and we are seeing the resort to privilege. thank you. >> [reading names] >> i'm a resident of russian hill. i would like to express my support. i would like to express my support for allowing parents to forfeit one of their residential parking permits in order to pay the permit for child care providers. all of them have been working families. many of them cannot be here today because it is their job. there are several reasons for my support.

it is a difficult situation and often leaves the children unattended. secondly, as the program as currently designed, it is not balanced towards working families. this includes a care giver category. it is an essential service for working parents, and we must not forget our residents that rely on the child-care providers. i like to address some inconsistencies. the program was established to preserve neighborhood living. we are talking about servicing parking where the child care providers directly serve as the residents. -- service the residents.

we know that the city is increasing in-house -- interested in increasing the population. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm a 15-year resident of san francisco. i am a small business owner and a single parent. i would like to express my support of the proposal to allow residents living in an rpp area to use one of their permits for a c hild -- child care worker.

i think this proposal is an excellent opportunity for the city to show its support of working families and be more family friendly. they have left the city to challenges of living in the city. like public transportation. this is an opportunity to demonstrate that san francisco is working family friendly. it defines it as essential services, it is important. when the second issue that is important to emphasize is that this is not a proposal to

suspend the parking permit program. it makes these permits successful -- accessible a. i urge you to support this program. >> [reading names] >> thank you for your time today. >> would everybody please use the microphone? >> i apologize. can everyone hear me now? let me start again. i want to thank you all for your time today and think for the work you're doing to support the

city and improved public transportation. i personally appreciate those efforts. i want to address one of the arguments that has been made again to policy. that risk is present whenever there is any change to the permit policy. being careful not to provide an exemption,they'v they've been built into the rpp budget. it allows only families to provide it to a child care provider. or the impact is twofold.

not only does it to eliminate the safety concerns without adding a single dollar to the budget, it makes it very nearly applicable -- narrowly applicable. this is appropriate because these kind of employers are eligible for certain business other exemptions. appropriately, households are not. the people that are committing to a traditional business -- commuting to a traditional business. [chime] >> [reading names] >> thank you for the proposing.

is this better? thank you for proposing a fair and reasonable amendment. i wanted to address the privilege issue that the speaker suggested. it is not just people with the german luxury cars that need a place for the nannies to park. a lot of the mother's side of don't have any need for a special permit. four of them drop off their kids that day care. one of them as able to provide a parking spy. -- spot. within my small group, this is not an issue that directly affects us, but we can see how it does.

not everyone has a parking spot to give. i feel like the offering of a driveway spot goes against the priveledgged argument. if we could afford to live there. it is not a privilege issue, it is a parking issue. the principle is to ensure quality of life, and economic health. i believe caregivers are providing a -- there is a lot of

focus on bicyclists. the day care and activity is really difficult right now. >> [reading names] >> i am the city-wide child care at a ministry there. i am here in support. and to support strategies. it is a critical issue facing most working families. the community-based child-care

is that a premium. only 43% of parents with children means that 55% of working families are not able to find it. additionally, it is important to recognize that it is the infrastructure that helped to maintain bc the's economy. -- the city's economy. those working parent turnover $1.4 billion annually in san francisco. we would like to include a child-care providers under the exemption and recognizing that it is an essential service. given the serious lack of supply, it is sometimes effective.

>> [reading names] those are the last people to turn in a speaker card. >> i live in the russian hill area. i have been a property owner for about 30 years. parking has become more and more difficult in the area. i have a grudge, but many of my neighbors did not. i find it very disturbing to encourage more cars to park for long periods of time. we love children. i believe in more day care facilities. i know is difficult on young families. i find that this is encouraging less flexibility in the limited

parking that we have in areas where parking is always extreme. everyone has their story, and those without a grudge -- garage need that space. vendors need to have a parking foplace in the two hours. the age limit, anyone with child up to 12 years. perhaps they would consider a lower age limit where the child can be left for 10 or 15 minutes alone. i am also concerned about the time of day and use of nanny permits and how transferrable

transferable they may be. -- i hope they can find other ways to take care of the children. >> good afternoon, president nolan. the supervisors sent a letter in support for child care providers. as noted in the letter, child- care providers that come to their home, again, it is noted in the letter. they might need a car for a grocery shopping or other things. he believes it is important to

have policies in place that support working families. i think a lot of working families out there have tried transit first. i am a mother. i work full time. so does my husband. it is extremely difficult to get around san francisco and do everything we need in terms of doctors' appointments. the parents have come to you and they have to find a way to fix it. we were using muni the other day. we just want to thank the mta staff for the consideration and

analysis. people are allowed anyway, and it is a good compromise. we hope it will improve child- care quality and generate additional revenue. thank you. >> he is the last person with speaker card. >> i am tony. i am strongly against this. when you have to cancel your own employee, now this blah blah blah is coming. excusing you, there is a car there all day long. i pick up a nanny and go home. i'm a cab driver. most have no car.

ok? listen to him. he is a politician. how abou the rest o -- about the rest of them? i know a lot of asian kids. anything you open up, they will abuse your system. please. it is not only about the nanny. how about the neighborhoods? thank you. director nolan: members of the board. any thoughts on this one? director lee: i had an

opportunity to talk about this issue. we got a lot of letters in support and a lot of letters opposed. it helps to look at this and we really want to support the transit first policy and we want to understand the needs of the parents. my concern is that it is really difficult to broad brush something. when you look at a residential permit, going block by block, 51% agree we need residential permit parkin. g. i want an amendment where you still need to do the block by block competition --

petition. 51% of the residents agree that we need this permit. that way, each element has their own characteristics. director nolan: we can hold off on a formal amendment at this point just to hear from other members. >> i wanted to talk about the process. this was an issue that was brought to us by a group of mothers, parents, they have made inarticulate case. -- an articulate case. i feel even more strongly in support of this proposal. i want to compliment you on the efforts and the presentation you have made.

it does not mean families and children. we have heard throughout this very meeting the importance of children as a part of the city. people speaking in favor of the hot caesar chavez park will benefit. this proposal will help some of our hardest working people, both the child care providers and working families. many of whom are not people of privilege. this is a transportation and child care issue. i hear the concerns that are being levied against. it might lead to a flood of new parking. i don't think that will happen. but it is something we can handle.

there are thousands of requests , and it has not happened the way that the staff calculated it would. perhaps unemployment or something like that. we can consider greater enforcement. i don't think that will happen. the fears that haven't materialized are reasons to kill this project. i come to what is really an important issue, that asymmetry. -- is symmetry.

i have struggled with that. it takes me to a point that is bigger than muni. there is a perception that this city is not as child and family friendly as other communities might be. those pressures exist. we are committed to staying here. but i am concerned that rejecting his proposal would be an unfair and asymmetrical policy decision, but it would bolster this perception out there that policymakers do not

care about children and families as much as they should. and even though it is a small project, i strongly favor this. i think we have a recommendation from the staff as to how to make this work right now. director brinkman: when i think of this in terms of expanding the parking for the city, where do we have now?

i think of the number of writers and the task force. -- riders. the only way to do that is get busses out from behind the car traffic. anything that we do to incrementally increase the car traffic makes it impossible to do that. every trip we have negatively impacts. i have to oppose it. >> i have given this a great deal of thought. at this point, i am inclined to support a director lee's position. a compromise that makes sure

there is not any abusive and provides for what is obviously a critical issue. >> i used to not worry about being heard. that is no longer true. all of the correspondence that has come across my computer for my desk, i believe that we are all -- i am open to anything that helps. i'm all for children.

they are the lifeblood of this city. but i think i'm inclined to lean towards the transit side and let's see if we need to do this. i don't think we do. people can manage this other ways. if other ways need to be found, what we are proposing today, let's do it. i'm not going to vote for this . >> i have given this a lot of thoughts.

i believe that san francisco and the transit -- it is critical that we review that policy. i think the children of san francisco are important to us. we think about the elderly and disabled. we think about expanding any type of exception. i believe that we can adopt something in the middle or a pilot program to see if we can find something that works for the benefit of everyone. i think we have to have parameters to make sure that it is not abused as well as for the

elderly and the disabled. [laughter] >> i thought you were going to pu tmt me in the middle. director nolan: we have director lee's suggestion. mr. yee? >> do we have an idea of how many people use all four? >> very few households have used to the maximum cap before.

mostly one, i believe. >> why did you come up with that? 12-year-old kids sound more like a babysitter to me. >> we had a certain threshold. taxpayers claim this -- i forgot what it's called. the exemption they claim for child credit. it was a convenient age to use. >> it seems to me that it is a very significant point. it sounds to me like a baby sitters as opposed to a small

child. the time of day is a good question that somebody raises. let's say we were going to go through different hours. it seems like it could be a logistical nightmare. >> and the proposal as for the permit to be valid. >> presumably, the parents would be home. >> it would put an extra burd