advertising out there whether in cooperation with the companies or something on even the television or radio or spots or something like that so it's in people's brain, oh, yeah, this is available, i have an alternative. i do agree with what nate drury said about not everybody uses the smart phones and there's people out there. people out in saint francis woods where they can't get a cab because cars, they need to have access to that but they should know that it's not all about uber charges too much or this company that charges but they don't have adequate insurance, they get in an accident, they have to know about the alternatives. they want to use a taxicab, get them a taxi where they can push a button. >> thank you, mr. margolis >> last speaker, berry corngold. >> hi, berry corngold, i'm with the san francisco cab

driver's association. we're kind of in a quandry about this. we definitely need to have all the cabs being able to be seen on one screen and if this is the only way to do it, then i guess we would support this. but i've also questioned the amount of information that's being collected with this stuff, if that's necessary and i'm also questioning how these apps like fly wheel, which has been very successful, they have over 1100 cabs on their system, i use it, i live out in the sunset, very good service out in the sun set, it's never more than 3 or 4 minutes to get a cab when i've used it, i'm wondering how these companies are going to compete and we haven't been informed all about that so these are my concerns. i can't weigh in real strongly one way or another on this because of these reservations. i will say that it's very irritating to see all these other cabs, these other

taxicabs with pink mustaches or whatever or side car socks that are not being regulated whatsoever and now you guys want to control, see how fast we're going and take every little bit of information, fine, do the same thing for those guys. their taxicabs are nothing else and you should be standing up to the cpuc about this because taxicabs are supposed to be regulated by cities. it's not what you call them, if they are providing taxicab service, which is what they are doing, they should be under your jurisdiction and regulation and you need to do something about it. do some advertising, maybe quit advertising for uber x on the busses and put advertising for services that dispatch legal taxicabs. okay, thanks. >> thank you, mr. cornberg. >> a second comment? >> no, i'm sorry, we can only have one public comment for speaker in the time period,

otherwise it wouldn't be fair. i'm sorry. >> (inaudible). >> no, thank you, i'm sorry, we can only have one public comment per speaker. thank you. >> the chairman had said we were going to postpone consideration of the item until after closed session. >> yes. >> would you like to move on to item 14? >> authorizing the director of transportation to execute an agreement and authorizing $9 million, madam chairman you have one person who indicated an interest in addressing you. >> do you want to explain this one or go right to public comment? >> i hope the staff report was fairly self-explanatory. we don't talk about it often but everybody in the taxi industry knows that the airport is an important part of the taxi

ecosystem here in san francisco. the airport is upgrading their systems and this is essentially an mou that would authorize us to pay a share of that upgrade because of the value that we will get for it as the city's taxi regulator. >> shall we hear public comment? ?oo ?a mark gruberg is the only person who's turned in a speaker card on this matter. >> thank you again. i'll be brief. >> i'm sorry, one second, mr. gruberg, did you have a question? >> i had a procedural question, we just had a lengthy public session and i understand we need to have a closed session to talk about litigation but i suspect there's a fair number of people here, i'm confused when we're going to have the discussion about the earlier item and i suspect a lot of people who came for the earlier item would like some clarification, as i would. >> the chairman indicate

before he left wreer we are to have one closed session or two. >> one closed session. >> i'm sorry, mr. gruberg, go ahead. >> in that case i'll be really brief. i think coordination between these two regulatory systems is great but my one concern again goes back to the amount of information, the kind of information, extent of information, and without any restrictions or restraints on the use of that information that would be coming forth from the previous item if it is approved. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker or is that the only speaker. >> han sue kim, charles rathbone, last speaker, ed healy. >> i'll be brief as well. i have to tell you, the san

francisco airport has always been very supportive of the taxi industry especially of these new ride services that are coming here. i do want to talk about when we spend money from the sfmta this is an opportunity for me to say with the new medallion sale system and the revenues generated from the taxi industry, there must at some time be some investment back into the industry not just going forward with different types of subsidies or agreements into new programs but i ask you to really redirect some resources back to the industry as you mentioned about pr, driver training, there's so much that can be done with very little and with the medallion sales and income as they are, i really hope you would look at that as you go forward with new contracts and put money toward these things. >> thank you, mr. kim, next speaker. >> charles rathbone, followed by ed healy. >> hiagain, commissioners,

just very briefly, this would be money well spent, this proposal. if nothing else it will help put an end to the dangerous system of time-based shorts out of the airport and instead go to a gps based, they important to do that to cut down on speeding on the freeways. thank you. >> next speaker. >> ed healy and then rashid. >> i think this is very necessary to coordinate, i understand there's a bunch of new investigators out at the sfo that will be cracking down on the lists and the side cars and the illegal taxis. it's a very necessary thing and i'd also like to second han sue kim, we can definitely use the money for advertising and things like that. you've taken enough in to probably run half the city, you can give some of it back to us. thank you. >> thank you, mr. healy. >> last speaker, rashid.

>> i support everything going to be allowed by san francisco mta and also i ask the san francisco mta, we have 7,000 driver, we need to do election and there's going to be responsibility for the mta, it's going to be responsibility for the driver, the driver is the victim and we need to have a driver. >> thank you, mr. rashid. berry corngold. >> if there's anyone else who wants to speak on this item, please come frd and provide a speaker card now. >> berry corngold, i think definitely the mta should be working in conjunction with the sfo, there's a lot of illegal taxi activity there that i see all the time and they need more investigators cracking down on that and i also think with the gps, you know, the global defense system if the parameters are made correctly it can be a good system to

prevent unnecessary speeding. so that's it, i think i also agree that more money should be spent on things like advertising and enforcement, there is absolutely no enforcement, it's a wild wild west atmosphere out there. i'm seeing cabs that have a top light and it says taxi on it and they are being allowed to pull up in front of all the sfo or san francisco taxis that pay and wait sometimes hours in line and these guys just pull right up and pick up people right in front of us and they have their schemes going on where they have wranglers inside soliciting and they go out and take this taxi, tell them this is your name or they exchange the information by cell phone and then have them come pick up the people in front of all the san francisco cabs and that needs to be addressed. thanks. >> thank you. >> last speaker, david smith.

>> hello again, i would just like to say i'm totally in support of anything that has to do with curbing the situation at the airport. the problem is really bad. on a friday night when i drop off at the airport there's 3 lots full of cabs, cabs deadheading to the airport is just horrible. you can go on a monday night, on a sunday night, on a tuesday night and go watch 101 south from let's say cesar chavez and see how many cabs are in the far left lane flying back to the airport trying to make the short. this is very unsafe, they tail each other, they tail me, they tail me when i have a customer going to the airport. please support this, that's all i can say. the situation is horrible. >> thank you, mr. smith. directors, any questions or discussion on this?

>> move the item. >> second. >> i have a motion and a second. all in favor, aye. ayes have it, motion passes. >> motion approving new notification requirements for operational local neighborhood and white management products proposing the installation of new parking meters. you have one member of the public who may still be here who wishes to address you. >> do we have a staff presentation on this? >> we can provide one if you like. >> has everyone read this fully? do you need a staff presentation? can we please hear from the public. >> martin mcintire. >> martin mcintire, i guess i'm representing the public. >> you are. >> i was the founder of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, second neighborhood of park association of richmond, et cetera. i was the past president of the university

association and our association fought against parking meeters being put on golden gate avenue across from our homes by sf park. you probably should need going back to the beginning of this session, i hope my wife hasn't called the police. the bus should say stop discussion. that's what this is all about. you heard how long the description of this thing is, it means we can put in 50 parking meters without asking anybody. they can do what we fought against, they can do it now, just put in 50 at a time. that's not fair. that's not the way it's supposed to be done. it got shot down, sf park got shot down in our neighborhood and this is an end run. they will put an end run on the bus.

or put in sf park strikes back. this is revenge of sf park. they didn't like being told that the neighborhood doesn't want parking meters and now they have come up with this proposal to get around that and that's not the way it should be done. so i guess i'm speaking for everybody who didn't even know there was a meeting and the sfmta didn't even provide somebody to explain it to you like laura mattern, a lot of -- it's like let's see what we can do to put in parking meters. >> thank you, mr. mack intire, i know all the directors carefully read that report, mr. riskin, i know you responded to a report saying this is increasing the amount of notification that will go out

before meters. >> perhaps some people misunderstood what this item is. right now the law prescribes public notification process that we use as a floor for the notifications that we make when we're proposing to install new parking meters. what this item does would you will note in the example given we did not even bring to you i don't believe a proposal to install parking meters in the university terrace neighborhood based on the public discussions we had. nevertheless, we have heard concern from member s of the public, from members of the board of supervisors, that the public outreach that we do with regard to new parking meter installations was not adequate,

was not reaching people.

>> there was a good bit of public out reach, and there was a public workshop back in october. >> that is fine, i am sorry. it was a broad based support for this pilot. wonderful. >> do i have a second? that sounded like? all in favor? >> aye. >> the aye haves it and it passes. >> item 17, presentation and discussion of the over night parking restriction and recommendations. >> i know that the hour is late and we can move quickly but there was an item of some concern and so we thought that the evaluation was important to do, and we have the results from that, that we have to share with you and the

recommendations for the next steps. >> thank you, and i know that we did get a good memo on this and i am sure that everybody read fully. so mr. yee. >> i skipped the message and i will make it brief. i will not go back into the background of how this came about. because it is clearly in the evaluation memo. we selected two areas for the pilot in the eastern half of the city and also the west half and the reason that we did that was, for a practical reasons, because the nature of the restriction between midnight and six and we have to work closely with our colleagues in the police department who will be doing, you know, most of the over night enforcement. and so we selected the areas,

continuous to and we also considered the size and the extent of the area and so that they are launching up and so that our observations will be meaningful to discuss. and before, the implementation of the pilot, on july 15th, the san francisco homeless out reach team from the public health department did for the out reach for a month and a half until the rec you lacings took effect. and now the parking control officers, also lead the areas and with the fliers, and giving the information about the program, as well as the areas that they can go to for the resources for, you know, if

they are, housed, and ways for them to kind of address their needs, to be dislocated or disrupted. we did issue two citations prior to july 18 and they were caught and dismissed. >> so these are the two pilot areas. the west half of the city and also the south east sector. and so the pilot, has been in the pilot areas, have been and they have been pretty effective in reducing the number of those type of vehicles is that were previously observed. and from the before study, we found that about half of them were commercial vehicles and

the other, a little bit less than half were for the camper type, that could be, conceivablely be ha bitable and so after the pilot went into effect, we observed about 95 percent reduction in the number of those vehicles parked in the pilot areas. but we did note a couple of problems, one is that the displacement. there are vehicles observed that just parked just outside of the pilot area and some that were displaced and adjacent streets and we also continued to, and to air the concerns, from those who are vehicular housed and that they were disrupted. and so, we worked very closely with the supervisor, and i mean, the former supervisor ductis office of hope. and he and us, and we are

collaborating on some efforts to try to reach out to the vehicularly housed so that they have access to the services that will help accommodate their housing needs and also transition them into a more permanent type of housing and just a couple of programs where we think that it is going to be pretty promising, and one of them is we will be meeting with him and our total contractor to explore ways to maybe either wave or reduce the fees, related to towing of vehicles, and we did not experience any vehicles being towed in the pilot period and so that was the good news and we also, talking to his office and the homeless coalition, there are some cities out there like los

angeles, eugene, oregon, and seattle who have programs where they work very closely with the faith community and they have voluntarily set aside some safe parking areas for the houses so they have a safe haven for the vehicles while they are accessing services to transition them into more permanent house and we are in contact with his office and with, graduate program, and usc. and they are very interested in helping us and we have a lot of expertise in evaluating this type of program to see, how effective it is and how it can be implemented we should be hearing from them in the next couple of days of whether or not they would like to take them on. >> and in those situations they

are privately owned? >> correct. >> and so our recommendation is continuing to use the rec you lacing and the focus basis concentrate on the areas that have been displaced and the areas that have already have an higher incidence of observed oversight and people park. the areas that we are looking to prioritize our implementation would be in the typical type of places where would normally find them around the edges and the parts and the schools and the areas with no residential frontage and allowing with the other areas,

that i mentioned just previously about the dislocated, and dislocation, and that is our recommendation and i will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. >> now this is an informational item only directors, any questions? >> if not we will go to public comment. >> and thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is dianna and i am here to represent the office of supervisor katie tang and she wishs that she could be here and expresses the support of the program however she is in her own meeting but this may beat it in terms of length. >> the representatives of district four have received numerous neighborhood concerns of many oversighted vehicles parked on the city streets and turning many parts of our neighborhood into a parking lot for oversized vehicle and the

related public safety and public health problems that were connected with many of these vehicles, given that the pilot areas addressed included much of district four along great highway and sunset boulevard and lincoln way and the reservoir and also included other districts such as district one and district five and the avenue as part of district seven as well as similar locations on the eastern portion of the city in 60 ten and prior to fully implementing this program as the city has mentioned and sfmta first issued warnings and fact sheets about one month on separate occasions and to inform the vehicle owners about these pilot programs. and although this program applies to all types of oversight vehicles including commercial vehicles, and we recognized that, there were individuals who owned oversized that and that is why they were in those vehicles. and in addition to those fires,

supervisor chui's office, offered the support of housing for the resources that may need those service and it was a very important part of that pilot program under supervisor chui's office that they provided this opportunity. and hope has offered us, and has said opportunities for those individuals to store those vehicles on treasure island and to continue to do that out reach and he had spoken at a goa committee meeting about that opportunity and to further toss conversations about the advocates about the further opportunities and providing resource and it was really that service component that was important to that project and we just want to say thank you to the sfmta to responding to the needs of our residents and our office and we have a stack of support from the district... >> thank you. >> we are working together

>> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> and lisa, marie? >> melody and kelley cut ler? >> good evening. my name is tory and i have some packets here for you all. that outline the people's evaluation of this pilot project which we have found to not be at all successful, productive and was actually been a disaster for particularly has been displaced and has out comes as a result of this pilot project and the first thing that we want to question is how success being measured if the only out come has been displacement and so, if, if everyone just being pushed to a new neighborhood and we are getting new complaints from the new neighborhoods that can't be

considered success. it does give the indication that the city has a city wide ban on the over night parking which is not what the intention was or what we have been told from the staff or for the board and so we have the major concerns about that especially if it is to go forward with the expansion and i think that the second piece about the report that was prom mat problematic and it is not with the data that we are getting from the housed committing.

over night parking restrictions. >> melody and then kelley cut ler and emily fair bank. >> and good evening. >> hi. >> hi my name is melody. and there is just so much to say. but, i guess short. it really increases