other tools to manage on street parking in consultation of the community and mindful of both policy fundamentals and real world needs. the overnight parking restriction can be used appropriately but certainly not a panacea. we are the first to acknowledge that. we are going to continue to work with the city partners and how to use this parking control appropriately with other measures and methods. i will be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor tang has a question for you. >> thank you. i would like to see as we acknowledge that this is a pilot program that applies to not just the vehicularly housed vehicles but commercial vehicles and recognizing that some people have housing challenges. i don't know if perhaps we can bring up mr.

duffy as well that he has worked on addressing some of those needs. >> good afternoon, supervisors, thank you for having me here. what i can share with you is that there was two rounds of outreach that took place from sf hot. at this stage there has not been additional outreach. i sat with andy and made revisions so it's current and we've asked if sf mta can get flyers out to vehicles. that is one step where we can generate more contacts. there have been about six contacts with the hot team and currently we do not have a vehicle stored on

treasure island, but with the support of the members of the board, we have established as you know the mayor's fund as hope to cover storage cost that would be accumulated. it is going to be very easy for us going forward to now be able to store vehicles on treasure island and be able to pay for that and coordinate with the hot team and sign a contract where they are available and agreeing to permanent housing. i can report that as a result of the flyering, one individual has moved into permanent housing. so working with the sf hot team and the mayor's home fund provided to provide a move in cost 1 person has gone into permanent housing as a result of that. i was visited by the homeless and they came and shared information and ideas

and i'm eager to pursue those ideas. among them were programs that are taking place in seattle and san diego where faith based institution allow individuals to park their vehicles on there and it appears from one of the programs is not governmentaley based and we want to make sure that they can be respectful on that property and then to work with them. so i have reached out to the sf inter faith council and heard the coalition worked with the inter faith council and met to talk about doing that. in addition there is a program in oregon where a vehicle can be in a business. so generally where businesses

have had problems to their property and nuisance activity, they have allowed people being on that property. i'm going to seek help from those programs because they have security problems and this is something that we can work on together. i definitely feel that with this support of the inter faith council we can make some head way and handful of people that did come forward, i think two or three were security guards in the city. they are making minimum wage and not able to make enough to support housing in the city. there are options that we can pursue at that time. one point is that the coalition made is engaging around the whole issue of towing vehicles. that is an issue i have encountered and i have worked with the supervisors office that when people have had their vehicles

towed. and i have worked with the office and if somebody saig -- says you have towed this vehicle where someone's income is very margin al. i have asked if maybe the sf mta can consider policy changes tools to so people don't wind up in a situation. i do appreciate the mta as well as the police department will have flyers they can put on vehicles so people can access services. >> i have a question. you referenced storage at treasure

island. which fund pays for this? >> the mayor's homeless fund. >> is there a limit to be able to -- let me backup. i assume you are subsidizing the cost to park in treasure island. there is a cost, right? you agree to do this for 3 months or a year. >> the vehicle would be stored but the person wouldn't have access to the vehicle. that's not the intent. the intent -- i didn't even think of it that way. >> okay. so the notion would be that there would be an agreement between sf hot and the individual. it's very similar what happens when someone goes into a stabilization room. when an individual who is homeless

maybe disconnected from benefits and not have any income and decide to go into services, they don't pay for that room. the city is paying for that room but the individual commits to participating 2-3 times a week in case management. this is a similar situation that we would be working with someone and they would agree we would pay the storage so they are not giving up this property that they may decide is a period of time form of housing for them down the road. we would store it which is about $150 a month for a vehicle . we are looking at 4-5 vehicles but now that we have dedicated $7,000 for this purpose. we are going to be flexible as people have needs, but the commitment is they participate in case management leading to permanent housing. >> my question is how long do they engage in case management. when you are in services, there

is a termination period, right? >> there is variations. if you go into a room and they shut that room and they don't meet with that person, that is a person that is not going to be successful in the program. i think we are going to be successful and open-ended. i often find that rules are not going to work. as long as the person is working on goals, we are going to be open to that. this is an in you experience for us. we've had some limited contact from individuals and ready to be more robust about it. we should have a robust toolbox that has different approaches that meets different people's needs. additionally going forward we wouldn't set a deadline but i will tell you we have people that are in stabilization rooms for 4 months and sometimes able to

move into housing and others depends on their circumstances and we are going to try to be flexible. >> one question is about the recommendations i'm more interested in the designated areas and you quoted los angeles. this is something that i think there might be some real viable options and solutions here. so, thank you, next i would like to call up dr. campos, supervisor campos. >> you can call me anything you like. thank you very much and again i would like to thank my colleagues for this item. another thing i wanted to ask mta and i had a couple of questions in terms of the gain

here. i'm glad he's involved and talk together coalition which i think has some very good ideas. but, how do you define success with this pilot? you know to the extent that the idea is to move vehicles from one neighborhood to another, what's your definition of success? >> well, that's a very difficult question to answer, but i would answer it by saying, the residues of san -- residents of san francisco are the best to suggest how the vehicles impact their quality of life. if when we reach a point where there are very few complaints brought to our attention about the negative impact, i would surmise that those vehicles remaining are

located to places that are less impactful. >> but you may have and i think that makes sense, but if what you are doing is basically moving vehicles from one neighborhood so you don't have complaints from that neighborhood, but you are moving it to another neighborhood where those complaints will actually come up, is that really success? >> no. definitely not. >> so at some point if the idea is to expand locations where this ban would go into effect, what's the end goal here is ? sit to is it to have a citywide plan, if you have this ban you are moving it to certain parts of the area. is that the end goal to have a citywide ban? >> no. i don't believe it is.

it's somewhat analogous situation is the residential permit parking program where the areas are established through neighborhood petition. that specific purpose is to lead the neighborhoods pressures from vehicles who are what we call commuters, parking in the neighborhood all day while they are working or doing other activities. it's kind of in a way it's similar because we sought out with an impacted area and designated for registered permanent parking and as you know generally there is some creek towards the enls edges, unless there is a

boundary or an area where that would stop or it gets to an area where commuters would not find a place to park and take a bus back to their car. we started off with the same process. we didn't have the end -- game. the city it's isn't blanketed with original parking. >> my complaint is if you move them out of the neighborhood, at some point as you keep moving them every neighborhood will complain and you find yourself with no place left for them to find in san francisco. that is the concern. is the mta open to this idea? i think

chair cohen raised this issue of this idea of what's happening in seattle of actually designating an area in the city where these people can park. >> i think it's what was mentioned is one of those programs where seattle and where they are working with private entities where they are housing those individuals on off sight parking lots. what we talk about is doing something on street which would be very problematic. part of the reason we are doing this is because of the over sized vehicle impact and designating an area in the street where they can park for that purpose. it's difficult to implement on street. i would hope there is an open

mind here. i think we should look at what seattle and eugene are doing. we in san francisco have never been afraid to do something what no one else has done before. i understand that you want to respond to what you are hearing from these residents. but, we are talking about folks who at some point, you know, many of them were living in homes and rental units in san francisco. i had a conversation recently i think it was probably in supervisor tang's district with a gentleman who was talking about how he used to live in the neighborhood. how he was pushing out of his unit and how

he could not imagine having been born and raised in san francisco living anywhere else. the only way he can do that was to live in his van. and proceeded to explain that he'd have to get a little stove where he can cook. he paid gym membership so he can use the shower and bathroom. and i asked him why are you parking in this neighborhood? well, this is where i have lived for so many years. so, i understand the concern. but at some point shouldn't we care about what's happening to this individual and if we can give them a place where he can safely park in a way that minimizes the impact

on the neighborhood, then why wouldn't we do that? >> i don't have a good answer for that. i think the first place to start is reexamine the police codas the starting point because right now legally it's not allowed to reside in a vehicle. >> something has to give because we are taking a number of actions that are making it harder for people to live in san francisco. one of the things that happened last week which i voted against which there was a vote to push homeless folks out of recreational spaces and parks and golden gate park alone the civil grand jury noticed it was 450 people. we don't have shelters for them. where are

they going? you can't even do what many people feel is a resort which is live in a van. so at some point, what do we do? where do these people go? i think it's understandable that we want to take action, but i think the action has to be one that also provides solutions. and i don't see a lot of solutions here. i think that the coalition to their credit is trying to figure out how they can work with this city. how they can address a very legitimate concern that has been raised in terms of these vehicles and impact on traffic and parking and safety. all of that is legitimate, but let's do it in a way that provides some options for folks other than simply say you

cannot do this, you are not allowed to be there. let's do it where there is a place they can actually be. >> supervisor mar? >> i want to thank mr. lee and as well as from the mta. i know in september when we were looking at the pilot project and part of the goal of our office on homelessness and mta was to track more of the human impact as well and i'm hoping that moves forward as one of the solutions about what happens to the estimated 161-200 people the coalition on homeless analysis said it was 2.5 percent of the 2011 homeless kouvenlt -- kouvenlt

count. it was about 161 people living in their vehicles. then there is loma and matthew that came out to the hearings that are part of that roughly 200 people we were talking about. my hope is that the inter faith council can track the human impacts. i did want to say that i do want to acknowledge that i do get the pictures from 14th avenue and funston of the impacts. i agree with supervisor campos, what you agree might be great for one area, might be a total disaster for another area. i think connected with what mr. duffy

suggestion for the lots to provide for the vehicles. but for boulevard neighbors and the presidio neighbors, i think you might want to take a look at that. and the other efforts you might have to look at. i do want to say that i see less of the large vehicles along full ton and park presidio where i live. i do know there are vehicles but there are otherwise that have gone to other parts of the city or lft the city or maybe housed to other areas i would like to see the broad success. >> supervisor tang? i'm sorry,

would you like to speak? >> basically the project manager for this. i just want to say, on behalf of the mta that this really is something that the mta's brought forward in response to the board of supervisors specifically district 4 over the years. there really isn't a program at the mta, there isn't a project that we are bringing forward. there is no end -- game. we have to be really honest. there isn't a place for this. we are entirely for the board of supervisors to provide some sort of tools to respond to constituents who are concerned and complaining about safety and health and blight and having gone through several decades of tools that didn't work. as von told you, this body before we told you the

notion of citywide ban on over sized vehicle parking, very clean, very easy to explain to the numbers that, but much more harsh, much more severe than the vehicle inhabitation question. we have to respect that. the tools that are used in san francisco, it is to respond to the request of the board of supervisors. how we use the tool is very much guided by the community and by this body. the mta don't come forward with anymore use of this tool unless there is a request and your constituents ask for it. supervisor mar, i am in contact with miss lagger on funston and neighbors in

district 1 and 4 and we have a very large pile of request that we are holding back on going forward with out of respect to the commitment that we made to this body and our own board. >> i think there is an acknowledgment that there was not the kind of complaints, but if you received them from patty flaker and void ditch and the neighborhood boulevard but there is no complaints. >> we heard from the neighbors through your offices, through other sources and directly from citizens that either this is a long standing problem, we hope you will try this on our street or the problem has gotten worse on our street. when the values reports does catalog here is areas we saw intensification of the problem and around si prep

and elementary. we knew that was going to happen. it's far from a perfect tool, and again i wan to emphasize as somebody who is a citizen in the district and worked on this, the mta didn't have a master plan for this. to the extent that this tool is used like other tools in our toolbox to respond to the stitch went and our electives to solve the problem. it has to have clashgs with -- collaboration with the police department, the hot program, and the agency can't address homelessness. this is a huge problem. we bring you this tool and we share what we saw

and balancing the question in multiple request. thank you for letting me share that. >> this you for that. i really do want to recognize the comments made by supervisor campos and supervisor mar. previously without this pilot program there is no overnight parking. the police officers had to knock on the doors of these individuals and if no one answered there would be no enforcement and no providing of services. we had to partner with hope with mr. duffy's office. that was a critical piece to this and without that, we would have -- never gotten to the pilot program. now there is a more conscious effort where we are trying to provide services with the free parking on treasure island and helping

you through to hopefully implementing new housing i think is important. we've also in our district as mentioned have has placement of vehicles and there are other consequences but also realizing in our district bordering golden gate and tail end of lincoln way of shielding other safety issues and neighbors have for decades complained about. that's why we felt this pilot was so important. >> thank you, well, why don't we move to public comment. i have a nice little stack here. i just want to remind folks

that public comment is 2 minutes. you will hear a soft bell indicating that you have 30 seconds left. please come up front and if i call your name, you can speak. we have daryl, john decastro, melody, john mccormick. why don't you come to the podium and let's keep going. >> good afternoon, supervisors, thank you for having this on the agenda. i'm on the panel association. and we would like to express our interest in having the panhandle included in the next round. we were told that we were on the long list for the pilot but we didn't make it in the end. we are here

for many decades as well from neighbors about the concern and public safety and health. what we witness around the panhandle tends to be younger adults who seem, and we don't see these people over again. it's not that they intend to stay, but they are more passing through. as a result there is a little bit of a less respect for the city and it's inhabit -- inhabitants in the neighborhood and there is more defecating and from their pets. this area should be considered in the next round. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> hi. john decastro from portrero boosters again. one item i wanted to put up on the screen is just a picture of carolina street. you will note three of the four vehicles in this picture are commercial vehicles. that is a common problem in portrero hill. these two shuttle advance in the left belong to zyngas contractors and there is another limousine. there are a lot of commercial vehicles parked in our area that are large commercial vehicles that should not be parking around our streets especially around our parks. there is one camper in this picture. i think we need to think about the fact that it's not just vehicles, it's a lot of different over sized vehicles, there is a lot of these advance,