>> taking from one group of drivers to another is not going solve the underlying problems. the only thing that will do that is to create more retiredship -- ridership for taxis and almost a year and a half ago we wrote to the board with a series of ideas on the ridership. the simplest of which is give us more taxi stands. nothing has been done about any of these ideas. more taxi stands. vouchers for city employees so they can use taxis instead of having an expensive city vehicle.

bring taxis on to the clipper car and escort ways in the muni. none of this has been done. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much, mr. rubering. next speaker, please. >> clerk: that's the last person with a speaker card but there may be an additional person. >> commissioner: is anyone want to speak that didn't line up a side. >> i'm president of the taco group and for 40 years we've been building affordable housing and been involved in at least a dozen developer selection processes for the parcels. yours is the most recent. first we absolutely want a

transparent process. in particular, because you haven't done it, the issue this paper addresses requiring the same community benefit package of development in central sow -- soma be applied to this as well though it's on the boundary or because it was cut out of the central soma plan by the city several years ago. that be required for this developer as well. they're important community benefits. i want to address the political feasibility of the project. if we oppose this project, if you jam a developer down the throat which is the track you're on and we oppose the project when it goes to the board of supervisors, we have the votes to stop you, period. and if you got past that point the planning commission has to approve a hotel development in that development you may have the votes but we have the

ability to oppose the impact report and drag it out as long as you want us to do it. we're in court now. i need you to be realistic. you can't do this to the community. you have to include us in a transparent open way in the process of picking the developer first. they're not all the same. some work with communities well while others do not. that's what's in front of you. it's time for you to change the approach. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, very much. okay. public comment is closed. we move on to the next item. actually, before we move on it the next item, if i may just address two issues with you. assuming there's no other board members who wish to. one, obviously we heard a lot of from the taxi industry and issues about transparency. i ask if mr. turn since he's not the general comments could be

passed along to her. i know there's policy issues here but transparency to our valued taxi drivers say must and if she can know those issues are there to be addressed. i didn't want to ask about the issue mr. lee raised which seems like a pressing issue. i assume the issue because the "n" is a two-car train when it pulls into the platform at the beach the disabled this disabled portion is in the front and can't serve is that the issue? >> that's the issue with our key stops throughout the system. the system designed is not a universal design so it requires the use of the front door. >> commissioner: and i think mr. lee was gracious and said i wish i would have known. i don't know personally.

i regret i haven't focussed on this more personally. is there a communication plan that lets folks in wheelchairs know, he came from the east bay and came on the downtown stop and could have boarded either train. is there messaging to let a person in a wheelchair know? >> i don't think there's information real time for that. >> i can chime in with my two cents on this. first, my experience is the drivers are usually trained -- like if i board in the subway anywhere but the front i've had drivers come back and tell me to get to the front of and that doesn't happen here and so that's a manslaughter -- it's a mistake and it'd be better to work on better communication to our drivers because that shouldn't have shaphappened.

>> there's stencils we can put on the platform floor. we can bring this up. it's a great issue to raise and one we can do better on. >> and to mr. lee's credit it's just a communication issue so thank you for addressing this. mr. lee this is how we learn about these things so thank you for coming down and telling us. i will say thank you i can't let you speak more. mike will crack a joke anyway and just did. thank you for keeping it light. with that we'll move ton item 10. >> clerk: the consent calendar. all items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine unless a member of the public or board wishes to sever an item and have it separately discussed. i'm not received an indication from a member of the public or board any item should be

receiver receivered -- severed today. >> second. >> commissioner: those in favor aye. any opposed? okay. >> clerk: moving on to our regular agenda item 11 approved traffic and restrictions on fulton street on the bowdoin street and university street on the perimeter of the university of mound reservoir as follows. >> we're bringing you a proposal a simple but controversial proposal to pose the oversized vehicle overnight parking restrictions around the four sides of the university mount

reservoir. you have already heard from neighbors at previous board meetings in public comment and we alouded to -- alluded to the location being a concentration of oversized vehicle. over the past year the problem has become more pronounced. i'll make my comments brief because we have members of the public that want to address you and bring testimony to you and have the director of homelessness and supportive housing who can tell you what his team has brought to this particular area and city wide and carolyn goosen chief of staff from supervisor hilary ronin's office will be here to bring you comments. again, this is a very simple tool where dueally posted no vehicle longer than 22 feet or

taller than 7 feet may be parked between midnight and 6:00 a.m. or they get a ticket and it's about $110 per citation these days. in your staff's evaluation of the situation in addition to enforcement attention bringing to bear what we could by law, whether it was street cleaning or the 72-hour rule, we've done what we could with enforcement in place and i and others have observed as many as two dozen large vehicles, rvs, campers, some commercial vehicles, let's recognize it's not just inhabitable vehicles. and having heard from the community repeatedly including two meetings convened by supervisor ronin which were attended by at least 100 people

each, mr. peskin was there for those and it was a large and passionate crowd of neighbors calling on the mtab to resolve this issue of lots and large lots vehicles parked around the reservoir. we have worked with the department of homelessness and supportive housing to bring attention, outreach and services to the folks in those vehicles before coming to you with this proposal to regulate. and perhaps i should just pause here and let dr. kaczynski come forward. carolyn goosen. >> good afternoon. happy lunar new year, commissioners. supervisor ronin would have loved to have been here herself but she's in a meeting and i wanted to share a letter

supervisor ronin has written for you all and would like to hand it to you and read it into the record. dear, mtab commissioners, i am sharing my support to in the overnight parking ban to apply to the four streets that surround the perimeter of the university mount reservoir. while i am supporting the ban today, i'm also clear that we as a city have failed to come up with a comprehensive solution to the tragedy of vehicular homelessness. more than 400 individuals an families sleep in their cars and rvs on san francisco city streets each night often one step away from losing their vehicle and sleeping on the sidewalk. for years the city's approach has been to ban vehicles on streets without overarching city policy. it is in fact the proliferation of these bans all over the city that has led to the situation we

currently have in the portola where the city is being inundated with 20 to 30 cars each night and it's unfair the neighbors have to bear the brunt of the homelessness and the city's ineffective response to the crisis. for the past many months i've looked at alternative ways to address the problem and worked with the mtab and department of homelessness in how to keep the area clear from the many rvs that have become accustomed to parking in the reservoir and attempted to work on a legislative solution to vehicular homelessness with supervisor brown to require the city to have a vehicular navigation program. while i support the pilot, it's estimated in speaking with various agencies to serve only 30rvs at a maximum. nowhere near the capacity we

will need. i'll be introducing amendments. unhoused residents living in their vehicles deserve to feel safe and should be navigated into services, benefits and hopefully more dignified housing options. we need real comprehensive solutions to the issue of vehicular homelessness. >> commissioner: thank you very much and thank the supervisor for sending along comments which were clear and hopeful. andy, how are we proceeding? >> thank you, chair. i am acting as emcee here and i don't want to get in the way of supervisor kaczynski on what his team is doing and the larger effort to coordinate. >> commissioner: wonderful. okay. you need to work on your intro more of an ed mcmayhon but

welcome back. >> thank you for inviting me to speak. i want to speak about the work we've been doing in the area and would be speak with the legislation being introduced and what our city wide response has been if you would like that and share additional data i did not have last time i spoke before you. so speaking about this particular area, we started working the area at the beginning of december. and encountered approximately 24 vehicles that had people living in them. we did outreach for four weeks in that area reaching out leaving door hangers saying if you weren't here when we came buy call this number and we'll arrange to speak with you and provided information about the many rv parks within a 50-mile radius of san francisco and provided other information. when we were able to make contact with individuals we provided an assessment of those

willing to be assessed to try to get them in the queue for housing and/or for shotter. desh -- shelter. we did reach out efforts in those days and nights. the census of vehicles went from 23 at the original rou outreach to 12 and it concluded december 31st. there were a number of tows that occurred that sf pd and mtab worked on. i don't have more details because i don't have that information. currently we have three families still there who we are actively working with in providing services. including in our team for areas impacted by a large number of people in vehicles we have catholic charities with an

outreach team that focuses on families that are homeless. the vast majority rin -- are in rvs and they're have them on a pathway toward housing but we do think there's probably three to five vehicles that have people in them that are in need of assistance and services. we certainly would support the idea of the ban at some point but feel we need maybe another three to four weeks before we will be fully feeling like we've done all we could possibly do to provide assistance to the people in that area and also would want to make sure during that time we're coordinating closely with mtab because at the end of the day if we do the work and find place to go we don't want the area to be reencamped to coordinating with the placement of signs is really important.

i think we had great success on dooley street doing that and had a number households get placed into permanent housing as a result of that work and after the signs went up and there's only one rv left and a legally left vehicle that belongs to a neighbor and the streets are clear and i think the neighbors are happy with the work we've done. >> commissioner: that's a superb and optimistic presentation. thank you for your work. it's gratifying to see your results and how much joy you're getting from your results. directors, here's how i'd like to proceed, if there are any questions for either member of staff or the city government please say so now, if not i'd like to go to public comment and proceed to discussion and vote. any questions?

director rubke? hopefully a quick question. you said you thout -- thought three to four weeks is what was needed for additional service and wondering if we can be told about the time line if we pass the legislation today. >> of course, director. if you approve today, anything is done until i write up a work order and i'll coordinate with director kaczynski's team. we were ready to post signs and were held off and in close coordination with the hot team and hsa folks. >> commissioner: but to be clear to our neighbors the idea is your mandate is to post signs after you've exhausted the outreach and anticipation is

that would be four weeks after passage. >> that's right and at the pleasure of this board, promise and commitment and we will not begin enforcement until we get the sign everything has been done to help folks. >> commissioner: but the anticipated time frame is four weeks currently? >> yes. >> commissioner: okay. director rubke, any other questions? >> on the proposed legislation which authorized navigation centers for potentially 30 families or residents, have you been involved in this legislation and there were amendments referenced. what's your sense all 300 to 400 families could be accommodated in this legislation. >> back in november mayor breed with supervisor safai and brown issued a press release stating we'd be starting up the vehicle

encampment resolution team which we did in december and would be opening a triage center for people who are living in their vehicles that will serve two purpose. one is our preferences that people were in vehicles. we certainly understand they do not want to give this asset up. it's probably their most valuable and they can go to a navigation or shelter but for people who want to choose to stay in their vehicles, we will allow a certain amount of people to stay in those vehicles for up to i don't want to put a time limit but until we can find a pathway towards something better for those individuals. the important thing to point out though is when we did the survey, i presented the results to you last time i spoke. there were 432 vehicles and 3 313rvs and did a survey of 12% of the people staying in those vehicles to understand better

what their situations were. the survey design was developed but our data and performance team and the surveys were completed by trained social workers who spoke to i can't remember the sample size, i think around 50 people. what we found is only 18% of the individuals we spoke to say they were willing to be assessed for housing. and only a total of about 50% said they'd be willing to engage in services with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. we believe the number of people on the streets on the time or sleeping in vehicles needing assistance is about 200 and believe many could be assisted while on the streets. we'd like time to have our vehicle encampment team be able to work for the next six months and try to reduce numbers that way but having a small pilot triage center is something members support and members of the supervisors but it's important it be done in a measured way given there's 75

homeless people in san francisco and on any given night 20,000 any given year. we want to focus our efforts on the most vulnerable people those literally sleeping outdoors with no shelter at all. not to say this isn't a priority but it's a relatively small percent of the homeless population so piloting something to see how it works is probably the prudent way to go. the other thing is we can't guarantee everybody in their vehicle is going to get housing. we house 50 people a week which are homeless which is something the city should be proud of but who we decide to house is really based on their needs and how long have they been homeless and we do an acutity -- an acuity assessment and there's people in vehicles who meet that need but we can't say all the housing

resources will go to this population because we have found some folks out there who don't necessarily want or need that type of assistance. i think what's being proposed currently and what the mayor proposed back in november is a prudent and an effective way to proceed. i think the work we've done has shown we can do it in a humane way that meets the needs of people and services the needs of our housed neighbors concerned about what's going on their street. >> commissioner: thank you very much. any other questions? i'm personally familiar with the neighborhood but it helps inform the discussion to the director's final point. can you tell us about the neighborhood at issue, residential, population of children and other things that have factored into the decision for some board members. >> this neighborhood is almost all residential.

the vehicles are concentrated on the four streets we've identified as would be posted with no over-sized or overnight camping. i also believe there's a lot of commercial vehicles that park there as well. i would tell you i believe post of -- most of the people in the vehicles now in that area have tried to be good neighbors. they're taking a parking space and theoretically breaking the law by sleeping overnight in their vehicles and living in a residential neighborhood and has had an impact but i'm sure some neighbors have had their own negative experiences they'll share but our engagement with most of the people who are staying out there are trying their best especially the families. the other thing i should say and

i'm sorry i forgot to mention, that when we find a family that has dependent children who are offered shelter immediately and at that moment if they're willing. our priority needs to be on the most vulnerable which are children 18 and under or individuals with medical conditions that are sick and in their vehicles. we've been focussing on those i know from neighbors many feel this has been disruptive in their neighborhood. >> commissioner: my question wasn't to suggest there's bad guys but there's competing needs and i thought you expressed that very well in your comments earlier. it's a residential neighborhood. there's children present. the proposed restriction would

be along blocks that are residential in nature. director torres question for staff about we go to public comment. >> i was informed there was an element school in this neighborhood that would be c converted into a homeless shelter from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. is that still on the proposal? >> not that i'm aware of. there are schools in the area there's three. we do have a shelter that we're currently piloting in the mission district open in the evenings but no immediate plans to expand that program. >> how is that blan working? -- plan working? >> working well except interestingly enough we haven't had the demand for the shelter bed beds. it's been very under utilized so we're looking to the school to determine welcohether we should continue or expand or change

somehow. the school community has been great and there's questions on capacity but it's not disrupted the school and for the families it has served, it's been successful for them. >> could you use your microphone? >> in response to director rubke's comment with timetable you said you need three more weeks. to do what? >> to continue. i'd like us to continue doing outreach to the vehicles still there and specifically focus on the families there to continue to offer shelter. i can't speak specifically about each family's situation but we're working with them and would like more time to work

with them and try to help them find a permanent place to live. >> lastly, at the previous hearing i asked a question about programs in the santa barbara and east palo alto, are you still of the opinion the programs are not working? with church parking lots and other -- >> the program in santa barbara has been successful. there's been other programs around the state that have been very unsuccessful. i think our department's focus is on getting people the highest needs individuals who are on our streets into permanent housing. whether we want to create safe parking programs in the city i think is a public policy issue that isn't necessarily for me to speak on. it focuses on our clients and how to get them the help they need whether we want to create

an alternative form of housing for folks who can't afford to live here and choose to live in their vehicles is not something i'm an expert enough to speak on. >> you're saying the negotiations took place with the board of supervisors districts are affect? >> yes. i do think what we need to focus on as a city are the people who are the sickest and most vulnerable living in cars and streelths who have no other -- streets and who have no other alternative to do so and think of enforcement policies for people there who are working and can't handle the commute or their vehicles aren't equipped to handle the commute. there's lots of types of people in the street. for every person out there there's another story. i'd lake to focus on the -- like to focus on the sickest and most vulnerable and get them out of their vehicles into a place of safety and relief the neighbors

impacted. the bay view police stations and then it will be easier to meet the needs of the remaining focus and we should think about what we want to do as a city to address the needs of people who maybe don't formally see themselves as needing services but are still on our streets. i think you addressed the problem. >> commissioner: thank you, director torres and jeff. how many public comment cards do we have? >> clerk: eight. >> commissioner: i assume that includes everyone. if you want to speak on this item and haven't submitted a card, please do so. perfect. two minutes a speaker.

please call the first speaker. >> clerk: ronnie marshal followed by spencer hudson. >> commissioner: welcome. >> good afternoon noon, directors. i'm a native and my wife say native daughter and we're in our home we own directly impacted by the oversized vehicles for over 30 years. we're a small neighborhood. throughout my community none of us that i know of don't have great compassion for the homeless issue. this is not a homeless issue. this is an issue of oversized vehicles and people living in them. we have some commercial vehicles everything from trucks, campers, vans, rvs and motor homes. i support and urge you to pass the parking resolution before you today. r. it will at least around the university mount both reservoirs help with that situation, create

safety for the reservoir and the neighbors directly across the street on all those blocks. i want to add to that that it doesn't take any foresight to see what will happen once the signs go up is that the blocks just won direction or the other immediately adjacent to those. we're talking about on the east side of the south basin the 700 block of whalen and 500 block of hamilton and 700 block of woolsey are open and they'll go therap and the 1100, 1200 and 1300 block of whalen and on the east side of north basin have you the playground. the real issue most of us see here is the degrading of the quality of life for us residents

and homeowners and a major health and safety issue. i urge you to pass it. >> commissioner: thank you very much for coming down today. we appreciate your input. next speaker, please. >> clerk: spencer hudson. mike lee. >> before i start i'd like to let mr. reskin know if you think the muni service is other than abysmal you are woefully misinformed. i'm spencer hudson and i oppose any expansion of parking restriction for people living in their houses. i'm a home owner. i pay taxes in this city. i think it's a disgrace we are wasting funds chasing people around the city confiscating their property and towing their homes. it's pathetic. what you should be doing is

concentrating on providing houfg, support and services for all on the streets regardless of whether they are living completely unhoused or in a shelter or whether they are in a tent or living in a vehicle. towing people's vehicles, stealing their homes is unconscionable. you should be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking of some of these restrictions on people who are unhoused. i'm especially concerned about the motivation for your comments on whether or not there are children living in these neighborhoods. i sincerely hope, sir, you are not implying people living in vehicles put children at risk any more than anybody else in our neighborhood. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> clerk: mike lee. alan mafey.

is mr. mike lee here? >> yes. thank you. we've agreed to disagree on many issues over the years but i hope this board is listening to what jeff is talking about as a reasonable and rationale regulation you're considering. don't listen to this guy. he's bound and determined to run homeless people off. once you sign the mandate, he can do anything he wants. i don't hear repercussions about what previous sides about will because once you side that he's got carte blanche. i'd like to also point out to you, by giving jeff the four weeks he needs, it's not a lot of time.

right now in oakland we are talking about creating the same type of program you're creating here in san francisco, same parking program, 150 vehicles are going to be staged. it took about $3.5 flon -- $3.5 million and $5 million and they're talking about constructing it and talking about making it $300. you don't have to look to santa barbara. look across the east bay. those are the innovative solutions we need. we don't need a stick. let's be reasonable and rationale. give jeff the time he asked for as a bridge to go ahead and post the reservoir. last thing i'd like to say is homeless people do not eat children, okay.

we don't eat children. i'm a former homeless individual and i never ate or threatened a child and a take real offense when there's a hint we do so. i'd rather eat your dog by the way, i'm korean. thank you for your time. >> clerk: sloane kelly and melody. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to address the mtab board. i'd like to start off by thanking matt laura and richard kyro for keeping the neighborhood positive to look to a solution to keep oversized vehicles from litter and dispensing human waste and taking advantage of the neighborhood and would like to

thank supervisor ronin for keeping our concern at the forefront and working with the neighborhood and agencies to find a resolution to this growing problem in the portola and the details designated for signage fall short. on page 2 paragraph 8 details the streets which are to receive the signs against large oversized vehicles. it falls short to eradicate the problems. it needs to be the areas within the neighborhood including all streets surrounding the park. on october 9, one day prior to the last community meeting sfpd made a sweep and towed some motor homes between bacon and felton and they moved however they just parked around the corner on felton street. this was acknowledged by

supervisor ronin during our december 10 meeting. at least one motor home was back on the university street within three days. the point i'm to make is if only half the streets are posted it will only push the issue to other streets within the neighborhood. page 3 under alternatives considered acknowledges the neighborhood has requested a larger area be requested for signage in anticipation of the relocation of oversized vehicles. however, the department of homelessness and outreach has been limited to four sides and further outreach should be conducted before pre posing restrictions on other blocks. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> clerk: lo kelly, melody, martha bridgeham. >> commissioner: welcome. >> hi. i'm flo kelly a volunteer with the coalition on homelessness. and i want to say i'm a

substitute teach three blocks from this area. in december myself and another volunteer went to do outreach to folks who live in their vehicles and in one of the really large rvs we found a mother, her 4-year-old daughter and a newborn who were being visited by the san francisco homeless prenatal and it made me sad to think but i saw it's a gorgeous place. she kept it very well. and i let her know that her 4-year-old daughter could actually come to e.r. taylor if there was space in the preschool program.

and i'm mentioning this family because i want people to know people who live in their houses in the portola and i want you to know, these are real people. these are real people. it's not them and us. and i also want to point out frankly anyone who's homeless is breaking the law every night not just in their vehicle with the laws and tent sweeps it's against the law to be homeless. there is definitely a need to change these laws in for instance. we definitely have a huge population living as if they were in a third-world country. >> commissioner: thank you ms. kelly. >> clerk: melody. martha bridgeham, evan owski.

>> thank you. my name is melody. first every time i walk down the street i've seen people i've known formally sheltered in rvs now on the sidewalk in piles stuff now in the rain. a few wednesdays ago a woman told he her vehicle was towed and said i feel like i'm losing my mind. another woman who's rv was taken was attacked with a knife through her tent and remaining property pilfered and destroyed. you cannot imagine the mental anguish of without notice being given 15 minutes to get out.

the city refers to this as a team but i can tell you it is an army of people. two to four police officers, 10 trucks and several tow trucks, dhs, a team. this is like 15 to 20 city officials that come and knock on your door and publicly make a spectacle of you and bullies you unless you're left standing on the sidewalk in utter despair watching them seize your property with no power to stop them. this is about humiliating and punishing people without resources. at the height of city sanction tore -- torment we're offered unsustainable solutions. don't do this. >> commissioner: next speaker,

please. >> martha bridgeham. i hope you'll think of this more than one proposal in the sequence and glad to see ms. eaken. i used to work with a department and interviewed you and enjoyed working with your quality of intellectual approach to urban planning. i've been doing volunteering with the coalition against homelessness and i want to ask you to please delay voting in favor of this incremental further restriction. i'm concerned the restrictions are being treated piecemeal though they're essentially systematically reducing the capacity of the city to house people in the neighborhood in the community as neighbors, as good neighbors sometimes instead

of the family flo mentioned who has a daughter who may be able to go to school three blocks away. instead we're increasing the likelihood vehicular residents will be segregated and secluded in a separate place and that's not good for democracy or being an inclusive city community. segregation, inclusion, enclosure and telling people you can't be here, you must go there. there's a place that will take you in therefore you have to go there. we're looking at the possibility of the farm mentality and if there's a way you can delay this vote until you figure out how people can remain in offends -- neighborhoods and all be part of the same city it's very important. we need a city all one community. not a new institutional

segregation system which is what we're pointing at today. >> commissioner: thank you very much. >> clerk: evan owski, barry toronto and roberta sherman. >> i work on issues with the democratic socialists of america and sat on the november prop c steering committee. we've done outreached to unsheltered homeless people including vehicle dwellers and they face challenges including the 72-hour rule and smog checks and insurance as well as insurance problems. i spoke to one woman trying to make ends meet in an rv who gets a tow from a friend to keep ahead of a 72-hour rule and spoke to a trans woman who doesn't feel safe in a shelter system. and yet the city has been

increasingly cracking down with bans targeting the san franciscans in vehicles and with respect to the work, offer of services has been used as a trojan horse. we all want people properly housed but there's simply not enough supportive housing available. more oversized vehicles bans are not a solution. without a real solution we'll be back next month and the month after discussing further bans. i urge you to oppose these bands and at the least wait until we have a legislative solution crafted with input from vehicle dwellers. >> commissioner: thank you very much. mr. toronto. >> clerk: followed by maria sherman and david driver. >> when i used to come i used to hear all the time and the bands are still going on.

the proposals to ban. i'd be a hypocrite to say i'd feel uncomfortable in my neighborhood near open space if i had a group of rvs parked there. i'd be uncomfortable too. the thing is there's got to be a solution. you can't just keep bringing them up because they go some where else and next topic's about napoleon street and it's probably a better spot for them to be because all you have are cab companies and industrial spaces. not a lot of housing. but the thing is that you have do work win the director of -- with the director of homelessness performing tucomo lum and you can look that up it's a jewish organization and i appreciate andy thornily for bringing this to you and maybe

he can run the taxis because he's run compassionately and instead of pushing them to another street and keep folling them to another street and another street work on finding a space for them. find a spot instead of keep bringing the bans before you. it's constant. i've been following it for a long time and took a break because i usually drive tuesday nights and i need sleep but today i didn't get a lot of sleep so i'm not driving tonight. the thing is let's work on a solution and perform tucuno lum and i commend andy thornily again for showing compassion in this area. and let's work together. last thing, there's taxi drivers that sleep in their cars and cabs because they have no place to live. >> commissioner: thank you. >> clerk: maria shulman, david driver. rich kyro.

>> if you give them tickets what are they supposed to do. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> clerk: richard kyro and dustin nova is the last person with a speaker card. >> hu for holding the meeting.

i live in the portola for two years and support the legislation before you. i hope you vote for it. i was really surprised when i moved there from the upper haight to see what was going on. it's just not the kind of thing that happens in the upper haight or richmond and i sent an e-mail about this but if someone can explain to me why the sun set reservoir deserves restrictions but the university mount reservoir doesn't. there's a rationale explanation for that besides they got it first and we can't have it, i would accept that but i don't think there's a rationale explanation for it. i hope you vote for it. thank you very much. >> commissioner: thank you very much. >> clerk: rich kyro folled

-- followed by dustin nova. >> thank you, i'm rich kyro and a voter carrier for te service and have seen the detore ration -- deterioration in the neighborhood more so in the last two years. all the things happening you would not this across the street from your house. it's not really improving. it went from 24 to 12 rvs and it will the same a week or two weeks from now. we need this resolved. if you're going to offer any more time on this get a drop-dead deadline because the residents are tired much all the riffraff and the safety and sanitation and it affects property values and that may be

superficial to some people but we all play patches and the taxes -- taxes paid are $1200 to $1500 and we're put back in the community and the people there are not helping out at all and that's part of it. there's no free rides. back in 2006 i suffered a nervous breakdown and almost lost my house and lost my 40 1k and i know how it is to go through these times. i don't want to seem uncompassionate but you can't live somewhere you where you can't afford. you have to live within your means. i for the first time was thinking of relocating because for a time there i was going lose my house. i got two kids in college. i just couldn't do it. i do have the compassion but people have to live within their means and if they can't do it here in san francisco, which is one of the most highest priced place to live in the world, not just our country, it's time to

move. >> commissioner: thank you very much. >> clerk: justin nova. >> my name is dustin nova a captain of the san francisco fire department in the excelsior district. from a public safety perspective the ra -- rvs have to go. i have a son. he wants to go ride his bike. i want to be able to feel safe he's going around the reservoir and he'll be okay on the sidewalk without much traffic. homeless aren't going to eat them, i know that, but they sure did offer him drugs. he sure does have to go around garbage. five gallon tanks of gasoline and sewage on the street. it's disgusting and despicable and i thank you very much for considering this and so happy it's come to fruition it's a

possibility it will happen with the signs. i just want a place where my children can go out and i can feel safe they'll be okay. i know my neighbors and who these people are. i don't know the people in the rvs. i try to reach out and they say go away or get out of here. i don't want to dehumanize them. i care about everybody but living in the neighborhood i want my kids and neighbors and everybody to be safe and getting the rvs is okay. it's not okay you have bans everybody gets stuck across the street from me. not okay. thank you for your time. >> commissioner: thank you, captain. any other public speakers? seeing none we'll close public comment. directors, time to discuss this or ask further questions of our very able staff.

>> i'll jump in here. i'm delighted to hear we have so many compassionate members of the public willing to show up and comment on the item. i think many speakers said things on my mind including just a very logistical reality that if we make the ban on these streets, those rvs will go to the next street over and we'll come back here and have another ban and then another ban. the question's not been answered, where are people supposed to go. it's premature. because of what we heard from the people of housing and supportive services division they need three to for more weeks to execute the process we all approved in the document you put forward which is to use a more humane approach and see if there's ways to accommodate people's needs that way. and given the comment from

supervisor ronin's staff about the legislation going before the board of supervisors today to try to create that more holistic solution so many public commenters spoke about. to me this is a bit premature and i move to continue this item until the two objectives have been accomplished that dhsh finishes their work and we can see a little bit of the resolution of what's being discussed before the board of supervisors today. >> commissioner: we have a motion to table the item is that would that would be? >> a motion to continue and require a second. >> i second that motion. >> commissioner: a second from director rubke. why don't we finish the discussion and come back to the pending motion. other directors wish to comment on this item? >> substitute motion. >> commissioner: i will allow you to make any motion you want

after this is resolved but address the issue which goes to the substance of the motion. >> director, no one else? >> thank you. thank you to everyone who came down and mr. kaczynski and thornily. as you can tell, this is difficult work. it seems like the work to reach out to the people living in their rvs has been quite successful in this area. i would assume if we approve the bans on he's streets the rvs will move to other streets and the work will continue to reach out to these people and to help them if they can accept help and want to accept help.

i keep going back to the fairness of parking resolution because it's fair to everyone this is a ban on oversized vehicles. can you tell us again, i believe you said other alternatives were offered such as rpp or a complete overnight ban. is that true? am i remembering correctly you looked into other options before going to just an oversized vehicle ban? >> that's right. andy thornily sustainable division mtab. this is part of the codified guide abs you -- guidance you approved and we look at the problem you asked us to solve and take up an assortment of tools and would time limits help something and something else. a good principle, try to achieve

multiple things with a swing and not just one. ordinary daytime time limits, blanket overnight parking restriction on the edge of the reservoir. we talked about rpp knowing that's a bigger thing we wouldn't just bring forward u unilaterally and the maybers are used to leaving their cars parked so none of those were satisfactory. if i might volunteer the oversized vehicle in the parking restriction is not directed ostensibly at overnight vehicles but dimensional and you heard many commenters including the supervisor's office say some of the problem is commercial vehicles left parked on the streets. there's a food truck i see