problems. we found school buses with someone living in them. recreational vehicles and vans. we found large vehicles, some inhabited, some not. we have a graphic here that shows that we hear from the public and we hear from the board of supervisors offices and the police and parking control. there is a problem in this location because there are large vehicles parked here, they are inhabited vehicles parked here and vehicles parked for weeks on end. this illustration shows those are three different things that overlap in different ways. we have places where there are folks sleeping in vehicles,

conventional se sedans. places where vehicles are on the street for a long time and landscaped trucks blocked causing hazard and no one is living in those. there is not an overlap to the problems. i want you to think about this. your staff is thinking about this. the oversized vehicle restriction, of course, impacts folks living in large vehicles. after we had brought you our first bunch of locations to consider for posting the overnight parking restriction, advocates for homelessness, homeless folks, neighbors came forward and said this restriction is discriminatory, unfair, it punishes people who have no choice but to live in vehicles. i say that ask a reasonable

point there are folks living in the vehicles. this board became concerned to say please don't bring more proposals. we have not. there are a couple exceptions. we have conversations. iit is a city-wide issue. there is not one street or one neighborhood. the southeast corner of town has a larger representation or we see more in district 10 in the southeast corner of town, but the overlap of oversized vehicles and inhabited vehicles is something we keep trying to pull apart for a more informed and effective engagement. the oversized vehicle restriction has various problems as i noted if we are concerned about people living in vehicles

wwewwe are not not dealing with people leaping -- sleeping in sedans smaller than 22 by 7 feet. three apply during night time hours. with an ada placard ar are exec. the big one -- exempt. the big one any parking regulation has a tendency to push the parkers down the street in the bmw, jaguar or winnebago. regulatorring the streets puts pressure. as we use this tool or other tools we push the problem to other streets. not just oversized vehicles. that is valid here.

there are humans and people's lives in the vehicles it can be devastating. it could be the last step to putting them out on the street. that is inexcusable. you signs we post get pulled down. these signs particularly and enforcement can't hatch because there is no -- can't happen because there is no restriction. some own their own fishing boat, whatever large vehicle and that is confounding consideration here. to remind this board that since 1971 the police card section 676 and -- 76 and 77 prohibits vehicular habitation. it is the law in san francisco that you can't live in the vehicle. it is not enforced. it is politically as a city we

try to restrain ourselves and the police are doing that. it is the basic rule that you may not live in the vehicle. we have gathered up thoughts and policies. none you have what we brought in you the document is knew. it is our current practice. we are not asking for a new regulation but rather to consciously and deliberately take up this question with this tool on the books. with this parking infraction on the books if your staff were to bring you a proposal to use this tool what would be the terms and conditions of using that tool? it bundles up many things. particularly the process we go through generally when we get a complaint from neighbor,

supervisor, look at the street. there is a problem. it is hard to park here, there are large vehicles and dumping here. wepel out this is -- spell out this is how we evaluate those questions. it is common sense. when we have a question before us we try to evaluate the question and the options. we looked at every alternative to treat that problem as a last resort. if the street is appropriate for permitting. maybe mitres make sense. if standard time limits are appropriate we would pursue that. if nothing else works, then we might turn to would the over size vehicle restriction be appropriate for this question? on page -7 we put to you the

question what is the problem? is there a problem? the tool to treat it? if we turn to over size vehicle for your consideration here are three possible characteristics you might find and support proposal for over size vehicle restriction. schoolyards playgrounds, community parks. residential streets with limited on-street parking. congested parking on residential street. perhaps you would think tha thas a point to take it up on. streets with vehicles parked subjecttographyty, dumps and blight. we put those three out as a starting point. you might say those three characteristics we would approve or support staff bringing a proposal for the over size vehicle restriction.

i want to you put your attention on that. i want to point out and elevate that not only has this agency made progress on being more forgiving for low income folks who find vehicles sited to the boot and tow. this board has approved those relief policies. we are working and have been working for a lounge time with other agencies on mechanisms for relief and refuge for foilings living in vicks. -- for folks livings in vehicles. if i can't park here around live in it, where could i park my vehicle? it is common sense. this agency and your staff i don't think is in the position to initiate and operate such

safe parking facility. i think we have with us today the director of the head of the department of homeless and support of housing. maybe i could ask jeff to tell you what his agency has been doing on this and get his couple of slides ready come on up, jeff. >> thank you for joining us. thank you very much. our department was formed in august of 2016. we are relatively new. we brought together program staff and funding from four different departments to create the center of gravity around homelessness. we developed five year framework available on the

website. we focused on dealing with large tent encampments more than vehicles. it was an oversight we are working on correcting as i speak about in a moment. >> we have been joined by supervisor kim. would you like to hear the presentation or give comment now? great. thank you. >> i will keep going through the presentation. as you know, there are approximately 7500 homeless people living on our streets any given night. that is a decrease from previous

counts and despite the fact the decrease was small compared to the rest of the west coast we are doing well. we are the only city that didn't have double digit increases in homelessness of late. one of the things not well understood on this issue. that is a one night count. we have 20,000 people experiencing homelessness in san francisco on any given year. as you will see, about 7500 homeless people we start within a year. we will see between seven to 12 newly homeless individuals coming through the city each year, about half self resolve or leave the city on their own. the city helps 2500 people every year, 50 people each week exit homelessness. we end up with the same number.

any time we make a planned or think about homelessness. there are 7500 we will build 7500 wedge its. that will not solve the problem and could exacerbate the problem if they are not the right thing to focus on. we have been despite the fact we did not spend a lot of time in the formation of the department addressing people in the vehicles. we have been working on this for six months. we convene a working group of people living in vehicles, advocacy groups, my staff, folks from mta talked through options. we piloted the encampment resolution team charged with helping address the 35 or so large encampments that existed in the city. they no longer exist. we are working on people

sleeping in vicks in neighborhoods that have -- sleeping in vehicles in neighborhoods with large amounts of vehicles in them. it was successful. we had one gentleman going to the hospital, some went to navigation centers and family members. we got vehicles that weren't being occupied by owners with no registration towed and the street was cleared. we did this in a way that is important nobody was told to leave without meaningful offers of assistance being made to them. some of the things we have been doing is piloting with the home ward bound program to help people connect with family and friends. if somebody is here with a vehicle that is not registered but they are trapped to henry

locate to where they are heading. we are helping with that today. also been working with mta case-by-case. when we run into a situation with a vehicle that needs towed we have been appreciative of the mta willingness to find a solution for that individual. we included the healthy streets center out of the department of emergency management the city's department response to street homelessness and people on the streets. it helps plan out what we work on. we spent time to develop researched 35rv parks in a 50-mile radius around san francisco. some of them are very, very expensive and not suitable for folks with economic struggles.

some are affordable and have spaces. we are preparing that document that we can give to people as alternatives if they prefer to not sleep on the streets and go somewhere for a small fee with laundry facilities. we conducted the first ever city wide extensive count of vehicles on the street. here is what we have found. there are currently -- well at the time we did this count it changes every day. 432 vehicles with people sleeping, 313rvs. the neighborhoods most impacted were the bayview, mission and the police districts. what are the next steps? now that we have the data, we

are doing a more extensive survey of 12% of the people sleeping in the vehicles to development the need. who is there, what is the need? how many are lift drivers sleeping overnight or people who are looking for alternatives to commuting or people who are engaged in a small number of cases criminal activity, how many are in need of assistance from the department of homelessness and supportive housing and have no other meaningful alternatives. when we understand better we will move forward with the long-term plan to address the problem. i do not believe the city should rush to decisions about what to do. i will talk about some of the things we are exploring. the think we are working on is vehicle encampment team is going to respond to complaints about

large numbers of people on dual street and the portal neighborhood by the end of the year. we will go to outreach and try to understand whatever body's needs are and help meet the needs. we will look into options. we will develop a long term schedule with mta for the vehicle encampment teams and what neighborhoods they will work on based on number of vehicle in the neighborhoods. we want to explore vehicle storage. we are looking for space where if an individual wants to come to a shelter or permanent housing we can store the vehicle for them. that might be a better alternative to save parking. we don't want people to have to live in vehicles as the place that they are going to habitat as a home. we would rather find housing. that does not mean we are not going to look at safe parking.

we visited a number of programs. i will tell you most communities with safe parking programs have failed and closed. we have been trying to find ones successful. we are looking at santa barbara. we want it to make sense we don't want to ex a exacerbate te problem. we don't want a situation where the number of vehicles is constantly growing and to meet the needs of people on the streets. portland has a vehicle buy back program for people who are ready to get rid of vicks. we would like to explore on an early tow warning so people know in advance the vehicle is at risk of being towed and the fee policy and to understand it

better. i have been learning and the staff has learning as they go. the program that helps reduce fees we are using right now to look at what else we can do around this issue. ewe are meeting with the supervisors who have been interested in this issue and are looking at coming up with solutions. what are our goals? most important goal is we want to make sure people needing help receive meaningful assistance and will not lose their property in the process. we don't want to take away somebody's vehicle which is the most vicious thing they hope and is their home or lose the things in the vehicle that is our number one goal we need to develop with the police

development what are the resources to be clear about how we are going to address this issue. we would like to see an end to large long-term vehicle encampments. any street with six or more vehicles for more than a month is long-term encampment. we see think this is challenging for a neighborhood not safe for the homeless and we have been successful in addressing this with tents. we hope to do the same with vehicles. we would like to see a reduction. this is in draft form. reduction in 50% in the vehicles occupied by individuals in the next year. based on our experience, i want to point out we expected 65% of the people we engage will accept services. there ask going to be a third of the people who do not. we have to make decisions case-by-case. if somebody doesn't accept help

due to mental health. that doesn't mean we will tow the vehicle away. if they don't need the assistance we need to talk about enforcement related issues. i would like to close with i absolutely do believe that the only way to address the issue of people sleeping in vehicles is to help the people in the vehicles. towing them is not the solution. i want to add that a lot of times the issue of homelessness like anything wrong on the streets people like to label with homelessness. if there is a problem with parking it is homeless people's park. i recently received a lounge letter with a -- long letter when they gave me 30 photos of people sleeping in the streets. we haven't to verify that. it was seven of the 30 or so vehicles were actually people sleeping on the streets.

one rv was owned by a gentleman that didn't leave in san francisco. he is getting removed today. many were trucks stored there. i can't emphasize how important it is that we enforce laws around large vehicles on the street illegally in a way that is yois unfair to the people. we need to address both but it will be easier if that occur us. i think at the point where we work with people sleeping in the vehicles and they aren't willing to go to a safe parking place or help we are offering enforcement needs to be brought into play. we have heard the neighbors they expect the city to step up to address problems. as long as it is done with leading with services to ensure everybody is offered a safe

place to go and mentio meaningfl assistance. we can help people. thank you very much for your time. i will be back again to talk about this further and happy to take questions. >> thank you. directors, do we want to hold questions and hear from the public first or do you want to ask the clarifying questions. >> go ahead director torres. >> i am familiar with the east palo alto program is that still functioning? >> yes. >> we hope they are operating okay? >> yes, so far. it is relatively new. the one we are looking at most closely because it is the most eye effective is santa barbara. >> the coalition for homeles

homelessness issued ideas work with you for safe parking lots. is that proceeding? >> it is absolutely on the list. something we are looking at doing. i don't want to say it is absolutely you we are going to do it. it is worth looking at once we understand who is on the streets and their needs. it is something we should consider. the other thing we are considering is helping subsidize people who want to relocate to rv parks. helping them move there and provide financial assistance. i don't think one thing is the magic solution. we want to think opening up the nap centers will solve it. we need a number of tools. safe parking may be one of those. >> director borden. >> at that point would year agency work to do the outreach to figure out who is on the

street first so we would know what happened? >> we would coordinate with you. we are meeting and seeing what resources are available and deciding where it is going to go and work on that. we certainly will work on that. we would like to assist with that. we don't believe people should be forced off the street. they are going somewhere else. we know where they are now and we can provide assistance. >> make sure that is part of our policy. a mechanism that kicks in. obviously there is a difference between stores boats on a street versus people living. i think my concern was displacing people with no other place to live. >> we don't have all of the tools we need right now. we don't have a safe parking

facility. we have been working with folks 010 one basis to find creative solutions where we can find places if they go to a nap center or whatever it takes. it will be six months before we are up and running with all of the resources we need to address this or some of the resources. >> you and i have talked about this a little bit. one of the suggestions here and when we spoke was about we have our emergency shelter program in the winter we fund with churches that we kind of increase capacity during that period and could we look at doing a safe parking pilot with one of the churches with a parking lot that is part of that program? would you support that? i know you have been in this position since 2016. we have been asking for this issue for at least three years

since the beginning of the time i served on the board. i really feel that i want to do the dew ilgens. i am glad you are looking at santa barbara. just try it seems like we do pilots around the city. i am looking to see if you would support that? >> in santa barbara the parking is in church parking lots. i believe strongly that we need to make sure we are doing the right thing before we put city resources into this particular program. we will have a better read in two weeks when we finish this extensive survey about who is out there. we will take this and say 400 of them need safe parking we better move forward on the safe parking program.

i don't want to lock in. many cities have tried to address this. those with safe parking have not been successful. like santa barbara it is still a huge problem in the neighborhoods. safe parking is not going to solve the problem even with 400 spaces. we will still have people filling the streets until we have a good plan to all work together, combination of services and enforcement needs to be in place or we will frustrate the citizens and not be able to provide meaningful help to those sleeping new vehicles. i smith is something we -- it is something we are looking at. >> can we get a report at the next board meeting on the outcome of what he is looking into so we have a sense where we are going? >> i am glad to stand next to staff. i am your key staff attending

the hkse conversations and working closely with these folks. as there is something to report back we will bring it back to you immediately. >> you are less enthusiastic about the safe parking program. we need a solution. where are people to go? i wonder if there are other lessons learned from other cities with safe parking programs. can we address what has arisen. you said vehicle storage is your solution over safe parking. is it feasible to think of all of the people vehiclely houserd coming to live in the homes?

>> i don't believe everybody will take us up o on the offer. that is why we need the survey. how many do we think would who need it and would accept it. i think that is a possibility. we are looking at cal tran's property. they are required to lease us property for $1 if it serves the homeless community in some way. we can't build nap centers under the freeway. we can't let people sleep there. those are not options for safe parking. it is not safe to have people living underneath the freeways. we can store vehicles there. it is a viable options. we will be able to find a place for people in vehicles that want to come indoors. i don't know that it is my preferred option. i will say common sense dictates that we would rather have people

not sleeping in cars. i will say some people that may be their choice to sleep in their vehicles. we need to provide services. the parking that doesn't work is when it is large scale program, people park and there are no services and no plan and no coordination of enforcement with other agencies. opening the space to say don't park there, park here is opening us up to challenges. it seems absolutely the benefits of showers and bathrooms. those are important. we need to think this through and not just open this up to see what happens. they have been forced to close programs they have gotten out of control, too many people parking there, a lot of violence and crime occurring, and we don't want that. we want a safe place for people

who have and key can figure out the pathway to live permanently.

>> 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