noticed and at least staff level comment back, so look, these things happen and it sounds like we're going to address it, i think the message to the taxi department has to be especially in these times anything that's going to affect the industry the industry has to have advanced notice. >> absolutely, we'll look at what happened with this. i think direct torx i think there's been a lot of good strides in terms of communication with the industry. this is one that was created by a construction project impact that impacted the bike share station but no question the process should have been better and i'm hoping we can find a better solution. >> thank you. thank you, and the idea of the rpp exemption for the motorcycles, i assume that will be looked at as well. >> that was one of the things that was in the presentation last week of the things that people had raised and it came up with area q, but that's absolutely one of the things

we'll be looking at. >> good, thank you, i think we can move on. >> alright, madam chair, with the completion of public comment, you are into your consent cal abasing these items are considered to be routine unless a member of the public or the board wishes to have an item severed or considered separately. there are members of the public who wish to have several items receiverbacker severed so i think we have 10.2e, 10.2i and 10.7. >> okay, so the consent calendar with those items 10.2e, 10.2i and 10.7 and that is the one i believe that you would want to recuse yourself on would be 10.2e so that one's off the -- >> the commuter shuttle is 10.3. >> can i get that one too. >> we need to sever 10.3 as

well. >> alright t consent calendar with those items severed, do i have a motion to approve ?frjts moved. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> and a second? great, and all in favor aye. >> aye. >> thank you, so moved. >> do you want to call those two together? >> 10.2e has to do with establishing oversized vehicle restrictions on santiago street, 10.2i establishes no parking any time on delores street. speakers include melody, natashia and janaro. melody?

>> could we take the second speaker first, ms. boomer and let melody collect herself? >> natashia dedric followed by janaro. >> hello again i also am just a resident on this one, in termser of the oversized vehicle situation, i've come to many hearings, this is the first time it's been a full hearing that i've been to of the board, it's been these two guys that don't seem to be moved by anything honestly in my experience of sitting with them, so i hope today you'll respond to what we have to say because that was nice that you just responded although i would

have liked to hear a little more on the medallions personally, but i just -- i've been watching this situation for over a year now and it's just anybody who seems to make a request for parking ban, they get it you walk in here, you ask for it and it seems like from the outside, you get it and it doesn't have to do with commercial vehicles, maybe there's a smidge where that's what it's about but clearly for anybody who's paying attention, it's about people who are living in their vehicles and people who are living in their vehicles have a major upgrade over people who are living in tents and people who are living in a blanket up out under the open sky with a tarp if they're lucky there's not enough shelter beds in this city, and if you've ever been, you might understand why, so to me, i don't understand why -- it's all about not in my backyard situation. well, i would like there to be a moratorium on banning new

streets for oversized vehicles until there is a plan for how to incorporate people -- you know trv's and people who are living in their vehicles to conduct themselves in this city not at the out skirts the hinter lands but operationally in this city, until there's a plan like for a station or street that is are delineated and advertised with signs saying you can be here, whatever it is to work with people rather than treat them like they're a pariah, i've been out organizing them on my own talking to them. >> we have a strict time limit, in order to be fair. >> i hope to hear from you after this. >> janaro, followed by melody. >> good afternoon, members of the board i'm janaro, family and schools program coordinator for walk san francisco, through the san francisco safe house partnership, i work with parent and is caregivers participating on elementary school to promote regular walking event tos

school and address any concerns families have regarding to walking. there's a proposed bulba at san jose and delores, through fairmount's participation, we have learned that the crossing mission at san jose is a major concern to families walking to skaolt. we also have data from the department of public health that analyzes student transportation patterns and parent surveys, our findings revealed that 30% of families live within a mile of fairmount and within a quarter mile, there's a significant concentration of families that live east of mission street, meaning that our most vulnerable users of children are forced to cross these streets twice a day. also the 91% of the family that is already walk to school site the safety of crossing intersections is their concern,

crossing at mission is critical, for families to keep doing this, currently families that can walk are choosing other less active modes of transportation because of these barriers so on behalf of walk sf we're asking the board to implement these changes as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> melody, followed by nick. >> melody, are you ready? okay. >> thank you for your patience. my name is melody and i'm opposed to the no parking oversized vehicle signs on santiago street, also amber is opposed as well, she cannot be here because she has two jobs and works 60 hours a week, three weeks ago, she tried to e-mail her opposition but was told that it was not on the march 3rd general da. as you may already know, i have early childhood dramatic brain injury to the left lobe and i have

been assessed to the city for what i qualify for but i have never been assessed for what i need. i have been thrown at bevin dusty's door so many time, i feel like a rubber ball. when the shoe doesn't fit, please do not blame the foot. again, i ask the sfmta board of directors for a safe place to park, without your help and support, i cannot overcome my circumstances and thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, melody. director, i know that we have had these oversized vehicle restrictions come up to us before and each time we have them come up, we do talk about the outreach, we talk about what measures the parking control officers and the police officers go through. does anybody want more staff comment on this or -- i'm sorry, do we have one mr. speaker, i'm sorry.

>> my name is nick, i'm from the coalition on homelessness, we do oppose again the posting of these signs, i don't think it's necessarily outreach and the issues of people being notified of the sign, although i'm sure not everyone is notified and not everybody knows about it, however the ising ewe is still these people living in their vehicles are being marginalized further and further away from parts where they were comfortable, parts where there were no problems for a vast majority of the people living out there. i think i would like to reiterate what the other speaker said, there needs to be some sort of process, we heard people coming here multiple times voicing their opposition, sending e-mail, people living in their vehicles voicing their opposition, the sign ares still posted in those area, it seems like one or two people who are housed come and say they want a sign that gets put up as soon as possible for them, so i think it does seem discriminatory against people living in their vehicles people live ining poverty and i

think there does need to be a moratorium. we have our several suggestions as we have done before, we are trying to work on the mayor's office in hope and the interface council in establishing safe parking areas for people to park in however, it is difficult to do so to outreach to people to see where they want to be place and had where they're needed when they oar constantly pushed from areas, meaning that when signs are posted, people are marginalized and displace today different parts of the city, unsafe parts, where they think there's no community there to watch their backs as they have before, so we ask that these signs do not be placed at santiago, we understand there are concerns with neighborhood but we would like to work with the people in their vehicles rather than the mta having people come from the fact and being displaced or having their car towed or what have you. >> mary mcguire, final speaker on this matter.

>> on 10.2e. >> mary mcguire, i'm a taxi driver and i've gotten to know some of the people because a lot of people live out near the cab companies, the vans, and i have seen them, i know one fellow lost his home, it was towed away. i just think you know, give these people a break they don't have any place to live. they don't have any place to live, they're living in these vehicles and some of them are women, there are women living out by our cab company and, you know, they have a right to be in a safe place. i don't think they're doing any harm to anybody, so i just want to go on record to say i support them and i hope you help the situation. >> thank you, ms. mcguire. >> anyone else? >> herbert winer i'm a retired social worker. now, you have rolled out the

carpet to make spaces for bicyclists, why can't you do this for people who are homeless who live in a vehicle who actually free up a bed in the shelter? you tolerate google buses that take up public spaces, there really ought to be a ban on google buses rather than these vehicles. these people need a place to stay, if they're on the street, they may possibly die and you cannot be the hand maiden to this, this city is split between those who have property and those who don't between the wealthy and the poor, and you can't sanction this kind of policy which leaves people to hang out to dry in the cold especially in the wintertime, you don't want to have blood on your hands by having people die in the streets, and when you place a prohibition on these vehicles, it's wrong. now, if these individuals

commit criminal acts, yes, they should be prosecuted under the law, i would agree with that and the neighborhoods where these vehicles park should be safe, that is a valid consideration, but to ban these vehicles is cat dworically unfair. the city has a crucial homeless problem that is not going away and you should not add to it by this prohibition. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winer. no more public comment on these items? thank you. director, i know as i was saying every time one of the oversized vehicle bans come to us we do revisit the outreach that is done by parking control officers, by the homeless outreach time, by bevin duffy's office and this is never an easy one for any of us, when this came before us, our first oversized vehicles, we did have a discussion if i remember

correctly about what our role is as a city agency and the fact that our role is to address the parking issues, the idea of a moratorium, the fact we've had these restrictions come to us i do feel now that if we don't act on this one, these come to us by neighborhood request, is that correct, mr. reiskin? >> this is coming from public request and from offices of the board of supervisors. >> in light of that, i don't feel that it is appropriate to change the rules when this one is before us. i would like the hear if any other board member has anything to add on that idea. >> yeah, i mean, i guess i feel like i'd like to hear more or get a report on the safe parking areas concept. i think that that is a really important thing. i think obviously we -- it sounds like the major reason we

have this policy is related to parking but we also have other priority principles in the city around housing and i just feel like we have to figure out how we deal with that. i mean, there's some cases where people are parking their oversized vehicle on the street when they are housed and taking up space and is there are instances where people are living in their spaces and i feel like we have to have a way to deal with that, we have to figure out the safe parking areas, we are in a position where we can't allow -- people who are homeless, we don't have a place to put them, we don't have enough shelter beds, i would also like to understand better where the concentration of oversized vehicles tends to be i know like maybe along golden gate park and ocean beach and there are more wooden areas where they tend to be i would like to understand more about where we find these vehicles and then the other

thing i think of is that i know when people get towed if that's their home, like, how can we make sure they don't have to pay thousands of dollars, i mean, that they don't have, we don't want someone to lose their home, how do we deal with that differently, have a process for people to petition so they can get their homes back if indeed that's where they're living. it's hard to say on this block yes or no that's -- in terms of the bigger picture policy, like, making people homeless or displacing people is not what this body wants to be doing, so how can we get there, and right now, we're in a crisis around the housing situation more generally, so if we could expedite the efforts in this area and have some recommendations brought back to us so we can consider maybe based upon like where the concentration is and whatever

else we know about who are parking in those vehicle, then i feel like i could make a decision about where these prohibitions should and shouldn't be, i would also be interested in knowing if there's a concern about crime whether there are any correlations with police reports and these vehicles because again that would also kind of help us figure out location issues, so i think we need to figure out a policy around locating these vehicles if we're not -- assuming we're not banning them out right. >> thank you, director borden, i remember the first time this came to us, we did have a very detailed staff report that mr. thornily put together, we did meet with bevin duffy, there was a lot of discussion around it perhaps it bears having a discussion like that again or maybe a one on one with staff again, it is challenging because what we have control

over and what our purview is in this case, there is so much overlap with other city agencies that we don't have control and you're right, as a city, we do have a lot of challenges, the ones we have control over in this situation and what we have control over is in the scheme of things quite small. board member, do i have a motion to approve? 10.2e and 10.2i? can i have a follow-up -- >> if we could get, i would like the get more information as follow-up on this, i know last time this came up i know director reiskin, you know there was training of pco's and people who were enforcing these rules, and st vice chair mentioned, there's been work done on this difficult is issue, so i respect the process, i would like to hear an update especially on training, especially in mainbacker maiming sure the folks that this adversely affects, i mean, i do want to make sure our folks are trained as best as possible on this

specific issue and i know that was an area we didn't have clarity on last time, so i would love to get more information in addition to the issues, any updates on the issues director borden raised. >> thank you. >> if i may, madam chair i do feel that this is one of the more difficult decisions that we ever make is implementing these -- or following up on these requests when they're made to us. there is -- it does feel like obviously decisions that we're making have a much broader impact than just parking enforcement, and i think that it would be really helpful for not just us but for the community as well to hear about what systems are in place to help soften the impact of these enforcement or the enforcement of restricting commercial vehicles overnight. every time this comes before

us, we find ourselves in this awkward position and i think it would be great if we could have some kind of preparation from someone to be able to respond to this so that we can feel assured that the attention that this merits is actually being followed through, so that we're not just, you know, enforcing these things and realizing the repercussions and not feel that there's anything happening as a result of it, so if it's not just for us, it's also for the public, people who might not really understand what programs are out there a lot of people don't know what bevin duffy is and what the programs may be so it would be great in the future when these things come to us, that we would be prepared to have someone speak to that as well, what's happening. >> perhaps we can request a presentation from the appropriate office and agency. >> i wouldn't want to say a presentation, just because i don't know that it merits every

time, but -- >> no, i aoep not saying every time, i'm saying as a follow-up, when we initially had this conversation, when we had the oversized vehicle ban, we could ask them for an update on how it's going and the housing crisis ma not gotten better. >> the only thing i want to add, i think we need a strategy. the truth is that you ban oversized vehicles on the street and then they move to another street in which then those people come to us for a ban, so i do think we need to figure out a bigger strategy because otherwise what you keep doing is pushing people around and every new neighborhood who now is that location wants a ban, so i do feel like if we can -- if there is a ban, if there are plans to come up with a strategy around this or have safe areas, then i don't know where that is, but if that could come to us sooner and we could have some data about where concentrations are so we

can figure it out. i feel that that's what we really need. i'm not saying it's not helpful to know the outreach. in general when people build -- whether it's a homeless encampment or oversized vehicles, the minute you move people out of a location you don't change their circumstance, they just change locations. ing >> thank you, thank you, directors, again, do i have a motion to approve these items e and i, do i have a second. thank you, all in favor aye. thank you, that pass, melody, thank you again for coming. now we're dwoing to move on to -- >> item 10 .3 approvers commuter pilot program. >> and i believe director rubke will ask to accuse on this. >> i'm requesting to be recused from 10.3. >> all in favor of recusing director rubke? >> aye.

>> and all in favor of -- approving item 10.3p. >> do we need to take public comment on this? >> there is no public comment on this. >> do i have a motion to approve? >> yes. >> do i have a second? >> all in favor aye. >> and then the last item that has been severbacker severed is aaoem 10.7 requested by a member of the public, barry toronto. >>

environmental review, and i'm very much harmed that this does not occur that you worried about the environment with helping cab drivers stop smoking but you're not willing to help drivers serve passengers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. toronto. directors, does anybody require more information on this or do i have a motion to approve? >> motion to approve. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> all in favor aye. >> aye. >> thank you, madam chair, that concludes your consent cal abasing moving on to your regular calendar, item 11, approving contract number sfmta 2015-31, armed and unarmed security services with cypress security to provide security services in the amount of 38 million 314 thousand 2008 dollars and 17 cents for an initial term of the three years with an opinion to extend the term for up to three additional

years. >> chris carpet, security of investigation and is enforcement, we're before you today to request your approval of an armed and unarmed security service with cypress security for an option to extend for an in addition three, the contract being approximately 38.8 million, it includes a comprehensive package which i will briefly highlight, 30 thousand 832 hours of armed services annually for the protection of revenue sales, collection operation and is special event 159 thousand 497 hours of unarmed security services annually for the protection of 11 bus and lrb divisions with the significant imbacker increase in deployment at muni metro east in anticipation of the increased workload at that division. staffing the 24/7 security operations center at the transportation management sent e maintaining the video surveillance program, patrolling the subway system for 16 hours daily for the

safety of our patrons and saf, supporting board president reid's antigraffiti initiative that documents graffiti and uploads it to the police department, six persons deployed throughout the transit system to check there ada compliance and of course 24/7 security, with that, i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you for the detail behind that because this is -- it is a large dollar amount that we're approving so it's always good to hear the background on it. the fleet protection, that's at the bus yards and the bus barns patrolling them after hours when they're closed which i understand in the past had been an area with we were getting buses broken into, graffiti, vandalism happening. >> has th*'s right, madam chair, prior to 2008 when cypress took over, security

services for the mta, the previous vendor was suffering graffiti and other incidents while the vehicles were on the yards, an average of once per week, we're pleased to be able to say with the current vend do we've only had two major dinsbacker incidents on the yards for six years. >> that's good to hear, any questions before we go to public comment? >> we can do public comment first, that's fine. >> thank you, madam chair. >> public comment? >> (calling speaker names). >> good afternoon, my name is peter evans, a district manager with [inaudible] international, i appeared before this commission board before in term of a contract that was approved for andrews international, later on as we look through the pay registers that we receive from cypress security, we withdraw from that actual bid

and that was the last time. and the city actually requested pay rej sters the attorneys office that we turned over our reasoning for backing out of the first bid, we rebid it again and we worked hard and we won the actual contract again and then when we went into negotiations with the actual contracts department, we were faced with an issue that was not put in an rfp, if you put in your rfp and you say that two positions are to be unbilled for the operations position and the account manager, it should be spelled out correctly. what the rfp had said in your mark-up, you're only to focus on the guards and then all of the other additional employees, other positions are to be included in the actual mark-up, so the issues that we have at andrews international is when i look at as i receive the letter from mr. patel he states those

two positions should not have been billed, then why sit on cypress', as i look at their contract, the two of the positions are listed. the badging clerk and then also the ada, so i ask this board to consider the facts that are rfp was not written correctly and that we studied it, we put our information together. if you say to us that 6 positions that they have here are not supposed to be billed, this is on their rfp and then you turn around and let cypress security do this, it's a big problem. i ask the board to really consider this and i ask the board to call for a special investigation. >> thank you, thank you. >> brad lower. >> good afternoon, my name's brad lower as peter stated, when