i have a clear understanding that the mta as far as you know, as far as you're concerned, it's committed to making sure that you follow the intent, the very expressed sbept that's imbedded in the resolution. inger >> yes, thank you for the question, and absolutely. i guess a couple of control points here, first of all, as i said with not to exceed amount of 5 thousand, that's what we believe we will need rally basically just to maintain the asset base that we have to deal with the routine maintenance needs, the retune replacement needs, the meters sometimes get vandalized, get hit by trucks, the 5 thousand really just enable us to do that plus keep a reserve for the port for their replacement. the second point of control which is to some extent moved at this point is the new smta

board adopted policy with regard to outreach, so to the comments of i don't want to wake up and find a whole bufrnl of parking meters in my district or my neighborhoods which nobody wants to be surprised by new parking meters, we have a process that would inhibit that from happening but ultimately as i said in answer to a previous question, with the limit of 5 thousand, we would not have the capacity within this contract to do anything other than very small kind of spot requests that go through that process that the sfmta board has adopted, so the spirit, i believe, of that whereas clause, the reality of what we need to maintain the meters that we have today, i feel very comfortable in assuring you

that the sfmta will not be pursuing large meter expansions without having to come back for additional authority. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. ris k*en, i praoeshtd that. er frnts supervisor kim? >> thank you, i wanted to follow up on that question to our city attorney, so is there anything -- you know, i hear director ris k*en's commitment. does this whereas clause bind sfmta to this allocation? i just wanted to clarify that question again? >> deputy city attorney, john gibner, no, it doesn't bind the sfmta to the allocation. the board through this contract approval cannot bind the mta's decision about where to place the meters but the whereas clause reflects the director's statements about the mta's expectations about how these meters will be used. >> okay.

that's not very reassuring. i do have a couple of questions for the director though. so, i just wanted to clarify again, 25 thousand meters is the number of meters we currently have in the city today? >> yeah, i don't know the exact number, it's roughly 25 thousand and that's the base contract. >> and when you said to supervisor cohen that this 5 thousand allotment would allow us to make -- to address small meters requests, when you say small meters requests, how many are you talking? >> well, i think the way we laid out in our outreach process, we had three different levels, 1 to 50, 51 to 100 and more than 100, we wouldn't be able to do -- we would be able to do very few of the small and we couldn't do probably any even as much as 50 meters if we only have a 5 thousand meter option, so we're really talking about very small, you know, 2 or 3, we have retailers where a

situation where maybe what had been a red zone is no longer a red zone in a metered area and there would be a desire by that block to backfill that space in a commercial area with a parking meter, that's something we would still go through this enhanced process, that's something we would be able to accommodate, but i don't see that within this level of optional meter availability within this contract that we would be able to do a 40 parking meter proposal. i think we would have to tell the requester of any such proposal that we would need to seek additional authority in order to accommodate that, to even consider that. >> you have three levels of size of meter requests, small being 1 to 50, medium being 50 to 100, did i hear that correctly, and then 100 to 150 would be large? >> yes, so those were -- that was how we tried to develop

tiers of enhanced public notification, all of which are enhanced from what we had been doing. but again, it's somewhat mute if we don't have additional meters to even be responsive to these requests. but that's what that bucketing was for, it was to trigger higher levels of public notification and outreach. >> so, again, when you had mentioned to supervisor cohen that our 5 thousand meter allocation would allow you to respond to small meter requests, is it 1 to 50? >> it would depend on what requestess and of what size. if we had, you know, a dozen requests for two meters here and there over the course of the 7 years, there's no question we could accommodate that. if we had single requests or multiple requests for 40, 50, 60 meters, we would not, so in newly developing neighborhoods

or transitioning neighborhoods, we wouldn't accommodate those levels of request with the proposal that's before us. >> so, for me to feel comfortable supporting both the admen and the resolution, i would just like clarity on what small meter requests means, so if you're saying a dozen two meter requests throughout the city, that's one thing, if a small meter request could go up to 50, to me, that's not a small meter request, so it would be great to understand what a small meter request really is, more than the answer that you just gave me. >> all i can tell you is it would depend where we are over the life of the contract, if we're 6 years in and we didn't need to do as much replacement as we thought we did because the level of vandalism or damage is down, we would have more capacity later on to accommodate larger requests. at this point, i think we'd be very reluctant to entertain requests of any significant size because this is a 7 year

contract. we need to reserve these options so that we can manage our asset base over the life of the contract. >> so, if that's 5 or 6 years, we haven't had to replace a lot of meters, we didn't get a lot of "small meter requests", we could accommodate a number of 40 to 60 meter requests? >> it's theoretically possible. >> okay. how many new meters have been installed in san francisco? i know we talked about this last week when we met over the last -- since 2011? >> yeah, and i apologize, i didn't bring that. i did ask my staff to generate that data, i think it was in the last couple of years, i think it's maybe 2

here. how many new meters were installed in mission bay, parking meters? >> that i don't know offhand. i think it was maybe a couple of hundred. >> and also since i've been in office i know a bafrp of meters came in, in the tenderloin, i don't know if there was outreach that happened in that area, i knower since i have been in office, there have been a significant increase in parking meters in our district, and certainly i hear it from

our residents as well. okay. that's all of my questions. i'll just make a couple of comments. i will support the amendment but i won't be able to support this contract today. i think that -- i don't think there's enough assurances that we won't see i think what many of us have been talking about is an expansion of meters into the neighborhoods that we represent, it seems clear that there's a lot of discretion here with the sfmta, even with the 5 thousand meters they're getting and while it might be unlikely that they will be able to install new meters, it's clear that they have the discretion and flexibility to later down the road and i think there has been a lot of consternation about how we do parking meter installation. i'm not opposed to parking meters, i think that there is a very valid argument as to the

fact that we charge people from muni so we should charge people for parking. i think that we also generate revenue for sfmta, so all of those things are things that are arguments that i think are good ones. what i would like to see from the sfmta while we were rolling out or considering meter expansion is that we also think about a revised residential parking permit eligibility requirement and in a lot of the neighborhoods that i represent that have traditionally been very mixed use but certain along the southeast sector in supervisor campos' sdrekt, we are creating new neighborhoods that don't look like twin peaks and we are always going to have office, residential and retail all on the same blocks and it makes a lot of our residents ineligible to apply for rpp even if there's a higher density of rez densest on those blocks because of the number of

units we reer placing in those buildings, so i talked to director ris k*en about it, i know they're working on it, i think i need to see further commitment especially from what i hear from our residents, more headway we make on revising the rpp process before we support parking meter expansion, a number of other issues that i brought up is that meters do start at 7 a.m., they start at 7 a.m. at the tenderloin, i want to look at -- i mean, how much revenue do we generate from that and do we penalize people that can't get rpp in the tenderloin and have to get up earlier to move their cars if fe have a car to get to work which is a lot of our working class family ins the tenderloin, how can we move meters back to 9 a.m. and how can we rethink that evening meters, that is something in the district that i represent, i guess we have the giant

stadium, something that our meters are smart enough to be able to acknowledge and not -- that was something that, you know, was ignored during the outreach process, and by the way, i think sfmta does amazing outreach, i think they do a great job of having meetings in our neighborhoods, i think it's a question of how that feedback is incorporated and i understand parking is going the continue to be a very controversial issue, i think it is a very tough one for many of us. i want to continue to have it but i would support a contract with the 25 thousand meters, i'm not sure i can support one that includes an additional 5 thousand. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. mr. president, i want to thank again the mta and my colleagues for the work that's been done on this item. i agree with what supervisor kim was saying in terms of the limitations of what this

resolution has in terms of the board of supervisors' ability to impact how parking meters are placed by the mta and i think that supervisor kim raises some very important points. that said, where i have a different take is that i do believe that within the confines of the current legal governance structure of the mta vis-a-vis the board of supervisors that this resolution goes as far as we can go and i think that to the extent that there are additional things that are needed including ways in which we can have more of a community process, i think that that actually requires changes to the existing law and how the mta's actually governed and i don't know if we can do that by way of a resolution, in fact, we know we can't, and so i will be supporting this contract

because i do think that given the legal structure of the mta, that this is probably as far as the board of supervisors can push, this resolution is not binding but i also know that -- well, first of all, i respect and trust that director ris k*en will follow the commitment that he has made, but if for some reason there's a failure to do that, there are many thing that is the mta has to come to this board and ask for, so there will be plenty of opportunity for us to inject ourselves where needed. that said, i do think we need to figure out a way of creating more transparency and community involvement around the decisions around parking meters. i think that that requires a larger conversation and i do hope that we engage in that larger conversation, but i think the language that has

been introduced by supervisor avalos provides some at least, you know, i guess control in terms if you will by this board, so thank you. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you very much. a little bit off topic in terms of the contract at hand, but director ris k*en, i have a question for you, what is the rational that parking meters in japan town started at 9:00 and parking meters in tenderloin start at 7 p.m. >> so, my understanding is that when time limits and zones were established, they were done pretty roughly in terms of the kind of downtown areas, the parking meters zones that are currently in the transportation code and it was drawn from a very broad rush, subsequent to this discussion that i've had

with supervisor kim, direct my staff to re-evaluate where that line is drawn. we earlier in response to an earlier inquiry about a different part of the downtown, we did evaluate and identified, you know, we looked at the occupancy, we looked at the justification. i do think that there's a case for a later start in the tenderloin area given some of the residential nature, given the fact that commercial activity is not starting there for the most part at 7:00 in the morning, a lot of the parking regulation that is we have in the city have been in place for a long time and had not been i think systematically evaluated when i was at dpw, i felt the same with the street sweeping frequency, as supervisor kim's request, that's something we're looking at with respect to the tenderloin and with respect to the parking controls as i

mentioned, we systematically or routinely respond to requests to re-evaluate yellow zone hours or whether something should be a yellow zone, it's a continuous process that we're doing but we're particularly looking at the tenderloin start times right. >> so, that process you're talking about, you'll evaluate your policy, your staff will go through some kind of internal analysis but make recommendations to the mta commission and then the commission will adopt it? >> that's correct, for things that require mta board approval. i believe change in meter hours would -- so, that would be something that we would review, we'll discuss that with the supervisor in the community and should we have an agreeable situation, that's something we would recommend to the mta board and that would go through a public hearing first. er >> can you tell us where else in the city do our meters engage at 7 a.m.?

>> i believe it's largely around van ness, soit's the northeast quadrant of the city. >> okay, thank you board of directors adopted 216 approving the notification requirements for new meter installation proposals which establishes new notification standards for

operation, local neighborhood and area wide local management programs for installing new parking meter requirements, in the existing resolution with the changes that i made as well and those are the amendments that i have. i do want to thank mr. kis k*en and his staff for their flexibility and this contract. when this was first given to me, i saw it only for believing that we had a contract that was replacing existing meters, the old meters with the holder meters and not realizing, not being told at the time there was going to be an expansion as well, and i'm on the fence about how much we can expand or should expand, certainly if we do expand, we need to have real clear identification with haunts and have a real clear criteria where we do it and there are certainly many neighborhoods in san francisco that are being made from

scratch and i think those are places where meters might have let's say around the mission bay, we're going to be seeing the new hospital, that could be a place where we could be doing -- could be easily implemented where there has not been much development happening over the years, so i do believe though we have a compromise that is supportable by the board and i just want to encourage colleagues to support what we have before us with the amendments. >> colleagues, unless there's any -- supervisor kim? >> not on the amendment, my apologies. >> so, on the amendments which i believe were already seconded, is that correct? >> yes, by supervisor mar. >> can we take the amendments without objection, do we need a roll call. the amendments are adopted. supervisor kim, did you have a final comment? >> i wanted to respond to supervisor cohen's responses, so the parking meters that

start at 7 a.m. or 8 a.m., they span all throughout fish man's wharf, they go to the mission as well, these are the early morning meters. >> so, it sounds like you described most of the city. >> it's not -- >> it's not most of the city, it's on specific corridors in those neighborhoods, but when you look at the northeast quadrant, it is pretty much the entire northeast quadrant. and i did ask sfmta to look at this in 2011 and i am still waiting for a resolution to this issue. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you, i just wanted to make two points, i know we're not here to micro manage mta, but i just have a problem with the fact that there isn't any consistency, especially since it is very difficult in the evening time when it gets dark

earlier to even see whether or not you need to pay the meters, and so traditionally, the city has always been 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., we add a *fed sunday meters, i'm not certain why, it's one fee, one area, one fee in another area, i understand we're talking about downtown, but i think for the sake of clear and consistent communication, there should be a discussion around changing and making the meters more consistent. the other issue i wanted to bring up is i don't understand why the port has the authority to oversee meters directly. i know this isn't a part of this discussion, but i just wanted to say that for the record, again, you know, mta doesn't have control over lighting and what happens in the ported and making decisions around port meters and so on and so forth, but i just don't understand that, so i just

wanted to put that out there as a discussion. i'm sure we'll have in the future, but i think for the sake of consistency, for the sake of making sure the city is a lot more organized, i'm not a transit expert, nor do i think the board of supervisors should be managing parking meet erps, but we are allocated fund and supporting these meters for the efficiency of the city to allow for changing these meters, i think the port's role should in the be as managers of meters, thank you. >> colleagues, any additional discussion, do we need a roll call vote on this item? >> on item 12 as amended, supervisor breed? breed, aye. supervisor campos, campos, aye. supervisor chiu, chiu, aye. supervisor cohen? cohen, aye, supervisor farrell?

farrell, aye. k*im, no, supervisor mar, mar, aye. supervisor tang, tang, aye. supervisor wiener, wiener, aye. supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos, there are 10 ayes, one no. >> the resolution is adopted as amended. item 13. >> item 13 is an ordinance to retroactively authorize the office of economic and workforce development to accept and expand a grant in the amount of 500 thousand dollars for the mission bay south plan first source hiring program and amending ordinance fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 to reflect addition of two class 9704 employment and training specialists iii positions and one class 2992 contract compliance. >> roll call vo*et. >> on item 13, breed, aye,

supervisor campos, aye, supervisor chiu, chiu, aye, supervise core cohen, cohen, aye. supervise core farrell, aye, supervisor k*im, k im, aye. supervisor mar, mar, aye. supervisor tang, aye. wiener, aye, supervisor yee, yee, aye. supervisor avalos, there are 11 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed in the first reading, item 14. >> item 14 ordinance appropriating 209 million 955 thousand of general obligation bond proceeds approved by voters under proposition a in the november 200 8th l*ex authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for the building or rebuilding and earthquake sift improvement of the general hospital. >> can we do this in-house, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 15. >> item 15 is a resolution

approving a waiver of the payment in lieu of taxes for fiscal years 1991-1992 to 212-2013. >> this resolutions adopted, next item. >> item 16 is if resolution to authorize and direct the competitive sale of general obligation bonds not the exceed approximately 210 million for the san francisco general hospital improvement. >> same house in call, this resolution's adopted, next item. >> item 17 is a resolution approving the issuance of tax exempt obligations by the association of bay area governments finance authority for a non-profit corporations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 4 million 500 thousand to finance and refinance. >> same house, incall, this resolution is adopted. item 18. >> this is to resolution declaring the intent of city and county of san francisco to reimburse certain expenditures

from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing and community dwomment. >> in-house incall, this resolution is adopted. >> colleagues we don't have any 2:30 special orders today, i would like to get through all of the committee reports and then go through our 3:00 p.m. special items, >> item 30 was considered by the rules committee at a regular committee on september 21 and sent to the committee, it's to appoint mr. harlan kelly junior as a four year term. >> colleagues, in-house, incall, this resolution is adopted. item 31. >> item 31, item 31-33 were considered by the land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting on monday november 25, item 31 was recommended as a amended by the

same title, sent to the board as a committee boardbacker report, it's to amend the administrative planning code to receive assistance under all affordable housing programs ministered or funded by the city including the san francisco redevelopment agency by certain tenants being evicted under the ellison act. >> president chiu? >> colleagues, i know many of us have been working on a number of ideas and proposals to address our current affordability crisis with skyrocket evictions and many working families that are at risk of being driven out of san francisco, i want to thank my co-sponsors for the legislation that we are considering today to help tenants due to the ellis act. the ellis act has been interpreted broadly to allow landlords to evict tenants to go out of the rental business, but we have seen a sharp increase in ellis act findings,

a number of months back, the eviction of the leaf family in the heart of my district, two seniors and their adult daughter who had been evicted out of their home of 30 year, when i started speaking to the leaf family, i think we all realized that while we could not necessarily stop ellis act evictions at least at the local level, we all started thinking about things we could do to assist our most vulnerable residents from getting pushed out of their homes. this would allow tenants who have occupied their apartments for more than 10 years and have received an ellis act eviction notice or tenants would are disabled or have life threatening illness and have occupied their apartments for more than 5 years to receive priority in affordable housing projects funded and ministered by the county of san francisco. i want to thank housing and community development who would be