Housing, LGBTQ, Transitional Age Youth - November 25, 2013 - Minutes
Meeting Date:
November 25, 2013 (All day)
Related Meeting Content:
San Francisco Youth Commission
Housing, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, and Transitional Age Youth Issues Committee
Minutes
Monday, November 25, 2013
5:00-7:00pm
City Hall, Room 345A
1. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102
There will be public comment on each item.
Chair: Eric Wu; Members: Lily Marshall-Fricker, DeAsia Landrum, Monica Flores, Angel Van Stark
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 pm. Commissioners present: Wu, Landrum, Marshall-Fricker Commissioners absent: Van Stark, FloresStaff present: Adele Carpenter
There was quorum.
Commissioner Flores noted present at 5:17 pm. Commissioner Landrum left at 6:42 pm.
2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)
Commissioner Landrum, seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker moved to approve the agenda. The motion was approved by acclamation.There was no public comment.
3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)
A. October 28, 2013 (Document A)Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, seconded by Commissioner Landrum, moved to approve the minutes from October 28, 2013. The motion was approved by acclamation. There was no public comment.
6. Presentations (Discussion Only)
A. Overview of San Francisco’s Transitional Age Youth Housing PlanPresenters: Anne Romero, Project Manager, Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development; Glenn Eagleson, Senior Planner & Policy Analyst, Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families
The chair called item 6A out of order and welcomed presenters. Anne Romero explained she was present to welcome general and ongoing feedback from commissioners. Mr. Eagelson explained he was present to discuss TAY SF and the TAY housing plan. Ms. Romero explained MOHCD is one of the funding sources for affordable housing development in the City. As a result of the Mayor’s Task Force on TAY (2006-2007), the TAY Housing Plan Workgroup developed a plan to create 400 new units for TAY by 2012, which was later pushed back to 2015. This goal will not meet the demand, but is both ambitious and reachable. TAY are considered a priority population for affordable housing development.
TAY housing projects use a variety of funding sources and are located throughout diverse neighborhoods. When new funding proposals are available, the goal is to include TAY input in program design and evaluation. One result of TAY input on previous NOFA’s was a focus on the safety of neighborhoods where housing would be located.
TAY housing projects include stand along TAY buildings, and buildings mixed with families or single adults. They have on-site services, but it is worth considering how well TAY are served in buildings where there are few TAY units. Several projects are in development or pre-development. The units under development are full units, but masterleased SRO’s have provided a quick way to make TAY units available.
Most TAY units are available to youth already enrolled in services through specific access points and/or are population specific, ie, for parenting youth. One challenge with siting affordable housing for TAY is neighborhood opposition to affordable housing developments in general or to homeless youth specifically. This was an issue where neighbors brought suit again the Booker T. Washington project, which was finally approved three months ago. Youth Commissioners have a role in advocating for the approval of affordable housing for TAY with the Planning Commission and BOS.
Some opportunities for feedback and participation from youth commissioners include:
• TAY Housing Evaluation, which includes TAY SF and collaborating City agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of current housing programs, models, gaps and issues in 2014. This effort should include youth focus groups.
• 2015 Consolidated Housing Plan, which will define housing goals from 2015-2020 (public hearings and needs assessments will take place beginning in January 2014); This document will guide funding priorities and will be an opportunity to highlight TAY housing goals
• MOHCD TAY Public Services Funding: an opportunity to align case management and educational funding from MOHCD with the TAY housing plan
• Providing feedback on future TAY NOFA’s (funding proposals)
Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding the TAY housing evaluation and places for youth commissioners to plug in. Key insights from that conversation included:
• There is baseline data on turnover rates and youth outcomes from DPH and HSA, but it has not been analyzed comprehensively.
• There has also not been any analysis of the rental market for TAY that would not normally be referred to housing programs.
• YC’ers could help by assessing the needs of TAY in public housing. How many TAY are living in public housing? What kind of linkages to services are there in public housing (Hope SF)
• Analyzing the experiences of TAY in masterleased programs
• Looking at how TAY not enrolled in services and get housing? What are the varying resources available? What about co-ops and shared housing options? Community land trusts? What about less resource-intensive models of affordable housing?
• What kind of referral spaces/sites are there for youth and residents to be connected with housing opportunities. A key challenge is keeping such resources updated, but Senior Action Network and others have been working to establish something similar. A City website for all residents could be helpful, but what about a hard copy guide (not regularly updated) that explains different types of housing options and resources, including BMR system, etc? Something similar (TAY housing guide) was written in 2008.
• Could there be a Community Land Trust TAY pilot?
• There cannot be preference in adult housing opportunities for TAY who grew up in San Francisco unless they fall into a protected class, but housing connected to a university or other system could be prioritized for more specified groups.
• Deciding on-site facilities is a matter of matching programmatic goals with zoning and site needs. This is part of the conceptual design phase, which can involve youth input.
The committee ended their discussion with Ms. Romero and Mr.Eagleson by discussing the possibility of touring completed TAY housing sites.
7. Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)
A. TAY Housing EvaluationCommissioners debriefed the presentation on the TAY housing plan. The committee discussed the possibility of working to suggest focus group designs for the eventual evaluation.
The committee also discussed the idea of building more of a framework for connecting youth with housing resources, including creative and less-resource intensive options. They discussed the possibility of having a youth housing town hall off-site event and to have a consensus workshop on brainstorming ideas for a youth housing town hall at the next committee meeting. They also discussed reaching out to the community land trust for a presentation or meeting.
Committee members requested staff make a doodle for a special committee meeting.
B. 12N Updates
Ms. Carpenter discussed the idea of presenting to the full YC on 12N. Committee members agreed this would be a good idea.
C. Children’s Fund Updates
Commissioner Wu gave updates on the December 5th townhall.
D. Review and Update Committee Goals from October Meeting
Commissioners discussed working on refining their other priorities over the Thanksgiving break.