reduceing the rates. as as opposed to what do we do first. what do we do to make up for decades of this issue. we must improve the on time performances of taxi service and if we wait for each stage of doing that that will be a long time in addressing our needs. if i may continue. one of the ways we're trying to manage parking is to do that when and where needed you made reference to enforce the parking meters on sunday. when the meters were first put in place there is not activity

on sunday's like it is today. we charge for muni on sunday's and people pay bridge tolls on sunday. managing parking on sunday with the demand of similar days of the week is why we're adjusting the times. same with movie them to evenings after the ballpark there was significant will i a different demand during a game night. if we're going to do manage that demand we need to reflect that reality. and so it gets to the parking management plans. that weary i think the original subject of the hearing. if parking management hadn't changed over time in san francisco but san francisco has changed quite a bit.

so we've been trying to address that change. these are the areas we've focused the dog patch in the eastern neighborhoods area. i put u s f up here because it's unhappy assignment a request from the community to come and address some parking challenges that the neighborhood just south of u sf is having that was a specific community request. and i guess back to supervisor campos point why are we doing it where we're doing it. we do have the eastern neighborhood plans it was adopted by the board of supervisors a couple of years back. it has some specific language

and that's one factor. another factor is those areas shown on the map are some of the few areas left in the city that have unmanaged parking. there may be a few parts of central areas by these are on the lower right there's no managed parking. their changing rapidly. but putting those 3 factors together that was the imputes to bring parking management forward >> mr. reiskin can i interact. >> i think it's important to manage parking. i don't think we have the

lecturer not to do that. the challenge that i've had if you go back to that map is that you look at himself i took the entirety of san francisco and you're talking about a very select number of neighborhoods that are having to daily with this issue right now. in some respects there's being a gin i didn't pig in this experiment. i think that would be helpful at some point to get a true map of brown where else i have parts of the city where parking is not being managed. it's really look at the map so see if it's really the case so there's no case wire being slinld out with no logic behind it. so getting that map and seeing

where else in the city would be helpful. the problem that i've had the rationale behind what we've seen in the north eastern mission is there have been a number of reasons given including the north eastern plan but yet some of the outcomes that have been proposed go against what eastern neighborhoods actually envision the idea of protecting p dr what is being proposed is actually going to hurt p dr businesses. likewise, the importance of emphasizing i know foovr

residents in the early stages didn't take that into account. and now the reasons we need to go and do this now if you look at the number of spaces that would be eliminated that area right now has about 2 hundred and 20 spaces and yet the public only has access to 40 spaces. so that clearly on its own is not the reason. so to the extent we can articulate a consistent, you know, clearly - understand the set of reasons the better. i don't have a problem with one part of my dissects take on that challenge if there's a real consistent and public rationale behind it.

and i appreciate that that's fair. i've tried to articulate that reason and the reason a lot of it is here it's not that those neighborhoods are given i didn't pigs but the other areas of the city have managed parking. on the other hand, and to the specific concerns in the north eastern mission the first early to his to the mta were not responsive to the concerns we heard the concerns and the p dr park. we went through i don't know if we have it. we went through a lot of process a lot of meetings, a lot of data gathering and at the publics insistent and rightfully so on

traffic patterns were currently recognizing we have not and the the p dr issue we've been working with the department of enforcement to understand the issues of the p dr. we want absolutely to support that element of the neighborhood and city policy as well. i completely agree with you on that we'll work to get a more complete map. the unmanaged parking is one of the drivers we've been looking at. but there has been to address those concerns what i think has been pretty extensive process i'm sure it's still imperative it's something i recognize early on prior to my tenure that this agency needs to work on.

i think we're doing better now the engagement of the public especially the northeast business association has been outstanding getting down with us and giving specific solutions. we responded to the resident permanent parking. i think we can get there in that neighborhood and in acknowledge >> and i appreciate that mr. reiskin. i think you've been very responsive. but i do think that's important to make sure we're also doing it in a way there where there's not artifical deadline. last time there was that idea we needed to have action by the summary.

when you really think about that i don't know where that was coming from. what i hear from any constituents is we're going to have this process their concerns are taken into account and make sure the timing works in such a way it's not rushed >> and we'll take the time we need. we've been progressing this over a year now as we've gone back and worked with the community. so the status of where we are. we've just discussed the northeast mission and we've addressed the p dr and we're in the process of finalizing that.

and once we've done with that we'll move to one of the neighborhoods. we're working with supervisors office >> i know it wasn't easy in the beginning to develop those maps but i know it's sensitive to the neighborhoods but i appreciate the listening process with your staff that's on ongoing issue around san francisco. i wanted to close by reenforcing something i said at the start. the parking decision we make impacts the rest of the parking transportation system. and we've been hearing a lot in

the public realm. about how some of the potential ideas of projects or free streets have been of great interest to a lot of people and have great certain because of parking loss that. the transit parking project we all talked about how we need to improve muni. this is a first systematic look at the muni system. to achieve some of the pedestrian sadists there will be trade offices. and some will included parking. i want to put that on the table that's how we advance this mode of transportation more

attractive. it's not about covering people to get out of their cars but making the other modes of transportation attractive. so i know there's a lot of people that point to speak and a mr. reiskin a few questions. in terms of plans in different parts of san francisco again, i've called the hearing that - potential parking meters were going into rural heights areas. when are the public agencies start to notify the public about when those plans become a public or the ones that you've articulated and presented today

those are the only ones being concerned internally? they're not that many other pockets of unmanned parking that have this. we've responding each week from residents and businesses from city projects where we're making parking adjustments every month through the public process at the mta board but in terms of large parking studies those are all we have planned now. and frankly you know what it's taken to get through the northeast mission. i don't think there's any more of those to be done & at any time in the future

>> colleagues any other comments. >> thank you, mr. reiskin i personally think that district 2 would be a very good candidate moving forward. i'm joking but i want to call on before we have public comment to present on behalf of the community someone who's been very involved representing the north and then e eastern business aligns. angela? >> i'm here as a representative - can you hear me? for the north eastern coalition which is made up of businesses and workers and employees in the

area and then in the north eastern business association and also the majority of the businesses are p dr businesses but the majority of our members are. so our neighborhood in the mta case this area they're talking about where the meters are is a unique area and it's made up of a context mix of all kinds of businesses arts itself, businesses and warehouses. and there isn't one block that's a hundred percent business or resident and everything is side by side by side. and that's why we're requesting

a preferential we have really unique needs because of the p dr businesses are. that's why we need this because it works for the residents. instead of having them compete for the resident and businesses. in 2008 the planning department designated it as the p dr zone to protect, promote and retain and it would have that oppose effect. the p dr businesses feel that those restrictions can have a

designating effect it would be too expensive for our employees to come work for us. vehicle is something the mta needs to understand it's not a preference or choice it's a necessary part. the transit is not a which i say i'm kind of losing track of this - we can't transport ourself riding a bible. i give them credit annie and all have been great about talking about with us but after 16 months they're trying to convince us that parking meters are right for us. they hear us by not

incorporating that. they keep continuing to talk to us about the parking turn over this is not a retail districts and there are certainty areas but we don't have customers there are are not people coming to our business. we need long term all day parking. and we also have to have curbside parking so people can move things into their businesses. i know that mta said asked for meters saying they need more parking turnover and it's always been the policy that whoever requests them yellow zone or red zone in front of the businesses we support that but we don't

want them telling us what works for our business. and again, they keep come back to us parking meters that's our solution. they need to create a seclusion to meet our needs rather than having to accept their choices. and again, it has to be something that works for both residents and businesses. we're asking for the prosperity parking permit and i'll talk about that in a minute. we understand that the mta needs money by not at the expensive of putting us out of business. again, we don't want winners and lose

losers. they're going to put an unfair burdened on the workers. countless works. my business is a good example of one of the types of business and they're so diverse. we have a photo business and folks come there and they have to come with the equipment and they have to find a place to park not running out and putting coins in the meters. i'm there 7 days a week i live there. i have a better understanding of the needs of that neighborhood. and i mean how diverse this is.

i have a photo business i live there on one side is the hotel and on the other side it the export import house it's a diverse mix ail over here. so i think the one solution is the mta needs to work with us. i've give i all copies of what we want that to be. we've also had a business we had over 50 businesses in the area signed a petition saying they oppose. and then he had an online ballot and some large and small.

i can read you the parking lot proposal. you've all got copies of. and a thank you very much for your presentation >> so at this point, i'm going to open up u up to public comment if you haven't filled out a card please come up and fill one out. i'm going to read a bunch of names. (calling names). please line up on the side and if your name's been called come up to speak.

>> thank you for seeing us today, i'm mary. i've met with most of you. i'm going to be brief because my throats not good today. mta job is to help us get where we need to go not tell us how to get there. where we have a number of problems that are coming hard to ignore that are becoming well documented by the media. the sfmta has taken on too much and is doing nothing well. regardless of the power the public has a reporter to weigh in on that. the mta was authorized to balance the muni budget transit first menus fix the budget first

not congest traffic. no one is going to take a bus that never arrives. it's to get the buses operating not to coerce people to change their lifestyle. we need to a citywide parking solution. the citywide policy should be formed by public policy not government policy. we shouldn't have parking restrictions when there is no muni service such as a nights and holidays. we have emissions from sfmta that the process is not designed according to law but it designed to control us.

when the agency - thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker please and >> just before you get to speak we have a policy to hold applause so if you want to show support you can wave our hands. i know we have a number of speakers >> hello, i'm rob. i'm a resident of admission bay i'm one of the people who contacted the supervisors asking for a hearing on this maturate. the problem i have with the mta is their lack of accountability and transparency.

it was great watching a power point on how it's supposed to work but it's not reality. i'm unfortunately living their parking management plan and i really don't see how it's made parking easier for the people who live there. other than jack up the rates on game days they've turned the area into a paved parking lot for commuters and for people who attend games. for those of us who do have rp d on those days the spaces are tale so we as residents have to park in meertdz spaces. i will and work downtown. i pay $35 a day to park my car

downtown. now, when i come home if my rp p is full i pay even more and they're looking to have the meters into the evening. there's a lot of information i've provided all of you there's a file there and i strongly encourage you to look through all the information and he correspondence i've had with mta, ed reiskin and a lauren. thank you >> thank you. next speaker please and. >> i became involved in this issue because the mta plan for mission bay had a parking meter right in front of my house. be it as it may i think that mta

has lost its way i believe they should be focusing not on parking meters but on transit we need more transit in this city. one of the areas where they were going to pit parking meters was next to the caltrans station so we discourage people from parking next to the california trance to take a train. so basically, people will drive. i've proposed a couple of solutions to the mount that are enforced in other cities. i thought it was interesting that we are taxpayers in this town and i think many of the people i know is that as taxpayers we pay for the streets and to maintain the streets so

we should be given priority on parking on those streets. we saw data that 80 percent the parking by bay commission is for commuters. first in paris, france where residents viable residents of the city of paris are issued discounted parking vouchers so they can park on the street with a discounted rate compared so a person coming out of the area >> hi i'm a resident and a business person in mission. i'm also a massive mass transit fan. and