and feedback on these amendments. the amendments would essentially do two things, first of all because it will take a little bit of time for city agencies to think about how this could be implemented in a way that would ensure that individuals who are currently homeless, who are vehiclely housed, can hopefully transition into our social service system. i do understand that it will take some time for the mayor's office on housing opportunity partnership and engagement to resolve that. and i want to take a moment and thanks dufty our former colleague here for the work that he has done on this and i know that he has to moving this forward. so in that regard, colleagues, i would suggest, really two changes, one is to have the effective date in this legislation, or the operative date be pushed to march the first, 2013, to give a number of months for these program details to be worked out.

and then secondly, the amendments that i have layout what we are asking the mayor's office on hope, which is the office on housing opportunity partnership and engagement to do in the next couple of months to prepare for this ordinance going into effect. first, we would ask the mayor's office in conjunction with the mta to conduct an assessment of over-sized vehicles and collect, census and dem graphic information. we have heard the challenges of information who are forced to move from a certain spot and what happens to their rv. so we want to look at a variety of options. i do understand that there is potentially an option on treasure island. but i know that mr. dufty will be looking at other possibilities in different parts of the city. >> thirdly, my amendment would state that the mayor's office will track the transition of

individuals to city services, once this legislation goes into effect, and then, lastly, we are going to ask the mayor's office and the mta to come back to the board in three months on findings related to these various items. so that we understand how this ordinance will be implemented and done in a way that is respectful and takes into account the real needs of individuals who are living in vehicles. and so, colleagues, i ask for your support for these amendments and with these amendments i do plan to support the underlying ordinance. >> colleagues we have a motion by president chu. >> and a second by supervisor chu. and we do want to acknowledge our former colleague dufty who is back in chambers, supervisor co-hen. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, everyone, thank you for joining us for a very exciting meeting of the san francisco board of

supervisors. today i have joined co-sponsor ship because this is an issue that is extremely important for not just district four but for the entire part of san francisco particularly for district ten. and i kid you not, there is not one issue that has not galvanized the same amount of support, meaning, bay view, and dog patch, rarely these neighborhoods agree on one thing, but today on this item we are in agreement and i would like to thank supervisor chu for her efforts in this legislation, as i mentioned earlier in my comments, we have a number of areas throughout the district that do not have parking restrictions particularly in district ten and this has led to problems with a number of over-sized and abandoned vehicles, many of which accumulate graffiti, and obstruct pedestrian crosses and forces of bliet on the neighborhood. and in evaluating this proposal, my office discussed this legislation with a number of merchants and neighbors, as well as the american office of

homelessness and of course, our mta and our former supervisor dufty and what we have heard from all corners of the district and dog patch, is and bay view is that they are in support of this legislation, because it is a pilot program that recognizes the impacts that these vehicles have our neighborhoods and also takes into consideration and accommodates those who may be living in their vehicles. now the study that supervisor chu referenced also indicates that there are 150 vehicles that are just make their home inside district ten and i would argue that this is almost a social justice issue. because what you find are people who are wealthy enough and own these vehicles actually don't park them in their own neighborhoods they actually park them on the southeastern side of the city in my neighborhoods and so, forgive me if i come across a little im passionate about it. i am tired of my neighborhood being the dump and the home of

polluting power plants. enough is enough. this is an opportunity that we can begin to come together and clean up the streets. now, we are also talking about a health concern here. we are talking about vehicles that don't have hook ups. i am talking about human ex-crament in the streets on the sidewalks, no one needs to live like this and it is unbelievable and unhealth and i am an enthusiastic co-sponsor. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, i wanted to thank my colleagues for bringing this legislation. but also, in the committee, many of the residents of people that have been forced to live in their vehicles came out and testified so we have been working behind the scenes to try to figure out ways to identify and gather data on the number of families to

individuals that live in large-sightsed vehicles. i think that is a key issue that i am really appreciative of dufty but also supervisor chu for allowing a 6-month period so we can gather that data and get that information but also to identify key spaces in the city where large vehicles could be stored. but also, identify additional services, if people would give up their vehicles, or if they park in other areas where they could be located. i did want to reiterate one of the points that supervisor co-enmade. i know that there are 74 of these vehicles that are on long the street in my neighborhood as well. but the lion shares of vehicles are in districts 4, 6 and 10. but it is clear by the mapping done by the mta. this has been a year-long process that chu and her staff have worked oi know that the commercial vehicles and the bliet are the particular issue. my hope is that the amendments

by chu and supervisor chu it allows us to understand that human element and to define those services for the many people. i think that it was estimated by the coalition on homelessness that it is at least 165 people based on the 2011 homeless count. so my hope is that there is six months and has written in the amendment, this will give time to find some ways to address the needs of those people that are forced to live in those vehicles. some supportive of the legislation and appreciative of the amendments that have been proposed. >> supervisor olague. >> i have looked at this. it is definitely an issue in district five, also. so i think that it is an issue that definitely city-wide it has a lot of impacts. i do have some questions because i believe that the mta, is the mta representative here? >> they are coming.

>> yes. >> i am with the sfmta. >> i guess, one of the questions that i have is what laws do you have in place currently to address this issue? >> there are several supervisor olague. >> the 72-hour rule which is city-wide, you cannot leave a vehicle standing for more than 72 hours at any specific place at a time. another one would be the no parking between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. for commercial vehicles in residential areas. and that is every day, plus, one hour limit during the rest of the time. and the third one is the habitation in vehicles, which is in the police code. and enforced directly by the police department. >> so, i guess my question is, how do you plan to enforce

this... how do you plan to enforce this? >> well, we plan to work very closely with the residents as well as the officers of the supervisors to provide us input on the locations that have the greatest need. and we are not going to be doing this as supervisor chu mentioned earlier city-wide but only on a case by case basis when there is a significant impact. and once that is in place, then we will do some out-reach as well as target those specific areas for that type of enforcement. >> so then basically it is complaint-driven, then that... >> not necessarily because once we put it in, we will know the locations that we have originally planned and also, figure that it is a problem area, we will be watching it more closely than previously. and also it gives us a tool to kind of directly go in and

enforce, instead of having to chalk the vehicle and come back and have it parked and then come back in two to three days before ascertaining that it has not moved. >> i guess one of my concerns is, i am definitely going to support the legislation. i did have some amendments that i wanted to introduce that i believe that the city attorney were too substantial to be considered today. so i will read them if i have support of them. >> is it another situation sort of like... where you are just moving the problem around? >> do you know what i mean? >> now we have a sign here because we have considered these problem areas. are we creating problem areas someplace else? >> you are exactly right. we have to choose those locations very judiciously and deliberately, this is a pilot and we will see the impacts as to whether or not the changes will shift the problem from one location to another. >> okay. i just wanted to get your sense

of things, that is all. >> well, i will go ahead and read my amendment and see if there is support or not. to park a commercial vehicle for over 22 feet in length, or 7 feet in height or camp trailers, 5th wheel trailers, coaches, mobiler homes, and recreation vehicles or semitrailers as defined by the california vehicle code and health and safety code between the hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. when signs are posted giving notice. the mayor's office on homelessness, in conjunction with the municipal transit agency shall assess how many vehicles are inhabited and collect demographic information and study the impact this legislation will have on those inhabiting vehicles including any unintended consequences of the legislation.

this includes impact on other neighbors without signage, potential of losing vehicles to tow yard due to non-payment of fines and more. mta shall assess the possibility of opening parking lots in those same neighborhoods and creating partnerships with private entities to allow parking on private lots which are currently closed during the day. additionally, there shall be an assessment made of the capacity for the city to provide housing and support services for those individuals and families with children that choose to avail themselves with such resources. the mayor's office on homelessness and mta shall report to the board of supervisors and the findings on the items in the section within 90 days of the implementation of this ordinance. the implementation of this ordinance as it implies on the vehicles shall be contingent on the out come of the report and

the programs and services put in to place in order to address any potential findings that concern homeless family and individuals and subject to board approval. >> supervisor olague has made a motion. >> is there a second? >> further suggestion in >> avaros? >> thank you, president chu. i actually have copies of amendment that i thought was going to be proposed by olague that is different than what was read into the record and i want to support your amendment. if you have a written version that i could. >> yeah i am going to get some. >> i could look at? because i think that there is some aspects of it that i have that kind of contradict what you just talked about. and i just speak generally, my feeling about the amendments. >> you can speak to the amendments but obviously they impact the entire ordinance, go

ahead. >> i actually live in a district, 11, where we have a large number of over-sized vehicles and they are in the in any particular area, at least you might see concentrations along moscow street. alamony street. geneva and also commercial vehicles scattered throughout the greater parts of district 11. and if we are going to apply signs to limit commercial vehicles or oversized vehicles in general we will have to put signs on every block of district 11 and it seems unreal to me that we would actually be able to do that. in fact my office has worked for a number of years ever since i was been in office about how to deal with this seemingly im trackable problem of vehicles that are parked on our residential street that gets tagged and graffitis on a daily basis. it is a bliet to our

neighborhood and it has been raised by people in my district and great work that the people have done in my district. but i don't see that we are going to apply signs in every block in my district to make this happen. i also have concerns that we are actually a big part of this legislation, is targeting people who are homeless or living in their cars, living in vehicles. and we don't understand the total impacts of that. so i know that we have legislation, or amendments that are addressing that issue. but i truly do believe that there are really great unintended consequences that are effecting very low-income people, people bho have no money whatsoever who are living in their homes because they have no choice. i feel uncomfortable about putting in legislation that could be so broad in its approach. to me, the issue of oversized vehicles is the primarily issue. we have vehicles that are over 7 feet tall.

are over-sized vehicles that are 22 feet in length and they are bringing bliet to our neighborhoods. we have legislation that just the size of the vehicles without looking at trying to look specifically at issues of the people who are living in their homes. i think that it is a better approach to doing this and could achieve the same effect where we are not actually looking at targeting people who are homeless. i do believe and we we have a responsibility to help to find housing but also is that we have a humane approach about how we tend to their needs when they are life life living in their cars. we need the city to do something about the oversized vehicles parked in our residential areas, but maybe this might not be the best approach that we have to move forward on. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i wanted to take a moment to remind everyone in the chamber that earlier this year in july,

we passed a pretty healthy budget that gave a considerable amount of money to the homeless coalition, particularly i would like to remind people that we are talking about $5 million over two years that will not only help with out reach, those that want to be housed and helped. but also we are also constantly looking at more affordable options to house vehiclely housed families. and persons and individuals. and also, so i do, i disagree respectfully with supervisor alvaros i do not believe that it is targeting those that are homeless. this legislation is not mean spirited. it is a step in the right direction, something has to be done and i also support the amendments that supervisor chu has... chus have both of them put together and worked on to

ensure that this is not a mean-spirited and that we are not looking to displace those that are living in their cars. also, i want to acknowledge the commitment that supervisor dufty has made it san francisco and also been successful without implementing this particular program with housing programs, housing a family. i have one question for you. a point on the clarification on the amendments that you proposed. are you suggesting that we start with commercial vehicles, immediately? no you are saying that we will held off and wait 30 days? >> in fact i want to defer to the lead author. i understand that is what the agencies wanted. >> there were concerns about implementing the rv component and doing that at a six-month

period later and moving forward with the commercial vehicles, for all practical purposes it is im practical to post signs that everything except for rvs except for a few different things, and then, 6 months later change the signs all over again, it just makes since sense if there was a certain about implementation let's put them all off so there will not be multiple signage going up. and making sure that we do it once and we don't have to change the signs out shortly there after. >> thank you. >> mr. president, one last thing, i would like to call up up supervisor dfty if he would like to share the >> i was about to do the same. >> i know that there are issues raised on where this legislation is. i want to thank you for the work that you have done, if you could take a moment from your perspective and talk about what you have done and you plan in your office to do. >> sure, thank you.

colleagues. it is a privilege to be here. former colleagues, i apologize. let me first say that i appreciate that supervisor chu has been working on this legislation. her staff has been in regular contact with the hope office and so we have tried to better understand the population, better understand some of the challenges. and it appears from the standpoint of the commercial vehicles that there is broad consensus and when i have gone out with mta, i have seen quite a number of boats and campers not attached to vehicles, construction vehicles, i mean a tremendous amount of this situation does not in any way involve people's housing. but it is also clear that there are people that are residing in their vehicles. and over time, it has been a challenge to say, give up your vehicle and accept the services

that we have to offer. and it is very difficult for an individual or an individual with family to let go of the only housing that they have for something that feels very uncertain. and so i want to thank marian siase, the treasure island director who has been working with us and the homeless out reach team and the city view storage on treasure island. and so without regard to where this legislation stands, whether it is adopted or not. we have made a commitment that we are going to try a pilot effort with probably three vehicles that we would be able to store at city view storage on treasure island for a 3-month period. we are working through the details. but she advises that she has the support and agreement from the private storage company and the support of the treasure island office and this will be the first time that we could say, if you move into a stablization room, we will store your vehicle for a

three-month period and as long as you remain in case management. that vehicle will be stored without expense and see if we can provide something successful. i do want to say that for the purposes of our office, i have a very constructive relationship with the coalition on homelessness. and i am very grateful for the advocacy that they provide and the leadership, working with the member of the board on an advac to improve the emergency shelter and rapid rehousing and to be sure that the centers that are entry points where homeless are marginally housed to be better served. >> one of the first individuals that i met that was being assisted by the coalition of homelessness that has done a tremendous amount of work with families. it was a family in district ten. >> it was a 5-member family and they would not have given up that vehicle if they did not have housing to move into.

and it was not simple by any means. but i do believe that if this legislation passes, that i think that it does communicate a message that what the board has asked is that our office work with the department of public health and work with the mta and really try to assess what the circumstances are, what is the magnitude of the situation, does the ability to park vehicles encourage some individuals to accept services in a manner that has not happened before. and i assure you that the team has gone out and that there is a feeling i believe, on the part rightfully so of the people living in their vehicles. it is simply an enforcement approach. and not to push people around. our hospital is seeking to be responsive to the district of supervisor. and we can compile it and go forward with efforts that are

meaningful in terms of helping people but i definitely believe that this legislation is also addressing a large number of people that have the ability to pay for storage for vehicles and they are not doing it because nobody is forcing them to do that. and i think that this will separate people who have need from those who don't. and i want to add that the coalition challenges us to have resources available and that is a good conversation that is a role that they should play and i want to commit to you that i am carefully monitoring the availability of services. and i will not stand before you, or a camera, or my boss, the mayor, and assert that we have either rooms or shelter beds if they are not available. and so, that is something that i think is very important because i do believe that in the past, there have been times when people have said, yes, we have services to provide. the reality is that our shelters we are running at 96 to 99 percent, our stablization rooms we have a couple of

handfuls of them right now, and we are working to provide more i want to thank the department of public health and we are working with the budget office and so we are going to have an additional beds that have services around them. so we are carefully monitoring this and i do take the boards' concerns seriously and go forward with something that is a raish rational and be sure that we help those in the vehicle, verses those who are coming here and want to go to outside lands and want to stay here another two months. that is a different set of circumstances. and i would like to ask the doctor to a a word or two. >> i am dr. pan, i am the clinical director. and i support what he has been saying about the population and for the last eight years of our existence, we have been

engaging or trying to engage people in the campers. this is one of the toughest populations that we have to engage because people don't see themselves as necessarily homeless, these are their camper as their home and others are out there and don't want to engage with anybody else. >> and when that is leading those aside and coming into a single room building in the mission, a lot of people prefer to hang out in their campers. but i think that this particular effort to try to store the campers for a few months while we give people the opportunity to try something different out. something more main stream, something safer in some ways, that it is something worth trying. we have engaged a set of folks in the park, and every time we had to try something different that met the specific needs of that population. we are trying the same effort

here and hoping that it works and as he said, this is something that we are going to do regardless of the legislative process here. but we are certainly hoping to have some success with that and possibly expand it in the future if it is successful. >> supervisor cohen? >> gentleman, thank you very much. thank you for adding some content and some color to the ordinance that we are dealing with today. >> thank you, doctor. >> okay. push >> it is all yours. >> supervisor chu. >> thank you, president chu. i did want to say a few things. there is a question about whether or not we can bifercate out rvs i think that that will not work. some vehicles are oversize and large at the moment and do not have commercial plates and so this has been a problem that we have had in the past. while there is the ability for the mta to add restrictions for

commercial vehicles, not all over-sized vehicles have commercial plates and that is what it is used to enforce. >> there are also a number of residential vehicles that are being stored without inhabitants. so it is not always been the people that are living in the rvs, there are people that have a address and they are parked elsewhere. and so i wanted to participate that. i think that olague brought up the point of does it create movement from place to place, i think that is a critical question and i think if we were not to pass this and leave it as is, we would have the same continued problem, we don't see any change or any ability to move forward. verses if we have this mta, it has committed to us to be able to move and proceed carefully with this legislation to be selective about the face that they do put the signs up and to work in consultation with each supervisor to make sure that the areas where they are

looking at and each of the districts are places that we want to have the restrictions. i think that this is a commitment that they have made as they move forward and the legislation passed and it is absolutely valid and great point and that is why, we are very careful about how it is that this is approached. and that is also why as part of the approach we did not put this as a city-wide restriction. this is something that will be used in chronickly impacted area. and i wanted to make those viewpoints. i wanted to clear up some confusion, folks asked about the different amendments that are out there. supervisor david chu has offered a number of amendments which i seconded and that has been passed out to you, the most recent edition. it does clarify that the mta, at its discretion because they have oversight than the