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 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 posli