doing after work? they're taking care of their family, taking care of their kids. your disenfranchising the families of san francisco.. a lot of people are working much more than 40 hours a week. again, those folks that work 60-70 hours work there not to make time for this bull malarkey for coming to city hall for two, three, four meetings in the middle of the day. i appreciate the desire to have a case-by-case call but there seven existing were nine existing bands and this is a temp. i guess the question is, about long-term perspective, polk street one of those does it deserve to be the 10th area where we try to preserve san francisco along this street and let the national, anywhere usa

stores show up on van nuys and other locations where do we want polk street to look like anywhere usa not be distinct in san francisco. i hope you support this ban. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners chris shulman brothers and the lowest people neighbors. it's a pleasure to be before this commission. for the first time since i staff the commission had some things to say a couple years ago but the city attorney when i let me. now i get to be there for you. i do have a letter from lower polk neighbors. was committed last week and inadvertently was not included in your pipe. not sure if it made in your binder but in case it's a good it does address some things that were-had been discussed. i think of things it's a time commitment. it's time commitment that a number of us are willing to take but it does wear down on. as articulate their study projects

on people to. those projects, development their ground zero performing the retail. they get packaged with formula retail. they get complicated it gets pocket it's hard to shop. we have to plan as a community we have to organize did it takes time. it's get dozens of folks. these companies this is not the same formula retail battles pit 2-5 years ago. they have consultants and they have astroturf campaigns. it's difficult. look at 30 development and even half of them have formula retail connected to them it's going to take a lot of effort. her spec a lot of folks on russian hill. the grocery stores can get grandfathered in. i've never seen a supervisor, for the planning commission,, for this commission and reneged. the issue of venice avenue, were not living in a silo on polk should. dennis avenue is one lockout. not saying willy-nilly but formula retail on van ness. it's conditional use on van ness that works. street has a

lot of pressure for from the retail. and the rents are up. people are holding up. i work with urban saloon yet we can't even get [inaudible] because they're holding off performing the retail. a lot of colleagues in my new word groups digital, >>[calling names] rescue please consider this. i do ask him not to say this, these listen to public comment before making your mind up next and i know stuff it's easy to come out but it's discouraging when we have things to say and we feel the commission has only made their mind up. i know in some of you have not. please keep that in mind. thank you so much that it's honored before the commission of the for two coming in the future. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> did you fill out a speaker card?

>> yes. pacific heights neighborhood association >> if you don't mind i'm going to go in order with the speaker cards. the next three. >>[calling names] >> if you give us a card we will put you on the list. just fill out a speaker card so we can keep it in order. >> if anyone else wants to speak and has not about a speaker card, please do so. it helps keep things organized here. >> while we are recruiting, 61-61. it's a must-have time. so, chill. >> all right, go ahead >> good evening commissioners. my name is teresa fernandez representing united food

commercial workers local 648. we are all in favor of the formula retail restriction as proposed by supervisor peskin. we are labor union representing a small business in the area's been operating for over 30 years. retail chain score would negatively impact the story and others. we request you vote in favor of the proposal thank you for your consideration >> thank you very much. there's some and i want to see the game. next, please >> it will be quick. i've been broken outside resident. i'm here in solidarity with little polk neighbors in support of the >> peskin legislation in the commercial district. 15 seconds >> fantastic. way to go. that was a three pointer. let's get

some more three pointers. >> hello. i michael-i'm in the owner and operations manager at the jug shop on 1590% that at polk. i'm here in support of the legislation at hands. i would like to say that the jug shop is a purveyor of fine wines and spirits and craft beer , and a multiple that polk nancy which is composed of numerous independently owned businesses will continue to thrive your recommendation for retail controls on polk to the board of supervisors. the jug shop has recently celebrated its 50th anniversary and the owners account for two generations, it's a family and this legislation is a safeguard for our future. let's see here. we are currently facing the exact threat with the potential whole foods 365 moving into the

old one body support space, as you. they plan to carry a large selection of wine and beer. they plan to carry a nearly i'm sure, but the cassette of what my good neighbor cheese, plus with carrie. so for all these reasons, this direct competition we rode our revenue and jeopardize our potential longevity in the neighborhood and so for those reasons, it's precut and drive trust that this ban would be important to ensure a longevity in the future and i thank you for your consideration. >> thank you very much. 2.5 point >> the next three speakers. >>[calling names] >> my name is emily help you,

mother of two and a resident of russian hill. most of the president, new president russian hill neighbors. one of the oldest and largest nonprofit neighborhood groups in san francisco. were very happy to be here tonight. we represent hundreds of families for residents and merchants in the russian hill neighborhood, which encompasses these people street ncd from broadway to filbert street. for whatever reason, supervisor peskin did not consult with russian hill neighbors before you introduced this legislation. we really wish you would have. that's what we feel it's important to come tonight and speak you directly. we fully support his commitment to protect our

existing neighborhood character and encourage a local businesses on polk street. russian no labor celebrates our small businesses. we do eat eggs all the time. promote their services and their offerings. you can take a look at our website to see that, but russian hill neighbors also really values choice, affordability and community input into our neighborhood evolves and meets the needs of its residents. we surveyed our hundreds of members may adjust we affirm that force. that's why i'm here tonight. i will skip all the a lot of what my colleagues have said. skip onto really saying that we want to ensure the community always has a voice the kinds of businesses which come into our neighborhood. whether larger or smaller core chain or independent. he feels strongly that this ban is not needed.

the important community dialogue that needs to take place. as the planning commission cited in their june 2 hearing on this legislation, again, there's been only three applications perform the retail within the polk ncd since 2011. one was rejected and two were approved. again, we feel this no problem to fix here in the conditional use process works. as a mother, but got a babysitter that came tonight. there's many families engage in what our community direction our community is headed despite the previous speakers have said. i encourage you to oppose this ban. the reality is the good formula retail and meets the current conditional use process by allowing all residents and merchants of the community to weigh in canopus create a diverse and thriving commercial district for everyone now and in the future. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is robin tucker. i am the cochair and cofounder pacific avenue neighborhood association. i'm here to speak in support of the

band of formula retail on polk street. we founded the pacific avenue neighborhood association also known as-in 2003 and our vision at that time and still is to attract and support independent small businesses that serve not only immediate neighborhoods residents but destination shoppers, visitors. this approach will grow and support our economic and social diversity in our generational diversity as well. it will contribute to a thriving and sustainable polk street commercial district. our neighborhood has old world san francisco charm that could be gone forever without stronger development and formula retail controls. we believe these controls are necessary in our neighborhood to encourage creative and unique small-scale

building development retail and dining experiences. which are really integral to and complement the fabric of our community in san francisco. members and neighbors believe formula retail controls legislation will protect legacy businesses within the imposter seven neighborhood good i could go on but i would like to say on a personal note as well, i personal experience owning a small chain of retail stores, not in san francisco, but in another state. when formula retail moved in, but as successful as our small businesses were, we would only have been able to stay in business if we changed our entire concept because that formula retail business that came in, carried almost everything that we carried in our stores and they were able to

move the product much more quickly than we could. so, i don't think it's just about the rents. it's also about our small businesses and it's also about our neighborhood as well in the character of that neighborhood. it does change things when formula retail moves in. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. now. >> i'm here representing [inaudible] association >> the microphone >> district heights association supports the man looks for the polk street ncd did founded in 1970, we have over 500 members representing merchants within the boundaries of [inaudible] presidio to venice. on similar streets we have experienced a significant reduction in neighborhood character, quality of life and

sense of community that can occur when formula retail is operated. for java, members can still enjoy polk street unique character and we urge you to pass the planning amendment preventing formula retail. [inaudible] thank you for considering this very important part of the city >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. we have another? >> next three speakers,. >>[calling names] >> i'm here to share a three point good hobby really quick but when we look at the legislation we've asked >> supervisor peskin: fourth. we asked his office. we will work side-by-side i think this coming from the constituents of the neighbors could i been on the board for five years now.

we are asking for this. this is something we want. we don't want eight-we need to look back at our merchants back in the corner and think of the community. think. >> swished. >> i am slow. stephen cornell. first thing i want to say i heard earlier of 11 boundaries was sold to ace hardware. bonnie's whistles will link a local person who lives in the excelsior in san francisco for the last 25 years. i stop a little piece of this. it is not a chain store. it's owned by an individual. i'm here to represent the polk merchants tonight. polk district merchants have asked for this. the council district merchant have agreed with dos and their have asked for this. except for one, every single neighborhood association is in favor of this. the coalition of san

francisco neighborhoods is in favor of this. it is quite overwhelming who wants this. you've heard a lot of speakers from one district next to-which was the whole foods argument, but everybody else wants this as a group. they vote on it. at the planning commission, the planning department came out and said, there's 7% formula retail in this district. that 7% is a little on the low side. maybe 10% would be a little bit on the high side. i objected and said you're only counting polk street. one little narrow street. some he said earlier, we are kind of unique your we have van ness less than 600 feet away from polk should. it's part of our neighborhood. the planning department moves down present uses things whenever they want. like to put

one thing on the overhead. >> the overt. it's old-fashioned. >> yes. can you see that? anyway, that's a map from planning that was used for the bicycle lane stuff. sorry. wrong side when planning wants to do something else notice of a make a little browned boundary. these are quarter mile and van ness, it goes almost up to franklin. if you take it just van ness in now adding 44 more formula businesses. we don't have [inaudible] we have an anonymous amount of businesses. the cu process doesn't always

work. there are three businesses. ups, benjamin moore, and high-performance bikes. they all moved in since they had the cu process. they never checked off the little box, never had a cu. they just moved in. nobody did anything about it. nobody knew about it till they were dumb. it doesn't always work. thanks. >> thank you very much. solid two pointer. >> good evening. my name is joseph holman. i'm from the bull market. >> welcome. congratulations on your recent award. >> thanks. on the pmi 32nd year and visited zero other changes as a native san franciscan route the city. i believe the biggest challenge we face is a small food business is there's increased competition from big-box stores. i was in business before whole foods opened up.

and trader joe's opened up and the ferry building got redone and fortunately, i community has continued to support me during all those changes. i think it was important for me to address the needs of the community so they would continue to engage the business i was conducting their. but i see the threat that small businesses in the same line as the food business that 365 is going to bring into that community. it 20 devastating for any those food businesses now there, very successful the junk shop, cheese, plus, the meat company. there's no way that's not point to adversely affect business despite what whole foods advertises when we come and everybody does what. #antiques across the street i think that antique store will do well, but all of these food businesses are in a south of the consequences the major competitive like oh foods coming in. there's a lot of unintended consequences with their arrival. he will see

event increase even more than they already are in the conditions currently on polk street as i see it now. the cost of operating small businesses continue to escalate. the pressures on our insurances, our utilities, labor costs, health and licensing fees in gq to go up each year in of we don't allow for small businesses to provide an environment for these businesses to continue to succeed, and put them in the crosshairs of large formula retail stores that suck all the air out of the room, and those businesses will not be able to survive. that's what i think all business commission has to consider whether look at legislation like this. i mean, because there's a potential threat within 10-15 years more of these businesses coming in as can be smaller ponds, fewer ponds on the chessboard or no kings or queens second all the air. with that, thank you very much >> thank you very much.

>> our next three speakers are >>[calling names]. >> good evening, commissioned. my name is henry-. first of all i want to say we did have a robust discussion at our meeting when presented to us and we didn't vote in support of this band. i come from a city of 200,000 souls in australia where [inaudible] and basically has killed all the small business in the town. you would not believe it. it's amazing what's happening. at least begun to was false. the regard to the downtown. the downtown is pretty well dead. solely starting to recover. so

the cu does work as a courtesy but it comes down to the lobby is. if you a good decent lobbies that do the hard work they can get a cu through. no matter what. if they have their act together they can win the argument and the cu will prevail and i'll get the formula retail in. so lobbies to help in doing that. the other thing is that i'm okay, so that tent area of bans. how many of those have asked for revocation? how many of those have come over and said we don't have the band anymore? we want formula retail in our areas. lastly, what comes to your rents, let's face it, come on. eat retail, his can afford to pay the higher rents. yes, he's valley [inaudible] billy has [inaudible] and was terrible. it's got nothing to do with formula retail. it's got

such as a lovely place that everybody wants to go to. that's why it's so popular and that's why [inaudible] limitary form of the retail moves in the rates are going to be high. believe me. if you think i'm wrong not just check out the figures in other areas. you will find are willing to pay higher rents and landlord will hold up to get those higher rents. but again, i urge you to pass this band. i'm all for small business and all for venison and that he gets a fair shake, but this is what makes our city so special. i just our city but cities around the world it's a small business communities around the globe that make them so special. i urge you to please support this band. thank you. >> hello commissioners. my name is adam mayor. i'm on the

board of-dir. of planning and design, architect by profession. i'm also a seven year resident of the knob hill the current residents on polk street. my address is on polk street. there's been a lot of conversation but the economics of retail ban. does it raise rents were lower rents could i can't comment on that because i'm not an expert. what i wanted comments on is about how local business as to the neighborhood character of a place. i'm an architect so i spent a lot of time designing what i call the hardware, the brick-and-mortar spaces but it's really community that is the software of our cities and our neighborhoods and small business, small local businesses are an integral part of the extensive community and experience a place. i love polk street. it's probably my favorite place to go in the city. that's why i live there and i love the diversity of

businesses that are there and i think there was some talk about also conditional use and how that's been an effective method so far, but you have to remember, is more than a dozen new housing projects the ground floor retail in the pipeline in the neighborhood in a like to see the spaces utilized in a way that supports the community and adds more diversity in terms of the experience of the ground floor retail. so, i see this is as a design discussion as well as supporting a local prison. i mean come i do love support my local business. i live half a block away from 69 or jackson, where people of mention whole foods has amended the application. some of the common seven made there's not enough grocery business serving the neighborhood. i

wholeheartedly disagree with that. there's cheese, plus where that would have a nice pasta and cheese dinner i can get fresh pasta and cheese. it forget fresh vegetables i go to golden vegetables a california and uber. i want good meets i can go to the bull market. these discussions but not a grocery store in the neighborhood does not make sense to me. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is suzanne bartel fox m amended by steer of the polk neighborhood association. i got a letter for you from the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. i didn't see it in the packet and i apologize. i don't have multiple copies but it was a resolution passed unanimously in favor of the formula retail controls. we stand with the polk district version association and consortium of san francisco neighborhoods.

many small businesses better personality of our neighborhood. formula retail is an important part of our national economy. it has unintended consequences when it's cited in the wrong places. apply to areas like polk street big box may attract business that the expense of small business. unable to compete on price and margin, and under constant pressure on rents, small businesses cannot be sustained. the result is loss of these neighbors commerce and the colorful nation of the neighborhood changes to a sterile monochrome no different from any suburban strip mall across america. i'll and my comments there in favor of the warriors and hope that you will consider our statement. >> thank you very much. all right we have another speaker. >> >>[calling names].

>> hello. i have a business called cheese, plus the corner of polk and pacific since 25. i the great pleasure [inaudible] of course somebody come here and say i'm in support of this. i'm a couple things i'd like to say. in response, walgreens would not be precluded from coming into the neighborhood. that's part of this deal because of the unique thing they offer. so, if walgreens want to commend it to do that. if soup-co-wanted to come in the mighty to that but that does not mean someone else could not come in. do something similar another small business. the idea that it has to be whole foods, it is not the whole foods could become an independent joker decide to move the boat that be something the community to talk about as well. so by putting this band in place, doesn't mean it's all over. there's no other choice.

there's so many choices out there. i'm the perfect example that. i started with nothing but this place over 11 years now to become actually an anchor for the neighborhood and very proud to be one. so, the idea that neighborhood associations can get up here and say they support small business, get trashed them at the same by saying they want to see form the retail coming here is just appalling. i think there's a lot of opportunity that still left with this probation. with that, i'll say good night. >> thank you very much. you've inspired some others. come on up. >> thank you president dwight and members of the commission. for your time on this matter. just to give you a little bit of background, it's really unfortunate we don't have this in play. 1600 jackson was slated to be 62 units with condos in a housing crisis. all of a sudden, 62 units of condos in a market where units are

going for 1200 ft.2 is not as profitable to lease the property to whole foods. so, we get a debate where every day i have to worry about some lobbyist telling people to come to my neighborhood association social with messages, don't worry. there won't be too many people there. but supporters like you should go and talk to them and tell them how great the grocery store will be for the neighborhood. don't worry. let's call our lawyers and pursue this and fight, fight, fight. why? we lose 62 units of husband never should've had that debate. let's back up. the polk street and cd is along polk. it's van ness is 600 feet away. formula retail and

committee chief choice within welcome along all these other portions. all were doing is creating a safe zone, is a zone along polk street much like they did and he's about. 13 developments in the pipeline. lower polk and middle polk neighbors are some of the most receptive and engaging organizations in meeting with housing developers. will meet with any developer wants to come and bring new housing to our neighborhood. other groups won't. they say we don't need more housing in san francisco was his praise of the drawbridge and we are fine. so, what were asking really is for a venue's protection. we are saying you for going to build a high class neighborhood, we get to save a little bit of what we've got. that's all were asking for. these merchants, they poured out her heart and soul out there and we love them. we've got a whole folder of california franklin. we have a trader joe's. we have to walgreens. we've got these

basic amenities. we need to keep is our character. formula retail may provide people a lot of basic necessities, but it does not provide things that are interesting things that are creative. things that are uniquely san franciscan. i love going to north these. i spell of time that. but going to chinatown. love going to hayes valley. it's a great interesting neighborhood. all we're saying is let's just have some fair rules of the game. the cu process is broken. commissioners clearly said that. two commissioners indicated some reform was necessary. thank you so much >> thank you. all right. next up, please. anymore speakers? at the end? all right, thank you i appreciate everyone who came out tonight. so, i note that it's onerous to participate in these, but i have to take difference it's

absolutely essential adjuster. that's the fundamental basis of democracy. it's a pain in the butt but it works. there's creative ways to participate and so i applaud the community leaders who come out tonight both on behalf of residents and businesses representing their groups and reading letters of support were not. whatever your position is, but taking a position in your neighborhood, bringing it here the form of a letter were petition is a perfectly and genuine perfectly good and genuine way to participate please, do that and take that back to your neighborhoods please tell them you were commended for showing up tonight with us here at the small business commission or planning commission did we don't adjudicate this matter. planning commission doesn't board of supervisors do. when advisory body. we may or may not take a position tonight. i will say though i'm sure i signaled to many of you in my

early comments a distrust of bands, and i still have a distrust of bands, however, by activity tonight has been one of considering perhaps it began as a zoning restriction and him all about zoning. zoning is legislation just like a band. just as this is going to be this and not that. here, what we are saying is not to be something where maybe it could exist under the current rules. so, it's been instructive for me. we learn at these meetings, two. when not experts on any everyone of the subject and we are here to the advocates of small business as we are also good legislation, were not here to oppose small business owners when they express their will and their desires. when i hear a portion of the residence have one sentiment and a portion has another, i take that into consideration as well. in the

end, we probably put more emphasis on the position of business, small business, because that's who we are advocating for. anyway, it's been fantastic and i do appreciate it. especially onerous on a night when the warriors are in the final throes of winning a championship. so, we now have a period where some of the commissioners may make some comments and we'll take it from there. commissioner dooley >> once again, we really appreciate everyone coming out. that's what it's all about. i do want to make a few comments. i think were all here because things are really rapidly changing on polk should. there's a much development coming up. that's just, when you're developing a market rate and then the landlords are going to be looking for higher

rent. there were going to be looking for folks to cater maybe not to everyone on polk shape of those particular residence and we've seen this before. holding out for higher rents. leaving their places they can. we've all received it in places like fillmore street. i really agree with the speaker who talked about requiring property owners and rental information into windows. this is something we are really concerned about here on our commission. we do need to keep working on it. it's really unconscionable we have these vacant storefronts and they're not making any effort whatsoever to rent them. that's just bad for the neighborhood. i've got to say, i believe competing for locations against formula retail is certainly not in even playing field anymore. you know, they have a paid group of lobbyists marketers, lawyers, and note neighborhood group can compete with that. in fact, i have to say that prior to this meeting a pr firm asked

to have me recused from this meeting. now, that was not coming from neighbors were local folks. that is a perfect example of people with a deep pocket trying to push things around. so, it's a changing neighborhood on polk street. it does have a unique flavor and i think it's entirely reasonable to ask to keep some component of it could you know, there could be compromises like perhaps business locations from a commercial locations, under 2500 feet could possibly be

banning formula retail, which would leave if there's some really large white elephants in the neighborhood, that could go through the cu prosecute i could see that might be a compromise. i know the whole foods is off the table since it's already part of the grandfathering in of any cu that are already moving forward. so, i don't think we need to discuss that. so, i think we are the small business commission and i feel that we need to respect the needs of our constituents, which appear tonight are small businesses and what they need to survive, you have heard from many neighborhood businesses and i believe we need to support them. >> commissioners, any other comments? commissioner riley >> where are we on this legislation? has the planning department hurry yet? >> yes. the planning department heard it last week and so they took action on it. for them, because this is-there

advisory for this kind of legislation as well, they adjudicate on specific pieces of land but this is in terms of overall policy. so, it will move forward to the board of supervisors. it could possibly be on the land use committee next week. >> what was the outcome of the planning commission? >> the planning commission, the outcome was 4-3 not to support. >> so we have the option tonight to take a position on this or not. i think that's, i mean, we have that option. so, commissioner adams >> i agree with having commissioner dooley said. it is the small businesses we

represent. however, when a legislative aide was here she talked about a level playing field. what worries me is a we get a band in this neighborhood and what about-they talked about three conditional use since 2011 and then there's another gentleman here that says, three businesses opened up and nothing was done. well, shame on you for not doing anything because in our neighborhood, what a business opened up, and they do not get a cu, when they needed to get a cu we shut them down. they had to wait two years in order to open up. until they finally got approved. so, if somebody opens up without a cu, you can shut them down and they will shut them down. this is where i'm torn. it's that level playing field because is not a level playing field. it's not a level

playing field with the other commercial districts in this town. that's were i am torn. if we do a ban on polk street then let's do a ban on valencia, a ban on castro, a ban on west portal, it in on ocean, a ban on mission. if there's anything that easily fixed that i think it's the cu process. because the cu process, in my opinion, works. our neighborhood we've had about 15 and you know, we've had seven no. that's why i'm torn on this legislation.we also draw for work and we had a fight. was it a pain in the ass, yes but we stopped them. what really is worrying me if

we do this for this street what about the rest of the city in making it an even level playing field quick. that's just my opinion on this. >> either personal interest as the founder of a new merchant association or business is those asian dogpatch. i'm certain we will face the same discussion in our neighborhood. so, this is an edge education process for me as i anticipate what kinds of discussion would have in our neighborhood especially since we don't have a grocery store. so, i, too, am torn but i think the way that i would get my head wrapped around this is really looking at this. i mean, ben is a showboating word as a zoning restriction and not so much-to use that language is a marketing guide, i would find much more palatable than the

use of the term, banned, because i think that the end stupor preclude future generations are making decisions they want to make it however, is been noted this the restricted geographic area there's other locations that are zones and are not being subject to this restriction that would be within walking distance of the residence were interested in the level of convenience. so, again, tough decisions we have to make. i'm not going to make a motion for action this evening, but if any of our-if anyone here wants to, let's have at it. >> i move that we support the request from the polk street neighbors and merchants to allow former the retail band. we can call it a zoning change if we want because it's kind of the same. it's just that noxious word, banned, that gets in the way. you know, we see

how it goes. it's not your revocable. it's not the hardest thing in the world to make changes. i'm sure that before it even passes there'll be more changes. such as, grandfathering in the cu already coming forward. you know, as a small business person myself, i will say without a doubt, if it wasn't for ban on form of the retail north beach i would've been out of business and my sympathies lie with a small businesses. so , make a motion to support >> i would second that if we can change the language to zoning that we can get guarantees on the currency current cu that are in place >> i think that's fair. >> i think that's fair as well. those are about those particular is this is to go to the cu process as it exists in the neighborhood can make a determination through the cu positive as would be if we were

to oppose this. >> so what is the-the motion to support the proposed legislation for banning retail on polk street with the following provisions. one would be to have, in writing before us, within the week, stating clearly in writing that everyone who's applied for a cu was a form of the retail will be able to go through that process unencumbered. >> the zoning change >> i'm not sure >> i like to zoning changes >> i'm not sure if that's a technicality but i guess we

could say we prefer to have it addressed as a zoning restriction >> as a zoning restriction because i don't like that word, banned >> i participated on the user neighborhood we zoning commission. i have that lingo in my head. zoning restriction as opposed to abm. i think that they may very well be-we manhandled the banners out there a new marketing slogan to: zoning restriction rather than a band that i think that's more appropriate- >> zoning restriction will allow you to >> the zoning restriction is a zoning restriction it depends how you write the restriction. this is effectively a zoning restriction defined as precluding were banning, form the retail as defined. but the motion before us is to support the legislation with a written confirmation and affirmation of

taking the existing applicants through their condition these processes. it doesn't say will be allowed. as is the go through the conditional use processes as specified by the city >> may i be back the motion >> yes >> motion is within one we have in writing that anyone who is already applied as of that date, i assume, would be honored , allowed to go through the full cu process and secondly, to call it a zoning restriction like to add the zoning restriction would preclude form of the retail or would you like to just call it a zoning restriction? >> no. by the way, if we may, benefit committee to put in like mandating timeframe. they need to providing writing confirmation that the existing conditional use applications will be honored and will go through the conditional use process. stop. >> okay. >> i just about because of the scheduled to go forward >> before approved by the board of supervisors. >> okay

>> just for the commission to do the due diligence and to make sure that we can adequately represent what you have to say at the land use committee that we get that confirmation before its heard in committee >> absolute. just before let's make an affirmative two overtime to get it in before that is before that and use committee meeting >> so, the commission is recommending to the board of supervisors approval upon the commission condition that the commission received, in writing, and confirmation, before the land use committee that the current application that are in the pipeline are able to go through. >> right >> this was calling it a zoning restriction >> i don't know that's a legislative matter >> okay. just number one. all right >> so is there a second to the motion? moved and seconded.

>> we will do a roll call. >> rollcall vote >> welcome. adams aye dooley aye dwight aye ortiz-cartegena is absent tour-sarkissian aye zouzounis aye. this motion passes unanimously. >> again, thank you all very much for coming out and i appreciate it. >> and we will see you all again. >> we will see you all again the next zoning restriction proposition. >> you're welcome to come to our meetings on any other matter as well. >> might even be in.net. the latest update is 85-77. we are losing.

>> third quarter, still >> we are moving onto the next item. those leaving the room, these do so quietly. let's call the next item >> next item, please >> all right. item number seven, presentation and discussion on san francisco municipal transportation agency's sfmta eight residential parking permit program evaluation and reform project. this is a discussion item in our presenters catherine sidewalk and with >> i do want to make a quick acknowledgment that with this particular presentation, this a very good example of this is being early at the table so you're not receiving a final presentation but a solicitation of them put and provide some-you'll have the opportunity provide some direction to the department on as they look on the damping the residential parking program. permit parking program.

>> all right. just give me one second while commission adams comes back to the table. >> is to we to do with their present rate. >> okay, 5 min. break.

>> sfgtv, we are taking a 5 min. break. we were min. break. we were is now ca back to water. we will now return to catherine start about to start her presentation on item number seven. >> good evening, commissioners. it's a pleasure to be here. i'm kathy stockwell with the san francisco invisible transportation agency. i manage the residential parking permit program and am also managing the residential parking permit program evaluation and reform project. with me here today is anti- -going to assist in moving our presentation along but also help in answering questions you might have. based on the previous discussion, i see you

are very strong commitment to small business and that's exactly why we are here. residential parking affects small businesses as well good there are many many neighborhood commercial districts that are within residential parking permit areas, and so it's vital that we receive your import. were not proposing anything right now , so we're just here to have you listen to a presentation, comments, and providing input to some of the issues will be presenting to you and we want to hear what you would do if you were in our shoes. first of all, we came up with a set of six guiding principles and guiding us as we move through this evaluation and reform project. number one, excellent customer service. providing residential parking permits is a service. it's a service that we are provided since 1978.

legislation was passed by the board of supervisors in 78. it's 40 years old this year it is time to reform the program. but in doing that, number one, our goal is to excellent customer service. sensitivity to the local context means that we want to provide a program that is flexible two different neighborhood needs. right now, the program is one-size-fits-all. whether you're in chinatown or whether you're in-those two neighborhoods are completely different but the program is exactly the same no matter where you are. we want to change that. equitable access. that means what we are doing is recognizing that we are a multimodal community that we want to provide multi modal

solutions to getting around and rpp is part of that. policy alignment, as you have heard, many times the planning department in the general plan and zoning ordinance has enacted parking maximums in several areas. which, in some areas, such as south beach about only one parking space for four units and in other areas, allow only one parking space for two units and were one parking space per one units. they also allow developers to not build any parking command what happens is those residents, when they come in and find there's no parking, they come to us and ask for a parking permit. so, what we want to do is make sure mtas policy in the transportation code is in alignment with the general plan and with our

transit first policy. this reform project is about policy alignment as well. of course, what sf mta is all about is reducing congestion and improving transit. we have people circling for parking your gumming up the works. you're slowing transit down and you're making it harder for people to get from point a to point b in transit inefficiently. also as far as this meeting is concerned in this group is concerned we want to make sure whatever we do supports neighborhood commercial vitality. that's the most important thing we want you to focus on today. so, in terms of the time i, we been at this for over 18 months. we started on it when i arrived back in 2014 and we've been

working on it ever since, mostly in terms of gathering research, gathering information about what is happening in the various residential parking permit areas, conducting a household survey, conducting parking utilization surveys, research in the field, etc. we conducted a set of four open houses this spring. we received a lot of feedback from various neighborhoods. this spring we are in the process of evaluating various options, which we will discuss with you later in this meeting, but in addition, we are conducting community workshops. one in each supervisors district. we voted conducted 10 of them. we have one left to do, but were also reaching out to various businesses another neighborhood associations. for instance from another colleague of ours is meeting with south beach

when connie hill mission bay neighborhood this evening and tomorrow night be with telegraph hill dwellers. on the 21st working to be meeting with the council of urchins and so we are eager to hear as much as we can from the true stakeholders of this program. in the fall, we plan to provide the sfmta board of directors is set of recommendations. the final report, in terms of our evaluation in our recommendations for reforming the program based on their input, their feedback, will then move forward with whatever proposals that they support and work towards getting those passed by the board. as you can see from this map, we have 29 different rpp areas. they cover a full quarter of the city's

geography. 44% of all city households are in one rpp area or another, and so far we have about 78,000 residential parking permit areas. the first rpp area was. number a the beach telegraph hill area. there's is established in 1978 they were primarily responsible for getting the legislation passed in 1976. the latest one to be formed right smack in the middle barry, that happened last year. we brought in 7000 households into that area prior to that they were a donut hole that's why the commuters were parking because they cannot park anywhere else around there. so, with our

research, with all the public input we've had we've identified five key issues. i'm going to go over three of them tonight because i think it's these three that impact businesses the most. the first is balancing parking demands and supplies. the second is bouncing neighborhood needs them to go into those a little more in-depth later. rationalizing permanent area boundaries and regulations did as you can see from the map we just had up on the screen, there of all different sizes and within that, each of these areas have different combinations of powers of enforcement, parking grace period, days of enforcement. sometimes they vary from one block to the next. sometimes from one side of the street to the night. what this does is make enforcement very difficult , inefficient, and it's not providing good customer service in terms of proper enforcement

of the time limit. clarifying the process of establishing and modifying areas. it's very cumbersome to form a brand-new area requiring 250 signatures, but then again, like an area q with her 7000 households in the area, dakota allowed us to start the process with only 250 signatures a lot of people had a problem with that representing the whole neighborhood, but there's a lot of other issues with the program that we want to address. we want to clarify the requirements for extending and modifying areas. also, lastly improving efficiency and customer service using better technology. available technology. technologies that are there will to everyone else

but government, and so we want to bring this program into the 21st century and by doing so, improving enforcement and improve customer service, make it easier to get the permit but only for residents but also for businesses. so, going into the first of the five issues, balancing demand and supply, what i mean by that is that we have a finite supply of on street parking and that's what we are talking about today. the on street parking. abusing over the last couple of years, with new developments, we sometimes lose that. were losing parking to bike lanes. were losing parking to transit lanes. were losing parking to park let's.

these are desired by the public board i'm saying the amount of parking is not going up. it's barely sane static if anything it's going down. at the same time, the man for parking is going up. our population is increasing number of households increasing number of jobs is increasing. as you can see from this map, if you look at the salmon colored areas, those percentages, for instance, north beach area 138% chinatown area when 52%, the other areas, 124%, these numbers correspond with the number of permits issued per rpp for instance, in chinatown were issuing 1.5 permits for every available on street rpp we think we are doing the purchasers, the account holders of rpp a disservice by issuing work permits than there are. it becomes a hunting license. obviously, no guarantee to actually get in a space. also,

one of the things i want to point out is that there is a direct correlation between ability to access on street parking and your perception or your satisfaction with quality of life. this is a key finding of our household ssurveys. those who felt quality of life was great also had easier access to on street parking. as you can see from this pie chart, 40% of the households felt access to on street parking was poor and 31%, fair,. we are not delivering on our promise there. so, here is one of the solutions. like i said, these are just ideas. this is based on our research could this is based on

interaction with the public at our workshops, our open houses household surveys, etc. so, how it works now in terms of managing demand and supply, we currently allow for permits per household. you may petition for additional permits and there is currently no areawide cap on the number of permits issued per area. what we are thinking of is in some areas that are impacted, not on every area, but instituting an areawide cap that is based on were right in relation to the available spaces than expected demand for the spaces. lower the per unit captain set of four, maybe have it go down to two. work, and these are all, or is, some we

can combine some. some we will do one instead of the other but another is a cap per person. so, this would benefit people who lived in shared housing situations, where there's five twentysomethings in a single home or six twentysomethings in a single home right now with a capital for that would require two people not be able to get a permits. the other is capped by type of land use. in other words what i mean by that is residential units get up to a certain percentage of the total pie. businesses get another percentage of the total pie. another option is instituting graduated pricing. how it works now. your comment cost exactly the same, $111 as your first permit. business permits

cost the same as residential permits and there's no incentive to use your garage consider parking on the street. people park on the street at a convenience savanna to pull in and out of their garage. so, how it might work. prices would've very. the second, it would cost more than the first. the third permits would cost more than the second and on and on. if you have access to off street parking you would pay more good in other words, if you don't have access to parking, you permit my costs would say $100, but if you do have access to parking your permit my cost twice that amount, maybe $200. as a slight incentive for you to clean out your garage and maybe use it in free of the parking for maybe a business customer, a business employee or teacher with a plumber or somebody else that

might need that space. prices may vary by occupancy rates. in areas that are greatly impacted by smite the higher. places that have a lots of open parking the price would be lower. things like that. while we are thinking that the 111 dollar permit price is such a good value in our response to our household surveys said it was a great value, there are 44% of those who have to pay for on-site parking, or off street parking, or pain between 100-$250 per month. there's 32% of those who are parking off street our pain between 250-$500 per month. so one under $11 a year is quite a

great value. that's giving us some hope that perhaps we can institute graduated pricing. another option is that, right now no matter when you're building was built, no matter how much parking it offers a dozen offer, in rebuilding within rpp area is eligible. what we are thinking is, as i said before, earlier, in this conversation, new buildings going up that are being built in accordance with the parking maximum, for instance, only one space per four units, and that are allowed to put and absolutely no parking, that they would not be eligible for permits because the idea there is that the developer in complying with the planning code

is encouraging you to transit. they're taking advantage of transit infrastructure and their fulfilling the goal of the general plan to reduce auto ownership. however, developers can elect to exclude new buildings from rpp lg ability. right now, one of point out that were working with the city attorney and we are not--we don't know if this is legal or in compliance with the california vehicle code. so, all of these have to be vetted by the city attorney. bouncing neighborhood needs. what i mean by this is that everybody has a need for curb space. not just residents. the name of our program, residential parking permit program provides a sense of entitlement to residents and

it conveys the notion that only residents have a righttwo curbside parking in neighborhoods. as you saw from the discussion in the last item on your agenda,to survive and thrive and continue to serve their needs. so, what were proposing is to have a bit of a mindset shift in that work on street parking should be for a multiple-multitude of users. it's paper the residence. it should be for the businesses. it should be for the customers could it should be for the childcare workers, the teacher, the plumber, the traveling salesman. or one. so, anyway, i see well looking at the clock

and you're anxious because you want to read the score again. >>[laughing] for the purpose of this map is to show you that the density of employment, pdr, production distribution and repair services as well as retail employment is very widely distributed to all rpp areas. that rpp areas are not made up just a residential units. parking supply and demand. basically, and again, the bouncy neighborhood needs, we have a total parking supply of 78,000 rpp spaces. honestly, those are on street. we have no way of knowing at this point in time coming off street spaces we have however, on the other side we are parking demand. 153,000 households, 70% of which have a vehicle and 34%

that don't have off street parking. plus, we have 1220 2000 jobs in those rpp areas and these numbers, but i want to convey and emphasize this is just within existing rpp areas. these numbers. so, bouncing a good demand for parking is key. so, one of the things right now, businesses only get one permit. they can get three additional permits for delivery vehicles that are registered to the business that are commercial vehicles. how a might work, we could increase the number of permits that businesses could get just across the board given to permits or we could do that by area depending upon availability depending upon occupancy rates

, and depending upon ratio of residential units to businesses. another idea is to combine paid parking with permit parking, and in this situation permit holders for residential and were businesses with permits would begin able to part with no timeouts. however, visitors, any type of visitor would have to pay for parking in the be either pay by phone or a multi-space kiosk at the corner somewhere where they can get a receipt and displayed on it the pictures are of two different options. the one on the right is from the presidio, within exactly this program to accommodate visitors and residents. the last issue,

issue number five, leveraging information technology to provide better customer service . as many of you know, if your account holders in rpp of city permits is time-consuming, especially if it's your first permit. if you go down or go through the mail. you've to provide much in the way of documentation if you want a visitor or short-term permit, you actually have to go down to 11 band that's the one and only location where you can do that, wait in line, get your permit and usually many have only one or two days notice when grandmother again bob was arriving and a good friend and you have to get a permit. existing processes and the technology limit our ability to explore new policy options. we have many many complaints about the lack of enforcement or regulatory enforcement and, as i said before, this is very much

the result of the poor definition of our rpp areas, in terms of size and shape, as well as the on street regulations and the multitude of various regulations. and better technology can make enforcement more efficient. for instance, license plate recognition technology. well me have too little forgoes-whatever the little carts are called. only two of them. for the-out of 35 have these little license plate recognition technology. so, there's a lot of great interesting technologies used in many other parts of the united states parts of the world that we could apply here and approved the situation. so,

we can allow for better online purchasing of permits. printed out at home. flexible permit duration. in other words, what are people around only six months away. maybe get a permit that allows only six months or a subscription basis. seniors have a difficult time paying $111 of one-time. that's $10 a month be easier for them to pay . regular monitoring and evaluation, this is been a one-off project, but stuart regularly. keep monitoring the program. with access to better data with better databases,, better software, their enforcement. we can easily evaluate and update this program on a regular basis. so, next steps, working to continue our public engagements throughout the summer. within a complete our valuation and develop a set of recommendations. we will return

to the mta board of directors in december with our policy recommendations and we welcome your input. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have to confess i'm so frustrated with this parking policy in san francisco. i live in dogpatch right next to the development in mission bay. as you all know, mission they were ucsf is not beholden to our planning commission it does not have to abide by the restrictions of the city and it got a novel means of addressing the parking issue. both parking structures. there many parking structures admission date for their employees otherwise they would not be will to operate the hospital. they have to bring in nurses and doctors outside the city. those nurses and doctors either park pay for parking on the facility they park in my neighborhood and

take muni our walk. i know are actively addressing this issue in the dogpatch. you know, it's like were trying to ration the oxygen in the room there's not enough to go around and we all at notes there's not enough to go around with all of god's oxygen is required for life yet we don't want to address the real issue and that is we have such a germanic imbalance of supply and demand in the city. as you pointed out, not only is extraordinary today but it's only getting worse. in dogpatch alone, we are tripling our residential population next four years and we are throttling parking in all new developments to the point where .75 in some cases zero parking. that is simply not practical. this is not going to be a new car city and so all we got is a

regressive situation where only the wealthy people can afford parking. i'm not good i bought a parking place my condominium building. if i not had any parking options were not have bought the unit in the building. i can invite my parents live in hillsboro to visit me. because they're in their 80s. they have to drive and they can't get a parking place for any more than a limited amount of time in my neighborhood. they can come visit me. i have to go there. so we are creating a city that's awkward allow people to come from the outside if they don't find alternative means of getting a. to take uber from host it would cost a fortune. so, you know, work in a talk about this until we are blue in the face. this is not your fault. you are delivering the message. i think but that the city needs to rethink this whole thing. it's not going to work. you can keep taking away

something that's increasing demand and think that it's going to work itself out. whether by some magical means of statistical manipulation of permits and time limits given to make everybody fit in those parking spaces. it isn't going to happen. as medevac a lot of congestion on our streets is due to the fact people can't find a parking space. i'm curious no one would happen if they could find a parking space and got in there got off the street and went to work and spend the set of sending an hour looking for parking space during prime time causing a nightmare for every. he talked about residence. my employees have gone on noticing the token street were my pdr businesses located moving the parking from four hours to two hours. now i've admonish all my employees, all 20 something not to drive to work. don't tell me your problems about driving to work. take public transportation. as difficult as that can be, but i

three employees to have to drive another worry have to go out-the working in a production environment-they believe every two hours ago move their car? in hopes of finding another place which by the way they won't. the minute they get in the car and start driving around i lost them for an indeterminate amount of time. they're off the clock. they can make money and i can run my factory. so it's not working. is not working for anybody. isn't going to work by any kind of imagination of permits and limits in all accounts stop. procure work, technology, it's not going to work. so the map to continue to do my employees to take public transportation. and hope they can figure that out and work in a [inaudible] it says in your will give the owner a permits. that doesn't solve the problem. my delivery vehicles. i don't need permits for delivery vehicles on the permits for employees and not three. bb 10. i don't know. so, there's no solution here for

me. only an increase in sort of the aggravation. so, i don't know. i can't see spending hours and hours and hours listening to the stuff and trying to make this solution work when it's clearly not going to work. it just does not work. you don't have to be an engineer traffic or otherwise to figure that out. seriously, you can't leave this in a fix the problem. it's escalating. it's getting worse and worse and worse and we already have a shortage. supply and demand principles work with you prior to the economy of this parking situation. >> well we are here about your

ideas. >> it's not about ideas. i don't have a formula you don't know about. there is no solution. this solution is you have to provide parking. you have to build parking. there's no alternative, or, you need to make driving a car so-i don't say that way because we are doing baking at driving the car still undesirable you do anything to take public transportation. the corollary is you to make public transportation so easy, the petite run every 3 min., make every mode of transportation very frankly, not faster, more frequently, so that driving a car is less quick and less-it's just a less attractive alternative regardless of whether you have a car or not. frankly i don't own a car. if i can take public transportation, which i do routinely, and furthermore car sharing is not a solution all the time because you're in the same traffic everybody else's. i need the best possible right-of-way public transportation that this world can offer. this idiotic

take a leadership position on that. so, i mean no disrespect. i have no solution that you have not thought of. you are experts in this, not me but i will tell you one thing. none of the solutions i've seen from any of the experts, anywhere even approximate a solution to this problem because the only solution is to create more parking because we need more every day and we are taking it away, not adding it, to daylighting and taking: parson restricting developers from putting in a parking and yet we have an organization operating in the city that solve the problem, ucsf. not beholden to us in our byzantine approach to this. the building parking structures for their employees. for that under the banner of public health. okay. who can

argue with that? well, why can't we build parking under the banner of quality of life? we all have to be sick of quality of life that you cfs uca that campus broken we create quality of life in the city we came to live in. it's an abomination. sorry for the, for this, but were always each other's time in every meeting i go to in my neighborhood. in my business association,. the commission, with the mayor. at the planning commission. it's a total waste of time because were talking about the wrong solution. i don't really want to sit around and listen to a bunch of people tell me spin around in circles about how urban assault was problem by making sure that people can play this musical chairs game. it doesn't work. you've seen already one of the most important quality of life issues in the neighborhood is the availability of on street parking. we continue to take it

away. we continue to take way the obvious thing we would love everybody to clear out the garage and put their car in their barrage. that tells me we would love everybody to have off street parking. but only if they are the habit. only if the grandfather because the building is so old that was built in a time when they allowed it. oh, by the way, any new construction were not to let anybody have enough parking in our new buildings. the very place where we could be providing adequate parking and not only that could be providing access parking and subsidizing those building by saying i will so you parking place for $250 per month. let's go down not up. let's build it subterranean. people dig holes

all day long but pricing model is there. you've driven it there to this transportation first policy by making parking so expensive that it's more expensive than some cases don't parking space per square foot than a rental spot. so, it's regressive. the low-paid workers of to work at my place can't find a parking space. the only alternative is either no parking, taking public transportation, or pain some exorbitant fee for parking permit they may or may not find a place for. so, it's regressive. simpatico. it's unrealistic and it doesn't-it does not address the true reality of the situation in the city. so, great. we want to help, but we can help you. we'll have a solution. so, greats. go ahead. >> thank you for your presentation. one question i did have, and i know it

overlays some planning department inspection wools on not very clear on, but a lot of sro type market-rate buildings are coming up in our city and they're not mandated to help parking. there mandated to help bike parking, bike or scooter if i'm not mistaken. so, yes, i think that createsas to an atmosphere of city is going towards and i don't part of that generation am also-for the business i work enough to go to the wholesaler because of grocery in my car and bring it back. i drive my 94-year-old grandmother around and stuff like that. so, it is confusing those kind of buildings are not

only contribute in to a transitional class of young generation, but it's also not-but the parking correlation mandated for the bikes, i'm confused about that. i don't know if you can provide some context for the certain type of building or that's a precedent for development right now in general? certain types of development that [inaudible] >> right. though i can speak to especially in soma, where, yes, you get parking maximums and the developer could get away with provided no parking, but i think andy will know best about the whole the climate for bike parking. it could be actually a zoning requirements. >> it is, yes. indeed chairman

dwight i take to heart everything you say. united have been working on this in various ways through the years. it's planning commission and joan plan basically that is that it dictates what we do off the street the mta has to deal with later. this part what kathy is telling you now that the mta is trying to make up the difference as a city police 10 years now. transit first goes back to 1970. three about dianne feinstein inventinn 1973. the buildings that are getting entitled in various zoning districts to have ceilings on parking a lot of times developers find a more profitable to put in more housing units unless part. so they're not like to put in car parking. that same planning code applies a certain amount of bike parking there's a little car share in well as well. if you build it garage for cars it to put a sump number of parking for bikes beat it but the opposite is not happen? >> the opposite is often but the developer is an option.

david baker was divine projects in the step oh there's definitely projects coming online that more pipe stalls and car stalls downstairs. this is land use policy. this is planning code and we been talking quite a bit tonight about the planning commission and what we do between our various agencies. i think if you care about this, and i know you do, that's where you should be looking and talking. as the code has changed, the planning commission and neighbors and its other groups pushing on that to change parking ratios. we as the mta cannot control how much parking is being put into buildings. as i said, we have to deal with it. after the building is there than the neighbors say, hey, kathy alonso permits because of our park in the street. were left with the top job of rough fine refereeing a finite amount. as chairman dwight said were turning that curb into bike lanes,, at such. day lighting

is pressuring. if you just log parking spaces but exactly saving some lives. makes it less likely someone scored to be powered into somebody at an intersection. so it's a trade-off. safety for parking. well we got before you is how do you help us slice the pie. we've only got as much parking and the dogpatch we are working with neighbors there some of the residents want more parking for residents. some businesses were more parking for businesses. we have allow for visitors. we have to allow for firemen. it allow for everybody wants some of that parking we can't make work her. we just can't make more curb. that's a problem we have with you tonight >> of a couple of follow-up questions just a matter of public city space being leased to private. do we have any kind of numbers that show city parking structures that maybe have someballet service in a

more rideshare service that's leasing space? i mean, i'm just curious because i do see a dwindling of public space and, yes, some of it is due to mta projects, but some it is also, i see a lot of private uses, which may be do have a public purpose, but i'm curious if there's anything giving up that? >> austria we should complain but only are we in charge of 74,000 parking spaces, 10% metered, 20% of those are under rpp control but our vast inventory of 275,000 parking spaces on street, we also the mta controls 19 garages in 19 parking lots. of those parking

lots are little tiny ones out neighborhood commercial but my region district part of town with that some will 24-30 i cannot between implementing geary. entourage is very in size and i think this admission garage has something like 5000 spaces. it's a bastard so there's a lot of parking we control austria. some that parking is put out to permit to work in his nations a small handful, few dozen and scoot networks have some permits and some of our garages. private garages, we don't know were we don't control there may be a six-year-old garage in union square the 20to uber or someone like that. i'm sure that's happening. that's a business decision for them. it's real estate. we know there's a rogers being turned into other things. this beautiful ancient garages from the 20s. neighborhood garages and restaurants. and health clubs and other things. there's a beautiful one on sacramento

street but it's spruced now, i believe. very desirable restaurant. some grudges become other things about. it's very expensive to build garages. it's very expensive to go down into the soil and in northeast mission, there's a former public utilities commission parking lot at 1710 fulsome, which, after a decade of community advocating is becoming a park and 100% affordable housing could those arrest but that parking back underneath that. well, it's former mission bay in when you turn the state into soil you have a puddle. to drill down and make a parking garage there means having a simmering technology. dr. palms running constantly and you have to have a lot of engineering. there's this is that it costs upwards of a quarter million dollars to put in a parking spots in san francisco. you could put a better man for that much. so,

we control parking austria we control parking on street. but there's a lot of parking that is off street we have no idea what's going on that's not in our control. >> one must question. >> okay so we can get two other commissioners. what is your question? >> in regards to students can you provide a little bit of information to meet the city cause students to go to different campuses have that works. even state is always crazy over there for student parking if you control that the plans as you have for changes? >> no, we don't control that all we control is the parking on the street that's around those campuses. there's many cc sf campuses and some of them are within our areas and others are not. i know that the main campus-was established specifically to keep students out of people's neighborhoods

so that they would use transit, but i understand having a son who goes to cc sf, you go to school and you go to work the back to school you back to work and many students can do that using transit. so, no, we don't control parking for students. sf state has a lot of unregulated parking all around the campus.. i do know that around there but again, we do not work with either of those colleges to manage parking. >> thank you. commissioner dooley >> i agree with the fact that transit first in many respects just doesn't work. i agree that we need to have garages. if we have more and more people pouring in they have to go somewhere not going on the

street. but beyond that, actually do have some comments on this. some compromises that might be a stopgap to update little bit. one is, i see we need to lower the per unit cap to like half, to like, too. we all have to take-sacrifices both the residents and the businesses. that's one. the other is, clearly, anyone who has a garage i don't care what they should use it for should not get a permit. that's it. they should not get a permit on street. >> airbnb >> claimant area their office near the plaza and i live on telegraph hill. now, the amount of offices down there in the

employees far exceeds the residence. so, we've got to get some balance that. i know as a residence i cannot go home before 6 pm because there's just no parking. i've had those moments where you have something frozen from the store animals before you part. so, that down there is out of control. they know that the traffic enforcement is not there at all. they party eight hours a day down there. never get a ticket and there's got to be some balance between business. right below where i live, there's a for-profit college. they get 15 permits. that's an entire block. maybe more. so, i think we do have to at least as a stopgap measure start tweaking this stuff. the ultimate solution is still to

have garages in my opinion, but more enforcement of the time so people just think who cares. will part here all day or move our car every two hours which is really unproductive. so, those are ways to perhaps get some of our employees at of those cars. we've times of garages. is there some way the city can work with these private rogers in any way to incentivize them help these businesses have a lot of employees, maybe help them set something like that up because they're taking all the street parking and their many garages that are sitting around down there. so, discover be a combination of these things since obviously, it can be huge hall for us to pull back on this insanity of not building any parking and yet building,

building, building at the same time both businesses and residential. so, i would say we should have a few of these things that will help even this much would be helpful. same thing with a business permit. it is residential parking so matching we should not give permits but perhaps they should be at a different rate, and once again, don't let people have 1 million. same thing with like recipe they don't need for permits per unit. that's insane. nobody lives like that anymore. so i'm just suggesting we we do all these things quickly and even if it helps us have 10% less congestion, i mean we take that over nothing is what we have now. nothing and getting worse >> commissioner tour-sarkissian >> question. the seven 8000

parking supply and 29 permit areas? so, just to determine the extent of the problem, you have seven 8000 800 and these 29 areas and you have 153,000 households seeking permits >> some of them are >> some of them are. then you have businesses. so, certainly you don't have enough on street parking. >> that's for sure >> what i don't understand the 29 permit areas. how do you determine 29 versus the rest. first of all the permit areas cover 1% >> they cover one fourth of a geographic area. >> we identify these permit

areas because there is a higher concentration in demand for parking? >> yes. first of all, there was no planning at all behind the establishment of these areas. except for in area a. were commissioner dooley lives. basically, it's a citizen initiated process. what happens is the neighborhood residents come to us and say, or before was to the board of supervisors, department of public works, we have a parking problem. we want an rpp area and so we say you got a get a petition. you can get 50% of the residents signing. then we'll do in occupancy survey. if you have 80% of your available spaces parked in, big

also part in them yet you have a parking problem. so will start the process of establishing a new era. all this was established organically that's why you see-since it's a much easier to extend an existing area of them establish a brand-new area, we see some areas just growing and growing and growing id area f. north of know we valley and south of castro. so, it's all been organic. there's been no rational planning behind it whatsoever. >> so your plan is to kind of >> rationalize it. >> throughout the city? >> justin these 29 areas, yes >> white? wyoming 29 >> why just the 29? >> why not citywide and why are we concentrating on 29.. if we want to resolve the problem citywide, why would we concentrate our efforts only on

29 areas. >> brothers many parts of the city. the homes all have at least one parking spot per unit in some cases, to parking spots per units. there's less of a problem out there so, given limited resources, city governments and all, why focus on something that doesn't need-there'll be a solution following a problem like was said before. so these 29 areas, with established that your parking problems. so what we need to do is better manage the parking problem in those areas. >> you going to set standards that maybe you use about? >> yes, exactly >> thank you >> i'm going to interrupt myself, 40 years ago rpp was invented for a purpose and that is to protect neighborhoods

against invaders. so, it's not we have a parking problem in the neighborhood. if you parking problem your neighbor owns to make cars, that's not what rpp is about. rpp was invented because there's a university and it's trying a lot of traffic and neighbors find students are parking in the driveway. we've got usf nsf state. problem is here's a part station and people are driving parking in my driveway and they're getting on bart. so the rpp idea has this permits that it's for the neighbors to defend themselves against invaders. on the west side of town there isn't a factor. there is in a part stop. there's an something that's causing folks to invadeand that is [inaudible] the financial district we honored up against these invaders. the problem, as i said is that approach is fine

when you have an us and them starting point. we live here and someone is doing my parking. but, it's your neighbors were fighting with each other, then rpd is not going to help. by giving some privilege to an insider versus outsider, that doesn't solve the problem of the neighbors having more cars than acapulco. that's why some neighborhoods don't have resident parking systems now but already reaching a boiling point in some areas where the idea that there's too many cars, we can solve that with the resident permit program. this will achieve problems. >> these invasions are symptomatic. they're symptomatic of an imbalance of supply and demand. innovation occurs when you restrict or have insufficient supply in one place, a new building goes up,

demand increased. the university has higher enrollment demand increases. whatever it is, that imbalance cause the diaspora of parking needs and so it fundamentally moves to where the path of least resistance. so, were pitting artificial barriers to contain problems which can't be contained because there are demand spikes and were building those demand spikes. every day we are issuing permits to create parking problems by issuing permits to new buildings that to go in with insufficient parking for the new residents whether they be people going to work out whether people living there. again, i get back to this we need a referendum in the city. it's time that the people spoke about this because it's a people suffering in san francisco. the legislature

continues on with outdated transportation first policy which is developed in the 1970s over that any idea what about it was going to look like today and furthermore we perpetuated without any idea but some better idea of what obama works in the future and we know is can it continue to boom, even if it hits skids now and in which no doubt it will, we always recover and go back into a development mode. we know it's can happen. it's 49 mi.2 in the opportunity it to go up great density and we want to create density they can still a desirable place to move to desirable place to have your business in spite all the problems with that. so, again i get to i think we need to change this discussion. i think time for a referendum. i think time for legislation that does away with this outdated policy and express is the will of the people to more parking. period. to address these fundamental supply and demand issues which are fundamental. we cannot defeat a map of the situation

at demand is increasing and supply is shrinking. we will not solve this problem with even the most sophisticated sharing technology. we won't. cars are not going away. even if we move to self driving cars. crates. there still vehicles. even the shared vehicles are vehicles. we places for those vehicles. we have a moratorium on creating more supply. we have to relax the one fundamental restriction that is supplied. so, great, we can nibble at the edges by asking you for four hours, two hours, this that the other. we get a little bit here and a little bit there. we're chasing our tails here. were going to it over here and move a little bit over here and then 29 will

become 32 will become 50. zones in san francisco becomes so hypercritical we need to do frankly ineffective fixes for. so, i samiti you that given unsolvable problem, which you been set on. i mean, i feel for you. but it's not solvable. were not can help you other than these little tweaks that are really solving the problem. while talking about the wrong issue here. seriously. it's getting to the point where i just can't figure it out. the emperor has no clothes, people. we have to acknowledge that. i'm sorry,

but we have to do it here in city hall. such with commissions like this they can't do a damn thing about it again so we make it our voice heard in public on the record and i'm going on the record today as saying, this has to stop. because it's not solvable you of an engineering degree did not a transportation engineer, but i know math. i also know practicality. and rational. there is no rationalizing the nonrational system. it's not fundamentally rational. it's like trying to turn in same person same. this is disconnected there's two different worlds. so, we have to acknowledge that. we have to get into the world of reality here. talk about the un-reality of thinking managing never diminishing supply of parking is going to solve the ever increasing demand for parking. those two points there is no alignment to connect those two points. okay? so let's not waste our time. it is getting

late and i'm getting a little bit exasperated obviously but please, people, we've got to move on from this. director >> i am sam we are saying commissioner dwight. having moving to doing the referendum doing more parking is a big lift and we do have some incremental improvements. i look at my area i live in the upper haight and i'm area q and it's very suburban approach to the residential parking program. it's a monday through friday daytime and there's plenty of spaces to find on the street because the people who live there get in their cars and drive away, and yet we are restricting parking from customers to the businesses and employees because we have a two-hour limit their. so, i do think it's not going to be the

big problem when a to solve, but some incremental changes. >> i agree because you know what, i've been screaming this lease and screaming for years with planning. people are chopping are not shopping in our neighborhoods anymore. people used to come to san francisco to shop. they don't do that anymore because there's nowhere to park in the neighborhood >> we talked to residents who won't go across town here because they can't park >> there's no parking in the city needs to wake up and build parking. that's the reality that. transit first will work for people that live here but guess what this is a regional destination and people are not taking the bart train to come here. so i agree 110% with commissioner dwight and i actually feel this is a waste of time. >> but wait. it's not. the

reason it's not is because no rational group like ours is going to listen to the presentation and come away thinking great. these guys are the right people to solve the problem. it's not because you're the wrong people to solve the problem it's because you can't solve a problem that time we woke up and figure that out. until people like us who have volunteered to help this city get its act together, start telling it like it is rather than going well i didn't get to see the game. i'm glad they lost. this is ridiculous. to say it's a heavy left is a copout. this city never shied away from heavy lift. we have pioneered more things in the city then we can recount here tonight. it's not because we

said it was a heavy lift and were not going to do it. so it's time we decide what to do the heavy left open up all up and do the heavy left. because it's a complete and utter waste of time and effort to not think about that. we could be spending our time solving the problem, not frittering it away on solutions that are not solutions. so, this is not a waste of time. go tell your story to every other commission in this building and i hope they will watch this and feel empowered and emboldened to tell you you cannot solve this problem. that the only solution to this problem is to address the supply problem and get it in sync with demand. at the same time, to develop transportation that helps people get out of their cars. i am all for getting out of your card. i've abandoned my car. i

want to take public transportation. i don't want to be in my car. it's frustrated and i can do other things from taking the team. i can spend a lot of time on the two. in our to get over here and i get a lot of work done. i've taken the caltrain for a couple of years. i get it. i want good public transportation. public transportation we have here is unreliable doesn't run frequently enough. i don't care about the speed. as matter of fact i don't have the buses running faster. i want the more frequent and reliable. seriously. every body in this city hall that hears these things and is in position to state their opinion should be saying, this is not going to work. we have to change the situation and as a heavy lift as it is with all to get together and lifted. one person

is not going to lift ticket one commission is not going to lift it but citizens of san francisco could lift it. we should put something on the ballot. we should take it to the people. we should say, this must change. i mean that's the only solution >> in the interim i think you should be litigating mitigating the problem. this dialogue is important. >> i don't agree. your push on one section is coming off the. by people can park now but a few residents can park their cars. it does not solve the problem. it pushes problem around. it's not just solving the problem in my neighborhood. i just created a problem for my employees. i get it. human spaces for people to come. they're not going to dillydally around much because you get a ticket. and you can't say after done with lunch am going to go shop your i actually want to spend more than two hours and

neighborhood i don't live in. it had to drive my car and now i paid $45 were whatever and a fine. i'm never going back there again. now i am test. i'm out a significant amount of money. so, i really object to this idea that in the meantime were to push this around. no. the problem is getting worse every single day. you can keep up with it. your efforts will not keep up with the imbalance and the increasing imbalance. so we have to stop. we have to stop thinking that all this talking were doing is solving the problem. it's not. it's just taking us further down this path of no solution. a bunch of people getting paid to propose stuff that isn't going to work. so, i mean, great. >> public comments. >>