we are trying to be conservative about the less certain revenues. not because of economic uncertainty because we don't want to commit ourselves to projects with revenues that are less certain. we have perspective revenues in there. the change in the two year budget from april to now is newer information about somewhat revenues are likely available in that two year period versus what we thought when we brought it to you in april. >> there could be a revision at another time? >> some of these are well established, others are projections. >> we have a process for priority should that happen. when revenues were less we helped figure out where the priorities were.

>> the revised two year capital budget is our proposal. we have gone through that internally. this reflects how to live with the smaller amount of revenues. some repriortization. some are referred to rather years. >> a further reduction would we use this as a guide? would punishes age go smaller? >> it depends. some are scalable, some are not. it is reevaluating the program. there are projects underway. it is ones expect aren't underway or what we would need to defer to a future year. >> in regards to you mentioned this does not include the wind fall money we are anticipating. how would we allocate this based

porn what we have here? >> as tim said this doesn't include windfall. this was put together before the windfall became appainter. i will bring a recommendation to the board that will recommend the use of those revenues to accelerate the replacement of light rail vehicles. we brought you an furringsal item on that. the customer survey showed where did you weak point was. did you most important thing to do is get out cars out and new cars in sooner. there will be a met cost to doing that. that is what i will be proposing. we will have to go to the board of supervisors to appropriate those funds. they were unexpected.

before going to the board of supervisors, we will come back through this board. >> director aiken. >> it struck me we have a vision zero goal of eliminating fatalities in 2024. this is th the window to get us there. if it is not here to achieve vision zero, i wonder. how do we achieve that goal? are we getting all the way there in terms of addressing the streets and high injury network through this plan? i see tom jumping out. >> to tom mic mcguire. we are addressing by the end of this capital plan cycle we will

not have addressed every single street. if you go back to 2014 when we adopted the commitment. we calculated over 80% of the streets will have received one if not multiple engineering treatments. there is enforcement, education, policy change. i know at the board workshop in january we will ahead a strategic conversation about things board and staff can do to make that final push to zero. >> it is not necessarily additional? it ask there a funding gap? is this your dream plan or would there be more in here or not a matter of funding? policy interventions. >> if we look back at the first almost five years.

we have done per capita per any measure. i would say we have almost certainly invested more in zero engineering than any city in the country. i think the amount of work the board has done this fall ask a good indication. all of the streets reflect how aggressive you have been there. the other areas like enforcement and education and policies to the policy of safety, no low hanging fruit left. those are areas that demand more investment. we are talking to you about that in january. >> thank you. >> directors. do i have any other questions or comments? >> a couple more questions? does anyone else have more? >> i saw the better market street funding removed from the plan. i want to hear if there is a plan to restore that.

two more quick questions? how do we happy the future? if we look at 2012. uber and lyft didn't exist. how does this anticipate the future. a tbd measure four november 2020 on the ballot. i wonder if you can speak to what that likely funding source is going to be. >> the tbd funding measure. cip has a rule where projects have to be included at 90% funding or more there. are a list of projects. one you have the things we do is highlight those by including a tbd funding need or ballot measure to adjust those projects. it highlights those projects we don't have enough money to potentially do, and it is a

potential proposal should we have enough money. for better market street, one of the things i mentioned is that we try to take a more conservative approach and be the conservative for the capacity funds. we don't want to say those will go to the market street when we can't really have certainty to make sure those funds go to the better market street. we made a slight adjustment. the middle question. >> is there a plan to future proving? >> it is difficult to do. it is why we trial to align the

five year with the 20 year capital plan. something has to be in the five year plan to be in the 20 year cip. we have a look at the longer term to make sure those things are included in the five year cip. in terms of better market street and extra funding not including in there, i would say without knowing the specifics our staff are looking at different funding opportunities and different scenarios to adjust the funding. >> on better market, we had been holding a place holder for a very large discretionary federal grant which we thought plight be un-- might be unlikely. good news the city received the smaller grant for the first

phase, $15 million build grant which will help to get to full funding of the first phase two our three blocks in mid market. we are continuing to work. it is a multi agency effort between public works, planning, transportation and economic development and us to build the funding for the full project. there is full commitment for the full better market street project. we are also putting in the budget at this board's previous request funding for near term improvements. once the environmental document is certified there are things we will do to put the parking and traffic changes and traffic and safety improvements in place we are funding that. taking out the large federal discretionary grant was us trying to be conservative. we are committed to funding it. to the fiscal year or 2020

revenue. there was a task force transportation 2045 task force last year. they recommended a measure to go forward. they recommended a number of different potential funding sources, not a single one on the list. i think the top contenders were additional half cents sales tax those were from last year. it now looks like the next opportunity would be in 2020. it will be more political and public process to determine the right revenue source and timing for that and what it might be. >> thank you. any other questions or comments? seeing none. thank you for the presentation.

public comment. mr. winer. >> herbert winer. one thing i am concerned about is transit going to be given top priority? i have the sense this board considered bike lanes more important than public transportation. i am really concerned about this because i see a widening of sidewalks, i see a taking away of driver lanes which adds to congestion, which adds to the difficulty of buses traveling throughout the city. before you could get from one part of the industry to another the longest it would take would be an hour. now it is an hour and-a-half. i think one of the real answers is more buses and more drivers.

i really think this board should make transit the first priority. after all the model is transit first. so far it is transit first, passengers last. this is my concern i wish to convey to the board with regards to the capital project. thank you. >> again i recommend you read the recent ta report on congestion in the city. it does show that street network changes barely contributed to overall congestion in the city. if you haven't reviewed that ta report, i recommend do you it. any more public comment? public comment closed. a motion to approve? >> second. all in favor? any opposed. it is approved. you thank you very much for the presentation. much appreciated. all right. we will move on.

13 approving policy guidelines for restricts overnight parking of oversized vehicles on the san francisco streets. >> after 13 we will go back to d, e, f on 10.2. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the senior analyst with the sustainable streets division of your you agency. we were here on november 6th to talk about adopting a policy for the and when we would use the oversized vehicle overnight parking restriction. we had a very rich conversation. the board directed staff to come back with refinementses to the policy and i brought you a refined version.

as a procedural note, the staff would like to make a minor edit striking the footnote on page 6, foot note sixty page 1 -- page 6 on the object in conversation. i don't want to bore you with a powerpoint presentation from me. the changes made to the document have to do with elevating the participation of a part of homeless outreach and healthy streets operation center, the page 8 flowchart has a few refinements on that note of coordinating with and following the lead of homeless outreach team as we look at and work on streets that have vehicles that potentially are inhabited.

i talked and heard comment from the board on the general criteria. this may be the heart of the policy conversation. what are the indications when staff would say this measure you should be brought forward and on page 9 our page 14 for the staff report, on that page for request the continue to site visit stage staff will consider the characteristics. we used the word blight. it is not in there. we say as the fourth of the four points. streets subjecttography too and dumping. when -- subject to the graphfitti. we would consider the oversized

vehicle overnight restriction if we thought that would be a remedy or contribute to a remedy. also, the first of the four bullets. concentration of oversized vehicles. if we find a street without a particular number. two, five, rather a concentration of oversized vehicles on a street that is under consideration, and above all, i want to emphasize in the flowchart that proceeds that page back on page 8, our decision tree how we evaluate streets that might be suitable for over size vehicle overnight restriction, we will begin work with and end with homeless outreach team and the homeless support of housing group. we had the director from the department of housing with us

last visit. i thought that was very valuable. personally and on watch of the agency i am grateful for the partnership and cooperation, and any recommendation for the overnight restriction or even other parking management tools that would reasonably have an effect on peoplen u inhabiting vehicles we will come to those that are a plano parking overnight where we could respect folks living in vehicles might be pushed out of that. we will work with homeless outreach and homeless support of housing and hse folks to make every reasonable offer of services and help for folks. we are doing that already. you will remember last meeting

this board approved did you posting on wolf street that was so famous. friday, the 14th, the homeless outreach team finished what they thought was proper and adequate outreach, helped a few of the households living in vehicles on that street, connected them to services, and then just then i said sign shop, post the signs. so right now to wolf street they have the over size restriction posted. i do want to be clear that work of outreach and offer of services connecting folks to help is not an offer of housing. it is not an offer of an

alternative place to park, but rather trying to connect with folks ill, who need help, and they have connected with folks in desperate situation us and gotten them help and services, and helped move them out of a bad place. this agency is not promising to find a safe place for them to park. that ask an ongoing conversation the city is having. i think that is all i have to say about this document. if the board has questions, i am eager to take them. >> directors do you have questions before public comment? director torres. >> we talked at length about the issue and i sent articles to our director about other cities in california that found solutions.

east palo alto and santa barbara and i am trying to figure out why is it taking so long for us to find a parking lot or other area to establish at least a temporary place for people to park so they are out of the neighborhoods causing so many problems as many supervisors articulated to me. >> excellent question. i have become an expert on this over the past five years. santa rosa has retreated. they had a robust program and they are down to a small parking lot. the issue is funding. there was funding for a year or two and it was not adequate to keep going. i hope mr. reskin will elaborate.

my understanding with the supervisors. there is work going on towards starting at least a pilot of the safe parking program and other sorts of relief and refuge for folks living in vehicles. it is not that we are asking for that help. i am gratified we see some movement in the board of supervisors. >> you should refer to the city of hollywood where they are establishing a parking lot for rvs. i would be happy to refer you to his offices >> is there a reason we can't do it? the board of supervisors has to diet? i never understood it. i thought we had jurisdictionable authority to do these things. >> in terms of establishing a

safe parking program on private profit that may be something that depending on the structure, how the city acquire the land if it is not city land and how the city operates it, it would be something under the jurisdiction of the board. there are a number of different supervisors working on this, some have been working with the mayor's office and department of homelessness in support of housing on it. to get back to the director torres it was question. we have seen a lot of them quickly and a lot of them failed. part of the issue is making sure we have things lined up to do it right. until recently i don't believe he had the opportunitying he felt he would need to support a successful safe parking program.

unlike other city, we are densely populated. the opportunities for this space without neighborhood impact is harder space to come back. a few years ago we tried to do bus operator training. we were not able to find that within the bounds of the city. there is you more movement than there has been before, there is support to explore the concept. there are a lot of questions. it is not entirely clear to somewhat extent that solves the problem. homelessness is in support of housing. though are focusing on the people who have great need. they are sick or have issues that makes living in vehicles problematic. then understanding a small sub

set of the issues out there. if they are looking to prioritize dollars to the people that need it most, some of what we see based on information we get from them is that is foilings, some of the folks in the vehicles are not the neediest who are the focus you have the resources. that potentially makes parking not the highest priority and what they are doing to address homelessness issues that have personal health and safety impacts the people in the city. safe parking is definitely on the table as is more like parking storage. if they can get somebody to services but for the fact the person doesn't want to lose their vehicle and possessions. they are trying to find a place to store vehicles not to live in but to not lose as they try to

get back on their feet. there are efforts moving, but i know from working with the department they are really focusing on those most in need. in some neighborhoods that is a small percentage of the folks living in vicks. >. -- vehicles. >> we know that it is sometimes how people end up in the worst situation. it is intermediate situation until people that get worse off. we can prevent them getting worse off it is a better thing than going after them when they are so far removed from thinks. that is something that needs thought about. for wolf street there was outreach done. that is our first test case in talking about this process. >> i am sorry i don't have

someone to give you a more particular report, my understanding is that in two of the vehicles there were folks who were connected who had rather dire mental health situation. that individual was connected to healthcare and services. i do not know in terms of housing outcomes, however, and i am uneasy with that. to wolf, when we came to it, it had four large vehicles parked on it. by the time this board moved there were five or six vehicles. it was a small population and small street. my understanding is that a couple households did get services critical. the other folks had to move along. that is the heart breaking fact.

our understanding of the parking management section of the sustainable streets. pretty much every regulation we bring to the street over ice vehicles, parking regulations are all going to displace parkers parked there folks with a secret free parking place or place to park to commute away or living there. it is the nature of regulating the curb to a place that doesn't have regulation. bit by bit. most of the cities are getting regulation. the fact of pushing folks away is happening with every regulation we bring. i am mindful some of those displace minutes are pretty awful if you have the threat of

losing your home. it is place of unregulated streets soaking up the pressure from regulated streets. >> if we see the same people moving from street to street, we have to figure out a solution. the board didn't choose to do a city-wide ban. they don't want to do that. i am not saying they should. if what we are doing is keeping the moving problem around. we have to come to a solution. it is not good use of our board to discuss that. that will take two to five years. i do think that we have to kick down or think of a bigger issue around the larger policy solution not just overnight vehicles but overnight parks if that is going to be the case. i think that is something we really can't ignore.

>> thank you. do i have any more clarifying questions before public comment? any more clarifying questions? >> this follows up on the last question which is sort of this piece by piece approach how are we going to hear about the next request? how are you as the staff going to handle the request? as we move some people or do some regulations there is going to be byproducts and different neighborhoods will feel the effect and come to us. i ask that. thinking back to the wolf situation i want it to be treated like every other situation if they it is on this or other boards. i appreciate the framework you

set up, i appreciate the plan going forward, and my question is how are you going to handle and prioritize the requests as they come in the future? >> excellent question. i will confess this is a complaint driven list at this point. your sustainable streets team have a long list of streets brought to us over the past several years. we have been trying to be very strained in pushing any kind of regulations forward towards the concerns here and to some extent when the pressure from the neighborhood gets very grade, we give it a closer look. you have heard from neighbors around the reservoir, mr. reskin and i and staff were with the neighbors earlier this week and last week, there is a lot of frustration. that, frankly, is bringing that

bunch of streets higher. we need to be more systematic about how we engage this question. to director borden is a whacking game. i am not here to propose a rationale way. we are motivated to bring you more rationale ebb gagement. how are we going to treat the streets. it is very much based on community complaint on supervisors offices bringing complaints. we are trying to balance how we bring those regulations forward to you. there are neighborhoods that have not gotten as much attention. we do not have a very strong system but we are motivated to make it make more sense.

>> we did hear from a large and organized group from the supervisor their frustration with the situation they are seeing, and they made reference to the fact that other neighborhoods have been able to get the restrictions put in place, what about us? it is a fair question you are raising. we will be bringing -- we will take it through a public process and the homeless outreach teams are there working in the area. we will bring you a proposal in february for your consideration. it won't be easier than the others. we will be true to this policy, but it is a very challenging issue. there are people living in the vehicles at the meeting expressing their perspective as well. there are no easy ways out you have this. the wind fall revenues, you

know, you saw the mayor's propose scaland board proposal will add more resources to the pipeline for housing and support of housing and homeless shelters. there are things done in parallel that might be helpful for some of these folks. we will continue to work with the other agencies on safe parking and storage parking. there is not an easy solution to what is a result of a very unfortunate and extreme dynamic and the region that we are facing. it is manifest by those in the streets in their cars. >> i understand when there is an item or restriction up four consideration the outreach and homelessness out reach and

related efforts are starting with the information gathering process to understand what it is we are about to do, is that correct? >> that is the key concept in this pile of paper that we have a partnership that is very effective. the resources and capacity are there working with homeless out reach team and hsh and that again as with wolf not a happy, not harmonious situation to the extent we will not post signs and commence enforcement until homeless outreach and services have been brought forward. we committed to that, executed on thaw. that was a small pro pow type of the policy that we are bringing you. >> any other questions before public comment? go ahead. >> briefly. i believe a week following our

last discussion of this item, mayor breed and supervisors made an announcement about a new program to address vehicle homelessness. and if that has any bearing today? >> i do not have specific os that is i think mr. reskin mentioned the mayor and the supervisors have announced and gestured in that direction. likewise supervisor ronen has made commitments. i want to repeat whatever comes forward if it is done properly. the gate keeps is what i caution i won't not want this agency to evaluate the worth of somebody. that is beyond what this agency

should get into. >> thank you very much. i am moving to public comment. we may have a few more questions as discussion starts. do we have public comment? >> mike lee, ellie, melody have turned in speaker cards. >> two minutes please. use the lower microphone. that will be turned on for you. >> i am michael lee. formerly homeless person. i am one you have the few experts in this room about some of the things you are talking about.

have you been homeless? why are you fooling with this issue? what is your going about this is all stick. we are going to regulate this, pass this law, criminalize this, do this and that. this gentleman says it is complaint driven. that is nice. complaint driven. anybody go to the vehicle dwellers and say the neighbors have a concern about this behavior. if you don't correct it, we are going to have to regulate the street. scent that reasonable and -- isn't that reasonable? isn't that humanitarian? no, not this city. this city has a mayor that says we are going to throw you in jail, run you off, throw your things in the trash. you act like people have an option. this commission member i asked why is this taking so long?

let's go back to the super bowl 15 days. pier 80 was open. within four days they had justin her man swept, the embarcadero swept the mission swept. they put them in pier 80. it is political will: i will leave you with this thought. there is say federal ruling out of idaho. you cannot evict homeless people unless you can provide a shelter space. they were talking about homeless encampments specifically. if you pursue this policy we are researching right now if we can apply this to vehicles. >> thank you very much, mr. lee. >> you need to consider the humanitarian and whether they are legal.

most definitely it violates the charter of human rights. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is ellie. i am a volunteer on homelessness. i have brief personal experience. i have conducted several outreaches in the bayview along armstrong and bancroft. myself and those on behalf of the coalition. many of those vehicles are not transients to leach city resources. one elder plea man struggled with addiction. he is working to support himself inside his rv for several years. another is hoping to raise his

credit score. his children attend the public school. others were living in shelters. there were unsafe you living conditions like bedbugs. the list is endless and heart breaking. more over an embarrassment. the steve san francisco we choose to apply restrictions and enforcement and criminalize the people for trying to survive in the home base tha that is unaffordable. we must carefully create alternatives for vehicle and unharness folks. we must remind ourselves they are fighting every day to get by in the city. signs force them to move from one street to the next. it is part of the problem.

until we face the issue of homelessness and carve out spaces to over humanenessties we are not addressing the homeless issue, not creating solutions or offering real solutions. >> thank you for your work on this and thank you for putting into words what people feel about the issue. next speaker, melody. >> i am melody. i have a couple comments on the policy. it says vehicle encampment solution team. my experience with this is that it is a façade, empty solution to make it seem like people are helped. as we know there is no housing and no shelter offered to people

who do not fit the narrow criteria. the navigation centers are 90 day stay. everybody i have seen in navigation has been out on the streets in three months back on my block. the navigation centers are approximately 550 people total of five navigation centers. that is 550 people out for a 90 day shelter bed out you have the total number of homeless people 7500 people. that is all they are offering us. also, on page 12 where it says number three vehicles in jeopardy of being towed can be notified pryer to being towed. i ask that it be amanda

tomprethey be -- mandatory they are notified. i am requesting at least two weeks notice and to post the notice on the telephone poles because when you put it on the person's vehicle, they go i better leave. then someone else pulls right in. we are requesting that. please. thank you so much. >> thank you, melody. any more public comment on this? >> kiner -- winer and difficultler. >> commissioner tore resrespected in santa barbara adequate solutions are found. the problem in san francisco there are less parking spaces. this is partly do to mta ex appropriating them willy-nilly. that is one aspect of it.

now, director reskin pointed out that not all inhabitants of the vehicles are necessarily at poverty level. that is true the there are college professors living in the vans because of the housing problem. one thing i have noticed is that with the vans having to move all over town because they are being restricted, this is a cat and mouse game. it really has to stop. one thing i wonder about. should these vehicles have parking permits? that is a question i would like to propose to the board. maybe that would stop a lot of fighting, towing and misery theme piece endure in their

vehicles. i am a social worker by profession. i can understand the dilemmas of the people who are homeless living in the vehicles and also the dilemma of the board because this is broader than the board's concern. this is a city-wide problem. frankly newsome used this to become mayor. i don't like homeless being used as a political tool. they are weak, vulnerable. when you start persecuting the homeless this is bullying. >> thank you. next speaker. >> kelly cutler. >> thank you. i am kelly difficultler human rights organizer on the coalition of homelessness working on this for many year also. i sent you all a letter as well as an article that just came out in the street sheets which is

well done. it did an analysis of the meeting last week full of drama, not many solutions focusing on enforcement. in the letter i sent you, i pointed on where mr. thornily mentioned approximately 1200 people living in vehicles. as of today the city's single adult shelter wait less that 21 people waiting for a temporary -- 21 people waiting for a bed. this is just adults. we have seen a massive increase. i got a call from a gentleman living in an rv in the area where the meeting was with wife and two children. it was towed on sunday. this is huge. this is also the holiday season,

cold, rainy and taking away his only shelter there. this is a lot more with the policy. it is bad policy. what services are they talking about? this is important they are coming batoll did you what resources if there is not housing what are they talking about? if you don't have housing. this is advocating to force people to sleep on the street. in my last 16 seconds i would like to invite you on friday the annual inter-faith vigil of the people that died on the streets the past year. 230 people that is reality somewhat we are talking about. what they are doing is taking away the little protection they have from sleeping on the streets. >> thank you for your work on this issue.

public comment is closed. directors. >> i would love to see under page 12-3 that area that sentence where it saying towing note fiction where it says to make that must be notified and maybe prescribe 20 days. postings on the vehicles and the polls if possible. i also think that and i am not sure if we can put it in here, but for me when we talked about bringing these to us in the situation you were bringing to us, i would love to see in the report maybe in the policy or tell you this. i would like to see the wolf street, 12 people, two got services, two people moved, we don't know what happened to them. i think it is important because

the team went out and helped people doesn't provide the information we need, i feel, to feel comfortable this is working. if it ends up the same people are on the next street. in the report whatever we can get saying 12 people, two got housing, two people moved. we don't know what happened to them. that is helpful. those are the things i would say. i don't know if we can put that in the report. i will support the policy. my personal what i am going to tell the public i will not vote for any new bans until there is a solution. i am sec of the fact we are setting -- sick of the fact we hear these every other week with no solution. i am at my witnesses independent in being in that position. this is the best we can do.

this is the jurisdiction we v.i will support the policy. i won't vote for these bans because the city has not done its job. >> thank you, director borden. >> can i chair fithe item on -- clarify the owing. that is a specific vehicle, not a section of the street? >> that's right. >> in here we have talked about the idea we don't want an entire section of a street to suddenly be notified and employee enforced. are you confident what we have gotten to here won't get people to that situation where melody pointed out if notices are put and not on the streets and the vehicles leave and more come in those vehicles will see the

notices on the street saying the street will get these parking regulations shortly? >> it is excellent and complex question. let me read back my thoughts on this. first, in our document here we elevated the fact that anyone can take a license plate, go to the mta website and find out the peril that vehicle is. an old greyhound bus with someone living in it. they have 25 citations the theye in jeopardy being towed. when that is your home that is catastrophic. neighbors can do that. if you see that vehicle afternoon it is dreadful you can find out. one ticket not that that --

ticket that is what we are elevating. the outreach team is looking at that to say there are folk that need help this vehicle seems to be in trouble. it is not going to get a 1 hundred dollars ticket. it is going to the tow yard and the resident is not going to see it again. we notice for hearings. i also knock on doors. when we talk about bayview streets. i went around and talked to folks in addition to the posted notice when we say we will bring you the proposal we will report on the experience so far. when you give approval we will be working further from that with homeless outreach team. there is more that happens and it will heat up when the board says post the notice it will get

more intense. i can tell you here is what happened later. when i know there is a restriction i will say parking change is coming, this is going to affect you. we will do that with every street where we displace people living in vehicles. even posting signs may not be enough to let folks know there is trouble coming for you. we can try to reach folks to let them know we are talking about, we decided to do this, it is going to happen in a week, pay attention. it is going to push the problem. some part of that group of people is going to go we see this the neighbors have said as we regulated neighborhoods it pushed vehicle there is. probably true. when and if this board decides

to regulate that street it will push them to another neighborhood. until we have every street regulated this is the problem. the noticing we can keep aspiring and acting to do better. we are doing a pretty good job. it is my commitment to notice when there is a decision and when vine signs are coming. we are never going to have an answer for everybody. >> you bring up an interesting question. you talked about reaching out to people to let them know they are on to brink of they could be t towed with another citation. it is earn overtable. are we doing inferring -- inevitable. are we helping get rid of the

towing? >> we have not done as much as we could. mostly i hear about after the fact, when is catastrophic. i hear from kelly and once that vehicle is in the tow yard, it is hard. we have waiver of tow fees. once that vehicle is towed, it is like human medicine. prevention is better than trying to cure it. >> the point where you notify them the people that are problematic, is there anything to do to say let's figure out how to clear your slate? that is a different situation. that is the people we know have an issue. a tech kit is -- ticket is not

the answer, they will be towed. is there an intervention we could do at that point to help them clear the deck to start at zero? >> yes, but no, we haven't done as much as we could. no, we don't have that active program in doing what you describe. that is powerful. we are eager to work with folks to have everybody paying attention to look out for folk on the edge and helping connects to a payment program or move someplace where they are not in jeopardy. if you have 20 tickets you can't keep parking there. we have had some success in holding off on tows in a few cases where we say let's try to fix this before the tows happen. important to commit to doing more of that and that is part of the overall solution is actively helping people move out of

trouble. >> i would like at some point to see some sort of policy around how we do that in city when we know people are in jeopardy of being towed. >> thank you, director gordon. yes, vice chair. >> are you aware of an area of the city where people are parking oversized vehicles overnight where everyone around is okay with it and there aren't complains or concerns? >> i have heard from communities, for instance, on 80 boulevard. the fellow in that van is okay. i don't want to punish him, he is a nice guy. not a concentration. it is usually an individual's. i know there are good neighbors living in the vehicles who have jobs. i am not a neighborhood with

five or six vehicles with that he are okay. it bothers somebody when you are past five or six vehicles. >> if people are move anything the city it is leading to another complaint. it is an inefficient process. i will support this proposal today. as we think about proposals going forward, if there are more standard rules that we could put in to allow us to regulate this once and not on a complaint by complaint basis, i would be open to that. that may be difficult. think about what is going to happen here. iit is going to be complaint, displacement, another complaint, another displacement. disruptive for people moving around. a lot of inishen sees and pain.

that is a concern. i am not sure how to solve it. i will vote for this and personally vote for this. as i have said before i do not think it is appropriate to saddle one neighborhood as a flashpoint the city is dealing with. i will say this. i am confident you will do this. i want it on the record. please consider all neighborhoods equally, all complaints equally, judge on the objective merits, problems for the neighborhood, associated issues for the folks living in the vehicles. it is really important that we treat these issues fairly and treat all neighborhoods fairly as we go forward. i am worried this process will

reward the more politically organized and more concentrated communities in this process and i don't think that is fair. >> understood and agreed. >> this proposal that is before us today if passed, how will it relate to whatever the board of supervisors and our mayor is moving towards? is it in conflict, parallel, how will it be integrated? >> good question. to my estimation there is no conflict between this guidance policy and anything the board of supervisors and mayor brick bring forward. this is more triage or management of a large crisis than a tactical strategic answer.

what we hope for from t