was the unintended consequences of what we are going. i agree with supervisor cohen that this is an issue of fairness. but i think that issue can cut in different ways. one of the regions that i supported and seconded, the amendment by supervise are olague, is the fact that the amendment recognizes the need for us to really assess the situation and understand, and have a better understanding of what the unintended consequences might be and to have a little bit more analysis. the amendment actually makes the implementation of the ordinance contingent on that analysis and that makes sense to wait until that is completed before we actually move forward before implementing something like this. so i will be supportive of the amendment that supervisor olague introduced. and i think that it makes sense

to do something. but i do fear that going forward we might have some unintended consequences that we were not expecting to have. >> so, thank you. >> supervisor. avalos. >> thank you. >> one thing that i forgot to mention were places like my district where there are major streets that people are parking oversized vehicles on, often those are people who live in the neighborhood and don't have another place to store their vehicles. i don't think that it is appropriate to park their vehicles there because they are causing a lot of bliet. but you are going to see if you put signs, imposed by the mta along geneva, then those cars are just going to go somewhere else in the neighborhood. and you know, i think that is something that has not quite been looked at as well in this legislation and as i said, this is something that my office has

looked at a long time. and we found out that it was prohibitive to get the signs up across the whole neighborhood because you probably have to do it across the whole city and that will be prohibitive financially and it will be difficult for the city to actually do that kind of, you know, enforcement and signage. and so, i just think that there is a lot of flaws with the approach. and unintended consequences that i am concerned about. and i am curious how the vote is going to go and i might have an amendment after we see how her amendment goes through. >> i will be supporting it. >> i have a question for supervisor dufty? >> it is these types of things that make me feel unnerved. nothing in the legislation as

far as it relates to. i am glad that supervisor chu is obviously concerned also with the negative impacts that it could have on, you know, families of the homeless, and this regarding that. and supervisor cohen obviously and, my concern is that there is nothing in the legislation that is why i added that piece around the contingentcy. as far as the storing of the vehicles is concerned, right? because there is no row, i mean, in many ways there is a lot of arbitrary aspects to the legislation in a way. because i'm not hearing any specifics around the time that people will be allowed to store their vehicles. and whether or not we even have the space on treasure island to, you know, to allow like how

many spaces do we have? how many time we are looking at here? those types of specifics, right? >> well, as it relates to the... >> you know we have a family who is living in a car and they say that we will take the resources and the temporarily housing and maybe hamilton has space and they are lucky to have access to that is kind of houses which we have limited resources as you know. >> and i would offer that... and we have to pursue this with the city attorney and the human services agency. but we have... the board has provided additional funds for rapid rehousing and i believe that a family giving up that housing would go to the first avenues or go to hampton and have the opportunity through rapid rehousing. i think that the issue for us is that the individuals living in their vehicles have not been willing to engage in services. >> right. >> it has not been something that has happened.

i do think that if this legislation passes, would a 6-month delay, i think that it creates a sense of urgency for those of us working for the city, as well as those who may be residing in their vehicles to consider other options. and we are going to try to create a program that is flexible. and so if at the end of 90 days we need to continue that for someone that is engaging in case management, we will do tha. we will find the ability, i want this to have a logical framework and not, again,... >> the cat and mouse game that is taking place right now. and i think that is not really helpful. i am sure that for many of these individuals, they have to spend much of their time to be sure that the vehicle is insured and there are all of these functional things and the out reach workers tell me that these are not vehicles that can't move. they are not just galopies. >> the basic rule is making them have insurance and the

driver's license and the ability to move. and i would offer that i think that some of the families are spending or individuals, a lot of times just keep the vehicles moving around which is not really contributing to exiting from this. so the provisions between you and president chus requires us to come back in 90 days, three months before the implementation of the legislation and as i understand the legislation that has taken place, we want to come back with something that shows you how we are doing. and but, this is something that we really have not done before. so i think that it is useful to take a step. >> so you think that there is actually a sufficient number of storage spaces in treasure spaces? >> there is also storage at candle stick. >> okay. >> storage that is there. we started out at treasure island because of the relationship between the treasure island office and city view storage, so we will start there. and i think that this is an open dialogue and i would

welcome supervisor avalos has shared. and i am a huge fan, so i would be thrilled and see supervisor avalos and go and look at the neighborhoods and understand how they do this in areas. and definitely for districts four and ten there are very significant issues. i know in your district on baker street, it is periodically it is a very heavily impacted area right around the dmv, you have a lot of vehicles there. >> you know i feel the six months with the three months requirement to come back, does give us a framework and i think that i am looking carefully the comments here and i welcome working with the coalition. i mean, truthfully, if we could work together on this, i think that they certainly have the trust of people who are living in their vehicles and so my objective would be not to work in opposition, but to work in partnership and we might come back and tell you that this is much more difficult than we hoped that it might be.

>> supervisor chu? >> thank you. i just wanted to also emphasize, again, i know that supervisor avalos mentioned concerns about where it gets implemented. i think that the mta has a commitment to work with the office to make sure that the areas that are being looked at are places that are appropriate that you think would and has shown chronic problems in the area. and that is something to point out. supervisor dufty spoke about the issues and how this can potentially get us to move in a different direction with the population that has been hard to reach. this is something that raja has talked about. this has been a population that has been very, very difficult to get into services. and if this does have the impact of being able to make people consider other options i think that it is something for us to worth while to take a look at. and just so folks know that we know that we have a significant homeless issue in san francisco

and we have been working on this for many years. this board, we invested $6 million over two years to help shelters to prevent families from becoming homeless. that is something that we have committed to. the federal government just recently gave us $5 million to assist families to prevent them from being homeless and to make basically help them reunify and this is something that is a five-year, $1 million a a year commitment from the government. and we are working on 20 units a year through the housing authority. we have the veteran's commons opening up and the lodgers coming up with 100 single adult units. 25 units for transition youth. and booker t. washington, units, transitional age 24 units. 1074, san francisco hotel, 73 units for singles and for

families. , 1184th street, 25 additional families. we have pipeline shelters opening up, 25 on delora street. and 100 units at the bay view shelter. >> and working to take friendship church to church to extend it to family shelter. >> and we know that we have 172 units coming in from the ymca and 122 coming through bay through chp and so there are opportunities that are coming up, shelters that are opening up and supportive housing units that are coming, that are in the pipeline and i am not saying that it is going to be near enough to figure out everything that we can do for the whole population and how things are transitioning or changing, but there are opportunities to really see how this legislation does work in conjunction with the efforts to make a difference and so you

know, we have really tried to take a look at this from all angles. >> this is significantly a parking issue as well. so i just want to make sure that folks don't forget that. >> camp os. >> i want to make one point and i do have a question about one of the amendments. my point is that i think that we should be proud of the fact that we have given additional funding to deal with the issue of homelessness. but i do think that we have to put that in context, in terms of the need that is out there. i don't think that the level of funding that we have provided gets us to where we need to be. so, i don't necessarily think that... i think that the level of funding that we have approved is very good. but i think that it cuts both ways. i think that there is an additional need and you look at, you know, just a segment of the homeless population just in the lgbt community, 40 percent

of the youth in our homeless in san francisco are lgbt. if you look at what is available to them we are not doing nearly enough to address that need. but i do have a question about the amendment and i hope that i have the right version of it that was introduced by president chu and i believe that supervisor chu is also in agreement. and i am trying to understand how this works. because the amendment reads, on-line 21, that the mayor's office on hope, and municipal transportation agency at its discretion shall report what does that mean? >> does that mean that there will be a report? or does that mean that the report is left to the discretion of the agency in i think that that is kind of confusing. >> i can respond to that. >> the reason that was put in was simply the mta has its own authority, its own board and so

we cannot direct them to do or take action. we can only suggest and say that it is at their discretion. we have representatives from the mta here who can speak to it and i am sure that they are committed to reporting on all of these items. >> thank you. >> and the other thing that i would add to that is at its discretion language qualify the mta but it does not state that month the mayor's office that it is on discretion. it is not discretion for mr. dufty and his office to provide that report. >> supervisor weiner. >> i support this legislation. in san francisco we have a long history of solid zoning and making sure that when it comes to putting housing in that it we do it in a deliberate and planned way and we have had fights over all sorts of even, the smallest of zoning and density changes and people are concerned about the density all of the time. so i think that you know, we

talked about people sort of basically with no zoning, creating their own housing situation and a parking spot. i don't think that is the way to have a good planned housing situation. we have invested enormous amounts of money in trying to house people, supportive housing other kinds of housing to get people off the streets. and that the direction that we need to go and i think that it is completely appropriate to have regulations here. i also just want to say that you know, when i first saw this, i will tell you my question was, just be city wide. why do we need to put up signs in it should be blanket across the city? that was my perspective on it. it is a case by case situation and i come mend her for that. because i think that there was another way have to have gone and i think that this is very, very strong legislation and i think that it has been

strengthened by the amendments offered by president chu and i think that i will be supporting it. >> any further discussion? s >> we have two amendments that are considered. the first were the amendments that i offered first by chu and olague and camp os. >> roll call on the amendments that i have offered. >> chu? >> aye. >> cohen. >> aye. >> als burned. aye. >> kim. >>ite. >> mar. >> aye. >> mar, aye. >> supervisor olague. >> no. >> weiner, aye. >> avalos. >> no. >> no. >> come pose, no >> president chu? >> aye. >> chu. aye. >> there are 8 aye and three nos. >> the amendment passes and on supervisor olague's amendment?

>> supervisor chu? >> no. >> cohen. >> no. >> els burn. >> no. >> far el. >> no >> kim. >> aye. >> supervisor mar? >> no. >> olague? >> aye. >> supervisor weiner? >> no. >> avalos. >> aye. >> comp os. >>ite aye. >> chu. >> four eyes and 7 nos. the motion to amend fails and on the underlying ordinance as amended. >> roll call. >> supervisor chu? >> aye. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> als burn. >> aye. >> fer ill. >> aye. >> kim. >> no. >> mar. >> aye. >> olague. >> no >> weiner. >> aye. >> avalos. >> no. >> camp os no.

>> chu. >> aye. >> the ordinance is passed in the first reading as amended. >> colleagues, if we could take a couple of items out of order, related to the reappointments to the public utilities commission, i understand that there is a 4:00 issue if we do not resolve this matter. >> item 26 to 28 were considered by a rules committee on a regular meeting on september 20th, and were recommended as amended with new titles. 26 is a motion approving the reappointment of ann mollec caen to the public utilities commission to a term ending august 1, 2016. 27, approving reappointment of francesca vieto to the public

utilities commission ending august 1, 2016. and 28, vince courtney to the public utilities commission seat number five to the position of the four-year term ending august 1, 2016. >> any discussion. roll call vote on these three appointments? >> chu. >> aye. >> cohen >> aye. >> als burn. >> aye. >> ferrill. >> aye. >> kim. aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> olague. >> aye. >> weiner. >> aye. >> avalos. >> aye. >> camp os aye. >> chu aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> those motions are approved. and if you could go back to item 12, i understand that we have continued that item to a

veteran holiday. >> item 12. >> which i think it has been called. >> it has been called. the issue was supervisor weiner requested to be continued to november 13th, which is veteran's day, my apologize. >> i move to resend the continuance and move to continue to november 20th. my apologize. >> supervisor weiner has made a motion to resend and continue to the 20th. without objection, that should be the case. and now if we could continue with the balance of our agenda, colleagues, why don't we go to item 21. >> ordinance for amending the police code for foreclosed properties. >> thank you. >> mr. president. >> so item 21, this legislation is a result of more than a year's worth of work that i put in with a number of my

constituents. the organizations, the city attorney and the department of building and infection. and no secret that many of us have been struggling with the impacts of foreclosures on our community. often when we talk about the foreclosures we are focused on assisting home owners on modifying their loans or finding resources. however over the last year in district ten in particular, we have also been battling with what what happens after a foreclosure has taken place. many of the homes have fallen into disrepair and become magnets for graffiti and a physical bliet on our neighborhood. i have personally spent months contacting entities that own a number of foreclosed properties urging them to comply with nuisance regulations. we found that more often than not, that the individuals or the entities who own multiple foreclosed property have the greatest disregard for our neighborhood and our city's

nuisance regulations. now the ordinance before you today, would do a number of things, it would one, it would designate public nuances at foreclosed properties ago vaiting factor and two it would give the court the ability to assess triple penalties for owners of ten or more foreclosed properties who do not abate the public nuisance. i believe that the legislation is fairly balanced and focused at large. neglectful property owners and will serve as another tool for our city and neighborhoods to address the impact of foreclosed properties that are left to deteriorate in our community. i would like to thank my colleagues on the land use committee for considering this item and forwarding to the full board with a positive recommendation and i urge your support today. thank you. >> discussion in >> roll call vote? >> chu. >> aye. >> cohen.

>> aye. >> els burn? >> aye. >> ferrill. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar? >> aye. >> olague. >> aye. >> weiner. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> camp os. >> aye. >> president chu. >> aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first reading. >> 22 is an ordinance amending the code to prohibt liquor licenses from the union street neighborhood commercial district and require conditional use authorization for limited restaurants. >> thank you, colleagues this is clean up legislation. that was a result of the legislation supervisor weiner passed regarding simplifying our restaurants and our planning code a number of months ago which i really supported. i wanted to thank him for co-sponsoring, union street has

a commercial corridor that is subject to discussions between the neighborhood residents and the merchants and had restrictions in place in terms of what restaurants would come on. based upon weiner's legislation some of that got dismantled this is to clean it up to make sure that we have the controls in place that was effective before this legislation was enacted and i hope to have your support. >> without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. colleagues, it is a little after 3:00. why don't we take up the special order for the former redevelopment agency. could you call why don't we start with 31 >> a motion of the committee of the whole on september 25th, with the board of supervisors convening as the board of the successor agency of the former redevelopment agency of the city county of the san francisco, to hold the items 23.

>> we have a motion to sit as a committee in the hall. is there a second to supervisor cohen's motion? >> seconded by supervisor kim. is there any public comment as to whether we should in the committee as a whole to the former redevelopment agency? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we pass the motion. >> we will have public comment, on the matter, all that i ask is whether we should sit on the committee as a whole to take public comment. so if you have comment on that. public comment is closed. colleagues, could we have a roll call vote on the motion to approve sitting as a committee in the whole. >> chu. >> aye. >> cohen. >> aye. >> els burn? >> fer ill?

>> absent. >> supervisor kim? >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> olague. >> aye. >> weiner. >> aye. >> avalos. >> aye. >> come pose. >> aye. >> president chu. >> aye. >> fer ill? >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> motion is approved and madam clerk could you call the item 23 and 24? >> compriseded bored of supervisors convenes a whole, acting as the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency of the city and county of san francisco to consider the redevelopment of the agency. >> at this time, what i would like to propose is unless the colleagues, anyone has any enter duct torrey comments is to invite up our city admin

traiter to make some opening comments and if there are any other staffers to hear the presentstations and then we will hear from the members of the public who wish to speak to this and we will have deliberation on the items >> good afternoon, board of supervisor, kelley, city administrator, you have before you legislation that is some what similar to the legislation that was before you in january of this year. when last december, av 26 was upheld and the redevelopment agency was dissolved and we were faced with how do we continue with our obligations that we have with the hunter point shipyard, mission way, transbay and other housing assets that we have in the city that we would like to continue on in building affordable housing and continuing on with our major develop.. this legislation before you today is some what similar. but what had occurred during that time period is that we had

taking. the disolution, we the city stepped up with the redevelopment agency in spent the hard times. >> 1884 came into play in june and turned all of the good work that we have set in to place since january upside down and so we are trying to continue on in what we have been doing and so, with this i would like to turnover to tiffany bohe, the director of the successor agency. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president chu and board members, thank you. city administrator, kelley. as miss kelley outlined in her presentation, this board and the mayor moved swift live in

reaction to the dissolution of resefment and as of february first, the board teed up the assets were transferred and affordable housing assets were transferred to the mayor's office of housing which is the designated housing agency and all other assets were transferred to the city under those pisses of the city administrator and the port. all of that, as miss kelley outlined was turned upside down on june 27th. the governor signed into law a budget, number of budget trailer bills including ab 1484 which amended existing state dissolution law and that bill among other things provided for these successor agencies to be separate, legal entities from the city or county that created them. we would have continued under the direction that you have provided in january under resolution 1112, making sure that we can honor our commitments, wind down

activities for these project and housing obligations however we must revisit the structure that you have outlined and provided for. >> this provides for a new successor commission to be created that would have the narrow focus to implement these winding down enforcable obligations. the work yet to complete mission bay, transbay, as well as hunter's point shipyard candle stick and the necessary replacement housing obligations as a product of the urban renewal days, those are still obligations, those 6700 units are still obligation to complete and ensure is funded and exist in the framework of these enforcement obligations, the legislation provides f