affordable housing is found and my other hypothesis is people most likely to be engaged are the vehicles out of registration or whose licenses had some defect at the time or the vehicles were in poor mechanical condition and out of the four people one person i think has quite a significant mental illness and has a hard time navigating the social ecology of anywhere and one person's vehicle is in that condition. they are uninsured and unregistered at that time and realize they're vulnerable to tow but don't see other options and the others' vehicles are registered but can't afford housing at their current income so we are focusing on those folks and upgrade of

employment, obtaining better or more work but it's quite a challenge. the part of me that is here that is available to speak for the department says that there is a chance as a result of this legislation that we will see more people who are homeless on the street as opposed to more people who are homeless or housed in their vehicles and from a population and health perspective i would consider that to be a negative outcome, but it is perhaps an una vaidable one and i think it returns the search for affordable housing. i am available for any questions. >> thank you. i think one of the things that is interesting as you talked about in terms of people actually responding. i think this is one of the things we talked about with bevin and for the most part it's a population generally difficult to reach out to and accept services and i think you spoke a little bit to that and i think the fact that we have folks

that reached out and desire to see a change i think is positive. i will agree we're always going to be chasing after resources we need for folks who need it so i think that is something that we will have to continue to do and i think this will highlight the need that is part of that that we haven't seen in the past and i think that is something that could be a positive for the city so i understand your point of view. i think it's a good opportunity for us to focus on what could be done and what more to do and what we need with the vehicle component. >> i understand. any other questions? >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i wanted to take a minute and complement you and your team as well as you bevin and reaching out and finding four people. that is something to be acknowledged and i am really excited about that. >> quite a few more people expressed interest in it and wanted to learn about the possibility of having their

vehicle stored. i'm just reporting on the folks i met with individually after we fliered who called me. people spoke with the outreach workers and got the same set of information. i am looking at the second level of people who really decided to affirmatively push for contact before the legislation that wanted the information and that maybe the higher functioning folks out there. >> thank you. why don't we open up this item for public comment? are there members of the public that would like to speak on item two? i don't have speaker cards in front of me. come on up. >> [inaudible] negative aspect would be true that if you took -- i just got off the streets and everything. got an rv and it's more stable than what i

had to move forward, but if the law passes it's like -- it would be like taking my vehicle. i would be back in a shopping cart. i am going from here to here. there's a lot of -- lots around the place. you guys maybe make a lot or section for the campers, community campers could reside like a little community. it's an idea. i feel like i paid for a house and sro before and it didn't work out for me. i'm not the richest guy in the world but i own my home. as a american citizen have the right to drive -- have a camper, and maybe understand a little bit

about here the park and the whole bunch but it's like me saying i don't like suv's. let's ban them out here because it's a little bit different but that's the way i feel about it. i know there are other people that feel that way. that's basically what i have to say. >> thank you. >> hi. i am nick. i am a resident of district one. my supervisor unfortunately voted for this legislation. i want to say i'm still opposed to this legislation. i think it's an enforcement measure. the mta has 74 hour parking signs in my district and others. they're not enforcing those and why they could enforce this code. you say the goal is not to punish but the laws will

result in cases seizure of a person's home because of their inability to pay the fines. obviously if they had the money for the fines they wouldn't be living in the vehicle when they could have a home. like jason said the issue is affordable housing. i am glad you admit it's a program and highlighting the pressure however the solution is not a solution. it's a criminalized effort. i see this as an attack on inpoverished people and you said they're hard to get to and i don't know why would this result them assimilate into the greater society. this is a marginalization target to push them out which is the goal. they choose between a vehicle where they have privacy or a shelter living on the floor

with hundreds of people and one staff person to watch them at night. it's not a choice in my mind. i don't think someone should have to choose living in their home and criminalized for that or go to a shelter or sro in the tenderloin with people with mental health and bed bugs. and that four people came forward i don't think that is an achievement and happy valentine's day and i hope you consider this. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. i guess i want to talk about why you people profile, discriminate against, and oppress people who want to have their own right to their pursuit of happiness. these guys are out chasing buildings.

i just wish you would leave my rv alone. i don't live in the city. i am here visiting a dying friend and i already had a ticket for littering water, triple filtered water. i paid it in court. i guess this is the time you get to keep the rest. peace. >> next speaker please. if there are other members that would like to speak on this issue if i can ask if you line up along the side. go ahead. >> my name is hector vales. i live in rv. i can't afford rent. reant is too high even in sro's and have been applying for housing over a year

now. anyway my vehicle haven't fit the criteria of being over sized. it's a van. it's a rv van but nevertheless i'm targeted because i'm living in it. i keep getting these things stuck on my window all the time even though i move it. it's just they don't want me there you know. it's all these thing about oversight. it's just that they don't want anybody living in their cars in this city and that's what it comes down to, and i do not want to sleep in the street. >> thank you. next speaker. >> like everybody else here i am living in an rv right now

because for one i'm a struggling musician and i have equipment that is worth a lot of money and i came from a tent and i had things stolen from me. knowing that we have these programs out here is kind of nice, but instead of having signs saying what you can't do maybe have signs to tell you where you can go in certain neighborhoods whatever. where we park -- we're parked in an area that is not even really the business -- it's a business area, and we try not to park in front of businesses, so their business can have parking as one couple complaints business owners we had when we're not even in front of their building. i just would like to know more information on where we can reside if there is going to be a ban completely

exile us out of the city, but now that i am hearing what is going on that the programs are trying to find places for us i will try to find out a little bit more. i appreciate you guys doing what you can, but having a ban -- i know it's more of industrial vehicles that are being a problem than rv's, but i know a lot of the homeless people they recycle and some people don't clean up after themselves. they leave big messes and i think us being in rv's we try to contain our habitation. we have our bathroom for sanitation reasons. there is no really -- you know what? this is an idea for you guys to have more bathrooms or like out houses in some areas -- >> thank you. >> for sanitary reasons --

>> thank you. >> because a lot of the businesses won't allow to you walk in. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you. >> hello. my name is isaac and i just have a couple of things that are on my mind. i was just wondering why -- okay. so the city is trying to fix the homeless issue, trying to improve the homeless shelters, and the overall aspect of the homeless, so my thing is why would the city try to push people out of their homes to make it worse because if we're trying to fix one thing it's another thing, and this doesn't

make any sense because there is already overflow in the shelter system and this would make it worse so i think you guys should try to fix the shelter system before you fix another thing so that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am that tasha det from theric and i live in supervisor campos' district and i found out about this by the coalition of homelessness, and i am really upset about it actually. to my understanding this law came through kind of without proper due process, not a ton of transparency, and people got upset about it, so there was an agreement made there would be public or community conversations that would happen before this went into place. that there would be some sort of conversation where

this would take place and for what reasons, and before it went into effect, before signs went up, so at this point it seems like a total disregard for the agreements made, but i guess that's just how things go. i don't know. i'm a person with integrity and i like to do what i say i'm going to do, and i expect that of my city, and right now i feel embarrassed about san francisco because what i hear is a priority on complaints about big vehicles. i don't hear a priority about affordable housing. that's the messed up priorities. affordable housing -- i mean okay shelter beds, more shelter beds. there aren't enough shelter beds for the hundreds of people kicked out of the vehicles. i have been to shelters. i would not want to sleep there. if i had a car i

would absolutely stay in my car, but regardless focus on affordable housing. then get to the issue of moving big vehicles that are a problem. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there are no other speakers this will be the last speaker. >> hello. my name is rubin and i volunteer with the coalition on homelessness and i wasn't planning to speak but was inspired by what the gentleman said in the green hoody said. seems like there has been regarding the vehicle housing issue some parameters and you can't be here with this size of vehicle or these hours and regarding what this gentleman said about putting -- and what this other gentleman said a lot where the vehicles can be or giving options where they can put the vehicles, providing options for them that could integrate them more into the

bigger picture instead of seeming to put them in a corner and back them up because with this issue and along with the tazer issue that san francisco is currently dealing with -- i lived here six years and it and san francisco is a forward city but seems like san francisco is a dime a dozen to me and to me is it a forward liberal forward thinking city? >> thank you. sure. let me just close public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. >> thank you supervisors. i just want to briefly say that the members of this committee, of the 11 members of the board of supervisors are at the top three of individuals who have enlisted hope, have pressed hope and have asked us to be

responsive and be creative in a number of different situations, but i do want to say that supervisor chu and kama blackstone of her staff have stayed with us and dialogue us with to make sure that we do the best possible. i want to say to the individual who testified about being in a vehicle not over sized and certainly we will extend whatever resources we can whether the ridiculous is over sized or not. >> >> clear clee we want it to go better and i feel this legislation has given us impetus to talk to the mayor's office and we need more resources for stabilization beds. i have been fortunate -- this is a year yesterday that i have been doing this job and so i really have been grateful for the constructive engagement that i had with the coalition and i really appreciate that people

have come forward that perhaps have never come to a board of supervisors before and testify and talk about their circumstances and that in of itself is a very positive step. that is something good because it gives us an opportunity to engage and understand better and to hopefully be more effective, and so i just want to pledge to you, the individuals here to speak, and the organizations they're involved in that we want to work closely to do right by people and make something positive happen within the context of an issue much larger than this. this is a subset of it and difficult element of it but there are people in the city that have been impacted and it's reasonable for them to petition their government and we need to take a difficult situation and make it work. i want to thank you. i understand the concerns expressed today but you as supervisors have helped us to engage individuals and engaged us to do better and support

initiatives so the city can do a better job at responding to homelessness. >> thank you very much. i department to respond -- thank you to the previous supervisor. i mean bevin was always responsive so we want to thank him for his continued service. i just wanted to respond to a few things that i heard today and i want to thank all of you, even of the folks that came out of a different mind than i am to express their thoughts. i heard folks talk about the vehicle and the fear what to do with the vehicle and potentially find a place for storage. i think this is something the legislation has been brought to the forefront of the city and we had folks in vehicles and we didn't do much. we weren't successful for reaching out for a variety of reasons and i

think the legislation has helped to get our minds, get bevin's mind, and the mayor's mind around this issue and homelessness and not just the streets but in vehicles and how can we find resources, space to house vehicles so people don't lose this one asset that they have and very much valued and bevin really brought that issue to us when we were talking about this legislation, something he brought toure mind that we weren't aware of it and he had a wonderful job and how we approach that issue and that wasn't done before and that under scores the need to continue the work there. another person talked about the 72 hour enforcement. we tried that. in the district since i started back in 2007 had been working on the 72 hour enforcement. it's been the same. it hasn't changed at all

so knowing that we have scwars resources with the police officers and can't do the enforcement that way to make the 72 hour work this is just an additional tool for the mta to use, so i want you to know we have tried using though resources. we have tried the existing laws on the book to address some of the perpetual issues in the district. that hasn't worked for us. it may work different places but it hasn't worked in our area. i think then there is the other issue about having to fix one thing before we move on to this. i think what this will help us do is really highlight the issues of folks who are living in their homes. i think it will really help us figure out what we need and the resources we need to address that issue, so i don't think that we fix -- if we say you fix affordable housing before this issue then we wouldn't ever work on any other thing and affordable housing is

such a large issue that we have to continue working on. you know the bonds recently passed by the voters to make significant investment in affordable housing. there is a lot more to do so that is something always on the forefront of the city's work, and finally i think i wanted to address the issue of process. i think that the mta has been working very much to lay the ground work how they would implement this from an organizational point of view. i know bevin has done a tremendous job reaching out to folks in the homeless count and the hot team and you can correct me if i am wrong. my understanding you plan to go back two more rounds so people are aware they're receiving that information so that is still forth coming. i think for the mta they wanted to narrow down where the implementation would begin before they did outreach so meaning outreach fliering the

neighborhood and folks are involved. they have been engaging the police department folks who have knowledge day to day about some of the ground floor issues happening in the neighborhoods. they reached out to the supervisor's offices and heard from the residents about problematic areas. they took the information and how are we going to start. how are we going to measure this? how do we create the laws so people understand the rules are? that's what they have been working on. they will continue to do outreach. they will continue once they have selected pilot areas they reach out to the neighborhoods and that is forth coming. that's why the implementation is not march 1 like everyone thought. it's going to be later so i wanted to make that point very clear. to the gentleman that was talking about the smaller vehicles that would not be covered under this law. as you know this is simply for vehicles that meet a certain size and height and length restriction so that is

different, so i just wanted to make sure some of the things and i think bevin wanted to reach out to you and other folks interested in the program even if you're not in an over sized vehicle for something positive. i know this is a very hard issue. we focus on the human element and this is a important piece of the legislation and we need to address this part, but i want to remind folks when we talked about this legislation as well it's not blanket across the city. we need to measure it and see how it works. in addition to that we have a lot of vehicle when is we did the initial look with the mta. i have 206 vehicles and more than half were registered to a san francisco address and not within a quarter mile of the homes and a lot of storage on the city streets where people are registered somewhere and parking in other places so there are lots of elements as part of the

legislation and i do hear you and i hope that we can continue working together. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i wanted to make a couple of comments and i wanted to ask supervisor dufty and again one point i know there are differences in opinion how to proceed with these issues, but one thing that is very clear i don't think that anyone should question or doubt the motives. i think people here are trying to do the right thing, and we may have disagreements how to do certain things, but i know every supervisor here cares about the comments that were made and certainly cares about people, and i think something else that we're probably all in agreement about is the fact that that i am certainly grateful that supervisor dufty and his office are working with the mta because i know they're going to bring a certain level of respect and understanding to the needs of the folks that are impacted

that i think is really important, so supervisor i was just wondering if you could tell us about for folks that find themselves in this situation that they maybe you know living in vehicles that are covered -- i mean what are the things we would like them to know and to do? one gentleman i think rightly noted we see the signs that tell us we can't do certain things but the things that we can do. >> so the fliers have the 24 number for the hot team. jason is very forth coming with the cell phone number so jason's number is eight five zero 7413. and i think those are the best routes. the hope office as well. certainly we're working closely with jason and his team so anyone can contacted us. we're in room 18 of city hall

so if someone is living in a vehicle they could come to room 18 in city hall or contact me, so we welcome the opportunity to make a connection, understand what people's circumstances are, and how we can work with them, and i think we're going to try and take an individual approach as we can with each situation and see what we can do. >> okay. thank you. thank you supervisor. i appreciate it. and again thank you to you and your office and to the mta for their work, and i just want to make a comment in response to some of the things said today. let me say this. i voted against this legislation, not because i was questioning or requested the intent. i think the supervisors that brought it forward are trying to address legitimate concerns and even though i voted against the legislation i can see there is a benefit in having something like this because we are having

these discussions, but i do think there is a larger point that goes beyond this legislation that i think is important for us to keep in mind here in this building. we in san francisco are very fortunate that we have very thriving economy, and we are doing extremely well relative to the rest -- not only the country, the state, but even relative to the rest of the bay area, and i really think that we have to use this opportunity to address i think a fundamental problem that we have that we have in many respects in these times of great wealth and progress for some folks. we have a tale of two cities in a way. we have some people doing extremely well in san francisco,, and then we have people who are

struggling, and i think we as a city collectively need to make a priority ensuring that the needs of the people who are struggling are indeed met, and what you see is you have issues like this one that that problems surface because i don't believe we are doing enough as a city to really address this larger issue, and i think until we do that these issues will continue to come to the surface, and i think what we're doing is very positive, but the reality is that as much as i know supervisor dufty and other agencies want to do all these amazing things they also don't have the resources they need to make those things happen, so i think we as policy makers need to ma