>> supervisor cohen: excuse me, i'm sorry, i think we're going to hear from -- mayor's office of housing. sorry about that, kate. >> that's ok. >> supervisor cohen: this is kate hartley, she is the newly appointed director for the mayor's office of housing and i have no specific questions for you right now, but i'm glad you're here and glad you're part of the conversation, because it was be lopsided to talk about housing and not have the mayor's office of housing to talk about the discussion. the floor is yours. >> thank you, we're happy to be here and working with our colleagues who have just presented, whose work is so important to our own work. we appreciate the collaboration. before i get started, two quick things. we want to thank the affordable housing developers in san

francisco and also our community-based organization partners, the nonprofits, who all do tremendous work. we have really great gratitude for them. secondly, on behalf of myself and the budget and legislative analyst office, we want to correct for the record a reference in the bla report. the reference to 772 pacific is not quite accurate. and just for the record, 772 pacific is a property in chinatown that they have acquired with the goal of building affordable housing over a restaurant there. and we're really excited about that. it's going to be a great development. it's been in our pipeline for a while. we didn't have construction funds for it, reserved. and supervisor peskin is working on a really creative deal to get

the rights over the fire and take the fees from that develop and put them on 772 pacific for the development of affordable housing. >> how are you able to direct fees? >> it's part of a development agreement. >> supervisor cohen: ok. >> it's still to be negotiated. i don't have a time line, a budget, anything, but that is the plan and we do appreciate supervisor peskin's creativity and cooperation on this. it could be really mutually beneficial for a wide variety of parties. so stay tuned on that. just wanted to correct the record. so, let's see. let me go back a second. so, the mayor's office of housing and community development has a mission of creating and preserving affordable housing opportunities in san francisco and providing critical services to keep our communities strong. and just to give some context, there is about 34,000 affordable

units in san francisco, exclusive of the master lease properties that jeff talked about in his presentation. they come in a variety of types, 23,000 are affordable apartment buildings that are funded with housing traffic credits. we have 3400 units that have come to us through the planning code. we are still actively engaged in transforming every unit of public housing in san francisco to make it safe, decent and high quality. so we have 23 hundred units left to do work on there. there is older hud finance developments for which we didn't provide financing, but they're vital to our affordable housing stock. the last four years have been really, really busy and productive. we have preserved or built over 6400 units and have 6,000 new

affordable units in the pipeline. and these are affordable homes that will serve families, transition age youth, teacher, veterans, people experiencing homelessness. so with respect to how our work overlaps with the work of addressing homelessness in san francisco, most every one of our buildings has a set aside for households, typically 20-30% of apartments are re-seved for -- reserved for homeless individuals or families. we provide funding to buildings that are 100% reserved for homeless. there are 3100 of those units in the portfolio. and our near term pipeline has another -- almost 1200 units of housing for homeless households. that is coming up. we should be -- it will be in construction by 2020 for all of

those. we bring to our work a focus on anti-displacement. our public housing work is about keeping people in san francisco and preventing homelessness, preventing displace am, given the typical income of our housing residents. it would be very difficult to be out there in the market, looking for a market rate apartment. our small loan program serves from low-income households to middle-income households, it's keeps people housed in san francisco and we always intervene when we can to keep homes affordable if affordability restrictions are expiring if we're going to lose units for whatever reason. we find legal services,

counseling, tenants education work. but our overall budget for housing production is much more expansive and that is because we have put to work, job housing linkage fees, oth. for housing stabilization, our housing trust fund provides about $7 million a year and then with other sources of funds and some add backs we're at $7.4 million and that is what funds the housing stabilization services like counseling and

eviction defense. so we will have good work happening. we have lots of challenges, the disinvestment and affordable housing, by the federal government has been daunting, but there is good news on the horizon and that is if the voters pass sb 3 in november, that will refill the state affordable housing coffers that have been depleted for several years and it makes a big difference to us in san francisco. there is also other revenue measures that are under consideration. we would really like to build more affordable housing, we would like to scale up our anti-displacement work and would like to increase the services that we provide to keep people housed such as rapid refunding housing. just to give you a flavor of the beautiful buildings that house

our people that were formerly experiencing homelessness. these are examples of 100% affordable housing as well as buildings with set asides for homeless families and it really makes such a tremendous difference to our city and to these households. that's all i have, but happy to answer questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? i have no specific question for you, but supervisor sheehy and then supervisor fewer. >> supervisor sheehy: i just have a couple of questions and this is based on what we got from the bla, the recommendations. so on the policy options, i didn't see anything related to eviction defense and i think president breed had been talking about that earlier. is there an ask in some budget

somewher somewhere? >> there is conversation with the budget office. it's not concluded. the consideration is the amount of funding, do we fund households that are affluent? is there a means testing provision? that sort of thing. but there is an ongoing conversation on that issue. >> supervisor sheehy: i haven't heard anything, but i could be involved in the conversation, i know it's preliminary and you guys need to get organized. >> it's probably not up to me, but we can certainly let everybody know who is talking about that, that you'd like to participate. >> supervisor sheehy: and then the other one, i look at the policy options and they -- i think you took one off the

table, but different standing, the treasure island, and the mission neighborhood options. so is it possible to perhaps present an option to us to do one of these? or using cops where what we could do is basically start paying the mortgage? because these are not something that are in the range of possibility within our process, i think the lowest one is what? $30 million. but if we did this with cops is that something we could use this process this year to create new housing? >> it's something we should definitely talk about. the problem with cops is that you have to pay ongoing debt service and so in some cases, we have issue cops -- for example, if there is a revenue measure that the voters have approved, that debt service is paid

through that revenue measure. if we were to just issue cops for one of these developments, the payment of the debt would have to come out of the housing trust fund. and that means that we would have less money over the long-term to fund affordable housing. so because we are up against such high costs and all of these developments do really have huge price tags to them. the per unit gap funding that the mayor's office of housing is currently providing is up around $300,000 per unit, sometimes more. so we're talking about big numbers, as you've said. we're really looking to broader revenue discussions like getting the state funding from sb 3. that will make a huge difference, because we can get tens of millions of dollars through competitive applications. some people have been talking

about another general obligation bond, so that debt service doesn't have to come out of the housing trust fund. so we're very much wanting to continue these conversations, certainly we use cops a lot. they do require leveraging of a public building, so there is some need to be strategic about the placement of c.o.p.s, but we're happy to engage in that covering, because all of these developments are really important. >> supervisor sheehy: i'm just looking, it seems like the only way i can imagine that we could address this is within the context of the policy options that we were offered by the bla. i don't see us coming up with $30 million for a new -- within our add-back. >> i think that in terms of the

add-back process and we do really appreciate the add-backs we get from individual supervisors to specifically address concerns and needs in their districts. one thing we talked a lot about, with respect to homelessness which makes a difference, is eviction defense funding and the rapid rehousing money. that is smaller amounts of funds. it's not $30 million, it might be $3 million, but it really makes a difference to keep people housed and has -- it has a ripple effect of beneficial outcomes for families and individuals and the city. so that would be something that i think would really be good for the committee to consider. >> we do have the rapid rehousing pieces, thank you. >> supervisor cohen: i want to acknowledge we're stepping away from and departing from the way

the add-back process has been held, that's why we're doing these policy conversations and focus the conversations on policy, less than nonprofit organizations, less on special projects, so that we are going to be filling buckets when it comes to funding priorities. so just want to put that here. and if you have any member of the public is unclear about what i just shared, i'm happy to talk to them directly and we'll connect with you, supervisor, if you had any other questions. with that said i want to pivot to my colleague, sandy fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chair. thank you ms. hartley for your presentation. i have a question about your goals and challenges. so i see scaling up displacement work and i see small site acquisitions. of course in my neighborhood we had the first small site

acquisition on the west side, but in my neighborhood i am losing more affordable housing than we're building because of my controlled units are being torn down or no longer rent control. so the small site program is really important and this is on the same note as you just mentioned about keeping people housed. in my neighborhood, we are seeing apartment buildings being sold. and people who have lived in those units for like 44 years. many of them seniors. and so this is placement happening pretty rapidly in my neighborhood, but amongst people who are low and moderate income and cannot compete in this housing market and are therefore a threat of being homeless. you listed this under goals/challenge, so i kind of want to know, is this a goal or is this a challenge?

is it your goal to scale up anti-displacement work? and is it your goal to add more small site acquisitions? and if so, have you included any of this in any budget proposals? >> small site acquisitions is an the goals and challenges page because it does represent both of those things. first of all, as i mentioned, it is to buy and rehab and stabilize a rent controlled property is a very expensive proposition. $350,000 per unit in some cases. but also we rely on partnerships with nonprofit providers and we've had such great work from them in the past three years, and so we're having a little bit of growing pains, so capacity has become an issue. if we can secure more funding

and provide more capacity for interested nonprofits, we can expand the program. so it does represent the scaling up of small sites is an aspirational goal, we absolutely want to do it, and we need to look at the broader infrastructure, for lack of a better word, of the whole small sites program to help our nonprofit providers bring on the staff they need to buy more buildings, rehabilitate more buildings. >> supervisor fewer: have you included anything in your budget request for around the next budget year about helping build the capacity of these nonprofits so we can have a more robust small site acquisition program. >> i don't have anything in the budget this year, just acknowledging the directive to keep our budgets stable. we do have increase in our having trust fund budget which

is allocation to small sites. but as i mentioned, most of our housing budget comes through other sources like inclusion housing fees. we have a couple of programs that have come to our department, that specifically are for rent-controlled acquisitions and our developers are really gearing up and putting those to work. so we're not -- we're in the process of improving capacity and scaling up through those means. and we're really hoping that -- we believe that will be successful and that it can lead to additional work as we look at these broader revenue measures like s b2, sb 3. and potentially another housing fund. >> supervisor fewer: i just want to say on the record, that i think we have such a dependency on inclusion housing to build

our affordable housing, but the ratio of 70% to 30% affordable housing in a lot of the developments actually work against us around homelessness and our great wealth divide. that's why i'm asking about how we can save some of these sites and keep people here in our city in buildings that are already built. when we look at inclusion housing and we require developers to build 30% affordable or below market rate, 70% of it is not affordable. so this is exasperating the problem. i think it's just because the balance is so off. and already we're so behind on our housing balance, too. and so it just adds to more of the problem. i wanted to say that on record. thank you very much, look forward to working with you. and thanks for the presentation. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor

yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you. governor brown as you know is putting something on the ballot for november and it's going to be the outcome of that, would be, if it's successful, about $3 billion for housing. what part -- i didn't look at the specifics nuances of how we can leverage it. seems like a lot of programs they're talking about are a strong possibility to leverage some of that $3 billion. san francisco has always done well with the state funding piece. can you share some thoughts around that? >> i want to make sure i understand the question. so you're asking if the housing measure passes, how can we take the proceeds and leverage funds that we might be able to get through if sb 3 passes in november? is that right? >> supervisor yee: yes. basically, there is going to be a lot of funding for the state.

and historically, funding from the state for housing, san francisco does fairly well on that, so i'm assuming we're going to get a good chunk of the $3 billion for our needs. so are we seeing any specific programs where we're going to leverage some of that $3 billion. >> absolutely, housing for all has a component that is specifically for the production of middle-income housing and that is an area that we really do not do well in. in fact, if you look at the arena numbers in the bla report, middle-income housing as it always is, basically, has the worst percentages. so if housing for all passes and we have more local funds, then we can take those funds and leverage state funding to

produce new housing and it will really help our overall production. now, every dollar of state funds that we get and new revenue that we get, frees up our existing pipeline of funds, which includes the housing trust fund, federal funds, inclusion fees, to address low-income housing and extremely low-income housing. so it helps us come together to address the affordability crisis in as broad a way as possible. we see any revenue coming in as really being very beneficial to the overall goals of helping vulnerable san franciscans. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions? ok, thank you for the presentation. we're going to keep moving

along. to the members of the public, hang in there, we're going to get to each and every one of you. we want to hear from you, a few more presentations and then a public comment, we have a stack of cards and we're not leaving until everyone has their two minutes. with that said, i want to bring up hespa. i believe they're next. i'm sorry. ben. severin campbell. ok, i'm juggling a lot. it's a lot to be disorganized. thank you, sophia kitler. so severin is representing the budget analyst, and will make a short presentation to this committee to talk about priorities specific to homelessness and again she's independent of the mayor's

office, independent of any department and her job is to analyze and dissect the numbers. i'm anxious to hear what she has to say. >> good ach, chair cohn and members of the committee. i want to introduce monica here who did a lot of the work on the reports. i'm going to start with housing, but to put this in context, this is the first year that we have tried to look at priorities in the budget prior the mayor's budget. we did survey the board of supervisors and four areas stood out in terms of budget priority. street cleaning, public safety, and housing and homelessness as two separate areas. i'm going to start with housing because that was the most recent. that was discussed in terms of the budget options we've

identified. i want to point out in the 2017 survey of city residents, homelessness and housing was considered the top concern by almost two-thirds of the residents responding to the survey. the other thing want to point out in the slide is simply to reference what ms. hartley said, which is about housing production in san francisco. so the association of bay area government does set housing goals. in this slide i want to show that in terms of the total housing units, that are to be produced over the 7-year period, most of these housing units are for market rate. the market rate housing is more than double of the goals set. by abag. moderate income housing will meet about 25% of the goals set by abag. so there is definitely a deficit in that area. there is also a deficit in

low-income and very low-income housing. in terms of -- i won't go through the funding things, but in terms of how we look at the policy options for the board to consider in terms of housing, these -- some of this was identified and we worked with the mayor's office on this, but in the homelessness and housing options, we were looking at placing people into housing and developing units or providing subsidies to help people get into housing units. the four options that we identified through our work with the mayor's office of housing were all projects that the city has either ownership of the site or have control over the site. has the ability to leverage non-city funds and what would be needed is gap funding to make these projects move forward. i do want to correct.

i know that ms. hartley identified a correction on the report, but all four sites that are on the slide are sites that are owned by the city or have controlled by the city and could be moved forward as affordable housing projects. the first is 37 standion street this was approved by the board in terms of the purchase of the site. the mayor's office identified a housing gap of $35 million to $40 million. this could be 100-150 housing units. 772 pacific street, there was clarification in our report. the moacd own this is site. this is not the same as the fire station. part of the funding discussion with this is that moacd has air rights to the space above the fire station. this could be developed as market rate housing, inclusion housing fees paid on the market

rate units, could be a funding source for affordable units at 772 pacific. treasure island, this is part of the overall project, we've identified the huge gap between the affordable housing requirements and the actual availability of funds to build the unit, the mayor's housing unit. and the last one is mission. housing in the mission. now the affordable housing bond, the appropriation of funds for the affordable housing bond that is pending before the board, it does identify a project as 990 mission and al indicates funds to that. -- indicates funding to that. this site could be then used to

develop housing. these were the four main housing options we were able to identify. they're large numbers, but in terms of setting priorities, these are what we identified through discussions. there were other discussions, though. and there was an interest in talking about middle-income housing which of course as you see is the hardest area to find funding for. the bonds that are pending. the housing bond of the city, voted passed $77 million was allocated to affordable housing. the appropriation that is pending before the board does set aside $13 million for initial funding for those two projects. housing at 88 broadway, in terms of how these projects could be moved forward, we recommend more discussion with the mayor us a office of housing on these. we did not have a particular

recommendation, but did want to call these out. the next ones are down payment assistant. again, this doesn't create housing units, it helps sort of middle-income families get into housing. there are allocations in the 17-18 budget and proposal in the 18-19 budget. there is $20 million in the bond funds that go towards this. there was a lottery in 2017 of 128 first-time homebuyers that applied and 23 were awarded. another option is to seek more information on how this program could be expanded, could become more available. and then the other one, because there is discussion here about addiction prevention. there is a difference between rapid rehousing which we looked at in terms of the department of housing homelessness and supportive services. this is moacd's program. funding at 16-17, they allocated

$690,000 in rent assistance. in 17-18, 780,000. in our discussion with the department, one of the things they identified was that one of the reasons people are at risk for losing their current housing is money management. they said 80% because they weren't managing their finances well. this is one they identified as a possible priority in terms of what they thought would be successful in increasing housing or maintaining housing for people. so then our other one is -- so then the others are the options we identified for homelessness. and again, our priorities were

similar to what we talked about with housing, which was basically what keeps people in housing, gets people into housing or creates housing units. and so two of the options we listed in our report were looking at rapid rehousing. now rapid rehousing is a bit different than the rent assist programs. it gives 18 months of support to people, families, individuals leaving homelessness. right now, rapid rehousing focuses on families. there has been a significant success rate in terms of being able to keep people housed and stable after one year. so the budget options that we really wanted to call out for the board were to expand the program to single adults and expand it to youth.

there was a discussion in the earlier presentation about sort of proportionately services to homeless youth are less than to other populations that are experiencing homelessness. each of those cases, our estimates are based on 18 months of assistance, assisting 50 single adults would be allocation of $1.1 million. to expand that to 100 adults is $2.25 million. the same numbers apply to expanding rapid rehousing to youth. the other option is that we talked about is that it's creating units, finding units for the existing homeless population. in our discussions with the department of housing, homelessness and supportive housing, there were approximately maybe up to 200

units that could be released in 18-19. we had estimate of 132,000 per unit. so if the department of the city were able to add 100 units to the stock, it would be about $3.2 million in fiscal year 18-19 to be able to do 200 units, a cost of $6.4 million. these would be ongoing costs. the other programs we talked about could be one time enhancements, but these would be ongoing. another area and this is actually one that i think is considered important to the department of homelessness and supportive housing was the youth navigation center. it was an area considered again a need for homeless youth. a 90-bed navigation center has annual cost for startup operating services of $3.5 million. there were other options that

were identified. we didn't really develop those, we thought it might be important for further discusses as the board was interested with the department, but one was increasing services in supportive housing and the other, they talked about their problem solving programs, to look at that. there is one option that was not included in our report, but brought to us as an area of potential enhancement. this is actually with the department of public health in their street program. our understanding that the program has currently 7 positions. there are several different positions, but they're part-time. at a cost of $1.6 million. these are nursing positions, health worker positions to provide support and street medicine and shelter health. for adding portions to support an additional 100 beds would be about $1.4 million. excuse me, 1.4 ftes.

these are positions that would be half time, less than half time, assigned to the program. they are nursing, health worker position. please stand by.

and it's a fairly successful area where if you get them housed they can stay housed. and the initial question is that we wanted to find more units of housing on the theory that was mentioned before, the solution to homelessness is putting people into houses. we asked about the master programs and as many as 200 new units could be identified through the course of the fiscal year. so those four items that we put on page 10 and page 11, those are the ones that we considered to perhaps be the most beneficial in terms of funding. >> so i guess what i'm trying to drill down a little bit -- what was the criteria? >> increasing the number of housing units and creating, you

know, actually providing funds to get people -- not creating new units but at least getting people into the units and giving them the financial support to get them into housing. >> okay. and and then the programs that we identified are the ones that we knew to be successful. >> my other question -- is the rapid rehousing for single adults our greatest priority, based on the th data that you he been able to analyze and where our funding priorities are? have we knowingly or unknowingly targeting single adults or the largest amount of people on the waiting list? i'm trying to get a sense in terms of population-wise with what we're doing. >> if i remember too from the earlier sort of presentations, that the city has been more successful in housing families than it has in terms of single adults. >> are you able from the numbers and the data able to conclude as to the reasons why family --

families are easier to house? or we have just done a better job? >> i could not tell you that and i think that we were just drawing on some performance and some data that we were provided. why that is the case i don't have an answer to that. >> so correct me if i'm wrong but i recall that mayor lee prioritizing several years ago during the budget -- saying homeless families, women with children and veterans -- i think that is where the priorities were -- does the data support that? >> i think that is a hard question for us to answer in that way. i think that it would be better directed towards the department themselves. but in terms -- >> i'm getting a nod from the department. >> pardon? >> i'm getting a nod of, yes, that is where our priorities were. so that is probably why your data shows that the rapid rehousing of single adults -- excuse me of families -- have a priority and an area that we have been successful on because

we have had a concerted amount of effort over several years. so, thank you, i have answered my own question. so moving on. [laughter] regarding your recommendation to pursue additional master leases. now this is interesting recommendation. is that a one-time investment or something that we should be repeatedly investing in? >> if the city -- so as i said very specifically to this recommendation -- we and our understanding is that as many as 200 new units could be identified over the course of the year. that's a possibility, not just a certainty. those -- if those units -- if the city were to enter into a master lease for those 200 units those would be ongoing costs. >> okay. all right. this is a little bit of a technical one and i think that you will be able to help me. out of the list of the recommendations provided in your report, which of these recommendations are annual versus one-time funding

requests? >> so if you're talking about the homelessness report -- >> yes, i am. >> so the only one that absolutely have to be ongoing would be a master lease. because once you enter into a lease with a private property owner you'd have an ongoing obligation. plus once you have people you want to keep them housed. the others could be one-time or ongoing. rapidly housing is an 18-month program of assistance. so if you're giving someone rapid re-housing you're committing to 18 months of housing commitment and services and it's not an ongoing 18 months. and the same with the navigation center, those are not necessarily -- up until then the centers have all been temporary. and the city started to move into the longer terms one. if you recall the lease for the property on bay shore, i believe that it's bay shore, that is a

longer term commitment. but of these four that we list on page 11 of our report, the only ones that are absolutely ongoing is master lease program. >> okay. so on your list of recommendations how would you recommend to this body -- how do i phrase this -- which project we should fund, say, in the first year versus the second year? >> that is a little bit harder to do. but if you can identify master lease units, you know, but you may not be able to identify all in the first year. i think that -- this may be a little bit back to the department but i would say that rapid re-housing for youth is a major priority. >> so getting more master leases and master re-housing for youth? all right, supervisor?

>> yes, thank you. so i was wondering we have heard a disproportionate amount of money not spent on youth. so i'm looking at this also the option of a youth navigation center that was highly recommended also by the director. so what is it in your opinion that you think that this is something that zooms that it could be fairly urgent for next year's budget? >> i think that the criteria that we were using is that as we understood it and looked at sort of the other presentations today that the amount of resources that are put into homeless -- through our experiences with homelessness -- is less than their proportion in the population. that's the simplest way to say it. and that these were identified as things that would be successful to that population.

i also think -- >> you want to respond to that? >> i would just say that i think that there's been research that shows that putting resources into transitional aged youth is successful. >> because we don't want them to go into chronic homelessness, right? so we want them to actually be housed and have housing and actually so they won't be chronically homeless later on as older adults. but i also wanted to ask you a question about your -- it said so the rapid re-housing, 22,500 for 18 months assistance, is that correct? and i think that what you mentioned in your report is that you looked at families after one year and you found that they were still housed. >> the hamilton family services, i think that i am calling them correctly, that's their data on the success of their program.

that's the best that we could find in terms of performance data. so, yes, they found that families that were housed through their program a year later, 80% were still stably housed. i would say that i couldn't give you details. when we wrote our report in 2016 on the city's homelessness programs, at that time we considered the rapid rehousing program to be a successful program. i'm not able to pull up the details at this point but that is certainly one of our conclusions. >> okay, thank you very much. supervisor sheehy? >> i had a question about the navigation center money. so is that something that would need to be one big gulp? this may be a person more for jafard and it could be spent out 1.75 in year one and 1.75 in year two? >> we had the reports on the start-up costs in terms of just

the facilities can be high. now i think that there's things here that, you know, would have to be looked at further. for instance, the department of public works saying that some of the modular structures they have purchased for other sites that are now closing could be repurposed and there could be a savings there. but, definitely, the start-up costses are -- th -- the initiap costs could be high. >> and we could spread that costs out of two years, i'm getting a yes behind you. anyway, thank you, that was my only question. >> i just want to thank you for this report and thank chair cohen because this is a great way to approach this. and going through this process where we -- this is just brilliant. thank you for your leadership. >> thank you. i can't take all of the credit but since i am a chair i will say thank you. [laughter]. no problem.

supervisor stephanie. >> yes. thank you, miss campbell, for the presentation. just looking at the options i'm having a hard time i think with the either/or aspect of it. and i'm wondering if you looked at the budget options for housing and plus wraparound services so people stay housed. or budget options for services to help people through programs like conservativeship so they can get housed and stay housed. so i'm having a hard time with housing with services or get services so they can get housing. >> i think that from our point of view what we have basically said is that we are able to even wrap our brains around a fairly complex topic that we really looked -- came up with some criteria. which is that we said is that increasing housing units or providing subsidies to get people housed. in terms of the services i do not have some specific recommendations.

we do call out because we know that the department sort of identified their concerns. they actually had looked at estimates of the need for services, existing support of housing increasing by $3 million or $4 million and with the specifics i refer you back to the department on that one. but in terms of looking more generally and in terms of services and what is needed and conservativeship, no, i don't think that we could say a lot. now i will just put a little more -- context here. we did release our report on behavioral self-services in this city and that may have more details in terms of how we're looking at, you know, the behavioral health services provided by public health which is not specifically about homelessness but has an impact. >> all right, any other questions? all right. we're going to move on. thank you. thank you for your presentation.

i want to check in with the mayor's office of budget. do you have any comments or anything that you want to share? all right, she's shaking her head and saying no. i have a question for you, surprise. do you have an estimate of how much we spent across departments on homelessness -- on homeless related programs? i'm looking for a big number here. across all departments. >> the mayor's budget office. our high level estimate for this year is around $300 million across all departments. and the bulk of that being in the department of homelessness and supportive housing. and then followed by the department of public health. >> what was the second part? >> the vast majority is in h.s.h. and after that the department of public health for

medical services that are provided for the population. >> all right. okay, thank you very much, and so i appreciate that. so at this time we have our last presentation -- excuse me. >> sorry, i didn't see you, please. >> i'm grad that yo glad that yt question. so i have a follow-up question. in regards to the budget, in 2016 when we created a budget for the following year we sort of depended on -- we based the budget on -- on what we had hoped to pass with a proposition. and when that got defeated we were scrambling at the budget committee and with the mayor's office because always you had things in a budget which there

were no funding and then we had to sort of backfill in and looking for money from elsewhere to do a specific -- of course, not everything was supported. so the question that i have is -- are we approaching -- you said $300 million and i don't know if that is an increase or not. but jeff's budget was 250, i believe. so it seemed like it was an increase. are we facing a budget if there is an increase based on what you might hope to get in june and with another ballot initiative? >> thank you for the question, supervisor. so you are correct that, yes, when the sales tax proposition did not pass we had to rebalance the budget in the department of homelessness and we prioritized ensuring that there's funding

for programs that were started or were starting imnebtly in that budget year -- imminently in that budget year. going forward i believe that we will have support in the budget for items that have started or are going forward on the general side but we'll are we're still in the process of creating the budget and working through that. >> i would caution that you we don't do that again where we're going to be basing the future budget on what we hope that we might get in the initiative or at least have two, you know, sort of options or alternative budget to make sure that we -- get support. >> point is well taken. thank you. >> we're going to vote on a budget in july, i believe. so we'll know by then.

>> i'm not looking for a wish list. i'm looking for a strategic policy, suggestions to drive this policy discussion. so i'm looking for an ask. i am looking for a logical

reasoning why this is irrelevant and important and some data to support the request. so is that you malia? welcome. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is malia chavez and i'm the deputy director at the homeless prenatal program and i'm one of the cochairs for the homeless emergency service providers association, hespa is what we throw around. i would like to thank you for your consistent commitment to homelessness issues and specifically to supporting hespa. we appreciate your ongoing support and thank you, chair cohen, for the opportunity it present today. we're made up of 28 nonprofit organizations and part of the budget coalition. we work with the department of homelessness in and supportive housing as well as city policy

makesser to propose solutions and to fortify components of the homeless response system. the budget that you're receiving now and the paperwork and information in front of you is not a wish list, but it is our attempt to address some of the unmet needs and funding gaps year-over-year, and we recognize this is just a partial remedy for a much bigger problem. our focus is to maintain existing capacity and to build on things that are working. my colleagues will be able to speak more in depth to the details in the budget, and we also have a number of providers as well as clients here today, and unfortunately, some had to leave due to the wait. but they're here to answer any specific questions. thank you. i'm going to turn it over to the next presenter. >> thank you very much. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for your public service. i'm brian, the executiver director of the cue foundation

and a member of hespa. i'm here today to discuss our proposals for flexibility rental subsidies for families, and disabled adults. it was mentioned 100 people a day are becoming homeless and only 50 are getting resolved. we're going into a deficit there. it would take about $50 million a year to prevent almost every single eviction in san francisco for nonpayment of rent. when you consider that against the $4 billion increase in our budget since the tax give away, i think that might be something that's do-able. subsidies, we're asking for 20 additional graduated subsidies for youth who are exiting shelters and supportive housing. this is the housing ladder on

the way to independent housing and so as the support system helps the youth increase their incomes, the percentage of subsidy will go down. then the goal is as they age out of the system, they're able to maintain and take over those units on their own. that's in addition to the 50 existing subsidies that are part of that program. another ask is to baseline 12 needs based housing subsidies for family, the former homeless families. this is baselining that the supervisors have provided previously. then the third category is for 225 additional rental subsidies, new rental subsidies for senior and disabled folks. these are on demand available

online at a moment's notice, and this program is really targeted for cop holders who have been offered a unit and they need that subsidy right now. they don't need to get on a wait list. >> just real quick, so we're all on the same level, on the same page, cop holders means -- what does that mean. >> certificate of preference holders, people who are displaced by fire or owner move-in. and so this is a great way for our city to make good on the promises that it made from the mistakes to repair the mistakes in the past. also, the values rubric here is we have so many people who win a lottery or who reach the top of an affordable housing wait list that they may have waited on for ten years. affordable housing providers turn down more people than they

actually give units to. primarily, they're turning them down because they don't meet the minimum income requirements. it makes a lot of sense for us to be able to provide that needed assistance so they can get the unit that they've waited for for ten years. otherwise we're just churning and churning. this is a demonstrated project that's doing phenomenal work in that area. >> hi, supervisors, i'm colleen rebecca with st. anthony foundation. we are not city contractors, but we are homeless emergency service providers and we see the need for enhanced services among all of our clients and guests who come to st. anthonys for assistance. that's why we're part of this group and why we're making this ask. itsn