tv BOS Public Safety Neighborhood Services Committee SFGTV May 12, 2022 6:00pm-10:01pm PDT
>> supervisor mar: good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the thursday may 12, 2022 of the public safety and neighborhood services. i'm supervisor gordon mar i'm joined by catherine stefani and connie chan. i want to thank sfgov tv and matthew for staffing. do you have any announcement?
>> clerk: the board of supervisors and convening hybrid meetings. we'll provide remote access via telephone. the board recognizes public access is essential. first public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. those attending in person will be allowed to speak first and thing take those waitings on the telephone line. for those watching, and sfgovtv.org, the public comment call in number is streaming across the screen. the number is (415)655-0001 once connected, enter meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126 then pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussions which you will be muted. when your item comes up and public comment is called, those joining us in person should line up to speak and those on the telephone should dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on the telephone, remember to turn down your tv
and all the listening devices you will be using. you may public comment in writing in of the following ways. you can e-mail them to myself, at email@example.com. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of may 24, 2022. >> supervisor mar: thank you. please call item 1. >> clerk: a hearing to consider the that the premise to premise person-to-person transfer of type 48 on sale general public premises liquor license to blue ice entertainment llc doing
business at roccapulco located at 3140 mission street will serve the public and city and county of san francisco. for members wishing to provide public comment should line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until we take public comment on this item and when the system has indicated you are unmuted. >> supervisor mar: we're going to hear sfpd liaison unit. >> good morning, blue ice entertainment, this will allow team this operate. there are two letters of protest. there located in a low crime
area. ingleside station has no opposition. we recommend approval with the following conditions. number one, the petitioner shall monitor the area under their control and effort to prevent loitering and adjacent on the premises. the sale of alcohol beverages for off sale consumption is prohibited. no noise shall be audible at any nearby residents. number four any time the premise is providing live entertainment, the petitioner shall have two uniform security guards on premise and shall maintain order and to prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their nearby residents and surrounding community and uniform security guard must be licensed. >> supervisor mar: thank you. do we have a representative from roccapulco here to speak?
>> clerk: i do not see the applicant is not here. >> supervisor mar: can i ask a question. have you communicated to the applicant about the conditions and where they agreeable to them? >> yes. i spoke with the license rep with abc. they agreed with a.b.c. on those conditions. >> supervisor mar: thank you. we go to public comment. >> clerk: for members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item line up to speak if you're joining us here in person. if you joining us remote please call (415)655-0001 meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126 then pound and pound again. please press star 3 to enter the
speaker line. we have no speakers here in person. we will go to the public comment line. we have jennett monitoring public comment today. we have one speaker in line. please put that caller through, please. >> caller: i'm sorry. i meant to comment on something else. >> clerk: all right. that was only call inner line. there are no public comment. >> supervisor mar: public comment is closed. colleagues, i understand that supervisor ronen is supportive of this license transfer. given that i will make a motion directing the clerk to prepare a resolution determining this license will serve the public convenience in necessity and we send this resolution forward to the pull board with positive
recommendation. please call the roll. >> clerk: on that motion for item number 1. [roll call vote] there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: it will be sent to the full board with positive recommendation. please call item 2. >> clerk: a hearing to consider that the person-to-person in premise to premise transfer type 21 off sale general beer and wine distilled spirits liquor license to bear eagle incorporated doing business at sfgiftbaskets.com will serve the public through a necessity of the city and county of san francisco. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, should line up to speak now. if you joining us remote please join the public comment comment and press star 3. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand.
>> supervisor mar: thank you. please present the a.l.u. report on this item. >> bear eagle inc. this will allow them to operate off sale general premise as zero letter of protest. zero letters of support. they are located in plat 152 which was considered high crime area. central station has no opposition. alcohol liaison recommends approval. >> supervisor mar: is there a representative from bear eagle to speak? >> clerk: we have cheryl maloney on teams. >> supervisor mar: thank you for being here.
if you can speak to your application for the liquor license transfer and your proposed new business at the embarcadero. >> yes, this is san francisco gift baskets. most of our business is order, mail order and delivery. we don't do -- we do small amount of walking business. it is for the gift basket business. to have full liquor and spirit, we want to promote more corporate type baskets and gifts to be sold to the public. it's mostly mail order. >> supervisor mar: thank you. you're saying that the beer and wine and the liquor will be part of the gift baskets? >> correct. >> supervisor mar: thank you. thanks for your business serving the community. >> it's an existing business. we're just adding. we have beer and wine.
we're just adding the full liquor. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> supervisor mar: let's go to public comment. >> clerk: mes of the public who wish to provide public comment please line up to speak now. if you joining us remotely please call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126. press pound and pound again. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. we do not have individuals here in person. i am double checking the public comment line. there are no speakers in line either. >> supervisor mar: public comment is closed. i understand that supervisor peskin is supportive this license transfer. i will make a motion directing the clerk to prepare a resolution that this license will serve the public convenience in necessity and we
send the resolution forward with positive recommendation. please call roll. >> clerk: on item 2. [roll call vote]. there are three ayes. >> supervisor mar: we'll send it to the full board. thank you, again. thank you for your work on the liquor licenses. i know we're expecting a fairly lengthy hearing for item number 3. i wanted to call 4 and 5 out out oforder. >> clerk: item 4 is an ordinance amending the health code to require general acute care hospitals and hospital-based skilled nursing facilities to a health facility outside the city to receive skilled nursing care
and patients who qualify for skilled nursing care. members of the public who wish to provide comment may line up to speak now. if you joining us remotely call into the call in number and enter the meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126. press star 3 and the system will indicate that you have raised your hand. >> supervisor mar: colleagues, this item was one that we had -- this is reallial duplicated file. we moved the original file forward and the board adopted recently so we can start implementing these important reporting requirements out of county transfers for skilled nursing and acute care. i had duplicated the file to
expand the scope that was suggested by community health advocates. we're not ready to consider those amendments. i would move that we continue this item to the call of the chair. >> clerk: since this is a duplicated file, there has to be at least a minor amendment made so this ordinance can continue. >> supervisor mar: okay. deputy city attorney pearson, do you have a suggestion? >> i don't. as the clerk explained, this will become sort of moot as soon as the original goes into effect. if your office wants to suggest some language, i'd be happy to look at it and see if we can approve it in the form of the amendment today. >> supervisor mar: why don't we hold off on that and my office will follow-up with you during the meeting and we'll come back to you at the end.
let's take public comment on this item. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment can line up to speak now. if you are joining us remote call into the call-in number, (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126. press star 3 to get in the speaker line. pausing to see if we have remote callers. there are no callers on the line. >> supervisor mar: public comment is closed. we will come back to this item later. please call item 5. >> clerk: an ordinance amending the administrator code to require the police department to create a community policing plan at each district police stations that among other strategies. incorporate a foot and bike patrol deployment and also
include a community process for eliciting input. members of the public who wish to provide public comment may line up to speak now. if you joining us remotely call in the public comment number and press star 3 to enter the speaker line. please wait until we take public comment and the system indicates that you have been unmuted. >> supervisor mar: colleagues, i did want to make some remarks. we'll have public comment on this later. or soon. this ordinance really is responding to the public safety concerns in our neighborhoods and our communities throughout the city. during the pandemic we seen major crime trends an increase
in property crime, especially burglaries in our residential neighborhoods. i certainly -- we've seen this in the sunset district where neighborhoods and businesses and residents victimized by burglary, robbery and theft. this ordinance is to prevent crime prevention as well as addressing public safety concern. it builds off the sfpd's existing work advancing community policing strategies in our city including the sfpd community policing strategic plan. the departmental general order 1.08 and the community liaison unit. this ordinance is intended to bring community policing strategies down to the district on the neighborhood level. it would require sfpd to create
a community policing plan at each district station that among other strategies incorporate foot and bike patrol appointments to address needs of the neighborhood and really emphasizes proactive problem solving and crime prevention. i want to thank our install business and merchant association, particularly people parkside and sunset and professional association as well as the council district merchants association for working with us on this. also thank you to the small business commission for their consideration of this ordinance and their unanimous support but also for providing valuable feedback on the legislation. some of the amendments i will be introducing were suggested by the small business commission at their hearing. i want to thank sfpd and chief scott and deputy chief lazar for working with us on this
legislation. that would really strengthen sfpd's commitment and implementation of the community policing strategic plan. i did have some amendments that i'm introducing. they were shared with you by my staff earlier this morning. i'll just go over them briefly. again, these are amendments that were created with input from the small business commission and sfpd. on page 2 line 14, this amendment provides deployment flexibility to sfpd if there are issues with their budget and staffing. on page 2 line 17, this amendment responds to the complaint supervisors often hear about constant change of district captains. community policing plan can help smooth the transition and provide continuity during district captain changes. on page 3 line 11, this
amendment mentions that the community policing plan should include identifying alternatives to law enforcement for non-criminal and quality of life issues. on page 3 line 21, this amendment addresses that the to allow the public to hold district stations accountable for following through with the community policing plan. i would like to make a motion that we incorporate he's amendments into the legislation. >> supervisor stefani: i want to clarify -- first of all, thank you for working on these amendments subject to the hearing we had on police staffing and in committee a few weeks back underscoring the police staffing shortages that the police are having. i want to make sure, on page 2
lines 14-16, that is the applicable to the entirety of the legislation. is that correct? >> supervisor mar: yeah, in our conversations with sfpd, they were the ones that suggested this amendment. they really focused on the deployment of foot and bike patrols. they wanted to make sure it was noted that it was subject to budgetary and fiscal provisions. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i'll move the amendment. >> supervisor mar: thank you. why don't we take public comment on this. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide comment and you're joining us in person,
line up to speak now. if you joining us remotely, call (415)655-0001, meeting i.d. 2490 219 9126 press pound and pound again. once connected press star 3 to enter the speaker line. continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we have a person here in person. please provide your comment. >> how much time do i have to talk? >> supervisor mar: two minutes. >> i have a question and brief comment. one is what do you mean by non-criminal? i don't know that the police will be there for non-criminal activities. why wasn't the community notified of this meeting? there was another question which i forget now.
community participation, what would that consist of. what i wanted to say, you got to take other steps besides paying this city and the country like police state. [ indiscernible ] people are hungry. people are going to steal money or diapers for their kids and food for their kids. i don't approve of it, i don't to punish them. what i would like to suggest is something similar -- [ indiscernible ] can you tell me what you mean by non-criminal activity and what the community will look like and
how they will be made up? >> clerk: does that conclude your comment? >> yes. >> clerk: this is not a question and answer time. this is our time to hear from you. thank you so much for your comments. we so no other people in person. we are going to the remote call in system. we have three individuals in line. >> caller: hello. i support this totally. i think having police on the street in a friendly manner who gets to know the residents and understand the neighborhood, who can target areas where bad behavior generally takes place and make a presence there is a really positive thing. it gets police out of their police car.
which i find intimidating and walking on the street. i do have an issue with san francisco's trying to create all different bureaucracies. such as not having the police deal with quality of life issues. this will create a whole different bureaucracy. i notice it's a trend. i was at a meeting last night. d.p.w. is involved with fencing and involved in permitting and vendors. i don't think it's smart to a bureaucracy when we already have an existing organization that already tasked to do those. i would like to see more police presence on the street in a
friendly way. i think that would also help people. it will help the police understand the people. and people to understand the police. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next caller please. >> clerk: i believe that person hung up. let get to the next person. caller? >> caller: hi. i'm larry yee. i'm a community member in chinatown and also police commissioner here. i'm supportive of this public safety policy that put forth by you gordon mar. we need more officers out on the
beat. that's been the message that i hear in the community. foot patrol is a visibility that needs to be out there. lets people know that they do commit crime out there. there's officers out there. they were saying, we need more funding. we're looking forward to that partnership and reaching out to all stations. hopefully we can add liaison person for each station to this policy. looking forward to working with everybody here and making it work for all our communities, especially our seniors too where we are the most vulnerable. foot patrol, bicycle patrol will
be great. getting police more involved in our community and making them having plans that reflect the needs of our community. looking forward to this. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller please. >> caller: this is tyler. i'm in tenderloin. formally district 6. now district 5. i think the idea of having less police in cars and more walking around on bikes, it makes lot of sense. my concern is that this is just going to be another excuse to pour more money and more resources into police. i would hope there's a way to do something that goes in the opposite direction. may be that means some kind of ambassador program instead of more police or maybe it means that in more police will be in
policing community, we can take away some of the resources from all of the surveillance tech and military tech that the police have. i think couple of years ago, there were all those protests and discussion about alternatives to policing. now we're taking resources away from the police. it feels like that whole movement kind of been forgotten little bit. maybe this is an opportunity to do something along those lines. we have the usual police work, we have community policing. [ indiscernible ] >> clerk: thank you for your comment. do we have any more callers in the queue? that concludes public comment remotely. >> supervisor mar: public
comment is now closed. i want to thank everyone who called in and spoke during public comment. i want to respond to the comments around alternatives to law enforcement for non-criminal and quality of life issues. the amended legislation would require that the community policing plan should really include identifying these alternatives to law enforcement for these types of low level incidents. this is in support of efforts that we've taken as a city to create alternatives to law enforcement. in particular for behavioral health and homelessness. we want to ensure that the community policing plan really reflect that important new approach that we're taking as a city. also i did want to point out 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 ]
>> 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
>> 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]
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] .
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 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 you, chair mar. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. so, again, i would like to
maybe -- we'll start with supervisor mandelman's proposed amendments just because he's the chief sponsor and have the committee sort of weigh in on whether we're supportive of those and then we'll go to supervisor melgar's amendments and actually supervisor safai's as well. i'm happy to summarize them. supervisor mandelman -- supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair mar. i was going to wait until after supervisor melgar explained her amendments again, but i'll go ahead and just speak now. i want to thank supervisor mandelman for this piece of legislation. i know that it is specific towards a certain population of our homeless individuals and i am proud to co-sponsor it. i'm happy he corrected a few of the things that we heard here today that this is not congregate shelter for all. that's not what we envision, it's just warehousing a whole
bunch of people in an undignified way. that's not what i am for. also talking about a permanent supportive housing plan and really underscoring the problems with encampments for the individuals that are there, you know, the fact that we've had individuals die in had these tents. we've had women that have been raped in these tents, it is not dignified for them and not fair to them to only have that option when there isn't a permanent supportive housing unit for them in that moment. and to focus on how we can have another place in addition to our permanent supportive housing is what i think is a good idea and, you know, i just wanted to underscore as well and we look and hear this all the time as supervisors at least, i hear it all the time, we've allocated $1 billion to address homelessness last year and over $25 million to address
mental health crisis and these twin crisis continue to get worse and people are wondering why? why is it we spend more money and don't see any solutions. we don't see any progress and just when you -- and we've also significantly broadened who can access shelter in place and hotel rooms which is a good thing to do and i'm glad we've done that and we've had more permanent supportive housing than any other city in the country which is a good thing and something that san francisco should be proud of. you know, when i look at the problem over a the problem has been growing increasingly dramatic between 2005 and 2020, the estimated number of homeless people in san francisco increased from 5,400
to 8,100 people. and the unsheltered rose from 2,600 to 5,100. so we're seeing huge increases especially among our unsheltered homeless population. meanwhile, homelessness has declined in the nation as a whole and in other big cities over the last 15 years. so you have to wonder what are we doing in san francisco that we might do better? what could we be doing different because what we're doing now isn't really hitting the mark. nationwide homelessness declined from 763,000 to 568,000 in the last 15 years and san francisco has the greatest quantitiy of permanent supportive houses per can to a than any other major city in the u.s. and twice as much as new york city and chicago and also, the
unsheltered homeless population of new york and chicago well 11% and 10% between 2005 and 2020. while san francisco's rose. our unsheltered homeless population in that time period rose by 95%. so when i look at the piece of legislation put forward and we do it all the time and i just want to emphasize too that we getting back to do we have to
show for that. and, you know, when i've walked through the tenderloin more than a few times. and obviously addiction is something that you and i talk a lot about, supervisor mandelman. we've had our treatment on demand hearings and what you see and what i've seen in the tent encampments are people especially with regard to addiction that are not getting the help they need are not people living on the streets but my experience and what i know of addiction is that people are slowly dying on our streets and intervention is being made, again, for their dignity they deserve and for how we need to intervene to help them and whether it's the tiny homes that some people like and some people don't, whether it's a different kind
of shelter, not congregate shelter, we have to look at different options. we have to and that's what i believe that this legislation does. i believe the current system is just not working and that additional critical interventions and resources are necessary if we want to get serious about addressing the crisis. and i believe as lori brook said with rescue sf that we can work together. the divisiveness and the toxic acrimony around it is unnecessary. and we are all compassionate human beingses here. no one has cornered the market on compassion in san francisco and i do not believe this comes from a it comes from a place of people wanting to find additional housing and i support that. i love my colleague, supervisor
melgar very much as she knowses. i do want to respect supervisor mandelman's view of this legislation. i will be supporting the first part of the amendment this he articulated, but the other two that are subs substantiative, i will be supporting today. i believe this piece of legislation is ready to go out and that's where i stand and i want to thank you, supervisor mandelman for your thoughtfulness and bravery for bringing it back again in spite of some people not wanting you to. i hope we can all work together to find ways to deal with the encampments in a way that is respectful of all those that need housing and respectful of all those that continue to walk by the encampments in ways that aren't safe for many people as we discussed about the tenderloin when we had what seems like a 24 hour hearing on
christmas eve for the tenderloin emergency order. there's obviously necessary things we need to address and i believe this legislation is a first step and, again, thank you, supervisor mandelman. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor stefani. so, again, if we can consider supervisor mandelman's amendments and, supervisor mandelman, i think it would be helpful for you just to kind of walk us through them and we can see how the committee feels about them. >> supervisor mandelman: sure. my amendments. so on page eight, in so the resitals, we had a reference to safe overnight parking lots and we have changed the description from tiny homes to the more appropriate noncongregate
cabins. that was part of a change that supervisor safai and supervisor melgar had emphasized. and then we made the change around tiny homes throughout. and also we added safe references to safe overnight parking lots in a number of places including in the definitions. on page 10, section 118.5, the implementation plan, we heard from h.s.h. that three months was not enough time for them to come up with an implementation plan that seemed reasonable and so we are giving them what we hope will be six to get to the end of 2022. added a reference to and implementation time line. supervisor safai, i believe referenced the change on the next page b kav yachting the
business planning for people who may be expected to shelter-in-place and for whom housing has not been made. and then further down in the description of what's included in the implementation plan, we've added a description of the recommended service in order to offer and expedite guests moving into shelters and housing. that's the desire to see people getting moved in and not warehoused and that doesn't become the case and adding section and rental subsidies needed to ensure all guests. nine, the new nine is a description of the homelessness prevention programs and services. used to reduce the number of people exiting homelessness in
san francisco. so that's a analysis plan and for the resources to ensure that shelter's available to folks experiencing homelessness in all neighborhoods of san francisco. we know there are people who are exextraordinarily impacted. i think the castro's pretty impacted, but there's homelessness and there are encampments throughout the city and there's a plan on how the department is going to respond to homelessness throughout the city. and then, the next change is in c which as i mentioned a list that is -- a list of possible sites that would not be just a
point in time, but would continue to be refreshed and the next page, page 13, we had a limitation on safe sleep sites at 20% and supervisor safai requested that we take that down to ten. i think the department of homeness and supportive housing has no desire to do any. i think folks are more likely to take that exit or perhaps a tiny home than they would be certainly a congregate. so i would not like to see this option eliminated entirely, but we're -- this would have it down at 10% and then there's in addition to that in public works and as one of the agencies that would need to be coordinated with. i think those are mine.
>> chairman: thank you, supervisor mandelman. just resummarizing your amendments. i think those all seem like good amendments, yeah, and they're nonsubstantiative. supervisor stefani and supervisor chan. >> supervisor stefani: i will move those amendments. i'm fine with them. >> chairman: great. and i know some of them, there's overlap with some of supervisor melgar's amendments. so why don't we go to supervisor melgar, if you can summarize your amendments. i think, i'd prefer if we try to, yeah, see where there's. >> supervisor melgar: let me
just, if i could, you know, i have no issues with any of the amendments that supervisor mandelman is putting forward. i think it's great. and i'm grateful that you included a lot of my issues in your amendments. so that's great. the issue for me is that a couple of -- it doesn't go far enough in terms of a policy. so i have added my own amendments at which as supervisor stefani very well said, i don't think there's any need for acrimony and we heard that from the community both from rescue sf and folks in the coalition. so i'm happy if you vote on supervisor mandelman's amendments first, because i don't think there's any beef here. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: actually. i have a quick question. i do see that i'm just opening supervisor safai's aid bill barns' amendment that, you
know, this is what supervisor safai has proposed and i'm trying to, you know, coordinate between what supervisor mandelman has just went through, but for example, i am not proposing to move his because anyway. it's that on page 13, right, on page 13, line seven which i don't think that is what supervisor mandelman had discussed, but in supervisor safai's proposal, i believe he did say at the rate. so in line 7, page 13, line seven, the last sentence at the rate of successful referral to to shelter amount to people who offer such placement.
i think there's a difference and unfortunately he's not here to go through those amendments. i just want to flag that. i'm not making a movement to incorporated in what supervisor mandelman has just discussed. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. what i was hoping is if we can go through. three sets of amendments. as supervisor stefani made the motion on that you know, we can all agree on and if there's going to be some overlap and working to figure out how to
address that through language. deputy city attorney pierson. >> there are probably a number of different ways dood this. and then to turn to supervisor safai's amendments where there is considerable overlap to add something or to make that motion even if it's in contradiction, then we can do that, and then after that supervisor melgar's amendments. >> chairman: so why don't we a motion to adopt. >> clerk: on item number three,
[roll call] >> chairman: so in major nine, he adds in addition to safe overnight parking lots which has already been added to. >> supervisor mandelman: 's triage centers, yeah, that's online 24. i think that appears a number of other places in his legislation where in addition to safe overnight parking lots, he specifies vehicle navigation triage centers.
>> supervisor mandelman: well, from my part, i would be fine with supervisor safai's amendments trumping my amendments. >> with different language, we need to know which one the committee prefers. >> well, that's interesting language. well, the other possibility is if supervisor safai's language is nonsubstantiative. if the committee accepts supervisor melgar's amendments and the thing gets continued two weeks, there wouldn't be any. and if it's not, then it could be added to the full board,
right. >> that's right. i think if you wanted to make a motion to add the vehicle triage centers where he has under the policy, he adds language that it should be further the policy of the city and vehicle nav jaegs prior to there being offered another shelter or housing option. >> supervisor mandelman: it was not. although i'm fine with that. >> i would support i'm not making a motion right now, but support us, yeah, amending, further amending the legislation to add supervisor safai's amendments. i think they're all helpful in
just further clarifying things and then except it'd be helpful to note deputy city attorney if you can note which one there would be some confusion over. >> looking through it quickly, i do think that's the only one where there's sort of a conflict because different language is chosen is the example that i highlighted which was on -- sorry. page. it was in subsection b, page 11, line 5 or line 6. the concept is the same, the words are different. so. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm fine with either. >> okay. >> chairman: okay. so i would -- yeah.
i would move that we further amend the legislation and adopt the amendments supervisor safai presented. please call roll. >> clerk: all right. on the motion to accept the amendments as offered by supervisor safai to item number three, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. now on supervisor melgar's, you can just resummarize your amendments and there's already a motion by supervisor chan to adopt them. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, supervisor, chair mar. really, there's three things to our controversial, the main thing is that after every word that's a shelter in this policy statement, we say 'shelter' and permanent supportive housing. that way we are guiding or
telling the department to present a plan that is in the context of our housing first policy, but adds the crucial component of shelter so that we can quantify shelter in the context of housing. so it would read, you know, submit to the board of supervisors and the mayor to implement a program to provide unsheltered persons in san francisco with access to shelter and permanent supportive housing a place for all programses. and then, the second thing. and that is throughout the document. there's many places, but the other thing that i would ask is that you consider also adding requiring h.s.h. to implement a system to allow individuals
experiencing homelessness to register for shelter by telephone which provides a way for both geographic equity and operationalizing it and also provides folks who are not currently on the sidewalk but are experiencing homelessness in need of shelter beds away to access it in a way that's easy, that's low barrier and allows them to get in. so those are the things that are substantiative in my amendment. >> chairman: thank you. i did want to point out one other proposed amendment from you that i think is important and that's page 12, line 5, item 3. it says an analysis of the cost effectiveness of different shelter and you added
homelessness prevention and permanent supportive housing models which addresses the association between each model and the outcomes for clients. and then additionally on page 13, line 17, item c, the city shall not fund operation of new shelters with funds that may not be lawfully using for those purposes including tax revenue designated by the voters for use to support behavioral health treatment and permanent housing. so thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you for talking, supervisor mar. >> chairman: supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: sorry. nitpicking for the title, i would suggest it's shelter expansion and permanent supportive housing program because my assumption is the idea is expanding the shelter, it's not to expand permanent supportive housing.
that's all. >> chairman: yeah. well, thank you, supervisor melgar, for your work on these amendments. i think these really help to address some of my concerns around, you know, the legislation as it was originally drafted and really ensuring that our plan to expand shelter is really done in coordination and in close coordination with our plan to address homelessness in a long term permanent way through permanent supportive housing and affordable housing and services and then also that the key point around reimplementing a telephone registration system just to make it easier for folkses who are living in
shelter to be able to get to request shelter. so i appreciate those. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, i just have a quick question, did supervisor chan move all three amendments together? >> chairman: supervisor chan moved to adopt supervisor melgar's amendments. >> supervisor stefani: okay. as we mentioned, i was find with the nonsubstantiative amendment and not with the other two. i don't think it's going to matter, but if anybody wanted to split that, i'd be fine or not. >> clerk: mr. chair, if we can divide the question on supervisor melgar's amendments if that's the case. >> chairman: so. >> clerk: we have three amendments that you guys have called out.
if you'd like to take them one by one we can do that and divide the question on it. >> chairman: okay. yeah. >> clerk: would you like to do that? >> chairman: sure. >> clerk: okay. we can go ahead and take the first one regarding shelter and adding after shelter with supervisor chan's addition to shelter expansion and permanent housing program and that is changed throughout the legislation. >> if i may just clarify one thing about that amendment, that word is added throughout, so it would expand the scope of the plan and it would expand the scope of the program. the other change that's in there, but maybe not so obvious is that the current proposal requires that the city try to estimate the number of beds or units that would be required for all the people experiencing
homelessness and supervisor melgar's version is a little more expansive and would require for all the people experiencing homelessness with the expecting number who would not accept it. >> chairman: so the first one is clearly substantiative, expanding the scope of the plan and implementation and the other one that's substantiative is reinstating the telephonic registration system. those are the two substantiative amendments, right. okay. >> supervisor chan: yes.
i will make the motion to the amendments to add permanent supportive housing throughout the legislation so that it reads as shelter and permanent supportive housing. >> chairman: supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: just so i understand, i really liked your shelter expansion and permanent supportive housing. can i accept that on the fly, city attorney? >> are you talking about the title. >> the short title is something that's prepared by the city attorney's office to comply with noticing requirements. but it's not something that the board amends. >> supervisor melgar: okay. >> supervisor chan: i make that motion so you have to call the roll. >> chairman: yeah. why don't we call roll on that. >> clerk: on the motion for the divided question for the first amendment to supervisor melgar's proposal, [roll call]
there are two ayes. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: and, i'll make the second motion to amend to add the register for shelter by telephone. >> chairman: can we call roll on that, madam clerk. >> clerk: on the second divided question to supervisor melgar's amendment, [roll call] there are two ayes. >> chairman: thank you. >> supervisor chan: and then i think the third was for the rest. i don't know. >> chairman: the rest of supervisor melgar's amendments that are nonsubstantiative. >> supervisor chan: yeah. so the rest will be. i will make the motion to amend
the definitions which is adding the definition of like homelessness prevention and permanent supportive housing. >> chairman: great. please call roll. >> clerk: yes, on the third divided question, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. >> chairman: so deputy city attorney. >> i think it might be worthwhile to take one final vote. there are a couple issues that are remaining that i don't think were captured in the descriptions of the motions taken so far. so just a vote to approve the expansion that i described previously that applies both to the analysis and the program itself that would expand those not only to look at people i
thought the last one was just definitions, the stated motion. >> [ indiscernible ] >> those definitions appear throughout so, are yeah. >> [ indiscernible ] >> i think so. i think we haven't captureded 100%. >> chairman: actually, and then, can we just clarify this point. so the third motion that supervisor chan made that we adopted was only adopting the
amendments to the definition section. >> that was the motion that i heard and i think madam clerk agrees. >> chairman: there are additional amendments that supervisor melgar had presented that are part of the implementation plan or the plan in the implementation. >> there are a small number of additional amendments that i think haven't been captured yet including the language that would prohibit the use of funds that are allocated for other types of projects. so i just don't want the committee to miss anything that is intended to change. >> chairman: supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah.
i think we somehow split. the buckets that we have described have been voted on three times for two buckets and the third bucket which was the item on which i think we were all agreed about not breaking the law has not been voted on. right? >> chairman: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i'd like to move to rescind that last vote. >> chairman: okay. and that's -- okay. >> supervisor stefani: the last motion regarding the definitions. >> chairman: okay. madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to rescind the last vote on the third divided question, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you.
supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: i'll make the motion to amend the definition as well as the implementation and evaluation to add both the permanent supportive housing as well as the -- my apologies, homelessness -- oh, my gosh, my apologies for going too fast. now i lost my place. i will make the motion to move to amend the definition of -- there we go. i will move to amend homeless -- amend the definitions of homelessness prevention as well as the permanent supportive
housing and save overnight parking lot that is on page 9 and then it would then continue through to the implementation and evaluation. is that sufficient motion? >> i'm a little concerned it doesn't capture 100% of the amendments that are in the document. my understanding is the committee has approveded the addition of permanent housing. of the second motion was approved the telephonic line. now, the committee could consider a motion to approve everything else at this point or everything except for something. i think at this point there's definition that is need to be added throughout. >> supervisor chan: if i make the motion to say we accept everything else, we amend everything else with the
exception of the telephonic registry and permanent supportive housing? >> supervisor stefani: i'm thinking because -- i mean, at this point you have the votes. why don't you just move it and i'll just vote no. at this point. >> chairman: okay. thank you. supervisor chan has moved that we accept the rest of the remainder that supervisor melgar presented that weren't covered in the first two motions and these are nonsubstantiative. please call roll. >> clerk: on the motion we're taking the third divided question again on the balance of supervisor melgar's proposed amendments, [roll call] there are two ayes. >> chairman: thank you. and, so i think we basically adopted the amendments that the three sets of amendments today
that supervisor mandelman, supervisor safai, and supervisor melgar have presented. and deputy city attorney pierson, it seems like you're going to see if there's any overlap in language and just clean that up if there's nothing significant. >> i think we identified one overlap and i understood from supervisor mandelman he was moving to accept the language in supervisor safai's conflicting language. so i think i have my marching orders. >> chairman: great. thank you. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: and with that, i withdraw my motion to continue the item. >> chairman: okay. thank you. >> because the amendments are substantiative, the item will have to be continued. >> chairman: so i would move that we continue this to the next meeting of the p.s.n.s. committee. it is may 26th. >> yes. >> clerk: so on the motion to continue item number three to the may 26th, 2022, psns
meeting as amended, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. everyone. thanks again, supervisor mandelman. supervisor melgar and colleagues and everybody from the public. this will be continued. why don't we go back to -- we need to finish up item four. so deputy city attorney pierson, i know my office was in communication with you about an amendment to this that would allow us to keep this. >> i understand from the clerk that there actually is a little bit of room in the calendar to continue the item because the original is only at the mayor's office right now and there's 30 more days before it goes into effect. i understand it's okay to
continue it with the intention of amending it at the next meeting. >> chairman: sounds good. i'll move that we continue item four to the call of the chair. madam clerk. >> clerk: on the motion to continue item number four to the call of the chair or may 26th? may 26th is the last opportunity. >> chairman: state that then. >> clerk: item number four will be continued to may 26th. [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: great thank you. madam clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> chairman: we are adjourned.
it across the city. [♪♪] the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers, and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home. the tenderloin emergency initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services, and increase investments in the neighborhood. >> the department of homelessness and supportive housing is responsible for providing resources to people living on the streets. we can do assessments on the streets to see what people are eligible for as far as permanent housing. we also link people with shelter that's available. it could be congregate shelter, the navigation center, the homeless outreach team links those people with those resources and the tenderloin needs that more than anywhere else in the city.
>> they're staffing a variety of our street teams, our street crisis response team, our street overdose response team, and our newly launched wellness response team. we have received feedback from community members, from residents, community organizations that we need an extra level and an extra level of impact and more impactful care to serve this community's needs and that's what the fire department and the community's paramedics are bringing today to this issue. >> the staff at san francisco community health center has really taken up the initiative of providing a community-based outreach for the neighborhood. so we're out there at this point monday through saturday letting residents know this is a service they can access really just describing the service, you know, the shower, the laundry, the food, all the different resources and referrals that can be made and really just providing the neighborhood with a face, this is something that we've seen work and something you can
trust. >> together, city and community-based teams work daily to connect people to services, >> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9.
during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played
with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪) >> i don't think you need to be an expert to look around and see the increasing frequency of fires throughout california.
they are continuing at an ever-increasing rate every summer, and as we all know, the drought continues and huge shortages of water right now. i don't think you have to be an expert to see the impact. when people create greenhouse gases, we are doing so by different activities like burning fossil fuels and letting off carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and we also do this with food waste. when we waste solid food and leave it in the landfill, it puts methane gas into the atmosphere and that accelerates the rate at which we are warming our planet and makes all the effects of climate change worse. the good news is there are a lot of things that you can be doing, particularly composting and the added benefit is when the compost is actually applied to the soil, it has the ability to reverse climate change by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil and the t radios. and there is huge amount of science that is breaking right
now around that. >> in the early 90s, san francisco hired some engineers to analyze the material san francisco was sending to landfill. they did a waste characterization study, and that showed that most of the material san francisco was sending to landfill could be composted. it was things like food scraps, coffee grounds and egg shells and sticks and leaves from gardening. together re-ecology in san francisco started this curbside composting program and we were the first city in the country to collect food scraps separately from other trash and turn them into compost. it turns out it was one of the best things we ever did. it kept 2.5 million tons of material out of the landfill, produced a beautiful nutrient rich compost that has gone on to hundreds of farms, orchards and
vineyards. so in that way you can manage your food scraps and produce far less methane. that is part of the solution. that gives people hope that we're doing something to slow down climate change. >> i have been into organic farming my whole life. when we started planting trees, it was natural to have compost from re-ecology. compost is how i work and the soil biology or the microbes feed the plant and our job as regenerative farmers is to feed the microbes with compost and they will feed the plant. it is very much like in business where you say take care of your employees and your employees will take carolinas of your customers. the same thing. take care of the soil microbes and soil life and that will feed and take care of the plants. >> they love compost because it is a nutrient rich soil
amendment. it is food for the soil. that is photosynthesis. pulling carbon from the atmosphere. pushing it back into the soil where it belongs. and the roots exude carbon into the soil. you are helping turn a farm into a carbon sink. it is an international model. delegations from 135 countries have come to study this program. and it actually helped inspire a new law in california, senate bill 1383. which requires cities in california to reduce the amount of compostable materials they send to landfills by 75% by 2025. and san francisco helped inspire this and this is a nation-leading policy. >> because we have such an immature relationship with nature and the natural cycles and the carbon cycles, government does have to step in and protect the commons, which is soil, ocean, foryes, sir, and so forth. -- forest, and so fors. we know that our largest
corporations are a significant percentage of carbon emission, and that the corporate community has significant role to play in reducing carbon emissions. unfortunately, we have no idea and no requirement that they disclose anything about the carbon footprint, the core operation and sp360 stands for the basic notion that large corporations should be transparent about the carbon footprint. it makes all the sense in the world and very common sense but is controversial. any time you are proposing a policy that is going to make real change and that will change behavior because we know that when corporations have to disclose and be transparent and have that kind of accountability, there is going to be opposition. >> we have to provide technical assistance to comply with the state legislation sb1383 which requires them to have a food donation program.
we keep the edible food local. and we are not composting it because we don't want to compost edible food. we want that food to get eaten within san francisco and feed folks in need. it is very unique in san francisco we have such a broad and expansive education program for the city. but also that we have partners in government and nonprofit that are dedicated to this work. at san francisco unified school district, we have a sustainability office and educators throughout the science department that are building it into the curriculum. making it easy for teachers to teach about this. we work together to build a pipeline for students so that when they are really young in pre-k, they are just learning about the awe and wonder and beauty of nature and they are connecting to animals and things they would naturally find love and affinity towards. as they get older, concepts that
keep them engaged like society and people and economics. >> california is experiencing many years of drought. dry periods. that is really hard on farms and is really challenging. compost helps farms get through these difficult times. how is that? compost is a natural sponge that attracts and retains water. and so when we put compost around the roots of plants, it holds any moisture there from rainfall or irrigation. it helps farms make that corner and that helps them grow for food. you can grow 30% more food in times of drought in you farm naturally with compost. farms and cities in california are very hip now to this fact that creating compost, providing compost to farms helps communities survive and get through those dry periods. >> here is the thing. soil health, climate health,
human health, one conversation. if we grow our food differently, we can capture all that excess carbon in the atmosphere and store it in unlimited quantities in the soil, that will create nutrient dense foods that will take care of most of our civilized diseases. so it's one conversation. people have to understand that they are nature. they can't separate. we started prowling the high plains in the 1870s and by the 1930s, 60 year, we turned it into a dust bowl. that is what ignorance looks like when you don't pay attention to nature. nature bats last. so people have to wake up. wake up. compost. >> it is really easy to get frustrated because we have this belief that you have to be completely sustainable 24/7 in all aspects of your life. it is not about being perfect. it is about making a change here, a change there in your life.
maybe saying, you know what? i don't have to drive to that particular place today. today i am going to take the bus or i'm going to walk. it is about having us is stainable in mind. that is -- it is about having sustainability in mind. that is how we move the dial. you don't have to be perfect all the time. >> san francisco has been and will continue to be one of the greener cities because there are communities who care about protecting a special ecosystem and habitat. thinking about the history of the ohlone and the native and indigenous people who are stewards of this land from that history to now with the ambitious climate action plan we just passed and the goals we have, i think we have a dedicated group of people who see the importance of this place. and who put effort into building an infrastructure that actually makes it possible. >> we have a long history starting with the gold rush and the anti-war activism and that is also part of the
environmental movement in the 60s and 70s. and of course, earth day in 1970 which is huge. and i feel very privileged to work for the city because we are on such a forefront of environmental issues, and we get calls from all over the world really to get information. how do cities create waste programs like they do in san francisco. we are looking into the few which you are and we want innovation. we want solutions.
>> chair ronen: good morning. the meeting will come to order. this is the may 4, 2022 budget and finance committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. i'm joined by supervisor ahsha safai, and we will be joined by supervisor gordon mar shortly. we are joined by clerk brent jalipa, and i'd like to thank matt at sfgovtv. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board of supervisors and its committees are convening
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on