in the city of santa cruz we have reviewed their program. they had a very active secondary unit implementation program that encouraged and minimized growth and density. part of the success of their program is that they require the property owner to actually live in one of the units. trying to make sure that it becomes a family operation and not just a rental unit. the nature of the tenants and potential impact on neighbors', and as for assisted living that is another option where we could move into some kind of facility where some services are provided. assistance with personal care

and meals provided. it is an option, somewhat of a limited option. there are no plans for expansion or growth from the experts that we talked to. there are 6850 right now. it does not provide a high number of options for the senior population. finally, by the way, in our report you have a lot more information on the things i have discussed. i wanted to give some of the highlights this morning. what we did with all of this, then, is prepare some legislative options for the programs that seem to be effective elsewhere. what we might have here could be expanded nonprofit. considering the demographic

information and a large number of seniors, the income distribution of seniors, diversity, ethnicity, and language, all towards the goal of assisting seniors in their place in the community. we are also mindful that this is not a great expanse for the budget year in san francisco. looking for programs that appear to be effective at no great cost. we have provided some options here. preparing cost estimates based on the assumptions about the interest and use in the program. details are provided in the report on the assumption that we used to come up with cost. the first option was to go back to one of the programs i mentioned in the beginning where

whole modification services were provided at a low cost to seniors. cut back since 2008 and 2009, the department of health providing direct services. >> [inaudible] >> i think it was the department of public health. i would have to check on that. recognized as reinstating the level of funding from 2008 and 2009. estimated annual cost, providing more out reach and liking to provide more services for home modifications. about $435 for modification. highly effective in terms of

making small changes in getting back to the guard rail idea. the second one here, it is a rebate program accessibility modifications, expanding on the idea of low-cost modifications for the homeowner at for landlords. so that there could be repairs reimbursed by the city up to $500 per unit. and then an incentive payment for the landlord as well, encouraging them to participate in providing some kind of remuneration. the total cost would be $1,000 per year it, split between the landlord and the cost of the

modifications made. tenant relocation options. that number is not coming across well. again, with the idea of aging in the community and landlords being able to move their tenants down to the first floor of the building to make it more accessible and easy to get out, having limited ability -- limited mobility, we recommended a rebate program with a cost based on a certain number of relocations each year. some other options that have subsidized the senior village program, there is a lot of information about the village

programs in the report. having been proven successful elsewhere, this would allow low- income seniors to participate in the program. we found it very appealing as it provides an array of services so that they can choose from a number of different things. if they need assistance in all maintenance, they can access those services and go back and forth. offering a lot of options. which would be very effective. we also recommend no. 5, funding for halftime employees to do more outreach.

we thought that there could be a benefit to having more out reach to a broader based population for the village approach. the sixth one has to do with second units related to the home sharing issue in particular. renting out their second bedroom in some cases for fear that they would be unable to remove the tenants that did not work out. we recommended exemptions from the rent control provisions specific to senior home sharing arrangements. but the seventh one is to amend city planning codes to allow more secondary units for seniors. possibly restrictions on parking so that additional parking would not be required

within a certain radius of a transit stop. also, the santa cruz approach where the property owner would be in the house themselves. there are not necessarily costs associated with that. there is preparation for amendments and doing the research required. something i have not really talked about, it came up as we were reviewing the home sharing possibilities. for some is for company but for others of his financial. programs that have some appeal

and could assist in the supplement of income. what we did not find was a good sense of income provided by someone not trying to sell it one person mortgage. what we recommended was neutral information about reverse programs. accessible to seniors so that they could make the decision as to whether or not that was something they wanted to pursue. finally, conducting reviews for post-hospital discharge programs. following up on the brain county approach. >>supervisor mar: there are

currently programs under hud where the mayor's office could have accounting programs. >> i think that that would be very logical. a good place to have that kind of information. finally, just following up on that last point, streamlining some of those programs for post- hospital discharge services, particularly project independence. considering the attempts to streamline something as well toward unaided as the representatives from adult services would like. that is the summary of the report. as i mentioned, there is a lot more detail in here. we can respond to any of these questions after the comments are over.

supervisor mar: i wanted to thank fred and sarah for their work on the report and i know it went to many revisions. i really appreciate the hard work and research you have done hopefully it is the beginning of creative solutions and ideas to the growing senior population in our communities. before i get to the number of speakers that have signed up, are there any question that you have for fred or sarah? supervisor avalos: in my neighborhood, ocean view heights, pohick on the 30th we will have a bill that day to do modifications for senior homes in that part of the city.

if you want more information about that, you can contact my office. we want to make sure that we have as much information out there for the rebuilding day on april 30. supervisor mar: we emphasize that the seventh disco population of seniors is significantly bigger than los angeles, san jose, or even sacramento. a tremendous senior population. given the numbers, in 2007 it was 145,000 people. in 2008 it went up to 160,000 people. the demographic projections from the community survey of the senses and other sources shows

that by the year 2013 the population is one to jump up 50%. another 80,000 seniors. from 2010, 2011, we will see 80,000 seniors. we were commenting that it would be 10 to 12 years, give or take a year, that we will become part of that population. becoming seniors by about 12 years or 13 years. i wanted to of knowledge other communities that have been in place. the council that a number of others were a part of, other studies with good recommendations. one thing that came out of the living with dignity with many

threats in meeting the needs of seniors in terms of funding, as fred broughton, to the lack of collaborative planning a month's service providers, also an anticipated budget cuts that come every single year for funding streams from other sources. building at the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. there are right in front of us as well. long, long waiting lists for housing. there are many threats before us. i think the strength of the committee that my office has held to pull together is that the nonprofit senior-based organizations have been at the center of advocacy.

the budget analysts office did great work. the driving force that is making sure that we implement those ideas for the long-term coordinating council comes from the act of them of north beach divisions. i wanted to come by their organizations first. calling the names of those that sign up, the first is arthur chang and joanie levie from ssf. after them are a number of people from sf village, the first kind of village model in the city that we have.

gail gary, susan poor, claudia luis, and vera hale -- who is a part of the coordinating council, a longtime activist within the organization. also on here is the senior action network that has been centrally involved. we have been the trainer and others from the senior action network. let me just introduce arthur chang. >> two weeks ago everyone from

the senior care health services game addressed the city for its attention to seniors. it was a rainy day and i am here to reiterate some of the requests. the fact that the senior population is growing so rapidly, census has shown that each day 10,000 individuals across the senior line of becoming a senior through the census data. i want to thank the supervisor for taking the leadership in initiating this report, which i find to be one of the most comprehensive, cogent and useful informational reports we have put out. it also shows that what is lacking in the city -- on page

12 and 13 you will find that 51% of the seniors are under the poverty line. the city needs a more comprehensive program and a makeshift modest proposal but you must look at. we may be entering into a period of continuous budget shortfalls. the city must have a program that is not discussed here at all. there are 12 communities that have the advantage initiative. looking at a comprehensive approach to these problems and needs of seniors. i think that that is what the city should take, rather than a piecemeal approach. thank you. supervisor mar: a thank-you. gayle gary?

i wanted to have those different groups that are represented coming up together. joanie levy, as well? >> we have four more people from ssf. supervisor mar: then let me quickly call [reads names] from next sf. >> first i would like to thank all of you for taking this into consideration. especially for investing in this study that the budget analysts office. i know at least a few of you. i am the president of next sf.

we are the village in the northeast plaza and a volunteer first, neighborhood service organization, promoting friends and neighbors, pointing out that 10 years ago 23% of our population by and the plaza were 65 years of age or older. having increased by 65% at least. showing in the 2010 census that 26%. that large percentage of the population, 14% of those people live alone. that is truly a catastrophe about happened. next sf, our vision and purpose, our goal is to keep people engaged in involved in the community. thereby preventing the two

really terrible things in aging. bitches isolation -- which is isolation. people are far more sick and were seriously ill. depression is the second thing that comes from isolation. we want to do everything we can to prevent that. we are doing this through social events and outreach to the neighborhood. staying in touch with people. family visits. [tone] supervisor mar: please try to wrap up. >> we really need one full-time person to help this all volunteer army to reach out and keep us organize, bringing people into being involved and

engaged. not to staying at home and being depressed. we offer transportation to doctors, groceries, and we are for all sorts of other engagements. i want to thank you. i want to please ask you to fund us at a higher level. about $75,000 for one full time person. we could reach so many more people. thank you. >> howard wong from teh board of next sf. we all know that the increasing demands of the growing senior population are growing institutions which are all facing increasing financial strains in the coming years.

meanwhile, all surveys, most seniors would like to stay connected at present in their own homes and communities for very obvious reasons. the existing services that we have now are geared much more for those that are eligible and those that can afford better services. so, we have many fine facilities for low-income people. and very loud uraeus senior residential buildings. as well as many other fine amenities.

they are often left to their own resources, which are increasing the declining. income levels may be stable and dropping. the broad middle class is not well equipped as senior living approaches quickly. what we do need, obviously, is a much more neighborhood by neighborhood, village by village, neighbor to neighbor culture of caring. traditional networks that are lower cost -- thank you. supervisor mar: thank you.

>> supervisors, my name is janet crane of next sf. i have one example of how one volunteer village can help. some of in her eighties she developed paranoia and many friend did not recognize this was an early sign of mount dementia and withdrew their company. at that point, she had outlived her relatives except one in eastern canada and she was low income. a few neighbors kept up their friendship with her. and she began to fall while shopping, route began to decline, several neighbors assisted her in her home and got her the help she needed. we obtained power of attorney, delivered medical and grocers supplies, managed her finances.

eventually, we hired a wonderful home care professional to look after her. she had visitors but died at 91 in her home. her resources would have been completely exhausted in another two months. if neighbors had not stepped in to manage the situation, all live would have to have been taken i care of by public programs much earlier. now the village movement has grown to organize and encourage this type of name for network in the face of growing senior population and diminishing resources, it is important villages develop these resources and make this a recognizable and reliable way of helping communities. thank you. >> my name is patricia born. i, on the board of sf next.

janet has given a nice example of the way that critical support can be provided to elders who would otherwise be forced to draw on public-sector resources. by the spontaneous action and good neighbors. next sf is not fully functioning in its formal manner. we have already provided some of the spontaneous, neighborhood support. let me read a note. i would like to express my support for next sf. last year i had an injury that required several injuries. i had no family members in this city, so i got in touch with next sf to help me. they have helped me through a difficult time and i am deeply appreciative. these are hard news stories of

old tiny neighborly ness in action, but we cannot rely on such good luck. frail individuals will have to connect to a number of willing individuals, but i am sorry to say, most will not. what next sf is all about is finding a way to systemize such serendipity. at the heart of our program is a program called neighbor to neighbor. we know what they love to do, are willing to do, and when they are available. we are developing a database that will allow us to find the right match when someone needs help. we use on-line tools to help communicate with them and track them so that a minimum of staff hours are used. we see nothing less than the creation of community 21st century style. we call our neighbors neighbors, not volunteers. we aim to growth in our

communities and help out. being connected to those around us is simply and not so simply a taken for granted part of life. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am dr. amy it there, an emeritus professor and former chair of the department of counseling at san francisco state university. one of my accomplishments during my tenure in the department was creating and implementing a specialization n gentle on the counseling in partnership with the master's program in gerontology more than 15 years ago. i am a friend, if you will, of the next program, as i a