i see a $20 million gap. this lemake -- they will make that from the sale of the taxi medallion. there was no sale. what a wonderful personality. in two seconds she said, yes, we are short on this, and we have not corrected it. this is the integrity of the human. whatever you have done it but you just say yes. she didn't say not to hide a document, i give a name and i have a document to prove it. liar. this is the difference between the boards. when you listen to me, if i am a liar, kick me out of the door. it is not the money but the

integrity. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. i would like to address the red lanes. it is something i have been observing a lot. you know the new scooters, e scooters on the streets. they are riding in the red lanes. that is one person holding up a bus full of people that want to get home. at times i see two or three abreast having conversations. i would like to see that. thank you. >> thank you. >> that is the last person to address you. public comment is closed. one more, please, come up, sir, if you have comments to give. >> if you have public comment,

please approach now. you can state your name. you don't need a speaker's card if it is on the director's report. >> thank you. public comment is closed. >> quick question thank ago commissioner mcguire for feedback. it is important to hear from the professional tax see driver -- taxi drivers. i assume it is not legal for a scooter to be in the red lane. part of the reason for the regulatory program is for two responsible points of contact. might ican we see if they have n education campaign to deal with

this? mary's point is right on. >> thank you. public comment is closed. moving to the next. >> item 8. citizens advisory report. >> good to see you. >> good afternoon, directors. happy voting day. first of all, i know they are out tough room, but i would like to echo the thank thank yous and farewells. i knew her. she helped us on the council guiding us through the budget meetings with much good humor. i will miss her one-liners. we passed the one motion at the most recent meeting. directodirect director riskin pd

an overview of harassment des crimnation and workplace issues are handled which was appreciated to have an open discussion about it. we passed the following motion after that discussion. the sfmt recommends that they extend harassment train you go to all employees including nonsupervisory employee employeo report harassment and present trend findings publicly. this motion seeks to create away for employees to feel respected. this cannot be solved like an engineering problem. it is about people. we can't ignore it. we have to treat each other

well. thanks again. happy thanksgiving. i will probably see you next in december. thank you. >> thank you for your continued service, much appreciated. do i have public you comment on the cac report? >> i would like to speak favorably on the advisory committee report. bullying at the work site slows down pro ducks u duck activity -- productivity. this is happening in every size agency and has to be stopped. all agencies have to stop witnessing this. bullying is equivalent to domnesstic violence, -- domestic violence and child abuse and school shootings, which resulted as the product of bullying.

it is not acceptable to any city agency and i comment you compliment the city advisory committee. >> any public comment. >> taylor el grin. i want to continue what is said by the advisory committee. i will ask the board to consider that among all of you. there was discussion at the last meeting a lot of members of the biking committee felt that there was behavior that was inappropriate for the sfmta board, and it was in relation to some of the discussion around the sixth street improvements.

i can go to the discussions. the uncomfortable discussion at the last meeting should be addressed to did directors. public comment could be made to address that discussion, which i think, and many others i was speaking too, felt it was inappropriate nor public consumption. >> any other public comment? we will move on. item 9. this is an opportunity for members to address the board on matter was in the jurisdiction of the board of directors not on the agenda. >> two minutes. >> good afternoon, madam chair and members of the board.

our new members to the board and meningen dairy -- legendary members. i am here to speak on behalf of the aaa shared mobility service. i serve as the government affairs director for aaa northern california. a not-for-profit member organization. it is the first shared mobility venture introduced by aaa. it has been operating since 2017. westonnished it as a strong registered business in 2018. we have been operating in the city from private parking lot locations. we currently have 12 locations from north beach.

we support 2000 san francisco waybased members living a car or free lifestyle. with 12 locations they have taken 200 trips -- 2300 trip this is gig. this allows them away from scooter on the streets. as the gig membership continues to grow we will work with the staff to determine additional area us where gig could legally operate in the city. i would like to point out your staff is tremendous in working with such patience and diligent. thank you for your amazing staff. thing work hard to resolve the ongoing transportation challenges. >> thank you very much.

next speaker please. >> herbert weaner. >> mark grew beron behalf of green cab. i want to address a decision regarding airport taxis. i hope you had a chance to read the letter we sent on this, but we have a huge poster in our office. a momento of an event celebrating the city taxis. the legends says the greenest taxi city in america. why would we opt for an environmentally friendly plan.

circulating in the city. in brutal competition with one another for a fare. that is what is going to happen under this plan. we have another grave concern that is related to that. the harder you make it for drivers to make a living, the less service they will be able to provide to the public. the more we hand things over to uber and lift. to profoundly different companies which is a report you will discuss later today. very well documents. if you don't want that to happen, please reverse your decision. there were better alternatives. don't go down to road to destroy to livelihoods of so many

drivers and companies as well. >> next speaker. >> herbert weaner followed by david woo. >> herbert weaner. we have a problem with the california line because from did you spruce street to laurel you have removed parking spaces, the panel that existed have been moved and they don't announce the arrival times any more. this is very frustrates. i would like to see them as soon as possible. i wonder how many six digit managers you have hired in the last six months. you have the resource to do this. i would you like this addressed.

we have sacrificed parking. the least we deserve is the our rifle of bus us. i note that julie, the new manager of transportation is in the office. i would like her e-mail and telephone number so i can address my concerns. the transit was flawed. presently i consider i had a perfect failure. i would like to communicate my concerns to her. thank you for your audience. >> next speaker please. david woo. >> i am with the community action network to comment on new red lanes south of market relating to the central soma plan. the plan an area in the south of

market is centered around transit ordered development that includes that transit is adequate reliable and pleasant. it builds off the new central subway under construction. due to years of lack of infrastructure improvements it is addressing a past need not present or future. the reality is now further exacerbated with private shuttles such as google bus us in you the lanes. on 2018 the spokesperson said that all transit only red lanes are going toally to google bus us. we are concerned about this.

if they are serious about reliable public transportation that works to get people out you have private automobiles, people which were permitted must not be allowed to use the lanes in this area. >> you may allow you the public vehicles and tax sees in the area. supervisor kim expressed support. at the land use and transportation hear there is was testimony how the hsmta can you save the lanes to what they are meant to be. >> next speaker. good afternoon, board of

directors. i am a family case worker at the community action network. they are concerned about private shuttles in the red rapid lane. if they are serious about ridership and having transportation that works to get people out of the vehicles. taxis were previously permitted. they must not be allowed to use public transit himself. this list excludes private transportation systems contributing to the majority of increased traffic within the plan. it has enormous traffic problems. read lanes were to speed up public transportation.

which contributes and delays the traffic that is experienced everything it defeats the real reason they were created. sfmta must restrict the lanes to only public transportation vehicles and taxis in central soma. as david just said they expressed support to allow public transportation in the plan. >> karl mic murdo, please. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am the person who sent the link to the five minute investigative video that nbc did recently showing how unsafe drivers not associated with lyft

and uber are renting user accounts from illegal brokers and driving. they are not vetted. i feel what happened last week under item 15, the taxi iteming. i ask to rye vehicle the medallions because people made too much money. to restrict the cab in the airport is better. it is less drastic. i feel like we in the industry have been the victims of a three year farce in which tax caesarviss -- maybe orders came from above. led to believe the people can't pay bhakta loans -- pay back alone. uber and lift is all over did

you world. we are outnumbered 35-1. the director -- director didn't want use less pain. how about use full plane. how about australia, taiwan, china, new york city committed suicide. you it is people whose living ofs have been destroyed by the business model. on the scale of pain and suffering some of the people buying th the medallion are expecting income in the senior years. i see hope you reconsider what you are doing. >> next speaker please. good afternoon, commissioners. my e-mail sept to the board.

none of that should be give tone the director. it will be given. going further up if you decided in the last meeting on taxi, guess what? i am giving you this document take it home and put it by your pillow side and read it seriously and nex next chance n. maybe you can make the better decision. lit's see the challenge. i put it if the taxis are causing congestion are you ready to go to the airport. prove it i will give you $10,000 price. we have a road enter and get out. i put the taxi numbers.

that is hip z helpful. 7 billion people live on the planet. you cannot change it. these are rock solid numbers. nobody can change it. going further, it is like when you go a murder trial. there is a cost. taxi director has a congestion. i challenge the numbers. the murder trial is feared. don't do what you are doing. in regard to other things, there is one homeless guide for solution. you hired him. i don't want to tell you his address. he is the only brilliant in the whole word maybe but you are not. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am new in the taxi business. i have been driving taxi for four months. i am here to speak out four the taxi ban for pick up at the airport. what i want to say is -- thank you. social justice is one of the most important pillars of the backbone of this society. in this country, america is known for justice. california is the long shot. the united states and san francisco is the difference. everybody is looking at us. tax see drivers -- taxi drivers have been serving this country.

just because we have another employer now, this tech -- uber now. it is not only because we have uber and lift today we should get rid of people serving us for a century. it would be very unfair. my concern is do you guys want to kill the taxi business or just want to regulate? i do refuse to believe you want to kill the taxi business because there are still things taxi men can do that uber can do. before gps the taxi drivers know the city. some having driving for 20 or 30 years. some know the city like their

hands. it is very different what people want is a taxi ride now. >> thank you. >> i have been a taxi driver for 30 years. last meeting your decision to ban the k medallion from the airport is bad. it could destroy the whole industry. it was a bad decision. don't punish us. it is not our fault. we didn't ask you to sell. it is just like you are stealing from us to give it to them. it makes no sense. entire city will suffer. the service slows down and neighborhoods are going to get cabs. the company has been around for

a long time. they will be totally destroyed. that will hurt the purchase of medallions. they won't have you dispatch, the out of town travel lirs come from the other places to visit here, convention people won't have good reliable candervis. now many times you go to many places they need cabs like 30, 40 cabs. they call the cab companies. they are able to send them quickly, dispatched quickly. if you banned the k medallion from the airport it won't be profitable for anybody. the people who got the medallions after working 30, 40 years will lose money and have to leave the industry. these consider reversing your decision. >> next speaker, please.

>> you after 30 years you want to kick me out of the airport. can you tell me where i should go? i am 56 years old. you want to kick me out of the airport. when i applied at medallion no conditions. we can do this and this. somebody fires you tonight. what do you do? i think you are crying. everybody should cry tonight. i get fired, i get fired. how about me? don't you have anything better to do? why are you harassing us. please, stop doing that. last year i was it is you go one hour and 45 minutes in marriott hotel and took off emtie after one hour and 45 minutes thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> tony fletcher. i am the k medallion holder. why should the city preserve the taxi industries. the city has control. you feel comfortable leaving the city in the hands and continuing with your current policies. what do we need? we need cabstands, cabstands. with popularity of smartphones and ads, street hails dried up. they are not there any more in the numbers they were. people will take cabs when they them and are confident to get them. stands at marriott and pier 39. people take cabs. they do move. the city needs to put more

stands for cabs now at city hall right out here we need a cabstands. there is none. north beach. powell and market. all on the main thoroughfare. hayes valley. cabs can be seen and people aren't going to look and click an app. given the conditions for a variety of reasons cab apps are unable to compete with apps of uber and lift. there is an advantage in preserve anything industry if you want control over the situation. central dispatch. if cab companies can't get central dispatch. maybe there is a sum mentioned years ago where it was an open model platform? the cabs and any app could be used to access that system for a

cab. airport why all or nothing? find another solution. if you are going to offer medallions for say, do that -- for sale do that first. >> next speaker. >> when people see the cabs they take them. i want to address the last meeting. the reform package you voted on. i would like to thank director borden for your common sense observations and your vote. and director su as well. during the staff presentation, the claims were made that to reduce congestion at the airport. when director eagan asked for a

or againstian compare -- ongestion comparison. we wonder why when the false claims were made regarding congestion to you and the public. when anybody witnessed the tnc backing up traffic they are back to the mulberry exit. where a vote was allowed to take place? without requires any statements, photos, anything to back up the statements the sfo representative made. fofor the record, at 6:24 p.m. e director said you would not vote for this proposal. seven minutes later 6:31 p.m., a 13 minute break called the commissioners were observed conversing with each other. 7:01 p.m. director eagan changed

her vote. the vote passed. some wonder what was said during this 13 minute break. i might remind you under the brown act any conversations in regard to an item you are to vote on are required to be held publicly. why did you leave? 100 people spoke passionately. couldn't you see how deeply it mattered? >> next speaker, please. >> comfort taxi two years. yellow 18 years there. is no more yellow. i mean the yellow i worked for is gone. we have one that bought up the big taxicab companies. we have uber and people that bought mid dalons. you can't tell anybody that they didn't pay their dos and

shouldn't get what they got. you are out there putting your life on the line. we all did for 20 and 30 years. you promised us we put $300 down that we would get a medallion. one day one guy calls me. you can't have it now we willcle it for $250,000. that is embezelment. that was my mi medallion. they make $250,000 selling them to pure cabdrivers. why did they file bankruptcy? forget that. uber, half of them have not been background checked. 50% are felonies. you get it? they can get out of prison in the morning and get in the uber car and take your family up at the airport and you want to kick us out of the airport so the

fellows can -- felons with pick you up. now the tables have turned. they have to wait 40 minutes for an uber. they are coming back to the cabs. do you know anything about the cabin does industry? i question that. >> the last person to turn-in a speaker card on this matter. >> good afternoon, board. i have been a taxi driver for the last 30 years. i am a medallion holder. i look at you. i have never seen any of you in my tax see. -- in my taxi. i would like to say what can we do? instead of fighting uber and lift, technology is the way to go. the answer for all medallion

problems today is all cab companies slept on it. you inherited the problem. it is not your fault. the medallions were demanded at that time. drivers were willing. you didn't force them. you said it is for sale. today if somebody loses business or their house we don't say i bought this house today in your neighborhood and you bought it 30 years ago and have to move. we don't do that. we follow the law. we got the city what they told us to do we received the medallion accordingly. what can we do? not kick out the rest of the drivers? it is your value now. we can fix it if we put the

medallions with uber and lift. if somebody comes from los angeles to drive here from sacramento or fresno, they drive here. you have a medallion. if you are in touch with it, it can be used as lift or uber x. it is a cheap fare. $1 million insurance. you have a vehicle worth 1.2. >> thank you, sir. do i have any more public comment? yes. >> hello, commissioners. i was a poll workers in the last election in june. i am not a poll worker now or i wouldn't be here. when i signed up to be a poll worker the department of elections told me when you show up your inspector will give you parking permit to park your car for free on the street for the 15, 16 hours you were there.

that makes a lot of sense for people driftag driving to get te early. what we don't provide is anything for people who don't have a car or have to take transit to the polls. in the los angeles metro announced over the weekend that today for election day all public transit in los angeles will be free. they are also providing free parking within one block of the polling place. we should be able to do that for poll workers. we should not prioritize those driving over transit especially for those on 24 hour bus lines and can get to the polling places at 6:00 a.m. on transit. >> thank you. do i have any more public comment?

seeing none public comment is closed. >> you are on the consent item. these items are routine by the board and will be acted upon inspection a member of the board or public wishes to have an item severed. item 10.2 a regarding oversized vehicle restrictions is severed at the request of staff. i have received no indication the members of the board wish to sever any other item. >> do i have a motion and second. all in favor. any opposed. hearing none it ask achproved. >> item 11 the policy guidelines for restricting oversized vehicles on the streets of san francisco. >> we are going to go through 11 and then come back to 10.2a.

>> good afternoon. members of the public. i am andy thornily, senior analyst in the sustainable streets parking and curb management division. i will give a brief presentation for context and the department of support of housing is with us and he will follow with other

context. a month ago this board heard a proposal for parking restrictions on de wolf street. that was held. we will hear that later. the board asked staff to bring back policy guidelines and use of over size vehicle restriction. we have formulated effectively a draft that we have shared with you and i hope the directors have had a chance to look at that. i want to go through quickly a little background and context for this before udelinbrate and take comment from other folks. indeed as the name say us there ask in the transportation code an infraction. section 7.2.54 dobtechnical. it is a red and white sign and duly posted to prohibit the parking of vehicles longer than

22 feet and 7 feet. this was created seven years ago in collaboration with the board of supervisors. we had a supervis sour in 4 and 10. they have said vehicles parked for a long time on the streets. could we come up with a new parking infraction to address the inappropriate parking of oversized vehicles. just to speak a little bit about the business of parking oversized vehicles, there are numerous problems with having a large vehicle park understand the wrong place for a long time if it is inhabited or not. let me elevate that point. six years ago where are the 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