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 board of supervisors. i do not believe that you have a copy in front of you. there are two separate motions that are on the floor, i am not support of supervisor olague. >> you i hope that you are supportive of the amendments by chu. >> have yours been circulated yet? >> mr., president, they have just been handed out. >> okay. >> i have a copy. >> supervisor comp os. >> thank you, mr. president and i certainly appreciate the

discussion and i think that i understand the intent behind the legislation, and i think that it is important that we do something, that we take action. and it is not the intent that i worry about but it is simply along the lines of what supervisor alvoros was noticing 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