if you search on either t.n.c. or uber, it will come up reports of documents and there are a number of documentses that might be helpful for you to read to understand what jurisdiction we have or do not have over the t.n.c. yes. vice chair. >> if i could just follow up on one of the comments we heard and asked director riskin if it's ok with the other board to take up this issue. mr. crocket was the first speaker we heard from and expressed his concern on behalf of the 1,000 members in the marina district about camping overnight in the various coastal areas there and i, for one, would like us as a board to pursue that issue. in the past, we've addressed similar issues of overnight parking restrictions. and, of course, it raises some of the very sensitive issues of housing in the city and some of the problems that we're facing there. in the past there's been some suggestion that we should defer regulation until we have comprehensive solution to parking and housing. i, for one, do not feel that way. if there are abus

i also hope that out of this process we don't forget about the regulation of t.n.c., the wind impacks on biasles and the e-commerce problems that are mucking up the traffic in that part of the city. thank you. >> thank you, mr. henderson. any other members of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we did actually ask last week for planning to make some comments. that was one of things the committee -- i see mr. worth i'm here, but i suspect you're here on item number three. is there anybody from planning who want to make any comments that we discussed last week raring in ub two. >> no, not at this time, sir. but we're happy to get back to you if there is further questions posed. i apologize on our behalf. >> all right. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i want to thank you for all of your work on the appeal of 1 oak and make sure that the transit-rich neighborhood does not disparately impact the traffic and congestion that we're already seeing here in the city and also for really moving forward with pushing both the planning department

-- are there any opportunities for the t.n.c.s to provide increased accessible vehicle services to t.n.c. customers and so as m.t.a. is strategizing on what we think that our approach and our response will be to these questions we have developed a two-pronged approach and we believe that the t.n.c.s themselves should provide comparable services to persons with disabilities, including wheelchair accessible service, and we are planning on advocating that the cpuc require t.n.c.s to have an aggressive plan to become fully accessible, including a timeline and milestones, and the cpuc should hold the t.n.c.s accountable for implementing the plan and the plan should be publicly be available and local jurisdictions should have the ability to withhold access to local resources, i.e., curb access, airport access and permits, if the milestones are not met. and along with that we think that the cpuc should allow the local jurisdictions to levy a surcharge on non-accessible t.n.c. services. so that -- again, because the local jurisdictions don't have authority and jurisdiction over t.n.c.s, this --