colon, anna king claus. please come forward. >> my name is robert baker well -- bakewell. i support increasing volunteer efforts, philanthropic input, public-private investment, and public funding for our parks and recreation facilities. during 15 years of volunteer efforts to restore and stored this section of golden gate park, decrease revenue has resulted in devastating loss of gardeners for maintenance of infrastructure.

we are increasing deployment of volunteers and philanthropic info. given the current budget woes, mr. ginsberg's efforts to do more with less and bring in more investment are to be congratulated. i cannot support this measure while it is unclear how this would impact growing revenue for our part and recreational facilities. thank you. >> 10 -- tim colon. i wanted to express my deep disappointment of this measure. it has the simplicity of the republican position. no taxes, and no revenue. it is off the table and cannot be discussed. in the face of what we are looking at now -- many of you know the budget realities more

than we do. you are looking at a devastating budget climate for years. this measure is counterproductive. if it was turning away people from parks -- j. p. murphy is the club house close to us that has been closed, that we do not have the use of now. there is a terrific child care center in our neighborhood that would be a terrific win for the city. this is so counterproductive when there are ways to try to keep facilities open. the alternative to this is more devastation, less recreation. i get there is a long tradition of using ballot initiatives to turn out voters at election. there are no hard feelings on that. but i wish this was not such a

toxic initiative to the quality of life and people that depend on parks and recreation. >> i have worked for many years to support parks and recreation. i have a child in the city and use these facilities virtually every day. i believe this ballot measure is a disaster. the department always is first on the chopping block when budget cuts are made. for years, we have had to maintain our system with insufficient resources. but there is a demand they somehow continue to conjure up public funds to keep our parks beautifully maintained, our centers open, and our programs viable. those things require money. in the meantime, recreation centers are closed and vacant.

there are too few gardeners to care for our parks. directors have been let go. the ability to partner to provide activities and programing in our public spaces is vital to maintaining the baseline of what we have now. who wants to see more and the wreck centers? the choice is this or nothing. where does that money come from? if this had offered solutions the rest of us have not thought of before, great. obviously, we all want to find a solution that is going to sustain our park system. without private money, that would be fabulous. but i do not hear you coming up with alternatives are solutions that would make seeking out private dollars affordable. this is a disaster. i hope he will pull it off the

ballot. it is counterproductive. it is counterproductive to our fragile parks system. i urge you to pull it from the ballot. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am the executive director of san francisco p.a.l. i am also the parent of two young teens. we have been actively using the parks for the entire time we have been living in the city. i encourage you to reconsider this measure. i understand your intent. we want to make sure our children have access to the park and help the activities. we serve 5000 kids through 800 volunteers. our biggest expansion areas have been in omi and>> we have workey

with park and ride over the past couple of years and i want to emphasize the focus of the staff that has really been on providing more and more access to children for healthy activities. again, i applaud what your intention is. what the unintended consequence will be is that you will be limiting opportunities for kids. let's reconsider this in and do this correctly to make sure that we are providing more opportunity and not limiting revenue when we certainly need more services for all of our children, especially those in the disenfranchised communities. and >> if anyone else would like to speak, approached the microphone. -- >> if anyone else would like to speak, approach the

microphone. [reading names] >> i am here today over a couple of issues that concern me. you have heard it time and again, we have been cut $33 million. if this measure had a replacement for that, i would be enthusiastically supporting it. i don't think anybody wants to close facilities or not have department employees providing services to san franciscans. the reality is that we don't have those revenues. to further strain us without putting something in place presence theological problem that i can't get past. one of the things i hear as i go out to the community meetings is that in the process of using these clubhouses to other community serving facilities,

neighborhood people feel that they don't have the access for community meetings. i have said this publicly at the last committee meeting that we had. even though it takes longer, no one size fits all over a policy. i want them to be in dialogue about how to incorporate those facilities being used for the community. they have an ability to get in in a timely fashion. that isn't going to work for everybody or every time, but we hear that message. finally, wearing my hat as the share of the america's cup organizing committee, this legislation would affect the 2012 use of the marine and greenhill has as the principal venue for the event authority. i have not had the opportunity

because this was not vetted publicly -- [chime] but what i have seen, i think the wording represents a problem. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. >> any other members of the public that would like to comment? please come forward. >> i am a resident of the mission and i came here to basically oppose the proposal. listening to both sides, it is interesting. i still find that it is not where it needs to be before it goes to the voters. i would strongly suggest that it be pulled. we've that yet. we get into the point where we feel good about in and i don't think it is there yet. >> if there are no other members

of the public to comment on this item, we can close public comment. >supervisor kim: public comment is closed. >> i want to thank everyone for being here on both sides of the issue. it has been a very informative hearing. i appreciate you taking the time to be here as well as my colleagues as well. i will come forward with with the folks i work with on this legislation and taken under consideration, everything we have talked about today. i do appreciate your time and input. supervisor kim: for their outstanding questions? thank you supervisor avalos for being here. this item is now closed.

yes, we can file the matter. we are going to take in a quick bathroom break that will allow time for folks that are here for item number one to exit the room and folks that are here for item #2 to start coming in. thank you very much.

supervisor kim: think you will for your patience, i know that we have a number of items that are of interesting to the public today. we still have one more item after this one. please call item no. 2. >> hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance by

former supervisor under the administrative code that the homeless shelter -- [unintelligible] supervisor kim: just to give a little context behind this ordinance, we want to talk about some of the issues that the authors are trying to address. according to the san francisco homeless count conducted by the city, the 6455 individuals identified as thomas. 5000 met the definition of homeless. this includes a living on the streets, occupied cars, encampments, and a makeshift structures. 55% of the population as many of you know or disabled. we have many members of the homeless community that our

veterans and seniors. with the enactment that passed in 2002, it allowed us to take a reservation in the shelter system that was an unintended outcome of the legislation. of the homeless population in the shelter system, 300 individuals represent 6% of the homeless population. a number of shelter beds as 1134. 1094 beds are for the general public. of those, 345 vs five recipients that represent 30% of the beds in our shelter system. this came out of concern that 6% of the homeless population, we

reserve 30% for the population which might make it more equitable for the veteran individuals. we are currently in conversations. i like to think the department head to see if there are at the ministry of ways that we can fix. this has been brought about because it was something that was brought to the voters in 2002. the discussion is ongoing and we want to address inequity. we also want to address that there is anywhere from 58 to 70 beds that go vacant at night. all beds should be occupied and we're currently looking for ways to address that issue. we can open up for questions or colleagues before i go to public comment. it is still enforced to have a

public airing. -- hearing. supervisor farrell: i have a number of concerns here and love to direct my questions to trent if that's ok. thank you for being here. as i think about it, there are three kinds of buckets that i want to talk to you about. one, the details of the proposal here talks a lot about four infers that there are shelter beds allocated to the detriment of other populations. can you walk through the numbers, and what is allocated

to other groups? >> supervisor kim is right, about 30% of the shelter beds are set aside. we have others said aside. 33 for veterans. 25 for the community justice center. this represents about 9% of the beds. 99 total. when you look at some of the claims of around why this initiative is necessary, a lot of the claims talk about vacancies. as a result, the client can't access them and they go vacant. when we peel back the data and look at it. the nets are not being left

vacant. the majority tends to be the providence church in the bayview. we only have the big three shelters in the south, the sanctuary, and the next door. does represent a hundred and 67 beds, the vast majority of the total in the system, 345 are for care not cash. if you look at the vent their reserve, 89% reserved are being filled by those very clients. about 11%, roughly 40 beds are vacant. so what we do is of three -- we release those beds. and allowing the general homeless population to access them.

the concerns are being raised that these are not being accessed. when we look at the vacant numbers, and i get a vacancy report every morning. last two nights, on july 12, there were seven vacant beds among the hundred and 67, 0.8%. last night, there were five. the idea is that the reserve and beds go empty and cannot cash is the cause of that is not supported by the data that we're looking at. there is a population out there who are not eligible, and the population gets squeezed out of the system. they do tend to be veterans and singers. they have other benefits that are available to them. these are mostly federal disability benefits, about $830

a month. they are getting twice what a normal cash grant in the county would be. there is an assumption that these are not the same population, but it is. we helped them get on the federal disability benefits. we have 380 people right now. as compared to about 3007 years ago. if you look at the population, about 127 of them are self reported as disabled. another 14% are over age 55. 55 isn't a senior, but if you have been homeless for a long time, that 55 years old is a barrier.

the notion that is not serving these populations, again, it is not supported by the data. i hope that clarifies how we run things. >> i appreciate that data. we just got that today about the number of beds that go into the at night, so with v sheltering monitoring report, what is your analysis of where the vacancies come from? some of that comes from providence. i can't imagine that all of these vacancies happen at providence? >> i will be happy to provide you a copy. there were 50 vacant beds, 33 at providence. a at the use of shelter.

last night, there were 48 vacancies. 2/3. small numbers in the shelters that tend to be in the central city and the larger numbers out in the bay view. it is understandable. the transportation, providence is now out on the floor rather than beds. it serves for of the have lived out in the bayview ended services centers out there and they go to a province to sleep. >> moving half of the proposal or the ordinance itself to talking about care not cash, what has achieved. i understand the motive behind it, but my biggest fear is that

we are trying to solve a smaller problem in kreplach a program that has provided incredible success. i'm wondering if you can talk to what can i cash has achieved. >> and the notion of cannot cash was born in 2002 to address the problem of a cash assistance system that was failing. homeless individuals were on for an average of three years. a large portion have been over five years. cash was not helping these individuals improve their lives. if we do care, we can provide them housing. the study shows that support of housing, and the impact of all the other related services is much greater.

greater employment uptake, better outcomes in the mental- health treatment. your emergency room visits and the like. instead, to provide housing for us populations. we shifted. the win moved $13.7 million to cash assistance annually. no new general fund dollars. 1296 units of housing, health placed 35 and 68 folks not just in the cannot cash units, but in others. >> to translate, $13.7 million, is that since the program goes the inception? >> since the annual -- it is an annual number. supervisor farrell: so it is able to be provided other was to