevention services to more than 1700 households to retain them in housing and shelter, providing workforce development services to 140 households, including individuals, youth, and families, and finally, providing mental health services both expanded services but also new services that we believe will build critical service gaps to about 1500 households. with that, i will turn it over to my calling to present the specifics of my housing ask. >> thanks. >> hey, everyone, i'm with the queue foundation. thank you all for having this hearing. i'm here to speak on two of the subsidy asks. one of them is the addition to the senior and disabled subsidies, so this year, they asked us for 225 on-demand online rental subsidies for seniors and adults with disabilities. it's $3 million, and that helps
address a couple of things. the current program that is administering that, about 75% of the households assisted are assisted with eviction prevention, so the attorneys can call from the court room and get access to a rental subsidy and background on demand in 20 minutes to stop an eviction right when it is happening, and those numbers are consistent across all communities that are served. it seems like the numbers are about two thirds eviction prevention, one third rapid rehousing. in addition to the senior side, there's an unmet need without also disabilities that has been identified in the dignity fund. they're 33,000 adults with disabilities in san francisco. two thirds of them are people of color, and 11-point to two 4% of disabled adults in san francisco
are homeless. it is a second-highest rate of homelessness in any group of the city, so these subsidies help address both the needs of seniors and disabled adults. to give a context, recently open house after all of our eagerly looking forward to that, in such a great, wonderful accomplishment, but q. foundation ran the numbers in our database, and 95% of the seniors in our database, 5500 people, did not make enough money to even apply for that affordable housing without a rental subsidy. thank god because of the support of the mayor and the board of supervisors, we were able to step in, but that gives an idea of where the disconnect is at. that we cannot talk about senior housing without talking about senior subsidies, and then i think we are all very, very excited for the one
million-dollar ask for 75 rental subsidies for transgendered san franciscans. it is the first time in the history of humanity that that has ever happened, and transgendered san franciscans have the homeless -- highest right of homelessness of any group in the city. it is 21%. one in five transgendered san franciscans are homeless. and this is the down payment of it -- on a five-year plan to end homelessness disparities in the transgender community. seventy-five additional rent subsidies per year over the next five years. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from compass family services to speak on two other subsidy housing grants targeting homeless families. i realize we're short on time so i will make this distinct. in san francisco, we have a monolingual spanish-speaking population that represents a sizable proportion of our
homeless family population. unfortunately we don't have it, we have very limited capacity with regards to providing bilingual case management. that is something we want to emphasize in this particular budget and in the proposal we are putting forward. we are hoping to provide language appropriate services for 36 families through our rapid rehousing program which is an existing program in the city. a second proposal we are seeking includes a need-based program, so for many of our homeless families, rapid rehousing is an actual alternative, but there were also a size of our homeless families for whom we need programs that are more intensive and more comprehensive on subsidies and they fill a critical gap for families who face additional barriers to housing, specifically families who aren't able to increase their income a short period of time, or families for whom moving out of san francisco would be impractical, as to be the case for a family with a special needs child, a family with a relative who is
undocumented, and who risks potentially losing protections from our city sanctuary laws, or families with chronic health conditions whose treatment is reliant on remaining in san francisco. we do have an existing need to that has successfully transitioned 20 families just last year into housing that didn't have alternative housing options, but we are wanting to bid -- build on the success of this program. i will turn it over to jenny. >> hello. i will talk really quickly about the budget response. you will notice in our approach is that we are looking at whatever is in existence, and trying to get some of the folks that are quaintly quietly being underserved that are hidden. this four emergency responses here in terms of, you know, we need -- until we have housing for everyone. one is the housing navigator for the homeless families in the family access point, which is really desperately needed, and then we've got two pieces of this for youth. one is emergency housing for 105 youth, typically in a single room occupancy hotel in room.
those are youth are most in need and then a multi- service center for youth, which we have also been really needing, and overnight after him access. we have one in the tenderloin and one in the bayview. >> hi, thank you. i am for speaking about prevention, which seems to be the new word of the day. i wanted to talk briefly about the three measures we are using that are currently being funded per -- for prevention of homelessness in the city. they're keeping clients out of -- off the street, and invoice recidivism. we are advocating for an expansion of all of these programs. currently we keep shelter clients off the streets by ensuring that they have access to a hearing and advocate if they're going to be kicked out of the shelter. just to give you an understanding of what it looks like, the current rate of funding for advocates to deny
those services, which is when a shelter service will be kicked out of the street looks like this. we're talking in the fiscal year so far, 1,200 denials of services that took place in this fiscal year alone. that's 1,850, and we are advocating for an increase of the advocates so we can have four advocates in one manager. we're also talking about an increase in funding for rent -- right to council, and for funding to be available for emergency rental assistance for back rent, to be able to preserve tenants in their homes. we also wanted to talk a little bit about preventing recidivism by providing aftercare services to individuals who have been housed outside of san francisco, and making sure that for months and years after they have been rehoused, they have connections to the services that are available in the new county.
>> joe wilson, hospitality house as we plan for implementation of proposition c., which calls for significant expansion of housing and services, we also need to invest in expanding our workforce capacity to meet and deliver those services. a modest proposal that they're calling for. and expansion of the investment in workforce, particularly targeting a number of organizations that already have existing training programs, such as the community health worker program, the homeless prenatal program, potentially the chef's program, participation in the hospitality house in terms of it spee-5 engagement model, all of those investments will set us in good state as we expand our capacity to meet the ever-increasing need. i would be remiss if i didn't call out supervisor fewer for reminding us why we do this, and the scope of the solution has to
meet the scale of the problem. thank you for reminding me of that. >> i'm angela from the homeless prenatal program. finally we are asking for critical behavioral health services for homeless individuals and families and youth. the homeless population is especially vulnerable to mental health crisis, and therefore we are asking for these critical services. first the pop up mental health clinic, which will be regularly scheduled in impromptu clinics throughout the city to provide low barrier care and low barrier access to care. we are also asking that the mental health services for families are expanded to be able to provide mental health services on site in family shelters and with housing subsidy providers. and then finally, we are asking for a focus on ental health services for transgender youth. it will serve the san francisco
clinic, and mental health clinicians that will serve the youth access points for coordinated entry. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. so before i have questions, i think i would like to bring up the supportive housing provider 's network. >> good afternoon. i am one of the cochairs for the supportive housing provider network. we will be quite brief in our quick presentation. >> i'm dog, the other cochair. we have supportive ties. supervisor fewer, thank you so much and chelsea for having such an inclusive and informed process. >> thank you. >> the supportive housing provider network is actually a group of providers in san francisco that have, is one of
their line items of doing business is operating supportive housing. it could also include supportive services within the realm. so we got together around policy issues affecting permanent supportive housing, and all the things that tie into that, like i said earlier, could include supportive services. currently what we are experiencing is contracts to the tune of around $5 million per year. so what we would really like to see is a larger conversation around the structural deficit. we do have to acknowledge that the department did i prepare a lot of these contracts from a lot of other places, which had larger budgets, and in a number of ways can shift funding a ramp to cover some of these gaps. a lot of business being illuminated through the smaller budget of the new department and their ability to figure out how to approach staff that respect. some of us are currently working with them to figure out how we can address these gaps in what we can do, but again, with all of that, we are also expecting
$5 million a year gap. one of the things that we would like to bring up, in terms of the gaps and how this could really play out in the system of care is looking at what these issues may mean to folks living within our supportive housing. one could be an increased risk of eviction because not able to and retain highly skilled staff to do the case management work that is needed it for us, that is quite frankly real travesty. we don't want to see people lose their housing because we are unable to attract in and have staff engaged with residents as needed to address these issues that we can keep in house. other issues have been noted earlier and inability to attain new staff given the wages were able to pay. rev staff of very far away. i am one of those people. i travel from tracy every day to get to san francisco because i have a family. it is not affordable here to be able to live and work inside the city and county of san francisco
that is another one of those challenges. >> we also wanted to touch base on the need to fully fund the conversation ordinance. will be back for that, or from the controller's report, in addition -- this just keeps going, literally keeping the lights on and taking care of the basics of the operation. we are seeing a network of 50 nonprofits around the city. unprecedented vacancies, and an ability to hire at our current pay right. with fewer janitors, fewer caseworkers and fewer clerks, we are seeing the cracks in the foundation get bigger, and we are worried. i know many of the offices share our concern. supportive housing works, but it has to be funded and has to be funded fully. we are excited for all the new work that is coming, and we join our sisters and brothers with the priorities for those living on the streets tonight, and if we don't fully fund the existing work, our efforts with the new
work respectfully off to be questioned, and we are seeing with our own staff, we have seen more stuff become homeless in their first 90 days of employment and we have ever seen before. we see so many people living elsewhere and unable to get to work when there's an emergency or call a janitor who lives in vallejo to come help, it is a bigger ask them have ever had in the past. supervisor fewer, we join with your amazing remarks with the crisis we find ourselves in. we are excited to engage with the city and especially our most important partner and all of the great workers there with director kaczynski and his team on equal increased transparency with outcomes. we are excited to share our work and learn more from our peers then we already have on who is doing the best in each area and how we can all do better. wheat you could have more conversations about equity across contracts and neighborhoods, and we are particularly eagle -- eager to
do more to right the wrongs through racial equity, especially for those that we serve but equally for staff, thank you so much for inviting us and for your time and your work. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? supervisor stefani? >> thank you. first of all, thank you so much for your amazing work, all of you. i just had a quick question to expand upon the denial of services that you mentioned, what does that look like? >> the way it works is we have a shelter agreement policy in san francisco. it is one of its kind in the nation. what that does is ensure this due process any time a shelter claims that a shelter client has violated one of the rules, and what happens is the way it is supposed to work as the shelter
determines that there is a violation of the rule, and issues what is called a denial of service. and it is supposed to advise the shelter client of their right to a hearing and a right to have an advocate. that client then has the opportunity to say yes, i want to have an advocate at my hearing, and then the shelter client program is contacted to determine, to figure out when they can i can schedule someone to be available at the hearing. while the hearing is pending, that individual is on the street , and right now, we are seeing an average rate of about 20 to 30 calls to the shelter client program for hearing this, and we are seeing a delay of about two to three weeks for healy hearings healing hearings to be scheduled because of understaffing. >> and what timeframe? >> in a week. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen? >> in terms of the different
budget asks, i want to get a sense for both, what are the suppressions with the mayor's office and h.s.h.? where are those? do you have updates? >> i will let some be else answer that. >> sure, thank you. >> in terms of the department, we have met with them earlier this year and will probably go back and talk to them about these ongoing things. they understand the deficit. one of the struggles they have is there's not enough money to fund all of these issues, so they have been working agency by agency and some of these gaps but it is still a lot of need. we have been meeting with them and talking with them in addition to working with the mayor's office to figure out what this could look like. it is a large ask and we know that. quite frankly, these are ongoing these are not one-time only funding calls, so that is something that we will set up.
>> so you're in an ongoing discussions is basically where you are at. >> yes. >> have you talked to the department at all, are they in those meetings with you? >> we meet with the department but we have not met jointly with the department and the mayor's office. that's a be separate conversations. >> thank you for your question. we are also engaging in separate conversations, we have a meeting scheduled with the mayor's budget office this friday and every meeting with h.s.h. scheduled in early may. our ask has been distributed. >> c. have been giving them the same thing but you have not having feedback yet or heard back. >> not presently, no. >> okay. , thank you. >> seeing no other supervisors in the roster, let's open this up for public comment. i just wanted to say to the public, thank you so much for being so patient, and we anxiously wait to hear what you have to say.
thank you again for being so patient. thank you for our presenters, and we have cards here, but i'm not gonna call up the cards, please line up if you would like to speak. everyone has what one minutes. mr. wright, can you start us off >> sandra, don't cry, dear, i've got this. council had a proximally 28,200 homeless in this city overall bay area. we need to use the developer. this technique is being used in mountain view. mountain view is building 144 units for a mere $56 million. you use the, math, along with a formula of the governor handing down $500 million for homeless
people to get housing. you divide that 56 million into that 500 million, that means that you can build 944 apartment unit complexes. multi by that by three and you can build a 27 story apartment building complex for the homeless people the area where all this controversy is taking place, pertaining to the navigation center, and that demonstration just froze, i brought this up years ago but nobody would do it. they're doing it also in san mateo. they're building at 68 apartment building complex that is three stories. you do the math again and you could build 968 unit apartment building complexes. twenty-seven stories in the same light in the embarcadero. s.f. fewer, please. here is gavin newsom where he is
talking about the $500 million for the homeless people that i was telling you about. moreover, the councillor -- the council predicted it would cause $12.7 billion to haul -- how was the 28,000 people that we talked about. >> thank you, mr. wright. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is james, i work for the hospitality house and i'm coming to speak for the community because of what i am hearing from the community members is that the housing that they are living in is just not up to par with the roaches and the things that they have to endure when they are living in these homes,
and i directly count with some of the homeless as well, and some of the homeless are saying that that it is employment that they need, and it is hard to sustain employment when they are living down the streets and they don't have phones or things of that nature for sustained employment, and not only that, it is my concern because i work here in san francisco, but i don't live in san francisco because it is too costly to live here, but i commute back and forth, and one other thing i wanted to mention is i support the pitstop proposal because i walk up and down the streets and i see the waste and things on the ground, not only that, it is the children that i see that are
coming from school and have to walk back and forth up and down that street, and it's important for me as a health issue that i'm supporting this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the legal referral panel for aids. i would like to share with you at least one of the success stories for the eviction defence work that we do on behalf of people living with h.i.v. and aids. housing as a single biggest issue for our clients, in every month before our board of directors meetings, i share some success stories and in hopes of firing at our board members to raise funds to help leverage the city dollars that we have received. here is a recent one, and i will share with you a print that you
can share with your colleagues. 73-year-old san francisco resident and long-term h.i.v. survivor reached out to lrp for help in his eviction case. during the initial intake they discovered the client had defaulted the landlord had already secured a default judgement. they have scheduled the lock out seven days from the day we met with the client for his initial intake. we also discover the client had been living in a rent controlled apartment for 40 years. after an initial investigation. we learn to the client had been diagnosed with h.i.v. related dementia, cancer, and disabling aids. due to his cognitive impairment, they failed to fully understand the gravity of the situation and lrp needed to work quickly to preserve his housing. lrp began immediate negotiations with the landlord's attorney, and cleared with the landlord.
as a result, they prepared to litigate the issue to preserve the tendency. in two days, they prepared a stay of execution, setting aside time and emotion for the default judgement. i will quickly finish by saying that we were successful in getting the motion to shortage time, which encourage the landlord to settle at court and we were able to preserve this individual's 40 year tenancy. [indiscernible]. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm tony newman. we are here to support the 1 million-dollar budget ask. st. james employees more transgendered staff in any other company in san francisco with programs and transgender and gender nonconforming residents were asking for us to provide a rental subsidy, inclusion and safety, and establish dedicated
housing programs for trans folks thank you for your support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a legislative affairs officer for the youth commission i'm here to reiterate some of the interests in the subject matter of this hearing. particularly related to transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness. the 2017. in time count identified 1,600 unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness in san francisco, however, as of last year, san francisco only had one designated emergency housing facility which housed only 45 individuals, and there were less than 200 completed units of permanent supportive housing. with that in mind, we have several recommendations which we are going to reiterate. the first one is to complete the
2015 housing plan. the goal of which was to build 400 units of permanent -- permanent supportive housing by 2015, accounting the completed units and the ones that are in the pipeline, there is still only 280 that have been identified, so that's a deficit of 120. we always urge the committee to commit to this plan by establishing a new goal of 400 -- 400 units is not enough to serve the needs, and of course, build -- and navigation a navigation center is center is another program that has long been delayed that needs to be realized, and finally, we are urging her personality in funding to the size of the population within the larger population experiencing homelessness, and with that, we urge a consideration.
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, good afternoon, my name is natalie, i'm here with the coalition on homelessness. i am in support of the budget. we need to fight back and we need to have change for our people. this organization hit home. i want better homes, more housing opportunities, less evictions for our kids, film just single men, women, please change the system. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is sophia and i'm a member of the coalition of homelessness and they also work at a shelter. i'm asking the board thank you, i'm nervous. i'm asking the board to fund the budget for all families, seniors , disabled, transgendered
we need to spend this money on prevention of homelessness and eviction. i'm currently homeless, sleeping in a tent, i'm a mother of two, and a mother of two smart, beautiful kids that deserve a home, and affordable home. my kids currently don't stay with me because they need to go to school and they need to have a mindset on school and not worry about the cares of the world. i feel that the system needs a better system and better programming, better staff. i also, like i said, i'm a shelter monitor, and i feel like this system needs to get better because i had a voucher and i ended up losing it because i couldn't find anything and now i am back at square one.
how do we fix this problem? , also, we just need to get the shelter system fixed. i work at a shelter. i have clients there and they feel like it is prison and they shouldn't have to feel like that they should feel like it is home for kind of like home. you guys all have houses. help as homeless get this together. we can work together and make this happen. >> inc. you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm with senior and disability action. it feels like every year is the same thing, maybe this year we can get it back here, we especially would like to see more subsidies for seniors and people with disabilities, and
those subsidies should be permanent because if they cannot afford to pay their rent in six months, they won't be able to afford, you know, later on, so especially those that are -- that budget is very limited, so if they can be permanent, it would probably be better, also, to continue providing bands for those who are facing eviction, and, you know, when i was hearing the presentations, it looked to me that there is a lot of data that needs to be collected, and we didn't get it, so maybe you have the authority to ask for that and to present that data that we need to because everything looks like oh
, they are doing everything they can, what is it in comparison to what we really need? so maybe that would give us a better picture of what is needed in this city. okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. patrick is with me and also works with me and we will come by and comment to save time. i appreciate your time this afternoon and appreciate the work that is been happening to raise the and the the needs of young people experiencing homelessness. almost every presenter mentioned homelessness from the city which is great and i want to acknowledge the great work. we are here in support of the supportive housing network proposal and has that's proposal all of the asks are well talked about and designed and we want to really reiterate those. i want to put a fine point on something that will happen for us.
we have a part of an ask in the supportive housing network. we have a 35 bed transitional housing program. that will reduce to 18 beds at the start of the fiscal year if we don't receive additional funding. i will -- we will cap people moving and starting in may. the other thing that is not included in the ask us we have used shelter for under aged youth. one of two shelters. will also reduce that from a 16 bed shelter to eight been shelter starting in july because we are not able to continue to provide services with the funding that we have from the city, and i think it is just important to remember that young people expensing homelessness have an 80% i'm shelter to rate, and as has been noted, we have very few shelter emergency health and beds for them. i just wanted to underscore what this really means with the supportive housing network and has that when we are asking for this funding. it really is about making critical services and housing,
and is about meeting the needs of unsheltered folks on our streets. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you so much for having this incredible set of speakers, my name is ben, i work for the foundation i'm here to support the hess by and on behalf of cloud -- glad housing. and i have been hearing a lot of meetings with our various programs lately. i have been talking to housing, i have been talking to the children's center, i have been talking to the substance use related services, and there is such a diverse set of services that they all go back to housing , of course, and shelter -- shelters are not far behind, and the shelter climate advocates, and their service is so important. it really resonated with me that they are so understaffed, but i wanted to say something about employment. employment also gets short shifted.
there's a thought that maybe just down the line, but employment is the basis of what makes our service providers so effective, because we have so many people in the programs, managers as well as staff who have come to our programs because they got services, made connections and decided they wanted to give back and make their lives about the work, and those are our best people. those are the people who have been there for ten years, they are rock stars, and whenever we have any sort of an opportunity for employment, there are people who say yes, give it to me, those are the people who won props he and those are the people i would love to see supported especially. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is melanie, i'm a human rights commissioner and also on the transgender advisory committee for the