housing, and there is a wait list. and but the housing authority over the past two years, based upon, you know, lots of conversations with the community, have prioritized and have created ipreference for homeless and for the veterans. and is it considering creating a preference and it means a few things, supportive housing if this does go forward, i know that they are talking about it now, and but, if that preference does go forward, it means that making sure that they get on the wait list and the only process that the housing authority has is a wait list process and that is how it is with the federal regulations but that has been used successfully, on in the past by the departments to get their clients on to a wait list. and then, the other question

is, the lack of services when they go to the public housing site. and will there be some way, that, as we transition a household, or our individual firms from the supportive housing to the public housing, is or will there be the appropriate level of service for that individual or family, for them to be successful? >> and how do we pay for the transition? someone living in supportive housing has probably no furniture right? and moving into the public housing it is not furnished and how do we deal with that to make that happen? i think that the last question, is, as trent said earlier as we move to the question of working on supportive housing we really called it permanently supportive and because we always, you know, when the old notion of transitional housing, was well, great, but what do

you transition to at the end of two years? >> again, in terms of approving the existence system, both increased and decrease td levels of services for our

residents, and getting, residents into the right type of housing. you know, again, what we as we are working with the housing authority, we clearly know that there are service needs in the public housing. and one of the goals of you know, the reenvisioning is insuring that they get access to the services that are appropriate for them. >> and i think that one of the critical things, in terms of, and the other part of it is just in terms of, our portfolio over all. and you know, this is not quite like having a monolythic authority and transfer of roles and things like that but how can we facilitate the movement of residents who are housed to the appropriate levels of service and in terms of you know, priorities and you know,

through the access points or something along those lines so that we can work together and make the decision for those residents. and i think that you know one of the things that has been a very, very troubling is the question of, and you know, in supportive housing or in subsidized housing especially in rent subsidized housing you know the notion of someone not paying the rent and being evicted through the non-payment of rent and we need to do something like that because at the moment they are paying 30 percent of their income and sometimes less than that and maybe if they are housing authority and they have low income. and 50 dollars a month and for them to be evicted over non-payment of rent is really something that we should be able to correct and it means that we have to fund the money management and we have to have the participation of those residents in those programs and have to make sure that the owners and operators of those or that housing you know will facilitate, you know having

those residents move in to money management. and maybe, and often, the non-payment of rent in those circumstances is just one system of a larger issue and related to those households but they are housed and it is a lot easier to keep them housed, than to, you know, have them fallout of the system back on to the streets. >> could i ask you a question? do you think and if you take in enhanced coordinated model up front and the right houses verses the mobility in the supportive housing units and as you talk about the supportive housing and the rights and making sure that the people feel secure in their housing, both have their own practical implication theres but, from your perspective, better to do it up front? or better to expend the resources to be flexibility down the road? >> and i think that you need both, because we never, and you know, we can't and no one predicts the future perfectly and people's lives circumstances change and so we

actually need both and in terms of, and clearly in terms of trying to you know prioritize the highest users and get them, you know appropriately housed through the sort of the coordinated access points from the beginning is great. i think that the fact that we moved to access points. and it was a great movement in terms of our ability to serve the chronically homeless and to the extent that we can improve upon that through a coordinated assessment and i think that makes it even better, i think that the whole question is that people change over time, and their needs change over time and we talk a little bit, and we are focused on sort of exits for the people who are getting better but it also works the other way and we have to be flexible and the services have to be there and so that again, we can get the people on to the right housing and so i would say that we need both. >> and i think that one of the things that we clearly need, and this is especially to, and as we are trying to serve, and extremely low income people,

and to the extent that we can rely on the federal gto provide the rent subsidy sos that the entire burden does not fall on the general fund, and because for every building that we have project based vouchers and we are serving the supportive housing, and the dph or hsa or not funding, you know, the operating side of that building. but they are able to fubd the services for that building and focusing on services so clearly to the extent that we can bring, more project and vouchers to the city to serve this needy population and i think that we will be able to do more with the same amount of general fund if that was the case. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah, mr. lee i just wanted to ask what models from other cities where you seen to create that ladder out of homelessness? that is the first question and the second one is how do european social democracies with a strong social net fund critical programs like we are

trying to do? and i am wondering if you have any thoughts in either of those questions. >> and i think that the city that probably most familiar with is new york city. there is a lot of similarities between what we have tried here and what new york has tried. and some things that they have started first, and other things that we started first. but, both serving, you know, a population, that is you know, chronically homeless. and you know, i think they are faced with exactly the same issue that we are. and i don't think that there is a magic bullet out there in terms of you know, if we adopt this one, you know, aspect to it, we solve, you know, sort of, you know, all of this and all of the questions of the exits and you know, part of it, and it is resources and the mayor just announced yesterday a 200,000 unit program, to

build housing over the next you know, ten, or 6 years, i think. and you know, and the scale of the resources are tremendous, and their scale of the problems is equally tremendous. and but i don't think that, there is a magic bullet out there that really solves this question of the exits and i think that clearly, the more support that we have in terms of affordable housing and the more opportunities that we are creating and for us, and here in the city, and it is talking with our colleagues, in both of the dph and hsa about getting people on to the right type of housing, and being consistent with the fair housing is you know, something that we need to do. and also trying to balance all of the affordable housing needs in the city, including those who are not currently homeless, but they are under housed or crowded or over paying, and we

are trying to balance, all of those competing housing needs as we, you know, we try to and we add to the affordable housing pipeline, and you know, i think that what we are trying to do the right thing in the city which is trying to build the affordable housing as we can afford and i think that to the extent that we can do more of this, and we were thinking about in the mixed and we have a lot of mixed buildings where 20 percent of the units are set aside for the supportive housing units and 80 percent are not set aside and the question is what can those units float so as the people, you know, don't need the supportive service, they float to the 80 percent units and we create a opportunity for another, you know, 20 percent,

you know, for somebody who needs a higher level of service and so i think that this process is a good process for us to think about this question. and but, again, i don't think that there is a magic bullet to it. >> and then, lastly, again, you know, just sum up by saying, you know, case management, coordinated assessments and section 8, and i think that those are some of the keys to helping us, and not necessarily, solve this problem, but they could be you know, a tool, to help, now, increase the level of mobility and get the people to the right type of housing. thank you. >> >> thank you, mr. lee. and colleagues, any further questions? >> okay. so, at this... supervisor avalos? >> i just want to make a quick comment to mr. lee, mr. lee?

we are all multitasking here i just wanted to say thank you for your work on the upper yard. and helping to get support from the mta to have the lower cost for the purchase. >> yeah. >> we appreciate it. >> thanks. >> and you know, again, you know this is about, you know those are opportunities that we can create and we look forward to creating the housing and working with the community to identify those needs and in the surrounding neighborhood that we can address with that development. >> great, thanks. >> okay, well, thank you colleagues and members of the public that have been listening to this, that is the end of our speakers from the city agency and so i want to thank everyone for participating in the department to get the presentations ready and your continued work. we are going to open it up to public comment. and everyone will have two minutes and i have a number of

speaker cards here. and i want to call up nathanial player and if you come up in this order, gill gilman. and aer an caviyama and patrick baris heath, kenp, and james tracy and i will keep calling people after we start to cycle through. >> >> good morning and thank you for your time and for having this hearing supervisors. and i am the supervisoring attorney at the we provide legal service and eviction and we provide the services for 94 percent of the tenants who respond to the evictions in san francisco. and we also provide the rental assistance to the significant number of tenants facing the eviction for non-payment of rent. and our office helped over 600 households receive direct

financial assistance and avoid homelessness. we are particularly concerned about evictions from publicly funded units and i gave the committee some numbers on that and over 26 percent of evictions in 2013 were from the city funded units. and since 2009 there have been 1067 for those who receive the city funding and it is a part of the work to defend the eviction laws from the city funded units and just a little bit about the eviction process. it happens very quickly. and the first step is to get a notice and then the tenant only has three days to respond to that. and three short days and if they don't respond, then the land lords starts a lawsuit and, if they do not respond if five days, the tenant can be evicted from the start of that three weeks. it can be a quick process, contrary to what the people think that it is a slow process and takes a long time.

>> because it is such a fascinating process and because in the units often have a difficulty navigating the process, they need extra timing and extra help, even though there are 25 percent of our number of clients and they take up more time because they have a harder time processing the information often times. and we do see a significant number of evictions from agency such as tender loin development corporation and the housing, and housing and... >> keep going if you want to finish up. >> 44 percent of these cases are for non-payment of rent, and 40 percent are for nuisance cases and many are for, things like failing to properly recertify your agreement. >> i have patrick here who has more details about issues, when our rental assistance team tries to work with housing providers. could you talk about that?

>> thank you. >> i think that i was later on. but it is better if i just go now. >> go ahead. >> so, yeah, we find that the number one reason that people are getting evicted is for non-payment, and so, our evc created a program called rental assistance loan program where people can come in who have a one time emergency and be able to pay their rent so they don't lose their place. we receive most of our funding from the hsa and then as well as the mayor's office of housing and it has been helpful and i thought that i would give you the stats about what has been happening since the new year, organization has saved 268 house holds from going into the eviction process. 168 of those or 63 percent had people who were disabled and 45 of those house holds or 17 percent had a senior, and 18 percent of 47 household had a

single parent . where our money is mostly going to, is also to city subsidized housing, of the 268, people that we have helped ofar, 54 percent have gone to the city subsidized housing and about 42 or 16 percent have gone to the federally subsidized housing and the remaining 30 percent are going to private housing. and then the biggest users of our program are the beneficiary in terms of land lords is the clinic followed by the community housing partnership and the ecs and mersy housing and so a lot of our work, is i feel going through the supportive housing, and where maybe, it should be best handled within and i could give you the examples of situations where they were coming in to our office for very, very small amounts, we are talking less than $200 and facing evictions

for amounts that are i could just give you example just this week, i have two cases one person is facing eviction for less than $250, and one for the second one is for $less than $150 and when you think about the grand cost, and financially and to the human, it is just a really bad system. thank you. >> okay. >>er an cavina and i am here with the bar association of san francisco. and so approximately 250 full scope eviction cases per year and i am the only attorney on staff. and half of those cases involve people who are being evicted from publicly subsidized housing and they are the most vulnerable and they have small children or the people with

poor english, and it is hard for them to reenter or rerent. and if we can't, or if edc or any other the organizations can't save that person's housing that person is likely to become another homeless statistic in the city and have a very hard time climbing out of that as you have heard from all of the testimony today. a lot of these people have waited for years to get in their subsidized housing so to be evicted for $150 or some other reasons such as an action that is due to their disability, that needs to be accommodated, hording, cluttering and things that services could possibly intervene and improve that person's situation, and so we work hard to try to save these types of housing to make sure that these people don't become evicted for something that can be helped. and in order to end homelessness or for work towards ending homelessness and we have to recognize that

reducing evictions is key and to do that, we need to increase, services support services on site, and in the city to people who need it and also, to make sure that people received fair representation in the eviction process, the people who have already gotten that far. and on a related note i would like to add that to urge the community to consider having a hearing and taking testimony about a very specific population in the city that is homeless, that fills the most shelters the majority of the clients and on the streets and that is single adult men who particularly those who have mental illness and that population i have heard gets ignored and there is not as many services for those people. >> i have cards, bill hersh renken and ralenmix on and nick sarama. >> good morning, supervisors i

am gale gilman and i am the executive director of the community partnership, we have 500 units, and we are excited that you are having this hearing today and the community fundamentally thinks that we should be having a discussion, you will hear from the former tenants who have successfully transitioned out of supportive housing and i think that it was farrell or mar what housing type are they going into? while there is no formal tracking we know that the number one place that they are placed is in san francisco housing authority units. you will hear from the family and single adults who successfully thrive there paying 30 percent of the income and to maintain the housing. and i did also want to add one other thing from the previous speaker. and as someone who is also a landlord, often times tenants are served with papers to go to eviction for non-payment of rent and at community housing

partnership we never evict anyone we use it as a tool to enter into a conversation and agreements and to work out the payment plans and we have less than a one percent eviction rate and we do use it as a tool and that is an important tool to have them come forward and i would also like to talk about the two pilot programs to enhance the housing latter and we are in conversations with the hampton family center that we have families in the supportive housing that are stable and need affordability and temporary subsidies and placement into the rapid rehousing program for the families on the income and stabilize. and they will get access to those slots and a two-year subsidy and a market rate apartment and we are excited about this die long. >> and another conversation that we are having >> go ahead.

>> is with mersy housing california. >> and so we have many tenants that have aged in place and have reached a letter where they need a higher level of cares a senior in their home and we would never dream of having them leave the housing without an placement and mers j housing in california operates housing in san francisco with adult day services on site and in a senior center on site. and we are in conversations with them to see if we could transfer some of our seniors into is their properties and then some of their tenants who maybe need more attentative services could transfer into ours if we are going to have an honest discussion about this, the three things that ultimately talked about are really key, coordinated intake and assessment and section eight, and movement within the system, and i really feel that the city departments will need to be unsiloed that the sort of, train of thought that these are dph, units or someone else's units and they control

these units i think has to be something that is broken down that is viewed as antiquated and people are placed where their needs are met, where they can stabilize and housing and we can have the most cost effective intervention and we will have the movement throughout our system and we hope that the board of supervisors will work to make that a reality. >> a question for you, i know that chp, recently talked about a plan to have ten percent of your tenants have exits by 2020 that is what you want to be the model. and you talk about what you are doing in terms of, i think, that is a great achievement actually as i started digging through the issue, i was surprised it was probably even that low, although it is the possibilities and when you look at it though, the seniors and people with disabilities and understanding why the numbers are so low, i think that is fantastic and i have not heard that from anyone and could you talk about what you are doing to achieve that? >> sure, a year ago, we thought long and hard about what the long term out come should be

and how we should be achieving excellence, and we, did, you know, a survey and realized that we think with the right case management model and the right staffing that we are developing right now, that by 2020, ten percent of the portfolio and we are looking at 100 households can be transitioning yearly, we know that some of the folks on treasure island they have have options for portable voucher and they have not been utilizing that option. and we are looking to target our 100 and like, about roughly 150 family units to be bulk of that move out and we are looking to really focus on the over 66 k, or the opportunities that leave in the housing, we don't thifrk that a 22-year-old should move into a housing unit and live until they are 54. we think that most of us from development should move on and get married and have children

and partners and we do things that you cannot do in our housing because the occupantcy is restricted we are working with the youth for exits and family and our plan is implied, 2017 role to the single adults. it is a blessing and a curse. and so you know you will be hearing later today other opportunities and i do need to note that the community housing partnership is really sad in by the policy decision by the human service's agency to place all of the non-placement unit into one one and we responded stating that they should be in tier four and everyone who will be speaking today, who has moved out has come from that housing stock. they have a higher move out rate and that is due to the services on site and right now the services are slated to be cut in half.

>> just in response, we had a good conversation last week about what are the best out comes in providing the deeper subsidies and services is really what helps, especially around employment, work and so, it is every year it seems like we go through this discussion about how what level of subsidies or what level of services we are going to have in the supportive housing sites in hsa and it seems to be moving counter to where we are talking about. and in the direction and the city wanted to take around with the dph and other supportive housing providers, and so, i just wanted to, you know put out there that, you know, i am again, kind of alarmed that there is a push back, on the model that you have been very successful in providing with your staff to people in your

building, and i hope that we can cover first that trend and you know, move it in the right direction. >> supervisors i think that it is a resource question and you know just with the policy decision with hsa, they are shifting resources and i think that the master lease program is under resourced. and i actually think that the solution would be increasing the base line budget for hsa so that they have a larger pool of funds to work with and they could be funding their whole portfolio on the model that promotes move out and workforce activity and self-sufficiency. and so, i know that probably was not an easy choice for them, i think that non-placement is not a raish natural data driven reason to reduce the services. that placement should be irrelevant and it should be based on needs and self-sufficienty programming and how the people can achieve the goal of moving out and being independent. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah, i wanted to...

just ask, miss gilman, for information outside of the meeting on how chp is successful in allowing an adult to age in place. and then, transition to perhaps other aging friendly housing like mersy and i know that the population that someone raised single adult mails that is the main concern but i know that a lot of them will become, from baby boomers to seniors very, very soon and unless, we adjust for that, with, transitions to housing that is appropriate for the people with disabilities and aging we are going to have another crisis on our hands, i think. but thank you for the recommendations and the charts and other things about the model that chp has developed. >> we have a hand out for you as well about the hampton community partnership as well. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> the next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, supervisors

my name is james tracy and i work at the community housing partnership and my boss covered most of my points and i will just hit on a few and i am proud to work at a place that has a 98.5 retention rate and we are not the fredy crugarof evictions and in subsidized housing. and for many years before, i worked for affordable housing volunteering and doing eviction defense and working with edc and you know, we have seen, and we have seen what could happen. but why does chp has a 98.5 percent retention rate? it is not because we just failed to evict. right? it is not because we just looked the other way, when around the behaviors because there are services and in our buildings, and that can, that can support the people, when they are, when they are experiencing things in their lives that would get them