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 problem with nonmotorized

vehicles parking in those space does. this is kind of a wooden structure that's parked in front of a parking meter there. oh, sorry. so this, i understand, there is no jurisdiction for, so this -- this is another challenge that we need to address. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> april prozer, followed by evan prozer, and then melody. >> i have a picture, too. i just put it on the thing? >> chairman brinkman: it'll come up. there you go. >> i just want to -- i guess you'd call it a reality check. this is a department of public works worker with a sledgehammer about to demolish a person's home. it had -- he had made a little stairway and a little desk in there, and he had all his tools

hanging neatly on the wall. and he took a video. that is off the video, and he was very nice. you know, he never complained, you know? he just was watching them as they -- with the hot team and the police watching. this is the reality of what's happening. you know, i appreciate everyone saying that these people are vulnerable. they are, and until something is figured out to do besides just saying well, we don't know where they're going, maybe we should put some kind of a mo moratorium on kicking them out and destroying their homes because they are vulnerable and they're citizens of san francisco. >> thank you, miss prozer. next speaker, please.

>> evan prozer. >> today, folks, thank you for hearing us. i'm april's husband. together we pastor the homeless church here fore the last 24 hours. for seven years, we lived on the streets ourselves in a school bus to get a sense of what's going on. we love the people very much and know what's going on. i want to add to that picture that she -- just -- that story. the police were there while this was going on, and they allowed the owner of the -- of the constructed home to film that far for the first part of the sledgehammer, and then they told after it had been torn down as a way of more traffic. they stopped him from filming when, being unable to -- to

destroy the vehicle with a sledgehammer or by backing a flatbed truck into it, they took a -- a -- what's the right word? i lost it now. they took a backhoe and bashed it to the ground. dear people, dear people, are you aware of the suffering of the homeless people in our city? do you have any idea what it's like? i'm just emphasizing -- i'm emphasizing the empathy and compassion that you're so aware of, i'm just emphasizing. these -- when you crush a person's home and he's standing right there, unable to film it,

you're crushing him either further in his personality. homeless people are crushed people. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. prozer. next speaker, please. >> melody. followed by sam christiansen. >> chairman brinkman: melody in? is there a melody here? i'm sorry, melody. we have to keep everybody from two minutes. please go ahead, and i'm sure that you can -- do you want to wait and let somebody else speak first? okay. we'll call a few more speakers and then you can cull up. >> mark, sam. >> yes, i'm mark christiansen, speaking as an individual. sfmta needs to take a lead role in a firm yet compassionate approach to vehicle overnight habitation on the streets of

san francisco. currently, r.v.'s park on the streets taking up valuable parking spaces for neighborhood residents and persons dispose trash and many other items on the sidewalks of surrounding vehicles. this is a health and safety issue. it must be addressed. i suggest locating perhaps up to three or four large public sites, each not in close proximity to a residential property, block or so away at least, that could support r.v. and vehicle lots and perhaps charge a very nominal fee for maintenance to sustain these special lots. all requirements could be worked on for the benefit of all parties, but i think that's a safe and compassionate wray -- way to deal with it, and i think there are sites in san francisco that could deal with

this. probably take 12 -- three or four sites that could probably how's up house up to 1200, so that's my suggestion. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. christiansen. next speaker. >> sam lu. >> hi. i'm sam lu, and i work at the coalition for homelessness, and we get calls every day from people who are homelessness, and they're really in a state of distress because their car has been taken away. melody wanted me to read some of her statement. there are approximately five to seven navigation centers with a capacity of 75 to 120 people each. currently, the turnaround is 30 to 60 day stay. it's become nothing more than a revolving door. at most it can get approximately 500 of the 7500 homeless people off the street for a very short time, and i

think it just speaks to why we're taking away people's cars when we have such a burden on the homeless system as it is. it's also difficult to get your car back with all of your possessions in it. i was here with mr. hernandez who's in the audience today, until 11:30 friday to get his car back because of the impounding tow fees. if you don't pay it that day or in a couple of days, the fee is so much that you'll never get your car back. so i see a lot of different pla flaws especially for people who are living in their cars, and i ask you to put a moratorium on the tow fees or at least the impound fees for people who are living in their cars. there's also an issue with a need to get an i.d. to get your possessions back. a lot of people get their things stolen, they can't get an i.d., and also tow for low income fee, you need some sort

of documentation. but if you're someone who's undocumented or if you're a working poor person and just are on any of those programs, you can't access that reduction, so i'm open to any questions if you have any. thank you so much. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker. >> gonzalo hernandez followed by michael ignant. >> hello. my name is gonzalo hernandez, and i'm homeless. when i want to say several help some people to this situation, right? i was -- i left my car and then they towed my car, right? i was desperate, right, because that's my house, right? try to get back -- get my home back, right, and i couldn't do it because when i went to talk with one woman that was

supposed to pay, and the next day, it was more, so too difficult, right? i was -- i was -- what -- i'm a drug addict, but i have five months -- i'm not using drugs right now, so -- and i was desperate, right, because i can't get my home back. so i was like one day before i was talking like god, you're -- why you let this happen, because i want my home. my car, it's not my car, it's my home. so i was -- i was decided to use drugs if i didn't get my car back, right, because that's all i have, right? so i would like -- i was decided -- but you know, i thank god -- you no listen to me, so i decided this person who listened to me allowed me to take my car back. so i own -- what can i say, iomy life to her. if it wasn't this, i would be

on the streets, using drugs or stealing or whatever. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much mr. hernandez. next speaker, please. >> michael ignant followed by jason zang. >> hi. my name is michael, i'm from sources plow shares and outreach specialists, and i want to say there are over 1,200 people living in their cars, their homes and their r.v.'s in san francisco, that being disabled, children, you know, adults with disabilities. all of these people are suffering, and what i'm asking for is that we pass a memorandum to allow all towed vehicles for people who are experiencing homelessness, and i'm also asking that we waive parking citations for people that are experiencing homelessness. i know i'm working with two veterans that are sleeping, one is in their r.v. and one is actually in a car right now and they're actually worried about

this right now, that they don't have any extra money to be able to -- with their citations, if they get a citation living in their car, so i'm here right now to be able to ask that we keep that in mind for them to be able to not create more of a burden than they're already experiencing right now. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> jason zang, followed by kelley cutler. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. my name is jason zang. i'm associated with the coalition on homelessness. i'm here on behalf of joe today, who wanted to be here for himself but couldn't, because his car got towed today due to street cleaning. in the past month and a half for joe, he's experiencing homelessness due to a home loss. this car is his last kind of defense before completely being on the streets. on top of that joe also suffers

severe depression and other mental health problems, and he also has a physical condition, his foot that keeps his foot in a swollen state and can be quite painful. walking is painful for him, and this morning when his car was towed, his hsshoes were still inside the car. losing a car is a lot more than a place to sleep at night. his primary transportation to go to his appointments, his physical upkeep and mental health. just the tow cost for joe right now is $542.25. which is a lot, even to working folks. he just wanted to share his story today and raise awareness because he's trying to get back on his feet. he's trying to keep himself back on the street, but he's constantly being dragged back by regulations. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. mr. zang.

next speaker, please. >> kelley cutler, and then steven. >> chairman brinkman: and then melody after that. >> right. thank you. >> hi. i'm kelley cutler. i am a human rights organizer at the coalition fore homelessness. been coming here fore years about this you believe. sam took my introduction line about saying that we're getting calls on a weekly, if not multiple times a week basis, and we don't really have any options for them. it's important to understand that when folks lose their vehicle, that that often times is the last thing that's keeping them from sleeping hard on the street. our current shelter waist list has over 1100 people just on the single shelter wait list. the family is a different one. it's 111 days for a family to get into the shelter. so this is a housing crisis, so we need to keep this thing this

mind. oh, and once they're on the streets, it's against the law to sit or lie down. something that was very disturbing to me was i had gone to a meeting regardi regarding encampments two weeks ago, and i was really surprised because i'm part of the working group that we're having on oversize vehicles where we haven't come up with the set things yet, but in this meeting, the city is really organizing and targeting people that are living in vehicles, so it wasn't just tha that encampments, they were talking a lot about oversize vehicles, which really surprised me in seeing how actively they are strategically targeting them when there are no alternatives. the safe parking program is a great idea, and that's something we've been advocating for. i think we can push the interfaith council for a little bit more and others, and we've broken-down different models and things that have worked and things that haven't worked as

well because you've got to be smart about how you approach it and the strategy, but it's something that is giving an alternative because right now wheth when there's no alternatives, it's pushed around, and they'll be back here for another meeting and another one. thanks. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, miss cutler. next speaker. >> herbert winer. >> herbert winer. i notice in palo alto, there are cars that are parked. certainly they don't pose a menace in palo alto, or elsewhere would have heard about it. and also, would you rather have them sleeping in their vehicles or sleeping on your doorstep. that's the question. there's also a double standard. you crack down on r.v.'s, but you don't crack down on bicyclists riding on the sidewalk. i'm wondering, there's one

agency that should be here, and that's the department of homelessness. they should be involved in this. they should be testifying here. they should be examining the problem with you, you should not go it alone. this is a problem that affects many agencies, and i think it should be coordinated with the coalition on homelessness. i think this is a problem that involves more than mta because this is a one side solution to a problem that really affects the whole city. and we have to remember that many people who sleep in their vehicles are people who can't afford housing, and many of them are professors who teach at universities who can't find housing for them. i think this is a problem and the mta should not go it alone. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> steven martin peak. >> good afternoon. steve martin. >> it'll pick you up. >> good. steve martin pinto. i represent 2200 -- 2200 residents of east side neighborhood where illegal habitation of r.v.'s has become a problem on judson and circular avenue. since the arrival, we've seen an increase in illegal dumping of human waste and litter, we have seen an increase in crime and suspicious activity, and also drug use. we, the residents of sunnyside have the right to keep our streets clean and safe. it's become a health issue, and it threatens to become a health and environmental issue that threatens public health and the environment. we must remember that homeless individuals, although their situations are unfortunate, they do have a say in their situation, and they can make

choices in how they want to live -- and how they want to live. we must remember that vehicle inhabitation is illegal, and we are a society of laws, and we must follow the law, even if it is unthinking for us because we are a civilized society, and a civilized society has laws to maintain the peace and security of all of its homes and businesses. we must enforce the laws, we have to decide as a city to decide to enforce these laws or not, and if we do not, we must be prepared for the consequences that will have a net negative effect on the residents of our city. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. martinson. melody, are you ready? i think you're the last public commenter -- one more after you go ahead. >> thank you so much. i'm so grateful for your time today. i want to tell you how grateful i am that the sfmta has not posted no parking over vehicle

sign i can't imagine recentl signage recently, and i'm worried what will happen to more if more oversize vehicle signs are posted. it's impossible to tell you my story in two minutes of how and why i got here, but i can tell you what it's like now. the public pressured and city mandated chronic displacement is nearly always carried out in a brutal devastating manner by what homeless experience as a small army of supposedly a team of various city officials, the dhsh, the dpw, the hot team and etcetera. and via chronic displacement, this perpetuates a man made personal disaster on the level of a flood or a fire or

hurricane. this is like being displaced by a fire every few weeks, if not every few days. if the oversize vehicle restrictions are posted, the frequency at which i'm displaced will escalate. i would be very happy to answer any questions that you have and thank you so much for your time. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, melody. i think we have a few more public speakers. >> yes. emily cohen, followed by jennifer sergeants. >> good afternoon, director's. my name's emily cohen. i'm the policy manager for the department of homelessness and effective housing. thank you for holding this hearing today. i think this is an important subject we are all grappling with. several months ago, several agencies formed a working group as andy alluded to earlier to

discuss potential pilot programs or alternatives to the current situation. we know there are far too many people living in their cars, on our streets, and we know that our homeless system are over burdened, and we do not have the capacity that we need to address the issue, so we are looking forward on developing something, and i look forward to coming back in a few months when we have some concrete propositions. we want to lead with social services, and we want to work with folks living in their vehicles and with social service providers to ensure that we're able to get people connects to the resources and services needed to move them into housing and you know forward in their lives. so i appreciate you guys bringing up this issue and grappling with it, and i look forward to having the conversation and come forward with an announcement when we have more from our working

group. >> chairman brinkman: thank y you. next speaker, please. >> jennifer sergeant. hi. i'm a third generation san franciscan, and i can't afford to live here anymore. i work in the city. i commute every day, 40 miles up to santa clara to san francisco. i have to park in the bayview district. it's just kind of forgotten. it's district ten. it's the last district on the list, and they forget about it. a lot of oversize buildings are -- vehicles have been moved from other districts, and we call 311 and the police. we have a lot of r.v.'s, cars, homeless people. it's not safe, it's not hygienic. i have to give myself an extra

ten minutes from where i park to where i work. there cou there -- we're trying to figure out the best way to make it safe for us to go to work and for them to be helped. i think it's a great idea to use the social services, give them a fee of 1 a week so they feel human again and not feel like they're homeless and being spit on. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, miss sergeant. is there anyone else? yes. i see one more. >> hi. my name is nick. i'm just here to just follow up on what my colleagues from the coalition fore homelessness are saying. i guess that people walk to work, and the view from their home is important, however we definitely feel the livelihood of people living in those vehicles is more important. we do have suggestions for what

the mta can do. i understand you're not tasked with addressing social services and all that. that's not what we're asking. we're asking the oversize code, the 72-hour code, even though people are not issued citations, they are harassed by the police. even though we may not be seeing tickets, we know from what we hear that those laws are being enforced and they certainly are affecting people living in their streets and in their cars. we think that the auto return contract needs to be reviewed. we also see that, again, like food stamps and things like that, not everyone is eligible for that. we issue a certificate of homelessness from our office that is used by providers throughout the city and county. that should be able to be used

for auto for a reduction in fees. we would ask that there be a moratorium from fees or that they be forgiven or that there's something similar that project 20 developed for people to either do a payment plan, 'cause mr. hernandez when we were working with him, it was 600 right then and there, and it went up $71 a day. we do hope that you listen to the testimony of people living in their vehicles rather than you know, these sort of mundane concerns that other people have. i think these are effective. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, nick. do i have any other public comment on this item? if not, i'm going to call public comment closed. mr. thornily, do you want to come back up?

i just want to thank everyone who came and speak. it touches us, and for the neighbors affected, we hear and understand your complaints. mr. thornily, this falls to one of the impossible tasks. we are not social services, we manage the curb space as you have pointed out. i think -- i'm assuming that what is going to be most helpful for you to hear from this board is our thoughts to continue to go forward on the wo working group and really to address the idea of do we want to use as you note, the most appropriate tools based on context and need, and will that include oversize vehicle restrictions? i think we have not allowed oversize vehicle restrictions to come to this board for a

number of year due to the whack-a-mole nature of services. >> thank you, madam chair, and indeed, i beg your pardon for bringing you something that is so complicated and confused. as you indicated, it is a city problem. so yes, wanted to inform you, wanted to get your endorsement, such as it is for this working group. also, we will continue to bring you proposals to manage the curb. whether or not they're the oversize vehicle restriction, it's going to have an impact, and you've heard from folks testifying that a parking meter that one citation too many is too much. we pretty much can't win as staff when we bring you parking management proposals, not only folks living in vehicle, but you will hear and you have hear from everybody that it's some

sort of a hardship. and i think what -- speaking for myself and on behalf of the curb management part of the agency, we want to be bringing you proposals that have some focus. so for instance, in that oversized vehicle restriction, when we brought that forward, we came back to the board of supes, and the mta directors after six months of trying this at ocean beach and elsewhere, and here's what we saw. unfortunatel it works fine to displace vehicles, and unfortunately, it displaces vehicles. we've heard that los angeles has done something similar with a ban on r.v.'s, and we would use this at school yard perimeters, residential streets with a limited on street parking, and streets that are

prone to abandoned vehicles, and so we wouldn't just be saying we'd like to bring this oversize vehicle restriction and use it in a far corner of the bayview on an industrial street. rather, here's a school yard. you heard from supervisor tang's office say it's been an issue requeand we've done it t. if staff felt it was appropriate and the board felt it was appropriate to entertain proposals and put an over size vehicle restriction around school yards. we've heard complaints from neighbors about mclaren park being the set. we would use this tool in a very restrained way. that may be too much for you, and i appreciate that, but that's one of the things that the board might say yes, mr. thornily, and sustainable streets, we will use this in a

very limited sense where the context has some purpose. >> chairman brinkman: all right. thank you, and i certainly did not mean to sound callous in my choice of language about the problem. >> not at all brink bri. >> chairman brinkman: i do appreciate how we solve for one place and other people are affected. director borden? >> director borden: would think -- i would imagine because what they've described, does the program not apply to people that are already in the pipeline? a couple of months we approved for a reduction in fees for people to be able to pay -- that was for the parking tickets, but i'm just wanting to understand if that program is applicable. that gentleman is $600 behind in parking fees.

i'm just wondering if the new regulation we enacted would be able to be applied. >> yes. at your january 6th meeting, you did approve changes to the community service program for unpaid citations. that makes it very accessible. i think it's a very low requirement to get into that program if you have a backlog of citations. i was hoping we'd have james for the reco ford here. he was living in his bus and got about $1600 in citations and had his vehicle towed. i was on the phone with miss lu friday, talking about mr. hernandez' blight of being towed out of the yellow zone a couple of days before, and i think in that instance he was not able to present evidence of low income qualification

because he was not in the food stamp program, he was not on some of these other programs that are the proxies to substantiate low income. there may be a misunderstanding. it's certainly something to examine, and i'll stay on that case to find out if there was a gap, if there is a misunderstanding because it is the intent of the agency to make those fees less ownerous and have access to those programs. now if you get to the point where you have $1500 in citations and you are towed, it isn't enough to get you out of the 2 ow yard and you have those $1500 in citations. the next day, you could get towed again. you're going to have to pay that down below the threshold. one of the things as we work with the department of homelessness and supportive housing, it's obvious we need

to connect with people sooner. the mta is not equipped to do this, approach every vehicle that may have someone living in it and say, do you have a back seat full of citations because you're really going to get hit hard. we're working with outreach folks to find folks sooner so they don't have this sword of damocles hanging over your head, because once you have this backlog, it's very hard to get you out of jeopardy. >> i just wanted to -- i do think we can figure out a way to work with some of the social service agencies to identify. i know a lot of people who are homeless do not actually access services, which project homelessness does do.

i do tend to favor some sort of amnesty program, because as the gentleman said, people have drug issues and other things, and these things sort of pile up, and what sort of sets thicks ov things over the edge and puts them back on the streets. we see these people that are unhoused, and whether we want to acknowledge this is housing or not for people, it is. i'm a big supporter of looking how we can do a safe transition park concept, and i personally would not vote for a citywide ban without something like

that. at the same time, we have a crisis on our street separate and independent of oversize vehicle issues, and to not acknowledge it and think that we can just simply move it away is just not realistic, and we need to describe, also, the 72-hour kind of complication that you could just move your vehicle around every three days which is essentially the reason that we've had a much larger homeless problem more visible in our city, previously people nobody went to or weren't as busy, are now forced out of those places, are now just forced out. we see that in tent citys. so i don't think it's not realistic to believe that an outright ban would solve the problem. i just think it moves it around constantly like we see with our tents. so i really think if we can get to a point where we can figure out this pilot program and a park and reexamine the ban

policies in that regard, that makes sense, but also in creating an amnesty for people who are homelessness so they don't have to pay these tickets. honestly, they have to take care of other things in their lives. they shouldn't have to worry about parking tickets overtaking their live. >> i was going to ask you to maybe explore options within the problem of, you know, certifying that somebody is homeless. it seems like there might be -- might be some of the public speakers mentioned they have a certificate. certainly exploring a solution to that because it's frustrating if there are potential solutions that oh, this administrative bureaucracy is an impediment to that solution, so i would definitely be in favor of pursuing that and seeing if we can work something out on that front.

i just think director border covered what i was going to say. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, director rubke. >> thank you, mr. thornily for your commitment to this work. i admire your compassion and dedication to this. this is an incredibly sensitive issue, and it takes a special person to accommodate all of the competing interests that you have so gracefully done, and you applaud yo and i encourage your efforts. i don't think we're going to find a silver bullet, so to speak. it's going to require a partnership of a number of different agencies as has been said. i think that what we're experiencing here is just the realities of an increasingly competitive economy in a place that is constrained geographically, and every

square inch of this city is being sought out. this isn't detroit, this isn't utah, this is one of the best cities in the world to live in, and we've got a humming economy that is driving so much competition in every corner of this city, and we've got to find a comprehensive solution that takes that into consideration. one of the things that i wish we could give more attention to, and maybe you'll be more able to do this, but i -- you know, i do not just look at all of the private lots that are empty at night, i look at stonestown mall at night, and i see a sea of empty parking, and he see a sea of empty parking around churches and schools and community colleges, and everywhere there are lots, and people aren't sleeping in those or parking their cars there, and i wonder why can't -- you know, why can't we do something to encourage partnerships to use those lots. and i think about the sfmta's parking lots, our own parking

lot like the one we just talked about or the one in the mission. there is a number of lots that we own, and i'm wondering, how hard would it be to simply designate the top floors of those lots and just distribute the complexity of the problem in a way that we might be able to accommodate more sustainablely. i know that it's going to come at a cost. we are not a social services division of this city. it would require an immense amount of resources that i'm confident we don't have the budget to be able to address just yet, but it's not something that i don't think we should look at and look into a comprehensive solution and maybe ask the supervisors to fund a program to -- to utilize that resource that we might have. but i -- i'm hopeful because as we can improve our transit and get more people out of cars and with less of a need for parking

lots in the future with the coming of autonomous vehicles and better infrastructure and better, safer streets to walk down, i think we'll come to a place where we have less of a demand of the parking than we have today. this idea of just like designating a spot in the city, i think -- i don't think that that's valid. i think that every square inch of this city has got designs on it, and we need to be thinking about what's already being used for parking and get more use out of it. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> as i've stated before, one of the concerns that motivates me here is the enforcement of the law to the benefit of the residents and the people in the city, and we as the enforcers of the curb are the agency that is responsible for that. so i've found director torres's

comment at the beginning sort of informative and really helpful in shaping the discussion. at the beginning of your presentation, you used the word irrelevant to describe the law that prohibits sleeping in vehicles. i understood you to say that it's somewhat irrelevant because it's hard to enforce, not that we're taking a position that the law is irrelevant. is that correct? >> that is true, and thank you for elevating that, i did not mean disrespect to the law, but rather, let me just tell you by example, i think last year, the sfpd wrote six citations for that particular issue. >> and yet we know it's an issue affecting people because we hear from residents all the time, and we certainly heard today from two neighborhoods, sunnyside and the bayview, one, sunnyside worker, and a bayview resident, purporting to represent thousands of residents there.

my concern with approach to this issue, if we try to tackle the least very difficult problem of finding everybody in the city a home they can afford, we sort of paralyze ourselves as far as enforcing our curbs, and we actually have an issue now sort of disproportionate enforcement because the neighborhoods that came to us first with the supervisors that came to us first bgot the bans that they want and now this man from sunnyside said this is a problem, he's identified specific problems that his family and children are facing, and we say we're not going to do more because we're waiting until this whole overall solution is reached. that just strikes me as unfair to that neighborhood and it paralyzes action for the jurisdiction that we do have. all of that said, i'm very sensitive to all of the itch will i indications thitch

-- implications that these rules have, but none the less, it's the law, and we're the agency with the ability to make this law not irrelevant, but enforceable. we could go down a path of targeted enforcement, we wait until someone from sunnyside say this is a new problem, but the vehicles sort of move around, and we're not solving the problem. at the same time that's a very inconsiderate solution for folks who want to live in their vehicles. you're just moving them around and not giving them any certainty or guidance as to how they should be shaping their lives. so to me, the notion of a citywide ban makes a lot of sense with some caveats. one of the things you mentioned as a detriment of a citywide ban would be that we would then hear from residents who have vehicles. well, we give permits all the time.

i suppose we could have a system whereby if a resident, maybe with neighbor consent, maybe with not, wanted to keep an oversize vehicle near his or her home, that's maybe something we could permit, and that permitting process would allow us to monitor it, make sure nothing, you know, illegal is going on with that vehicle, allow people to report things that are going on. so i just don't see enforcement as a barrier to a citywide ban. i think permitting could use it -- we could use permitting to allow residents to park vehicles if it was appropriate for them to do so. so then, that kind of creates, you know, the issue that we would have a citywide ban -- or excuse me, create sort of a starting point. you could then have, if there were areas where it made sense for r.v.'s or over side vehicles to be parked, you could have applications for exception. sort of looking at it the other way than what you described in targets enforcement. there are definitely political

will on your staff and the teen tire city -- the entire city to use those blocks. and then, you can approach the idea of a safe parking spot. i would be okay with that if they were true safe parking spots. have i to say, and i give director ramos for his bravery on this topic. i'm scared, too. i just think this city is so dense, and a lot of people are living, you're going to have a lot of not in my back yard, other than accepted curb sites in industrial areas. look. i realize this is a very sensitive issue. the folks who presented here today are moving, and i am so glad that they're engaging in the process, and i can assure them that their voices are being heerd. but i do think we have an

obligation as the agency of parking laws, to enforce them, and i don't think it's fair for the resident of sunnyside to tell them, we're going to wait until it's a problem and then enforce it. my solution would be a citywide ban, with exceptions, and looking at what we can do to provide safe spots for oversize vehicles to park. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. director torres. >> yes. i'd like to reiterate comments by my colleagues. the problem has be gone away, and it's not going to go away until you have a multifaceted approach. people that are suffering in neighborhoods because of these parkings, i've spoken to

supervisor fewer and supervisor tang and others. at t it's a real problem. it's also a health problem. we saw what happened at skid row in los angeles in my old district, san diego with hepatitis b. this is an absolutely catastrophe in the making, so i think what we've talked about so far is a citywide ban on parking, with additional parking lot, whether it's the cow palace parking lot, whether it's a community college parking lot. most of those malls are going to be converted to housing at some point because nobody's going there. even treasure island where people say all right, this is where you can park. what you do during the day is your business, but this is where you can park and sleep at night, and there'll be some kind of enforcement and protection as well as rest rooms and showers like they're

doing already on my road to my office in oakland, as they're doing under 880 there, where they're now providing showers. it's almost -- they're developing little condos in those bridges of the freeways. we spent over 275 million in this city on homeless issues, and we haven't seen a success. my argument is that many people will never move to homeless shelters. they want to stay on the streets or stay in their vehicles, which i think they have a right to do. and perhaps what we -- one of our colleagues says that perhaps we should have an amnesty on these tickets. that may not be an unreasonable approach if we give them an alternative as you said before, as to where you can go. well today, you can go here, here, here, here, and here. if not, you're going to get a

ticket. but depriving them of their cars, that's not going to work. i've talked to eric garcetti in los angeles. i've talked to mayors in other parts of the country. they are not coming up with solutions yet, and i think this is one issue where we can have an impact, although a small one, but it may be able to work in neighborhoods like sunnyside where they're dealing with many things. so that's my one cent. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much, director torres. mr. thornly, i think what i'm hearing from my board -- and again, this was a discussion item. we don't have an action on this, so what i want to give

you is feedback as this board has presented is there is appetite to look into a towing fee amnesty when people have their homes, their vehicles towed. i have no idea what's going to be involved. it's going to definitely mean a bit more work for you and the team. we like the work that you're doing with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. absolutely want to commend you for the way that you've approached that and what you've done and encourage you to continue on that work. i am hearing that perhaps a citywide ban could be part of a solution, and it sounds like if we were able to identify then areas where people could park, you would buy some sort of permit, and in a neighborhood

where somebody was occasionally parking their boat on the streets, occasionally parking their r.v. to load up in preparation for an up coming trip, that's something of interest to look at. i think one question that hasn't been answered, and i'm going to ask my board to correct me on that, it sounds like if we want to look at oversize vehicle restrictions in certain targeted areas such as around playgrounds, somewhere where it seems quite inappropriate, right now, for us to have oversized vehicles due to the nature of the use of the street or the number of vehicles, it sounds like that's something the board would entertain in the near future short of a larger solution to the vehicular housing problem, and i'm seeing a few nods on that. okay. >> yeah. i'll repeat what i said. i remain concerned that a small

fix would be the enemy of the right fix in that situation. and we'll see -- there are a lot of implications, but we will see disproportionate enforcement. it will be incumbent upon the neighborhoods to come forward. i just -- i'm very concerned about that, and we've seen that play out already, that, you know, i suspect our friends at sunnyside had this problem for sometime, but we're hearing about it from him now because it's sort of become known that we're sort of the agency and he's a very dedicated citizen. but other neighborhoods got here first, and there's a moratorium. maybe i should have stuck with the first sentence. a small fix would be the enemy of the right one. >> chairman brinkman: so short

of bringing us anymore oversize vehicle restriction areas, it sounds like the board is willing to entertain general curb side management without targeting specifically the oversize vehicles. so similar to what was achieved around the design center which included time limits instead of a ban on certain types of vehicles. all right. again, thank you so much, and to everybody who came. and unless any of my directors has anything to add, i think we will hope that that was enough direction for you, mr. thornly. >> i think so, and i thank the board for indulging this extended conversation. we'll come back to this real soon. >> chairman brinkman: thank you for everybody coming to share your stories. we appreciate it, and we will all definitely feel empathy, feel, you know something different when we look out at the streets and we see people who are housed in their

vehicles, so thank you all very much. all right. we'll move on. >> do you want to move back to item 11. >> chairman brinkman: yes, i think we'll move back to item 11. >> presentation regarding the task force 2045 recommendations. >> thank you, and thank you for bearing with me. we could go -- now there is a presentation. >> chairman brinkman: excellent. >> let's go on the screen. good afternoon, directors. my name is sarah jones. i'm planning director here at sfmta, and i'm here today to talk about the results of a brood effort that took place between june and december last year to work towards developing recommendations around a local revenue measure to fund transportation, and that was the transportation 2045 task

force. so led by a convening of city leadership, this agency participated along with our partner agencies, primarily, the san francisco county transportation authority, and san francisco public works. there was also very close involvement of the mayor's budget office, and the process itself was managed by the controller's office. and i'd like to note that michelle boulier of the transportation authority is here today. she worked with maria lombardo. my colleagues, monique and ethan, but i want to call out the great and extensive work of our analysts, who worked in close partnership with miss boulier. so today's presentation is

going to be brief, covering the key points of the task force process and its recommendations. you did receive in your packet another presentation set of slides summarizing some polling that was done by the transportation authority that might be a little bit juicier than what i have to talk about today. it was done at the same time as the task force process but was not specifically part of that process itself, so it's not on the agenda today. if there's interest, we can bring the transportation authority in to talk about it in the future. so onto the task force. this task force had some very big goals, identifying what should be funded, transportation wise and considering what revenue source might -- might best get us there. it brought together a spectrum of people to make recommendations on this, including director torres, and this group of people was

tackling something that fundamentally affects this city which is how you can move around. this was coshared by the mayor's office and the board of supervisors, specifically represented by ta commission chair aaron peskin, and that join convening was really intrinzici intrinsically designed throughout this process. that was a very big part of how this process played out and the recommendations that ultimately came out. so we all know we've been talking about these very big issues for a long time. we didn't just start in june of last year, so there were a lot of good sources that gave a very salary i holid understande

range of transportation needs that we could work from. also comes at no surprise that we do have very big needs that we don't have funding identified for yet. there's no single effort that is going to capture all of those, so a big part of this process was prioritizing what might be funded, what might be appropriate to fund through a local revenue measure. you might remember proposition j in 2016. while the companion did not succeed, proposition k, proposition j got huge support.

[ inaudible ] that's reflected in a lot of ways in the needs as they were identified and discussed, but one of those is that the top category there is transit service and affordablity. so in that category and in others, a specific area that we really looked at was funding of operations and service to support people's needs. and that whole issue was very much on the table in part of the discussion in addition to capital. on the revenue side with the next recommendation, the task force was united behind the idea that t i