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 shelters, so people have

somewhere safe, clean, dry to sleep every night. thank you. and again, thank you, supervisor mandelman, for introducing a place for all. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. let's go to the next caller. >> caller: good morning. i would like to call -- good afternoon, i'd like to call in and finish the previous comment. there were technical issues. >> you did have 30 seconds left on the clock. i will go ahead and give you that 30 seconds back. >> thank you very much. so, my point is really that we need to look at regional framework and to the previous caller's comments, right, we need shelter prevention and housing resources that are proportionate. it does take a long time to -- operating costs that other callers have pointed out are high. we need to look at regional frame works. we need to create shelter in proportion to permanent housing which is the solution.

we need time for the prop to work. it takes time for public funding to roll out. we need to be patient and let that work rather than pursue a side project. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. jeanette, any other callers in the queue? mr. chair, we have no more callers. >> public comment is closed. actually, i want to thank all the folks in the community that weighed in on this really important policy proposal and especially from the coalition on homelessness, our city our home movement, and also rescue s.f., who have been very engaged in this. and i think we can all agree -- we do all agree that the solution to our homelessness crisis is permanent supportive housing, affordable housing and

supportive services that are needed to address -- to support our unsheltered folks in a sustainable and permanent way. there is also many, including myself, that see the important role that transitional housing and shelter can play and should be playing in our comprehensive plan and strategies to address the crisis. so, i -- you know, i think i want to -- colleagues, actually, i'd like to process-wise see if we can consider the amendments that have been presented in an orderly way. i'm going to ask supervisor mandelman and supervisor melgar to go over their amendments once again. and if the committee members, if we can find agreement on these amendments, at least we can --

yeah, create a motion to amend the legislation that we have consensus on, that the committee members have consensus on. and then those we don't have consensus on, there is still further time to consider them, because this item will be continued to the next meeting. so why don't we start with supervisor mandelman. if you be just summarize your amendments -- and maybe after each one you summarize, if the committee members can see if we have consensus on it. and deputy city attorney pearson, you're taking notes and you'll help us sort of come up with a set of amendments that combine all that we have consensus on. thank you. >> i have thoughts to share, but i would like to clarify. i don't believe that my amendments or supervisor safai's are substantive, is that correct? >> deputy city attorney, that is right. so whether a continuance is

required depends on the amendments that the committee approves today. >> my request would be that the committee vote this out to the full board with positive recommendation today. i do have a few thoughts i would like to share. a couple based on some of the comments we heard. i any the understanding of what this legislation is asking for is not necessarily coming through to all folks, at least to all the folks that commented. so place for all does not envision congregate shelter for all. it envisions an array of shelter options and, in fact, caps requires that no more than 50% of any expansion come in the form of congregate shelter and i would imagine it would be much less than that, because no one has the appetite to see the expansion of large congregate shelter. i think we know there are better

ways to do this. there is non-congregate buildings that may have been hostels that we can convert. there is tiny homes. there is many different things that we can do that do not necessarily involve giant congregate shelter. so i wanted to just be clear about that. i also wanted to respond to someone -- i don't remember who it was -- that said san francisco hasn't had a housing plan. i mean, san francisco has been pursuing a housing plan for 20 years. it was embodied in prop c. that goes on top of hundreds of millions of dollars we invest each year in maintaining housing we have already stood up. we have more than 10,000 permanent supportive housing units. we are -- we are currently pursuing acquisitions of hotels and the use of state money to

stand up a more permanent supportive housing. and there are challenges with the permit supportive housing program. we can take that up another day. i don't think it's the topic of this hearing, but we have a -- we have a permanent housing plan, it is to solve homelessness through housing and it is not working. it is the right thing to do. it is part of san francisco doing what localities across the state and country should be doing to provide exits from homelessness for individuals, but it is not going to solve homelessness in san francisco. another comment that was made, this is a work around to martin v boise. martin v boise says we should not be punishing people or criminalizing their behavior if they're seeking a public space to stay in when the government

is not offering them another safer alternative. absolutely. but that does not mean that encampments are okay. they're not okay. and we should be pursuing the end of encampments in san francisco and it should be a high priority for us. i would repeat nearly 800 fires in encampments in the last year. hundreds of overdose deaths. merchants across the city find themselves facing people with serious addictions coming in the door and having to respond their needs and sometimes behavior which is absolutely unacceptable. and that impacts the neighbors. often in the poorest parts of the city who cannot get down the sidewalk with kids. the elderly folk finding themselves threatened. it is not acceptable and should be a high priority of our local government to resolve this, to end this in the most compassionate way that we possibly can.

the coalition on homelessness is not our friend in this effort. i agree with the coalition on many points. i believe i've stood with them on many campaigns, including the proposition c campaign, but they have made very clear over the, you know, at least i've known since i've been in office and i'm sure well before that, that they are opposed to encampment resolution under any circumstances with the possible exception -- [interjections] -- with the possible exception when someone is being offered a housing unit. [interjections] for the amount of money that we are spending, san franciscans have the right to expect that we are going to provide relief on the streets for unhoused folks, for housed folks, for small businesses. and we have an obligation to keep faith with the voters as someone again who supported proposition c, we cannot continue to spend hundreds of

millions, billions of dollars a year without addressing the homelessness challenges that are experienced by san franciscans across the city. with regard -- and i guess there is a lot of trashing of new york city going on here. new york city has a right to shelter. i believe the amount of time folks stay in shelters in new york city is on average year to year and a half. people are staying on our streets or decades. we should not be comparing ourselves to new york city as if we're doing it right and they somehow screwed it up. and new york city also demonstrates, the state and the city demonstrates you can invest in affordable housing, offer permanent exit from the street and you can aggressively address unsheltered homelessness and not have it. with regard to the amendments that have been offered, i want to -- i want to thank supervisor -- well, i want to thank all the supervisors for their

conversation. i want to thank supervisor safai. i think his amendments, again, are not substantive, don't fundamentally change the shape of the legislation and i'm happy -- i was happy to add what i thought were amendments. he's added more. i'm perfectly comfortable with the committee making those amendments. with regard to supervisor melgar's amendments, some of which we incorporated or at least we attempted to respond to in my legislation, i am -- i have no objection at all to what i think is a non-substantive amendment on page 13. which addresses funding -- the opening or operation of new shelters with not allowing that with funds that may not lawfully be used for those purposes including tax revenue designated by the voters to use for permanent housing. i think that's a fine amendment. and wouldn't have any objection. the other two i would ask the

committee not to make. this legislation is intended to address a particular problem which is that san francisco is dramatically undersheltered. the amendment that requires that -- requires h.s.h. to prepare a plan to address all aspects of our homelessness response, including shelter, permanent supportive housing, prevention is a very different piece -- is a very different charge which is why it's substantive and would need to sit. i would be happy to see the analysis around shelter that would come out of that, but it will certainly be a larger project for them and i think the need, the pressing need and the need for san francisco's neighborhoods is to take a close -- a close look at what it would require to have shelter for folks. of all the different kinds of shelter that we can offer. with regard to the other proposal about a way to call to request -- to request to access

shelter services, i don't have a particular objection, but again, it doesn't go -- i'm not sure it needs to be in this legislation. i'm not sure this legislation needs to wait to have that added. and so, again, i would, you know, i would request this committee accept all of the amendments except the two that would require it to sit in committee and forward it to the full board with positive recommendations. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor melgar? >> thank you, chair mar. i just wanted to respond to a couple of things. [please stand by] [please stand by]

even though it may sit for a little longer, i think that it is smart policy to put it into context, and, in fact, emily cohen said that's what they wanted to do. let me also add that we heard from rescue sf that, you know, the sponsor, supervisor mandelman has been working with who called for us to put forward this policy, you know, with all the things that we agree on and to work with each other to come up with a consensus. and i have spoken to rescue sf, i told them about my amendments. i don't believe that they are, you know, not supportive of them. i do not consider the coalition

on homelessness my opponents in this. i think that, you know, i did not hear a hard line position from the coalition on this one. i think that they want us to look at it in terms of the context of what we're doing and i did not hear a hard line of, no, we don't need shelter, but i would urge you to look at the entire policy in the context of what we're trying to do in the long run i had initially put in my request to go back to the 311 position after speaking with emily cohen. i understand that was not ideal for them. we have technology. we have all kinds of different ways where folks can do it. what i would ask, again, in this guidance, in this policy is to look for ways where

people who are experiencing houselessness to be able to access to shelter in a different way, not just through resolution of encampments, but different ways in which people who sort of live far out and don't have that connection to social services or who are actually not, you know, being busted in an encampment can have access to that safe, dry place to sleep and lay their heads at night particularly the ones who have kids, the ones who are not, you know, visibly, you know, having a crisis on our streets, but also those who are. i think it's fair to have since we're providing this guidance to have a policy statement that says that we will really have a shelter for all, a place for all, not just the ones that have, you know, access through

a resolution with the department. so is it appropriate for me to go through my amendments, chair mar? >> chairman: can you hold on a second. supervisor chan is on the roster. >> supervisor chan: i -- well, i read through the amendments, so here's my comments. first, i disagree with the fact that what supervisor mandelman has suggested that our strategy or our plan for permanent supportive housing is not working. of i think it's actually a work in progress. it's not done, so it's not that it's not working. and, i think that with that is also the fact that in my questioning to h.s.h., to the department of homelessness and supportive housing that ms.

cullen has mentioned that not knowing how many shelters is needed because it's also dependent on the progress we could make with permanent housing placements and availability. so, you know, two cannot go without the other in my opinion if in order to really say this is a plan to address homelessness on our street. so i would say that we have to consider both in order for this to be successful. that's the reason why i am supportive of supervisor melgar's amendments. i was going to say that, you know, i would make the motion to ask for a continuance to may 26th, but in the event that we're not going to be able to continue with this. i'm going to make the second and lay out a second motion to truly move supervisor melgar's amendments. i wasn't -- i did not intend to

move her amendments today thinking that there could be a chance for as more conversation to be frank to see where we could land on may 26th within committee. but now that knowing if there's no interest and must move this to the full board with positive recommendation, with only the amendments proposed by supervisor mandelman and supervisor safai that i will be perhaps a lone vote of 'no' to move this forward with positive recommendation to the full board today and that to say that i would like to make the motion to approve or amend the legislation with supervisor melgar's amendments and in the event that motion fails, perhaps we will make this attempt again in the full board in the chamber when it does come forward. but i just wanted to lay that out. thank