that the community policing is -- particularly the community policing strategic plan that sfpd created is in response to the concerns around racial bias and over policing in black and brown communities and the community policing is a key part of the department of justice collaborative reform initiative recommendations that we're still following through on implementing. i think this not only does community policing plans address better address the public safety concerns of our neighborhoods, it can help address concerns around addressing racism, systemic racism and policing in san francisco. i thank you for your support on

this. thank supervisor stefani for moving the amendment. i would move that we -- in addition to the motion to incorporate the amendments i presented from supervisor stefani, i move that we continue this to the next meeting. that will be may 26th. >> clerk: would you like to take both of those motions together? on the motion to amend item 5 and continue it to the may 26th meeting. [roll call vote] there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: thank you. please call item 3. >> clerk: an ordinance amending the administrative code to

require h.s.h. to submit a plan to implement a program to provide unsheltered persons in san francisco with the safe place to sleep overnight also known as the place for all program including cost estimate of implementation requiring hastefully -- hastefully implement the program >> supervisor mar: i would like note and thank supervisor malgar and also supervisor mandelman

for joining us for this hearing. supervisor mandelman, thank you for your leadership on these issue and bringing this item forward. the floor is yours. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you colleagues for making some time to talk about place for all this morning. this has been quite a long road. i introduced the first version of this legislation with co-sponsor supervisor fewer back in the fall of 2020. this legislation came out of our pandemic experience where there had been an explosion encampments on sidewalks and in public spaces following the necessity to shut down and thin out the congregate shelter that we have. it prompted lawsuits.

we saw the city step up in a major way, moving thousands of people off of the streets and out of those encampments into new shelters. now we've seen an experiment with tiny homes. we saw there were different ways to do shelter. we saw we can get folks off the street. at that time, supervisor fewer and i felt that there was a lesson here. with political will and funding, we might be able to end unsheltered homelessness in san francisco. at least have a safe place that was better for folks than the sidewalk or the plaza or the park. we brought this front of the

budget committee back in april of last year. had some conversations, much heated debate between folks who thought this was a good idea and folks who thought it was a bad idea and the legislation was tabled. i want to -- it was continued to the call of the chair. i want to give lot of credit to the folks with rescue officer, -- rescues.f. that continue to s the challenges of unsheltered homelessness. their efforts, their pressure if you will, their constant lobbying in this building moved some folks, i think. we also made changes to the legislation that addressed some of the concerns that have been raised about version 1. in addition, i think there's a growing consensus or understanding that san francisco, the bay area,

california are approaching unsheltered homelessness the way that is different from other places do that prioritize getting folks off of the streets and into at least a temporary placement. i want to thank -- express my deep appreciation to our former colleague, matt haney who signed on as a co-sponsor and worked with us on approving the legislation as well as our co-sponsors mar, malgar, and safai for their partnership for making this a strong piece of legislation for joining me for the city to provide shelt for. i hear every day from constituents who lost or losing faith in local governments after billions of dollars to solve

homelessness that is failed to improve conditions on the streets. i believe that it needs to be one of our highest priorities for san francisco to stop relying on residential neighborhoods as campsites of last resort for unhoused people. including individuals suffering from significant mental health conditions and substance use disorders. i have supported and continue to support standing up as much permit supportive housing as possible, we cannot let our streets serve as waiting room for housing. the people are getting sicker every day. research shows the people experiencing unsheltered homelessness suffering three times mortality rate. a place for all will be an important step toward getting people indoors faster. it will establish that it is our

policy to try to do that. the fact that provoked debate is interesting. it is priority for the city to offer shelter. secondly, the legislation would require the first comprehensive analysis of what it would take to end unsheltered homelessness in san francisco. h.s.h. will be required to work with the appropriate departments to determine the cost of providing that shelter, annual cost and to identify sites. 50% of the shelters will be non-congregate. the program would include a

biannual controller evaluation and report to measure its effectiveness. we do know that san francisco and the rest the bay area is severally unsheltered. unsheltered population is less sheltered than before. many other cities chosen to directly address unsheltered homelessness much more aggressively than we have. from 2017 to 2020, the share of unhoused people in the bay without access to basic shettering increased to 73%. the highest rate in the nation. all homes in their 2021 regional impact report proposed a framework. that for every dollar invested in shelter, that dollar should be matched by $2 invested in permanent housing and $4 invested in homelessness prevention. as of this january, our best estimate is san francisco will need at least 2000 additional

shelter beds. as a result, we have ever growing population of unhoused people who lack the most basic shelter, living unsafe conditions, are getting sicker and will by the time they qualify for housing if they ever qualify for housing, requiring supportive services for their lives. while making shelter for all is a reality it's easier said than done. this legislation is a first step in the process that san francisco refuse to engage in to the great detriment of our neighborhoods and unhoused alike. make no mistake, we will not end street camps in san francisco. this legislation moves us incrementally but i think importantly towards that goal. i have prepared a set of amendments that i hope will address many of the concerns that have been raised about this legislation.

those amendments should have been shared with you. they address the need to ensure people are placed in shelter are provided access to housing as soon as possible by expanding the scope of h.s.h. implementation plan to expedite folks from moving from shelter into housing. the amendment addressed the need to improve access to shelter where resources are not concentrated and does not regularly conduct outreach by requiring h.s.h. to prepare a geographic equity strategic. thank you supervisor melgar for your conversation about that issue. these amendments add safe parking sites. this is an issue was raised by supervisor melgar and safai as part of the menu of shelterer populations that should be included in the implementation plan. changes the deadline after the effective date to december 31st which gives h.s.h. some more time.

would require the director of real estate to maintain list of potential sites on a rolling basis. as i said, supervisor safai requested an amendment to reduce the cap on the percentage of shelter options that can be safe sleep sites from the 20% that supervisor haney asked for and then 10%. i included that in the amendments that i'm proposing. san francisco has consistently affirmed our support for housing first approach to addressing homelessness for decade. while that approach has helped end homelessness for tens of thousands of people, it has not resulted improvement in street conditions. there's a direct connection between our shelter resources and street conditions.

despite the many different ways in which san francisco affirms the policy goal providing housing for everyone, we have not committed to providing emergency shelter for those who do not have a realistic path to any housing resource in the next month, 6 months, year or years. we have to confront the reality that san francisco cannot build the amount of supportive housing necessary to improve street conditions. one city can't alone cannot solve what is a fundamentally regional state and national crises. we need to continue doing the right thing, which is to invest in permanent exits from homelessness. we also need to dramatically expand our shelter capacity and use that capacity to better manage street conditions or we can allow the status quo using our sidewalks as waiting room for permanent supportive housing to continue. i do think that our public,

which has given us -- has been asked for and has given significant investments in permanent supportive housing does expect us to address street conditions. we can do both. i look forward to the conversation this morning. i talked with some of you. i've incorporated, i think, many of your concerns as i said into the amendments that i'm offering. my bottom line, i know there may be further amendments today. i guess my bottom line view is that i would like for this legislation to meaningfully push it city to address a serious lack of shelter and to move closer to being a shelter for all city. i think we can do that. i want this legislation to move us in that direction. i also want in the process, to make sure that we do not add

things that complicates the effort or make it more difficult to move folks out of unsafe encampments on the street and into safer shelter situations of all of the varieties of shelter from congregate to non-congregate to tiny homes and to hotels. what we cannot do to continue to allow very unsafe encampments to persist in san francisco. looking forward to conversations. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward. i did want to add that, i am proud to co-sponsor this. i agree that we as a city need to have a comprehensive plan to create shelter and transitional housing for everyone that is

currently living on the street in unsheltered. this that is to be supplemental and complementary to our priority focus on addressing homelessness which is creating permanent housing and supportive services that are needed to address this problem in the long-term. i don't think it's a neither or. it's important that our shelter expansion plan be fully coordinated with our plan to address homelessness in the long-term through permanent housing. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. thank you supervisor mandelman for your time, work, effort, energy, engagement with the community and drafting this and

putting it together, seeing it through the process over a long time. i share your desire to have meaningful access to shelter for everyone who needs it in san francisco. i think it's an important goal not just because folks are in the public right-of-way. because it's important for the health safety and life of the folks who happen to be without a home at a period in their life where they are more vulnerable. to be able to be successful over the long run. thank you for addressing in the amendments that you will be introducing today. my concern that the west side gets very few of these services from the city. i am worried that in creating a

policy that provides access to shelter that it's through the departments and since those departments never come out to my neighborhood or supervisor mar's neighborhood or supervisor chan's neighborhood, that this will not provide meaningful access to shelter as you have stated. thank you for adding that paragraph. i look forward that when the plan gets submitted to us, there will be some geographic equity in the plans submitted by the department. what this doesn't address, i wanted to bring up and make sure we are watching out for as we embark on this change in policy if this goes farther, there is a power imbalance between folks who are experiencing houselessness and the department. i want to make sure that

whatever we are putting together, provides that meaningful access to shelter for folks who are experiencing houselessness and not just folks who are being cleared from encampments. that is really important. couple of weeks we had a hearing to explore at the land use committee, to explore the issue of pregnant black women in, who have twice the rate of suffering death when they are giving birth. who's kids have three times the infant mortality rate than white kids who are twice as likely to be homeless than white women in san francisco. many of them are fleeing domestic violence. i want to make sure that folks in that category can have access to shelter that day when they need it when they are fleeing

from a dangerous situation. not have to be in an encampment before they can access shelter. i want to make sure that whatever policy we're creating, whatever system we're creating, provides meaningful access not just in terms of geography but also the different ways in different situations that people have when they need shelter. the fact is that our housing population is not monolithic. yes, the folks who are on the sidewalk in the public right-of-way in tents are visible. sometimes because they're in crises and they're experiencing mental health crises or other issues, we see them in a way that we deferential see the 3000 homeless children in our san sanfrancisco unified school district.

we don't see them. those folks also need to be moved from the street to a shelter to permanent housing. many of them don't need permanent supportive housing. they need affordable housing. in my district there are lot of folks who are living in cars and rvs just like in supervisor safai's district and president walton's district. i'm grateful that we included safe parking sites in this new policy as it should. i want to headache -- i want to make sure we define those things. i do think it's a spectrum. i want to make sure that we address everything along the way.

many of the folks living in rvs and cars are just poor. many them are latino. many of them are single mothers with kids. not a lot of mental health and substance abuse issues in that population. they do need services. they need financial capability training. they need workforce assistance. they need lot of things. not necessarily those that are provided in permanent housing but are provided in affordable housing. i want to make sure that as we're creating these new policies, we are not creating a system that doesn't address the things that we learned during the pandemic. we had ms. emily cohen who told us when we voted on the tenderloin emergency designation that one of the things that they had learned is that low barrier, less challenging entry. access to shelter and housing

work. it works better. i think supervisor mandelman you said in your remarks as well. i want to headache sure that our approach to shelter also takes that lesson that i know that folks who have a place to go that is safe where they feel trust. it's easy to get into are likely to get off our streets. they are safe and i want to put as low barrier as possible so folks get in the shet -- shelter and we're not setting up a system. we are providing -- i want to make sure we're articulating that. i'm supportive of this effort. i'm supportive of the policy that used as our budget in our

resources as a city to make sure that people are successful. i do that providing space shelter that is service rich in that meets the needs of the folks as they're telling us that they have those needs can be a way for folks to get into permanent housing and be successful over the long run. we have to get it right. i have talked to you about it. i think that at the very least, the amendments that i proposed for page 9, which is are the definitions, we can move.

we have seen the cracks in the system and where people have fallen through the cracks. thank you. >> supervisor mar: supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you. is h.s.h. is department of homelessness and supportive housing here to answer questions that i have about this legislation? >> good morning, supervisors, emily cohen deputy director of department of homelessness. >> supervisor chan: i understand from the most recent data, if you can confirm, we have about 8000 -- anywhere between 8000 up to like 19,000 homeless individuals in the city at this time. >> our 2019 point in time counts over 8000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in our community.

which is a consistent way of counting people experiencing homelessness on a single night. we do estimate that over the course of the year that number will be much larger. >> supervisor chan: i think earlier this year, during our conversation and briefing with your team is that there is a commitment to place about 6000 individuals that are currently homeless to permanent housing by june. can you confirm that? [ please stand by ]

>> i'm a firm believer. >> all homelessness frankly two things are critical. one is to prevent them to become homeless in the first place,that's the most important piece and the second most important piece is to provide them a home and i think that's very direct . could you sort of educate me about the proposed legislation expanding shelter and how does that interact between expanding shelterswhich is in my layperson understanding , they're not permanent housing. they are temporary. nonetheless that doesn't mean they're not good . they're good like if someone is on the street and in need of having a roof over your head or whatever we couldprovide that . it's really the responsibility of our government over local

level and state level but could you help me better understand that if this legislation moves forward what does that mean for your existing effort and ongoing effortplacing individuals into permanent housing ? >> thank you for the questions supervisor. the legislation before you directs the department to create a plan and two data model how much shelter we need to meet the unmet need of people experiencingunchartered homelessness on the streets . we can only understand how much shelter we need if we know much how muchhousing we have and they are all relative to each other . the more housing we have the less shelter we should need and vice versa so in order to determine how much shelter we need to answer the requirements of this ordinance we will need to do a system data modelthat takes into account prevention

and housing so this is a , for the department this is integral tounderstanding how these interventions interact with one another because people becoming homeless , homelessness is the x factor we don't always know so this i completely agree with you. prevention is our first line of defense and supercritical here. this legislation will direct us to do a modeling thattakes all that into consideration in order to determine how much of each intervention we ultimately need and what the associated costs would be . >> thank you and while we're trying to make that determination and try to have a better understanding of a plan which if you think about it it's kind of interesting that we after all those years we still don't have a plan but i'm kind of curious to understand though.

obviously we know homelessness is not a san francisco issue. it's a statewide issue and in fact i believe it's a national issue that our state legislature are also working hard and trying to find their own ways to problem solve, not just obviouslyfor san francisco but the entire state . have we had some type of analysis of understanding of what the governor has proposed in terms of care and state senator aikman's bills that's a series of them really addressing any attempt to address mental health services. have we done some type of analysis or understanding of initially these proposals and how they would impact the way that san francisco would handle mental health issues but also in relation to those who are homeless individuals and

suffering mentalhealth issues ? >> thank you supervisor. i'mnot sure if that question is for me . i don't know if any of my colleagues are on who might be better equipped to answer this question. we are working closely with the state when it comes to home key resources both bringing in to our city to expand shelter and housing and i defer to the behavioral health specialists on mental healthquestions . >> thank you but it sounds to me whatever effort that you're working on and doing right now at this moment, placing folks into permanenthousing , doing outreach and try to do everything youcould , it sounds to me though we have yet to have a clear grasp how these state legislations would impact us at this time.

>> that is correct. i think it will be enacted by the amount of funding that comes with these proposals. the care, i referred to dph on their expertise related to the care. i think there are promising options here. >> thank you. >> but they don't bring the resources. the court does notnecessarily come with the housing resources, that comes with the home key project so that is where we are deeply focused . >> i'm glad about the questions on resources and funding and i don't know maybe this question is for ms. cohen or the author of this legislation that this legislation my assumption is in looking through it it does not come with any type of funding mechanism for the extension of

the shelter. . supervisor madelman. or maybe supervisor safai wants to answer the question. my question is that looking through the legislation whoever can answerthis question . maybe the city attorney or maybe supervisor mandelman that this legislation itselfdoes not provide a funding mechanism for extension of the shelter . >> through the chair, this is a plan. we don't know what number we would be headed if we were trying to shelter everyone. we don'tknow if that's 20 million or $200 million cost . i'm willing to look at revenue solutions as we get a better sense of what the actual cost of shelter for all might look like and that's a conversation to behad down the road.

we have a $13 billion budget that we depend on for many things . i think addressing encampments and providing a saferefuge for folks coming off the streets should be among our highest priorities . so i would be interested in looking at ways we can find money in our existing budget but right now we don't know what target we're aiming at which is part of what this legislation is about . >> thank you supervisor. i think this is my comment and thank you forindulging me . my comment is this. when i look at this legislation i believe it is simply an approach to the problem but not the solution. it doesn't have a funding mechanism. in fact i think supervisor mandelman has talked about in his own belief it's a regional approach for providing permanent housing to house individuals and i think that's the same idea would applyfor shelters . perhaps and not only that, to

understand that the shelters are really just temporary solutions where the investment should go towards permanent housing beyond san francisco which i agree and i think everyone up anddown the state should be thinking about building housing , affordable housing so that people can be prevented from becoming homeless and in the event they do become homeless that they are going there are going to be places for them to be homed so i urge colleagues to consider a continuance but i'm still seriously considering amendments that super melgar has discussed. i'm in support of all the amendments that we could discuss and propose today and i'm happy to support them.

but that does not mean that i don't have reservations in supporting the legislation itself.again i believe it's simply our approach to somehow take a stand against people being on sidewalk and tents but not really providing a solid solution or even a funding mechanism to give them home. so that is where i stand on this legislation. i think that i just wanted to make that clear. i look forward to continuing this conversation. i will be here since i'm only something but it if this continues i will continue to monitor and watch where this is heading at the committee but i also will look forward to seeing it and having a further discussion on the floor in the board chamber should it come to the full board . >> thank you supervisor.

and just to note we are joined by supervisor safai. supervisor melgar you referred to some amendments you have been working on and youtouched on one or two . i think it would be helpful for the public if you could go over your full list of amendments and then i know supervisor safai you had someproposed amendments . we kind of just summarize what those are for the public. >> thank you chair. there's really three main things in my amendment and instead of having to gothrough every line item . the main thing is that i would propose that we include shelter and permanent supportive housing in this legislation together. what i just heard ms.cohen say is exactly that . that she cannot give us a number or an exact amount

without looking at the totality that they are all interrelated. the number of permanent supportive housing units that we have i would even go furthe . the number of affordable housing units and permanent supportive housing units we have is intricately related to the number ofshelter beds we need because it is a spectrum. people move through the system . that is one of the things i would say it's a route that they document. i would add access to shelter andpermanentsupportive housing . number two , that i would like to see, i'm grateful for the geographic. there should be a geographic equity in the plan. i like i would like to exclusively say there should be a way for folks to get on the shelter list through the telephone . that could be accessible in

some way for people who lived farther out who don't have an access point near where they arestaying on the sidewalk or the beach . so that folks can have access to our system and it used to be i am no longer proposing the 311 if it could be some other way and i am in documentation with miss: it seems like that was possibleas well . the third thing i wanted to add in my amendment is just definitions. because we talk about things in the legislation but we haven't defined them. on page 9 i'm proposing we define homeless prevention and this is somethingsupervisor chan talked about . homelessness prevention means policies, practices and interventions that reduce the likelihood someone will experience homelessness including but not limited to rental assistance andeviction

prevention programs which i think are important . permanent supportive housing, as steve referenced was already in our code in chapter 20 of the administrative code and then also define safe overnight. we refer to it and thank you supervisor for putting it in but i would define it has a meeting set forth in section 119.1 of chapter 119 of the administrative code as may be amendedfrom time to time . thank you again supervisor that we would continue to evolve. >> thank you supervisor. >> thank you members of the public. first i want to thank supervisor mandelman for all his hard work. i know this has beenan ongoing conversation over the past couple of years .

a piece for all is a needed piece of legislation in my opinion. it's something that's been missing from the conversation with regard to our melgar unhoused in san francisco. i'm supporting this because i believe we need to incorporate shelter in a different way into the conversation and those that are willing to accept it and i think this takes us in the direction to at least have the opportunity to find out what the right number it's for the city and county of sanfrancisco and allow the city to provide shelter beds to meet everyone's needs . we know there's a need but we haven't had the political will i believe in the city to address this inan aggressive manner . i have amendments today, some of them supervisor mandelman talked about, supervisor melgar reference and their similar to what supervisormelgar talked about and that's nice because

like minds think alike . i think it's important first and foremost that when we're thinking about the right number we also incorporate into the fact that there are a reasonable number of people that will still accept permanent supportive housing or affordable housing so we make that amendment and put it into the first conversation about the estimate for an sheltered individuals. we had in the line that says excluding individuals that accept an offer for permanent supportive housing and i think that's an important piece in the conversation to say because there's a reasonable number of people that will continue to accept affordable housingand permanent supportive housing. the second thing we do is we incorporate in the conversation of a safe overnight parking . something we were able to get off the ground in our district that's not expanded to hunter! and i know there's other supervisors in the conversation

looking at locations and their district and again we know that there's been a 45 percent increase inthose living in vehicles. i think it's an important piece of the conversation that should still be included in this overall estimate . and then finally we believe that we should reduce the number of safe sleeping as an option . if i had my druthers i probably would take it altogether but i do recognize that there needs to be a transition piece so we asked for there to be a reduction of the on safe sleeping from 20 percent to 10 percent and acknowledge in this legislation acknowledge that both seat sleeping and overnight parking and navigation centers should be looked at as a more short-term option .in the conversation. so those are the main amendments today.

i think it's important forus to recognize this is the first step. it's the first big step to get an accurate count of what they need might be . and i think it was acknowledged in the findings of this ordinance , but we look at otherplaces around the country . often times we can be very inward looking in san francisco but if we look at other places around the country they dostill have housing first policy . they still aggressively move people into permanent supportive housing but they have been taking the time to have the requisitenumber of transitional shelter and that doesn't mean that is the final solution . i agree that people need dignity and respect. they deserve to have permanent supportive housing or affordable housing options but we have to acknowledge that the alternative of not having enough options for those that are living on the streets is not humane and we have to have in my opinion this as a transitional option.

i look forward to this legislation passing and i look forward to continuing conversation with my colleagues and again i want to thank supervisor mandelman and allin the community that have been involved in this important conversation . >> thank you just to note all of youreceived my amendments but i had you a paper copy as well . >> we've heard three sets of amendments described and presented to supervisor mandelman along with supervisor melgar and safai. thank you for yourthoughtful work on how to refine this legislation . make sure it's effective and strategic as possible. we have a number of folks from thepublic that wanted to share their perspective on it .i believe online so before we go to public comment i wanted to see if you had any comments. >> supervisor.

>> i wanted to add i do support supervisor transcends amendment to set a on the safe sleeping sites and i share the sentiments that if it was up to me i would say zero but i understand that during a time of crisis we need to have something buti support that idea . >> thank you. what do we go to public comment madam clerk. >> members of the public who wish to speak and if you're joining us in person now is the time to line up to speak against the window.you're right, my left. for those joining us call 415-655-0001, enter the meeting id 2490 219 996. sáthree and for those in the queue please continue to wait

until the system indicatesyou have been unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comments . we do have a number of individuals in person but first person can come forward. >> 'smy name is carlos watkins, anorganizer with the coalition ofhomelessness and a resident of district 1 . supervisor chancedistrict . notwithstanding their amendments , i'm in support of those but i'll close legislation not passed. but now it's common knowledge or should be every plan that doesn't talk about housing in regards to end homelessness will not work. the city comptroller's office stated shelter resources work most efficiently and that's as super supervisor melgar the deputies said herself they can make any plans about the number of shelter beds without taking into account the spending we

need. it doesn't make sense to do one over the other. regardless the city currently has no plans for how much housing we will need to meet the needs of the city and no mandate that we acquire that muchhousing. this plan would not be supplementing our complement think ahousing plan because there is no housing plan. it would just be making a shelter plan . this proposal doesn't mention anything about housing . it's been extremely telling that in comments about this legislation weather in meetings or the media or talking points supervisor mandelman has referenced martin do boise saying the shelter plans will be used as a workaround to displaced people and the shelter resources we currently have are not accessible to the public as supervisor melgar stated in her amendments. there is no way for folks to directly access shelter. all that shows this is not really a plan to end homelessness.

it's not a plan to help people's needs. it's a plan to work around martin do boise and close people in the shelterresources that may or may not be adequate or appropriate . supervisor mandelman talked about people in andcabinets and substance abuseneeds . >> thank you for your comments . we will be providing everybody the sametwo minutes . >> thank yousupervisor . mandelman's legislation needsto be amended to make sure data-driven analysis that doesn't randomly promise shelter beds as it ensures shelter is developed in the context of when . so in flow and outflow so that those are available. to that people have a way to request and get a shelter bed and three that shelter is not funded by robbing housing. i want to note that on that first point melgar's amendment

gets at that, mandelman's does not and i mean bring back the shelter reservation system right now. 9000 shelter users are being asked to leave a message on a machine in order to get shelter. obviously that doesn't work . they work more than a decade to have a fair and easy shelter access system. it took hundreds of committee members thousands of hours, massive amounts of research and it was designed based on unhoused people's feedback. homelesspeople have theability to have self-determination, not be denied or given the runaround. the ability to just request a bed to lay their hands . and know where they stood, know how long the weight , no when it wouldbe appropriate and have a little bit of control over their destiny . to deny this amendment supervisor stefani is callous. domestic violence victims come

to all our organizations trying to get shelter and theydon't have a way to get it . that's not okay. don't say you fight for shelter when you basically are denying a way forpeople who want shelter to get that shelter . . if this legislation is not amended it will only lead to an explosion on the numbers of people on the streets . >> you for your comments. we will have the next caller please. >>. >> speaker: [inaudible] quote unquote policies for why the loophole in martin versus local governments to criminalize and displace and share with their residents. regardless of whether there's a shelter available or it's

appropriate or accessible. criminalization is done in homelessness. housing beds. i would like to sayanother thing . i'm no the mayor wants business because this country is becoming fascist. the government is aiding the needs of the corporations versus people's needs. this country, the whole legacy, theamerican people , give me liberty or give me death. patrick henry. you cannot tell a homeless person to just get up and leave their comfort station. martin versus boise. why is that being stepped on when other legislation like

theirs is being approved? i totally am against suites. that is not fair. that is not what we pay our taxes for . alsoi've been in a shelter . i've been in a shelter bed for mentally ill and they look like concentration camp's. this is turninginto fascism . we want to recognize whofought against fascism and who advocated for it . >> thank you foryour comments. next speaker come forward good morning. my name is jordan davis . i actually have lived experience with homelessness and live in permanent supportive housing and i oppose longcabin republican rafael mandelman a place for nobody legislation unless it's amended for everyone .

this piece of legislation will make concrete shelters permanent for a lot of people with no housing access and that's not fair and just for the record i support melgar's amendment. had a time when our supported housing is under fire for issues and the endemic traumatic issues of shelters frankly and i'm going to tell an inconvenient truth here. i don't blame people for wanting to be on the streets rock rather than being in traumatized shelters and fuck the sfro. i was at mission and if there was no exit housing even though that exit was horrible i would have gone fucking knots. housing helped and if i was still in a fucking hundred get shelter i wouldn't have been able to have my cousin helps last january because he could recover from surgery and shelter first is fucking transform it. we need to invest in quality supportive housing is this to

be a win-win situation and i wouldn't be cursing you off if city hall wasn't so fucked up and these pieces oflegislation were taking time out of my that day so i yelled my time fuck you . >> thank you for your comments, let's have the next speaker please. >> speaker: i'm an intern with the coalition of homelessness. i've lived and worked in district 8 at the castro for 30 years and sat on the board. i was an accolade of philip weiland who was my teacher until his death. i also volunteered and attended the deaths of 144 souls. at age 36 i entered the dea and at 44 and an a from usc. i've struggled to find employment due to economic difficulties and myself experiencing homelessness where

i lived on the streets for several years. during this pandemic the mayor left us basically on her own to die. presumably. people on the streets run tight networks. people care for one another because being homeless means continually being victimized by dpw, by criminals, by residents who commit arson, assault with pepper spray and assault with your attic acid. none of which matters. euphemisms include what they are. my friends on the streets of castro are not service resistant and they're not engaged in homelessness, there simply trying to survive. they recognize mendacityas sure as they recognize danger , a necessary survival tactic. we can't allow members of the community to dictate policy and resources in a program that warehouses human beings are in historical and cultural memory is short . my aunt and uncle were first relocated to assembly centers

and later to relocation centers . i conclude with a quote. if you're thinking of buying a house in new york san francisco or chicago there's a powerful attraction to a neighborhood like harlem, themission and in short i don't think about pride, think about private/earnings ratios just as you would with a stock . >> thank you for your comments. can we have the next speaker please? >> my name is lori brooke and i'm a cofounder of rescue sf and also president of the town hollow association. we are a citywide coalition of residents advocating for compassionate and effective solutions to homelessness in san francisco and we do urge passage of this legislation. two and are devastating homelessness crisis we need to stop managing homelessness as a part of urban life and we need to start treating it like a humanitarian emergency that it is.

if a natural disaster had left thousands homelesswith no place to live the city will immediately put everyone in our residency shelterand offer them to find permanent housing . we need the same approach to ending homelessness . a place for all would establish a policy to provide shelter for people living on our streets and require the city to develop an implementation plan to expand the number of shelter including centers and traditionalshelters. the board of supervisors have an opportunity to review the plans and funding sources before approving the final plan. this is a sensible approach . that's all i wrote here but i wanted to add from what i've been hearing that we fundamentally believe we're all on the same page and that we're splitting hairshere. i mean, i love the work the coalition over the years has done. without you therewould be so much more death on the streets . i don't think we're at such a divide he can't find a way to provide permanent housing ,

traditional shelters and folks to get off thestreets so i want to find a way we can work together and not a part . >> thank you for your comments. can we have the next speaker? >> i live in district 9. i volunteer with the coalition o homelessness and i'm going to echo some things . supervisor mandelman has made it clear he wants to expand shelter beds to remove people from public spaces. shelter for all policies provide a loophole in martin versus boise for local governments to criminalize and displace on sheltered residents regardless of whether the shelter available is appropriate or accessible to those being swept. criminalization and displacement don't and homelessness. housing and homelessness. people should not ever be forced into a shelter with the idea that you either go into the shelter or into jail.

that's it. we support shelter but we don't supportshelter only . supervisor melgar said it perfectly. low barrier shelters in which people feel safe, trust the staff and other residents is the only way to go. many people do not want shelte because theirexperience was so horrific . quality of shelter absolutely matters . they can only be developed with the residents who live there. residentsneed agency . shelters should also be accessible to the folks who needed . therefore we need to go back to the pre- covid system of folks calling 311to get a waiting list . iq. >> thank you foryour comments.

can we have the next speaker please ? >> my name is marknagel, cofounder of rescue sf . i originally came to support a place for all. people who are melgar need housing and we support efforts to make housing more affordable andprevent people from falling into homelessness . thanks to our city our home san francisco now has unprecedented resources to spend on permanent housing but we are under investing in shelter. more than 2000 two thirds of unhoused people in san francisco are also on houston and it will take moretime for the funding to come online. during the pandemic the city was able to move thousands off the streets quickly so they had somewhere to go . during the current initiative the city has moved more than 700 people off the street into shelters . the lessons are obvious. we could end our street crisis

when we have sufficient shelter . while we build more housing we shouldn't leave people to sleep on the street. it iscruel for people and devastating for our streets and neighborhoods street sleeping doesn't make someone safe, sane or sober . people should wait forhousing andshelter, not on our streets . we support a place for all because it offers a path to ending homelessness . we call on the department of homelessness to develop a plan for creating more shelter and allow the board ofsupervisors to review the plan , consider the costs and identify appropriate fundingsources. that is a reasonable approach . i urge the committee to forward legislation for a full vote . >> thank you for your comments. can we have the next speaker please? >>. >> speaker: my name is caitlin o'neill, a resident of district 8 and here on behalf of pilot shelters in support of the ordinance and iwant to thank

supervisor mandelman and his staff for their work on this important issue . >> thank you for your comments . >> my name is susan morris and let's be frank. tiny homes are metal shedsthat are by definition substandard housing . they cannot be heated efficiently.they have uses in other ways that are shall we say entirely not low barrier and they are expensiveto set up . as such, unless an identified funding source is provided, not just promised but provided, they will end by diverting housing, funding from housing and in fact there are already political pressuresto achieve that . and as such they will undermine the only research backed solution of homelessness which is housing which is also a

solution that over 60 percent of the people of san francisco voted for when they approved proposition c. now i would ask that you not undermine the solution of homelessness and that you not for the will of the voters by approving this as written. i very much appreciate supervisor melgar amendments . i dosupport it . please do not pass this as written. >> thank you for your comments. let's get the next speaker. >> my name is kelly color, human rights organizer at the coalition of homelessness and i'm calling on the committee to impose a place for all. would any of you stay in

shelter ? would you feel safe living somewherewhere there's a bunch of beds three feet away ? wouldyou feel safe living in, get shelter during thepandemic ? if you say yes then proveit . i've been to hundreds of sweeps in the city over the years . it's extremely traumatic and it's not traumainformed . in fact it's causing trauma. when i met sweeps where other city agencies are present asked people the question. what could the city offer you where you would feel safe? i explained to folks that currently there is no public access to shelters because the city shut down public access and they shut down 311. so they have to go through the hot to get access. it's a simple question and the answers are usually quite simple. the response is often a room with abathroom . a home.they often go to explain why a shelter isn't an appropriate oradequate option

for them . their reasons are valid. i've experienced homelessness and i have ptsd from that. i can't get shelter wouldn't b inappropriate or adequate option for me . and my situation is not unique. we need to continue to invest in housing and this legislation isn't housing for all. it's shelterfor all . we just need to be honest about it, what's going on in the situation. we need to listen to actual research and what we know work . and shelters don't.>> thank you for your comments. may we have the next speaker? >> my name is christopher micah. a former homeless person and resident of what is nowdistrict 5 . i don't support this legislation as written.

shelter is not housing. and housing is what we need to endhomelessness . my understanding of this legislation is it's basically a way forthe city to do legal sweeps instead of the illegal sweeps that they say they don't do right now . we will further institutionalize homes by diverting funds for housingsome of these and by building out the homeless isindustrial complex . we are never going to get what we need . people will not be given to get housed if we have an army of people who lose theircontracts if people do get housed . shelter is not housing. shelter without a dated guarantee of permanent adequate housing is merely institutionalized permanent homelessness. thank you.

>> thank you for your comments. canwe get the next speaker ? >>. >> speaker: my name is tyler kaiser, i'm a d4 resident and policy director at the coalition on homelessness. i'm calling on this committee tooppose a place for all as it is currently written . supervisor mandelman has made it clear he wants to expand shelter beds in order to forcibly remove our unhoused residents from public spaces. shelter without housing equals perpetually full shelter beds. it's not just about more shelter beds. it's about having shelter bed turnover at and that he parked his over there. when shelter residents can move into housing it opens up the bed for the next person who needs it when they need it.

we support shelter. we don't support shelter only. we needhousing and to quote all voting with the executive director of the western regional advocacy projects nothing homelessness like a home . >> thank you for your comments. seeing no other individuals here in person to speak let's go to our public comment line. jeanette is checking to see if we have callers inthe queue. we have27 individuals who are currently waiting to provide public comment . if you would please put the first caller through . hello caller. perhaps that lineis unattended . hello. >> yes, hello. my name is connor, an executive director of the san francisco marin medical society. the medical society is a

nonprofit association representing about 3500 physicians in san francisco and mandelman county a large majority of which are in san francisco. i'm speaking on behalf of the medical societiesleadership and would like to express a medical societies report for this ordinance . it's important to note our members are on the front lines of care for our mostunderserved and underrepresented populations so we tend to bring a unique perspective to issues of housing and homelessness . the shortage of safe sanitary shelter options in san francisco as a tangible effect on the housing outcomes for our communities of specific concern to us as a medical society is that a lack of shelter capacity and a lack of the opportunities for linkage to social services that can arise from having shelter capacity can contribute to unhoused individuals

arriving in our already overwhelmedemergency rooms which are ill-suited to provide other . this places further strain on our physician workforce and our hospitals have been stretched to the limit by the covid-19. the strength affects everyone in our communities from reducing overall capacity hospitals to increasing physician burnout which is at an all-time high . it also increases cost of care we respect the issue is complex and the proposal requires dialogue but we have the goal of offering individuals and alternatives and webelieve the proposal would advance that cause . thank you forthis opportunity . >> can we have the next caller please?>> good morning supervisors, and president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, not just for some neighborhoods but all neighborhoods. we first heard from supervisor

mandelman two years ago when one of our friends from rescue sf brought thisplan to our attention . we'd like to thank mark and carolynfor doing that . from the get-go we were in favor of his plan and as he explained that then when we voted back then. you have our resolution in favor of now it's called version 1. later when it was tweaked and refined we heard from our friends and from the supervisor. they voted unanimously to approve version 2. you have that on file also and here we are again and still we are in full endorsement of this plan, this legislation.it is time, past time to shelter the unhoused and to pass a place for all. out of this committee with a

positive recommendation for consideration by the full board in the very near future. campus fugitives, supervisors andhomeless are still waiting . >> thank you. >> thank you for your comment. next caller please. >> my name is david harrison calling on behalf of the building owners and managers association . andalso resident of what's now district 7 in the inner sunset . as the supervisor mentioned i hope this legislation can push our state to being a jurisdiction that's able to provide shelter for all those who want to accept it while also meeting ourhousing goals. thank you for considering and we look forward to continuing the conversation . >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> good morning, my name is william tate, resident district 8. i support a place for all and

you should too. anyone who lives and works where people are camping in tents on the sidewalk comes to realize that it is an unfortunate situation for everyone , not the least of which are the people living in the tents. most turning to drugs to ease the pain. many dying of overdoses. allclearly struggling. permanent housing is great. we need all we can get but there will probably never be enough of it for everyone who needs it . so the issue is what can be done quickly to make living before permanent housing is available saferand more humane for people struggling on the streets ? it is so clear to me that the answer is transitional shelter where people can live in a managed safe location with with support services, sanitation, food and away off the streets that's available to them when they needit, not months or years from now .

it's not perfect but it's a lot better than nothing. it's a lot better than the way it is now so please vote for a place for all. thank you. >> thank you for calling in today. may we have the next caller please?hello? >> please proceed. >> speaker: good afternoon chair mar. i was in district 9 on 26th street and worked at my home as an artist. i'm also the captain of the mission neighborhood association. i support place for all. housing is the solution for homelessness but we do not have enough housing or shelterfor those sleeping on our sidewalks . the housing first policy of san

francisco has proven an absolute failure and isupport more shelter to transition people off the streets and into permanent housing . has been out of control and cannons in my neighborhood not only since covid but since 2016 with people dying in thestreets , suffering from mental and physical health, drug sales and open drug use in front of our children for six years in front of my house and my neighbors. san franciscans are looking for our elected officialsto implement effective short-term solutions to get people off the streets . it's not okay to use public bodyguards as shelters. it's just not. not only are the homeless affecting policy people who live as immigrants and people in other communities are harmed such as inmission where i live. they were in front of my house for close to four months .

>> thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next caller. >> good morning supervisors. thisis marty ragan . thank you supervisor for focusing time and resources on finding solutions to end homelessness in san francisco. while we certainly supportmore shelter we don't support shelter only. a variety of housing options is neededincluding shelter , transitional livingprograms , rapid rehousing and long-term supportive housing across the city . a robust service for continuous housing with fully funded contracts a nonprofit workers livable wages and fund ongoing maintenance is the only way homelessness will become rare and one-time. >> thank you for your comments. next caller please.

please proceed. >> thank you. this is kerry barnes and resident in noe valley. i'm originally from boston. >> we can hear you. >> speaker: thank you so much. i'm originally from boston where i our right to shelter insurancepeople do not sleep on the streets . that model can be viewed as paternalistic andhave unintended consequences . however what is humane about that in the current legislation is a corporate lease that no oneshould sleep on the streets . i support the proposed legislation because it is a compassionate and pragmatic approach to address the thousands of unshelved people living in san francisco.

the department of health ejected in february the number of people citywide experiencing homelessness has grown to 18,000. that is unacceptable and it's of the utmost urgency we not wait for the perfect day and yes i agree providing shelter should be a next was a priority of our city . i support ada as it will provide a safe ace to sleep fo all . and it will develop an implementation planto expand the rangeof shelter options . iq . >> . your comments. we have 40 individuals listening and 26 left in the queue. we can put the next caller through. >> please proceed. >> hello supervisor. hello? >> please proceed. >> hello. >> we can hear you,please

proceed . >> speaker: on a public housing editor and permanent housing provider in san francisco and i want to urge this committee to oppose housing for all as is currently written. housing first is a working model to support formerly on house people and become self-sufficient. hello? >> we can hear you.hello caller? i'm pausing your time. the caller is having an issue. let's circle back to that color. >> supervisors, way back in 1992 we did not have any

homeless that we see today. and at that time we had a mayo , you all may not know his name. frank johnson and we had an opportunity using the mckinley act to get some housing at the presidio. and if you look at public housing, most of it is from the military. and you have had you done at a needs assessment today with over 50,000 units. now, you all do not have a blueprint for affordable housing. you all are just kicking the candown the street . as a legislative body you have been slow, doing nothing at al

. who is doing something for the rich people is the mayor. you have a failed legislative body, all of you. don't come up with some band aid type of operation. no one should live in shelters, be forced to livein shelters . thank you very much. >> thank you mister dacosta to you foryour comments . >> good afternoon, my name is gwendolyn westbrook. i am executive director of the united council of human services and oppose the legislation as written today but i want to thank you for hearing this out. i have been in the homeless

servicebusiness for almost 25 years . and there is a process for people to actually be able to live in housing. if you take the time and interview people who have been directly involved in homeless services you will understand why we are so opposed. the 311 system worked perfectly but here comes somebody over saying no, we need to get rid of that.people have fair and equitable time to get into a shelter which when they came up they were able to go to it. people who didn't want togo to that kind of shelter, that's what we need to focus on . what we can do to ensure that everybody has a hold and it doesn't have to be a shelter because people do not feel safe in shelters. i am a native san franciscan, born, raised, educated right

here in the city and i'm also a resident of bayview hunters point. you guys need to stop and think about what you're proposing that people who live in a system working, no input from us whatsoever and hunters point as usual, it's all about these other districts. you need to think about what you're doing, go back to the drawing board with the commitment from people who actually work in this field, the nonprofits that work and havebeen providing services for years . it's unconscionable that you guys would present this to us. let's make this right. >> the speakers time has expired. we are holding everybody to 2 minutes. next caller please.

hello, caller? that line appears to be unattended. let's go ahead and circle back. >> speaker: my name is jordan wayne, resident of district 8 and a board member at the association speaking in my personal capacity. i'm calling to ask you to support safe space for all70 percent of us had homelessness as our top concern and to make sure you're all aware of this has been true for several years . too many people are seeing eye-popping sums of homelessness while also seeing more and not fewer people on the streets and to be clear i believe we should be spending

this money to shelter the people that needed and need support of all kinds but what i think 70 percent of people are seeing is that we need a first step on the path of homelessness. we need a place for people to go when they find themselves in a tough situation . [please stand by]

>> so to put folks in shelters where there's no out, either they're going to be at some point timed out and kicked back out into the streets or they're going to be languishing in conditions that they should never be in long-term, conditions with a cot on the floor, shared bathroom, etc. -- >> clerk: speaker's time's

expired. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm low-income, and it took me eight years to get this. i just feel that building another shelter here in san francisco is like building a hospital and sending people there to die because once you get into the shelter here in san francisco, i'm trying to get into shelter. not only is it hard to get into it, but it's hard to get out of it. even with all of your belongings and your dignity that you came in with the shelter, you either going to leave the shelter traumatized, scared, or not just the same

you. the shelters are dirty. the place that they feed the people are dirty, where they've been for years and years and years. we've had to use the same forks and spoons for years and years and years. and not only is the shelter dirty, the staff that work at the shelter is really rude, treat people like trash, and that's why a lot of these people, they don't change. it's hard to change because the people that work here treat them like trash because of the way they look and the way they dress. and if you try to build another shelter here, it's just going to call for more death or people becoming drug addicts here. you guys need to change these shelters, make them like a hotel or something and it would be a hotel where everybody has their own -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we are providing two minutes,

and i apologize for cutting you off. can we have the next caller, please. >> hi. my name is ian james, and i am the director of the coalition on homelessness. i'm calling in to oppose this legislation as it currently written. as emily cohen says herself, shelters are based on demand and housing. it ignores that obvious reality and focuses exclusively on shelter. with supervisor melgar's amendment which makes housing the real permanent solution to homelessness, we'd have a much more clear view of what the need is.

i know a lot of presumptions are demonstratively not true, and i think it's bad policy to use these as the foundations. i also want to urge a study focusing on the number of shelter beds needed when the shelter system is so broken and inaccessible and doesn't make sense. just let people refer themselves to shelter and they'll do it themselves. it's obvious with this system, you care more about controlling people than helping them. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's get the next caller,

please. >> hi. this is [indiscernible] and a resident of the mission district, and i urge people to vote no [indiscernible] it needs to be unwritten. out of sight, out of mind [indiscernible] it needs to be rewritten. taking the third step and making this the first step is dangerous. we need to refund and increase public housing, of course.

we in shelter system knows that there needs to be a focus on permanent housing, not on more shelter. increasing temporary shelter is never going to solve the issue of people sleeping on the sidewalk in front of a restaurant. people talk about restoring the quality of life for people in san francisco and people who work in businesses, but this system is not going to work. the quality of life at the top that we are prioritizing is bad for the people who have privilege, and not the privilege that people hold,

including myself -- >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. the speaker's time's expired. thank you so much, and we apologize for cutting you off. can we get the next caller, please. hello, caller? perhaps that line is unattended. let's circle back. >> hello. my name is simon manganelli. i am the kind of homeowner and welcome constituent that supervisor mandelman is supporting with this plan.

it provides no new funding, meaning that funding would be siphoned away from permanent housing. all of the estimates around how much shelter would be needed are suspect. supervisor mandelman has made it clear that he wants to have more shelter beds. shelter for all policies provide a loophole in martinburg versus boise to allow communities to sweep out homeless residents. look at new york city which has a right to shelter, and you'll see increased money for homelessness and less for homes. supervisor mandelman has made it clear that he doesn't support solutions for

homelessness. please oppose this legislation against rewritten and unless the community is given sufficient time to review the legislation. we need housing for all, not shelter for all. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's get the next caller, please. >> this proposal is a clear path to criminalize and get people off the streets. as the previous caller mentioned, a place for all threatens to divert vital

resources from the systemic cause of homelessness to more shelters. leadership has blocked us, and many people calling in today have no idea that's the case. this is a basic failing of our city to its residents and plays into false narratives about service resistance. that wait list also acted as an built in mechanism to measure shelter need, but this system does not require the shelter wait list system to be reinstated. the city is not doing the bare minimum to allow shelter access by reinstating the shelter wait list and self-recommendation.

without that, this policy is disingenuous. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's get the next caller, please. >> next, hi. this is kristin evans. i was a proponent for prop c. shelter is not the solution to homelessness, housing is, and there are a lot of false assumptions about shelter being less costly. in fact, it's not. what we found using prop c resources is that the capital costs may be a bit higher, but the operating costs are lower, and therefore, we actually break even around the year four

or five. if our goal is, in fact, to unite and find a way to end visible homelessness on our street, we have to be serious at looking at how we spend limited funds. this legislation before you today does not have any funding, it doesn't have a mechanism for funding. supervisor mandelman himself has admitted that the operating costs of operating a shelter system would be more expensive. he has some loose ideas about how to reduce that cost, but he's not actually reducing the cost of housing. we've got limited resources, and we need to figure out how we get there. we do that with a serious conversation where we want those limited funds placed.

we need to actually go back and really do significant amendments to this legislation. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's get the next caller, please. >> hi. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is steven courier. i am the former chair of the [indiscernible] center at the upper balboa yard. it was an honor to do that, to help shelter people living in their vehicles, and i appreciate supervisor melgar putting in the safe parking sites along with the shelter for all. i'm in total support of this and thank you, supervisor mandelman, for keeping us on track and getting this to a vote. as supervisor melgar said, meaningful enactment in getting

people housed in san francisco, and i also thank supervisor safai for keeping me briefed on this, along with eric brooks and [indiscernible] so i encourage you to please pass a place for all. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. can we get the next caller, please. hello, caller? it appears that line is unattended. >> hello, supervisors. this is anastasia iannopoulos. we saw this process last year and should have moved onto real solutions. it's still not bringing any new

money and finding and opening that many sites in 36 months is still just as unattainable. politicians have brought one false promise after another to distract us from what we actually need: more housing. warehousing people is not a solution. it produces trauma, as people have stated today, and should be avoided. it will justify that people being criminalized and displaced, and i just don't agree. this legislation needs to be amended so residents can move out of shelter and into housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. let's get the next caller.

>> hi. this is andrea [indiscernible] for the castro community benefit district, and i'm calling to support the legislation as written, and we also need more projects like this. this is not a project to solve homelessness, it is a project for shelter, and we need to remember this. and if the city does not build more shelter, then the thousands of people who want shelter in this city because there are lots of people -- remember, everyone said on 311, when we had the 311 system, there was a wait list of thousands of people, so people really want shelter, but all those people are going to be on

the sidewalk, living, dying, being in ill health. why? because there's not enough shelter. there's not enough shelter in san francisco, and this plan is about creating shelter. it is not about creating housing, it is not about solving all the problems about homelessness, it's about creating shelter. and the cost, i think people should really consider -- and supervisors, when you think about the cost, which will be in the plan, consider how many it costs right now, the city, to have thousands of people living on our sidewalk. that if those people are not living on our sidewalks anymore and are safe and are able to transition into housing, the city will save a lot of money. i'm sure the controller's office has an estimate of how much the city can save. and finally, i'd just like to

say that c.b.d. -- the castro c.b.d., we are out on the streets day in and day out, and we have a lot of relationships with people that are suffering on our sidewalks, and we run into people -- in fact, we recently ran into a couple who wanted housing -- they wanted housing ultimately, but they also wanted shelter, because they knew they wanted shelter first. but they wanted a couples bed, and the wife was suffering from ptsd, and the wife wanted to be with her husband. they had deteriorated and so ill to where they could not function. she needed access to mental health services so they could access shelter and live and probably not needing permanent

supportive housing. there are lots and lots of people like that, that if we could help them, they won't deteriorate into needing permanent support. and i think that's what this is about. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. speaker's time has expired. we're providing everyone two minutes. can we get the next caller, please. >> hello. i'm larry ackerman, a retired dcsf scientist and a resident of district 5, and i'm calling on the board to reject a place for all as written. shelter is not housing. most of the people i talk to would refuse to enter a shelter due to the conditions there in

and limitations. they can't take their pets, they can't take all their belongings. they would accept housing. unless the measure is amended, it would lead to the criminalization and displacement of unhoused people. for people who want a shelter bed, they should have a way to self-refer and be referred by providers. i often find people that need and want shelter, but there's no way to access any shelter bed, except currently through the hot time, which is basically unaccessible. supervisor melgar's amendments may make this legislation

palatable, so i support those amendments. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's get the next comments. >> hello, committee members. thank you for starting and continuing this urgent conversation. my name is evelyn [indiscernible] and today, i'm here to speak for samanito lopez. i work with a houseless and at-risk population and have done so for over 20 years. >> samanita is over 70 years. she pushes her cart to nowhere in particular for over ten years, cycling in and out of hideous shelters and unsafe conditions. samanita and other samanitas cost the city hundreds of

thousands of dollars as e.r.s are often seen as better than shelter. i asked where her shelter bed is. this is my shelter bed, she says. this can't go on. it must stop, it is immoral, and i'm sure committee members, you'd agree. can you imagine offering this shelter and criminalizing these women who won't accept this sort of thing? shelter is a step towards housing and must be addressed. otherwise, bare housing is

money down the drain. samanita was finally housed in s.i.p. housing during covid-19. her face glowed. we'd never seen such a thing. permanent housing is a miracle. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comment. we apologize for cutting you off. we're setting each caller's time at two minutes. can we get the next caller? >> hi, committee members. this is [indiscernible], 25-year resident of district 8. i am calling in support of this legislation. i echo the comments of rescue s.f. i think if you peel back the

hyperbole, there is a significant gap between the folks that are for this legislation and against this legislation. there's been a lot of talk about bad policy. i think bad policy is continuing to spend untold billions of dollars and having no significant improvement and, in fact, having families devolve. this is an incremental step, an incremental step that has the potential of being quite positive and needs to be pushed forward and passed. what we need to do is not continue the failures of the past and continue our spending of untold billions of dollars on a problem that seems to be intractable and exceedingly difficult to solve. there is no magic bullet,

there's no magic wand that can be waved that will eliminate it. it's these incremental steps forward that will cause some improvement in the situation if we continue pushing forward with it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's go to the next caller. >> good afternoon. my name is edna. i'm a d-4 resident, and i want to add my voice to opposition to this legislation and ask you not to pass it. i urge you to please listen to the people. any legislation that is not housing-led and which allows the city to violently treat human beings is unacceptable,

forcing them from attaining shelter is unacceptable. we need to move towards a new system, one that focuses on safety, dignity, and respect in this city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. i'm the director of compass. compass urges the city to reject the project in its current form. we agree that no one should have to sleep on the streets, but a place for all is a solution premised on really faulty assumption. it's more than clear that right to shelter siphons resources

away from the creation of deeply affordable housing. just look at new york city where people live in shelters year over year at an annual cost of $1.6 billion per year. we need shelter in proportion to housing. we need flow from shelters into housing. just look at frameworks like all homes framework. it calls for a certain ratio between shelter and housing, and supportive housing is just better. as more callers have cited, it's better, more safe, and it's more easily integrated into neighborhoods where we face a lot of opposition every time we try to site a shelter. [please stand by]

like president biden. i really think we need real leadership. i want to commend all the supervisors i see on screen, chan, melgar, for coming together to work on this.

it is a moral failing of the house to not house the unhoused. we need to provide shelter and then housing to get here. the rest i submit. thank you for your time. >> let's go to the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is -- i am district 9. i am calling on the committee today to oppose a place for all as it's currently written. i have myself experience

homelessness. i'm also a domestic violence survivor. and i just want to say that according to the services office, sheltering programs are more [indiscernible] permanent housing. on their own, of course, sheltering programs will not reduce or end homelessness. i urge you to listen to the research that has already been done and invest in the real solutions that we need. the whole city, not just the people living outside. we need housing for all. not just shelter for all. real solutions, please. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors, this is tray from north beach. i'm calling in opposition to the

-- this legislation. it's -- it's nowhere near a place for -- it's actually going to do anything to really deal with this problem. there is no funding source. and in addition i know in just riding a bus and overhearing people talk about, oh my gosh, i was in the shelter last night and someone has stolen my glasses, someone has stolen my medication. another experience i had with a woman on the bus and she had been homeless for 10 years and the m.t.a. bus monitor on the bus told me later that this is someone who had been raped, had many other experiences in a shelter and feels more safe actually sleeping outside. another elderly man i met here in north beach who asked that he

-- if someone could just please buy him a tent. that's where we would feel safer. there is no way he would go to a shelter because he doesn't feel safe. so let's know what we know, accept what we know about shelters. they are not the solution and, so when this is amended, i really appreciated supervisor chan and melgar's suggestions. i do think a continuance is needed, because housing is the solution. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's go to the next caller, please. >> caller: hello. leslie on behalf of housing rights committee san francisco. we oppose a place for all legislation. it is indeed a place for nobody. nobody wants to be forced into a

temporary shelter with no long-term solution because there are no funds. it's very likely supervisor mandelman, that you would be stealing from actually solutions from homelessness, which is housing. rather than moving toward housing first, we are moving toward housing never. mandelman also admitted the workaround to boise, this legally impedes sweeps. so this would allow us -- and trash belongings of residents regardless of whether the -- we know the city does this in violation to the ninth circuit ruling and rather than make it worse, we need you to make them accountable.

>> next caller, please. hello, caller? that line is unattended. so let's go to the next one. hello, caller? my apologies, but we do not have interpreters here for this hearing. they were not requested. >> all right. i can speak in english. supervisor melgar has offered to go ahead and translate your comments. go ahead.

>> caller: [speaking spanish] .

>> thank you so much for your comments. >> okay, my name is -- i live in

d10. i was formerly homeless and i've been here for 28 years. i am calling against the proposal by supervisor mandate mandelman and speaking for the hundreds of families with children in our city who are homeless children who were born in the u.s. i am grateful for the social services that are existing in our city that support families and i would like us to look to other countries like germany and switzerland that provide a strong social safety net. we need protection in housing and being inspired to house families and to support young people for the next generation. i would implore supervisor mandelman to help us do that. >> thank you so much, supervisor melgar. jeanette, can we go to the next caller?

>> caller: good morning, supervisors, my name is russell. i'm a resident of district 8. i own a small business, work from home and speak in my individual capacity. i'm a third generation san franciscan who has experienced homelessness. i'm appalled by the streets in san francisco. 99% of the residents are held hostage by 1% of the population. we spend 8% of our budget on people who consume resources, who sit in tents all day doing drugs. this does not say the real cost of mental anguish that residents endure. whether it is in a shelter, a home, is an insult to everyone that scrapes by to work in the city. nonetheless, we will never see a proposal that will please

everyone. it represents a step forward and i support its passage. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's go to the next caller. >> caller: hi, this is steven boss with grow s.f. i'd like to commend supervisor mandelman for his efforts on the place for all and i'm calling in strong support of it. i also find supervisor safai's amendment to be acceptable, if that's -- if going for 20% to 10% is safe tent sites what it takes to move forward, that's exactly what we should do, because i believe that we all need to work together and compromise in order to move forward on a solution to get people indoors. and i'm struck by the hardline position against a place for all, especially the coalition on homelessness. because as someone who

personally has shown up to support every homeless shelter, every affordable housing building and most market-rate housing, i believe in building everything. because we have a shortage of everything. and that includes homeless shelters. so to say that a homeless shelter is not a solution to all the world's problems is not a useful framing, because solutions take many steps. right? we have to get people off the street. we have to build permanent supportive housing. we have to build shelters. building permanent housing takes years as the supervisors know, you can be waiting for your permits for 2-6 years. and we just don't have the time. we have to make sure that people can sleep indoors every night and get them the help they need as quickly as possible. the only way to get there is by building these transitional