>> good morning, everyone. this meeting will come to order. this is the april 21, 2021 budget and finance committee meeting. i am matt haney, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by community remembers and is miss linda wong with our clerk. i want to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting and madam clerk, do you have any announcements? to protect board members t legislative and committee room are closed and will be participating remotely. this is to the various local, state, and community members will attend through a video

conference to the same extent and if they are physically present. and the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunity to speak are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. (187) 355-1611 and press pound twice. you will be meeted in the listening mode only. when the item is star 3 and best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television or radio. alternatively, submit email to the budget and finance clerk and if you submit via email, it will be included as part of the

official file. items acted upon are what will appear and this concludes the announcements. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. please call item one. >> item number one, resolution authorizing the small business emergency relief program and authorize oewe to enter into agreements not to exceed $7.3 million including one or more funding/loan agreements with the california rebuilding fund, llc, in an expected amount of $4.2 million and one or more funding agreements with kiva microfunds in an expected amount of $3.1 million. members of the public should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound

twice if you haven't already done so. dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indication you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been admitted an you may begin your comments. >> president: thank you, madam clerk. this was a continuation from last week. colleague, does anyone have any follow-up questions on this item? we heard this last week. >> chair? supervisor safai? > supervisor: i got a lot more clarity on the item. and the only thing i want and i talked about this with the mayor's office, the only thing that i was hoping to do in this resolution is say after 90 or 120 days that they would come back and report to us on the

demand for the loan. i am concerned that the small business that we have spoken to are not as excited about loans and are more excited about grant opportunities. so i understand taking the money and leveraging it and taking the interest rate and is not high for the small businesses but it would be great and i consider this a friendly amendment that oewe which report back to us. and if not, convert and i think they have the flexibility to convert into grant opportunities. >> an i think we had somebody

this could not be here. is that okay with you all? >> thank you, chair haney. if that is the will of the committee, that is fine. we would prefer 120 days just because as we go through trying to make sure we have the right outreach strategy and product market fit, more time obviously and happy to come back and transfer to grants if we need that >> president: supervisor safai, what is your -- >> supervisor: i am fine with 120 days. i know we will be in communication and it would be nice to get it on the record and see where this group of loans and the previous report and a few other targeted loans for latino, and african-american

businesses to give us an update on that. that will be great. >> great. deputy city attorney pearson, is that clear what we are asking for? >> to come back in 120 days. >> the loan program. >> do you want to make that amendment now? >> so moved. >> a roll call vote and an amendment, please. >> clerk: would you like to take public comment prior to adopting the amendment? >> president: do we need to before adopting the amendments? >> clerk: that is the practice, but we can take a roll call vote. if that is what you wish to do.

supervisor's safai's amendment. [roll call on amendment] there are three aye's. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 and continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are any callers who wish to comment on item number one?

i believe there is one caller in the queue. please unmute the first caller. ed >> the caller has been unmuted. good morning, caller. >> it is my understanding that the caller has been disconnected. are there any other callers in the queue? for item number one. >> there are no other callers in the queue. >> president: i want to make a motion to recommend the item to the full board with a positive

recommendation as amended. can we have roll call? >> clerk: vice chair safai on that motion. >> aye. >> member mar? >> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> there are three aye's. >> all right. that will go to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. thank you so much. madam clerk, please call item two. >> resolution two designating agencies qualified to participate in the 2021 annual joint fundraising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound twice. if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate

you have raised your hand and wait until the system is unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> president: we have the city administrator's office here to present on this item. >> thank you, supervisor. i am from the office of the city administrator. each year federations send applications to the board to request to participate in the combined charities campaign. the office reviews the applications and report whether the federations meet the requirements of the ordinance. all of the five federations applying to participate met the criteria to participate. and you have those materials for your consideration. >> president: thank you. is there a bla report on this item?

>> clerk: chair hane, i did not have a report on this item. >> president: colleagues, any questions or comments? all right. can we go to public comment please? >> members who wish to provide and wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. >> there are no callers available at the time. with no further questions or items and to move to a full board with the positive recommendation. >> roll call vote please. >> on that motion, vice chair safai.

>> there are three aye's. >> and in the aggregate amount not exceeding $100 million and authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development, mohcd to submit the application and related documents to the california debt limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of the residential mortgage revenue bond in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16 million and c3.1. and sixth street at avenue c.

item four is the intent to reimburse the expenditure of future bonded indebtedness and authorizing mohcd to submit the application and related documents to permit issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16.5 million for 241 sixth street. item 18 a resolution declaring the intent of the city to reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds in the aggregate principal not to authorize $16 million with the amounts and the scattered sites at 4101 noreiga, 200 randolph, 409 head, 2206,

22268 highway and 135 eddy street. call 415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. use the meeting i.d. and pound twice. you may begin your comments after hitting star 3 and waiting to be unmuted. >> president: thank you so much, madam clerk. i believe we have my and will turn it over to you all and the bond manager from mohcd and avenue c known as treasure

island parcel c3.1 and knox sro and 4101 noriega street. to 2268 great highway and 1353 to 1367 eddy street. and the knox sro and with the financial responsibility and enable all three projects and bond financing with the california debt limit allocation committee. the proposed bond issuances will be conduit financing and not require the city to pledge any of the funds to the repayment of the bonds. treasure island c3.1 is a 138 unit including one manager's unit affordable, new construction housing project to

be located at sixth street and existing catholic charities and other house holds on treasure island from 130% to 136% area median income and currently live at treasure island. the knox sro item four is with the manager's unit and 100% of the units will serve households at or below 40% of the san francisco county area median income. no residents will be displaced as all residents will have the right to return after the rehabilitation project. sfha scattered sites item 8 is

the affordable located across five small sites in four different neighborhoods in san francisco. the project is currently public housing and will convert to nonprofit ownership and operations as part of the rehabilitation project. 100% of the units will serve households serving less than 80% of the san francisco county area median income. and no residents will be displaced as all residents will have the right to return after the project. if the projects are awarded a bond allocation in august, they will return to the board for bond issuance approval and i am joined here with my colleague amy chan and the project sponsors. we are happy to answer any questions that the committee members may have on the three

projects and thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. appreciate your work and your presentation. >> is there a bla report on this item? >> clerk: chair haney, we have no report on this item. >> president: colleagues, questions or comments? obviously these are projects we are all supportive of and couple in my district. and do you want to add anything? >> and the scattered sites in particular and i started my career with the housing authority and are long overlook and neglected, so we are super excited they will be given the attention and revitalization they deserve. thank you. >> all right. we can open up for public

comment. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any caller who is wish to comment on item three, four, and eight? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> >> president: public comment is closed. colleagues, i would like to make a motion to move items 3, 4, and 8 to full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, roll call vote please. >> vice chair safai? >> aye. >> member mar? >> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> there are three aye's. >> president: items three, four,

and eight will go to the full board with a full recommendation. thank you for being here and for your great work. madam clerk, call five, six, and seven together. >> clerk: item five to retroactively approve the cares act community block grant coronavirus round 3 program and authorizing the mayor to apply for and accept and expend the city's cares-cv3 program entitlement from the united states department of housing and urban development in the amount of $9.6 million for the period of december 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023. item 6, resolution retroactivity approving the amendment of the cares act emergency solutions grants coronavirus round two from the u.s. department of housing and urban development in the amount of $10 million for operations and services for congregate shelter. and item 7, resolution offering

the office of housing and community development to accept the in-kind gift of software and service development software from the bay area community services and for the period of april 2021 through december 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call 415-655-0001 meeting i.d. 187-3555-1611 and press wound twice. the system mrofrpt indicate you have raised your hand and when you have been unmuted, you may begin your comments. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. so i believe that we have -- we have eric shaw to present on these items. >> thank you.

>> good morning. i am pleased to be here today to present the proposed uses for the cares act clars and i will also be presenting on the platform from the u.s. treasury funds and emergency rental assistance. next slide please. >> excuse me. madam clerk, may i have control to share the slides? thank you. >> thank you. thank you. item number 5, the slide summarizes the breakdown of the cares act allegations received by the city. the first round of funding was based and the annual formula allocation and we allocated the funds to stabilize people experiencing homelessness and move into shelter in place hotels led by the department of homeless and homeless outreach team with emergency rental

assistance. with the additional funding from the city to the round three, we are proposing to fund a number of items with a broad impact with the city's priorities. and allocated to staff and infrastructure at the partner cbos and expansion of the existing home ownership emergency loan program which will be necessary and eviction prevention efforts for presenters. and in response to the pandemic widening the digital divide, we propose with the internet access and 400 laptops for high vulnerability and the round of cares act clars on capital improvement with the community partner facility with the retrofits as we recover. the capital dollars are

important going forward as that portion of the city budget was spend down last year. as we are proposing funding support for low income businesses and food pantry operations retroactively. next slide please. item six, this is the proposed round two act which the board of supervisors approved for allocating the $43.6 million to shelter in place hotels. in light of partial reimbursement to hotel cost, we propose to shift $10 million for services and operations of the congregate shelt taernd total amount remains the same. next slide please. for item 7, in order to launch the u.s. treasury funded local assistance program with the neighborhood based community partners that target the most vulnerable households, the user friendly application and assessment are necessary. we have partnered with all home

a nonprofit focus and regional solutions to create a regional application program for municipalities to administer the emergency rental assistance and in order to distribute the dars exwitbly and with the department of housing. i thank you all for your leadership and we appreciate the opportunity to share our proposal with the crucial funding to play an activitial roll in the recovery. this concludes the presentation. i am joined by colleague and on these items if you have any questions. is there a bla report? >> a chair haney, we have no report on this item.

>> great, thank you. >> president: director shaw, can you speak about what has been happening at the shelter and how many people have been serve there had. for how long, and a little bit more of a breakdown on the cost there? it looks like it's $10 million retroactively. if there could be more information shared about how exactly that is being used and how many people are being served there. >> chair, i am waiting for the hsa colleagues to join. >> good morning, chair haney. i'm emily gibbs, the budget director for hsa and we have been working with hsh on that musco needs shelter operation.

they have had a capacity of up to 20 # o clients in the congregate setting at musconi. and there are about 140 client there is right now. and the $10 million is supporting the staffing and meals and hygiene trailers and cleaning and rent for the facility. when we began this operation, we were hoping to receive fema eare imburrsment and fema is not for the congregate shelter site and this is not something they are reimbursing for and so this is with the emergency shelter grant is a way to rebalance the budget

because we initially thought that fema was coming in. >> president: all the people there do not qualified? >> i am not enough to know that 140 definitely don't, but the intention of the site was to provide a place for people who are not sip eligible to shelter. >> president: considering how much we have gone back and forth on sip eligibility, my understanding is the last couple of times we had hearings and presentations and emergency ordinances on sip eligibility is our interpretation now is very broad. so i don't understand why those 140 people are not in sip hotels particularly when we are paying for this, the sip hotels and the musconi shelters at a tune of

$10 million when most of that could be paid for by fema eare imburrsment in with the information about why the folks are not in the hotels and particularly at a greater cost to the city? >> it is understanding they are not sip eligible and that has been the use of the site. is there someone who can -- i don't know who is operating the masconi site, but $10 million is a lot of money. especially when we are paying for it and you thought it would be reimbursed and it is not, and not clear why we are spending so much money on it unless we identify they are not sip

eligible. is there anyone from h.c.a. or the controller or who can speak to the specifics and why they are not sip eligible? >> i can speak to the fact that my understanding of folks who were coming out of isolation and quarantine who didn't meet the age or vulnerability and this is a way to offer that exit and this is retroactive. and do we know for $10 million, and is this retroactive in the sense that this is funding the

operation from when to when? what time is this funding? >> i believe back to july. and more than 140 people are served over the course of the event. and how many total? i don't have that, but i can get it for you. and the money from shifting and shifting $10 million from what we thought was going to be for sip hotels and putting it to masconi? did i read that last slide correctly? and the unexpected need and less of a need for around the sip hotels with the reimbursements?

>> fema is not willing to reimburse for the congregate shelter and population there. and with the increase to 100% reimbursement of eligible cost and less of a need on the sip side with the other sources. and i will open it up to my colleagues, but i may need to continue this later into the meeting if there is somebody who can really speak in detail and how many people have been serve and the specifics of the demographics and served in sip hotels. it is concerning to me that the neither of them and the expansive definition and who qualified in the way that most people are qualifying. and when it comes to the cost to

the city when the shelter in place hotels do not come at the cost to the city to the same degree. and i really question and want to better understand why we are spending $10 million and not clear and convinced those people are served at the reimbursement and open it ep to colleagues. i will open it up for questions or comments. >> let's open this up to public comment.

members of the public who wish to comment should call 415-655-0001 and using the meeting i.d. and press pound twice. >> public comment is now closed. so director shaw, and ms. gibbs, i guess i could give you two options here. to bring this back next week and have a more in-depth conversation, or i can defer this to later in the meeting. we do have one item here that is likely to be pretty long. and so we could come back if there is somebody who can answer this in more detail. i think that my question, i hope, is relatively clear which is for spending $10 million on

this that we thought might be reimbursed by fema but is not. i really want to understand why we aren't serving these folks in sip hotels. >> excuse me, supervisor. pay i speak? i am here from the department -- thank you. i am here from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i am helping the department on behalf of the cfogg and with the budget and fiscal advisor in the department. and i'm sorry, while i just came recently to the department and i can't speak specifically and in terms of the effect of the proposal, basically bottom line effect since it is retroactive is to save general fund costs at masconi in the past. it doesn't have any impact on the future options for the people at masconi.

and in the future it is time limited. and to find other options for the people there to free up that space as they come back. and this legislation doesn't really affect the choices about the options for those people. the bottom line effect is to replace general fund costs being able to use the funds that have been made available under the cares act to save general fund costs at that facility. >> so the -- what we're funding here is only retroactive? it's not supporting any of the ongoing operations starting today? because if it funded any ongoing and then it could potentially be affected if people were moved to other situations and right now. >> you are correct. it is entirely retroactive.

and the costs to otherwise be general fund. going forward to free up the time crunch and already looking for the options and shelter there. >> president: great, great. thank you for that. and that is important clarification and i would like more answers around the decisions that are made to mean we will spend $10 million on this that we might have spent on something else if we were able to pursue options for individuals that could have been reimbursed by fema. i would like the explanation for that and better explanation of who these 140 people were who we kept in masconi rather than sip hotel. >> can i make one other point? even if we expanded the

eligibility, some of the people are being funded by general fund and other grant funds because fema's eligibility is restricted to whom they consider vulnerable to the pandemic and eligible for the fema reimbursement. there may be a distinction and to get fema funding for those individuals in the hotels. >> absolutely. we have had long conversations around the ordinances that we have put forward here as a board. my understanding is that to the d.p.h. in the controller and that we are using broadly inclusive and we see able to be reimbursed and fits the criteria

that we believe makes them eligible. to apply that retroactively and there are 140 people still there. i would like to even though this is funding for retroactive, i would like to understand what the plan is for those people. when they will be moved, how they will be moved. and why they aren't in hotels as i said. so to go from isolation to quarantine. i don't know if -- i want to better understand why that decision was continued throughout even as a potential assessment of some of the folks

to be fema eligible. and ms. chan has her hand up as well. >> hi, chair haney. i would like to propose us being able to the committee to move forward items five and seven and defer item six if you still have outstanding questions like it sound like you do to later in the agenda when some of our colleagues at h.s.h. and h.s.a. may be joining later in the discussion and can answer those questions if that works for the committee. >> president: that is fine with me. just to make sure i am clear, deputy city attorney pearson and madam clerk, that the particular issues of concern and questions that i still are in item six, and so we want to move forward

items five and seven right now. with the meeting to answer my question today and move that forward today. if not, we may have to come back with more detail. madam clerk, is that clear? >> clerk: if you would like to move forward with five and seven and come back to item six, we can certainly do that. great. i want to move items five and seven to the full board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote please? >> clerk: on that motion, vice chair safai? i think he may have had to step out. >> safai, absent. member mar?

>> aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> clerk: there are two aye's. >> president: items five and seven will go to the full board with a positive recommendation and we will come back to item six. thank you to everyone who is here. madam clerk, please call item 9. clerk tt resolution approving and authorizing the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute loan documents relating to a loan to provide financing for the acquisition of real property located at 420000 gearry boulevard and predevelopment activities for the construction of the 100% affordable multifamily rental housing project consisting of 98 units for senior households and commercial space known as 4200

gearry boulevard in an aggregate amount not to exceed $14.5 million million. members should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 187 355 1611 and press pound two. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you so much, madam clerk. we have ian from supervisor chan's office and jonathan from mohcd to present on this item. >> great. thank you, chair haney. i think am i okay to present? i think i am. >> please go ahead. >> good morning. i am the project manage we are

mohcd. i am here to request your approval for agenda item number nine before you today related to the proposed affordable housing development that will be located in the inner richmond. project is known as 4200 gearry and is being developed for the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation. in this resolution we mochd to execute a loan in $14.5 million and the finance site acquisition costs and predevelopment expenses. the project is one of two and which is the notice of funding availability and issued on december 7, 2019. and with little in terms of

investment in affordable housing. mocd issued this as a result of san francisco voters passing proposition a and affordable housing measure on the ballot. and that project will serve low and extremely low income seniors with units at 60% of ami. in 20 of the units subsidized through the local operating subsidy program. it is anticipated that 30 of the units will be subsidized through the senior operating program as well. thank you for your time. i am joined by other staff and representatives to answer any questions you might have. and i would like to thank you for your consideration of this resolution. >> thank you so much for your work. 100% affordable housing. we love to see that.

and appreciate you being here. ian, as well. is there anything you wanted to add? >> thank you, chair haney. good morning, supervisor safai and mar. thank you for having me. i am with supervisor connie chan's office. i wanted to really thank the the mayor's office of housing and tndc and the housing accelerator fund for helping make this project a reality. the office has been extremely supportive and we appreciate mohcd and especially working with our community and taking feedback, being responsive to what the community has been pushing for in terms of deeper levels of affordability in the project. we are excited about where this project and how far this has

moved. our office has been working since the passage of prop a, the affordable housing bond, to bring the project actually before the passage of that to bring 100% affordable housing project to district one. so we're extremely excited about this moving forward and just wanted to really voice our strong support. thank you so much. >> president: great. thank you. and thank you to supervisor chan as well for her work in leadership on this. supervisor mar? >> supervisor: thanks, chair haney. i just also wanted to express my excitement and strong support for this project. and thank mohcd, director shaw, and the team and all the work on it. and thank tndc, the developer, and supervisor chan and ian. and it is really exciting to see this move forward alongside the

affordable family housing project in the sunset direct on irving street and the two projects are just incredibly important step toward expanding affordable housing and ensuring that low and extremely low income seniors and families are able to live on the west side. i did have a question just about the subsidy for seniors because i know that's been an issue that a lot of folks in the senior community and faith in action have been pushing on. and just the fact that, you know, the rent charged to low income and very low income seniors in affordable housing aren't really afford to believe seniors. so i know there's going to be the loss subsidies for 20% of the units here and so that's clear. but can you talk a little bit about -- jonathan, i think you

mentioned there would be additional sos subsidies that might be tapped for this? >> yes, that's correct. yes. so sos will subsidy i think it's about -- additional units and basically the way it will work is that these units will be underwritten at a very low rent. and the subsidy will cover the difference between the lower ami and the 60% ami rents. >> supervisor: and you said that's projected to be 30% units on top of the loss units? >> yeah, i will pull up the exact -- hold on. let me look at the exact unit. i think it is about 30 total units in addition to the loss units. but i would like to -- to double check.

there will be 30 units in addition to the loss of units anticipated to be subsidized through sos. >> thank you. with the total amount and the subsidy amount? with the construction loan closing. can you also remind me with what the status and the funding amount that we have allocated to. that is also an issue and not to expand that subsidy pull.

>> i will defer to hsa on that question, supervisor mar. >> hi, amy. i just had a question about sort of the current status or the amount that we have available for the sos subsidies. and i'm happy to follow up with you about these issues as well. this is sort of a broader issue than just this item in the 4200 gearry project. >> sorry. i have some technical difficulties.

>> supervisor: amy, we can follow up on this if you need pull up other information. >> supervisor mar, if we can follow up with this, i think amy is having some technical difficulties. >> supervisor: that sounds great. we'll follow up. and thanks again, all of you, for all of your work on this. >> thank you. >> president: all right. thank you, again, everyone for your work. can we open this up to public comment please? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue.

members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3 now to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any caller who wish to comment on item number 9? >> at this time we have one caller. i will put them through. >> thank you. >> caller: hi. am i on? this is in response to mandelman's place for all. >> clerk: excuse me, ma'am. >> caller: hello? >> president: sorry, that item has not come up yet. this is for a different item. we expect it should be probably another hour or so until that item has public comment. >> caller: so i have to call back in an hour? >> president: yes, this is an entirely different item.

we can't legally allow you to give public comment on other issues. sorry. we hope you can call back later. >> clerk: are there any other callers in the queue? >> there are no other callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president: public comment is now closed. ms. campbell, we have a bla report on this item. >> yes. i just actually really want to point out i the board is approving -- being asked to i a prove the $14.5 million agreement for acquisition and predevelopment. i actually want to point our recommendation to i a amend to enter into a purchase and sell agreement at the closing of the construction loan in which the city will take ownership of the land at 4200 geary boulevard and enter into a land agreement and we recommend approval as amended.

>> president: great, thank you. i want to make a motion to accept those amendments. madam clerk, roll call vote please. [roll call vote] [please stand by]

>> clerk: and to extend the contract warranty period to april 29, 2025. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item

should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1873551611, then press ##. if you have not already done so, please dial *3. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> we have tom mcguire here from sfmta to present on this item. >> okay. good morning, supervisions. we're here to talk to you about -- sorry, i don't have my camera right here. i'm sorry. okay. good morning, supervisions. we're here to talk to you about a contract amendment for the central subway. this is for a subcontractor, who my colleague mr. walton, and we'll walk through the details of. this is not to bring you the main contractor, who has constructed the

subway. and there are several other smaller contracts that e.m.t. has directly with key technical firms (indiscernable). this is to install -- it is a modified contract in which the contract would install the train control signaling, which controls the flow of trains through the subway. >> do you have the presentation that you can share with us? >> i do. i'll bring them up now. and i believe they just made me a presenter. >> chairman: okay. great. >> the only key thing i want to share, supervisions, is that while the sfmta is in the process of accepting the substantial completion from the prime contractor, as you can see here the project's budget has grown over time, from a little over 1.6 -- from 1.68 to

1.89 billion dollars. we're at the point where we're in the middle of testing, and much of the word that lisa is going to describe to you has already been done by this contractor at risk. there are a lot of lessons, but we had a great discussion at the transportation authority commission about how we're applying those to other capital projects with the m.t.a., and other capital agencies. the action before you is fairly narrow, which is related to a contract that is with regard to a technical consultant. and i'll hand my mic over to lisa to walk you through the details of what talis has delivered. >> thank you, tom, and thank you, supervisions, for your time today. this modification really entails three separate items.

this just gives you some of the background of when we entered into the contract with tutor, and then we severed the atcs away from tutor for implementation and testing. the first item, as tom mentioned, was work that was performed by talis in the past year, at risk. and these are the type of items that come up generally in this type of a large project that, you know, after the construction is done, we find out that, oh, that equipment won't fit there any longer because a supporting pole had to go there. or the track had to have changed because they really couldn't get it when we went into construction at the grade that the original decide was calling for etc. so these are things to correct those items that due to construction and other constraints needed to be adjusted as we moved forward and into

implementation and installation of the train control system equipment. so that is one of the items included in this change order before you today. the other item in here is during the construction and build in the last couple of years, the fire code for ventilation within the tunnels changed. and it changed and we were notified of that change, but the ventilation system had already been built. so that meant that it had negative impact to the operations of our service, our rail service, within those ventilation caverns, and they had to do assessments to figure out how we could appropriately and efficiently run trains through the ventilation cavern while still maintaining the compliance to the fire codes and the fire ventilation codes, which really meant in certain areas of that

cavern, we could never have, on either side, actually, northbound or southbound, we could never really have more than one train in that ventilation cavern. so we really had to automate that compliance because it is a portal, and there will be a lot of movement within that area, within that space. it's a turnaround, it's a crossover, and it's a large cavern. we automated the movement of those trains to assure that no train -- no two trains at any one time will be within those caverns, and we laid out how the whole system then would react downstream as well, and maintain headway through that. so given that change, and this is one that is a large change. it is a new feature for the train-controlled system that isn't in our metro tunnels today. we also paid for acceleration to assure that this feature is completed, tested, and safety-certified, to

assure our current revenue opening schedule. and then the last item is a delay claim that we see from tallis. and this is as we were really crafting the contracts and working to sever this are particular contract and work with them on a couple of other things. we were trying to work with the various contractors to determine a start date for system testing innovation. and, unfortunately, that process meant that we really gave talis several different start dates, and we couldn't give them a firm start date based on negotiations between tutor, talis, and ourselves. so we negotiated with talis this particular delay claim for a year plus delay, to maintain staffing at the level we

would need them because we weren't sure when we were going to start. so that's my presentation. i'm ready to take questions from anyone -- any questions you may have for myself or tom mcguire. >> chairman: thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, there. chair haney and members of the committee, the proposed resolution would approve an extension of an existing contract with thales, and increase the amount by $12.8 million to $27.7 million. we show the contract budget on page 14 of our report. this is paid from the total central subway report, shown on page 15 of our report. and then there is a delay for claim in this contract

modification up to $2.5 million. and because of that, we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy decision for the board of supervisors. and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> chairman: thank you, ms. campbell. mr. mcguire, i know that you had mentioned that there was a robust conversation, it sounded like at the m.t.a. board, about central subway and learnings, and it may be in line with the other report we had about management of big projects -- >> right. >> chairman: is any of that discussion things that we can improve on either around timeline or efficiency, costs -- is any of that constructive on what is happening here with this particular

contract? are there things that you would have done differently, or will do differently in the future, and if you might talk about that a little as it relates to central subway, and even this item in front of us. >> yeah. thanks for the question. some of the key lessons we talked about at the commission last week that are relevant to central subway include the -- both the way in which we procure our contractors and the way in which we, as the client, and our general contractors, share the risk for the project. i think in retrospect, we would have made a decision up front about whether or not the thales work went into the general contractor, that and are the shifting start -- the

shifting start dates really did cost us some money here. that said, the bulk of the dollars that we're asking for approval on today can be attributed to the fire code change. and that's not something we necessarily saw coming when we did the central subway contract almost a decade ago. i guess the -- and, yes, there is still a learning there, too. most of our projects are not 10-year projects. thankfully most of our projects don't take 10 years to approve. and we're involved in the professional organizations to help with things like safety codes and fire codes, so we have an opportunity to see those things on the horizon and plan for the better in contracting. >> chairman: thank you for that. and when will the work of this particular contractor be complete?

>> let me an lisa answer that. >> we anticipate completion april 29, 2022. >> chairman: okay. and when will the central subway be complete? >> great question. we're planning to open it for service in the spring of '22. so we're about a year away. >> chairman: so around -- your work is completed essentially when we expect to open it, around -- >> this project, yes. >> this is critical path. >> chairman: got it. okay. well, in shalon. this has been long-awaited, and there has been a number of ways in which the cost has gone up, and the timeline has been extended, and i

understand there are a lot of reasons for it, but i'm also glad that we're assessing, in a more broader, strategic way about how to do this better in the future. madam clerk, can we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: yes. d.t.is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, please press *3. and wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 10? >> there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. colleagues, questions or comments? i don't see any. i am going to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can we have a

roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion, vice chair safai? vice chair safai absent. member mr. ? >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney? >> chairman: aye. >> chairman: item 10 will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you so much for being here and for your work. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: madam clerk, can you please call item 11. >> clerk: item 11, ordinance amending the administrative code to require the department of homelessness and supportive housing to establish a safe site program to provide unsheltered persons with a safe place to sleep overnight and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1873551611 and then ##. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. and i wanted to note that our spanish interpreter has joined us, and will be assisting members of the public who require spanish translation services on this item. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. i believe that we have our own colleague, supervisor mandelman, who is here to present on his legislation. welcome, supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor: thank you, chair haney, and members of the budget committee. thank you for your time this morning. so a lot of things have been said and written and

tweeted about a place for all, since i introduced it with our former colleague sandra lee fewer back in october. much of that chatter has been untrue. so i want to take a moment to explain what this legislation, if enacted, would actually do. and that's basically three things: first, it would establish as policy of the city and county of san francisco, that as long as we do not have permanent exit for homelessness for every unhoused person in san francisco, we will establish and operate another safe sleep sites or other temporary shelter options to offer temporary placement for every unsheltered person who cannot have or is unlikely to accept a referral. this is a commitment san francisco has never made, although other cities have. and as you may have gathered by now, it is not uncontroversial, but i believe it is right. second, the legislation

would give the department of homelessness and supportive housing four months to prepare a plan to meet that policy mandate. this implementation plan will provide a roadmap to expanding the sites or other temporary shelter to accommodate all unsheltered people likely to accept shelter within 24 hours. it would plan h.s.h. to provide an estimate of shelter placements needed to implement the safe sleep program, a list of the site that could be used to meets the mandate, an estimate of the cost, a description of services to be provided at each site, and a description of accommodations at each safe sleep site, whether cots, tents, sheds, tiny homes, what have you. the ordinance also mandates that the plan

show geographic equity in this selection of sites. although the legislation does not require that all new shelters be safe sleep sites, it requires certain mandates. based on some of the things we've learned from the safe sleep sites that have been open during the pandemic emergency. these include limiting the capacity of the sites to no more than 150 people per site. requiring a safety plan for each site. requiring access to clean and regularly serviced bathrooms and showers. to ensure that people who may need assistance getting to safe sleep sites are able to get there, h.s.h. will be required to provide transportation. the controller would have to submit a report assessing the program every other year. depending on what h.s.h. and we learn on the

implementation plan, about costs and sites, the third thing this legislation will do is set up a conversation at city hall following submission of their plan about whether we and our constituents are willing and able to move forward with this version of "shelter for all" in the city and county of san francisco. if the answer is yes, the board will have to make the appropriation necessary to implement that policy mandate within two years. so some of you have asked me why i am doing this? after all, there is no known interest group clamoring for san francisco to become a "shelter for all" city, and there are loud voices on both the left and the right arguing against it. so here is the deal: i believe a "place for all" aligns with the values and sensibilities for the majority of san franciscans who want an end to street homelessness and believe no person should have to sleep on the street. these are the people i believe who voted for proposition "c" but expect

the city to use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on homelessness to actually improve conditions on our sidewalks and our plazas and in our parks. and i believe that coming out of this pandemic, our constituents expect us to finally do something meaningful, game-changing, even, about the street encampments that have earned this city an international reputation for failure and condemnation by the united nations. now, some on the right say we can just enforce our way out of this. even if we wanted to do that, we couldn't legally because of the ninth circuit holding in boise. but the reality is that those everyday san franciscans that i just mentioned, that are fed up with street encampments, they don't want an all-enforcement, no compassion approach, but

they also doesn't want people camping on the sidewalks, and they definitely don't want the harassment and crime that often accompany treatment encampments. now, i believe in housing first, and i support prop "c," and i will continue to support pretty much ever effort to get more housing. but the findings in this legislation tells a many decades long story about san francisco's significant investments in permanent housing for formerly homelessness. we have moved thousands of people from the streets into housing. but one lesson of those efforts to me is that without significant and sustained additional state and federal investment, no city acting alone can solve homelessness. this legislation recognizes that reality and aims to directly address the intolerable,

unsustainable, and unacceptable impacts of street homelessness. which brings me to the cost of the program, an issue raised by skeptics and opponents left and right. we will hear from the b.l.a., which has prepared an analysis of the potential cost of the legislation based on the safe street sites that have been opened and operated during the pandemic. i think the costs are identified in the b.l.a. report, and i think they're unacceptable high and can be brought down from their pandemic era, first-time pilot prices. and we'll learn that from the implementation plan. but the reality is that decent shelter will cost money. safe sleep sites should be a relatively quick and cost-effective alternative to traditional shelter, but there is no reason to expect them to be significantly cheaper on an operational basis than traditional shelter. but even if full implementation of this legislation were to cost tens of millions of

dollars, that money would be a fraction of the many hundreds of millions of dollars this city spends each year for housing for people exiting homelessness without any impact on street conditions. if we want to make a difference on our streets, we need a comprehensive plan to meet the needs of those who continue to sleep on those streets. it won't be cheap, but i believe it is both necessary and doable. i want to take a quick moment to describe the amendments that should be before you. which is largely based on feedback from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i want to be clear, lest there be any doubt, that the coalition remains in strong opposition to this legislation, but i want to thank them for their engagement, and i do believe this is better legislation for their input. i want to also thank h.s.s., especially dylan and director sam. first, the amendments

before you make clear that the board must approve an implementation, and this is not automatic. this was always the case, but we're making it extra special clear to address any concerns that the board may have for a program for which we do not have a plan. i'm not asking you to do that today. but i'm asking you to adopt the policy and we can revisit it once that plan is complete. the amendments are substantive, so although i would ask that someone move the amendments today and the amendments get added to the file, i will also be asking that you continue this item to your next budget and finance committee meeting to actually vote on the underlying legislation. more amendments, based on feedback from h.s.h., we have a lot more time to establish the program once approved, two years rather

than 18 months, as well as additional time to prepare the implementation plan, four months rather than two. we have revised the legislation to be very clear that safe sleep sites are only one of the options for meeting the policy goal of "shelter for all," and h.s.h. may plan and open any temporary shelter to implement "a place for all." it could be acquiring hotel rooms or creating more safe sleep sites. the legislation restates that the city's first priority has been, and must be, to create as many permanent exits from homelessness as possible. "a place for all" again is for those who do not have a housing exit. based on feedback around minimum standards for safe sleep sites, we included access to electricity, and garbage service, which seems obvious, but was not provided, and showers, as well as access to

prevention and substance abuse treatment, and we have seen an implementation of measures to prevent the spread of covid-19. and it includes additional feedback from the coalition, and making referrals to safe sleep sites as well as standards for community building and meals at safe sleep sites. in response to the coalition's request that the legislation be scaled back from a right to shelter, which is a shelter for all, to an expansion of safe sleep sites to accommodate 500 people, we added a requirement that the implementation plan analyze that (indiscernable) to full program implementation. and finally, on feedback from h.s.h. and the coalition, that safe sleep sites will operate 24, to

8:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. before i close, i want to thank from the bottom of my heart rescue s.f. for their partnership from day one on this legislation. it is a citywide organization of neighbors demanding a more compassioned response to homelessness from their government. they have been simply amazing. i also want to thank the hundreds of san franciscans who have is written the board to express their support for this legislation, and the many organizations that have signed on in support, including the san francisco coalition of neighborhoods, cathedral neighborhood association, pacific heights association, jerica valley neighborhood association, castro cares, castro

merchants, civic center c.b.d., and the consortium. i hope you will join them and me in ensuring that san francisco has a place for ul. and, finally, i want to thank erin munday in my office for all of her labors on this legislation, and ann pearson who has been pulling many all nighters and doing a lot of work. >> chairman: thank you, and thank you to your staff for their hard work on this and for the amendments. ms. campbell, i know there is a b.l.a. report on this item. >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee. the report is based on the legislation as it currently exists and do not include the amendments. the ordinance would

approve the city's -- excuse me, would approve the city's safe sleep program. we based the estimates based on the city's existing safe sleeping village program. that program actually does have different cost components than the proposed ordinance. under the current program, the estimated cost per person per night is $190. we estimate, based on the pro post ordinance, $93 a night. we do, however, have an amendment, because these are based on existing contracts, and we didn't have full contract understanding of the cost components of the contract. so we're asking that the department of homelessness and supportive housing and the covid command center provide details to the board of supervisors within 60 days on safe sleeping program costs and processes costs. and i'm available for

questions you may have. >> chairman: thank you, ms. campbell. i have a number of questions and comments, but i will defer to my colleagues, and i know there are probably a lot of folks who are going to call in as well. and i want to make sure we get to them. so why don't i open it up to colleagues first for any questions or comments you want to have before we hear from the public. supervisor mar? >> thanks, chair haney. i just wanted to start by thanking supervisor mandelman for your leadership in developing this proposal to create a safe sleeping site policy and program in our city. i share your goal to provide safer, healthier, and more dignified shelter for all of our unhoused community members. and i do appreciate your efforts, really, to find new solutions to the most vexing problem facing our city right now. so, yeah, i do have some

questions around the cost, and i guess the relative sort of cost of supervised encampments, compared to other shelter options, for example, like rental subsidies. and i have some concerns about how this bold proposal -- how it aligns with our existing, um, strategies and priorities to destroys homelessness long-term. and especially the vision and plans coming from the prop "c" in our city, our home initiative. but i'll leave it at that. i look forward to hearing a lot of public comment and a robust debate about this in committee today. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor safai, is there anything that you want to

say before i go to public comment? i was going to maybe -- >> you know, chair, i really -- i'm going to reserve my comments, questions, and everything until after public comment. >> chairman: okay. so with that, if it's okay with you, supervisor mandelman, we'll go to public comment now, and then we'll have a conversation after that. madam clerk, can you please open up the public comment for this item. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. d.t. is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please prestar press *. are there any callers who wish to comment on item 11?

>> yes, ma'am. we have several callers. i'll put the first one through. >> thank you. >> caller: supervisors haney, safai, and mar, i'm mark dangel, i'm advocating for compassionate and affective solutions for homelessness in san francisco. the proposed legislation does not commit the city to spend any money on safe shelter sites. instead, it calls on the department of homelessness to submit a plan to the board of supervisors. let's have a thorough analysis and discussion of key issues, cost, and location. once the board has a detailed plan and more information, you will be in a better position to identify the best ways to address the human crisis on our streets. we all share concern about the cost of safe shelter sites. the city spent $61,000 per tent per year. we believe that the city could operate a safe

shelter site for about a third of the current spending. with a "place for all," the board can get to the bottom of what safe shelter sites really cost. even after the city spends hundreds of (mumbling) millions ofdollars on housing, s likely that thousands of people will still be unhoused and unsheltered. that is inhumane. permanent housing is a solution for homelessness. the city needs more tools to address our homelessness crisis. a safe shelter site would be a cost effective plan for permanent housing. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: hi. this is jordan davis. i oppose the legislation. i join the coalition on homelessness and their concerns. and although the amendments sound much better, i just cannot

support this. even though i support housing, it is still a lot better to put in an investment in a roof over people's head. this this legislation is (bleeping), and it is not taking into consideration the needs. look at new york, the (bleeping) shelter costs a lot of money and is preventing housing exit. please stop this stupid-ass solution over this legislation. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, chair haney, supervisors mar and safai. my name is carolyn kennedy. i'm a co-leader of rescue s.f., seeking more

affective and compassionate solutions for homelessness. thank you, supervisors, for your work to sponsor interim shelter and housing in your districts. and thank you to supervisor mandelman for sponsoring "a place for all." rescue s.f. sports "a place for all." while we all agree that housing is the ultimate solution, we do not have enough housing or interim shelter for our under housed residents. interim shelter provides access to services, and gets more people on a path out of homelessness while they wait for housing. it requires a plans with a cost estimate so you supervisors and we, the public, can review the cost effectiveness. [inaudible] with thoughtful planning, safe sleeping sites can be cost competitive with existing shelters. finally, consider what we all see on our streets

daily. the unhoused on our streets experienced increased health issues and are dying at an unprecedented rate. they also experience violence and trauma. in summary, the human costs of being on the streets are far greater than the cost to provision safe, secure, and scalable shelter. and the impact on all san franciscans is significant. please pass "a place for all" out of committee and bring it to a full debate at the board. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is noni richmond, and i am a long time residents obviously filmore in district five, and i'm president of an organization of some 2,000 small-level property owners, and typically small property owners of five units or less. as small business owners, we're very concerned about

the number of homeless on our streets and its impact on our city. and despite some flaws, and despite its somewhat temporary nature, we support "a place for all," and urge you to pass this important legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. good morning, caller? >> the caller has been unmuted. i can take the next caller and circle back, if you would like. >> clerk: yes. please. >> caller: good morning, chair haney and members of the committee. i live in the triangle

with my wife and 5-year-old daughter. i urge the committee to support "a place for all." while i agree that permanent housing is the ideal solution for all who are homeless, we need to provide an interim solution. letting people sleep on our sidewalks is simply not the solution. in the almost two years i've lived here in san francisco, i've watched people sleep on our street, which is, at minimum, a bi-weekly occurrence. i've spoken to these people and they don't want to sleep on the streets. it is not a good situation for them. it is certainly not a good situation for the families that live in this neighborhood. what "a place for all" proposes is fundamental, it establishes a policy that san francisco will shelter all who will accept it, and there will be a network of safe sleeping sites. i urge you to support "a place for all." thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

welcome, caller. >> that was the caller i circled back to. i'll take the next caller as that person seems to be away from their computer. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is flo kelly, and i'm a resident of district nine. the author of this legislation says in an op-ed that was printed today that the legislation does not stipulate the criminalization of folks who refuse a placement in the city-sanctioned safe place. yet the likelihood that the police would use or misuse their authority to order people to move from one side of the sidewalk

to another, or threaten to arrest people who do not accept a placement, is great. i have gone out to speak with people, and i have heard stories of this happening now. the constant forced moving of folks is destabilizing and only adds to the trauma of folks experiencing homelessness. one reason that folks refuse city-sanctioned, safe sleeping sites is that people are not free to come and go 24/7. it feels like jail to many. and i have talked to people that said they would not go there for that reason. we need to use money for traditional housing, not for city-sanctioned safe sleeping sites. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. currently there are 60

callers listening and 48 in the queue. if you wish to provide public comment on this item, please press *3 to be added to the queue. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is marianne dressner, and i'm currently the vice president of corbett heights neighbors, the organization that represents part of corbett street, and part of douglas street, the volcan stairway, and lavon street and lower terrace and saturn. a vote from our board of directors yielded a support for this particular legislation. our district, and very close to our district, has

been very much affected by the homeless population. we are encouraged by the fact that there is a cost effectiveness review included in this legislation. we don't believe this legislation is perfect. however, it is a step in the right direction. and we have to take a step. this legislation appears to be thoughtful. we approve and encourage these safe sleeping sites. we do not want to engender violence and bad health for those that are currently unhoused. we believe that in the long run, in total, this legislation is better for our city. corbett heights neighbors and i urge the supervisors to approve this legislation. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is kelly kutler. and i am also a member of the local coordinating board. i'm calling in opposition to the "a place for all" legislation. i don't see it as a way to justify the cost. supervisor mandelman kept referring to the reality of this legislation. i have to say that this legislation is in no way reality. when we looked at sites for navigation centers and for other services, it has been extremely difficult to get any sites at all, and also having a ton of community perspective. for this and many other reasons why there has been pushback to h.s.h., from direct service providers, and advocates.

i find it interesting that the supervisor has referenced (indiscernable) in his legislation as well, as well as an op-ed. i continue to be in contact with her. i mentioned this legislation to her the other day, and she'll happy to explain to the board how this is damaging. and so i feel like we need to just keep going in the direction that we're going in with prop "c," and the people that have really come together to fight for real solutions. and coming from the community rather than necessarily coming from city hall. so is i encourage everyone to oppose this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> the caller has been

unmuted. >> clerk: welcome, caller. perhaps we can come back to this caller and take the next. >> caller: hi. my name is lindsey mason. i have lived in the mission district for 15 years, and i own a business in this city. i support "a place for all," and i believe we should provide safe and healthy off-street shelter for all who will accept it. this current situation is unacceptable and unsafe. and more importantly, providing shelter is the right thing to do. people should not sleep on the streets. they need a place to feel safe. and i think that "a place for all" is the first step

in helping homelessness. >> clerk: thank you nor thank you foryour comments. >> caller: hi, this is jennifer fridenbach. thank you for having this hearing. we have a really serious situation with homelessness in san francisco, which i think we can all acknowledge. we, at this moment, also have a really serious opportunity to move the dial on homelessness. our home oversight committee has been carefully planning how those funds should be spent, this is the prop "c" funds. and we had more shelter needs coming from communities -- from under served communities, from a variety of different shelter needs, from safe

parking, and we have a situation where we don't have a drop-in emergency shelter for families. we have a myriad of shelter needs in our system. and the safe sleep sites are sucking up a lot of money. so we really pressured and worked with the city to try to figure out how to reduce the cost of the safe sleeping villages. and it was really an unsuccessful endeavor. we could purchase the shower trailers and save money in the long run, but that is not going to be for many years until we realize that savings. yesterday we released recommended funding for permanent housing, for over 3200 exits, including a thousand acquisitions, and funding for a thousand new shelter spots. and there is a 10% cap improper "c", so there is not going to be any prop "c" funding left for additional shelter.

so any way to fund this would have to come from elsewhere. what we found as we were doing this is there are a couple of things we need to look at. first, what is the right size of the shelter? because you want to have movement through the system. every city that has been successful has benefited from this way. [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is ben bliman. i am calling on behalf of small businesses across san francisco. i'm a small business advocate. i am calling in support of "a place for all." i think we need a solution that happens immediately to help us. and i know there is a planning portion of this, but costs aside, safe sleeping sites are the fastest way, i believe, in addition with hotel rooms, which supervisor haney has been a champion of to help

solve the issue at hand immediately. i'll just end with a quick story. there is a hairdresser next to a bar that i own in the tenderloin, and she is non-english speaking. she is from vietnam originally. her name is linda and she is a friend of mine. she had a number of tents around her doorway, and she didn't open her business for three days. finally, my business partner, duncan and i, we called the authorities and had them move the tents, but she didn't know what to do. we need to solve this situation right now on behalf of small businesses. we need an interim solution and then looking towards permanent housing and a long-term solution. we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is erica sandburn. can you hear me? >> yes. >> chairman: yes, we can hear you.

>> caller: can you hear me? >> chairman: yes. >> caller: okay. great. i'm a san francisco advocate and journalist. i absolutely oppose "a place for all." it is an appalling idea that is absolutely beneath the city of san francisco. if you haven't been to the site, you must go. i really encourage everybody who is an advocate for the plan to actually go visit an observe. there is nothing dignified about them. there is nothing positive about them. you will see that they are nothing more than outdoor cages. so if you like what is happening at our u.s.- mexico border, you're going to love this. it gets cold in san francisco, windy and rainy, so imagine having to get up in the middle of the night and go to the bathroom in these conditions. this is not civilized, and now mandelman wants to have them all over the city. where are they going to go? he doesn't say.

that is insane and abusive. if anybody thinks they're going to help the neighborhoods, think again. there is no sobriety restrictions. drug dealing happens outside these cages. it is prevalent. it is a problem. so this is one of the worst ideas ever put forth by a supervisor, which is actually saying something. and there is no article of homelessness with this. it is not going to be interim. it is going to be permanent. all of the money should be going towards what is really necessary, which is medical and psychiatric care, addiction treatment, and indoor housing, not outdoor cages. this is insane. and let's look at the financials quickly. $93 a night. that is $2,790 a month. that's the cost of a one bedroom apartment in this city. we can do better. in fact, anything will be better than this.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon chain haney and supervisors mar and safai. my name is chair diamond, and i ask you to support "a place for all." 40 years ago i graduated from san francisco and have lived here every since. for years i have run a volunteer program that feeds the hungry. i see what is going on the streets, due to the explosion of homelessness. it is both heartbreaking and exacerbating because it doesn't need to be this way. today there are not enough safe sleeping sites for the unhoused, and because of this, the unhoused have been unsafe, unhygienic and inhumane living conditions on the street. and the ripple affects of

it impact truly everyone who lives or works in the city. for all of our sakes, san francisco must provide safe shelter for those who will accept it while they wait for housing. change the situation now with a vote for "a place for all." please establish a policy and mandate a plan that will create enough safe sleeping sites to protect those on our streets who are in need. "a place for all" will do just that. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is michelle, and i run a business in san francisco. thank you so much, supervisors, for all of your time and work. i live in district one, and i've been living in san francisco for more than 10 years. in that time, i've watched the homelessness grow. i'm a compassionate person, but i also believe

in solving problems. while this legislation may not be perfect, progress is never perfect, and legislation rarely is. but this proposal provides immediate space for those in need. there is no available housing. so their solution is to do something. nothing. they want to talk about the problem but not solve it. why do we not want to help our city and provide a place for homelessness people. this is for both houseless and unhoused citizens of san francisco. we need to solve this crisis, and that starts by getting people into a safe and monitored area. i urge supervisions haney and safai to support this legislation and move this to the full board immediately. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name

is jennifer lasca, and i'm president of the neighborhood association. i'm speaking today to urge the supervisors to approve this legislation. i think that we need to treat homelessness on the street as the crisis that it actually is. i can only imagine that if there was a natural disaster where 5,000 middle-class people were suddenly without homes, the city would act to move them to shelter and safety as quickly as possible. and i can't understand why to date we haven't done this with the most vulnerable populations living on the streets without access to any resources right now. so i urge you to vote for "a place for all." thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is bruce bowen.

i live in district eight. i'm active in our neighborhood association and in the san francisco land use coalitionment in coali. in our neighborhood we daily see the unhoused on our st the effects daily on our public stairways, and grapple with the behavior on the stairs, and the public land around the stairs. also from my experience with planning and land use issues, i recognize while housing is likely to be the ultimate solution, but providing housing for all is neither easy or inexpensive or quick. so i fully support "a place for all." it provides a path that will begin to change the unacceptable status quo. we all like to believe that our government can act to help our city and our people. thank you, supervisor mandelman, and for anyone of you who will support this ordinance. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.

currently, there are 62 callers listening and 42 in the queue. if you wish to provide public comment on this item, please press *3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. next caller, please. >> caller: yes. my name is carolyn thomas. i have seen a safe sleeping site in my neighborhood and have seen it work. [inaudible] three, i no that a person in the safe sleeping site has kicked his addiction and is now at a job. it creates a policy, it is very san franciscan and something actually to be proud of by this city.

it does not force people off the street, cage them in, or negate the plan for more permanent housing. instead, it is a place for people who accept it. two, safe sleeping sites provide four "s"s: safety, security, sanitation, and stability for those who are soarly sorelylacking and on the streets now. it creates a bridge for creating trust and other services. those other services are not often available to people living on the street. they're hard to find. and we're waiting for this permanent housing dream. the op-ed quoted $60,000 for a project implemented rapidly. a friend of mine says he uses different brushes for different surfaces, not a single brush for all

surfaces. "a place for all" deserves the consideration from the full board, and one tool in our toolbox to provide compassionate services. thank you for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: thank you for letting me speak, committee. my name is brian casnego. and i can't tell you how much money i've lost due to tents next to my small businesses. so i approve this legislation. is this a perfect solution? no, absolutely not. but does it help residents more than any other proposal i've seen? it seems so. the root issue is mental elness. illness. i walk the streets daily, and the people i see intents are not displaced families. they're the drug addled and mentally ill.

use the money to stop the drug abuse and help the mental health of these people. maybe then you can help them get into schooling for jobs. for example, trade schools, painteds, pipe-fitters -- the city is expensive to live for most everyone, let along homeless people without jobs. i recently moved away because i didn't want to spend $2 million single-family home. get these people clean, and then they can get a job and live somewhere where they can afford. in the meantime, we need to get the tents off the streets so the businesses have have a chance

post-covid. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. good morning. my name is carlos watkins. i'm a resident of d.a. i had a lot in mind of what i wanted to say. but i think our last caller brought of sort of what this legislation is about, and who it is really serving. we hear a lot about folks who are upset with tents in their neighborhood. homeless poor people having to live on their streets. and having to deal with people seeing that in front of their houses. and this bill is just a piece of legislation to find a way to move all of the people out of neighborhoods and out of streets and into camps. and probably in a bunch of camps into a corner of the city, far away from the resources they're familiar with and their communities, and the neighborhoods they live in currently. i think that is a disgusting way to look at

solving homelessness. we need to look at what the people impacted by homelessness want and to get them into safe places. this legislation has not been drafted that way. it is not a conversation with the folks about finding the solutions they need. it is an attempt to get them out of the streets to clean up the neighborhoods and small businesses who would rather not deal with them. i think at this time we have funding from prop "b," from prop "i," and state and federal funding coming down. we have available hotels and vacant apartment and student housing. we can make a serious dent in homelessness, and we can find housing and acquire new units for people to live in. this bill means we don't get to do these things.

if you look at the b.l.a. report, tens of millions of dollars is a low estimate. [inaudible] i would like to see any budget analysis that says we can spend $247 million on safe sites and make improvements in our housing stock. i don't think it is true, and i don't believe you supervisors think that is true, either. thank you. [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> caller: my name is dave curtu, and i'm a board member of the merchants association in the san francisco studio coalition. while i'm 100% in support of housing solutions, we can't make any longer for the perfect solution, to which the gentleman has just spoke. folks have been working on this for decades in san francisco and have come

unwith nothing. come upwith. more than 2,000 businesses closed since march of last year and it continues today. with vaccinations increasing daily, struggling business owners now have hope, and they need every single advantage they get to help them survive. a resident stepping into a homelessness encampment is the kind of obstacle to a small businesses' survival we can't afford. the tourists will come back, and is this what we want them to encounter? sidewalks lined with tents. so they can go back and say, don't go to the castro, there are homeless tents everywhere, with people doing drugs in broad daylight. the very reputation of our city is at risk, not to mention the lives of all of those unhoused, who are being inhumanely left out on the sidewalks.

when apple or tesla or sales forces sees a need in the marketplace, they splint to fill that void. it is never perfect. it always requires software or hardware updates. but they get it out quickly. if they wait for their product to be perfect, they would miss the opportunity. [inaudible] "a place for all" would require the city to at least do something more than what we're doing right now because what we're doing simply isn't working. and the tourists are coming, and the unhoused on the sidewalk is simply inhumane and not compassionate. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is marty regan, and i'm with robin street youth services. thank you, supervisions for this time. i had a lot to say.

i had a lot of organized notes, but just listening to the support that is coming in for this is breaking my heart. i have lived in san francisco for a very long time, over 30 years. this city can do better. there is a huge amount of federal and state funding coming to san francisco, not to mention prop "c" funds. the city needs to invest time and money into actual housing and not waste it on warehousing human beings in asphalt parking lots. those of you who say safe sleeping sites is a humane alternative to sleeping on the streets, have you been to them? it is the street. they're asphalt parking lots. this city can do better. i urge you, san francisco, to be bold, compassionate and innovative. this piece of legislation is an inhumane copout.

do better. i know you can. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is matt rezina, resident of district eight, about a block away from the safe sleeping site. i see this as an extension of the navigation centers which have been successful, but we need more of them more quickly. this is a really fast way to do that. there has been a lot of talk about the costs. i'm glad we're paying attention two the costs. as part of that calculation, we need to consider the cost of when everything is distributed across the neighborhoods, b.p.w.s have to be stretched thin, and the fire departments that have to rush all over the city for drug overdoses. there is a cost savings for putting services in a

place where we can actually reach these people. i am in support of this legislation and i appreciate the time today. thank you. >> clerk: i appreciate your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: yes, hi. my name is david bolts, i'm a 20 years resident of san francisco, and about four months now as a restaurant owner here in the castro. since i started my restaurant, i've already had to clean up human feces in front of our building twice, needles two or three times, etc., etc. as a consumer, i've gone downtown with my wife. i've had people pee in front of us on the sidewalks. we no longer go downtown to see shows because of that. it is kind of an embarrassment that over 20 years we've seen this deterioration of one of the best cities in the world, turn into a toilet. we need to find better solutions. i approve of this

proposition, though while not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. we need td figure out how to add drug treatments and mental health. we also need to make sure this doesn't turn into a destination. we don't want people from other cities going, hey, san francisco is the best place to be homeless. [inaudible] by just helping the people here in the city is straightforward and kind. thank you. and have a great day. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, chair haney and fellow supervisions. ozzy rome. i'm calling to support this legislation and to thank supervisor mandelman for introducing this.

i am a committee organizer, although i have not been dealing with homelessness and homelessness issues, but i do see them all over the city and near my neighborhood. to those people who think this is inhumane and caging people is not okay, i think this a lot of hyperbole. these people (indiscernable) from seeing all these tents and the people that are living in misery. the other day the winds were just so strong that my whole house was shaking, and i couldn't help thinking about those poor people who are living out in a tent with no shelter, no heat, no running water, nothing. this is just a stop-gap. although i am concerned about the costs, and i think we could do better. but we do need to have an interim solution. this is inhumane to leave

people to just live out in the middle of the street. and to those who are talking about the danger of having the cops schlepping them from one location to another, well, guess what? this is already happening. go look at the various streets in the mission. you would see there are four cops coming down on one tent and forcing the poor fellow to move from one side of the street to another or go to another neighborhood. this is the reality that is happening today. what are you doing about it? pretty much nothing. so i wholeheartedly support this. and i would like to also add that maybe we should look at the success and lessons learned from what supervisor preston did, from the safe sleeping site he put up. i thought it was quite a

success. [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisions. my name is richard frisbee. i fully support supervisor mandelman's "a place for all" legislation. and i urge you to do the same. i thought he laid out a compelling and coherent case. getting people off the streets into a safe organization is a critical first step. "a place for all" will do this and it is something we can do in a short time. every journey begins with a single step. yesterday district judge david carter ruled l.a. city and county officials must offer shelter to skid row's population in 180 days. unaccompanied women and

children must be offered shelter within 90 days. all of the budgeting and planning cannot obscure the shameful reality of the crisis that year after year there are more homeless angelineos and every year more and more die on the street. does anyone think somehow san francisco will be exempted from this precedent-setting situation? so i urge you, i plead with you, to approve this legislation. it is a first step. it is not a perfect step, but an important step, and one that can make a quantafiable difference. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is george wooding. i'm with the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. the coalition supports "a place for all." we urge the city officials and supervisors to volve neighborhood associations and adjacent neighborhoods whenever a safe is sleeping site is being proposed for their area. citizens must have a say on the placement of these sites. currently the real estate department and unnamed other city agencies will be selecting the locations with no input from

neighborhoods. once again, it's a small first step, and we really believe that san francisco needs to do something to help the homeless. so we support "a place for all." and please pass this legislation. and today in your committee, send this on to the board of supervisors. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hi, my name is steven cornell. i'm the legislative representative for the council of district merchants. we represent 34 merchants

districts, in every supervisor district in san francisco. we took a survey a few months ago. the number one issue for most of our merchants are: homelessness and dealing with it on the streets here. we totally approve of this legislation and hope that you will pass it. we feel that this is going to be another tool in the toolbox to do this. some of our concerns were talked about earlier, the costs, and the other concern is there are a lot of laws that are on the books, and we'd like to have them dealt with more and used some more. we wholeheartedly endorse this and urge everybody to pass it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. my name is fred winigred. i live about a half a

block from the everett middle school safe sleeping site that i want to thank the supervisor for establishing. i've heard a lot of comments about the unsafe conditions in the safe sleeping sites. the unsafe conditions, frankly, are on the sidewalks. i fully support "a place for all." let's have a race. let's see who can solve the biggest piece of the homeless problem the quickest. i am absolutely for permanent housing, but you can't leave the people on the streets. it is an unsafe sleeping site. when we had everett, it was incredible to watch. so used asked i've visited. i've visited many. and it is so in contrast to what is going on in the streets. so please do your best. let's start the race and see how we can really solve the problem, not complain about what is wrong with this legislation. it is not perfect. i'm not perfect. no one is. let's get going.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. currently there are 63 callers listening and 36in the queue. again, if you wish to provide comment on this item, please press *3 to be added to the queue. please wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. next caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. daniel bergerac speaking, small business own in the castro, five-year president of the castro association. i am in favor of this legislation. supervisor haney, you might remember about two years ago you and i had coffee at the cafe on arcen street. and we talked about how we hadn't done anything new to solve this homeless problem. and you agreed if

something new came along, you would get behind it and support it. so supervisor haney, i'm counting on you to get behind this and support it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: yes. good morning. my name is william jake. and i'm a resident of district eight. i support "a place for all," and you should, too. anyone who lives or works where people are camping intents on sidewalks, come to see that it is an unacceptable situation for everyone, not the least of which are people living in the tents. most turn to drugs to ease the pain, many dying of overdoses, all clearly struggling. permanent housing is a great idea, and of course we have to continue to build more. but permanent housing is a long-term solution, out of reach for many people living on the street. unfortunately, it does seem quite inevitable that some people are going to

continue living in tents for a while one way or the other. the issue is: what can be done soon to make tent-living safer and more humane for both of homeless people living in tents, and the communities where tents have been showing up on sidewalks. it is so clear that the answer is a shorter-term solution, where people living in tents can live in a managed, safe location with support services, sanitation, food, and a way off the street. that short-term solution is safe sleep sites. and the way to build enough safe sleeping sites for everyone who needs it is "a place for all." please vote for "a place for all." thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> the caller has been

unmuted. should i take the next caller? >> clerk: yes, please. >> caller: my name is mary kate. i live in glen park and district eight for about seven years. we can't shelter our way out of homelessness. we need to invest our way out of this crisis by thinking bigger and bolder, and investing in the economic recovery of our city. and we need a vision that makes the right kinds of investment, balancing investments in shelter that are clearly linked to the affordable housing. we have unprecedented possibilities upon us, a convergence of bond money, and emergency relief funds, and state budgets, and hotel and small-site properties, and the

reimbursable investments. we can't afford to divert the investments to an outdoor shelter. we also have to think about investing in shelters for overlooked sub populations, like family and youth. we have so many families living in cars and other places not meant for humans. there are better interim solutions. we can make targeted accessions, basically replacing the congregate shelter model which faces undignified crisis housing. this is part of an overall vision to move people towards housing is a better way to invest in sheltering. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. this is kristin evans. i'm a small business owner. i own the book smith in

the olympic, in ashbury. and i was always a proponent for prop "c." the interesting thing about the conversation that is being had today, there are a lot of people calling in from small businesses and neighborhood groups. and they're mostly people of great privilege. what i'm not hearing are the voices of people that are most impacted by the city's policies on homelessness. for those that the city hasn't actually made any strides in this area haven't really been paying attention. prop "c," which was passed in 2018, actually dawbles doublesthe amount of resources that the city has available to address homelessness. those funds haven't been unleashed yet. the conversations i've been having this week is then with the our city, our home coalition, which is what are the solutions we want to put those

dollars towards. i'm finding it remarkable that known of the neighborhood groups or small business groups are doing the work to participate in the discussion of how we allocate $8 million in our city, our home fund. that is really a contrast about how people engage with legislation. i found that the mandelman legislation came at a particular point in time which really, um, created a sense amongst these folks that the city was not taking action. and it doesn't, essentially, recognize all of the additional work that the community that had really engaged in creating these solutions had been working on for the last three years. unfortunately, "a place for all" legislation really is a distraction and is not a real solution. mandelman doesn't have funding resources for them, he has no sites located for these sites.

and while safe sleeping sites may be an appropriate part of the solution for our homelessness portfolio, what jennifer freebach from the coalition -- [buzzer] >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, my name is jeff rego, and i'm a resident of the sunset district. re since. 1976. i'm not sure what i think of "is a place for all." i'm not sure i understand it, although supervisor mandelman did go a long way to clarify some of my misunderstanding. i've heard reported costs ranging from $10,000 to $60,000 per year. however, i do support and encourage a conversation and legislation generating solutions.

[inaudible] homeless people are not self-sufficient. they're dependent on society. if they're left to fend for themselves, it really doesn't make sense. many are concerned this legislation is just a move to get around restrictions, and for keeping them out of site. however, we're already using (indiscernable). [inaudible] there are none in saint francis. what we are doing is horribly inadequate, and the problem keeps getting worse. i agree that the primary needs are 100% affordable housing and access to mental health and drug treatment services. but the retail will take many, many years, and so i think we have to do something in the meantime. the status quo is not working. and my question is: can't we at least supply a safe place to sleep, shave, and

shower and maybe store personal possessions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. hi, supervisors. my name is larry ackerman. i live in district five. i've lived in san francisco for 37 years. and i oppose this legislation. legislation. based on my conversations with people on the street. i go out regularly, talking to people, and asking them what is going on. and part of that is sometimes i go with the coalition on homelessness, and sometimes just by myself. and a lot of times to the castro, and it is quite interesting that i can

hardly find anyone in the castro anymore. there are no tents. there are very few people. they've been scattered throughout the city. so i don't know what people are complaining about in that neighborhood. and maybe they don't realize that the people get hotels or tents, and they come back to a neighborhood that they're familiar with to meet up with their friends. so you might see them on their streets, but they're not living -- they're not sleeping on the sidewalk. any way, i oppose this legislation. i see it as an instant cosmetic approach. it does not reflect the voices of the homeless people. i have heard many merchants associations, neighborhood associations

speak, but where are the people that we're concerned about speaking to this legislation? did anyone talk to them about what they felt would be appropriate? [buzzer] [please stand by]

>> everyone knows it. it's mathematically impossible and makes no sense that people end up on the street. that's not how it works. people relocate when they get priced out. all of our policies facilitate living on the street and attract homeless from all around the nation. i don't think you're understanding. your not helping people by helping them live on the streets. you're inviting people to come here from all over. the vast majority of san

franciscans do not support it. why aren't we doing more on our homeless resources? shouldn't we ask the homeless why they became homeless in san francisco? is increasing population is not because of people becoming homeless sf. mark my words. the homeless population will continue to explode as long as you incentivize people to come here. it's common sense. you need to come to that realization. and hard line will have to be drawn at some point. the population will continue to increase. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi, the name is christopher micah. i'm an s.r.o. supportive housing resident of district 6. a few years ago i was a homeless

resident of the castro district. i believe this legislation is not as much about helping homeless people as pacifying the population who would not have to know of the realities of the san francisco residents that have been forced into homelessness. if homeless people had any voice at all in this conversation, this legislation wouldn't be on the table. housing is the only solution to homelessness. sleeping in tents under heavy security is not a legitimate solution, not only with this legislation further institutionalizing homelessness, but it will suck up a huge amount of the prop c money that was meant to help the homeless people. and the consequence of this legislation for homeless people that didn't agree to live in those sites will be facing

criminaling -- criminal prosecution. hotels, not hospitals are housing people for 14,000 per head, per year. this is a fraction of what the city proposes to spend. the work we're doing is what the city should be doing and we can do so much better than this. please throw this in the trash. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> yeah, hi, thanks. d5 resident, d6 worker. i just want to say this legislation clearly is not intended or designed to address the situation in our city around the systemic exclusion from housing that is the homelessness crisis here. this proposed law is about

pacifying how residents are upset about being confronted with the reality of poverty in our city. out of sight, out of mind is this law. from a budgetary point of view, this is a poor use of money. fema is offering hotel rooms on a platter for us and we're talking about tent sites. the city's option here is to move people into parking lots or do nothing, you have legislative tools at your disposal and this is what you're proposing. i would urge the committee to reject this non-solution. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is chris and i'm a district five resident. last year when the pandemic forced indoor shelters to close, i supported strongly a safe sleeping site in my neighborhood because it was a necessary

emergency. i visited the self sleeping site. i've done volunteer work, and it can be a positive thing but this legislation is not. it's a way to get and laws before sweeping them off the street. it will take away money passed by voters for real housing solution. the outcome of this legislation will be more sweeps for people, saying take your tent to a parking lot or we will arrest you, all of this and taking away funding to house the same people. you don't need legislation to make a safe sleeping site. you can just make one. it's really about providing housing and not threats to people. thank you, raphael, try harder. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hello, good morning everyone.

i'm an organizer for hope family at the coalition of homelessness. i'm currently experiencing homelessness and i wanted to give a comment for me and others. i would like to say we want housing, not tents. over the last year, the city safe sleep sites cost over 60k per year per tent to run from that's more than 100% more than the cost of the hotel rooms in the program since the federal government is paying for it. it's almost double the cost of a market rate per house. 34,000 per household. providing a tent for everyone in san francisco can cost 200 million, to 300 million, half of the budget and it's more expensive than other options. if the city is going to spend

this money on housing and other permanent solutions, not just temporary solutions like tents. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hello, my name is johnson, i'm formally homeless and i am a district 10 resident. this is not my first rodeo talking to the board on preserving homeless people's rights. i strongly recommend that the board not go through with mandelman's point. we believe the city rather than send money to the tents proposed, should be putting the same amount of effort to place people inside permanent housing. tents are temporary and does nothing to address homelessness, which is the lack of housing and housing opportunities. i see this is going to go badly for folks on the street, not

wanting to be enrolled in a place for all programs, which could be a potential for further criminalization. san francisco voters voted for housing, not a band aid to keep homeless people houseless. mandelman says no person should sleep on the street, but the parking lot is suppose to be better? most people are housed or are a business owner. they probably never been homeless a day in their lives so they don't understand this idea. it strays away from voluntary services and not to mention a civil rights violation. be a strategic board of supervisors. do not compromise solutions for a bad idea, which would not put a single dent in poverty or homeless numbers whatsoever. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good morning board of

supervisors. i'm susan marsh, a resident of district 6. i'm calling in to ask you to reject this legislation as someone who has some familiarity with the studies and herself have been homeless. i can tell you that the solution to homelessness is housing. the solution, in particular supportive housing, which is the most effective way to deliver and provide mental health and drug treatment. this is well established and much of the argument -- many of the -- the arguments to the contrary are coming from individuals who are privileged and bigoted and do not make any attempt to disguise it. in any event, it's well-known that housing is a solution to homelessness. the voters of the city decided to put large investments into

permanent housing. this legislation has a real potential to drain money from that solution, right at the moment when we have funding, including funding from fema, if i'm not greatly mistaken to acquire hotels permanently. it should be rejected and i really would ask that supervisor mandelman reconsider and i would urge the other -- this committee to reject the legislation and stop it here. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good morning chairman haney and supervisors. karen here, fourth generation ashbury resident, former

president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. san francisco will never be able to provide the supportive housing for all that need it. second, we have people sleeping on the sidewalks, that's why we're here. i had a woman sleeping in front of my building last night. this is intolerable. i am ashamed. who are we? safe sleeping sites are a temporary fix. i wouldn't be advocating for them today if we haven't tried a lot of other things first. there have been very few problems at the site. state sleeping sites will not increase the unhoused population. there is no magnet here. it would promote an alternative, provide an alternative to the sidewalks. that's why i encourage you to approve this legislation. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please.

>> good morning, my name is tracy, i work for the coalition on homelessness and i'm a resident of district 6. as i've been listening to this, i've been torn between being angry by some of the merchants that have been on here to people's plight out here. i understand the frustration because it's frustrating having to take my daughter to school, walking past tents every single day. what i have learned during the course is since we had the hotels, i seen people thrive in these hotels and that's what is needed, not these tents. that's not going to help nobody. what will help them is a roof over their head. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> my name is evan, i live in district 5.

i worked really hard for nine months to get 2018 prop c passed. in fact, i watched supervisor mandelman speak at the organization. i find it really disappointing that when we have over a billion dollars set aside for housing, mandelman is talking about tents and parking lots. tents and parking lots that cost more than hotel rooms and housing. the legislation is not about housing people or getting people on the pathway to housing, a tent in a parking lot is not housing. wildfire smoke doesn't stop at a tent door. when the mayor ignores laws like the emergency hotel ordinance at her convenience, do we expect safe sleeping spots to come online for several thousand people? of course not. it will be a convenient excuse to sweep and harass people and say we're technically in line with the boise ruling.

mandelman has ignored what people want and what they say is the best use of funding. he sported an ineffective legislation like the conservatorship law. why should we trust him on this when he is grandstanding for the business owners and homeowner base. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> i live in district 6. this would cause economic loss and moral injuries to our city that we may take years to recover from. this is not about people living in encampments or whether safe sleeping sites are better than nothing. it's like something in seattle, can be created. the focus should be assessing this on the comprehensiveness of the proposal.

basically the purpose of this legislation is to impose soft incarceration in institutional settings as the default for homelessness in san francisco. that's what it's for. it would do this by forcing people into institutional warehousing. it could be viewed as people avoiding being arrested for camping outside if they were refusing an offer of shelter, because how people can pretend those people are getting the help they need. if they don't want it, they can be shelter resistant or ungrateful, or difficult people should be put in institutions for their own good. in the 20th century we learned that is none of it ever

trustworthy. there would be some attention to government structures and due process rights for what it's like to be inside of this institutional system looking out. we're not seeing any mention of governance. it is not a time to be poor. you're talking about free legal persons with full sets of human rights and you're talking about setting them in false incarceration. san francisco can do better. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi, this is bryan. i live south of market. i really support supervisor mandelman's legislation. can you hear me now? >> yes, we can hear you. >> okay, my name is bryan wallace. i live south of market.

i do support this legislation because i can tell you first hand from just walking around my neighborhood here that folks living in tents fall into two categories. we have the people that are in tents and block the entire sidewalk. my wife and i are senior citizens and we have to walk out of the street, sixth street, and dodge traffic while people block the entire sidewalk. then we have folks living in tents. they are conscience. they clean up after themselves, they're gone during the day and come back during the night. any legislation that addresses both of those issues, i'm 100% for. the folks that really want to improve their lifestyle there, their life situation and would really welcome this, a nice

place to put their tent and then they put it to the next level. thank you supervisor marnd mandelman. bye thank you,. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is julie. we had folks sleeping in front of our house and we have done our best to treat them as neighbors. also, my kids go to school in district 3 and as a parent, i've been disturbed by the way in-person school has been used in a way to take the belongings of unhoused people and move their tents. i oppose this legislation because it seems like it's a cruel and ineffective way of solving a housing problem. we need long-term housing. i had an experience recently

where i was supporting a parent who needed safe housing and the caseworkers that we talked to said they never seen the city this motivated to get people housed. so i want to encourage our city to take the resources that the voters have approved and to invest in long-term supportive housing and to vote against so called solutions that criminalize unhoused people who may be living in tents at creating sanction areas and unsanctioned areas where people unhoused will be continue -- constantly harassed. i ask you to oppose this legislation. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is jeremy and i worked in district 9. it has been very heartbreaking to hear, you know, small

business owners say their piece and it is very apparent who this legislation is for. it really takes away the humanity of the unhoused already, to hear about the inconveniences that the people face of not being able to open their business. it's honestly disgusting and the board -- like you let this type of rhetoric go on. hearing people say that homelessness has been an issue for 30 years, it's on purpose. there is no way that for 30 years, that we're tried something and it didn't work. i'm sorry, i'm not very clear right now. it's been let on for a reason.

we haven't been listening to the people who are most effected for their ideas, nor with the people who have been working directly with the unhoused, who have solutions ready and have been housing people during this time. it's been years and people have been vulnerable to covid and there is all this rush to get small business owners back on their feet. are you joking? what about the unhoused who are barely able to survive? they're not on this call, nor would i want them to be or to ask them to be here when they're just trying to survive. it's disgusting what type of rhetoric you allow. i strongly oppose this and i

hope -- [buzzer] >> speaker's time has elapsed. next caller please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> yes, please proceed. >> quarter neighbors council. i wanted to talk a little bit about the services that are available for the neighborhoods. we represent district 2, 3, 5, 6. we go from long bar to south van s. our neighborhoods for decades have hosted and been home to hundreds of units, housing shelters, supportive units, meal providers, housing and health

clinics, and also i'm very proud to announce -- and navigation centers. we have a new navigation center for district 3 and we have a two-site sleeping sites. it's slated for modular housing. i want to thank supervisor haney for his leadership. also, to supervisor safai about this successful program and the vehicle triage centers. i want to emphasize that even though our neighborhoods host quite a few services and housing for homeless, it's not going to be enough in the near term. we have a huge shortfall. we have to do better. that's why we have prop c. that's why we need to plan to spend money. for the next few years, we're going to have thousands of people sleeping on the streets.

this is why a place for all is a great additional tool in the tool box to give us a few more options to have people sleeping safely in a clean monitored condition and to be able to transfer themselves into housing during this time period. so thank you very much supervisor mandelman and supervisors safai, haney, and mar for your support of this legislation. >> thank you for your comments, currently there are 59 callers listening and 28 in the queue. again, if you wish to provide public comment on this idea, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. those on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. next caller please. >> hi, i'm going to read a message from the formally unhoused partner of hotels not

hospitals. a mutual aid to house unsheltered san franciscan. it's about how the street noise was unbearable. being stressed out all the time and not having a place to sit or lay down is stressful. when you close your eyes, you risk getting robbed or beat up. it's hard to sleep for even 5 minutes. that was causing me to unravel. i've been hearing voices, thinking people are following me, and i thought it was just my brain. i thought that's how i am. i didn't realize i could get better from that. indoor shelters have been a huge blessing for me. it's really allowed me to collect my thoughts again. being on the move to find food and shelter from the wind is taxing, so your body never has a chance to unwind. dealing with the constant noise, your body can only take so much of the sirens and the cars. that's why i started using drugs to self-medicate.

i couldn't take on the noise. when you're struggling day-to-day to just survive, you don't have the down time to stop and lick your own wounds or come to terms with everything that has happened. it's like being on war when you're out there sleeping on the street at night because you're super vigilant and you can't afford not to be. your humanity gets stripped away. having this time has helped me immensely. it has given me my humanity back. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay, great. good morning supervisors, i'm laurie, the cofounder of rescue sf. we support a place for all. i want to begin by saying san francisco does a lot well when it comes to providing services

to the unsheltered residents and the successful programs we will now have additional funding through prop c. that is good news. we agree that housing is the ultimate goal but it could take years for new supportive housing to be built. the longer someone lives on the street, the more chronic their condition becomes. supervisor mandelman's proposed legislation, a place for all is another piece of good news. it would provide an immediate, dignified and effective solution that complements, not competes with other efforts to house people. a place for all addresses the missing wrong on the housing ladder from congregate shelter and housing. the sleeping sites is a place where the unshelters can start to trust again and begin accepting services that will help them. many cannot go from the street to housing. they need a transitional place. rescue sf is advocating for

these temporary sites and to use tiny cabins rather than tents. these services are needed to transition from the street life to indoor housing. these are becoming the best practice around the bay area in san jose, santa cruz and around the country. they can be located on private sites that are still years away from development. the cabin potentially can be founded by private donors. the up front cost of a cabin is $10,000 per unit. overtime, the unit will house multiple people on their math to permit -- permanent housing. there is also the cost of security. that would be worked out. a place for all will ensure the city will put together a comprehensive plan for shelter and the cost to implement. this is a good step in the right direction. i believe residents, businesses, and homeless advocates --

>> speaker's time has elapsed. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> caller: hello. this is gilbert of district 8. thank you madam clerk, board president haney and supervisor mandelman. i supported prop c and prop i, i voted for it. the voters cast it. i'm for permanent housing, but until then, i am in support of this legislation and thank you supervisor mandelman for being a leader on the legislation. i believe people should have a safe place to sleep, a safe place for all where people can get showers, use bathrooms, and have safe and clean drinking water. so many homeless people do not have access to bathrooms or safe

and clean drinking water. i think what is killing the homeless is not having access to water. so, i support the legislation and i hope you supervisors support it. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> good morning, my name is john, district 9 resident. i work in international relief and development and have been working alongside the homeless community. i am calling to offer opposition against this legislation. i think the safe sleeping sites, while they had different degrees of effectiveness in the past year, they are very short sided and they are channelling our city's resources into short-term band-aid solutions.

honestly, ignoring the deeper issues at play. yeah, i call the city towards strategic meeting and long-term investments. in the teen time, i call the city to stop displacing our in-house residents. so much of the rhetoric i hear around issue of homelessness and san francisco is that we're talking about the 1% of the most marginalized community, which often doesn't have much of a voice in these public spaces and yet their scapegoat is being the problem for business, for the community. that's simply not true. you see the same rhetoric and narrative in places around the world and it's happening here in san francisco. this proposal of this legislation is not a proactive progressive program. in fact, it is forcing people into tents. that's not -- we can do much better than that. we can do much better than that.

i asked for the city to oppose this and come up with better solutions, many of which have been proposed by the hard working advocates and community development folks of the city. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> caller: hi, my name is harvey, i'm a resident of district 8. i'm reading text messages released in public record today where mayor breed refers to blocks with homeless people as zombie land and she calls them crazy. i know breed and mandelman called the cops on homeless people who are trying to survive. i'm calling to strongly oppose this legislation. it cost over 60k a year per tent to run. you can get hotels for folks for

cheaper than that. it will be used to criminalize us -- unhoused people. this is a time for business owners to pick a side. do you want to get people real adequate housing? >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. welcome caller. hello caller?

>> hello, can you hear me? >> yes, please proceed. >> caller: good morning or good afternoon. my name is ian, i'm a resident of d5 and i oppose this legislation. i think in generally people think this is an imperfect first step. we can see what path this legislation leads to looking at other cities like new york city where over $1 billion is spent on temporary shelters and people living in homelessness drove shelter to shelter for over decades, giving up hope for finding affordable housing. this legislation is not based in

the reality of no money, no site, no solution, a class c political ploy. it has the potential to distract from the real solution like prop c, like federal money for hotels. so, i would like to ask the supervisors today to not let this legislation move forward and stop using homeless people as political collateral, thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. please proceed. >> hello? hi, this is charles. i've been in district 8 for 39 years. i urge you to vote to support the place for all because there is nothing hard about this and there is no question that we need both short-term and medium-term shelter and long-term shelter and place for

all addresses the short to medium-term need with availability much sooner than permanent housing can provide. it's not an either or. we need this. why are people taking sides when we should be working together? the biggest losers, if this does not pass, is not the supporters or opponents of the legislation, it is the vulnerable people living on the streets who will be deprived of life saving shelter and that's why i think it's good to support this legislation. i urge the supervisors to vote for this. it's the right thing. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hello? hi, can you hear me? >> yes, please proceed. >> my name is roxy, i am

speaking on behalf of larkin street youth services youth advisory board. i'm also a current resident of district 3 and former homeless resident of district 5. i just want to say that the bill is absolutely dehumanizing as someone that has slept in a tent. this is what we get. this is our opportunity for housing or being in some sort of transitional housing as a safe sleeping site. i currently live in a shelter-in-place hotel. i'm in site one. it has literally saved my life. it helped my husband get sober. it helped us stay clean. you know, i don't understand why the city is deciding to shut all these shelter-in-place hotels down while currently trying to open these tent cities basically. that's all i have to say, thank you, bye. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please.

>> caller: hello, i'm a resident of district 8 and i oppose this legislation. this is suppose to be a serious proposal. this is the way to solve the homeless crisis but we already have legislation for that. the board of supervisors passed an ordinance unanimously to give unhoused people temporary shelter. where is mandelman pushing the mayor to follow through on this ordinance? from mandelman, silence. where is his care for the unhoused people? there is no need for legislation to create safe sleeping sites. the mayor can do this on her own without new legislation. why isn't mandelman calling for the mayor to do more? what this legislation does do is that it allows the city to criminalize homelessness and conduct sweeps and pushing unhouserd -- unhoused people off the streets. that's why mandelman a proposed

this ordinance because he doesn't give a shit about unhoused people. this is not a place for all, it's a cage for all. there is available temporary housing. there are thousands of hotels room not being used because of the pandemic or thousands of move have -- people moved out of sf. take those homes and give them to unhoused people. you can pay for those houses at market rate for the cost of this stupid legislation. that's the real solution, but mandelman, businesses and pearl clutching neighbors don't care and won't push for real solutions. i oppose this ordinance and supervisors, you should oppose it too. >> thank you, i wanted to mention that callers should address the committee as a whole and not on an individual

supervisor. thank you for your cooperation. next caller please. >> hi, my name is carly. i'm a resident of district 5, chair haney's district. i'm calling to oppose this legislation. i think the fact that we heard from people saying this is not the solution is all we need. i know that it's not enough for some people. the fact of the matter is that this idea that permanent housing is some far off solution is scarcity mindset and it's false. we have the solutions here right now and we have the funds available right now. these moral gymnastics that people are doing to justify spending money on a patch of asphalt instead of spending money on actual shelter is maddening. not only is it more cost effective to house people in the

short-term, but long-term it actually saves the city money. it's the bottom line all that we're focused on. beyond that, if we do not take advantage of this opportunity that we have to critically and meaningfully address homelessness, we will continue to institutionalize the issue and it will impact our city for years to come. we have the funds. we have the space, the room, and we have the political support to do so. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. i'm a san francisco resident and i would like to speak in general support of a shelter first approach for homelessness. despite spending hundreds of

millions of dollars on homelessness every year, we have one of the highest rates of people living on the streets without housing or shelter. relative to cities of new york, we delegit -- supportive housing for all san francisco who need it will take years. homelessness requires focus in the short-term as well. with the recent court order requiring l.a. to provide shelter, it should be clear that san francisco cannot also continue to keep so many of our residents unsheltered on our streets. i share a lot of people's concerns about safe sleeping sites in general. tents are no replacement for shelters and it doesn't protect against wildfire smoke. this program might be neither a

humane or cost efficient approach. supervisor mandelman bill, i don't support it. we need to take urgent action to make sure no san francisco is left unsheltered on our streets again. we can finally begin to make one meaningful progress in sheltering our most vulnerable. thank you and have a wonderful day. >> currently there are 51 callers listening and 18 in the queue. if you wish to comments on this item, please press star 3 now. next caller please. >> hi, i oppose this legislation

intensively. there is no need for more tents when there are people with multiple personalities and ages. there is no one way to live and that's what the tent cities are. people are not worried of the people experiencing homelessness. these people live in realities. they don't have ways to afford laundry. they don't have lights. people are asking for the ability to get a service they

need. resources of a roof and key creates stability and helps with mental health issues. from being an s.r.o., it allows you to gather yourself, give yourself the actual next step that getting off of the streets permanently. tent cities are not a permanent solution. permanent housing and transitional housing are. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay, my name is erica, i'm a long-term san francisco resident in district 4. i am extremely and strongly against this another idea for a halfway measure addressing the

problem and we need to -- we have the opportunity here with all of the empty hotels, empty office buildings. we don't have to build brand new permanent supportive housing. we can do some renovations and use the money from prop c and prop i and get people into permanent supportive housing that want to be there. this legislation is just another waste of time. we've been doing halfway measures from the beginning. none of them have worked or really helped. let's put them all into permanent supportive housing. that's what i think. i also want to mention that the supervisor who is pushing this is also pushing for market rate and luxury housing on every expanding and opening up zoning.

for market rate and luxury housing, with absolutely no provision for any affordable in this opening up of zoning that he is actually representing the upper class of his neighborhood and it's an outrage about that zoning with no affordable housing provision in that. so i'm appalled. please vote this down. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hello supervisors. i am a d.t. resident and tenant organizers. i work with san francisco and californians facing eviction and homelessness. this pandemic has been horrible

for those on the verge of homelessness. we need every funding for the homeless and soon-to-be homeless full stop. you can probably tell i'm about po oppose this legislation. supervisor preston proposed in d5. why did i support that and not this legislation? supervisor mandelman's legislation is looking at a loophole. it's illegal for a human being to be anywhere else but a safe sleeping site. this is congenitally incapable of processing this in -- distinction. we have yet to see a navigation

center in some of these places. the goal of many public commenters never having to see a poor person again by shunting them away from rich areas. i hope that everybody voting on this body, on this legislation thinks long and hard about that. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we are hearing you but there is a big echo. if you have your computer or television -- >> can you hear me now? >> yes, thank you. >> can you hear me now? hello? >> yes, please proceed. >> okay, you can hear me? >> yes. >> okay, my name is mark bruno and i have been working with the homeless primarily as a volunteer for over 20 years in

district 3, from the square on the south, to bay street on the north. i worked also as a professional at the msc south and other facilities. on one occasion i was called at 4:00 in the morning to go to a psychiatric hospital to pick up somebody that i had been working with for a couple of weeks. on another occasion, i brought a non-trans woman to a woman's place because she was being trafficked. i called up supervisor peskin in china because norman fong and i were trying to get someone you would never recognize as being homeless inside. every time i hear people speak about the homeless, i say they don't know who the homeless are because the homeless are as

diverse and interesting and multifacetted and multiintentional as you and me and everybody in the city. to speak of one type of homeless person ignores the benefits of this legislation. this legislation says it may not be for the psychiatric patient that was pushed out on the street at 4:00 a.m. or the 50-year-old woman who i helped get inside with the help of supervisor peskin and norman fong. it's not for everybody. it's a partial solution to a very complex problem. i don't believe supervisor mandelman is claiming it solves the entire problem whatsoever. further more, there was a lot of fear and lot was expressed this hearing about the city using this legislation to push people

inside prisons and jails. that's an absurdity. we're well beyond that. [buzzer] >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hi supervisors. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> okay, hi supervisors, i'm with the lawyer committee for civil rights. i'm a district one resident and i am strongly opposed to the place for all legislation. many of the supervisors on this committee know how homelessness is dealt with in this city. there are various agencies that respond. this is a criminalization of homelessness who are extremely poor, black and brown folks. i'm concerned because we know how it will be used to remove unhoused people into encampment

sites, whether homeless people themselves feel this fits their needs. in the context, it's punitive incarceration, especially when the city is destroying people's tents and means of survival. this legislation is about getting unhoused people out of public, forcing them into encampments. so, i urge this board to listen to unhouse san franciscans to strike down this inhumane legislation immediately. as the campaign manager of prop c in 2018, we invested in permanent solutions to homelessness, not funding temporary camps. instead of paying 60k a year on a tent, we can acquire housing sites so housing can be a human right. for folks working to end

homelessness in the city, this legislation that is constantly being introduced is being difficult to address the real issue at hand. thanks so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. >> can you hear me? this is patricia. i've been involved in four neighborhoods and they all had at risk people. i have dealt with the homeless on multiple occasions. i am opposed for this because the wording of this legislation is nebulous. it's not going to solve the problem in the long run. number two is many of the people that are on the street will not take -- they can't go to the

tent or the housing because they are mentally ill. the city and county of san francisco had a wonderful program. under mayor lee, they expanded it and formed something called the h.o.t. team. the difference between the two is the h.o.t. team go out and give people shoes and the other program talked to the people, found out what their issues were, sometimes picked them up and cleaned them up and made sure they were back on their meds, and let them back out. at here's -- least they were stabilized. we don't have that. i don't believe many of the people that go to these facilities, that mandelman is suggesting. while it sounds like a good program, it doesn't have the teeth in it that we need. what we need to do is go back to

the map program, go back to a form of the navigational system that was spread out all over the city with patrols, and to form a program that actually works. i don't understand why the city and county of san francisco hasn't taken the vacant hospital at this time, which are empty and scheduled for high income housing and -- [buzzer] >> speaker's time has elapsed. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hi, i'm judy, i'm with hotels and -- not hospitals, and i'm here to oppose this measure. i think it's very clear that all of the people that have experienced homelessness since public comment has started have

opposed this measure. i think it's basic policy 101, that you should talk to a constituent that would be affected by it the most and that would be the homeless folks. the very people you will be impacting don't want it. number two, a lot of people who are going through the mental hoops of trying to justify this think it's a short-term or medium-term need. this will protect people in some incremental way. they also said that the longer people stay on the streets, the more chronic it becomes from tents on the street is not shelter. people will still undergo monitoring. they will be hearing noise from the street that you would not hear when you were in a shelter. they won't have privacy like in a shelter. it's also very clear that there are enough vacant apartments and hotel rooms. the ratio of vacant housing to

homeless people is 5-1. those to unsheltered people is 3-1 and there is enough space to house every single person. there is no need for a medium-term solution. there is an fucking solution and hotels are doing it right now. we are able to house people through community supportive housing and now we have been locked in apartment lyses for six of our unhoused people. this is completely funded by the community and we have been able to do it. this legislation does not as homeless people like they are people. it doesn't treat them like they're human beings that deserve basic shelter. it's embarrassing and pathetic that it has gone this far. learn from the people and the organizers who are working alongside unhoused folks. treat them like human beings, thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please.

>> hello, my name is amay. i'm part of the larkin street advisory board. all of the supervisors on this board and you're talking about modern day encampments in a parking lot in 2021. if black lives really matter, we want to stop asian hate, get these homeless people permanent solution. if you're going to spend 60k on a tent per year, you should use that money to funnel into permanent housing solutions. it's not a permanent solution to put someone in a tent and for them to live in a tent. like the previous callers have said, these are multifaceted people. these are not people that just have one single way of living. everybody lives differently. as a foster youth, i would not

feel comfortable staying next to them. think of the youth in our homeless. do you think it's okay for them to be sitting next to 80-year-old people? we have different needs. we are at different stages in our lives. everybody needs housing. it's not okay that you guys are sitting here and just listening to everybody saying accept this as a permanent solution, but not really. it's not okay. we can do better. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. currently there are approximately 43 callers listening and 12 in the queue. i just wanted to provide a final reminder that if you wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3. please wait until the system indicates you are unmuted before

speaking. next caller please. >> good morning supervisor, my name is steven. i lived in district 2 for over 40 years. i support a place for all. i ask you to do the same. small business owners, those in my neighborhood and throughout san francisco. in the early morning, we walked down the streets that have a number of small businesses. you'll see that many of them are sleeping at the doorways of these businesses and at parkades that the restaurant as built during the pandemic. it's hard enough to maintain small businesses, especially this last year without also having to worry about someone sleeping in the doorway when you get ready to start your day. so please support a place for all. it can be cost effective and it will begin to lessen the

difficulties that small businesses have to deal with. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, 234e-x -- next speaker please. >> yes, hello. my name is tina. i was raised and born in san francisco. i'm homeless currently and in transitional housing in hamilton. i also worked in district 6. so what i wanted to say, i'm against the tent city they are talking about. i've been working with people since covid that are homeless and i have several people things happened to women in those camps. a lot of people are not stabilized and they would be in there -- and when you visit

them, they can't think because they're sleeping on the street. they can't get hot food and if they get food, it's like they go to st. anthony. don't support the tent places because it's not stabilized and i mean, before two years ago, i was homeless in the streets and i did not want to stay at those types of places. i wanted a home where i can be safe and think. i wouldn't be able to think because i would be worried someone is going to touch me or all types of stuffer going on. i'm out on the front line and lot of people are going to refuse to go in and it's going to get worse. all right. i don't know what happened. >> thank you for your comment, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is matthew. i'm a resident of d5 and i'm

calling to oppose this legislation. prior to the pandemic, i supported using a lot for providing temporary shelter, a proposal by supervisor brown and many of my neighbors. it's undeniable that the safe sleeping site is an improvement over the status quo. many up in tents is not a permanent solution, but they are better off with sanitation services and stations than without. the problem with this legislation is that the city government has lost all credibility on this issue during the pandemic and there is no reason anyone should believe that it will be a first step towards providing real shelter, rather than a dead end. even with the political will and funding to provide shelter-in-place hotel rooms to every unhoused resident in the city, they felt they didn't feel like doing the work and left thousands on the street to experience the pandemic and the

trauma of homelessness. this is another cool for criminalizing homelessness. that's the city's history and record. as many people have pointed out, there is nothing stopping the city from creating more shelter right now. the federal government would reimburse the city if the mayor followed the existing law passed by the board of supervisors. to build trust with our unhoused neighbors and those who advocate for them, that the city is committed to providing housing for every resident in this city. >> thank you for your comment, next speaker please. >> hello, can you hear me?

>> yes, we can hear you. >> this is leslie, we're in opposition of the legislation. we push for homes for all. we want to emphasize that shelter is not a home. a shelter should be temporary for emergencies while we're moving folks to housing. we're still in a global pandemic and we're also in a moment where there is federal funding to seize long-term housing so we should jump on it. the numbers don't add up, it's more than an enough to house a person including services. every person housed or unhoused would choose a home over a tent any day.

we seen tenants get evicted and left on the streets, including elders. this will give them another excuse saying they offered shelter and trash all of their belongings. the only difference between you and i is that you have a roof and we don't. for those supporting this, put yourself in their shoes. a place for all, who is that all? do those who support this wish to live there? spend $5,000 a month for them to sleep on asphalt in this rich city by the bay. a home is the only solution to homelessness. please oppose this. thanks. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> yes, good afternoon supervisor. i'm the executive director of

the tenderloin and resident of this residence. navigation centers and safe sleeping sites. safe sleeping sites are not a long-term solution to the city's housing needs but they can be part of an emergency response. we saw this during the pandemic when hundreds of people were left to fend for themselves on the their pro -- narrow sidewalks of the tenderloin. at the time, the c.d.c. recommended unsheltered people should shelter in tents. through a combination of shelter-in-place hotels and safe sleeping sites, the city was able to find a place for hundreds of people. we have safe sleeping sites that has been a crucial part of the good work the city has done in

the tenderloin. safe sleeping sites need robust services and staffing. some had city resources to support them. tents are no replacement to permanent shelter but the choice is not always between supportive housing or a tent. sometimes it's leaving one to live on a sidewalk without services and without safety or providing a safe place to pitch a tent with services and safety. please support this legislation to make safe sleeping sites a temporary response to the crisis in our streets. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> hello? >> welcome caller. please proceed. >> hello? can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> okay, thank you very much.

i work on the condition of homelessness. i am an organizer. i'm seeing a lot of great speakers talking really great things. great recommendations. i had one thing to mention to the supervisor who created this legislation. i oppose this legislation. number one why i oppose is because they don't have a community process support. when i say they don't have a community process, they don't go directly to the homeless people and speaking to the homeless people and speaking about this. for me, it's really important to homeless people to speak out and have recommendations. if not, there is nobody. i know i hear the supervisor mentioned earlier in his comments that we house so many

homeless people or we are housing. yes, that's true, but are we displaced and we are evicting so many people? like we have so many homeless right now again. so putting it simple, i've been working for almost three decades and we still have the same problem, nothing changed. so, because we have so many homeless people again, and now the pandemic. the pandemic wants to leave more people outside. so i think one great thing that we call a great solution, is the proposition that we want. why? we want to house hundreds of people in permanent housing. this is the real solution. another thing i want to mention to the supervisor is that we really want to work together, please, please involving the

community process. involving the homeless people and any legislation that you want to write because it's really important. thank you very much and have a great day. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> oh, hello. can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> great, wonderful. this is andrea, good afternoon chair haney and supervisors mar and safai. i'm the executive director for the castro up for market benefit district and we represent about 586 property owners in the city, most of them actually are small property owners in the castro and actually do reside in the city, in san francisco. we're calling in to express our strong support for this legislation.

obviously, i think we all agree that housing and supportive services are the key and really important to address this issue. housing will take years, particularly supportive housing. my question to everybody is are we asking our unhoused neighbors, many of whom to continue sleeping on our sidewalks for years? for years with absolutely no solution? this is not the humane way and the compassionate way to address the homelessness crisis. i would like to emphasize that the safe sleeping sites and place for all is not just moving people into tents and leaving them alone. safe sleeping sites come with services and so it is like supportive housing, but it's supportive tents and there is food, there are cooked meals, showers, water, and there is access to city services.

an enrollment to the city system of care. if we don't do this and we continue to let people sleep on the streets, whether they're in tents or sleeping just with a blanket or nothing on top of them, people will die and they are dying. they will continue to die on the streets. the longer they are out on the streets with no shelter, the more difficult to transition into some more stable housing situation. at least if we can transition folks and we have the ability to transition folks -- [buzzer] >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hi, i want to point out that the last caller explicitly told you that their goal is to protect capital over people. everything they said is based on a lie and it's basically

gaslighting. safe sleeping sites are not a system of care but supportive housing is. my name is emily and i'm a san francisco resident. i deeply oppose this legislation brought forth by supervisor mandelman. it's supportive housing, not tents. i want to echo those who expressed we need to talk to people who are most impacted by this legislation and looking to them. this legislation needs more policing and that is more violent. more beds is also used as a justification. this legislation would not only prevent positive solutions in the form of homelessness, but it will give the city more freedom to policing this place in the most vulnerable communities. people living on the streets face excessive policing and harmful sweeps. we don't need another level of

justification to harm people further. it's a false narrative. one slot for 60k will help people with community supported housing. it's the only way to address homelessness. it's even wild to be talking about this from a financial perspective, which again when we're in a city with so many billionaires and resources, so many empty condos and houses and second homes. this is fucking ridiculous. i'm appalled by the calls coming in by those not impacted by this legislation. where is your compassion? do better than this, it's heartbreaking to hear you quote neighborhood associations and talk about how this is a step in the right direction because they see --

[buzzer] >> speaker's time has elapsed. >> there are six more callers in the queue. if you haven't done so, please press star 6 to be added to the queue. next caller please. >> hi, this is adam. i'm a resident in d6 selma. i'm calling to oppose this legislation. it's not about helping anyone. it's an attempt by the supervisor and the city to avoid martin versus boise. it probably wouldn't avoid martin versus boise. when our city's leaders are trying to do stuff based on lawsuit avoidance, we know we have gone down the wrong path. the cost that we looked at earlier this year, supervisor haney talked about ethics. if we're spending 60 ground --

grand or 40 grand a year on a tent, something is wrong. for $5,000 a month, you can get a luxury apartment in the building. for $3,000 a month, you can get a one bedroom. we're spending obscene amounts of money for something that can't get results. looking at supervisor haney's district, there is low income housing going up on bryant. it's going up quickly and affordably. it's already been opposed by unions and other supervisors. just because we have solutions that involve using companies outside the city, that dune mean we shouldn't address them. let's do what we need to do to help people. get people into housing, but do

it humanely, do it affordably, and most importantly do it with the intention of helping people, not with the intention of avoiding a lawsuit. with the sweeps, the city knows that there is one step away of lawsuits taking over everything. it's by luck they haven't gotten sued yet. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you. my name is brandy, i'm a public school parent. i am a guest at the bigoted people that are supporting this. a big problem is the lack of empathy. this is tailor made for antihomelessness groups like rescue sf and the d1 group, which is founded by a trump

appointee. so it's a band-aid solution to homelessness. it's a waste of taxpayer money and of your time as elected officials. we know that real solutions that work, originate from and are supported by the communities that the solution is supposed to help. 1 out of every 22 students is homeless and this is not what their parents are asking for. i am in support of prop c and i think it's a travesty that the taxpayer supported prop c funds have not yet been unleashed. this is not good government. do the right thing and not let this test out of committee. we need to send a strong message that legislation like this is not acceptable. you should not be wasting valuable time and attention of the entire board of supervisors with legislation like this. thank you for taking my comments into consideration. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please.

>> good afternoon supervisors and committee, i'm representing district 5. we heard this legislation when it was initially introduced on november 2nd. at that time, we took a position of no position on the legislation we had quite a number of concerns and questions about the legislation. i'm just going to go briefly over some of the highlights of that before going into my personal feelings on the legislation. our main concern is this is a bare minimum. echoing the remarks of one of the callers, about 15 to 20 minutes ago, who has experienced homelessness. the way that safe sleeping sites are set up is not conducive to actually connecting people properly to services on an ongoing and long-term basis,

especially if people don't fall under the group of this person is experiencing homelessness. people have identities that are separate from that. people are seniors. we need supportive services that address their specific need. so, our concern is greatly that this is a bare minimum and the money could be spent better elsewhere. then on a personal note, i think that listening to the comments in this hearing, it is eminently clear there is a divide between people who have experienced homelessness and those who advocate for people who experienced homelessness and the people that do not. you know, the people who work with people who experience homelessness, people who have experienced homelessness are not supporting this legislation and when you see that divide, i think it is eminently clear that there is something wrong going on with the policymaking here. so, you know, just based on that

alone and also on, you know, just the fact that money could be spent so much better on permanent supportive housing, people say it takes time, it doesn't need to. we can acquire buildings right now for cheaper than it takes to bill them sometimes -- [buzzer] >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hello, good morning supervisors. my name is gideon, i'm a 45 year resident of district 8 and an active member of the task force and rescue sf. i'm speaking today to urge you to pass a place for all. the coalition of homelessness opposes a.p.a. because "a tent is not a room or housing". that's true, but are they saying that a tent set up in a safe,

clean, and secured supervised locations with bathrooms, showers, three meals a day isn't infinitely better than the dangers and dignity of living on the street. a.p.a. opens the door to criminalizing homelessness is nonsense, as the unfair characterization is privileged, bigoted or uncaring. that's something i heard mentioned quite a few times today. we care about the home less and we care about the neighborhoods and the city. the two are not incompatible. i visited safe sleeping sites and they're a huge improvement of living on the streets. it provides the simple most important step to ending street homelessness in our city. it makes it possible for every willing homeless person to get off the street into a much more stable environment where they have access to drug treatment and mental health services and path out of homelessness.

san francisco desperately needs a place for all. i urge you to see the larger picture and vote yes on a.p.a. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker please. >> supervisors, i think you heard the people and the more and more i try to make an attempt to listen to this virtual meeting, the more and more i get disgusted. this is not the way to treat san franciscan s. this is not the way to treat people who have a soul. this is san francisco named after st. francis.

where is the empathy? where is the empathy? open up your dictionary and find out what is the meaning of empathy. come on supervisors. when you run against the opposition you promise us the world once. once you get in, i don't want to say the word. listen to the people. listen to the people. don't listen to a few people who want to make money on this type of model and this type of concept that has no empathy. people have souls. even the dogs in san francisco live better. go to the spca and check it out. even the dogs live better in san

francisco. >> thank you for your comments. currently there are three more callers in the queue. next caller please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is david goldman, i have lived in san francisco since 1973. i have been a homeowner since 1977. i live in district 8. i seen firsthand how homeless encampments have led to people just rotting away, not doing anything, not getting any help, often refusing services. [please stand by]

>> i urge you supervisors to

support this legislation and send it to the full board for consideration. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is destiny rodriguez and i'm calling from district 4. i'm calling to let ya'll know that this was not something that i want to see us pass. i'm echoing like many callers that i do not think this is a humane solution. just to give you all some frame of reference. the cost for implementing this would actually allow us to build 700 to 1,300 units of housing for 15 years if we came up with a permanent solution. this is not going to help anybody in the long term. we are having just some sort of a band aid solution.

and i do not want to see. this everyone is saying where is the empathy, where the humanity. we're always asking when are we going to see real effective solutions? i'm actually currently working in this valley. i'm working outside and from what i see on the streets, what i have to say is i'm echoing what people are saying, where are they being considered? where are they being fought for. setting up people in parking lots in tents is not going anything. it is cold, it is freezing. and people want to have food just to be safe from this environment. to have accessibility to real life solutions. so i really encourage you to elm employer real solutions for our disgusting issue that we've created and that we continue to raise our nose to and act like we are better that and to

continue treating our unhoused residents as if they are nothing and i can't stand to see this anymore. so this is not the move. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is amy farrell weiss. i'm the founder and director of the st. francis homelessness challenge and it was founded in 2015 because we were really pushing up against mayor ed lee at the time, his wanting to displace people and our organization at the time started working with people living on the street and in large encampments. we actually worked together with encampment residents to get a port-a-potty at the site

and started to work with neighbors and with d.p.w. and try to work with the department of homelessness which was jesse casitski at the time to call for organized spaces. this legislation has some flaws in it because it actually didn't consult the organization, our organization that actually was doing this work in the beginning working with people experiencing homelessness and inviting supervisor mandelman who wasn't even a supervisor yet to be part of that and it's time to work together, because i understand the issues that are brought up by the homeless coalition. but i do people that would want to be part of this and a community integrated framework and rafael, let's include it in

there. this was the work we were trying to do at 180 jones. there are a lot of people who want to do this work together with you who are experiencing homelessness and it would be huge for the city of san francisco. huge. put away your sinisterism everyone. it would be huge if we said no more do we allow people to live in crisis on the streets. we have aaccountability meeting, baseline needs and we're doing this as a team and that's what st. francis aall about is working together with people. >> your time has elapsed. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is catalina and i live in district 4. i'm here to impose what's in place for all legislation. over 60,000 per year per tent to run.