permits. pretty dense red -- residential areas. what this really says, and shows you, is that a lot of the parking in the surrounding area is a relic of another kind. 20 years ago, not managing parking in that area may have been fine. as this has become a dynamic area, it is only becoming more so. the time is ripe to manage parking effectively. one of the effects and consequences of the current approach, or the lack of any sort of parking management, is this map. systematically, weekdays and weekends, we went to look at parking occupancy. how hard was it to find a space? these red lines mean that the occupancy is over 85%.

as a driver is not what we want to see, that it is difficult to find a parking space. this must read, we do not see it anywhere else in the city. it is where we have on manage parking next two large trip generators. there are a significant level of people that part just to take the third street light rail downtown, adding not much value to this neighborhood. a quick history of management backgrounds and where it is located. in 2002 the city made a resolution dedicating the metering district to a division of on street parking in the area that would be managed. really supporting that writ -- vision for a dance, mixed use commercial extension of me during hours in the area.

envisioning this parking proposal. sf parks, it is just a brand. part of the asset mta. under that name, we are really moving in a different direction, trying to make parks better for san francisco and making it easier to drive, for our customers who drive, and supporting the economic vitality and growth of the city. when people choose to drive, we tried to make easy. in other words, we achieve the minimum low threshold and from that, we expect lots of benefits. not just that it is convenient for drivers, but added that -- delivers a lot of benefits. cars that are double parking that cannot find parking spaces, those cars distract

other drivers circling around, most likely to hit a pedestrian. part of the reason that muni is not as fast as it could be, circling cars, which waste time in fuel. those are some of the benefits. parking -- pay parking also discourages the violent activities in the city. another area that is unique, coming up with a proposal that works with managing special events in terms of transportation. this is what we have done for the last 70 years. here's a picture from 1947 of the first parking meter in san francisco. a great day in san francisco.

[laughter] you can see that we have been doing it the same way for seven years. meters that are the same every day. if history is empty and it is in the afternoon, it is a good reason to lower your rates. the time line, someone pulls in, as their business, and leaves to make room for the next person. it has worked ok. it is a bit -- what a lot of other cities do, focusing on turnover availability. we do not know how much turnover there is. but we want one as a driver or store owner. this is a tectonics' shift for us. recognizing parking as a tool. not just a way to balance

budgets. achieving the goals of the city and transportation agencies. part of that is better information about where parking is available. we even have real-time areas -- real time parking information in some areas. being smart about pricing, boiling down to our legal of birgit -- obligation to achieve that one open space, most of the time. wednesday afternoon, 2:00 p.m., two dollars per hour is probably too much. we have a change coming for february. saturday afternoon, $2 per hour was not enough. we have been lowering rates at garages, letting people know that those are great places that

are also cheap. this is in response to the limited mission bay parking supply, which was designed to have relatively few on street spaces. you can see the significant amount of all street parking. in general, especially in mission bay, it is a better reason to manage it carefully. specifically what is being proposed. leaders in both jurisdictions operate from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., monday through sunday. we are starting at 25 cents per hour. if 25 cents is enough at that minimum level of availability, that is where the rate will stay. port staff has recommended $1.25

over where there are already years in the area. both agencies are planning to carry on with special event rate policies. the mta will start later this year. we will revisit the policies in the books to have them work better. or time limits, we are the deemphasizing time limits we do not see people staying longer. a few of them do, which is convenient for them, but many just have that anxiety. occupancy has not changed their

lot. if approved by the commission and the board, we are planning to move forward with the implementation this year. for the surrounding areas in the port, this is just a few blocks in the dog patch area. the same approach, with a few exceptions. it is an important way that we are coordinating with the port to have a consistent user interfaces. these jurisdictional boundaries are an attempt to have a consistent interface. drivers do not want to be faced with two different kinds of meters on the same block. staff have recommended starting those rates at 25 cents per

hour for 12 months. the mta recommend you do not have a cap for a couple of reasons. for a couple of reasons. staying true to the principles of flying -- finding the lowest rates possible. it may not be enough to artificially cap it. it takes us away from finding those lowest rates. this is a relatively small issue. just a few blocks. some bank review to consider. these are the red lines where we have proposed meters with no

time limits. that is where we proposed four time limits, to discourage commuters from parking there, encouraging retail corridor access all along the channel parian the dotted line around the perimeter and in their process, where heat -- where we have proposed 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., what it enables our special event rates for the 60 nights per year with there is an event. a couple of other minor issues or points to raise. the first is that several residents have raised the issue

of the residential parking permit. something that has not been consistent and something that we are now planning on accommodating. those properties were built with off street parking. it would be inconsistent with the vision of carefully managing on street parking in the whole area, not just a limited group of people. while mission bay is in the midst of growing up, what this is really meant is -- to do is approach the flexibility of the agency going forward. as the city grows, of falls, and changes, we can adjust to find the lowest rate. the jurisdictional issue. i think that now we can take questions. >> just a couple more things to

wrap up. j talk about the mission a buffer area that i discussed. if you could leave that up, that would be terrific. 23rd street, that is where we have issues of the whole abandonment and storage becoming a security and safety issue around there. so, we are proposing some areas should have two our parking maximum, with no overnight parking on most streets, helping to deal with those vehicle abandonment and storage issues. the next steps are the asset mta staff going to their board on the seventh to get board approval for implementation of the project. we will return to the commission in february to seek approval for

the port harbor code amendments allowing us to implement the code as described. we are going to -- as illustrated in the staff report, initially legislate parking to be consistent with allport parking with consistent ease of interface. we are suggesting that in some locations we deviate from that, going from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. every day of the week. based on demand or need, we could have a staff level going from 11:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m.. if we receive your approval in february, we will begin in the

mission bay area immediately and over the next 12 to eight months. with that, but myself and jay are available for questions. thank you. >> i think we have some public comments. >> good morning. i am a business owner in dog patch. most of the members -- we are members of the dog patch neighborhood association. we had a meeting a few weeks ago. it was standing room only with serious concerns and issues over expanding into historic neighborhoods, which is primarily residential. the parking situation down there has been that it works pretty well after figuring out years of

purchasing residential parking permits, programs that work well. there is very little to the natural ebb and flow compared to what it is now. in terms of the neighborhood, as residents who often work out of their house, they will have to think about moving their car during the day when they are home. we understand that mission bay, for what is, parking meters might work well. but dog patch is not mission bay. the consensus is that they are absolutely opposed to this and would appreciate the mta, and any listening. there has been no engagement in the community and there is a lot of anger and disappointment.

so, we would appreciate it if you would not support this. thank you. >> ms. woods? >> good morning, commissioners. i am the chairman of the mission bases and advisory commission. at least four other few weeks. we are not sure what will happen after that. we know that mission bay is going to move forward as a transit first development, but we are still hoping. and we know that this program,

as we have worked with david n. j. quite closely over the last few months to work out the details, through lots of meetings, they have always been agreeable to discussing the issues. it is a pilot. we are not sure that we have the right solution in every case. even in mission bay, the retail is pretty much empty right now. as it evolves along the corridor, we want to be sure that people can park to go into retail establishments. in the north, the 3000 residential units out there were not being used initially. but they have already got meters now.

guests can come for dinner instead of having the parking taken up by people from anywhere that want to park all day for nothing. we have asked the sf park people not to put meters on the blocks that will be under major construction for the next few years. we have a lot of buildings that will be under construction. something like five blocks that they have not started on yet. we agreed that the parking shed is important. articulately the commuters that, in and do nothing all day, but more importantly for events at at&t park.

at&t part basically takes over every parking place that is not time limited or metered. the meters that are a limited allow at&t attendees to park for less money than going into the garages and parking lot. therefore, we are not sure that the pricing is right. we want to work with asset part to evaluate the things that go along and we will look forward to seeing how it works. thank you. >> janice? [unintelligible] >> hello, [unintelligible] my name is] and i am -- my name is janet [unintelligible] and i am here representing groups that work with the port on warm water code. i am here to support me during

or some kind of parking regulations along illinois street, from 23rd to 24th streets and from third street to the warm water cove park. right now it is hard to tell that there is a park at the end of 24th street, because there are vehicles parked there every day and night all over the street. a lot of people do not feel that safe walking down there. must have a lot of trash with dogs barked by the vehicles, harassing the people that walk down to the park. i am very much in favor of having a two hour to four parking -- four hour parking down there. i am absolutely and totally

against what is proposed. unlike mission bay, dog patch was not engaged in this proposal. mr. [unintelligible] came to the meeting for a bag presentation at the end of the meeting and, at that time, he was introducing a proposal that we thought would involve more engagement and we would be able to talk through what we do with our neighborhood. over the last several years we worked out a parking plan. all that we wanted was residential parking. we finally got it, with residential stickers. of what it does is help small businesses in our neighborhood. it is not just residential and retail, it is residential and small businesses. we are working with small businesses because we figure you

can come out for a while and parked somewhere else. it moves the traffic around. we invited him back to our january meeting. we have spoken on the phone. everyone he speaks with, he does not take in their suggestions. he just tells us that this is what we are proposing and he will not work with us. this is unacceptable. leaders within dog patch will not work. we need more time to talk about this. we do like the four hour time limit, where people can move around in businesses get people to come in. the biggest problem in our neighborhood are the computer -- commuters that park all day. 25 cents per hour a limited meters will be great for them. it does not help small business

residents at all. i would like you to not consider any kind of support for that program. thank you. >> any other kind of public comment? commissioners? >> i do not understand the concept of -- of meters in the limited parking. if the goal is to create a limited availability, what would you put in a meter and that allow people to park there all day? like this is an important point and it gets to the heart of what's sf park is about. we have three basic parking management tools. time limit, parking meters, or residential parking permit. or meters with time limits.

like i mentioned before, time limits are not particularly convenient and are difficult to enforce. enforcing the meters can often be visual in easy. you drive in you on. time limits, we have 250 enforcement officers with everyone else using chalk. passed by once, then you have to pass by again to enforce. one hour, to our time limits, can be labor-intensive and almost useless in terms of creating availability. meters that take credit cards, 24 -- 25 cents per hour with no time limits, you will not find that anywhere else in california. it is innovative and meant to

match the mixed used characteristics of these neighborhoods. if we were to have meters with time limits in this area, that would not address a lot of the people who drive to work and really do park all day. time limits would pretty much prohibit them from parking. if we have time limits, we see that two hour, three hours shuffle, people wasting their time, and it being bad for greenhouse gas. this is meant to be the easiest parking management staff. there is no lower step that we can do, using meters as a tool. it is considered best practiced and stated the art. -- is considered best practice and state of the art. >> in commercial areas they want

chances for different customers. if you are allowing someone to stay at the meter all day, you have not accomplished that. >> in some ways it boils down to supply and demand. people consume a lot of on street parking. if we charged just 25 cents, right off the bat several of the commercial vehicles stored on the street, people in other residential neighborhoods, 25 cents is enough. we are already increasing the usable amount of parking supply on the street. it will not change the behavior of a lot of people. third street light rail does pass through.

that is the point. basic supply and demand. that is the idea. >> what about the meter had themselves? i have shared this with our director. it is not universal. i use this card to take muni, on meters, but some leaders take credit cards. the meter heads themselves are confusing to elderly people. i am hoping that we get a universal system in place. if you help me with that, i would appreciate that greatly. >> we are trying to create a

different experience. it can be a pain and confusing in san francisco. people going to park somewhere, parking with the change in their pocket. people can leave with a bitter taste in their mouth, vowing never to return to san francisco. this is exactly what we do not want. part of this direction, part of this brand, they take credit cards. it is critical and people love it. it read the cracks the nout of convenient payment. in an ideal world, it is technically a possibility. we are trying to make it easier by paying by phone.

coming to a meter to see that it is paid. we are trying to make it easy. many people i've complained about multi-space meters. the user interface is very bad. we have made incremental improvements. we have tried to find a less easy to use meters on the market. where you just walk up and we had very few complaints. 3000 or so already have those new meters. they will be released this year. it is an urgent problem.