>> could you talk a little bit more about your departments incompetenter action witinterac. i know you covered it in your presentation but i'm interesting in hearing about the challenges that are next steps. >> it's a challenge when someone experiences homelessness and they're in their vehicle and it's not registered and they have $1200 worth of tickets. they can't get their vehicle registered. maybe they want to go somewhere else and we're like well, you know, we can just look the other way and you are not registered. when thinking about that, if we tell someone to do that and they get pulled over by the police and get in a worse situation, we don't want to do that. frankly, we've learned about and worked with the discounted program usually that it brought down to a level. we will just either use some of our -- we have private funds that we can use to assist in

cases like this. we will just payoff those fines. it depends on the situation. i understand, the restrictions around the fees and the towing and when someone's vehicle gets towed it's hard to get it untowed. i think what we're going to troy to do is to help, again, on a case-by-case basis help people revealed these problems. resolve these problems. and taking money available for this purpose and paying off tickets isn't the best in highest use of our funds. i also understand you all are restricted by state and other regulations around how these fines get handled. the discounted program is super helpful. we'll continue to do that. we want to help people clear these tickets. it keeps them from getting registered and it keeps them from getting their vehicles smogged, et cetera, enters. wet cetera.we don't want peoples

that aren't registered and haven't been smog tested. >> i would add into that, we're also getting better at coordinating with the police and other folks that here is a vehicle that is just about to be towed. if we can only stop it from being towed. prevention is much easier than treating the illness. when a vehicle has been towed. there are tow fees and some of them we can and so we've had a few successes that just stopping from the tow and we're working on right now as we speak, we're trying to workout the registration so we can help get that vehicle home to another place that's not san francisco. we have noted this in the presentation that we know anybody with run a plate and find out that bus has 15 tickets. it has $2,000. it's really in peril of being

towed. it's easier to undo it and help someone get the help they need rather than trying to get it out of the yard. >> thank you. is there another follow-up on that. this is so helpful to have you here to talk about it. i feel hopeful about this situation for the first time since we've started discussing it. thank you for that. i really appreciate that. did i see any other questions. >> just a quick one. if it's just the caltrance spaces for storage do we know how many that is? >> no, i'm not 100% sure. i know rel estate and public works are helping us investigate that right now. we'll look at other sites. just the caltrans sites are empty and free. >> one of my concerns with this policy, and with dewolf is if we

accept this policy and we move on dewolf we will see a lot more requests for streets coming to us to ban over size vehicle parking overnight. what what can we do that will help work within the framework while they figure out what is going on the streets and what resources you will be able to point people to. it needs to be six months but a pause would be helpful. we could also if you wanted to do a pre assessment before you made a decision, we can go out and have our team see who is out there and tell you what is going on and come back as you are

making those decisions about how to move forward on this. i think that would be very helpful. i would also say to be honest, the thing that would be the most helpful is to address people who are parking and not experiencing homelessness and parking over sized vehicles on the streets. in a way that upsets neighbors. where, you may have three homeless people who are kind of parked amongst like 20 vehicles that -- i'm not an expert in parking law and i don't know if it's illegal or not to actually do that. i see 18 wheelers on the streets and then r.v. and then a panel van and then a tow truck and maybe another r.v. and an r.v. worth $200,000 that sat there forever. i think we need to separate these issues to the extent that we can and allow us to help the -- there's a lot that can be done without displacing people experiencing homelessness. and there's a lot that you can do just around over sized vehicles and we will make

progress with folks who are in the vehicles and chances are we will have some program whether it's safe parking or vehicle storage or a rent subsidy for an r.v. park that will help get some of the folks to a safe place but in the meantime, sir get these calls and. >> thank you, your being here turns this into a more the use of the teams and other mechanisms to make this a more tailors and compassionate approach and they're much appreciated. thank you for being here.

>> thank you. i want to thank you and i want to thank andy and director peskin. we've only been working together for the past four or five months and it is been really a good partnership, a greg partnership and i really appreciate the compassion that you all show and that your staff show because every time we have asked like can you please stand down and let us help the answer is always been yes. yes and what else can we do. we really just command all of you for that approach. i think we will -- things will get better. >> thank you, ok. mr. thornily, thank you for your presentation. i just want to sort of put in perspective what we're considered, which may help public comment and help us frame what we're voting on here today. my understanding is that the policy guidelines you are putting forward today are the policy guidelines around equity, the policy guidelines around

ensuring there's sufficient communication and outreach. if we're going to adopt one of these bans on a block by block basis, we're doing it in coordination with those principles. but that you are not proposing today the consideration of say whether it's a school zone and those are things for future consideration. is that correct? >> well, no, actually, we do want to the extent that we've given you this paper and it's completeness, that business is a top of page 7 does matter. >> let me ask about that. for a school, for example. i assume that thinking there is children are vulnerable to parking may be particularly problematic if there are children around. the ban we're talking about is an over-night parking ban, right. children are not at school at night. they're at their homes. i will say that is one of the

reasons i'm particularly, you know, receptive to some of these questionrequests because the chf san francisco want to be safe in their homes and some of the issues they're being exposed to are difficult. i understand there are homeless children too and this is a balancing act. but just for -- maybe i just ask, what is the thinking behind a specific san francisco. >> you can clarify why continue over-night parking restriction near a school would take under this, i think maybe get added benefit than would say a neighborhood. >> right. that's an excellent question, director. what we're up to here is sort of an indirect treatment of long-term storage of vehicles. it isn't right now, at 3:00 in the afternoon there's a vehicle

we would like to have moved. but rather, here is a place that seems to accumulate large vehicles, they're moving things that ought not be there. the notion and this guidance has been here from the start when we began to bring you these. we said playgrounds, school grounds, neighborhood parks, we do not want to have a wall of vehicles that is impeding sight lines. we have children and parents crossing the street. the wall of vehicles is a problem. whether they're occupied or not is not really the issue here. it may be acceptable to have a wall of vehicles somewhere but around a playground or a school yard, we're trying to kept site lines open and make sure everyone can see and cross the street safely. you are right, the temporal disconnect, what's that about? well that to the extent this truck is parked here for three days, we're getting at it

overnight. the cultural sensitivity, neighbors are generally touchy. hey, i want to be able to park there, why are you making me move also. by the time we get to this, i will have proposed, maybe we should not have anybody park there if it's a problem and you can imagine they'll say well no, i want to park here but those other people should go away. so by saying from midnight to 6:00 a.m., you can't be parked here if it's too big and that's probably going to get you out of here. land scallandscape truck, fishi, whatever it is that is accumulating there. >> that's very helpful. >> i know you would like to ask you another question using dewolf as an example, correct? >> i really appreciate your joining us today. this is been a wonderful discussion.

it curse to m occurs the approaa humane approach. it's meeting people where they are. it's trying to find better solutions for them. it's trying to really understand the situation. so i just wonder using dewolf as an example, has this kind of thoughtful approach of understanding people's circumstances and working with them to find alternate housing situations, has all of this been tried and failed in the case of die wolf and this is why we're looking at the restriction or have we not tried the intervention yet? >> we have been out on dewolf. we know who is out there. we have a general idea of service needs but we haven't put a lot of resources into trying to provide that assistance and help the folks relocate or come indoors. >> if i could clarify, this maybe gets to director borden's question, our intent would be to the extent this board ever does legislate a restriction, we would not put it into effect

until the department of homelessness and supportive housing with the other city agencies are able to do that work. >> i personally would like that would be done in advance and be part of the staff report that brought us consideration. >> yep. >> and i also just wanted to add, related to that, you brought up six or more vehicles as a threshold. yep. >> i think no one mentioned that we didn't have that in our report i don't believe. i don't remember seeing that. i think coming up with a a newr i can threshold talking about an impact to the neighborhood. it's missing in our policy that would make more sense to me and you are starting to capture a problem that's not specific to homelessness but the abuse of over sizesized vehicles.

i would say you can give us that today. i would say i would like a further line. i would like to strike that condition and add this condition. this is a policy this agency is adopting today. yoyou could say, should we say s a condition that the staff would not bring us this for cases where there are one or two vehicles. i don't think that's overcome plex tovercomplex to today. >> we are committed to working with folks living in vehicles in the portal neighborhood and on duel street by the end of the year. we don't have all the the resources we had and i don't think it should stop us from finding solutions for folks who are there and to do it in a way that's respectful and ends up helping folks as well as

allowing you to address concerns that house people have about parking in the neighborhood. >> what i'm hearing so far, in terms of adding to the policy that staff has come up with, it sounds like a initial pause in outreach for problem streets is something that we would like to see. if a street comes to us, that information is included in the staff report as a street comes to us. it sounds like we're interested in some type of threshold which can be challenging but it sounds like he is willing to tackle this. how many vehicles on a block face sort of constitute an issue. yes, vice-chair? >> i would not support that. i trust the staff to know when a restriction is needed when it's not. i mean, if he said an objective criteria like that you could have a small block face.

>> you would rather leave that one to staff discretion? >> yes. i'm eager to hear public comment on this one. i think what we've -- to get ahead of myself a little bit and start discussing it, i think what we've seen here today with great assistance from our new friend is that a flexible compassionate approach is the way to go. setting objective markers, i worry that will restrict mr. thornily coming to us when he thinks we should and create a presumption maybe he should come to us when perhaps he shouldn't. i would prefer a more flexible approach. >> we've gotten a lot of questions out of the way. i'd like to go to public comment now. we can go back to discussing this policy. ms. boomer, could we set two minutes. >> anne worth. evan crosser.

>> thank you. i was reading the 16-page report and i was looking at the short term and long-term goals and it seems like no short-term goal should happen, which is going to destroy the midterm and long-term goals. the basic problem is people have to have a place to live. we understand housing in san francisco is difficult. people who are living in their vehicles are there for variety of reasons. some of them are quite resourceful and are maintaining themselves quite well. as you know, the few that are in the worst shape are going to be the hardest ones that need a different kind of help. when you destabilize someone's home, if they are constantly moving their vehicles or afraid of them being towed, that's not a stable living situation. if there's some sort of safe parking, or some reasonable way where they know what is going to

happen, that's like the very basics for being able to come up with solutions for it. things will -- if you throw people out of their vehicles, they're sleeping on the street and if you take away their vehicles and their belongings are destroyed, they're destroyed. so you have to -- if you are trying to balance off the neighbor's concerns you are looking at having enough parking for people to make their livings with delivery trucks need to park them somewhere figuring out what that problem is. everyone in the city trying to make a living has to find a way or just to survive, has to find a way of making that possible. so there has to be help available for people on many different levels and the hardest ones, the ones that the hardest to help are those that need it the most. everybody needs it here. if you just shove the problem around, you are making it worse. some steps will give you -- it

will be easy and help a bunch of people quickly. last part is the hardest part. >> thank you. >> evan processor, herbert winier. >> evan had to leave. herbert wiener followed by melody. >> we are on the horns of a deem ledilemma. you have to have an equity for parking policy and at the same time these are individuals in their advance. thevans.it's their means of shed you don't want them on your doorstep. that is what will happen if people are slung out of their

vehicles. i don't have a solution. the only thing i can say is that i wish the board the best in coming at an equitable solution and i am pleased that the director of the department of homelessness is here. that's a very good sign. something has to be done where people have adequate means of shelter and at the same time they can the interesting has to be balanced against it. i don't want to see people slung out of their vehicles. i don't want to see the vehicles towed. i don't want to see them placed in an extreme disadvantage. this is what, basically, has to happen. this is a human problem that requires a human solution. it's not really impossible but it's difficult. that's what the sport i this bo.

thank you. >> melody. kelly cutler. those are the last three people who have put in speaker cards. >> thank you so much for listening to us today. i usually have a prepared statement so i'm sorry if i am struggling. in 1960, when i was two-years-old, i fell out of the bunk bed and had a brain injury. it was not diagnosed until 1997. in the year 2000, i started seeking help from the city and county of san francisco to get some kind of rehabilitation so that i can keep my housing. they did not help me. 14 years later, my doctor, in 2014, told me what you need does not fall under our scope of practice. and this is after i had spent 14

years seeking help for my housing. i have not come across any help for traumatic brain injury. i'm just trying to put your attention on what would be a meaningful offer of assistance that i understand that people are -- from jeff's department are coming out to help people. they're not -- they don't have that help that i need. i'm sorry. thank you. >> thank you, melody. you did a good job. next speaker, please. >> kelly cutler. this is the last two speakers on this topic.

>> >> hi, i'm flow kelly. i work with the coalition on homelessness. in response to are in place that need to be changed. there are cake and they don't fit the san francisco that we are today. we should not really have awe aw that makes it illegal to live in a vehicle. it's not being enforced anyway. i know you cannot make that change. you have influence. when reaching out to folks who live in their vehicles, a small group of us from the coalition on homelessness, ran across the family of two parents and three children who were all enrolled in san francisco public schools.

these children need to stay in the same schools where they are in order to have a consistent education many of i'm a retired elementary schoolteacher. i know this for sure. speaking of choices, they chose to be in an r.v. rather than live in a station wagon which is where they had been before. this family would jump at the chance forese for secure housint they can afford. until that happens, their rights to live a life without fear of being towed or forced to move should not be denied. so, if safety for everyone is a goal, the coalition on homelessness proposes a safe parking program which includes having the program open 24/7, perhaps operated by community members including rotating security, providing a bathroom and shower facilities like pit

stops or lama may and providing case management services on site. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your continued work. kelly cutler. >> last person to speak. >> good afternoon. i'm kelly cutler, a human rights organization with the coalition on homelessness. i've been working on this since 2012. i'm glad mr. kazinski came today and we can have a discussion about the whole issue here. i do have some concerns. a number of them. one of them is like what is when it comes to the meaningful offer of assistance. it's really important to be looking at the numbers of what actual resources we have and what we don't have. what we have for temporary shelter so what is it that is actually going on?

i have concerns with the vehiclen cammenvehicleencampmen. they need resources to help folks. also, with healthy streets operations center, this is a coordinated effort within the city department to be responding to homelessness. since the city doesn't have the resources available, it's mostly enforcement and sfpd that is responding or d.p.w. and very little from actual homeless department. because they don't have those. when it came to encampment resolutions, ok, when mr. kazinski spoke about the enforcement piece, what happened at the tents was at one point they were giving out misdemeanorses when people had a tent. sometimes two in a day.

we need to be honest and look at the real picture of what is going on. so it's not just a facade that we're seeing. when we resolve an area, resolve for who? thank you. >> thank you ms. cutler and all your work on this issue. do i see another member of the public? >> hello, david wu. i'm speak as a individual. i was born and raised in san francisco and i still live where i grew up. there's no permanent solution to homelessness in san francisco. without a pathway to get people into permanent housing, it really is a chicken in a egg kind of thing. you will just continue to go down the path of criminalization, which is something that sounds like you do not want to do. so keeping that in mind and being aware while the criminalization aspect has funding and resources, the

permanent path out of homelessness does not so how do we resolve those issues without further criminalization? thank you. >> thank you mr. wu. anymore members of the public. seeing none, public comment is closed and i'd like to ask supervisor kim if she would like to address this now. >> good afternoon, board of directors. thank you so much for letting me interrupt this very important policy discussion. i wanted to speak on the next item that is before the board today and this is on the townshend street improvement project. first of all, i do want to thank this board, in july, for working with our office to fast track this project. working with our bike coalition, and our community and also again to thank you for your support of sixth street and howard as well as taylor street. i don't need to repeat all that i've said before. i do represent a district with

the vast majority of our high-entry corridors that's why vision zero has been such an important initiative for our city. we want to achieve zero fatalities in san francisco. improving the streets in district 6 will get us there. i want to also recognize many of the advocates that have been working to keep townshend street in the hopper and on the burner and here today. townshend has one of the richest mixes of travel roads of any streets in san francisco. thousands of people an hour access this regional transportation hub by bike, foot, shuttle bus, tnc, taxi, personal vehicle or by one of the eight muni bus routes on townshend street. it's home to the highest use bike share station west of the mississippi. more than 3,000 people walked through fourth and townshend intersection one hour in the morning and in the evening rush hour. for any of you that have spent time on this intersection, it really is one of the worst

intersections in terms of allowing pedestrians and psyche lists and personal vehicles, shuttle buses and muni to share this very narrow street given all of the track that is on here. it's a critical link and in moving this project forward, we're really going to both save lives and also prevent a lot of injuries that have long-term impacts. within this project area, just in the last five years, there were 43 bike collisions. and so this is the type of impacts that we want to have on this corridor. again, i understood the initial hesitation. this is a corridor that will be changing hopefully with downtown extension, in my lifetime and many other improvements. just given the high usage of this area, even an improvement for the next five years is going to be a huge win for our city. so thank you again. i want to recognize the staff at sfmta and public works, jamie,

cameron beck, and at public works shannon karen's mat, mike kelly and of course the san francisco bike coalition, brian, janice and charles, that have just been working tirelessly on this initiative along with their members. i want to end on two separate notes, not related to townshend street because i don't get to come to the sfm board of directors but earlier, you received public comment about the red lanes in district 6. i want to strongly support our community stakeholders who have asked that red lanes be limited to muni and taxicabs exclusively. this is important particularly in district 6 where we have a lot of vehicles and a lot of usage. they should be for our public vehicles. finally, as some of you may have heard, i did introduce an amendment a couple weeks ago to eliminate the minimum parking requirement in san francisco. if it passes, we will be the

first major american city to do this. the first major city in north america i guess that includes canada. we would love to get the support of the board of directors. there's definitely some hesitation on the board of supervisors and while there won't be an immediate impact, we know in the long-term, this is exactly the direction that a transit-first city should head. developers can build parking but we should not be requiring them to build that parking. i want to thank the staff members that came to public comment. we rarely get so many planners at public comment at land use. it was continued at land use because my colleagues would like more conversation and dialogue and feedback and so i think this board is an important one to hear from. so thank you again for all of your work and happy election day. >> thank you, very much supervisor kim. thank you for all work you've done for this city. >> supervisor, i for one want to

thank you for your service and leadership over the years to the great city and county of san francisco. i lament the fact that term limits does away with people like you. [laughter] you should remain in office because you always have an incredible array of ideas and visions and controversial at times and yet you suffered through that with your courage and your leadership. and you will be missed. >> thank you, director torres. it's been my pleasure and honor to serve our city. i will continue to do so in a different capacity. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. all right. directors, let's get back to our oversized vehicle policy. i'd like to hear some thoughts. who would like to start us off? >> vice-chair. >> i have four points. i don't think you will need to interrupt me or answer questions but please be there so you can hear it clearly. first of all, number one, there

is a suggestion at the beginning of the presentation that maybe this board isn't eager to hear these requests when they need to be heard. as i have said before, at least personally, this is a part of our job. we administer the parking restrictions. when our constituents and our fellow citizens and our supervisors come to us and say they want us to consider a proposal we should consider the proposal. we now are improving the framework through which we will consider those proposals, compliments to you. i want to be clear that at least from my perspective, if there's a supervisor or a neighborhood group or another group that feels a restriction is needed, and you agree with that and want to bring it to this board or maybe even think it's controversial and want to bring it to this board, please do so. that is our job. number two, i want to compliment a few directors with whom i had a rather spirited disagreement

last time around. and i'm happy to see the dewolf proposal going forward. as you all know i said i think it's very unfair and frankly outrageous that we were holding the wolf street hostage to get a better over all city program. i still feel that but i want to say to the directors board and brinkman personally, your standing up to this issue has brought around a better solution. so, you and the others who joined you took a stand and now we have mr. kasinski and others here to make a better proposal. i would like it would have happened had you not did what you did, but i'm not sure and i'm certainly grateful for what you did. as mr. wiener, said, this is a human problem and i think the solution we have now is now treating it with a lot more humanity when it was an up or down vote premised on

neighborhood rights versus the city solving the problem. we're all working together now. my third point, if you want to put into your guidelines schools and parks and places where children are in sight lines and stuff are important, i am ok with that. i don't think that should really be dis positive. i think this is going to be a case-by-case analysis of the needs of our fellow citizens, the risks posed by whoever is parking there and our ability to help those people as well. so, you know, some guidelines are ok but what i'm really thinking, what i'm really enjoying more about this proposal is it's a more comprehensive humane way to deal with this and that's the most important part rather than continuing to bulk an eyes the city where schools or parks or certain neighborhood as director torres alluded to, get more protection than others. let's treat everybody in the city the same and take these issues one by one.

finally, i will say i will support this because i'm very pleased with the fact that we're now focused on how we do this not whether we do this. we ned to address this problem and instead of fighting back and fourth and just sort of going to a stalemate, we're now doing it the best way we can. i'm appreciative to you and particularly my fellow directors for that and i will support your proposal today. >> thank you, vice-chair. i looked up dispositive, relating to or bringing about the settlement of positive and i learned a new word. thank you vice-chair. yes. director. >> i have one question and some comments. i don't see it here but are commercial vehicles treated differently? >> they are. we do have infractions in the transportation code. there's been a fair amount of

discussion about that coming out of supervisor ronen's office. you cannot, under transportation code, park a over weight commercial vehicle on residential streets for more than a few hours. and it's based on the gross vehicle weight and it's 10,000 pounds. that restriction, if you go to any based on the zoning map, any r or p public, the reservoir. if there was a large vehicle that was a moving truck, you can't park there without even posting a sign. it would be liable to infraction. the 10,000-pound gross vehicle weight, the dimension is big. it maps close to the 7x22. in neighborhoods and directors if you know any and please let us know, that there is a large vehicle, a moving truck parked in the sunset district. that's just wrong right out of the box.

commercial vehicles though are a continuum and you may have neighbors who have -- i have a neighborhood who has an interior decodecor eight or license. we have to think about scoping commercial vehicles. also, i've been hearing a lot from folks about advertising vehicles. it's already illegal under the transportation code to park a vehicle that's first purpose is advertising. those bloody billboard things that drive around and park, those are illegal out of the box. signs on top of taxicabs maybe not. there's a little conversation about the commercial use of vehicles. if i can just volunteer, seven years ago in this particular infraction was developed with the board of supervisors, there was a gap in having a tool that would get at large vehicles dimensionally in the sunset in particular. there are a lot of industrial

vehicles that get parked along lincoln way in the edge of the park. no one is living in them and we didn't have a good tool to say no, that's inappropriate. the over sized vehicle restriction, as it's cast, is strictly dimensional and it doesn't say what type of vehicles, it doesn't say if it's blue or green, it doesn't say if someone is living in it or not, it just says here is a need, we should restrict things that are this large without any characteristics. >> i guess in your -- how often have those kinds of vehicles been part of the challenge that people are identifying in the neighborhoods? it is 50% of the problem, 75% of the problem? is it part of the problem? >> before we did a fair amount of policy analysis research going out and looking back in 2011 and driving around looking at areas with large vehicles parked. we found about half of them were vehicles that probably didn't have someone living in them.

following the postings we looked at citations and there was a general half and half split that the police who are doing the siding, because it's the middle of the night, about half of those were vehicles that probably weren't inhabited. it was a paving truck that was parked at someone's street or something like that understandably, we go to the human dimension and we should. but this tool is one that is not meant to only treat cases with folks living in them and what we've seen from experiences, there's plenty of places where there's a large special truck that shouldn't be parked there. >> i guess for me it brings up another element of a problem and so far as people, we have less and less industrial space here in the city. there are people who work blue

collar jobs who might have a large contractor vehicle who don't have a place to park them. i think, you know, one of the things we need to -- we've been talking about this idea of parking storage as it pertains to people living in their homes. we might want to also look at parking storage for people who have commercial-type vehicles that they're a contractor or maybe interior designer, whatever, but they don't have a place to park their vehicle because they don't have a garage space at their work or whatever. or they drive their -- they have one dump truck and that's actually their whole business. i mean, i'm not expecting or saying this has to deal with that right now. part of the analysis we're talking about when you go out and you meant to reach out to key stakeholders here in your process, i think i would love for us to be tracking this issue. this is another issue, a socioeconomic-related issues where people that have those

types of vehicles don't have the capacity to pay to store them on a daily basis and this might be their livelihood. i want to track this as a important issue. i live where there are ton of contractor trucks. a very kind of sensitive to this issue because, as a lot of our blue collar workers in positions where they don't have to place their vehicles. i know we're not going to address that today but i would say that is one of the issues i want us to be tracking as part of the policy that we're looking at here and then looking at whether or not we're seeing a pattern to come up with solutions specific to that. going to the other issues that we talked about, i kind of wish that this policy talked about prior to, you said reach out to agencies and it's more vague. he talked about interventions

and i would feel more comfortable if something was one of the interventions, i mean he listed like five there were -- they were offered to people who were provided -- not offered. provided to people who were in the situation of homelessness or living in their vehicles. i feel like without having that as a part of it, we're still not going to solve that portion of the solution. i do like the idea, i know that director didn't like six or more. it speaks a lot to over saturation. they do the block. sometimes people just want one neighbor's vehicle gone because they hate their neighbor whatever. and they might have a very large vehicle or a couple large vehicles. versus a problem where there are

multiple vehicles. i think that it doesn't have to be the threshold is met but there should be a threshold that is part of the consideration. there were at least five vehicles or six vehicles. it's part of this consideration. it doesn't have to be the threshold which you bring it to us but it would make more sense in terms of looking at that. then you get away from the targeting of a couple people situation. in terms of the guidelines, i do also have a problem with the school playyards. when i was on the planning commission we had a issue with the medical marijuana dispensary issue and we've put in nothing near community and schools and pretty much that exempted most of san francisco. we meant that the brunt of areas that had to accommodate and deal with dispensaries was smaller.

anything that limits when you talk about schools and community facilities gets really broad and i think it goes too far and starts to impact the ability to have a meaningful consideration point because almost every neighborhood will have a play yard or something that probably would be qualifying. those are not inactive. i would actually change that in this policy. so yeah, my fundamental things are one i wish that i want to see us, i would feel more comfortable if we had more stated language here specifically as it pertains to people who are experiencing homelessness in like what exactly we're going to -- not that what we're going to do but how we're going to work with the department on that aspect. i do want to make sure that this analysis that we're talking about happens before we hear those. i'm actually even though we were obviously moving the ball forward with the dewolf, the truth is that it still hasn't

happened even though we're scheduled to vote on that today. i personally don't think that's a core part of the policy that that has to happen prior to this. looking at some sort of numeric threshold and looking at the idea around commercial vehicles and whether or not we need to in the future look for solutions there. >> i might have a couple of quick responses to that. the threshold of vehicles makes perfect sense and certainly we've had many cases where there's a guy with a bus on the street. he put up signs. this agency, that's not a good use of our resources, even apart from equity and consistent policy. the notion of here is a location that's bone to large vehicles collecting here, not to be heart less about it but this is a good spot to park. that sort of what we're looking for. it's the characteristic of the street rather than here is a individual that is making the neighbors angry.

lead time on bring relev and remedy to regulation. we think agree that no matter about what we do for relief, even if we establish lots of safe parking, and it's successful, we have to regulate the streets. with dewolf we'll see this, that if we stay here is a wonderful place, let's all go over here, five or six vehicles move and then the next day it's likely to start collecting because it's a known good place to park. our challenge is because we're san francisco and we do let folks know what is going on and have a process, our lead time on posting regulations is a few months. as we work with jeff's team and other folks, we're having to look ahead and say all right, here is a street we need to work on, give andy a head start. i will begin to get regulations posted there so that we can come along and do three or four weeks of outreach and connection and it's a tricky balance. again to recognize that we can't

just go out and post lines. the neighbors wouldn't like that. that's not how we do business in san francisco. if we say yes, we are going to begin working on regulating so let's get that rolling and follow it with the outreach and connection we have to find the right balance. the two time lines are hard to wreck. >> it would be helpful to see when staff brings us these restrictions, part of the staff's report explains like how sfmta and the department of homelessness works with the populations effected. that would be, for me, really helpful to make an informed decision. i like that language included in the policy document. >> ok. >> all right. i think that is a good idea. do we need to add that language or can we consider that as the

spirit of the policy or does someone have language that they would like to propose. >> might i recommend we take this direction. it's clear enough and we bring this back to the board for you not to approve necessarily but to take and. >> sarah: yes that'say yes, tha. we can chair it back to you. this is meant to be policy that staff says here is our understanding of how to proceed. board, do you support this. in that collaborative sharing back here, and we can work for mr. ruskin to say no it's not still not right. we can get it and you can tell fuss we got it. is that amenable to the board? >> is that amenable to the board? >> absolutely. >> i'm looking at your flow chart here, which is like the order of how this is all going to work. so we have the request coming in

and they work on standard regulations and you decide whether to pursue it or not and later on in the process is the site visit to collect the data from the vert. i don't know, it seems like somewhere this that flow chart or maybe earlier in the process are the interventions that they were just discussing as an alternative to initiating legislation around a restriction. >> that makes perfect sense. i don't want to mislead you, that is happening to some extent and it will get more and more' e effective and efficient. we might be at a point where we want to send this forward with an amendment that is talking about -- >> a concentration of vehicles. i think a concentration makes it. >> if i may, as much as i can

hear mr. thornily eager to secure approval with the direction to amend, it sounds like there's inc enough here the board is seeking changes in this document that we should change it and bring it back. there were a few things, or one at least, that would be helpful to get direction from the board. it's concentration issue. the rest i think that there is enough thoughts from the board that i think merit redoing the document. there's also a question of whether the board wants to adopt it as policy or just us bring it back as an informational item. we can do that either way. this maybe too many moving parts for us to ask you to approve it now given the good discussion and feedback we've gotten from you. >> let me introduce two more. [laughter]

one comment and one question. as i look at these guidelines in addition toll school yard and the parks, residential streets with limited on street parking, does not describe most of san francisco in my view? i'm not sure of any neighborhoods that have an abundance of an street parking. the phrase about blight as we know the history of city planning, the phrase of blight is a troubled and laidant vague. i thought that could be revisited. the second piece, up in the staff report ahead of the proposal, was the alternative considered. one of the alternatives considered was coordinating with homeless services department on a parking permit program for over sized vehicles. i think it's actually an interesting idea when we have parking challenges over

abundance of parking demand, we've used parking programs successfully to manage that demand. so could you just speak a little bit on the staff report quickly says these were not persuade because they were not successful in other cities but could you just speak about why the item of a permit parking program for over sized vehicles was not persuadepursued? >> he understand the los angeles was experiment and we heard from other cities. so the notion here would be that someone like melody and i don't want to single her out but i've gotten to know melody pretty well and here is a case that this agency doesn't want to injury melody. and the extent that someone like melody is living in harmony and peace with the community and is not interesting toxic toxins and so fourth. could we find, melody, you keep doing that. and that stands on its face. you tease at that a little bit. if that's what we mean, that

this rv and its ok pant are ok, judging that could be fairly complex. if you could develop protocol for that and be the permitter that might work. i think it would be perilous for the mtv to evaluate whether someone was ok and develop that protocol. the other challenge of it is the googeometry or the spacial. there are streets in place where someone who was operating in a harmonious way let's say, couldn't you just let that street be where someone lives. that, again, maybe so and i have suggested that to some supervisors and i think district 11 has been looking at that question. is there some street? are there streets some place where someone that we have qualified through some sort of a

process could be here and park and live unmolested. we did not pursue that much farther because it was quite complex. it's not that it's an unworthy idea, but just as a mid level clerk untrained planner, i find whoa, this is really not only complex but takes you to a place of literally evaluating people and we need to be careful. this agency has a resident permit parking program for instance, that's a precedent. the qualification for a permit is very clear and even at that there are arguments among people where i should get a permit and four permits and that. that simple permit program is already really challenging to figure out how to administer equity. >> that cuts to it. i want us to get to a point on this policy where we can go ex ahead and take a vote on this. it sounds like, although i

appreciate the after to take it and work on it again, i think that what i am feeling from this board is we are close. we can get this to a point where we can take a vote on this. from what i am hearing, what language or amendments director -- >> i'm not prepared to vote on this. i think the directors' suggestion was appropriate. >> ok. well let's see again if we can get an amendment and ge get it p to a point where we can vote on it. am i hearing from other directors, do people want to try and take a vote on this or send it back? >> i wasn't going to vote for it today because of the lack of changes. if you want to move forward i'm not going to vote for it as it is. >> it sounds like we do need to send this back to have a little more work and get it to be amended. mr. thornily, do you feel you've heard enough from us to get a

sense of what it is we're looking for to round this policy out and bring it back again? >> i believe i do. my colleagues in the bleachers are paying attention. >> i will say since it was maybe the one sort of point where maybe there was disagreement, what director borden said at the end that one of the considerations is the concentration of vehicles, that's fine. it's a great way to deal with it. obviously greater concentration needs greenser need. there are other factors and i think the way that she proposed it is i would be happy with that. >> excellent, thank you. >> understood. >> thank you all for a very robust discussion and thank you members of the public. and now i believe -- >> we're going to go back to item 10.2a. >> i'm sorry, on item 11, do we

need a motion to continue? no? >> i don't think so. >> we'll just bring it back when we think we have something that is ready. >> i suppose that raises the question of -- you know, i know my next bus system is going to take a while but i assume this isn't going to take very long. >> no. >> not at all. i think we can bring this back to you as quickly as the process supports. i think you meet again first tuesday in december. that may be too soon in terms of the wheels. we'll bring it back to you at the soonest mechanical opportunity. >> thank you. >> i would ask you check in, the director said that we're two weeks away and i don't know if he meant to say two weeks away from some announcements around other interventions so it would be great if he does that we can have that back or he could even come talk about that. >> that's an excellent point. what we bring back to you will be fully formed by what we learned from jeff and his team. thank you.

>> thank you. >> great. thank you, very much. >> clerk: going to 10.2a. which has to do with establishing an over size vehicle restriction on dewolf street. >> let's go ahead and go directly to public comment on this one. >> anne worth followed by melody. >> thank you. well it's kind of going back to the same problem. if you push people where do they go? when there's an answer to that then you can push people. that's about it. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> melody followed by flow kelly and kelly cut ler. those are the last three people.