please, next speaker. please, account next speaker come up. >> a minor mix-up. i'm a member of senior and disability action. and a longtime resident of the fillmore. i support president yee's ordinance for the senior and operating subsidy program. it must be long-term and it must be multi-project. 75,000 seniors, if i can put a number to that, 75,000 seniors are currently excluded from qualifying for city-supported new affordable housing, because of high-income standards, set by the city. there is an extreme urgency to correct this inequality. for every year seniors are

denied help, 350 more extremely low-income seniors are added to the 75,000. they'll be excluded from new affordable housing. 4,000 by the year 2030. 4,000, in addition to the 75,000. we're in danger of homelessness and we're in danger of being trapped in our homes, which are not a.d.a. accessible. as a group, we're 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 let's start with the seniors. [bell ringing] we have no options. we have serious disabilities and other situations. we can't go out and get three jobs. and even if we can work, one part-time job, we're faced with

widespread age discrimination. it's up to the board to set policy to cure this inequality. it's emerging. it's here. it's 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 we're passing forward to you is a letter that's 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, we're 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, you'll see it's 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, you'll 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 you're building. it's another kind of red lining and it's not okay. and it's 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. i'm 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 low-income 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

low-income and extremely low-income seniors. s.o.s. provides an opportunity for us to serve a broader range of needs for low-income seniors. while there's 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. we're excited to serve a broader range of need for low-income 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, let's wait a couple years and figure out the long-term solution. but i think this is the short-term 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 long-term, 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 they're 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 won't form it until after our august recess, since we only have a few weeks left. but that's 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. i'll 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 you're also a co-author of it. >> supervisor ronen: that's 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 we've been working with the deputy of homelessness and supportive housing and the mayor's office to carefully craft a common sense proposal to ensure a more coordinated and streamlined response for our city's number one priority, getting people off the street

quicker. everyone agrees we're in a crisis, as evidented by the point in time count, despite increasing investments in supportive housing, services and measures to prevent homelessness, we're 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. we've also heard from everyone, from the mayor during last year's prop c campaign that we need more accountability. and we need to work together. disjointed, patchwork and slow decision-making 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 francisco city 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. it's only served to expand the department's ability to enact and speed up thoughtful, effective policies and streamline and centralize public dialogue. they play a critical role in many of our city's 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. they're a function of good government and protect the public's 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 decision-making, where a commission can have formal authority and exercise the power of inquiry. they can ask the tough questions about the department's 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 department's 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. they're 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 buy-in 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 i'm 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 department's 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 day-to-day experiences of service providers, who are implementing the department's policies, as well as the day-to-day operations of the department and their long-term 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 well-known commissions, has been able to

accomplish significant policy changes in recent years, including improving the police department's response to violence against women and children, expanding the use of technology to solve crime, reforming the city's use of force policy, instituting body-worn cameras to increase transparency and improving police-community relations. i think it's 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 don't think anyone has said because we have an airport commission, that planes won't take off. commissions are a critical, integral part of our city's government, because they are there to ensure that the job gets done, not that it gets delayed. they're 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 don't know anyone who believes by leaving decision-making solely to bureaucrats, that things are going to move faster. that's 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 don't get it right, when we don't listen to those with direct experience, when we don't take public input on the front end, we're 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 to have a department that oversees the most urgent priority, have less accountable, oversight, transparency and public input than nearly any other city department. i think this is a common sense proposal. of good governance. . it will far outlast even the current director, who has been a collaborative partner in helping us improve this. and it will outlast all of us here on the board of supervisors as well. it's critical for us to have a governance structure in place that the public can engage with effectively, that the board of supervisors and the mayor can engage with effectively. that people who are experiencing

homelessness can engage with effectively. and that ensures a response to this most critical priority that we have, this crisis that we have in a way that gets people off the streets, with the services they need, as quickly as possible. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor haney, i want to thank you for bringing this piece of legislation forward. given -- look, homelessness has always been been a major issue in san francisco. it's a problem that has plagued our city and our state and our country. and that's because we in this country have not made housing a right, an entitlement. which is what it should be, a right. until it is a right and until we have adequate federal investment once again in building housing that people can afford, we're going to continue to have a

homeless problem in our state. and because of the weather and because of cities that have humane policies like these, a lot of people come to california when they are homeless. they're either from here and kicked out of their homes, which we've seen happen in san francisco at alarming rates recently, as prices for housing have skyrocketed, and they live throughout the state, because it is possible to survive on the streets, where it doesn't snow quite frankly. and so we, as a city and as a state, have to address this crisis head on, especially when the federal government is falling asleep at the wheel on this one. until we get a change of administration, is falls on us toot the bulk of the work around

this issue. now we have a commission overseeing our police department, our fire department, our airport, our health department, our ethics department, our planning department, all of the most important issues facing our city. we have a commission of citizens, whose job it is to make sure that the department are responding to the actual crisis or the actual area of their expertise and their work, with care and transparent and open ways that respond to the communities that are being impacted. and i don't see why homelessness should be any exception to this rule in our city. it works. it's important. and it's time has come. thank you, supervisor haney, for taking leadership on this issue. and i will now turn it over to supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair ronen. just want to add my two cents to

support of this ordinance. and, you know, i know how difficult it can be working to be transparent and efficient at the same time, but provides a place for the community to provide input and learn about the strategies the city is using to address homelessness is important. and we do have several different bodies that work together to provide opportunities for conversations about suggestions and what they want to see. but the reality of it is is there's no one place that my constituents can or constituents can go to, to come be heard about the issues that exist. so what happens is you have -- my colleagues and i sending emails, texts, et cetera and everything we can to department leadership, trying to address all of the areas in our neighborhoods. this can also be a venue for fox

and community to come have conversations about what they're seeing and provide action plans and strategies, working together. so that part is important as well. i want to commend supervisor haney for the common sense amendments, particularly making it easier to continue to improve navigation, centers to continue to approve emergency shelters, particularly during times of a shelter crisis. and we're responsible for good governance here. [ please stand by [ please stand by ]

>> supervisor walton:. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. supervisor walton reminded me given the mayor's reason for opposing prop c was the fact she didn't believe her own department could responsibly spend the money, i believe that this commission will provide the oversight so that we can make sure that the company -- that the company? that the department spends the money responsibly, transparently, and with the whole city watching. this seems like a no-brainer for all of us, and thank you very much for bringing it forward. and with that, i don't know, director kosinski, if you

wanted to say anything or if i should open it up for public comment. >> good morning, supervisors. jeff kosinski, director, department of homelessness and public housing. one, i just want to thank supervisor haney and his staff for working so closely with us on this legislation. it's so different on what was submitted. i thought courtney did a good job of presenting it with a really good visual. we do appreciate that, and i also want to state that we are in no way against and agree that more accountability and especially having a public forum where all of these issues can be heard is incredibly

important. as supervisor haney pointed out, there's four or five different bodies, so if you want to talk about shelters, there's two places you can go. if you want to talk about federal funding, there's one place you can go. we are very much in agreement with that and also agree with supervisor haney and walton that this will outlast all of us and should outlast all of us. that said, i think there are still some differences that we have with the supervisor's office and i'm wondering whether or not this is best handled through an ordinance which would require -- any time there is a change, it would need to go back to the voters in the event we don't get things right now. so there are some areas we have

some concerns. i just want to be clear, and just a few random things we have come up with over time. i think it does provide accountability and does provide a public forum. it will slow down permits that are not covered by the public ordinance by six weeks approximately. i'm not saying that's a problem or not a problem. it's just another step we would have to have in the process. i would point out a lot of folks have brought to the local coordinator concerns of hsoc. if the commission decided they did not want h.s.h. to be involved and would not put a budget in there, i suppose that's the kind of leverage

they'd have, but it wouldn't be over hsoc in general. and i think that's about it. we're not closed off to the idea of a commission. think there's still some outstanding problems with the way that it's written, and i think it should be an ordinance rather than a chart amendment, but i agree that supervisor haney is working very hard. with that, i'm happy for the opportunity to speak and answer any questions if they come up. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, director kosinski. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yeah, thank you very much, director kosinski, and your staff.

i think these mostly addressed the concerns. the question whether it should be an ordinance or in the charter, to be clear. all of the commissions are in the charter. if we would create this by charter, it wouldn't be a charter commission that has all the responsibilities and duties defined in the charter. so we think it's important that we have something that has.

i think this is in many ways recognizing that this department is here to stay. one of the reasons why this -- this department -- maybe the main reason why this department doesn't have a commission currently is because it's a new department. it's only been around a couple years, and the advisory structure that we have is here from a time when we didn't have a single department with the authority that your department has, had a single director and all of that. so i want to be clear that one of the things that we're doing here by having a charter commission is recognizing the critical importance of this department and its continued role that it's going to have in leading our response to homelessness, and for that reason, it should have the same strong and clear and codified commission as any other

department. >> chair fewer: thank you. and with that, we'll open up public comment. you'll have two minutes to do so, and mr. wright, do you want to start us off? >> you know, i object to all these programs. every time we turnaround, you've got another program. you oversupervise. you spend over $400 million on programs. you spend more money on programs than you do on permanent housing, apartment building complex to how's the people who you always campaign and act like you want to help. gavin newsom got upstaged last week by an apartment building

being built by a nonprofit developer. he tried to flex and counter by saying that developer doesn't produce. he's going to fine them $600,000. how you going to fine them when they're providing low-income -- affordable housing for very low-income and low-income people without going through the bullshit that this administration has been going through the same as the last two or three generations? you spend over $400 million a year and got shitty results. you only got 133 beds for people who's got mental disabilities, and it's been studied by professionals is the best way to serve the homeless problem is to built permanent housing and then services for them. you've got 8,000 homeless people out on the street and only 2,000 shelter beds. but yet, you want to produce

all these programs and pretend like you're helping me. it's disgusting. i came in and showed you ways to built two towers instead of a navigation center with $700 million leftover, and you ignored it. he's charging you $700,000 for nothing. when i finish my thesis, i'm going to charge you $600,000 for not helping anyone. you let other people speak past the two minutes. you let other people -- >> chair ronen: okay, i'm going to clarify -- michael, please.

thank you, next speaker. >> you're insulting my god damn intelligence. like president yee last week. the color of your skin, the more time you get to speak. >> michael. >> it's mr. wright. >> good morning, committee. how are you? good morning -- and supervisors. h.s.h. has been in business two or three years. we run very well. have a wonderful director, very qualified director, but it's 2019. the most important issue in this city and nationwide, but especially this city is

homelessness. homeless people should be treated fairly, and being treated fairly is a commission so they can be treated like everyone else. people are -- unhoused citizens shouldn't be treated different than anyone else. i'm an e.d. of two different nonprofits. i'd rather do something else so i can get much more done. our citizens -- our homeless citizens i have a right to build influenced policy. they can't do it right now. i can share the local homeless board, and we -- i sit on the local homeless board, and we can sit there and say yes, ma'am, yes, sir, but we can't

do anything else. they brought us hsoc -- and i know we're going to do this. as we come to do this, we need to see where hsoc is going to fit. our homeless citizens, the only thing they see is hsoc pulling their tent down. so please do not lose the sight that this commission will have direct oversight over hsoc. that's the only thing, and thank you all. >> hi. my name is mallory, and i'm speaking for san francisco housing action coalition? i think our only opposition is efficiency. we're a proud supporter of prop

c, and we're very interested in delivering services to people experiencing homelessness, and we want to do that as quickly as possible? and also, we haven't seen the -- their -- the opportunities for additional public input would provide more opportunities to more time. that's an equitiable increase in opportunity. we think if we want to help solve these crises, we need to remove bureaucracy, we think this oversight would do that. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is malia chavez, and

i'm here as chiair person for the homeless advocacy organization. we are here in support of proposition c. i'm also here to represent that we support the commission as a way to balance power and for facilitating decision making around complex and difficult issues which should not be the purview of just a few. again, we've heard highlights around the policies that are impacted by these departments. a few examples that we've experienced as supervisors are pregnancy and the definition of families for access to coordinated entry and housing resources as well as policy for individuals fleeing domestic violence. there's still a challenge as to individuals being able to access coordinated entry when staying at shelters. again, another polish to be

addressed. budget priorities such that supervisor haney already mentioned around not having any input or oversight around what the departments are thinking in prioritizing. and another one is the definition of homelessness, which we've moved way. the more inclusive definition of homelessness families include those living in s.r.o.s or doubled up. the defense collaborative, they strongly support this, and martina couldn't be here today, but she wanted me to make sure that you knew she was pulling for this, as well. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is natalia, and i am

the director for homeless prenatal programs. several years ago, our organization invested in an evaluation department in order toen hans transparency and accountability of our work, and we as an organization wanted to make sure that we had real-time reflection of how we are serving our clients and to respond to their needs. and this was incredibly powerful because we were able to focus our efforts and strategically innovate and improve our services on a weekly basis, and this is exactly the commitment and investment that i ask that we as a city make, to create a commission that will enhance transparency and accountability for how we serve our homeless families. looking and reflecting at the data of our clients that are coming to us for services over the past few years, i have noticed a disturbing trend. i have noticed that both the

proportion and actual number of families that are living in horrendous conditions with their children such as outside or in a vehicle is on the rise. this is exactly the type of data that i would like to present and discuss with an oversight committee, and i look forward to the ability to do so. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. thank you so much for having us here. my name is jay cheng, and i'm representing the san francisco chamber of commerce. as you know, our 1,000 members are regularly impacted by homelessness every day. transparency and solutions are important when we're tackling such an important problem as homelessness. first, we want to posit that

committees can sometimes be a block to progress, as well. we're all familiar with the planning commission and how the planning commission schedule works and is impacted on a regular basis. and we're all familiar with d.b.i. and how the d.b.i. commission which has existed since eternity has spent several years trying to build a universal permit database and failed despite a very robust commission. commissions also come at their own cost, and every dollar that we spend on a commission secretary is obviously money not being used on homeless services. we would ask you consider a

chartered commission versus an ordinance commission. as supervisor haney brought up, the department of homelessness was just created in the last year or two. as we think about homelessness going forward, flexibility is best regarding jurisdiction. thank you. >> good morning. jordan davis here, a main member of san francisco chapter of d.s.a. which will be considering this should it go on the ballot. as a matter of disclosure, i'm on the s.r.o. board. this is my first appearance

since my 21-day hunger strike over h.s.h. housing, which may not have been necessary if h.s.h. had made sure the underlying issue got worked out. i want to thank supervisor haney for working on this issue and supervisors ronen and walton for helping out. last year, h.s.h. introduced a wellness check policy for housing that although there's a lot of different opinions on that. the complaints by so many boot legers about this measure have

no merit. on every other commission in this city, 90% of matters get approved, and the others have so many issues that will bite us in the ass later, the make

decisions really lie because of this network of different committees. from my perspective, we think with of an h.s.h.

commission. we think it makes a lot of sense that the our city, our home commission will be reporting to the commission the status of our unhoused neighbors, and the people who work closely with the department of homelessness. there is strong support, and while this will slow this down, i think everybody can agree that the department is already quite slow.

if you are pregnant and homeless, you should be considered high risk, any way? and it's taken three years for the department to include a high-risk policy and it still doesn't include a lot of the policy recommendations. so we think that this would speed up things more quickly, and that more things would happen in the span of three years, so thank you so much. >> hello, supervisors. my name is kelly cutler. i'm an organizer at the coalition of homelessness, and she took my talking points this

is an advisory board, and so just going over the last year and looking at the meeting notes, it's like yeah, there's an issue there. it was interesting that hsoc was brought up because this is the city's coordinated response to homelessness. for oversight, we're told to go to the police commission, that's an issue. that's a huge issue. and so we were trying to write a letter and went to the board and were told to go to the police commission. basically done.

i'm cracking up that the chamber of commerce is here, like, prop c, hello? okay. that's it. thanks. >> good morning, supervisors. joe wilson, executive director, hospitality house. we are proud to support the commission for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. at least a couple of points. a commitment to democracy carries a couple of risks. so it may be that things do get slowed down, and there are those of us in san francisco that have some recollection of the redevelopment agency in the 60's and 70's. the fillmore acted quickly and without input, and we know the results there. i actually have a feasibility

study that was done out of flint, michigan, and they said to act quickly and without input for people of color. -- and with policies that don't get fixed, so we have an opportunity to fix that. and i am proud to support that,

very gratified with your leadership on this, and i'm confident there are folks to do that. thank you so much. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on this topic. i'm here on behalf of the ed lee democratic club, and i'm here to speak on behalf of this measure. we're worried that this will create an unnecessary and costly commission. creating a costly bureaucracy will eliminate an issue in providing services to the

public. we encourage you to reconsider before moving towards the ballot. thank you. >> hi, supervisors. my name is jonna, and i'm with the coalition on homelessness, and i just wanted to come and add my support for creating this commission? i've been hearing a lot of concerns about efficiency which i think is really important to talk about as things are already moving slow and the problem of homelessness is not progressing, but the way i look at it is solving these solutions require multiple input, and it is more inefficient to get plans that won't work and have to start over than do our due diligence on the front enter, crafting initiatives on the issue of

homelessness and having to go back because we redid it wrong the first time? and i also think it's important to weigh the pros and cons. if slowing down things by a few weeks will help more people, i see those few weeks for community consideration and better outcomes as incredibly worth it. i don't think we need to see it as a negative for our community, i think it's a positive for making our efforts go forward. thank you so much for this issue. i hope we can pass it and change the way that we're doing homeless services in the city. thank you. >> hi. i'm a district six resident, an s.r.o. resident and formerly

homeless. i'm personally in support of the committee on homelessness. there's intersections with labor, health care, and community integration. i think it's really telling when my formerly homeless neighbors and people that i work with that are experiencing homelessness have solutions to the issues that aren't being trickled up to the decision-makers and so i see that it's essential that we have this homeless commission. thank you so much for your support. >> good morning, board members -- supervisors, i'm sorry. i'm here to support the legislation. we appreciate the work that's been done by supervisor haney's office and the department and the collaboration that's happened to evolve this over time, and we look forward to the deeper work after this where we get to establish the

bylaws and the processes that happen with the actual commission that gets seated. thank you. >> chair ronen: is there any other member of the public that would wish to speak, please come forward. >> i guess -- i think hopefully, you can add the s.r.o.s or something like this for the s.r.o.s. it's very possible that we have the worst s.r.o. stock in the country. now, the other situation is i'm in support of this legislation, but i feel like the cause about emergencies should be removed. you might have removed it because somebody can just declare an emergency and override the rules and regulations. we're having a major problem where you will open a

navigation center but call it a safe navigation center or call it something else, and right now, the san francisco administrative code 2400 is being violated basically across the board in that no one is monitoring it from the city and county of san francisco. the navigation centers, they're getting a free pass to violate the 2400 -- no one in the city is monitoring it. they shove it off on the shelter monitoring team committee, and they don't have enough authority or resources to investigate when we're getting abused. so it's a perfect storm. the contractors will hire felons and drug users, and then, they go work at the shelter with no type of bedding. and then, when we go abused, we go to the shelter committee where they don't have enough

abuse oversight authority. the controller, the city is continuously ignoring and pretty much going total opposite of what the comptroller is saying and what national people are saying about homelessness. we're going opposition, and you can't see it. we're spending millions of dollars, and the homeless is still going up. we're spending $300 million, and it's going up. >> clerk: speaker time has elapsed. >> chair ronen: thank you for your comments. any other members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair ronen: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i want to thank everybody that came out to speak. i want to thank