Board committee advances ‘A Place for All’ shelter plan after heated public hearing; item continued for edits

Supervisor Rafael Mandelmann introduced “A Place for All,” an ordinance directing the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) to prepare an implementation plan to expand shelter options citywide and estimate the costs of operating that system. Mandelmann said the legislation grew from pandemic experience and argued the city can and must offer people a safe place to sleep while pursuing long‑term housing: “With political will and funding, we might be able to end unsheltered homelessness in San Francisco,” he said, urging quick action to avoid further deaths and fires tied to encampments.

The ordinance requires HSH to produce a plan that estimates shelter need, identifies potential sites, and proposes service‑rich options ranging from non‑congregate cabins and tiny‑home models to safe overnight parking and navigation centers. The sponsor and supporters repeatedly framed the measure as a way to produce the capacity needed for outreach and to create exits into housing; Deputy Director Emily Cohen of HSH told supervisors the mayor’s homeless‑recovery efforts have placed more than 4,024 people in shelter or housing since July 2020 and said the city is about “67% of the way to goal” for a separate placement target.

Opponents and many people with lived experience argued the bill is an unfunded “shelter‑only” plan that risks warehousing people and could be used to clear encampments without an adequate housing exit. Carlos Watkins of the Coalition on Homelessness said the measure, “as written, would be making a shelter plan — not a housing plan — and risks being used to displace people.” Several advocates urged reinstating an accessible shelter referral system so people could self‑refer rather than rely solely on outreach teams.

In committee floor debate supervisors proposed and negotiated a package of changes. Key amendments adopted (by committee votes) add non‑congregate options and safe‑parking language, require HSH to include analysis of homelessness prevention and a housing‑exit strategy in the implementation plan, and lower the cap on safe‑sleep sites in the proposed shelter mix from 20% to 10%. The committee also instructed HSH to produce a rolling list of candidate sites and an implementation timeline and to include cost estimates and a controller evaluation. Members directed the city attorney to reconcile overlapping language across sponsors’ amendments.

After extended public comment — with dozens of callers and in‑person speakers sharply divided — the committee voted to continue the ordinance to the PSNS meeting on May 26, 2022, so HSH and the city attorney can finalize the amended language. Chair Marr said the changes were intended to make the measure “more coordinated with our housing‑first policy” and to preserve safeguards about funding sources. No final funding source was adopted at the hearing; several supervisors and advocates emphasized the ordinance does not itself provide a revenue mechanism and that operating costs remain unresolved.

What’s next: The committee continued Item 3 to May 26, 2022 to allow staff to harmonize amendment text, add requested analyses and detail the telephone/referral access options discussed in committee. The full Board will consider the revised ordinance after PSNS forwards it with a recommendation.