Skip to main content

tv   BOS Replay Land Use Committee 22216  SFGTV  February 22, 2016 6:00pm-8:11pm PST

6:00 pm
>> all right. good afternoon, everyone we're going to get starting i want to welcome you the meeting will come to order rules and regulations san francisco land use & transportation simon's
6:01 pm
supervisor cowen i'm i chair to my right is is supervisor wiener the vice chair and to my left is supervisor peskin our clerk is alicia i'd like to thank phil jackson and jim smith from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meanwhi meeting and madam clerk, any announcements? please silence all electronic devices. muks set cell phones on vibrate, the vibration could cause an interruption in the proceedings. >> item acted will appear the march first agenda. >> item one an ordinance amending at planning code for the fillmore street commercial transit district with certain restrict and refresh my recollection fantastic today, we'll coner johnston from supervisor president london breed office to present welcome. >> thank you whoelg and good afternoon in the planning code
6:02 pm
to allow mackay signs on certain buildings the fillmore transit transit the board of supervisors unanimously are spattered supervisor cowen's legislation last year and she thank here colleagues 24 allows a business in building of 3 or more to display a vertical sign high that didn't prevent architectural features above 60 feet only a handful of businesses that meet the criteria the fillmore auditorium a long time neighborhood entertainment venue that will allow the auditorium to provide signage that is more property for the size and scale of the building and the location of geary in the user freeways and the economic & workforce development the 4 lane divided
6:03 pm
the japan in a rebuttal less effort to funnel cars having large marquee signs will help fillmore town as more as a postal definition and intol bridge the gap by 9 geary bridge way the auditorium will help brand the fillmore has the castro theatre always the inspire is here castro theatre has brant the castro on behalf of 6 supervisor breed i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and aaron star is here to talk about this. >> good afternoon, supervisors aer aaron starr manager, legislative affairs the planning commission heard this last year and voted unanimous for approval with modifications the commissions modifications include requiring the as i understand to apply a remote tormentor to be narrow as
6:04 pm
feasible requiring the sign as disconnect halos and limit the sign to one per building and minimal more t for the primary occupant the commission thank you to supervisor president breed for incorporating the amendment today that concludes my remarks thank you. >> thank you for your presentation mr. johnson is that it fantastic colleagues, any questions we'll take them now opening it up for public comment to any member of the pedicublict times to speak 23 minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'll make a motion to send this to those the full board. >> motion made and we'll take that without objection. this that item passes thank you, madam clerk. >> could you call item 4. >> an ordinance for the house
6:05 pm
for prevention of tobacco dealers to sell to people 19 and 20 and 21. >> supervisor wiener is the author of this ingenious idea. >> thank you, colleagues the legislation before us will there the legal age to purchase tobacco products from san francisco from 18 to 21 afghanistan's i want to as well supervisor mar and supervisor farrell for the after-school program and thank to the small business commission, the board of education, the health commission and youth commission who have all each 3w0d enforced the legislation unanimously and lastly i want to thank the army hearted association the american society and the to free coalition for their strong support and partnership in
6:06 pm
moving this proposal forward colleagues by increasing the legal age to purchase all tobac tobacco prominenduced if 18 to this ordinance will treat traditional produced and other products in the same mandrin thank you to supervisor mar that is the leading cause of preventive deaths killing 5 hundred thousand people every year and coming out the united states 1 hundred and 70 employed in health care according to a study but usf the average cost of smoking is $400 million in direct and indirect health care costs when it comes to youth and adolescence up to 1/3rd of high school students commune tobacco and in san francisco 5.4 percent
6:07 pm
of high school students regularly smoke cigarettes and use south side in san francisco nearly one in 5 high school students regularly commune tobacco products each day that seven hundred children under the age of 18 are regular daily smokers and 1/3rd will eventually die prematurely to that tobacco use and 6 million children under the age of 18 that are alive today will vehicle no. die and 95 percent of smoking starts before the age of 21 people that start smoking added teens are lifelong smokers than the 20 and high school students are 3 times for likely to consonant alcohol and 8 times for likely to use marijuana and 22 times more likely to use other drugs high school students that smok r
6:08 pm
are likely to drop out and experience pregnancycy the nicotine changes the brain of the adolescence and children according to the medicine field if we purpose from age 18 to 20 a 25 percent drop in use of smoking a 12 percent in overall smoking a 12 percent drop in premature brirt and sunday infant sin downstream this is new york city and state of hawaii hallway for configuring the age of children we're part of a growing trespassed the country we hope will go eventually be a national standard and locally santa clara
6:09 pm
county adopted the use for urban incorporated areas and hillsborough as you recall passed on ordinances raises the tobacco purchasing to 21 but unfortunately was bullied by the tobacco industry into withdrawing it under the threat of an expensive latitude a bill to raise the tobacco purpose age throughout the state of california stalled in the legislatiof course due to intense lobbying bank rolled by the cigarette butt cigarette industry that doesn't change the hypotheticlo ordinance not the sell but the consumption the enforcement mechanism will be exactly the exactly the same for people under the age of 18. colleagues thank you for your consideration of this important
6:10 pm
public health if no questions i want to invite of two folks from the department >> supervisor peskin. >> thank you, madam chair through the chair to supervisor wiener you touched on the preexemption if we could here fr hear from the sdoopt with regards to preexemption issues that are clearly a letter in the file from an organization that seems to be threatening litigation we would like to hear we're not preexempted. >> okay john gibner, deputy city attorney there are - state law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors our law would not duplicate economic e contradict or massachusetts make enforcement that have difficult or
6:11 pm
impossible it compliments the state law in a way that sources the city complies with the state and the local law the state law also does not occupy the entire field of tobacco legislation and california court of appeals interpreting the installing has so done so we are not preexpectpreempted. >> madam chair thank you to the 0 deputy city attorney for that explanation we do believe this law is defenseable a tobacco industry that because it is products serve no purpose and kill people it is an industry for 50 years or more has to fight having very hard to kill
6:12 pm
any sensible public health through spending numerous amounts of money and campaigns for years had the industry denied the california link to cancer and others illness and it's not sprooirlt the industry understanding i know the industry does had you hook hopp when in their young you're likely to hook them on smoking for life so it is not surprising to see the industry fight an effort to increase the tobacco from 18 to 21 that demographic 18 and 19 and 20 is a prime target for this industry to try to hook young people to smoke as a they gastrogrow old two to three from tobacco pursuits they bullied the industry out of
6:13 pm
enforcing the legislation i'm critical of the hillsborough decisions a small city not the best resources to be able to defend and to do toe-to-toe san francisco has an industry of putting forward cutting-edge legislation in public health and public safety and other areas and fighting the industry efforts to undermine our efforts we won i think we'll thiwin aga here. >> thank you, supervisor wiener to the planning department. >> excuse me. the department of public health. >> thank you, supervisor we appreciate the attention i'll derrick with the san francisco public health department i'll
6:14 pm
not be redundant i coffer most of key points but i'll talk slightly about the research on this issue and to make sure you have a little information number one preventive cause of death motor vehicles look at health disordered and people decide from smoking and haeshishgs and you have a one day one it is likely cancer link to smoking and in addition south side that are all included in this proposal that presents unknown health risks and use by young folks double year after year young people get addicted to
6:15 pm
nicotine the major crux of this ordinance is really getting to the point of reducing the addiction i don't even know pop eople get i indicated 22 percent of condolence get their cigarettes from another person 18 percent are assessing from stories state and federal to minors but their purchasing or receiving a friend or family member and as the supervisor said almost all smokers today minute you know in every case started with a sweet spot up to 21 years and condolenc adolescence who are likely to get their cigarettes ever so slightly the 18 to 20-year-old break down no longer an asset to
6:16 pm
access to people younger wouldn't have that social are source any longer and the health as the institute released a strong research that state that increasing the minimum age of purchase will change how we see cigarettes in our community across the country their projections are a 20 percent decrease in one small community in particular but in general a tremendous number of nationally became a trend we're seeing this it quickly across the country we'd like to see hundreds of thousands fewer avoidable deaths those people were not smoking and became sick and probably immediate instructioreductions
6:17 pm
birth barbs and other issues we continue to monitor in san francisco a visual map that is already been outdated this is moving at a quick level we know of over one and 88 municipalities that are dealing with that the entire state of hawaii additionally the city of massachusetts raised the minimum age to 21 that was a great natural experiment the communities didn't change the angle of purchase continued at 18 and in comparison with other communities have dropped in 5 years it is possible you know no way to project but possible the smoking rate will decline in san francisco we'll be monitoring that at department of public
6:18 pm
health any colleague jean will talk about the enforcement that takes place now after the pa passage of this ordinance. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm jeanine young the now health inspector so current the department of department of public health sends educational mailers and conducts inspections we partner with the san francisco police department for a minor program and since 2008 the san francisco police department minor deploy department has conducted 18 hundred site visits and products were sold to the decoy minor at 200 sites and the for the rigma sites have 75 days including it
6:19 pm
was a regime violation so what i'd like to say about this current proposed legislation during the first floor none will be penalized for selling to an individual 18 are 19 or two retailers that sell those to folks will be getting a notification that the all opposed by the same sign them the law has changed before the one year grace period ends we'll do our adolescendue diligence i informing small businesses through mailers and stickers and site is visits and other methods after the grace periods our procedures for selling to 8 and 19 and 20 years old will be light same procedure i explained easily or earlier and finally i'd like to share that the first
6:20 pm
time offenders we have an opportunity for those offenders to reduce their compunction period we're here to answer any questions you may have thank you. >> thank you for your presentation supervisor wiener any remarks you have. >> i don't have the only presentation that was it so it make sense to have public comment. >> opening it up for public comment at this point again two minutes if you want to comment please line up to my left. >> i've got a stack of comment cards so when you hear your name, please line up. (calling names). >> yes. gilbert here we go
6:21 pm
again a supervisor that are many supervisors they're also telling young people what to do and impose there will on young adults that are consenting adults you expect 18 and 19 and 20 years old to vote yet not respect their choices in life you this is another way of government interfering with people in private lives you, you tried to cram down the soda tax that came out and so said no now your forcing this legislation down the throats of san franciscans that are should be able to make their own decisions for their lives and not government always in the city
6:22 pm
attorney should know better i hope the abstratobacco industry listening to this hearing and sues the city attorney i hope they spends thousands and millions of dollars defeating this ordinance you're out tof control i'm boycotting the castro and never to the bayview you'll get showdown or stabbed there so many supervisoany supe that supports this legislation. >> good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public i'm bob gordon chief executive officer of the tobacco free accreditati coalition some of the members will be spec in support that will limit use of access to the tobacco and decrease the smoking rate and will preventi many lifetimes of awe incision we're
6:23 pm
made up of any volunteers and oversig health organization american heart association and american cancer network and other community-based organizations such youth leadership institute the bay area community and the vietnamese center just a few fewer people smoking will benefit the individuals that are near and dear to my heart to us but the benefits to the city as a whole less tobacco use means tremendous cost saivevings and fewer people smoking will have safer environmentalists and ills that are associated with the 20 tobacco and lung and heart all times to be associated with the tobacco and overall
6:24 pm
environmentlessly toxic cigarette waste san francisco we have worked to protect our young people from a lifetime of awe six h decision during the early years we hope our entire community with our support will join us in needless deaths in awe definitioictionary in our communities. >> thank you for the opportunity i'm karen i'm a resident pediatrician in my thirty years i support this effort and speak as part of medical society one thing i wanted to stress in particular as mentioned some is the reduction in prebirth babies and
6:25 pm
citizens advisory committee a population that is near and dear to my heart as a pediatrician and there is a negative yet combination between teen pregnancy and pregnant and pirating rate by increasing the tobacco sale age to 21 this is not only a it is he felt to be for the youth and public at large this is a measure that will support that will help of babies and the last thing i wanted to mention has although is that limits the anonymous of young people as i mentioned i
6:26 pm
want to state there is no benefit to people at all to human race of tobacco no by the people of a substance or something it is common that the - legislator has an event regarding something i'll bring up first subset legislation and speeding laws infringes on our sa >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon general public i'm joking i didn't a research fellow at the interest for the tobacco research at usf i like to speak briefly about
6:27 pm
the 2014 bayview adult young survey that our center helped to conduct the bay area those are statistics in the bay area that 80 percent of the bay area young adults started smoking green before 18 between 18 we 21, 40 percent of our local smokers started in that crucial age range now at the same time our study found that for 18 to 20 years old that the vast majority of those youth and young adults got their cigarettes from friends rather than convenience stores so the impact on retailers will be between - roughly two percent of all tobacco sales a win-win
6:28 pm
with minimal costs to the public and extreme benefits for the future of san francisco but the real winners are the 1 to 17 year-old angle group that will not pass an 18-years old and will likely see a 25 percent decrease in innovatiitiation whe fda commission in the 2015 report to look at the age 21 and age 25 as potential cut off dates they found age 21 is the sp sweet spot for public health. >> thank you next speakers
6:29 pm
(calling names). >> good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public i'm corey pots i'm an administrator if the san francisco unified school district i support the wellness and the tobacco youth prospective education of course with the mission high schoddle school we provide the health education at the middle school against tobacco for youth as well as par education for the high school levels we support this legislation because it will reduce the access of tobacco products with including the e cigarettes wiin our schools and community and see it very much as is educate issue as supervisor wiener krieltd i'd like to note that 32 moos plus in our african-american have ever tried an e cigarettes
6:30 pm
product and 20 percent of the latino murder in the third degree schoolers as well as 41 p.s. .5 percent so we have a disproportion rate of youth in our at risk communities and that includes the environmental of this legislation will help reduce the access to our students and increase the health for the students. >> thank you. >> wilma. >> good afternoon madam chair supervisors and public i'm willing mar who is a volunteer of the american cancer society cancer action network i'm also recipient here in san francisco and i'm concerned about our
6:31 pm
young adults becoming cancer candidates tobacco is the leading cause of profitable deaths the u.s. and increases the risk to many types of cancer tobacco companies the leading target young people before they can fully appreciate the consequences of becoming addicted to the deadly products 95 percent of smokers begin smoking before 9 age of 21 this ordinance will help prevent the out i youth of san francisco from sub coming to an awe definition that costs them their lives and the poor and underserved something about at higher rates it has the greatest potentiality to impact the lives of those populations we thank san francisco for the
6:32 pm
the leader in public health and urge the committee to support the protection of many youth and young adults the city thank you very much. >> thank you >> next speaker. >> kathy office of the city administrator administrator. >> good afternoon my name is kathy a volunteer legislator ambassador for the cancer action network and a fresh start smoking farlirst name i'm a recipient to the richmond district thanks four listening for the public comment. each year more than 82 california children start with the cigarettes and kids are more smoking and young adults can't present the danger of smoking young adults and teenagers try
6:33 pm
smoking not thinking they'll be smokers i did one one is addicted to nicotine it is hard to stop because the habit is the hardest part it begins 345e8d and accrue years before the an impact is felt i know from teaching the fresh start most of adults age 40 and 50 in any class starting smoke at 15 or 16 and never united nations tried to quit they end up in my class with bronchitis or lung cancer it is a little bit late better safe than sorry we don't sell alcohol to kids under 21 to make something inconvenient people wouldn't do
6:34 pm
it thank you for your time and consideration (calling names). >> yeah my name is angling a angle rasa part of chronicle the youth leaders for b c ar i support the ideas of sf increasing the minimum age to 21 the youth my circlsiblings are g peer pressure to start smoking i don't want to see and that is something i support smoking means what now is vaping protecting others against smoke that is something that can cause lung cancer and heart disease south e
6:35 pm
second-hand vap is detrimental to health. >> randy (calling names). >> good afternoon i'm randy wong i am a local is tobacco protect be contact it is key in tobacco policymaking for that reason i'm glad our considering supporting this measure like this by reducing and preventing the consequences will to help with health care treatment and so for that reason i'm glad our considering those steps.
6:36 pm
>> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors i'm christopher i'm the e cigarette control coordinator at golden gate health partnership i wholeheartedly support san francisco increasing the age for the tobacco to 21 because nicotine impedes and causes health effects you'our research shows that tobacco companies target kids through sarge's and e cigarettes they are fruit and candy like flavors we surveyed one and 50 san francisco teens and 80 percent of youth have e cigarettes and sars and of those youth 85 percent prefer the flavor in san francisco raise the minute age to 21 not only will youth have less access to
6:37 pm
the flavor product but prevent lifetime addiction to nicotine. >> he will i'm teddy live in the upper hate in district 5 a member of the lgbtq that works to educate and advocate for protecting lgbt if tobacco and work with the lgbt services have directly seen this as people try to gquit smoking tobacco use within the lgbt is much higher than 50 percent for the lgbt and 3 times greater for lgbt women and many of the men and women started smoking in their youth because of significant ma and aggressive marketing towards the lgbt community lgbt youth are particularly vulnerable due to lack of
6:38 pm
support and the to be the tobacco industry targets the lgbt young people and smokers raising the minimum age to 21 will limit the access for the lgbt and prevent them from picking up their e cigarettes thank you. >> thank you supervisor cowen i'm a general surgeon in san francisco the secretary the medical society and the chair of the american heart association for the united states of america we're proud of the success in passing the legislation in july i wanted to applaud the author of this bill for the intelligence and encourage to move forward since the publication of the surgeon generals support on the intervening 50 years many folks have died from tobacco and countless number of lives have
6:39 pm
been impacted as you recaa resu those deaths if you added the deaths the wars you have to multiplied that by 10 to accounted for the results of tobacco and i have a letter from dr. richard the president of the san francisco medical society a letter in support 37 important legislation i wanted to finish by highlighting two some of the interesting constrictions as a result of intense lobbying by the tobacco industry the electronic cigarettes have in the on extended as a tobacco by the legislation i don't believe that that will hold if that a a area, and, secondly, there is been an effort by the industry the electronic cigarette mustards to argue that electronic cigarettes are safer if that's the belief i'll call upon them to issue to stop the salsa of the traditional cigarettes if they have a safer
6:40 pm
alternative thank you for your leadership and ongoing legislati legislation. >> (calling names) alex i can't read you're writing sorry about your last name and james. >> thank you supervisor cowen and supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speak i'm across the city i'm the chairman of the board before the great bay area of the american heart association and to speak in support that have legislation it is simple as a father of two one teenager and one tiny don't want my teens to smoke that makes everything wourz it makes every single medical condition worse the healrt association looks at7
6:41 pm
things chest and high blood pressure and sodium and smoke so the less smoking it is that simple as many people have said before me 90 percent of people that smoke start as adolescents and it is one that is developing nicotine changes the brain in a serious way and creates a lifetime addiction by raising the age you'll stem the tide and reduce the deaths and the number of smokers the future that will save money for the city of san francisco which spends over $380 million every year on the direct and indirect health costs thank you for putting this forward and thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, chris nex
6:42 pm
speaker is amber findley. >> hi, i'm amber. >> into the microphone ac berry. >> hi, i'm amber an advocate for the b y c and belief raise the age to 21 it is easy access for you to start smoking and more of a likely chance they have a worse health as at the get older our organization we have the neighborhood in the tenderloin and picked up a bunch of cigarettes most of second-degree litter was really harmful for the environment and the toxins the sidewalk and not good for you for our health 5 hundred settings on one block and many more of that
6:43 pm
okay. and thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> next speaker. >> don. >> hello i'm don i've lived the tenderloin for almost thirty years a food justice leader for the coalition i've been trying to gquit infor a long time started smoking in my late 20s i told my peers not to something about they don't smoke this law will help encourage kids like mine and as a food justice leader i work the tenderloin to check the programs but i've learned from the store owners that cigarettes don't sell more this store attracts families it is great for the help the program they
6:44 pm
make most of their money from produce i like the idea of san francisco raising the minimum age of buying tobacco to 21 that can be an opportunity to increase healthy products at the stores and the community and protect acikids from using toba thank you. >> you're welcome. >> next speaker will be alex and james (calling names). >> that's it. >> good evening good evening board of supervisors hello, i'm alex thank you i'm here representing the new development center and the tenderloin district and in particular the api south asian area mainly when it comes to
6:45 pm
tobacco and tobacco use it is not 18 a lot of the community starts at 13 and 12 not a choice as the sro with multiply families smoking inside the house when it comes to the accessibility and all the health stuff there is a very, very big cultural xhoenlt needing to be addressed with the cigarette legislation from the 18 to 21 this is one of the first steps to bridge the gap in understanding how the effects of cigarettes and the cigarettes infiltrate the community and at checks and balances we have three to four liquor and cigarette stores on every block and on top of young advocates said the garbage that is thrown on the floor that nerves gets picked up with that said, i think that and he personally building the legislation that the tobacco 21 will be a
6:46 pm
healthier look to the neighborhood, a much more vibrant look to the neighborhood and an awareness to be put forwa forthwith the cynicism and in general the miss conceptions of the neighborhood the too bad took 21 passing hopefully this will be real stuff happening in the city thank you. >> sir. >> hi, i'm james a former smoker i've smoeshgd for over 20 years and i've just recently acquitted smoking he started around 16 years old but the heaviest was turning the ages of 18 and 19 and 21 i was smoking up to 2 packs a day at that time, it was a time when were my
6:47 pm
self-identity was being formed i had to make myself up and create myself my own imagines and cigarettes what as big part and laughed over 20 years i'm in support of this legislation to raise the minimum age thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> next speaker >> i don't know whether i'm the left hand voice for this item on the agenda i am appearing unanimously for lack of progress on that subject matter i find the national i guess association of - for the
6:48 pm
smokers sellers obtaining on the basis of lack of due process and i agree with that i found not adequate notice the letters that were before the board were not in the library or posted the people in general don't know that they're not here they've not been given alternatives for somethings that is serious lice let's goi to war this is wiping out the problem instead of what is fast forward what - how can the city do something about its own operation to solve the problem much better and more satisfactory how does it right now think of something bad to eliminate and really make for more corruption the city it has
6:49 pm
been preempted by the state some of you will be wanting to be legislators but may get the same kind of treatment with a legislative treatment the city didn't recognize the state law i hope that will be done better i've cabin working for years to abate the especially democrats the excelsior and other places in san francisco from smoking but i cannot say this vote by that 3 this body as legitimacy i want to see what is necessary legitimate and not make for more problems the city. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is a brittany the advocate director for the american heart
6:50 pm
association thank you for hearing this i want to come out and theshare my full support fon ordinance smoking the only habit if you used cigarettes it will kill you a fatality habit we know that while rates of smoking have gone down in california amongst the communities of color and teens of color and lgbt community the retaiates are mor than double in colonel cal for smoking he appreciate supervisor wiener and bringing this legislation forward i'm excited to make sure he vote in support and move forward where the state has been hesitant thank you. >> thank you, ann debris gadsgaz greens. >> i'm probation officer 20 years old a student at san francisco unified school district and part of leadership
6:51 pm
in san francisco i support the idea of san francisco increasing the age to 21 i think that too many of my friends and under the age of 18 think the peer pressure to smoke go to e cigarettes the tobacco companies aggressively market to young people especially young people of color like my friends and family through advertisements and marketing raising the minimum age 20 from recruiting and hooking youth on harmful products we will protect generations of san franciscans from lung and heart disease and poor health thank you for putting this legislation forward and i thank you for your time. >> thank you for your advocacy and anyone else that hadn't had an opportunity to speak please,
6:52 pm
please come up the floor will be yours. >> hi a i'm carl the co-chair of the leadership council i work in hunters point shipyard and have a photo i'd like to pull up we hear a lot of talk about what is killing our black men and boys we've seen police brutality videos from across the country i travel around the country i hear a black boy was killed a n nonkiller is tobacco and cigarettes this is where it starts and these boys no one is trying to protect them from the public health that are the country when obama signed into the tobacco controls that are menthol cigarettes were excluded if the tobacco act to the municipalities to impact this policy that is not punitive no
6:53 pm
possession charged this is thirty for the retailers selling the products we don't have any extra brashgs between law enforcement and brown and black men that is about denormal listing this behavior our children are inundated and building that is normal it is not i wanted to craft that photo from a health graduation in atlanta this is what it can be in adults protect their children i'm a mother of young adults nothing magical at 18 your children gets sense they're still in your home and your contributing to them especially in san francisco people can't afford to move. >> thank you. >> berkley has done it we'll be in detroit and chicago and
6:54 pm
looking for city government san francisco to show the rest of t country how to do it. >> thank you for that reminder. >> next speaker explicitly please carry on conversations out in the hallway. >> i'm a mother of too young adults and support this legislation alcohol a long term effect on children's height and life i support this thank you. >> thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item item number 2 okay seeing no more folks public comment is closed. thank you, supervisor wiener any final remarks. >> yes. thank you that and madam chair, i think sometimes, we you know we lashea lot of public comment at the board of supervisors and mintim you've been working on an issue
6:55 pm
and public comments you've heard before and nothing new this is very moving public comment obviously i'm a strong supporter i don't have to be precutdoaske but public comment was per scarf and thank you to everyone a few of the points that were raised we didn't discuss one for the 18 and 19 and 20 years old but high school students pass as 18-year-old and just to help not only the 18 and 19 and 20 but the effort to make it harder for high school students to get access to abstratobacco and the speaker in terms of the social justice aspect of this issue and i think sometimes debates of 3-r report it is easy to lose the
6:56 pm
broader public issues that the negative impact of tobacco and sugar sweetened beverage into the community of color and sometimes i'm glad we didn't hear what i think is a false regressing argument because what is regressing those unfortunately health impacts and a couple of other comments we've heard a comment at the beginning suggesting that somehow u somehow the voters of san francisco are not here with use it is important to look at the numbers and the cigarette tax a furio few years ago the tobacco industry spent many million dollars delores delores to intoxicate attack it and the tobacco sales taxes failed if i'm not mistaken 73 percent of
6:57 pm
vote about 25 points higher than statewide and soda tax is $10 million in the corporate spending received 46 of the vote we didn't receive the 2/3rd's we needed to pass that 56 percent is a pretty strong majority we know that the people of san francisco as they more many years support a astrology progressive public health department measure and finally just to acknowledge as we mentioned at the beginning the state legislative to make a statewide minimum for 21 did fail i hope that eventually it passes and love to see all the local students pass by a state age of 12 and thank you senator leno for being a strong advocate
6:58 pm
in sacramento around e cigarettes we have a difficult situation about one of his bills i know we'll keep on fighting and madam chair in no additional questions or comments i move we forward item 2 to the full board of supervisors wiorkers' compensation workers' compensation workers' compensation we'll move forward thank you. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, (clapping.) item 3 an ordinance for the zoning map to rezone noah valley to the base dedication. >> supervisor wiener is the author i believe will lead the discussion. >> thank you, madam chair a clean piece of legislation you may recall that a few years this
6:59 pm
board passed legislation purchasing a parking lot on 24th street that is the site of the noah valley farmers and slated for development the acquisition of this site by the city allows us to preserve this open space and the next step is we're doing to physically transformer this space into a permanent park in towns square it is exciting for the neighborhood not only will the farmer's market that is now happening an 24th street with the street closure move back both that that is a if you haven't been there i you go you go an amazing institution but three hundred and 65 days a year a wonderful community resources no open space main noah valley this will be a wonderful project thank you to the members of the community and rec and park and everyone that made this happen
7:00 pm
we do need to rezone this land as key to the public and so this is the legislation that is before us today to p and open space to permanently protect that. >> a presentation on this item mr. wiener and staff is available. >> it is straightforward let's god go ahead and take public comment on the item number 3 is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item please come up to the program well supervisor wiener it is straightforward i've got a motion by supervisor peskin let's workman's co let's. >> this the planning and building code for the xrufgs for the removal of any unit and require that the notice of
7:01 pm
violations mandated legalization of the mandated unit. >> supervisor avalos is not joined us yet but leading the discussion for item 4 why not wait and give him a couple of minutes to arrive. >> welcome seeing that supervisor avalos is here we'll give him a moment to sit down supervisor avalos we're ready to hear item 4. >> thank you supervisor cowen and thank you for scheduling this and being patient with this fairly complicated pieces of legislation to make its way to the board of supervisors it is how to have a stronger tool to preserve housing units in san francisco we've passed one
7:02 pm
section of this ordinance that would effect unit the c p zone many legislation requires an additional review at the building inspection commission relative to unauthorized units so i will share with you all the main amendments reviewed before i the department of building inspection commission last week they're here before us i'm explain they're essentially 6 main amendments that are here one is to provide for an initial dbi screen report for the conditional use permits generally an unauthorized units will be given a notice of violation either to legalize the units or apply for conditional use for removal of a unit to be
7:03 pm
we want to make sure that the process is the legislation are aligned with the department of building inspection this amendment one burglary specify the notice of violation is used for an enthusunauthorized units direct the property owner to have the information so dbi can determine if it can be legalize if no path to legalization a conditional use permit will in the be required to roemove that pathway for legalization the second amendment regarding unauthorized units that receive a notice of violation with imminent safety hazards the requirement for unauthorized units does not apply if the building official determines that an imminent life safety hazard exists the next amendment is to delete
7:04 pm
the reordinances of unabated notice of violation so we'll delete the proposed section code that will require dbi to reissue unabated noifgsz for nuntsdz and basically, we're trying to you streamlining e streamline the process the fourth amendment will suspend any notice of violations during the legalization we're specifying the annoying will be temporarily stunned with a property for a removal of the unauthorized units and the unless the department specifics a hazard exists essentially not wanting to create a separate process for the conditional use use that is important to pursue
7:05 pm
5 to vest e rescinds the notice of violation and any lien shall be rescinded with any unauthorized uniis not done within one year not a nov health co harnessing over the property owner when thankful so you get the legalization and the last is 6 is planning consideration for financial hardships so we're looking at additional criteria for the planning commission to consider when they review the applications to demolish unauthorized units if there is not city funds to assist the property owner with the cost of legalization the commission will consider if the costs institu s constitutes a financial hardship and have two potential follow-up pieces of legislation one being pursued by supervisor wiener that will be a code enforcement
7:06 pm
there is a fund in dbis budget $3.7 million that can be used for efforts around legalization and building bringing guess bui unit up to code and there is legislation i'll pursuing that will tap funds from prop c from the housing stabilization to be used for legalization as well but those are 6 amendments and then follow-up legislation around funds that can assist the property owners seeking to l legalize their property moving forward but interested in our supporting this as a whole today i believe that supervisor wiener has additional amendments that niece credit for the process for the duplication of a file and moving to the full board of supervisors full board and it
7:07 pm
is relative to this single-family units and that have in-law units and can follow-up on this supervisor wiener. >> thank you, supervisor wiener any remarks. >> thank you, madam chair first thank you supervisor avalos for working with the dbi and others that comes up with additional amendments we all and we're all specialiupportive mov towards the legalization program of the tens of thousands of in-law units in san francisco and really preserving that housing stock that the affordable housing housing stock for so many tenants in san francisco and as we discussed in one of the previous hearings for the legislation there were concerns i expressed before what will happen if someone has an in-law unit with their complaint and a notice of violation and
7:08 pm
then they're forced out of city or compelled to legalize the unit regardless of their financial costs inform achieve that every unit is unique and some can be quiet expensive to legalize i've expressed a concern about tapping significantly into the code enforcement fund that we are currently creating as a reminder in last year's budget i was able to objetain $4.02, 3, 4 two yea to help code enforcement efforts in connection with the legislation we're moving forward to improve the code enforcement but to provide low interest affordable loans for smaller small property owners who have
7:09 pm
codes constrictioevictions but resources to make the corrections navigation to the improvement we enforcemeenforce to help them and the tenants and i have a concern if we started to significantly tap into this fund for the in-law unit legalization mandate and some of the other needs are out there i want to thank supervisor avalos for the amendments i do have an amendment i want to offer today and will request we duplicate the file and then hold one version in committee so we can address the issue around stimulants which i think do warrant they're at least consideration of whether it they have a misdemeanor standard compared to the multiply unit
7:10 pm
buildings the amendment i want to offer to provide people awith a period o time 3 years up to 3 years to come into inclines once the city determines there is a violation so if someone is being required by the city to legalize their in-law unit because it can be a hardship to give out people that years to plan and move in that direction rather than having them immediately go into an enforcement proceedings if they're unable to make a go that is my amendment and goal to provide people are a with a 3 year timeline. >> i want to go on record i want to preserve as much of the city's housing stock as a closer review like to see it is become
7:11 pm
equivalent what that legislation will have been single-family homes and a heavier burden on the property owners aunless the have more time in a streamlined process to process for stimulan single-family homes so i stairwe certainly support the notation to file one file condition to move forward in the process and save time to work on the issues the single-family home look forward to doing the work supervisor avalos is any remarks you have now all right. ladies and gentlemen, time for public comment i've got a card from (calling names). >> my name is al lecture
7:12 pm
election i see the money for $4 million try to help the owners legalizing the in-law unit that is a very, very small amount in comparison of tens of thousands of in-law units why the owners not want to legalize if so a single-family trying to legalize the in-law unit and then will become two united will become permanently under rent control to employ to legalize the downstairs in-law unit rent control problem, no single-family home if they legalize the downstairs and legalize that and upstairs and downstairs abowill become permanently under rent-controlled why no monpeopl want to legalize it i think it
7:13 pm
is under control and the city hall can't force the owners to do this and that and that's why san francisco creates problems i think the supervisors consider about when rent-controlled killed the rent now you can't rent anything less than $3,000 and then 35 thousand enterprise rent-controlled units the owners don't want to rent 35 thousand units rent-controlled units because rent control. >> thank you. is there a in law . >> next speaker. >> i'm a small property owner and i oppose this legislation it is more restriction and discouragement for people not to rent out their place it becomes losses of control
7:14 pm
so and also illegal units are all kinds of shapes and forms not everything can be connecticut conducive to legalizing so it is not right and not give the owners the option to have them roach the unit it not conducive to legalization so, please do not pass this thank you. >> next speaker >> hi no on this proposal. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is christie i'm a small property owner in san francis francisco. >> i urge the city to oppose to
7:15 pm
mandatory legalize of legal unit i think this is a private property the owners should have the right to choose whether to legalize it or not based on the individual situation like financial difficulties final hardships and number two we know the housing shortage and the city's priority should focus on how to encourage owner to represent out they're affordable in-law unit not to put more restriction for these the owners to up the rental market and if this legislation pass i think more - the rent - the rentals in san francisco is going to go high even higher than now so make that very difficult for the immigrants and
7:16 pm
low income to afford to live if in san francisco mr. does not pass this legislation thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors tom with liveable city we're here to speak in favor of this legislation we've been champions with the existing buildings thank you, supervisor wiener for doing that in our district but also legalizing the tens of thousands of units in the city that have been built and occupied for decades and most cases are rent control but in a limbo so this ordinance about in the require you to push a unit through the legalization you can keep them in limbo and keep an renter this will not apply only
7:17 pm
if you try to remove that unit this will kick in a demonstrates to remove that unit vewe have t acknowledge those units will be in limbo but not lose them owan to give a at some point from the balance report if 2005 to 2015 we had 6 thousand plus affordable units built in that 10 year period however, during that same period lost 4 thousand plus protected units matt haney about as many rent-controlled units were lost as being built we're in a city with the huge housing crisis working against ourselves with the law the removal of illegal units is one of the chief was
7:18 pm
that retired have been lost this will slow down that before you do that a good housing policy and urge you to support it. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm here representing the small property owners of san francisco we our attorney is here to offer a letter of objection to this and although i feel that illegal units in an ideal world will not be offered they are and a person that owns the house and property has given all his choices to take that unit off the market that should be his right this is way beyond protection of any kind rights it also has been pushed througho withdrawing without the proper hearings and committees and the proper
7:19 pm
legislative bodies we ask it be slowed down and that the particular that the hardware if it becomes legalized never be removed and stricken from the legislation thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello madam chair and supervisors bryan on behalf of t the, llc for the small property owners of san francisco and the small property owners of san francisco institute i want to agree first of all, with supervisor avalos on one thing it is this is a fairly complicated piece of legislation and for that reason i think that is double important it go through the protocols for consideration before passed on this is not receivview but the planning commission they've not rendered a final recommendation on this legislation
7:20 pm
and as this legislation is substantially amended and changed today that will be inappropriate to prefer the original legislation i don't believe that that has an agenda with that ordinances on for consideration yet there are a number of defects the ordinance ceqa this is received a new accordingly exception as not a project which is clearly erroneous we're talking about forcing the legalization of tens of thousands of united state where previously they'll be removed without going through the conditional use process the result will be tremendous increases in density in some neighborhoods as well owners keeping the units off the market in the future that means if the buildings are to decay in part
7:21 pm
the ordinance is retroactive in some situations to expend the permits when invested that is illegally inappropriate the feasibility test is unworkable for the illegal units increases the property value that test is not working we want to review the proposed amendment before it is passed along and appreciate our consideration thank you. >> thank you supervisor avalos. >> thank you, very much. just to san francisco transportation authority set the record straight those amendments were brought before the building inspection that was stated last time before the land use a couple weeks ago to we've had a very, very thorough process for this complicated legislation through the planning commission and they've been
7:22 pm
very, very helpful in making sure we crafted it thinking about all the ways that this could be put together as strong as it can be i think we have that before us and the building inspection give us significant input to traffic tickcraft this process is very, very sound and thorough and we've been carve wi careful maneuvering we followed all the steps with the land use before going forward. >> any other speakers please next one. >> i sawant to thank you for e due diligence you've put into the geary of this legislation and making sure that is the best possible before it is passed i know this legislation is really helpful for a lot of people the - what i've heard in terms of they're being concerns around landlord rights i want to talk about that in terms of the
7:23 pm
landlord deciding to rent and through t not dpthrough the city and maki money that the not okay. it make sense for a process for the city to say whether or not they can remove that unit and for the people that reside there to have a way i support this legislation and if you want to make money off of something without doing it legally you take on liability and risks and have to be held responsibili responsible so someone will losses if the landlord has to lose their rights but the tenant if they decide to remove it without goes through without the city the tenant loses we have to look at what makes sense this legislation make sense i want to say an, an artist the city knowing that a lot of commercial spaces were not
7:24 pm
financial liable rented out to arts we're the ones that move both those spaces and make beautiful use out of them a lot of the people are at risk so i think that is really great our timing in some way to keep artists and art spaces interesting thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> game-changer supervisors my name is ribbon i'm a dance artist in san francisco i am going to be effected essentially by a change the space i'm in over the past 10 years i thougfind it difficult spaces that used by me, i'm in support of this legislation it is important to bring the community together and allowing for self-expression and creativity space like this will allow arts to stay alive if. >> penalize us for something
7:25 pm
that will be difficult so thank you. >> next speaker >> i'm peter for the small property owners i'll be interested the proposition to see what it is that supervisor wiener is putting forth i'm concerned about the financial impact on snaimenfachldz when t converted to increase rent-controlled small property owners are very much opposed to this they've hard work and many are immigrant families and come here three or four members of the family are paying off the mortgage and found the building is in rent-controlled and their supposed to incur a loss when we sell it that is not right thank you. >> other oh. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon jan for the
7:26 pm
san francisco apartment association i will like to thank you for spend time on this legislation thanks to supervisor avalos, supervisor wiener came back supervisor cowen and supervisor peskin it is complicated we appreciate the time you put in and dbi for trying to get this right. i have a couple of comments one is that i would like to say that the 3 year timeframe by supervisor wiener is a good idea we need to allow people a window for compliance and secondly, pleased treat multi-unit buildings different the names need to be addressed separately and also i would like to recommend a mandatory dr process instead of the cu foreclosure a mandatory dr is much understandable less expensive to get to the same end result a
7:27 pm
conditional use riders or requires absent hiring of attorneys and a long process to come to see after all you on a small building that is a high burden where doctor we're typically trained to go to the board of appeals rather than appealing to the board of supervisors so i would make that suggestion and thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon my name is john rasa member of the citizen's advisory committee i want to thank the supervisors in particular supervisor avalos and your team in working with the department of building inspection and our committee in trying to make this legislation the best it can i think you agree with the objectives and tryi trying to work with your work in the language so wanted to say
7:28 pm
thank you. i'm the new even though member of the code advisory committee but we're looking forward to seeing the final legislation and the amendments and to work through that so thank you, again. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item all right. seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. >> great. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, again i want to thank everyone who has spent a significant amount of hours the planning department and planning commission and the department of building inspection and the commission as well as the advisory committee of the commission thank you for being here as well this is legislation in the longed the making for a lot of people in san francisco who have lost their units or threatened to lose their base it is important to move forward as
7:29 pm
quickly as possible so i appreciate the time we have to move forward so i'd like to urge colleagues here to accept the amendment as a whole and forward to the for better or worse with approval. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair if you i have a few questions and comments i mentioned to give people that years payroll the city attorney informed me the department of building inspection commission had discussed a one year window a timeline for people to come into compliance after receiving a notice of violation and under the charter payroll we have can't go beyond that that unless the commission is given an opportunity to you discuss the 3 years as well and so the amendment i'll make today before we divide the pie
7:30 pm
will be for one year and not beyond that i'm sorry mr. gibner. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney so that one year provision is the amendment as a whole that supervisor avalos alisa mill supervisor avalos. >> off once we duplicate the files for the committee i'll make an amendment for 3 years and not past that once the department of building inspection can have an opportunity to discuss that i do have a couple of questions one is mr. boskovich made a comment if my recollection is n inconsist with the planning department told us a few weeks people will be required to come or legalize a unit once they get a notice of violation and i believe the planning department said a few weeks thago i want t
7:31 pm
clarification mr. boskovich if it was different than that. >> you're correct supervisor a if someone gets a in violation they have to come to the planning department for a conditional use butin this not received a notice of violation and everything remains the same they're not required to get a conditional use. >> if someone says anything and many have gone adolescents radar nothing changes but if they get a notice of violation for example, a neighbor files and complaint they have a choice they must either legalize or get a conditional use to remove the unit. >> that's correct. >> okay. so not having a choice to say status quo once they get the notice of violation. >> ; correct. >> that's important clarification and then the second question is i ms. knew raised the mandatory
7:32 pm
discretionary review versus a conditional use we know there are various situations we debate between doctor and the conditional use ever way to the compl planning commission for a conditional use available to this board colleagues i'll ask what our view on that particular issue if anyone has any comments on it. >> and we'll then i'll ask to duplicate the file and make amendments to the duplicated file that will remain in committee thank you, madam chair. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> and relative to supervisor wiener's requequestion about ultimately removing the conditional use i'll on behalf of myself i'm fine with that. >> i am as well. >> supervisor wiener a
7:33 pm
comment. >> first, i request we duplicate the file i think that does require a vote. >> september texpect and . >> i move the amendments as described by supervisor avalos. >> that that item passes and request we duplicate the amended file and as to the version i'll ask the committee to keep it in committee to make two amendments the first to there the number of years coming into compliance fr from 1 to 3 years, and, secondly, to replace the conditional use with a discretionary review to the planning. >> before you vote on the second proposal i'll he recommend just 80 so we can have someone in my office look at the
7:34 pm
proposal that will result the 77 ordinance that i'm not sure exactly how it gets to the ordinance but the many references for the conditional use and the factors that the planning commission will consider and the conditional use authorization so i'll recommend on the second proposal that you postpone that actual amendment to put something in front of you in writi writing. >> that will be fine with me the noisounanimous support to m the changes and i've intended to continue to the call of the chair but another hearing maybe we'll continue it to minded certain or we can continue to next week and make the amendment then. >> well, the be department of building inspection asks it be heard again at their body so why
7:35 pm
not schedule it after their meanwhile. >> do we know when that hearing is going to happen mr. strong is here from - >> hello supervisors that is the third week of march around march 16 is the next building commission. >> march 16 okay when is the next land use hearing. >> that will be march 21st. >> and pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. mr. strong the issue of mandatory discretionary review was that already discussed. >> i don't believe it was i don't remember the discussion about that the meeting last week. >> then i'd like to request that they consider that as well. >> would that be planning and deputy city attorney. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. >> oh, the planning commission sorry the planning commission they're going to take this up soon. >> the planning commission has
7:36 pm
already voted on it to to make that amendment is goes back to the planning commission. >> in the cais case we'll wan come back to committee technique. >> what was the committees finding fairs a recommendation of approval with some modifications i believe were made and didn't discuss the dr instead of the madison square garden maneuvered so what thai motion for the duplicated file not moving out the committee today, we change the one to 3 were these and continue to one week so we can make the maneuvered mandatory discretionary review mandatory next week is that right mr. gibner. >> i think it depends on the specifications of that amendment
7:37 pm
will look like but next week. >> thank you that's my motion changing one to 3 years and continuing the duplicated file for one yearboweek. >> to the call of the chair is it all units or only legal. >> we'll work with the city attorney to figure out that out. >> to clarify i feels under the impression important single-family homes in-law units but spre will be working with planning on that and so the scope of that will be that was where i heard the chaurngz proposing. >> we'll keep our office abreast. >> okay supervisor wiener made a motion so there's as motion madam clerk do you need for me
7:38 pm
to repeat. >> that that item passmotion unanimously okay madam chair you need to take objecti action on the original legislation. >> you. >> we made the motion and accepted. >> you need to make a recommendation. >> all right. make a recommendation to - do. >> forward with the i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation to the full board all right. we'll take that without objection. that motion carries that item passes. >> madam clerk. >> item 5 the hearing on the status of oversized pilot program update how they worked and whether or not they should be expanded. >> okay. thank you. >> all right. okay good afternoon colleagues 4
7:39 pm
years ago i worked with supervisor tang for the offer sized vehicle actually supervisor chiu to pass the over sized restriction legislation that so you get to simply eyes the pressure in symcertain neighborhoods with large vehicles packing for days and months at that time, after that was done in 2013 we held a hearing to talk about the effectness we received a report you should have a copy before you this report you received a copy of the report this morning for your reference is talk about are these the effectiveness the city and county of san francisco so months ago sfmta board which has the full authority to accept the streets indicated no additional streets into the program until the city determines a long term
7:40 pm
solution for homeless while i'm sensitive to the needs of people and and the homeless particularly he feel we're creating a climate that didn't allow businesses to operate safely and exasperates the upcoming sustainable problem and an unsafe environment for individuals as well as the vehiclely housed individuals they have been several unfortunately drug sales and rape and human trafficking and one of which includes an innovation of on oversized vehicle the design center pedestrians have documented harassment not only this preincludes this is completely offer due to the individuals by
7:41 pm
is due for our city having to have the conversation when vehicles are parked in the culture by not addressing the problem so today i've lined up several presenter hthat will provide an update and hopefully offer a solution first up is andy from the sustainable streets division with the san francisco sfmta and before we hear from andy want to acknowledge supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you very much for calling this hearing on oversized vehicles i remember when we passed this legislation serve years ago under our leadership and then commissioner wu's leadership we heard from many, many members of the community and the neighborhood that are impacted by the large vehicles and this was not a minor issue i have to say when i know we've
7:42 pm
get into the discussion when i saw the statistics about basically the complete collapse and enforcement by the mta they were project sponsor abandon them entirely i was surprised this has real life consequences not only for the offer sized vehicles we have a very, very problematic situation on division street with the proliferation of hundreds of te tents that make it harder to walk on the sidewalks and sixth health and safety and sanitation for surrounding businesses and the city in my opinion has adopted and deer in the headlights for the despite the work of the social services and sf hope and pushing and the city
7:43 pm
is frozen in addressing this issue important we've seen on division street a lack of enforcement by the mta of oversized vehicle on division street it was recorded by a merchant the area there are vengeance that have not been moved forward in three or four years not been moved the vehicles are being used as a mud flaps and an implosion aexplosin and it is problematic we need to transition people into shelter and housing not germane and commissioner mccarthy compassionate to allow it to continue thank you supervisor cowen for calling that oversight hearing and in case they've decided not to be enforcement. >> thank you.
7:44 pm
>> good afternoon, supervisors actually this is a parking management standing in for my colleague and andy is here to help me so i'll go through this as fast as i can a little bit of context how we got here mta is responsible for endorsing and regulating parking over nine hundred miles. >> can you speak a little bit louder or closer to the mike. >> so on /* so on there are a lot of tools like meters and time limits and blue and green zones and that sort of thing and prevents the storage of private
7:45 pm
property on streets and thick in the public works and can't leave supp stuff on the streets and parking overnight of course, the supervisors referred to earlier issues around oversized vehicles parking overnight in san francisco restrictions which there is information on the slides and mta implemented about $46 milli 4 miles of restrictions nine hundred miles about 5 percent of blocks have been with signed with no overnight restrictions and there was a project in 2013 and a report available on the website for that this is the map that shows the blocks that have the signs with over night restrictions a chart that shows improvement of the
7:46 pm
oversized vehicle restriction in 2014 and supervisor wiener referred the mta not enforcing it as you see from the chart improvement drops off a couple of notes the vast majority from sfpd and the restriction from midnight to 6:00 a.m. and not a lot of parking control officers on the streets so mostly the pd that are writing the ticketed our questions we were talking with the folks the drop off in tickets the program is effective so signs restricting oversized vehicles they have moved along the issue they've moved to the next block or two blocks over in the next neighborhood with no signs so again that was the conclusion
7:47 pm
from the pilot evaluation it is effective where the signs are but the problem is pushing the issue from one block to the next and, of course, brings up issues of people living in their cars and that is what brought up about 9 months ago the mta board indicated continuing to approve those spots sorts of restrictions on one block here or there we're not inclined to conditi condition to improve it from one block and neighborhood to the next rather something citywide that can be applied and, of course, from the mta and the board of supervisors. >> excuse me for interrupting your presentation we have a questi question. >> thank you, madam chair i understand the comment about
7:48 pm
they're not goendorsing because apart from the streetcars that are covered by this program overhead the larger vehicles i meant at the beginning on division street they've been there for a very long time some city and county don't care about improvement. >> i'll have to ask cammy to be pastusure but the 72 hours pg rule citywide you can't leave a car anything for more than 72 hours and so whether it is whether they're getting enforced i couldn't comment but i'll get back with you. >> if the agency could respond
7:49 pm
that would be great. >> would be other note i see the regulations on the books that restrict the sort of some of the behavior we're talking about in the san jose not often enforced but what it does it makes thing a little bit more complicated in coming up with solutions for example, creating zones where oversized vehicles can go and park and allowed to do that but living in vehicles is legalillegal in san francisc not allowed under the code the most interesting possible solution that has come up called save parking partnering are churches that are parking lots that are willing to have folks drive syndrome their lots and have a safe place to park we've
7:50 pm
reached to the stakeholders we think will be helpful and haven't made headway as far it is one thing at the mta we've happy to support that but as the transportation agency we should be leading things like this is a larger issue all that being said with that said, regulations we use amend to make sure there is torn at at converse and moving along for lots of reasons those are available for us to use in places we need people moving long. >> sure i know that again, i'm heari hearing i don't know about any colleagues that is not the case in terms of requiring that
7:51 pm
out-of-townturn around turnover and payroll mta is not endorsing enforcing that i understand that matt is not responsible for the result in homelessness in san francisco but mta does manager the roads and those play a really i don't agree that unless you solve this problem that is vexing san francisco with all the residents dying on the streets for thirty or 40 years for a that long time that mta will for the perform that management has real consequences i want to express that frustration with mta as unilaterally tried to pass that legislation for a reason to give mta the tools to be able to address a real issue and we're hearing one way or another
7:52 pm
you're saying the problem is solved that's why there are no citations but on the other hand, we don't want to enforce it because something else needs to address that. >> that seems i think consist. >> is cameron here. >> not able to make. >> so ladies and gentlemen, people iconicly are responsible are unable to be here and been noticed for two weeks. >> scheexcuse me. thirty dayso with you supervisor wiener the improvement sucks and needs to do a better job let's reserve our questions until the end. >> thank you. i have only this is the latin last slides in response to what supervisor
7:53 pm
wiener's point and i apologize what we're saying on the blocks with the signs with over sized vehicles they move along we don't have an issue with that block but two blocks over with no signs that's the issue that is i think the problem and, of course, san francisco transportation authority about 9 months ago not approving any new signs. >> supervisor wiener. >> i'm sorry in terms of decision not to put up new signs obviously if you're living on one of the blocks the mta is not saying owning okay. it is not okay here but okay there. >> what's the rational of the mta and the board of directors in terms of not improving the rezones. >> the expressiimpression it
7:54 pm
prolong we've discussed what i referred to because it is a spot solution or a it addresses only one block at a time we end up moving the issue around until there is a more comprehensive solution you know it would be that this thing this rule applies citywide or different until there is something more citywide. >> excuse me, sir what's your name. >> hanging wilson. >> how long have you been with the mta as 6 years but for the past two months. >> with all due respect we'd like to have avpd up here you put this poor man up here to do your work. >> thank you. i appreciate this presentation andy is with us for the last 3 years and
7:55 pm
knows the issues and at challenges and worked on squawkizau showcase square i don't mean to be disrespectful. >> advance and do pass with the mta indeed i'm the young staffer that brought that forward on behalf of the board of supervisors in 2013 and mr. wilson has told you where we are we have a number of problems first so supervisor wiener without those vsection of the transportation code is illegal to leave a vehicle parked so far over 72 hours there are plenty of complainants to the vehicles cameron couldn't be here but will be here presents on thursday and ready to answer our questions about this and other questions i apologize for him not being here
7:56 pm
this specific tool it problematic as some expected in 2347d because it didn't deal with every block but pushes it down the street we say it in the great highway and the golden gate park quickly the boats went away and the occupied vehicles moved away some days a few blocks inland and it will go further and further this body the board of supervisors in 2004 took place the own the overnight provision i understand portland, oregon has a rule and the idea there is a consistent citywide prohibition on leaving anything on the street that is that large overnight makes it more predictable and clear to every police on night duty knows that
7:57 pm
vehicle shouldn't be there whether on the boulevards we do as mr. wilson pointed out many tools that cause that in showcase square with the parking changes that are 4 hour time limitations all day long with or without mirrors and has an effect on turning over we think effect and will cause everyone to move long without this particular problematic tool, if you will, we have on the tools we'll use and bringing forward but to our taste professionally we think that this body probably should revisit the notation of citywide band of overnight vehicles that is makes that more fair and consistent it has it's political barriers but to ask the mta as a spot treatment we're at some point will have signs at ever block of the city
7:58 pm
and not worrying about displacement the enforcement of 72 hours rule is an idea i hear folks non-compliance that vehicl vehicle is there for months and cam will tell you had you we work on it critical problem but having an improvement tool that is complaint dpasz based not the most efficient way to look at this i can answer other questions. >> as reported to me by people who you know are on division for for example there are vehicles that have been there for a very long period of time how some of them don't ammunitifunction any do that happen. >> i have no explanation or excuse it seems to me clear that after two weeks that should be
7:59 pm
too much time to tolerate that i think pedicmembers of the polic department that can speak to what the police department seize in dealing with that the mta is watching this stuff during the day and the police department in the evening i cannot skews how and vehicle can sits parked ouch the street. >> i know your i appreciate our not the best person but i speak imitating for division street i asked for removal of a vehicle february 7th it is now still sitting there iconicly under a sign no oversized vehicle parking not as an improvement issue from the police department the police will enforce my frustration lies within the municipal transportation agency with who directs the improvement arm on the where to go and when to go it is just frustrating coming
8:00 pm
off the heaels of the super bow with tons of enforcement and others parts of city rains los angeles ish and now here we are still lavrn in a decision respect way and frustrating i want the public to know we invited the mta board president tom nolan and cheryl brinkman they're not here but they were sent open invitation on the mta commission supervisor wiener we know i cut you off any further questions. >> no a further comment and thank you for indulging any comments it is an important issue as you know better than me. >> i have a few questions to pose to you. >> i'll reserve my comments. >> any policy in place to present the new authorization of
8:01 pm
postings pro bono postings for over sized vehicle. >> it is a standard tool in the transportation code as you may know since 2007 prop a the mta board of directors has nonetheless inclusive authority. >> the other thing given that the mayor made a big dmouchlts in the amount of to create the homeless department and some issues i might be jumping the gun sam is the audience but we have been having some decision about moving some of the vehicles to the pier 80 i don't know if you have been to pier 80 a large amount of space and park some of the vehicles and my recollection serves me correctly i think that the mta commission said that we are going to stop the pilot program until we figure out a long term
8:02 pm
strategy where to park the vehicles we need to revise revive that conversation on pier 80 will pier 80 be able to house every vehicle perhaps 92 not but a special consideration or some kind of thing to be developed by those who know the issues intimately intimately and looking to see and know what they say on the ground and move some of the worst offender vehicles from the street to pier 80 the challenge when i see around the division in particular as well as san brunn people are not only living there but concerned with human competently increment being dumped and that proposes a
8:03 pm
health and safety hazard that warrants our attendantion i don know that this gets as much attention i've been zeroing in on the division because it is an o area we're concentrating time and resources and finding out what the needs of the community we all agree the homeless community needs are not architectural blanket solution individual and we are actively working with the hot team and sam dodges team so any question is pretty specific has the commission calendar or will be taking taking up and revisiting the citywide policy of overnight vehicle enforcement. >> that's not a topic that not
8:04 pm
that i'm aware of the mta staff will be open you can hear me advocating more than i ought to that is a strong idea say,is as say in 2004 i didn't study with the points were made but guess at that them i think staff at the mta will be supportive of talking about it and exploring that my understanding if i could come back to the mta's board of directors resistance to approve this tool is not conditioned on a specific outcome they've said that they're not comfortable pushing the problem around not comfortable just displacing what maybe a vulnerable people in vehicles and again, i'm looking
8:05 pm
into their minds and license but they want to see some effort at some idea a safe parking pilot not solving the whole problem but work on the potential of the potential answer and asked to see that sam may be able to speak to that constituents the district that sat with me and talked about whether we can do something like that in district th 10 and not likely we'll want the mta to support that but we' kno this is not a solution and have our hands full of managing the transportation starting another program like that but indeed if this oversized band is struck the code 10 or 12 points we could get people to take turns
8:06 pm
this particular tool may have come it, it's useful life and may not be appropriate we certainly needs to look at the 72 hours rule and supervisor wiener and this is not excusable if it can't are operated as a vehicle and no excuse and we'll certainly not only look at that but act think that and again unaccuseable and division street is having improvements i'm sdheerd cheered to see the improvements for pedestrian safety and bring forward for showcase square we'll be making changes that cause a turnover this oversized stotool is a las reporter a piece of curtab with better parking meters and using that kind of thing and a go
8:07 pm
pertains of storage and act that that right away. >> you brought up an interesting point showcase square we've been working on that for over a year with the strategy how close are we to rolling it out. >> we're very close i'll knock on that wood on march third next friday, a public hearings we'll present to the public the changes that have been proposed and went with the stakeholder in our district and i'm comfortable and confident the hearing will go well and we'll take the set of proposals to the mta board of directors and if their pleased i think they will be work orders will go out and time limits and meters and getting treatment there will be a blank piece of delusion we'll not have put something on and come back to
8:08 pm
that quickly. >> supervisor wiener no, no sxheepz anything for you thank you. >> thank you. >> let's see incidental we're going to hear in sam dodge next. >> thank you supervisors sam dodge mayor's office of hope can i use the overhead. >> sure. >> sfgovtv need the offeverhe thank you. >> i don't know if you can read this this is commissioner ferrigno that came cross my rfp a slide sly eased family stone is it so like they're getting
8:09 pm
$5 million but he's a famous san franciscan living in crenshaw. >> i remember that he is living out of his van and it is an n r v and that's where he is right now and we had a point and time count here i'll put this up here on the far right this is a count we do every two years hud mandate to pull down funds for the homeless program and we did a contentious on the street and as well as the programs we found that a significant drop if the two years previous to the current count from 13 percent of the homeless living in vehicles to 4 percent and when i say 4 percent we're talking about 200 and 75 people
8:10 pm
this is quite a big number of only 4 percent of our homeless population working with the hot team we're going and trying to engage with people living in r v vs and vehicles all the time and you know in district 10 right now, we're tracking 68 r vs and that's not including advancivan other things people are living in district 10 is particularly impacted by people living in r cvs and district 2 for example, we know of 8 r vs living at the marina green this is not a good solution and mother one thing it is just a lot of different people that go to living in their cars as as solution


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on