need to do is to make sure that we feel safe. not just feel safe but are safe. and, and i don't know what san francisco others are living in but what i'm hearing and what is happening in my district, is very different from when i started in 2018. it's very different from when i moved here in 2020. i'm for this supplemental today and you know. and i also want to say thank you to the police officers, they are so many good police officers out there. and i understand, there are a lot of reasons to not like police officers for some people. i get that. i get that there is been a lot of horrible things done by police officers that taints the whole profession, i get it. and i can't stand that that happened because i think it reflects so poorly on the

people who show up and sandy fewer use today say run towards danger not against it. to help people. there are many people that are trying to do a good job and trying to be safe. and a lot of us know that. and a lot of us are grateful for that. so i just want to say, despite other things that will be said here today or have been said, there are many of us that are grateful for you. i'm happy to cosponsor. >> thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor dorsey. >> thank you, president peskin. there are a couple of things i want to address. from time to time, it comes up about how many police officers we should have in the city and county of san francisco. there is a lot of ways to measure that. but importantly there was a long process about how we underwent that under the

supervisor and former president norman ye that was based on workload and population, visitor statistics, calls for service data, in the many years that i have been in and around san francisco politics and san francisco city government, which began with my first job out of college working for the district attorney. i think that was excellent and important work that did it right to figure out how many police our unique characters ikz needs. it always, irritates me a little bit when i hear people use residential population as it a de nominater that is used here in san francisco. in 2019, we also had 26 and a half million visitors just tourist coming to san francisco. that's equivalent of the

population of texas coming to visit. and that's not counting the people who are commuting here to work. all of that needs to be policed. this is in many ways a foundational piece of our economy and significant part of the district that i represent in district 6. i have never in my years in and around law enforcement or the city attorney's office, seen a policing statistics set by square mile. i'm familiar with the report and i don't think the measure is valid. the number of police officers we're suppose to have base on the workload mythology that this board of supervisors did great work on shepherd', we're suppose to have 3000.

what we have is 15 and change. sxl probably close to 500 are eligible for retirement or nearing eligibility for retirement. and on the issue of non compliance with the administrative code provision, i would say that, there is a really chronic issue of non compliance but it's not the administrative code. tt the charreder, in 994, they passed proposition d, that san francisco have 19 71 full duty' police officers. that means police officer that does not count the ones at the airport or the ones on leave or veteran leave, it does not count people who are on full duty'. full duty' and for 25 years that charter provision sat there. we only hit twice, that is on

generations of leaders in this building who should have been doing more to meet the obligations that voters put on city leaders n.my view, this was an issue of non compliance. we are right now dealing with the most predictable staffing crisis we could face. did you tellinger clinton administration there was a lot of federal support to hire police officers and support the police officers. it should not surprise that eventually police officers will retire and we're looking at a lot of police officers that are reaching retirement age. alarmingly this is happening at a time when there is a generational issue with young people who don't want to be police officers, none of this should be surprised to anyone and yet here we are. i'm going to be supporting this

budget supplemental but i'll be honest, i think this is the way to run a government. we should not have a budget supplemental just to keep our heads above water. this is not the way to run a world class city. i feel like, when we have when we're relying on ultra time, let's be honest about this, we're spending more money for lessing policing. sxl i think we have to do better and i hope my colleagues and i i will do more to meet the moment. but we need 2182 police officers. i think the supplemental is better than alternative but we need to make progress and we need to have solutions that san franciscans are demanding of us. and i hope that, you know, that they have been waiting, is of san franciscans have been waiting a long time since 1994

for a fully staff police department. they're not going to get that with the supplemental but we need to work the this board have done to get the full staffing. with that, i'll hand off. >> supervisor walton. >> thank you so much president peskin. one, i want to applaud this body for funding strategies that do keep people safe without having to rely on law enforcement. like community ambassador and welcome ambassador and intervention programs. because at the end of the day, a dressing the root causes of crime is how we will really see change in the types of crimes that get committed in our communities. i also have to say that we already know that host of the homicides in this city happen in district 10. we know that most of the shootings in this city, happen in district 10.

le yet there is a plan to increase community policing and one concentrated area in san francisco to protect businesses and we have already provided millions of dollars in alternatives to policing that have been proven to work. i don't want stores to get looted. i want people to feel safe going and leaving work. but lives are worth more than 10,000 shirts and purses to me. i have listened to our janitors and hotel employees and visitors, but i want to remind everyone that police officers are not security guards and these businesses have to work to protect their employees and their businesses. we already don't have enough resource to see go around. in addition this balloon supplemental does not get us one additional officer.

that is 100% fallacy, and untrue narrative. we should not at the time resident that's this overtime equals more officers. it makes no mathematical sense to that i overtime ads additional bodies. that math does not work, only in weird science. our captain in district 10, want resources and want to have viable and adequate community policing foot beats but the funding from this supplemental is only for an extremely small portion of san francisco. and by the way, we have more officers per-capita and city and county of san francisco than all of our large cities in the state of california. so let's talk about budget every was asked to reduce the budget by 5%.

we have several quality of life issues that continue to be undressed. and the police department can't fill empty positions. this is condoning excessive overtime without outcomes. tragedy to keep people safe. and chief you and i had an extensive conversation last year around this time when you were asking for additional dollars for police academy. and what i said back then, i'll say now. if i felt and believed that, we needed resources for overtime, the police department can get it from their own budget cost savings.

as i continue to state, this proposed supplemental will not add any new officers it only increases overtime and a small portion of san francisco. no new officers to stop violent in the bay view, and sunny dale and the mission and western addition and other areas across the city. and if we're not prioritizing retail, then you tell me why the data demonstrate exactly that? and numerous amount of overtime hours and a concentrated area, where we happen to have the most expensive place to see shop in the san francisco. and for the at that bloids in the media who likes to say supervisor walton does not promote public safety. i want to remind that you our office has the only of a kind vie presence prevention plan,

more community ambassador, before it was a trend, resources for more officers on mt a lienlz, we secure bilingual police officers in visitation valley and in san brun o work withing the supervisor ronen. i do support making the police officers highest paid if we can find anybody that wants to be a police officer. and more community police welcome the beats. but i'm always going to continue to push for policies that use community strategies to keep us safe first and policies that prevent inequities that leads to crime and mistakes on behalf of some. we need a true public safety plan and actually not it. and violent crime is down, property crime is down and has been trending down for years. the department has to be

responsible just like every other city department for appropriate and budget. the fire department, strangely enough, is asking to increase overtime spending and they're overtime budget as well. but they're doing it without a supplemental. they're using cost saving and resources within the department's budget as they very well should. supplementals are necessary at times and should go to fund areas where there is a need and no resources available. the police department has number academy, vacant positions, sworn and civilian and equipment just to name a few. the department has fund their own over siem. we're in a middle of a budget season and we're talking about

supplementals for things that have already have the resourced to be funded. and i'm the most fiscally responsible person on this board of supervisors as you'll find out later today. but at the end of the day, they have their own money, use it. >> thank you, president peskin. thank you, supervisor melgar. >> thank you, i'll be brief. a lot of my colleagues have covered a lot of points. first i want to say thank you to the budget committee. it was a long budget hearing and i want to give particular thanks to chair chan who did some heavy lifted not just in the terms of the work but the process. and the sort of coordination of everyone having a say.

so i want to i will be supporting the supplemental. it has been hard a few years and it's been an unusual few years. so as my colleague supervisor walton, just stated. violent crime has gone down but there is no question that the pattern have changed. so in the west side, we have seen an increase in property crime, we have seen also an increase in sexual assault, among our young people. we have seen youth violence and younger violence, things have changed, this pandemic has changed us and it has changed our crime patterns. i think the overtime spending that has been done. we can argue whether or not it was affective but our city lives off tourism, that's our

bread and butter, it's folks who work in retail downtown but also people who clean the hotels and work as dishwashers and food servers who are suffering from the situation that we have right now where people perceive that it's not safe to come to san francisco. and perception is important, we need to address it. so whether or not you know, having deploying overtime police to louie vuitton during the christmas shopping season was affective, we can debate that but the fact is, it's been done. and you know, i'm not sure if we have followed the letter of the law of the administrative code. what our choice would have been. so if we spend all of our overtime and we get to that point and what do we then do? which calls do we not respond to? is it the homicide calls?

just calling in on your neighbor because they annoy you? how do you make that? police and fire, like nurse sxz teachers they're essential workers. so whether or not they're on track to meeting, the repolice reform that we need them to do, we still need them to respond. there are still things going on in our city and our society that need our police response. we're working toward a better world a world where there will be other types of responses, folks who don't carry guns who are in social workers, all of that but that day is not today. and until we get there, there is going to be a need for folks to come and take care of situations that are dangerous. and so, i will be supporting this today. this does not mean that we're

ob solving that they need to be to be fiscal reresponsible. it is in no way an ab solution but i think that we need to do this today, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. colleagues just a few observations not by way of advocacy, for i would step down and trade with one of you, but, i wanted to join in expressing some props to committee chair chan and budget committee for fulfilling the role that the board of supervisors is suppose to play which is asking questions and seeking answers.

i think it's rather unfortunately that through politicizing financial matters that come with real positions and real cops and real policing that there was a kind of a wave of politics that, was aimed at the board not asking these questions. and by the way, the department was quite worth coming if you go to their presentation, i think the facts there are actually very interesting and there are facts that san franciscans should know and familiar themselves with. it's a fact that just three years ago, in 2019, there were 69 3000 calls for service as compared to last year, when there were about 428,000 calls for service, a drop of almost

40%. there are other facts that we should be aware of in 2019, and by the way when we talk about staffing, it's very important to know that a full sworn duty officer count does not necessarily, as a matter of fact, it never equals an available to work count. and the charts that the department provided are very instructive, we've had highs of excess of 2100 full sworn officers but less of them are available to work. 2019 was actually a high in terms of staffing by post certified personnel and there were 1840 officers available to work. today and by the way this changes every day. but today about 1514 on the last graph reduction of about 18% by the way largely anticipated.

and i think if you look at these numbers objectively, there is no question that we are short officers that the way you back fill that is with overtime that when you back fill it with overtime, it is more expensive but none of this was unforeseen. it's a fact that there is a less attractive profession not only in san francisco but municipal police department around the entire united states. let us not fool ourselves or succumb to reddick that this is unique to san francisco factually, objectively, it is not. look, i was a supporter of president ye's measure to take the absolutely silly arbitrary number of what was deemed to be full staffing of the police department that never belonged in the charter that got in the

charter through politics, a generation ago t.didn't belong there, it was not dynamic, it was ecstatic, it didn't respond to various stresses, it didn't differentiate between investigations and preventive work. it was silly, it was pot ticks, it was done in the back of a napkin, but a whole bunch of supervisors were scared about the politics of public safety so they voted for it. we never met those numbers except for twice t.i want to dis abuse people and we should be careful as a government as a board of supervisors as a police department on not creating false expectations. and i said this in in committee, which is new look at the numbers of cops that were

allocated to our district stations, company, abc and d and on the district three years when we had much more robust staffing 1300 people available for work, off the arbitrary of 19 14 that was put in the charter a generation ago. we should not be running around and saying to the population that we're 500 or 600 cops short. okay, we had a period of time and the police department graph is very instructive, where there was a lot of retirement, there was a new effort to recruit and if you look at that graph, it precedes the two years before the 2019. we can do that again, but when you create these expectation that's are aspiration al of 500 or 600 cops, it is misleading. we are short if you use the 2019 numbers which was very robust staffing about 300 cops

were down about 18%. i just want to put thoses things on the table because they're factual table. i don't want to play politics with people's safety. the reality is for a wide reason, they over shot their budget. and that leaves me with my last point, year over year between last year and this year the police department budget unlike actually, not almost unlike any other department had a massive year over year increase. from about 76 million to 130 million. it was a 10% increase. it came with a representation that they can live within our means. that's why this is an extraordinary process, mid-year supplementals have extraordinary. we're all aware of the

budgetary projections which is over the two next fiscal years we're facing a 728 million three quarters of a billion shortfall. i appreciate the level, i hope that we will continue to have that elevated discussion going forward, not only around public safety but around a post of other societal priority. so thank you again, chair chan and colleagues, with that, madam clerk, can we call the roll on item number 12? >> clerk: just a point of obligation, supervisor safai duplicated the file and since there is no motion, it falls to the floor. >> thank you, madam clerk, mr.

chair, can we send that back to the committee. >> here's the problem if it's not differentiated from the current file t just dies. >> it can be amended. >> so we can send the duplicated file. yes, the duplicate file should be referred to the budget and finance committee. >> clerk: i need a motion and second. >> a motion to send the duplicated file to the budget and appropriations committee. dies for lack of a second. the second file file. >> on item 12, supervisor safai. >> aye. >> supervisor stefani. >> aye. >> walton. >> no. >> clerk: supervisor chan. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor dorsey. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor engardio.

>> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> 34e8 gar. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> no. >> clerk: and supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> clerk: there are 9 aye sxz 2 nos with supervisor walton and preston voting no. >> it is the item is the ordinance is passed on first reading madam clerk, can you please go to our 2:30 special order of accommodation only, one hour late. >> clerk: yes, now it is time to hear from members of the board who would like to express commentation. >> supervisor melgar the floor is yours. >> thank you, president peskin. so today i'm honored to commend carol demic for her dedication and service to district 7. this is one of the most

wonderful women i've ever met in my life. there are a few folks who you meet that just get it done. they organize themselves but organize everyone else around them. so throughout her life, carol has been an asset to the community and city. whether through beautifying or advocating for art on bridge ways and walkways. carol's actions have lead to great impacts on the west side. carol has worked closely with the department of public works, bringing expertise and local knowledge to city operations. although the director of public works carla could not be here with us, she has asked me to read this letter on her behalf. i want to express our heartfelt

appreciation for carol dimic who works hirelessly to improve her neighborhood through collaboration, creativity and steadfast determination. the three neighborhood improvement are the door chester median and duelly traffic and way pedestrian bridge. for each, she came to us with an idea which you wanted to beautify and enlighten the public right away through public art and used her own power of persuasion and tenacity to make sure that we brought the concept to see life. carol does not generate ideas she maps out how they can be realized securing funding, getting government approvals and organizing volunteers, she makes it happen. and carol is very hands-on, it's unusual to see her pulling

weeds and picking up trash. and i will add to that, with a perfectly starched collar lipstick on and her hair in place, perfectly, carol is an impressive community steward a welcome partner and san franciscan who steps up and leans in to embrace the good and magic of our city. thank you carol for all you do. i will just add, colleagues as i told you and at an earlier meeting, we're working on the issuance of public en approachment in their right away and it all started with this wonderful women. because when she has this magical vision for in bridge, the department of public works told us that paint was considered an encroachment on the public right away and carol worked to get it done. so we finally get it done.

but it's that kind of tenacity and also being able to convey that vision to all the countless neighbors who spent hundreds of hours painting, pulling weeds and beautifying hand escaping that lead to this. carol i'm so glad to know you and to do this accommodation for you. thank you for being here and we just love you and thank you on behalf of district 7. >> my pleasure. >> [applause]. >> it's been my pleasure, thank you. thank you. it's been a unique position because i'm in between the neighbors and city working with both. and since i'm here today, i just want to let you know that i have learned a lot about you know, your end of it and being in between both and i can really, i have a real appreciation for the public

service that all of you do on our behalf. so thank you for me. and i want to thank for all the people that i work with district 7 and mirna especially, for you, for the support you've given the projects. continue, thank you. >> thank you. [applause] madam clerk can you go to special item number 24. >> clerk: yes, board of supervisors will convene a whit' of the whole for item 24 which is a public hearing to consider a report for place for all and request the committee

of homelessness to report. >> supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair peskin and thank you colleagues. i think it is appropriate that this committee as a whole is sandwiched with with a 25 million dollars supplemental relate today public cleanliness as noted during the prior discussion that the budget for our i would submit that both of those issues are driven at least in part by the crisis of unsheltered homelessness that we have on our streets. i think it's appropriate to

have this hearing now, we're required under the state of legislation that was passed last june and to refresh your memory, that legislation made the policy to provide immediate exits from the street for everyone willing to accept them. it has taken us a long time and the folks out in the neighborhood and the small business community and otherwise nearly two years. we hope that the passage of this board policy would begin to produce as much permanent housing as possible to a more balanced approach that would prioritize producing enough shelter to eliminate or reduce

street encampments in the city. this was a policy change. shelter for all is imperative and homelessness with limited resources. the bay area institutes 2021 homelessness, titled new solutions found that a bay area shelter mandate could shelter the vas majority of the homeless population for approximately 245 million dollars in one time capitol expenditure. all homes 2021, regional action plan states that in order to reduce unsheltered homelessness rapidly, most cities and counties will need to front load investment into leasing or purchasing hotels or tiny homes or other temporary options.

people experiencing homelessness have some sort of shelter. only 57% of people experiencing have some form of shelter. on december 30, 2022 and i want to thank the department staff for their work on the report. particularly the hour the report fails to end unsheltered homelessness in san francisco and by that failure, i think under scores why this city has

struggled with this issue. beyond those already in the pipeline, over the next three years. will start off cost of 723,000, 57 million for the shelter and annual operating costs ranging from 39,000 to 6 3000 per housing unit totaling 250 million and from 58,400 to 75,000 totaling 172 million dollars. and frankly, it leads me to the question whether they're the

right entity to task with ending unsheltered homeless. notwithstanding my great respect for the fine and hard working staff at hsh, i don't believe this department is serious about ending unshelterness in san francisco. today i hope we can take a new look at these issues and reset. i think we have to develop a realistic road map that does

not allow our sidewalks to serve as the waiting room for housing. many other shelters than we do and spend far less doing it. we did that thinking that the report that we would be trying to get into the mayor's budget and our budget, that's not where we are. but it is my hope that the response of the mayor for this report will be for us to do a few things. i think and i hope we will reiterate our commitment dealing with homelessness within three years. i hope that hsh will come with a cost conscious plan to expand out the shelter place that we need during that time. and i hope and you've received a slew of emails to that effect

that we fund at least 2000 new shelter beds over the next three years. we have the funds to do this. and i think there are a few projects more important than ending street encampments. but we cannot do this, i believe that we can and should prioritize this as a spending priority. and i also believe, i don't think you'll all agree with this but if we cannot find another source, i think we could, but if we can't, we should use prop c dollars to do this. i think we ought to consider looking at department of management to assume responsibility for standing up this additional shelt and her for using it to end street encampments in san francisco. a decade ago, they decide today establish housing that would

not lead responsibility to other . the place for all reports the department generated is evidence to me that that decision was probably a mistake. unacceptable street conditions were the main reason for the establishment of a free standing department of homelessness a decade ago. and street conditions have become an ebbsing substantial future for intervening decade which dpepds on the ability to maintain safe and clean and accessibility places. failing to end homelessness will and if hsh cannot get the job done, we need to find somebody who can. we have five presentations lined up today at the request of the board president and to spare all of you so that perhaps we can go home at some point, we're asking that folks hold their questions through

the five presentations, through the five presentations and we can have at it. the presentations will be from, the department of homeless and supportive housing itself, regarding the place for all report, i think we have some combination of sha raoen and director, the deputy and deputy director. sam damage, our head of street teams. from the department of emergency management. amy king who is the ceo of pellet shelter who does other congregate shelter and has perspective of other costs and the place for all report. gale for who is the director of strategy regarding their 2021 action plan and their analysis of how san francisco could reduce unsheltered homelessness via rapid expansion. and jessica, who is the

director of economic institute at bay area counsel to talk. normally, we would ask hsh but we have some that have hard outs. sam dodge as you all know, one of the most important people valuable people in city government carrying a lot of stuff on thinks holders.

we respond to the planned operation sxz emergency urgent responses. and by this advancing point we're able to meet and synch at how we're doing it and ways that we can improve. we brought up this issue and started to vet it around and talk about it. we do believe that we can rapidly respond within 24 hours to all encampments. some are very complex and we

take extra time to do them justice. but we do feel like that we are in a fundamental different world. that there would be a transition period thank you, for the work you do every day. >> thank you. next up amy king ceo of pellet

shelter who flew in from washington and has to catch a flight home shortly and i think you're going to share a bit about pellet's model and why your experience believes hsh has cost us and costs necessarily high. >> thank you for that. good afternoon, i'm amy king i'm the founder of pellet shelter as supervisor mandelman said. let's see if i can get my document to load here for you all. in the meantime to get the background on pellet, we're based out of seattle washington. we're first and for most a development organization, the vas majority of our staff who work with us are people who have experience in homelessness and interacted with the justice system. we offer them living wages and 401k plans and support in building their careers and

changing their trajectories. so i'm going to go ahead and share this, looks like it's working now, can you all see this? there we go, awesome. okay, so again to give you some highlights here, everything that you see in our model is entirely informed by people with lived experience and the products and model and i'm going to explain how this works and how this is so affective and cost efficient. as i mentioned, people with experienced these are employees of ours here. tlt meant to be cost efficient

solution to get people stablelized and inside, work withing service sxz then move on. and then you can take them down and because they're temporary and you can use the california appendix p, you should not be using precious dollars that should go to permanent housing. we have five dignity standard, to shet up our community. in transportation the site maze address and have access to food and water. and rehab tate i have opportunity. here's an opportunity for the folks.

40 our sites here are in your state. we have done this before for a lot less than what is list inside your report. just some example na we have seen. they take groups who want to manage together. they called me on a monday, we had 60 shelters nann truck by wednesday and people moved off the street, this is close by you can tour it if you like. baldwin park, another oncinger 25 shelters set up quickly in 30 days. total cost for this site was

$530,000. that's less than a single family resident. that includes all the infrastructure work, the site prep, there is a dog run all kinds of cool stuff there. this can be done inexpensively. the we have 13 sites that were set up over the course of one year. 465 people have been supported but substance use in that year's time. 599 people have been provided mental health services. this model is different from congregate shelter and that people has a place that is their own where they can bring a pet and things and they have a lock door, while they stabilize and work with service provider and build a community of support and then move on to permanent housing. and what we're seeing is greater than 80% of permanent house placement.

most people who have chronic homelessness, don't do well going straight into home, they need to transition before they move on to permanent housing. as san francisco is also another great site, 25 shelters for families that are homeless children here as well. we have bathroom facilities and excuse me, laundry and community rooms as well. the community rooms provide tutoring services for the children. higher infrastructure at the beginning but lower overtime. one thing to note about the hsh, a lot of the cost for bringing shelter online is higher because of architecture fees. again, please don't waste that

money safe it for permanent investment. annual operating costs are much higher than what we see across the country so you may want to take a look at that as well. so, thank you, thank you for your time. >> thank you, so much and have a safe flight. thanks for coming out. all right, now we will get back to our regularly scheduled order. and bring up the department of homelessness and supportive housing and i think we're hearing first from director shareen mcfad en. >> thank you, and i'm going to give a second for the slide deck to come up.

how is sf gov. tv doing? there we go. >> good afternoon, honorable board of supervisors thanks so much for having me before the committee of the whole to present. i'm sharaoen, she and her pronoun i'm executive director of homelessness. i'll be presenting a lock with noel simmons our chief deputy and gigi our deputy director for administration and finance and i'm joined by matt from focus strategies to support the q and and following this presentation. before i get into my presentation, i want to let you know that in vons of this hearing, we took another cost and made some changes to the assumptions used and associated cost inputs. as compared to original, a place for all reports, these adjustment result in the significant saving in the start up costs both for new housing and modest reductions.

we'll get into this in more details but i did want to flag this for you, because this is different from the original report. that we have shared. required hsh a on how much it would cost. we confirmed with national and local research to added infrastructure and added investments that would take to meet this goal. the report is intend today be a narrative and balance response to the requirement of legislation. there is been a lot of confusion in the community around this report. so i want to reiterate that this is not hsh plan, it will be published in 2023 and

includes achieval goals for unshelteredness. so the best practices and best thinking in the homelessness response field are in consensus that a balance package is need today achieve and sustain the significant reduction in unsheltered homelessness. we have seen the beginings of this locally, between 2019 and 2022, we saw 15% reduction in unsheltered homelessness. this success was due in expansion of prevention services and shelter beds and 25% increase in-housing for people exiting homelessness. this will 15% reduction would not have been possible without an expansion of the system. this package of intervention is intervention to helps ensure that people move through homelessness and do not just get stuck on the streets or shelters.

our modeling also demonstrate that a investment would be more costly on a per bed basis and less affective to addressing the crisis among sheltersness. i'll now turn the presentation over to noel simmons so she can discuss the mythologies and outcomes that we use for this report. thank you. >> thank you, sharaoen and good afternoon, board. i'm looking for a slide show to resume again. but i'll go ahead and get started while we're waiting for that to come up. so the department retained to do a data modeling for all report. focus strategies is a well respected firm that has developed a propriority complex model that is better used to understand response systems in

a number of communities. this model was customized more san francisco to allow us to peek into the future in the homelessness and estimate how the numbers of people experiencing homelessness might grow or shrink as changes in the scale and the mix of interventions are made. i want to stress that this model does not generate a single correct answer but really illustrates the impacts of different policy choices. we use this model not only for the place for our report but also to develop the goals and projected impact of recommended investments in our extra --strategic plan. our data model shows the package investment in prevention housing and shelter in order to achieve an end to unsheltered homelessness in the next three years. the needed resources include

adding approximately 3810 of permanent supportive housing and 2250 units of shelter. additionally it required significant expanding homelessness prevention service sxz financial assistance especially for households with children. it would include 99 2000 in operations costs over the first three years of the plan. and approximately 378 million in on going annual costs to maintain that investment after the initial three years. this next slide is detailed resources by fiscal year for both adults and families. this chart also breaks out our existing pipeline by which mean the new housing that is underdevelopment from the new

investments that would be needed. that i just described will impact the projected. just to orient ate you. in this set of charts, we're looking at adult households and family households on the right. the solid turn lines project the and dotted lines represent the projected number of sheltered householdds. the news investments that is described in the presiding slides result in the total elimination of homelessness by in three years. you can see the number of shelter increasing which stands to reason as we bring new

shelter capacity online and people fill those beds. here what the projected impact would be on total homelessness. what we see is that the model projects a 27% decrease of all. : now you would expect to see that decrease in a delt homelessness as we scale our system but do we see that turn to 84% homelessness family. that is increased when shelter

capacity is limited, families with children who are experiencing homelessness are more likely to get by couch surfing with family and friends or perhaps staying in a hotel while they are waiting for shelter or seeking their own housing. but as more family capacity becomes available, some of the families will come forward to take advantage of the newly available resources that they are not utilizing currently. given the interest of supervisor mandelman and others on the board and understanding what a new investment in shelter alone would look like, we model how a approach would impact the community. in this scenario, we would need

to add 5500 shelters beds in order to eliminate homelessness by fiscal year 25-26. however when we see a package of resources we see that both nair i don't eliminate unshelterness within three years. unsheltered adult homelessness goes quickly up again in the year four and what it's telling us is that an investment plan that is focused on shelter will require a new addition of shelter beds. we will never have new shelter beds if we don't have new inflows of homelessness and increase out flows by expanding the investment in-housing. here we look at what happens to total homelessness. the model projects that we would see that same increase in total homelessness that we saw

in the alternate scenario. what we see as a 26% increase over that same time frame in adult homelessness. as compared to the 27% decrease that we saw. so the take away is that adding permanent shelter will reduce shelterness if to add permanent housing for people in shelter to exit to. you're going to end up with a backlog of people who are stuck in shelter for an extended period of times and adult who can't get into an impacted shelter system and a total increase. next slide please. i tried to stay out of the weeds, which is difficult to explain. however, because we've received a number of questions about how

new inflow to see homelessness were factored into this mold, i did want to speak briefly to that. some of the information that is required for modeling including annual inflows to homelessness is not captured in our existing data systems. and in fact, there is no established mythology, nationally for measuring how many people newly become homeless or return to homelessness every year. so foyer that reason, inflow had to be estimated using data for multiple resources including our information system, dph data system and the point and time count. for this report, we estimated by subtracting the number of households that we identified on that single night during the 2022 count, from an estimate of total number of households who experience homelessness over the course of a year and use thating resulted in a estimate

that 8900 households enter homeless annually. my final slide before turn iting over to my colleague is just, we're going to be in the cost estimates called for by the modeling. but before we go there besinger it's important to note that the ability to achieve the goal of a eliminating unsheltered homelessness within three years is not only constrained by the president gap and financial resource to see do so but the variety of other factors and those include securing. delays that occur in leasing, permitting and site activity. and also significant limitations on the pace that we can scale the homelessness response system given that our existing nonprofit in the

department itself, are already struggling to meet the demands. and finally, racial disparity that is informed by the people of lived experience of homelessness. a robust may take a little bit more time to implement but we believe that it will result in a more responsive system of care. i'm going to turnover to present the estimates of cost associated with the plan. >> good afternoon, president peskin and board of supervisors i'm gigi with the department of homelessness and, i use she, her pronouns. thank you for that the slides. so i'm going to talk a little bit about the cost assumption that's went into the model and

as ms. simmons just noted, many note the constraints as well as the one to scale. le and those assumptions include the following, the high cost within the city and county of bringing on a new shelter and housing including the density and limited open space that we have here in the city of san francisco. stated city policy priorities, as reflected in our adoptive budget, advocates and policy makers. the cost and constraints to comply with local law and regulations on how we comply. and the model reflects higher costs to open quickly within three years rather than intervention that can be scaled overtime and perhaps be more cost affective. for example, the model assumes

some temporary leasing of hygiene like shared bathroom trailers and housing until for permanent housing could be added or completed. next slide please. these are the average annual costs that were reflected on the report as you can see, it includes a variety of inclusions. including site base units that would be both acquired as well as the house thating would be leased. it does not contemplate the development of new housing or affordable housing.

it also assumes the housing or more permanent subsidized within the private rental market. and then the shelter models include a congregate models similar to the centers that we have opened in the last six 6 or 7 years, both buildings as well as the cabin models. and we've shown the cost of safe sleep but those are not proposed in the model. finally this is the average cost of proconveniencing to try to address that. and i will note that these costs are much lower than we experienced when we opened the 2500 shelt ner place cost hotels. fiscal year 21-22, the city

spent more than 155 million to maintain an average of 1180 beds per night. these are significantly lower than the immediate emergency costs. and the other thing that is important to note is that these costs do not fully look at the nonprofit operating costs or cost to see provide supportive services. in this slide presents the cost difference between the two. you can see on the left we've

adjusted the model to assume fewer acquisitions of new housing and additional costs to bring the cost down closer to 993 million dollars in one time costs. the annual cost would be closer to--million like you saw in the report. the all shelter model assumes initial start up cost. a mix of congregate and non congregate. next slide. and some of the assumptions in the model really reflect policy priorities of the city, policy priorities that are in the

department adopted budget as well as the best thinking of experts in the field. currently we provide two meals a day, most of them have been operating 24-p since covid. --24-7 since covid. provided by nurse and nurse practitioners overdose prevention directive, additional behavioral health experiences, security, shelter transportation, equity and pay for frontline workers. an enhance management to achieve flow, housing navigation as well as linkages to other solutions that are not provided like cal fresh and ssi

and 34ed cal, and those programs that have been critical being able to site new sites and ensure that we are being good neighbors when we open new shelter sites. new investments that are reflected. this board policy priority to cap rent at no more 30% income of people in permanent housing. to get closer to case manager to client ratio for adults and 1/20 for transitional youth and families and and security. we check with the housing stabilization services so that people remain housed and other

ingent i have to encourage landlords to accept vouch thaerz would be funded by the city. with that, that's the end of our rentation, thank you. >> thank you, gigi. supervisor peskin. >> thank you, my harsh words were not for you, i'm grateful for the efforts that you make. i'm just not sure that we have you doing entirely the whole thing. next we have, she is the director of strategy of our home who is share a bit about our homes and how san francisco can most quickly and effectively end homele shelterless. >> thank you for inviting us today. my name is gale gilman i'm the

chief strategy officer at all home california and while i know that you're familiar with me in the past, i want to give you a sort of overview of who our home is, because i know we're new to this sport. in collaboration with stakeholders to look at poverty and homeleness from a regional perspective. we're here to serve the 1.1 bay area residents. we focus on housing security and economic mobility for that group and we work with inter governmentally like we have to move and act as one. i often say, you don't need a passport to go from san francisco to san mateo but we treat people living in poverty like they do. we could not conveniented in 2019 over 100 stakeholders lead by people with lived

experiences and nonprofit service provider affordable house developer and business leader to form the council and in 2021, we issued the recommendations on how we believe the bay area can reduce unshement erred homelessness by 75% by 2024. this model was developed and cocreate withed the both providers, individuals with lived experience both homelessness and poverty, business leaders, bay area council actually sat on that as well. we want thank mayor breed for her participation. we want to call for supportive housing. and as we have outlined, across in flow, we must support proconveniencing activities.

and the california policy lab that actually is more predict i have of who will become homeless. we do believe while it's excited in the report the importance of prevention, the data from 2016 showing from every prevention you're subbing inflow of ten homes into homelessness. the data that we're crunching now and being analyzed by the ufc initiative. prevention is the cheapest intervention to stop the trauma and tragedy of homelessness. we do believe that we need a map of investment and while

permanent supportive housing are necessary and still need investment, we are work withing the communities like contra costa and san mateo to front load investment to bring people inside. to highlight some of the things in our memo and i'll be available for q & a, we're looking at the original numbers, we were asked to think how to implement this plan in a doable way. that was our charge. this is an overall statement in the response system. we look forward to the strategic plan from the department because we're excite today see a fuller picture. but when to t comes to interim housing, we have recommendation to see get this plan moving. we lowered the number to 150 units. this was based on some modeling that we did internally with public related data. it may not reach the place for all, but we felt that from a flow perspective could help get us there. i do want to know a typo in

built two, so i apologize. we also recommend transforming the two largest congregate shelters. we have seen the weather that has been taking place in san francisco. i'm a north northbeach district resident for 25 years and the back room of my apartment flooded from the rain. we have individuals who are choose to go remain on the streets on this weather conditions and not accept shelter because congregate setting are difficult. and while i commend those running those, we know that having your own lock and key and being able to come and go is what brings people indoors. we're recommending to recommend to con gra setting, knowing there will be beds lost.

we also in our memo, we and i know it's con controversial, we recommend considering pausing the new adult supportive housing outlines in the report for two years while we invest in interim housing. this is not a pausing of utilizing any new federal or state resources that comes to us, this is talking about using vouchers, we were respond to go new production units and the reason we called this out for single adults, wautz that according to the report, the system would have over 16,000 of supported housing with its pipeline. we're asking for a breather to see if we bring on all of this interim housing. if we're really being smart with our prevention dollars that both sit at the department who are using this analytical tool and the mayor's office of community development which is not.

could we see that window have enough capacity. that could be 2000 new individuals being housed each year. and we need to pause and look at the system. we also highlight something else in the report that i wanted your attention to. which is also we want to see the department the city of department of san francisco of who is experiencing homelessness. we've seen in san mat at the o, they have the most seniors and working poor individuals living in cars and vehicles that interim housing for that group targeted can give individuals, can give seniors the agency and space they need to resolve their own homelessness without

a lifelong subsidy and needing lifelong support. maybe not with the intensity but giving people the opportunity, this is made up for example, like the families living in their cars a place to park, a place to be safe, a place to have agency recover and figure out what the next step is. it's the initial 2i6 for the housing authority is in our. that we calculate the billions coming to the city of san francisco. those funds are flexible, they don't have the restrains that bond financing has when the county issues those dollars. they could be used for a rapid

influction which what we call to really focus. i want to thank mayor breed and all of oar participation with all home and producing this call to action by. we value our working relationship with the department. adrian gonzalez is here with us to answer questions and i look forward to the conversation. thank you supervisors. >> thank you, commissioner gilman. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, and last but not least, i want to invite who is going to talk about the council's research in san francisco and the recommendation that's they prepared to the city in response is to hsh report.

>> director of council economic institute. we're the research arm, i would like to say that we make charts and graphs. we feed into the work of the bay area which is the business advocacy arm working across the nine counties to talk about the economy and our original economy here. just some contacts. if the council were hyper transportation, these court region, it was not until 5 or 6 years that homelessness rose to the top of our agenda, and they told us that the homelessness

was causing, so how we often start the conversations, we have a lot of data to inform and provide contact to the conversation happening here. first let me start with this chart, we present a lot of data and you say a lost data from time and point counts. one thing that i like to think, think about everyone in need of support, so counting all homeless individuals experiencing homelessness and also those that are housed. this chart here is housing, all of those people in need per-capita, per 10,000 resident as looking across the variety and our region and then the largest metro area, you can see san francisco at the top of that list with the highest per-capita need to support individuals experiencing housing or close to experiencing homelessness. so, the, the next point i want

to show you, looking at some of the solutions beinger this is all permanent and it's per-capita, san francisco is at the top of the list. this is really been the city's major tool and addressing the homelessness crisis has been the supportive housing units. and you can see, what this shows is the 42% of the region is within the city of san francisco which makes up just 11% of the regional population. so then, intervention for two is shelter. so this looks at all shelter beds per-capita across the number of geography. if you can see closely you can see boston and new york are at the top. right to shelter, jurisdiction, you can see san francisco about 5th on that list. closer to the shelter capacity within places like atlanta or philadelphia which has a 1/5 of the population. so we're showing here this relates in 50% of homeless

residents actually sleeping out in the street. if you look at the right hand of the screen, the blue shows the shelter situation in the county. this is not an issue unique to the city of san francisco. invested less relative and that's how we see this 50/50 split of people sheltered and non sheltered as they experience homelessness. ten times more likely to die

from homicide and suicide than their housed counterparts. and the average page for homelessness is 51 years, for the housed population is 81, so reason to move people indoors. another unique feature for san francisco is that the city has an interesting population of people experiencing homelessness and this chart we're showing 50% of the population report thating they lived in the county for less than one year prior to becoming homeless or they became homeless elsewhere, so there is this regional that is unique situation here. one of the things that we've talked about length is the cost of these various interventions have a significant wide range. we put numbers can be as high as 750,000 per door. you heard some of the numbers for the department today.

you come to the top, you're getting some of the tens of thousands like pellet shelters like the paw paw housing, liekt tough shed model as well. so let me close with a couple thoughts from the bay area council. one is saving life should be the priority and it's the priority. two, we need to be prioritizing the current deficiencies and that means shelter, that is the one aspect of the solution set that has not been implemented. three, is looking at costs, san francisco we're in silicon valley, we need to be innovating around the solution to see ensure that costs can come down. and then lastly from a council perspective, this is not just a san francisco crisis, it is not a crisis that san francisco can solve on its own, we need more regional solution to see understand how people are

moving around the region and more coordination in our solutions to homelessness. i'll stop there, thank you very much. >> thank you, jeff. i think that colleagues have some questions or not. in any case, this would be short. and i don't know who the right person from hsh to ask but i'm, gratified that this droeft price down to 992 million dollars that seems like a positive development. it looks though like that reduction in cost assumptions was driven entirely by cost savings on the permanent housing side and you found no

saving in shelter's side or maybe i'm getting that wrong? >> gigi again from hsh. excuse me? >> take it away. >> through the president. >> yes. so yes, this as sharene explained this is a model based on the inputs that we put into, it constraints the timeline in order to achieve the goal that the legislation required. we have not taken another look at the operating costs if it's trying to get a better sense of one-time capitol cost and the mix between what we can do immediately. how many buildings can we lease versus how many buildings can

we acquire. similar to the strategy that the mayor funded and successfully achieved in the cover' plan in 2020. >> can we talk about the shelter, or transitional housing operating costs for a minute? it looks like the 2250 and i understand that you've also run a model that if we do away with the psc then we need 2500 shelter beds which i think we can quibble about but i'm not sure if now is the time to do that. it makes a difference if it's going to cost us 75 million or 125 million or 175 million. annually in terms of operating.

and one of the disappointments is that the operating costs were pretty much what they were going to be, not a lot of not really any economy in scale that we can hope for, just predicted forward and add on for administrative costs. and that does not seem like a great way for the city to plan, if my colleagues agree that we needed a significant and the mayor really that we needed a significant expansion in non permanent homes. so could we save money there? we had the embarcadero, it's a

congregate shelter, operating costs like 30,000 all in a year. now there is different, each of these sites has different, per person, each of these sites have different costs some come from a safe sleep model came in at 87,000 which struck me at really weird. it seems like that was a set of cost that gosh, if we did this a different way, we're going to come up with different numbers, how does hsh think about that and the cost for operating shelter out to be? >> through the president, we have modeled this in various ways supervisor for the last 7 years and intensely for the last year. the model that is presented for you in this report, really speaks to reality, the reality of costs to lease or quickly put up a building or land in

the city and county of san francisco and abide by all of the current policies, all the current services and more to create flow through the system. so i would say na it's not accurate but it's simply our current cost escalated by 15%, it's really not bad in fact. there is like you said a variety within our portfolio based on when shelter was open when the service model is. and which have been working under sharene's leadership and tried to come up with a model that we think that will the level of services so that people accept those placements into shelter as well as flow out of the shelter system as quickly as possible.

it goes to the sort of, actually, the slide went by quickly and i may have gotten it wrong. they're shaking their heads. >> yes, gigi again.

so the only intervention there would be time to scale to the rest of interventions that would be able to open and come online and tlts a prevention and a split between shelter models. >> again, so this is a question for higher ups. it seems to me that there is a deep institutional bias within the department towards the notion that we need to find permanent house, much of homelessness resolves on its own without the city's intervention. but for that chunk of homelessness, that is going to be a permanent home in san francisco.

and without that regard, to suggested the very noble population of unhoused folks that made, you know, many of may mind their way not with standing the costs we're doing it as the slides show, gang bust, huge amounts if we go forward with this report. we cannot provide a permanent home for every person who engages with our homelessness response system and i don't think that should be the goal.

and i would note that we stopped homeward bound. shouldn't we get people off the streets and then working off the navigation model to navigate people to what is going to work best for them. it's not going to be most of them that permanent home in san francisco. it just feels, almost identify yoj cally committed and almost unwilling to contemplate a more shelter approach.

i'm not sure if there was one question in there, but let me start by staying that the department agrees that we need a mix of intervention to solve the problem in front of us. our proposal as well is a package investment in not just supportive housing but also in shelter and in prevention. you're correct that if we look at the resources, permanent supportive housing, that's the legacy of policy decisions made for years and years and years before the department was even founded. there used to be an idea of continuum and you started to get them ready and then moved them to housing. and 9 notion was that the solution to homelessness is housing.

so for many years san francisco invested most of its resources in permanent housing. i think today what we recognize is housing first is not the same as housing only. we do absolutely need more shelter in the system and the department does not disagree with that at all. we also need a lot more prevention, the port tude, the 4 is proconveniencing and 2 is housing and shelter. we need to get ahead of this problem. the next thing that i will say is permanent supportive housing is not the only solution. it's intended for those who are experiencing chronic homelessness. found about 2700 were chronic. so i think that tells us, we're not at the point where we can stop investing in permanent housing. but we don't have enough

turnover to house those 2700 people in less than a couple of years time. >> my last question would be as we were getting this ready last year, we talked about the department about the 4-12 model and how off san francisco was in terms of spending the department could have responded with a report that recognized that historic imbalance and tried to correct it in the new spending. but the choice was to double down and and reinforce and continue that, sort of over potential over investment.

what was the thinking, san francisco xiernsing chronic homelessness that's the population that was indicated. so it does not feel like we can say mission con accomplished in terms of homelessness. there are other things that can help with this problem. for example, there is a whole system of affordable housing outside of the homelessness response system. whether it's cd or public housing. we could have a homeless population and there by trunk

ate the need. there are other policy choices of that sort. >> mr. president, do you want to call on people or should i? >> supervisor mandelman. >> i think this question is for gigi or director whitly. i want to hear more about your reaction to pellet. i had a chance to meet with pellet and their costing and model is just, i know we cannot fulfill this contract i understand that, but there is an option out there at least one, maybe several, i have not met with other organizations per se.

that it's possible to do this at a much lower cost and i'm wondering if you can respond to that? >> through the president, gigi again, thank you for the question. you know, in my our model and even in our resent history with the kevin project that we've opened in the city, i think you'll recall supervisor that was donated cabins and space. so the model really is seems, a pretty marginal cost for the structure itself, no more than 20,000 per ca bin. so not a lot of open space, even like you may have in some counties in the east bay, you know, very expensive land even

parking lots since you heard from our resent legislation where we were renting a parking lot, it relatively high cost to lease the sites. so it's not so much on the physical structure, itself but really the cost to place that site within the san francisco and i was not, i was not able to talk to the vendor ahead of time or hear more about the cost model is, but at least in our cost model, what tends to drive it on the operating site is the cost to staff it and provide behavioral services and provide medical services, having a security and space so that people stay within the foot print of that shelter site. >> okay, thank you and i'm wondering if ms. king who is still here can come back up.

if you can talk about operator. >> pellet does not operate onsite we partner with those who understand the community. they're contracted by the county or the city for that work. we do not keep track of operating budget. i do know that we're a huge fans of urban al chamy and they employ. i just want to note that, that sometimes you pay for more better service providers. but there is cost for energy and things like that, ours tend to be cheaper than others. every vendor is different but

we're happy provide operating budgets if that's helpful. >> we have land available, that is mainly the main driver why our the cost are higher. >> on the land side, most are publicly held land that don't have expensive leases tied to them, there is cal state and caltrans land and other opportunities for us, we've dpun partnership with private developers and written legislation that incentivized them to, that's a popular model that i love. we're happy to help you implement we've done that all over the country, let us know how we can help. there should be way to see get around that. and if there is not, there are way to see be creative there. >> thank you. this is my next point or

comment to my colleagues, more than anything has to do with with where we put all the shelter, i agree with supervisor mandelman, that we do not have enough temporary shelter. and i represent a district that is has tons of homeless encampments all over the place and it's been a challenge for us for a very very long time. and the problem is, the city has not shown itself capable for keeping the conditions around the shelter in good repair, there are encampments right out in front of navigation centers in both navigation centers in the mission district. there is graffiti, there is

constant trash, there is drug use, you know, all of the above are happening right around where the centers are. and for both of those centers, i fought my own constituents very publicly to open those centers. and i promised them that it could improve conditions in the neighborhood. so that's why i'm overriding their feedback. and i have not been able to demonstrate that. if we cannot demonstrate that we can keep the temporary shelters, improved conditions don't make them worse. i need to know where these are going to go. let's say, we could get a

policy if that makes sense. if we cannot figure out a way to show our communities that these sites improve conditions and neighborhood and don't make them worse. i just don't know how we ever find more sites. and we are only a few supervisor that's have. i'm really depressed to be honest because i fought really hard and got money in last year's budget to put a second one. and i had an awful meeting, and we all cried when we left the meeting. it felt like the prejudice and

the unwarranted assumptions about people experiencing homelessness from the community at the school was really hurtful to hear. sxl their inabilities to imagine a situation where we have so much. that's what have in the that those almost unanimously with the few exceptions saw it as a negative thing to demos freight caring for homeless population by building these tiny cabins. and if we can't change that, that dynamic, i don't see how we use that. and it's really depressing.

i have been working non stop, i have an m.o. u in place, we meet regularly with every agency. we're working with individuals that are in front of the navigation centers. and it's not improving. so i don't, you know, that gives me a lot of pause and a lot of reality check here of where is all of this temporary shelter going to go? i've only seen a few supervisors in their district meeting one of them and i'm currently in pause until i see improvements. so i just don't know where it's going to go. and i do think, and you know, also want to echo supervisor mandelman, i just appreciate very much the leadership and

the time and energy that hsh puts into your really really difficult work. you are so professional, you care so much. i'm just in awe of all of you, quite frankly the whole organization. and i appreciate that we have to do different strategies. and maybe i'm trying to work on this issue for 13 years and out of ideas. supervisor mandelman tried this and when started the progress, it was like oh, supervisor come pos has started the process but it's not going to lead anywhere. i just feel like we need a federal investments in homelessness.

we can't do it alone. they don't have the money we have. so we saw some improvement in california. we have seen nothing in the federal government. i will not talk about homelessness without make thating point because they don't get enough slack for it.

i have more ideas on how we can prevent--but with homelessness, you cannot solve without a people to go. and if you cannot place if there is nowhere to place them and where supervisors can't stand up with bravery and push back with the neighbors because they will point down the street to a navigation center where the conditions are bismal. how can you fight with that? that's not fair to the neighborhood. sorry not to add anything to solve the problem but i want to talk about inpractice what this looks like for a district that has been working on this issue for 13 years and plagued by

encampments and constantly trying to solve it by adding new gaffe nation and shelter and new tiny cabins et cetera. we're not better off. >> supervisor preston, sorry, supervisor engardio. >> thank you, i support all because it approaches homelessness as a humanitarian, because it's a emergency. a safe place to sleep. i didn't see enough of this focus in the department of homelessness and supportive housing support. though i do appreciate the slides and mention a pausing some of the purchase and building of permanent housing that would take years to complete. we can all agree that a tent on

the sidewalk is not a safe place. but new construction is not a safe place. it does not benefit while they wait for something to be built. that can house people right now. and they claim that pursuant solutions like hotel conversions and subsidies can shelter and house as many people with up to 75% lower cost. so that sounds amazing why not focus more on that. and was cost affective for the city's budget.

and apartment rental would be more cost affective. >> thank you for that question, supervisor. just to process my remarks. i think the department does not think that it's going to be a one silver bullet. we have done hotel conversions and we do invest heavily in subsidies that help people in the private market. for what it's worth, the rent subside's, the annual cost of provide thating subsidy is about the same as site base permanent housing, about 40,000 a year. so it's not that much cheaper.

there is a limit of number of landlords. so yes, we want to do it but it can't be the only thing. the hotel conversions, my colleague deputy director may be able to speak to this. 7-eleven post may have been more. and there is a difference between sort of leasing, former youth hostile which 7-eleven post was and how has a much higher alternative use scenario available. if you would like specifics on the 7-eleven post and why that's not representative, i'm sure my colleague can provide that. >> that's okay.