Denied help, 350 more extremely lowincome seniors are added to the 75,000. Theyll be excluded from new Affordable Housing. 4,000 by the year 2030. 4,000, in addition to the 75,000. Were in danger of homelessness and were in danger of being trapped in our homes, which are not a. D. A. Accessible. As a group, were left out of the calculations, as City Affordable Housing income requirements and opportunities have been moved to higher incomes. Seniors are not the only ones, of course, left out of these qualifications. When we need to accommodate everyone. But lets start with the seniors. [bell ringing] we have no options. We have serious disabilities and other situations. We cant go out and get three jobs. And even if we can work, one parttime job, were faced with widespread age discrimination. Its up to the board to set policy to cure this inequality. Its emerging. Its here. Its relentlessly growing. Please support s. O. S. Save our seniors from this crisis of inequality. [bell ringing] thank you. Good morning, again. Marie. Representing the Dignity Fund Coalition. What were passing forward to you is a letter thats signed by over 20 organizations in support of the measure today to highlight the recommendations, one to support and fully fund the s. O. S. Housing affordability demonstration program. Two, to commit to build more affordable senior housing. And to really commit ourselves to an ongoing effort to meet the needs of seniors and adults with disabilities. As a Dignity Fund Coalition representative, were really proud of what we were able to do in terms of getting more services available, but that legislation also dictated a comprehensive Needs Assessment, and that Needs Assessment puts a very fine and impassioned plea to do something about the lack of affordable, accessible housing for people here in the city. If you take a few minutes to scan down the list of those who have supported this measure, youll see its a good a good group of folks who really care about the citizens in San Francisco. And the residents here and are committed to support this measure. If you make your way all the way to the bottom of this letter, youll see a picture, a chart. Really a chart, picture is sometimes worth a thousand words. When you see here is what you see here is a chart that shows the substantial part of the older adults of San Francisco are categorically excluded from the Affordable Housing housing t youre building. Its another kind of red lining and its not okay. And its not fair or just. [bell ringing] so we just ask that you move forward and support this measure today with the amendments that the supervisor yee has presented. Thank you. Good morning, chair ronen, supervisors walton and mar and board president yee. Im the director of Housing Development for chinatown c. D. C. As chair ronen noted, we, along with our partners at meta, are currently developing 1296 shotwell. The building designed to serve lowincome seniors. While we run our buildings efficiently, the cost to operate this building is about 857 per unit, per month. Since the building has no commercial or wealth are residents to cross subsidy, we need each household to pay that level of rent. That limits our ability to serve lowincome and extremely lowincome seniors. S. O. S. Provides an opportunity for us to serve a broader range of needs for lowincome seniors. While theres still some challenges, some issues to be resolved and the timing of this legislation is challenging for our project, we have confidence that we can work with kate and o. C. D. To o. These issues and get a program in place to benefit e. L. I. Seniors at 1296 shotwell. Were excited to serve a broader range of need for lowincome seniors. Thank you. Supervisor ronen thank you. Any other member of the public who would like to speak on the item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] president yee. President yee thank you very much. I want to thank the public for coming out. And this is really the beginning of finding some solutions for the those seniors that are on those fixed incomes, and even those that are a little above fixed income to qualify. And, you know, maybe if i have more time, i would have just said, well, lets wait a couple years and figure out the longterm solution. But i think this is the shortterm solution, that can that we could actually implement right away. So i want to thank all of the community members, faith in action, c. T. A. , Community Living campaign, senior disability action, dignity fund, c. D. C. And other organizations that have chimed in into this issue. Now faith in action actually came to visit my office last week. And i was fortunately there. And they put out, you know, the issues beyond what this can solve. I made a commitment to them that they and i want to announce it today, that in regards to your longterm, you know, broader fix, for those so we can actually, as someone mentioned, that this fixes so that seniors can actually just pay 30 of their income, regardless if theyre on fixed income or a little bit above. So i will be, as i mentioned to them, forming a working group that will look at those solutions that we could actually work on. So in the next most likely i wont form it until after our august recess, since we only have a few weeks left. But thats my commitment. I just want to make sure faith in action, other groups that are here, that we will be reaching out to you to see if you have interest in being part of that committee. Thank you. And what i ask is that you we go ahead and make those amendments and pass it on to committee for positive recommendation, as amended. Supervisor ronen fantastic. If we can take the amendments without objection, those amendments pass unanimously. And then if we all make a motion to recommend, as amended, to the full board and without objection, that motion passes unanimously. [gavel] president yee thank you. Supervisor ronen thank you, president yee. Growing gracias. Mr. Clerk, can you please read item number 3. Ill see you on friday. [laughter] very effective organizing. [laughter] clerk item number 3, is a Charter Amendment to amend the charter of city and county of San Francisco to create the Homelessness Oversight Commission to oversee the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing. To require the commissioner to review and disapprove or modify criteria to be used to ascertain eligibility or priority for programs and or services operated or provided by the department. The opening or closer of homeless shelters, navigation shirts or other facilities to provide shelters to unsheltered persons and contracts and grant agreements with annual value exceeding 200,000. Supervisor ronen thank you very much. And supervisor haney is the sponsor of this measure has joined us. Supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you, chair ronen and youre also a coauthor of it. Supervisor ronen thats right. Supervisor haney thank you so much for having me here today to hear this important item. So in february, we were approached by Service Providers asking us to look into how we could facilitate stronger policies to address homelessness, through increased transparency, public input and accountability. Since then weve been working with the deputy of homelessness and Supportive Housing and the Mayors Office to carefully craft a common sense proposal to ensure a more coordinated and streamlined response for our citys number one priority, getting people off the street quicker. Everyone agrees were in a crisis, as evidented by the point in time count, despite increasing investments in Supportive Housing, services and measures to prevent homelessness, were still seeing the problem in many ways getting worse. We all agree we need to deliver more Effective Service to get people into shelter and Supportive Housing. Weve also heard from everyone, from the mayor during last years prop c campaign that we need more accountability. And we need to Work Together. Disjointed, patchwork and slow decisionmaking hurts the people we are trying to serve, from the state to the local level, governments are getting more creative and acting with more urgency to address homelessness and we need to continue pushing to do the same. We consider multiple options to address these challenges. Could we modify and strengthen our current advisory committees . Should we make more internal changes in the department . And what we found was actually pretty obvious and i think common sense. Nearly every city department, with a budget over 10 million, has a formal Oversight Commission that provides support to the department and creates a public venue where decisions can be made. The fact that the department of homelessness does not have one is the exception and not the normal. The department commissions have long been part of the fabric of San FranciscoCity Government and public engagement. The fire, rec and park, library, Police Department, department of public health, airport, d. B. I. , i could go on and on, all have one. Its only served to expand the departments ability to enact and speed up thoughtful, effective policies and streamline and centralize public dialogue. They play a Critical Role in many of our citys leaders, from our current mayor to many past and current members of the board of supervisors, have served on commissions and recognize their value. The standard role of a commission is to defined in the charter. They do more than advise, they have the formal authority to approve or disapprove policies and budgets. They hold Public Meetings and hearings reviewing and approving policies for the department, guiding overall strategies and making recommendations to the mayor, the board of supervisors. Theyre a function of Good Government and protect the publics interest in open government, transparency and good policy. And they provide informed recommendations and insure Due Diligence. Instead of a formal streamlined approach to oversight and governance, the department currently has six different advisory committees, five that are currently operating. They have advisory functions relating to a particular narrow piece of the overall system. The result is a patchwork, unwieldy, unpredictable burdensome structure that fails to provide effective oversight. No one, including the department, thinks that the current approach is working. When we set out to form this commission, we had three primary goals. One, more streamline and coordinated support for those experiencing homelessness and those living in Supportive Housing. This includes a more coordinated and simple advisory and oversight structure, that allows the public to have a centralized venue to provide feedback to a body that has real recognized authority and power. Secondly, more accountable decisionmaking, where a commission can have formal authority and exercise the power of inquiry. They can ask the tough questions about the departments plans, its strategies and accelerate timelines and more effective responses. And thirdly, more transparent budgeting and spending. A problem that has been identified by the mayor, by advocates and by those experiencing homelessness. So what we have crafted here today, with a handful of amendments that i hope this committee will adopt, accomplishes meeting the departments strategic goals by taking this patchwork advisory structure and better coordinating it, by having all bodies report to the commission. Secondly, creating a clear public venue for members of the public, people experiencing homelessness, experts and advocates to learn about and influence proposed policy and budget changes. For providers and people senioring homelessness, this is an important way for them to be informed about policy changes that may impact them directly. For example, would be a place where the department could present on the recent pit count report, give their plans for next steps, and provide a venue for experts impacted people in the public to learn about those plans and provide input into them. Third, creating a venue to create stronger policies without delay. The commission would be empowered to investigate contracting delays and set timelines and goals for policies to speed things up. Fourth, having the commission approve the budget, which will provide transparency and inform the mayor and board of supervisors as they approve the city budget. Importantly, no advisory body heard the budget this year until it was approved. Theyre only one of the large departments that did not have the same level of review as most other large departments, before the budget was brought in front of the board of supervisors. Five, creating more buyin by bringing together diverse stakeholders. This will support the implementation of new policy directives, by making sure that providers are informed about new requirements, eligibility, et cetera. And be able to communicate and implement them. The appointment structure itself was very intentionally created. It supports shared governance, three of the appointments will be from the mayor. Three from the board of supervisors and one from the controller, which is a change from our initial proposal. The appointments themselves are people with direct experience and expertise, including individuals who experienced homelessness and provide direct services. The second draft that im bringing forward today, i think you all have a copy of it, was republic fleck reflects a number of changes. As i said, the seven appointment seats a new line specifies that commissioners may be removed by their appointing authorities at any time. We explicitly state the commissioners shall set agendas. The commission explicitly has the authority to assess the departments effective and Timely Delivery of services. The new version removes the jurisdiction of commission to approve or disapprove contracts procured under the shelter crisis ordinance. It removes the requirement that all shelters be approved by the commission and requires that the board of supervisors introduce trailing legislation to clean up and coordinate the existing advisory structure to the department. The local homelessness coordinating board, s. M. C. , the shelter monitoring committee, our city, our Home Committee will now report to the commission. And the ordinance is already being drafted and the board would be required to pass that ordinance by the time the committee is seated. These changes take into account the daytoday experiences of Service Providers, who are implementing the departments policies, as well as the daytoday operations of the department and their longterm strategic plans. Before i wrap up, i want to clarify two things. First, an example of the powerful role that commissions play. The Police Commission may be one of the more wellknown commissions, has been able to accomplish significant policy changes in recent years, including improving the Police Departments response to violence against women and children, expanding the use of technology to solve crime, reforming the citys use of force policy, instituting bodyworn cameras to increase transparency and improving policecommunity relations. I think its hard for us to imagine a Police Department without a Police Commission at this stage. Second, i want to respond directly to the idea that this commission will slow things down on add bureaucracy. No one has ever said the Fire Commission makes it harder for the Fire Department to respond to emergencies. No one has ever said the rec and Park Commission makes it harder for our city to open new parks. And i dont think anyone has said because we have an airport commission, that planes wont take off. Commissions are a critical, integral part of our citys government, because they are there to ensure that the job gets done, not that it gets delayed. Theyre made up of people who we have appointed for that very purpose. In this case, people who have direct experience with homelessness or are providers. Currently if a decision, policy or response is delayed or buried in the department, there is no public venue to hold the department to timelines and ask tough questions. With all due respect, i dont know anyone who believes by leaving decisionmaking solely to bureaucrats, that things are going to move faster. Thats not the experience that most of us have with government. The reason why we have commissions is so that we can share our plans with the public and allow them to give input and hold us accountable for those plans, including results and timelines. When we dont get it right, when we dont listen to those with direct experience, when we dont take public input on the front end, were not only more likely to cause delays, but more likely to get it wrong and repeatedly start back over. Lastly, we are doing the opposite of adding bureaucracy with this proposal. We are taking a patchwork, unpredictable, burdensome advisory structure, that we currently have, that nobody thinks is working, and aligning with every other large city department, with the goal of streamlining, centralizing and clarifying. This will save time, add clarity and reduce barriers to Effective Service delivery. In closing, homelessness is too big of a priority to not treat the department with the same Due Diligence we do every err other department that controls a large budget. It is both unreasonable and reckless t