intersection and it's really very hard to keep your eyes on all four corners and watching for pedestrians, because as you drive up you have to go to the right and your vision goes off that way and everyone i talk to says the same thing. i know that people say it's working well, but for most people in the neighborhood, they're very upset about it and so i am glad that patrick has been involved and communicating with people about this and i look forward to surveys. >> thank you, very much ms. goldman. >> do i have any public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed on this item. next item on the agenda is item 8, citizens advisory council report and i do not see the chairman in the audience so there is no report. item 9, public comment, this is a opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters that are within the board's jurisdiction and not on today's calender.

we have folks that have turned in speaker cards. the first one is brock prior followed by herbert winier and tom gilberty. if anyone wants to speak submit a speaker card. >> two minutes please. >> brock prior. >> good afternoon. i am here specifically to speak about the color card red program, which is basically a sham and a rip off. >> make sure you speak into the microphone. >> it's a sham and a rip off for the people. i will read to you specifically your rules for red zone. the red zone requires that you call the city and pay an application fee, nonrefundable. my first question is why do you have a nonrefundable application fee. second of all, when the person

comes out if you have an issue, how do you go about resolving that issue? because i have an encroachment problem with my garage door does not match the curb cut. the curb cut is narrower than my garage door. i've had an ' gres problem for 17 years. i've contacted the city and tried to solve this problem by going through the color curb program and having the person come out and actually measure and do the thing. but then they keep going back to your requirement of this preserving 15 to 19 feet spaces. what happens if the space that you are actually blocking is going into my driveway? i have no recourse. you don't have a public comment for people to come in and talk about this if they have an issue. so my question to the board is how do i get this problem resolved? >> thank you, mr. prior. are you done with event? >> thank you.

mr. racekin could we have a member of staff reach out to mr. >> yes, we will. >> herbert winier. >> herbert winier. question. our vision zero the transit riders union and the bicycle coalition non-profit with salary administrators? aren't they backed by outside interests with deep pockets. aren't they represented on the m.t.a. board? don't m.t.a. administrators on the board -- aren't they members of these non-profit organizations? because of this reciprocal relationship, doesn't this influence unanimous decisions of the board to the did h of citiz. shouldn't m.t.a. administration and board be a check and balance for everyone. these are questions i have. the board isn't required to

answer them by protocol but i'm asking these questions anyway. >> next speaker please. >> next speaker is tom gilberty. >> thank you, again. clarification, couple of months ago i remarked about the platform elevator at the embar embarkadero was the definition of rank. i said probably the grime and the elevator was what was holding it together. i don't think i was too far off the mark because the engineers kept saying everything kept falling apart. also, i remarked about how the seniors on vaness, i sit up front with the seniors, they really cures for loss of their

stops. i didn't mean for that to be personal. curse the city. the god damn city for taking my stop away. but they too would like their 17th street, the 17th street avenue stop too. i think there's a way that we can make alternative -- there's a way we can make alternative 49th and 47th stopping at alternative stops. they stop at the amount of stops that you guys want, which is about half. but they skip a stop. they don't have to pass, but they move ahead because we're skipping stops. i think that's the way to go. now, also, we talked to bart. if we had a steam cleaner for

the platform for the passage from the platform station to the elevators on montgomery, powell, and civic center, we could wash it clean. we won't wash the frame and the outside door at the platform because that is bart's responsibility. i think we can do better. i think we can work together and say we need a steam cleaner for the passage and we will do the door for bart. >> thank you mr. gilberty. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners my name is alex lanceburg and i'm going to speak on another item later and decided just to take the opportunity to speak on something completely unrelated to the agenda today. i just learned a couple days ago the sfpuc is moving forward on a plan to develop a three acre site at 1550 evans, third street and evans each where the t light rail 19 and 44 come together

with a 44,000 square foot community center. we need community space. it's intended to replace the facilities at 1800 oak dale. some of my neighbors have been clamoring for housing at that site and the p.u.c. has been resistant many of this is not within your purview but as a sister agency and an agency tasked with really making sure we maximize the investments in infrastructure that we've had and that the bus rapid transit that will be coming out of the shipyard is most useful, i urge you to send some of your planners to talk sense into them. i'm going to try to do that myself and a number of people will as well but it really does seem to be a shame that we're going to essentially waste a three-acre site on a small space when we could be building hundreds of units of housing there, hundreds of homes for

people and office and administrative facilities to maximize use of that site. >> next speaker please. >> there are no other speakers. >> my more public comments? items not on the agenda? no. sees none. public comments items not on the agenda closed. moving on item 10 is consent calender. we have had three people ask that items be 10.2r, item 10.3c and item 10.9. >> 10.2r, 10.3c and 10.9. directors, do i have a motion to approve the consent calender minus those three items. >> so moved. >> a second. >> all in favor, aye. >> aye. >> opposed. yes, we'll get to that. which one?

10.3c? >> yes, 10.3c. >> we'll hear that one next. >> great, thank you. >> all in favor of consent calender. aye, aye. hearing none. let's start with 10.2r. it's established stop signs at avalon avenue eastbound in westbound at edinburgh streets. the member of public please -- >> ted jordan followed by shannon wells. >> great, thank you. >> hello. my name is judge orden and i'm protesting the stop sign at avalon and edinburgh. the only way i found out about this stop sign is i saw a piece of paper taped to a telephone poll when i was walking my dog. is that how notification is given for stop signs in this city? i can only assume the reason for

this stop sign is for safety? it says on the paper, it says it has to do with sequa. i don't know what that is. if that's the case, if it is for safety there are better ways to ensure safety at that intersection than with a stop sign. first, edinburgh is a 10-block street running north to south between beginning at silver and ending at geneva. cross traffic does not stop at the silver intersection. nor peru nor currently avalon nor naples nor brazil nor persia or russia or france. finally eight blocks away at italy there's a four-way stop. i've lived on naples going on 37 years and i learned quite early that if i want to go north south i don't go on edinburgh. that's why naples is a main artery. i would imagine the residents appreciate the relative quiet of their streets. you start putting stop signs at every corner, no cross traffic you will get that.

by placing a four-way stop here, people unfamiliar with the neighborhood might assume the other stops on edinburgh are four way as well. there is an environmental issue as well. traffic stops increase gas mileage and pollution not to mention added to the stress of drivers because of the delay making them more aggressive which will turn to more accidents. i did a survey this morning from 7:45 to 8:15 at that intersection. there were 198 cars going down avalon, there were 48 cars going to edinburgh. ok, so that's the most well trafficked street. at the intersection of two blocks east at avalon and vienna, there was an accident. >> thank you mr. jordan. >> next speaker. >> shannon wells. >> good afternoon. i am shannon wells and i am the district 9 representative to the cta citizen advisory committee

wells a resident right by the intersection of avalon and edinburgh. we ask you vote yes to a four-way stop. the accidents and near misses at this intersection including two pedestrian injuries and three serious collisions in the past two years make it imperative to increase safety at this intersection. if you would like to see there's a photo of the most recent one which was the last couple of weeks. the statements of avalon decreases visibility at this intersection and encourages speeding. also the parked cars make it very difficult for cross traffic and pedestrians to see on coming vehicles withouting the next. four-way stops being placed irregularly makes drivers actually unsure whether there's a four-way stop and i witness this behavior with my parents trying to drive through the neighborhood. right or wrong, drivers do approach the intersection from all directions and cross traffic drivers appear to assume it is a

four-way stop when it's not, without really looking. i've seen this happen a lot. it does no harm to add these two new stop signs on avalon and will no doubt improve safety. we have, as a neighborhood group, we have applied for a four-way stop three times in three years, including the last two years and it's been denied. we have spoken with a dozen of our neighbors in the and one block within the intersection and there is unanimous support for this stop sign. with an increasing number of small children on our block, safer streets is even more important. thank you. >> thank you, very much. is there a member of staff? tom, can someone speak quickly to this? >> i can speak to this. i think the last speaker actually summed it up well. there have been numerous requests for a stop sign here. there have been reports of dangerous conditions or collisions there. we've had a request from the

supervisor's office to prioritize this. we see no adverse impact to putting a stop sign here which is why we've put it on this agenda and recommending it for your approval. >> thank you very much. >> do i have a motion to approval. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor aye. >> aye. >> any opposed, hearing none, 10.2r is approved. 10.3c. melody has asked to speak. >> great. melody, would you like to come up? and this is no parking any time except city-owned vehicles. on the west side at gerald. >> yes, melody. >> thank you so much for your time. my name is melody and i'm opposed to 10c. as you know sleep is a primary resource needed to make good decisions and police media strip

us of our right to rest. they strip us to our resources to recover from our circumstances. interrogators in every country know a total of sleep deprivation is a form of torture. my mere existence is breaking the law and this law and these signs are telling me i don't have the right to exist. since these new parking signs have been posted i'm thrust to parking where i'm not safe nor is my vehicle safe. drug users, urinating around my vehicle loss of time cleaning up after them, i've been broken into, et cetera, i'm treated by the meter made like i'm a criminal and i'm spoken to as if i'm vermon and they still allow the meter maids to terrorize me and insinuating it's for my own good. allowing this mind set without education nor correction is

appalling and though it is my responsibility, i'm not the cause of my homelessness. and again, i ask that the board of directours for a safe place to park because without your support, i cannot overcome my circumstances and thus i am a scapegoat of societial hypocrisy which demands i overcome my circumstances while stripping me of every single resource required to do so. thank you so much for your time again. >> thank you, we are going to have a larger discussion on this and today and do i have a motion to approve? do i have a second. all in favor aye. >> aye. >> any opposed. hearing none 10.3c is approved. let's move on to 10.9. >> the director to issue a request for proposal to solicit to develop the garage site into a convention hotel and affordable housing. alex asked to speak.

>> good afternoon again, commissioners. my name is alex lance burg and i'm a representative. i've been working with the local building trades and this r.f.p. came tour attention courtesy of our friends at local 2. in reviewing it, and i contacted lee a couple days ago and it may have been too late under the time lines that ya'll were running on, what i noticed was there were two really missing provisions in there. one, is labor harmony language for the construction of the hotel itself as well as improvements related to anyone who occupies the place in terms of retail done. and something that i think that the commission ought to consider, again, also in its proprietary interest and it's electric safety language. making sure the men and women building this hotel are at the highest caliber of training

going through programs and having observe a training and really having the skills in capabilities to pull this job off. on budget and on time and safely. to the first point, labor harmony language when i mentioned it to lee she was dubious or she wasn't quite sure where the city attorney was on this thing and i just have actually a copy with me. i wasn't able to print it but i have a copy of a letter that s.f.o. entered into with the san mateo county building trades. basically adapting labor harmony language for its facilities. you can incorporate it into the r.f.p. and i was hoping to bring it to you. second in terms of electric contractor safety language, this is something that's really been getting a lot of widespread use in los angeles. los angeles county both the city as well as the other cities in the county as well. i forwarded a copy to lee and

hopefully she will be able to forward it on to you and other project managers on your side of this thing. before you approved the r.f.p. i hope you can amend or at least include the language to put those two provisions in there. >> thank you. anymore public speakers on 10.9? no. yes, please come forward, sir. >> my name is sam soho. my son and i we have a retail store in that facility. we just took over on september this year. and we would like to say that our lease says that when they approved to build the hotel or whatever, we have six months to leave. we understand that but are we would like to take a humble request if we could be accommodated in the new hotel or whatever it is and provided some kind of a retail space.

we would appreciate that. it's too early to do that but i wanted to make it like a point. i would appreciate if you can accommodate us in some way. >> thank you, very much. >> much appreciated. district or racekin, this is in front of us if there were the desire or the requirement on the part of the city to add labor almost on' and safety language can it be done at the time of awarding any contract? >> well, maybe we can ask staff to speak to the issue of this. i wasn't aware of this issue. i would remedy pending on what staff would say, or one thing you can do is approve this item, the issuance of the r.r.p. and district us as staff to work with the trades to see the extent to which we can incorporate that language. we would want to put it into the rrfp but let me ask our staff to

update you on whatever conversations that there may have been. >> sure, i'm ray from the facilities and real estate division of the sfmta. i would echo the comment he made. the resolution that is before you does allow us to subsequent minor changes to the r.f.p. for those kind of requirements for labor work-force requirements, those kinds of things. so we can talk to the city attorney's office and discuss with the gentlemen who is here at the podium about any additional labor requirements that we can include in the r.f.p. and our guide was question have issues and the solve and real estate but we are interested and obviously having robust labor requirements within the r.f.p. >> director.

putting it for the r.f.p. >> would you like to speak to that? >> my colleague from the economic and workforce development can provide thoughts on that. >> good afternoon director, thank you. yes, so we did consult the city attorney about this very question even before alex raised the question to us and we've been advised that we've put sort of the most rigorous amount of labor requirements and workforce provisions in our r.f.p. however, i did double check with the city attorney after receiving a call from alex. what i've been told by the city attorney is that we don't take a position on labor piece, especially in our solicitation. it doesn't mean the city can't participate later.

if something has been proposed by whoever we select. but at this point it's not our policy to sort of proactively include language of that kind. but as director riskin said, if you chose to approve the authorization to release the r.f.p. today, before we release it, we can have another conversation about that with the city attorney. >> just to clarify, it is the policy of the city and county of san francisco not to include labor harmony language? >> i don't want to speak for the city attorney but i'm happy to clarify that with him. >> what i understood you to say was there's a policy that including this sort of language would not be with that policy. i'm trying to understand whose policy that is? >> i've been advised by the city attorney it's the city's policy. i don't want to misquote. i would rather have the city attorney come and describe the policy in writing. >> where this leaves me as a

district or is i'll state it would seem to me if it's appropriate and within the city policies to state this and it's something the agency wants to pursue anyway to include it, but, i also realize that these things aren't lightly drafted and that attorneys have been consulted and all that. i'm a little bit hesitant to do it on the fly here at the meeting. and rather, if we're told this is something that could be done later with amendment power to do that and not hold up the issuance of the r.f.p. for this. >> so that was my recommend day. not to try to do anything on the fly. the option again would be to approve with direction to us, to work with the city attorney's office with oewd and with labor just to explore what language we might consider adding. i don't know if it would be -- i would guess it's a practice than a policy but you know, we certain want to consult with the city attorney's office and would do so. >> i know there's also local business, preference and an all

kinds of other sort of -- >> it's first-source hiring. >> other qualifications for other businesses that may not, like small businesses that are a retail shop thing that may not be unionized so it might be one that i don't know. one of the reasons because we do have requirements around all those other things as well. it's not to say that it's inconsistent but we have a lot of different priorities. >> if i may, i would add two things. one, part of the r.f.p. is premise on the part of the sfmt will continue to own the underline parcels, if and when a development is actually approved and so there are going to be many future points at which whether it's through the lease agreement or the entitlement through which all of these work-force provisions will be cot a fied and the r.f.p. does include, because of the ownership of the city, they include a very holistic set of workforce and employment

requirements including, local hire, a mandatory requirement goal, not just a goal, first source hiring and others. >> thank you, yes. >> thank you. sorry to put you on the spot and have to serve the role of someone else and all that but, you did it ably and i appreciate that. it gets to the larger point of this. this is just the issuance of an r.f.p. we're not making a decision here as to what is going to be built and how it's built specifically. we're starting the process for something that clearly has a lot of merit for a lot of policy needs. so with that and subject to director kristen and i'll move the item for this? >> i'll second it. >> and to go back to the gentleman who has a retail establishment and do we have a consideration for someone who is already operated a shop within one of our sites, perhaps give

special consideration going forward? >> i have the privilege of speaking with the gentleman earlier today who had expressed that concern and we will work with economic workforce development and work with a selected developer to try and accommodate those interest as best as possible. >> excellent. thank you. >> i have a motion and a second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed. >> hearing none? 10.9 is approved. >> moving on, item 11, presentation and discuss regarding the transportation task force 2045 recommendations. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. >> it's ok. >> i've been under the understanding that the presentation was going to be pre

loaded. can we go out of order so i can get the presentation up? >> yes. can we go to item 12 if mr. thornily is happy to come out of order? >> ok. let's see, who gets your presentation up first. [laughter] so we'll go to item 12 then. presentation discussion regarding management and vehicular habitation. >> this is item 12. >> good afternoon members of the public presence and viewing through s.f. gov tv. i'm andy thornily i'm senior --

. >> -- in this beautiful, wealthy, intelligent city, every night perhaps 7500 folks are out on the streets. we know, we have a fair estimate from the bienial point in time from presence on the street, about 1200 people are living in cars or vans on the streets of san francisco. the demographics are various. their individuals, there are families, there are elderly folks. and not only is there hardship of being vehicularly housed,

but citations and towing can just make it worse, and can' only one lose her home to towing, but often, possessions are lost. everything can be lost in a stroke. the issue is complex and multidimensional, to be sure. this agency asks us to address punt amount tally different questions about who we are as a city. we must address these questions if we are to become our vision of a truly great city. this city has charges regulating the curb, so i want to make it obvious. this is a transportation agency. the city charges the mta with regulations limiting parking, stopping, etcetera. this is our charge.

it's not something we do as a hobby. we are responsible for managing the curb in a safe, equitiable and efficient manner. lots and lots and lots of things pressing on the curb. transitways, parkways, daylighting, and that is challenging enough. if all we were doing is refere refereeing the curb for parking and other uses, but some of what is parked are vehicles, and some of those vehicles have folks living in them. the public works department has some enforcement responsibilities, the police department, of course, is an essential partner on this business of regulating use of the curb, but it really is up to the sf municipal transportation agency. want to acknowledge that while i assert the prime task of this agency is to manage transportation and streets, we

obviously are not apart from the rest of the city. you have heard folks make that comment, in fact that last consent item was this city recognizing and having an opportunity to be a participant in addressing the housing crisis. personally, i'm thrilled. we will lose a garage, perhaps, but we'll gain affordable housing and also, depending on how that turns out, a hotel to help serve a very important aspect of the local industry. so this is a very complicated thing that the mta has struggled with, not just bridging the responsibilities of the transportation and streets management with housing and habitation, but finding cooperative harmonious arrangement with other agencies so that we can focus on transportation. vehicles used as housing present a significant policy challenge to the sfmta. again, directors who have been here with me for the past several years know this, directors who have joined us

more recently haven't had all of those conversations, but we have struggled with this for a while. first, i'll start by reminding everybody that under police code since 197' 1, it's against the l -- 1971, it's against the law to live in a vehicle. the enforcement of that law has been challenging for the police practically, and also i think as a compassion issue, so it may be illegal, but that's not enforced as strictly as it could for various reasons. inhabited oversize vehicles present social and safety problems. you'll here, i'm sure from members of the public about not only the issue of blights, having r.v.'s parked along a certain street, but it becomes a refuge for mischief, to put things lightly, we hear about drugs being bought and sold, prostitution, fighting dogs,

all sorts of trouble. we hear about the disposal of waste in ways that are not only unpleasant but unsan unsanitar. your staff, frankly are sitymid to address this challenge. we are, i'm pleased to say, beginning to have what i hope are productive conversations with the department of homelessness and supportive housing towards having that relationship with an agency that's not just a transportation agency. and we're starting to see the potential for some mechanisms, and we'll touch on that a little bit later in the presentation, and i think i have a colleague from the department of homelessness and

supportive housing to speak to that and answer some questions about it. just to touch very briefly on what is living in vehicles on the street? well, we don't know for sure. the point in time survey, the bienial survey -- i don't want to say it's superficial, but it's only one night. but there are folks living in vehicles who have been living in vehicles for years who's effectively residentially vehicularly housed. we have somebody who's in a camper coming from sacramento and on his way to los angeles. we've got tourists and visitors. i'm down in the marina, and i will often see families with rented r.v.'s from indiana living in vehicles. a airbnb lists r.v.'s as rooms

you can stay in in san francisco. i'm not just saying it to be silly. i had an e-mail before i came here to talk with you from a gentleman who was living in an r.v. attending school here. he's come to san francisco. he can't afford or he finds it untenable to rent space, and so as a student, he's living in an r.v. that's one of the many flavors of things. we also are hearing more about folks coming in from other counties driving for uber and lyft who are spending the weekend sleeping in their cars in on the grounds beach. again, quite different from someone living in a camper for months or years on end. there's also something i want to overlap between over side vehicles as a hazard and n nuisance and people living in them. we've developed tools and responses that we've brought forward. in 2012 we working with the right sides came up with a new

kind of infraction. dimensionally based, 27 feet long, 7 feet tall, where you can't park over night. that wasn't meant to target homeless folks. it was also meant to target landscape boats, fishing boats, lots of different large vehicles that were parked where they shouldn't be, and we need as an agency to address that. there are many bits of curb where we do not want to have a large vehicle parked for site line blocking reasons or other safety and health issues. getting into a little bit more of the history and context, this is a photo that was sent to us by a constituent in the portal district. this is university street just a couple of months ago, and it's interesting and illustrative for a few reasons. you do see a line of r.v.'s. you see that if you're a

neighbor in this neighborhood, you'd be concerned or worse about that. you'd also see that there's a small s.u.v. with a boat and a trailer parked there. i'm suspecting that that's a neighbor who's storing a large vehicle on the street. this is one of the challenges that we also have as an agency. if we try to regulate large vehicles parked on the street, neighbors are large vehicles will protest. but just to touch on a little bit more of what we have try today do before i get into the specific regulations -- tried to do before i get into the specific regulations. we have in talking with other cities and advocates, coalitions for homelessness in particular, to explore other mechanisms. there is the concept of the safe parking program. again members of this board have heard this and talked about this. i've first got wind of this from the coalition of

homelessness who pointed us to the balanceard neighborhood of seattle, where private parking facilities, churches and other -- ballard neighborhood of seattle, where private parking facilities, churches and other -- walmart, for instance, make those available for overnight refuge for folks living in vehicles. those parking lots have social services attached to them, and that idea of a safe parking program has been recommended to us over the years: . we have talked to other agencies about is a way that perhaps san francisco could experiment with that. it's apparent to your staff that the mta could not operate. no other agency is running a safe parking program, but we are standby to be partners on that and we'll talk a little bit about that further down the

road. again, there's some regulatory precedent on that. against, since 1971, the city code has made it illegal to inhabit a vehicle. the 72-hour rule which is basically the abandoned vehicle mitigation rule, that you may not park a vehicle for longer than 72 hours, neighbors sometimes ask us why can't the mta move these vehicles along just for the 72-hour rule, if something's parked there for three days? we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. i just started to tell you, i'll tell you more now, that in 2012, we did codify -- the board of supervisors codified an over night vehicle parking restriction, where posted a large vehicle can't be parked between midnight and 6:00 a.m. we've brought you proposals for that over the years, but you've

become understandably reluctant to approve those, and we have stopped bringing you more of those to use that oversize vehicle regulation. i have, myself, hoped that we might as a city, talk again about a blanket citywide prohibition on oversize vehicles parked over night. the board of supes proposed that in 2004 but did not adopt that. i think because some neighbors who have their own large vehicles minded. we might come back to that as a city. and of course, there are a lot of other rules that cause vehicles of any size to be moved, whether it's time limits, resident permit time limits, parking meters, tow away zones. there are all sorts of things apart from that oversize vehicle regulation. so there are fines and fees that are associated. i mentioned that when a vehicle

is cited and towed. i want to emphasize, you'll hear from members of the public, couldn't mta provide relief from someone who was cited, their vehicle was parked too many times and towed. at your january '16 meeting, you remember, you acted to reform the unpaid citation community service and payment plan. it's now a little bit cheaper to get into that plan if you have a lack log of citations. we've also implemented fee reductions for first-time tows and even deeper reductions for low income folks, so we are as an agency making reforms to make it less of a -- burdensome

if you've been towed, but there are still some gaps. i think you'll hear from members of the public looking for more relief on these fees and fines for towing. an impounded vehicle often contains personal property, and the inability to pay delinquent fees and fines of towing, even with these fee relief reforms, frequently mean the loss of the vehicle and everything it contained. all right. i haven't been asked, you may have heard, why isn't the 72-hour rule enough to move large vehicles or any vehicle along? it's a basic time limit that no vehicle can be parked for longer than three days, but it was really intended to address abandoned vehicles. it's quite effective at that. when a vehicle is strollen aol abandoned, no one is coming to

get it. it was never meant to be a hard rule for three-hour limit -- or three-day limit, rather; and in fact our parking control officers are reluctant to enforce is too strictly because sometimes they find themselves in a spite match between neighbors. my neighbor goes off to chicago for a week. another neighbor says that car hasn't moved. that's not what the 72-hour rule was meant to address. and on that notion, it has built into it an exception. other conventional time limits, resident permit time limits, three hour time limits, whatever, you have to move the car at least a block or a tenth of a mile. the 72-hour requirement does not have that intent to shift, so if you're sitting there three days, you roll a foot forward and the clock is reset. so to be clear, to the board and the public watching, the 72-hour rule is not a way to

enforce long-term parking by large vehicles or small vehicles. that oversize vehicle restriction which is transportation code 7254 has been posted in about 47 miles of san francisco block faces. this map is pretty hard to read here, but in your packet, you've got a cleaner copy. that's about 25 miles of the 900 miles of san francisco streets where we've posted this oversize vehicle restriction. this board does not approve further use of this oversize vehicle restriction since october 2016. you may recall rebrougwe broug three sides of the safeway parking lot.

blanket, no stopping, no standing, many other ways that we're coming at this. we have a business park, apparel city, it's called. not quite bayview, just in off of bayshore drive, and we worked for quite a long time to come up with some sort of parking regulations that would move along vehicles parking on those streets, and still leave space for the businesses and their customers to move on. we still haven't been able to address this program, but we're looking at it with actuals that offer some resistance to the community. again, that oversize vehicle restriction, just to say to you that the beginning of this chart is july 2015. you see that after we had signed a few locations, we had

quite a bit of citation writing. that falls off pretty quickly. once that oversize vehicle restricted is posted, pretty much it does the job. it moves those vehicles out of there. the problem is where does it go, and who is in those vehicles? we can't say for sure, and we certainly can say we're not compassionately engaging those people that we're displacing. >> again, some unintended consequences. that is quite effective at moving vehicles along, but it displaces people instead of resolving them, and of course the folks living in them are displaced. we have, several times, ever since bringing you the proposal to use that oversize vehicle restriction, been working with the coalition on homelessness

fitfully, distractedly, i confess. we have not been sitting with other people as closely as we might. we've got other projects we're working on. we've gotten to know dph and the homeless outreach team as well. very close. i know lots of police officers. we've approached the interfaith council, whether they might help us get a safe parking lot going. we've worked with every member of the board of supervisors to get their interest in addressing this. now we have the department of homelessness and the support of housing, thank haerch, and we are beginning to have conversations that i hope will become productive in finding some relief. i believe randy casada from the department of homelessness and housing relief can answer some questions on what we're doing with them. finally, to recap that conversation with dhsh has resulted in a working group

being convened. we've had a series of conversations towards developing some sort of relief mechanism for folks living in folks, bringing them not to services but helping move them out to more appropriate housing. we really as a city need to find a way to help people get into conventional healthy housing, and so we're looking at ways that not only could we grant an exception for relief for someone living in a vehicle, connect them to services, connect them to housing, get them out of the vehicle, get them off the street. and in the meantime, this agency can't stop regulating the curb. you will hear from members of the public who are very frustrated that we are not addressing their problems, and i do not have a proposal for

you today. i am, rather, here to update you on where the conversation stands, and as you hear from members of the public and get some questions, left to get a bit of direction from the board on how we might proceed in executing on our mission to regulate the curb while we show some due empathy and compassion. and i will just end on that point because as i say, there are folks from the public who want to speak to you. >> thank you very much. good presentation, and a very difficult topic for us all. directors, i think i would like to go to the public to hear public comment first, but i know we have two representative aides from the board of supervisors. we -- i'd like to ask them to come up first. >> clarifying jurisdiction. i heard a social services agency presentation. are we taking on that role as

well or are we just delineating time to parking? >> i think mr. thornily, would you like to answer that question please? i think what i heard you say in your presentation is that we are not taking on the role of a social services agency, and we deal strictly with managing the curb space. >> that's right, chair brinkman. >> but he also said hotels and other housing. is that something you want to take on? >> no. pardon me for any confusion. i'm asserting, and i think with confidence, and i hope mr. reiskin will clarify or confirm, this agency is not a social service agency. we are not a housing agency, we are not in the business of setting and following habitation policy. >> okay. i misinterpreted it brink br. k >> chairman brinkman: thank you, thank you director torres. i think miss torres and is it mr. persky. >> i'm a legislative aide to

supervisor fewer, who represents district one on the board of supervisors. so first, we do just want to thank you for taking up this issue which does go beyond the scope of parking and traffic in the city. as a district that represents much of golden gate park and open park space, we have heard many concerns from neighbors that these impacts to vehicles cause a lot of issues to the surrounding community, but at the same time, we realize that the issue here is ultimately a symptom that comes from growing wealth divide and to make ends meet, lower income communities have to resort to these r.v.'s and living out of these cars, and enforcement of these matters does cause a lot of impacts to these communities. so while we are very appreciative that mta has been working closely with the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and all the other obligations mr. thornily mentioned, we do look forward to working with them to

identify sites in the county to find places where these vehicles can park with minimal impacts to surrounding residential areas, and we hope that this can be a citywide plan that we can all work towards. so we appreciate your consideration. >> thank you very much, mr. perce persky. >> as you know, supervisor tang and myself have been involved in the issue of vehicular population for many years. as andy showed in those photos, there would be a wall of vehicles which led to a lot of other issues: illegal dumping, animal-human waste problems, sometimes noise late a night and generally a lack of parking

and also visiblity for pedestrians which is a big concern for us? we also know there are many people in the vehicles who keep to themselves and present absolutely no issue to their communities? unfortunately, many -- [ inaudible ] of course, there are many challenges with where they moved and what services they had. over the course of the last few years we have put in a very few requests around playgrounds and parks, we only put in the requests when it is a persistent problem such as light or public safety, not just in large parking spaces that happen to be scattered throughout the neighborhood, which is where a lot of oversize vehicles are currently parking. we want to mank the mta for

working with different agencies to create anecwitnessable solutions for people who find themselves in the situation, and we don't want 2 ow away fees or fines to be the impediment to allowing people to get out of homelessness. brimpg brink we'll set the time limit at two minutes. there's a count down clock on the podium. when you get to 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a light tone. when you get to the end of your time, you will hear a louder tone, at which time, i will politely but firmly instruct you to stop your remarks. >> my name is cameron crockett. i'm the chair for the marina association. i came to the sfmta back in

december over our residents who expressed serious concerns over the safety issues from people camping out in their trucks, vans and r.v.'s. first want to say thank you. you've been very responsive. connected me with andy. we've had several great meetings, includiand i've also analyzed a study from long beach city. this problem is forced to get larger not smaller. however i fully believe sfmta has the power to help curb this program if the right policies and services are aligned. my recommendation would be to explore a solution similar to l.a.'s program, which is banning campers and r.v.'s within the city unless a special day use permit is purchased to special enforcement to people sleeping in vehicles, and then three is starting the safe transition

park area where people can park their r.v.'s cars and vans without fear of being towed. the safe transition park concept is not new, however for it to be implemented effectively, i believe sf's homeless department will need to find the right location and focus on redoubling their efforts to help people find a

purpose. [ inaudible ] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> sylvia shaman. >> hi. thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. my name is celia shuman, and i was invited to come here and share a little bit of our history with oversize vehicles and parking issues. so this is 2002. this shows you, this is not a new issue. 2002, 2001. so up until 2016, our area had zero curb enforcement, so anybody could park anything. r.v.'s were part of the problem, but thank to andy and sfmta we now have four hour

time limits there which have helped us a lot. this is a more recent photo right before i had our time limits. i apologize for the black and white here, but again, very similar to other photos you've seen. and things had improved significantly with that curb enforcement. however, within the last couple months we are now seeing r.v.'s returning to areas where there is four hours curbs and actually meters and they are there for seven to ten days, so the problem that we're having is an enforcement question, who do we call? department of parking and traffic says it's a police issue, and they say it's a 31 # is are a is -- 311 issue, so who do we call? additionally, we're having a prob w