household. and then we did additional outreach, part of which was mailing letters, notifying folks this is to all r.p.p. account holders, about 54,000 letters. notifying them the proposed changes, inviting them to an open house, and then as a result of all this and our discussions with you in october, we decided that three of the initially proposed reforms were not needed at this point in time. so that leads us to today's proposed amendments. so today, the first three proposed amendments are really about making straightforward adjustments to the transportation code. the original ordinance establishing r.p.p. had a definition for residential area, the original traffic code had a

definition for residential area, but somehow the current transportation code does not have one, and since the code refers to residential area, we decided to put a definition in there. also the code refers or has a definition for institutions, and we don't provide permits to institutions. educational institutions have their own definition. and thirdly, the procedure for establishing a new r.p.p. area and the procedure for modifying existing r.p.p. area are in two different subsections of the code, and all we are doing is simply combining them into one subsection. the next two proposed amendments really are about filling the gap and the r.p.p. programs support of families. and so, currently residents with, who desire a permit for an in-home child care provider

must, in addition to their application, submit a petition with signatures from ten of their neighbors and we have many calls and e-mails and calls from members of the board of supervisors as well representing their constituents, that this presented an undue hardship so we are eliminating that petition. secondly, we have permits for teachers at schools and we have permits for the in-home care providers, but we don't have permits for the care provider or the teacher in between, and that's the teacher that works at a family childcare home, so proposing to include them. the very next proposed amendment really addresses that first issue that identified, parking in residential areas, it's greater than the availability of parking in that much of that demand is due to the residents

themselves. and so we are proposing for all new areas, any area established from here on out, that permits would be limited to one per person, two per household. there would be a waiver of, for a fourth or a third or fourth permit, if there are additional drivers, and of course, permits for the in-home care providers would be exempt from the two per household limit. the next two -- let me go back. the next two proposed amendments address second issue i raised is that the need for additional tools and a better approach to doing on-street parking management where we have residential in with commercial and industrial development. the first one, the first proposed amendment is really just adding a fifth criteria, so now there are four criteria that the board needs to consider when

recommending establishment of a new r.p.p. area. this would just be a fifth criteria, and that is basically, let's look at other parking management tools in addition to r.p.p. and does, and once we do that, does r.p.p. still come out on top as the best tool? and then the next proposed amendment is to add another tool to the toolbox. and again, it's to address these atypical neighborhoods and more flexibility, so paid permit parking, parking management tool that would be used in specific or specially designated blocks after a neighborhood parking planning process and with the agreement of the neighbors there, in the neighborhood. from the prospective of a resident with an r.p.p. permit, there would be no difference. a resident with a permit would

still be able to park for free and with no time limits. but from the prospective of the visitor to that r.p.p. area, and i'm going to go to the next slide, from, the point of view of the visitor, before the visitor had a two-hour grace period. before having to move their vehicle. now the visitor would pay for parking but they would no longer be limited to that two-hour time limit. and this would give them the flexibility that we have heard is needed in, from many members of the public. for instance, at all of our open houses and community meetings, and our meetings involving neighborhoods when they are interested innes stabbing a new r.p.p. area. if we have r.p.p. my grandma won't be able to come and visit

for more than two hours, my plumber or electrician, you know l have to move their truck, my baby-sitter won't be able to stay parked. lots of concerns about that, and so this provides that kind of flexibility that is so greatly desired but on the other hand, r.p.p. in the pay plus permit concept, r.p.p. would do what r.p.p. always does, which is discourage the commuter, the long-term parking that is not seeing anyone in that particular neighborhood but take advantage of the new parking and our research and observations and comments we get from members of the public is the folks will actually go out every two hours and move their vehicle, basically going way out of their way in order to get that free parking. so, by placing the parking we are hoping to discourage that

kind of parker all together. and so we have a number of questions from folks, mostly having to do, as you can imagine, this is a new concept, unless they have traveled to other areas they have not seen it before, so, it is, you know, it does take a little more explaining to get your head around. after sending out many letters and emails, we did get hundreds of emails and phone calls back. and they can pretty much be divided into 4 or 5 groups. one of them is, well, if i have an r.p.p. permit, does that mean i can park at any meter for free? and the answer is no, if you look at the signs here, these signs indicate the only places where your permit would exempt you from paying at a meter.

if there is no such sign indicating that it's -- that r.p.p. or r.p.p. permits are exempt, then you would have to pay at the meter. and also, this is not something that we would use on a commercial corridor where turnover, customer turnover is vital to the economic viability of those businesses. so, this is not meant for commercial areas, not something where we would replace meters and put this there to allow more permit holders to park. the other concern is that are you planning to do in my particular neighborhood, and the answer is no. we have no proposals, no neighborhood or block in mind for this but we are aware of several areas in the city where it could be effective, and just wanted to reassure that this, we are not today proposing to put

this anywhere. another concern is the aesthetics of the neighborhood and how will all the meters and signs affect the aesthetics of my neighborhood. this is a picture from portland, and it blends in pretty well. i have to draw a red circle around it to notice the multi-space meter, so we would place these so they do blend in with the landscaping and the tree furniture. another question that we often get is would m.t.a. eventually remove the r.p.p. component, in other words, the ability to park for free if you have a permit, and the answer is no. so, paid plus permit parking would result from a neighborhood planning process. it would only be applied where the neighborhood felt it would be effective, where we felt it would be effective and the only way to remove it is with a

resident petition the same with any other r.p.p. parking and public input. and the other question that we get is really about equity, and will folks with money be able to pay, would that program favor people with money, and the answer to that, residents with permits can park for free and no time limits. the visitors could have a one-day visitor permit, or pay at the multi-space meter, and much less expensive than getting an expensive parking ticket. so here is all the eight proposed amendments, and all put together and i appreciate your time and i thank you very much.

and my team and i are here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, miss studwell. directors, any clarifying questions before we go to public comment? seeing none, go to public comment. thank you very much. >> would you like a time limit? >> two minutes. >> royce hillson, followed by christian utsman, and vanessa, the first three speakers. >> good afternoon, jordan park improvement association. sfmta board chairman, vice chairman and members of the board. jordan park improvement association, jpia opposes the installation of any features associated with pay parking on our streets, specifically do not support the installation of meter boxes or individual meters with accompanying signs as in the proposal to be voted on at the june 5, 2018, board meeting.

the streets are palm, jordan, commonwealth and parker avenues, between california and gary and euclid avenue between parker and palm. jpia requests jordan park be exempt with the permit proposal, we respectfully submit this request for your approval. thank you, sincerely l.r. costello, jordan park improvement association. i leave the letters for you. >> thank you. chr christian utsman, vanessa bom. >> i am disappointed in the proposal in the fact that as someone who has been engaged in the process, i have requested to be included in the r.p.p. system, to the point where me personally would like to be

included in the system. unfortunately, i am ineligible to participate, and thus my personal anecdotal behavior from one who bikes and takes the bus mostly, to one who pretty much drives every day. owning a car is not really a choice that i get to have with my job. but how much i get to use my car is. but if i'm not allowed to own a pass, then i -- if i -- if i want to keep my car, using it all the time is now my only option. and i was hoping that in this process that one of the proposals that you would be doing, or they would be doing, would be to be more inclusive in the amount of people who would be allowed to buy passes. they don't have control over who gets to own a car, not the

d.m.v., but about the curb and how we use the curbs. the more people in the system like myself, or like people who own a permit, get to leave their cars at home. and then people forced out of the system like myself are not. so, i would respectfully ask for you to deny this proposal until it's -- it is more in inclusive of residents who live in the area. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. utsman, remind me where you live. in a sort -- >> haight ashbury district. they included us in a very small zone for area q. >> ok. thank you very much. vanessa, katy, tomassa. >> i work with a local non-profit here in san francisco. our agency is located at 3101

and 3103 mission street, and like the majority of my colleagues, a san francisco resident. here to express my concern about the r.p.p. reforms that were just presented. essentially because i'm concerned that sfmta does not have an adequate process for assessing the impact of r.p.p. and how it will impact the local nonprofits. i was here several months ago when you all talked about south bernel, and i had mentioned the very deep impact, the two-hour parking limit would have on my colleagues and myself and other local nonprofits. the board passed the two-hour parking restriction despite the lack of concrete plans to address the issue that we were facing. but i also remember the board approved it saying that under the condition that sfmta would,

or should work with nonprofits in the solution. two-hour signs have just gone up and enforced mid june and i can tell you that me and my staff are extremely stressed out how it will impact our work. we can no longer find parking, most of us have to drive because where he live out of the city, and work to 8 to 10 hours a day from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and i just want to say i want you all to work together and to find a solution to how we are going to address that. we can't do our job if we have to move our car every two hours. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> katy barhona, tomasa, and then juan. >> good afternoon, everybody. i'm also working for the central american center. the organization has been in the

community for more than 30 years. so, we think we are part of the neighborhood, too. and as part of this organization, decision about the permit parking. part of my job is taking material, taking supplies to other places because i work in the community. and that makes me to take my materials to other places. and for this reason, and for all those reasons, many of us need to drive almost every day. so, many of us, my co-workers go to school at night, so, it's not functional for us to take muni at night because we get back really late to our houses.

and for those reasons we do not support the r.p.p. reforms and ask for the m.p.a. to the better process to assess the impacts in our work. and we also ask for this to work with the m.p.a. to find a solution to the issue that they are experiencing, we are asking for permits for co-workers, and we truly believe that money is not the solution for us. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> tomasa, juan, laura. >> good afternoon, members of the board. juan rivera, i work for the central american resource center. like my colleagues mentioned, about 30 employees that work at

our organization, but also there's other nonprofits that work with the community around the area, one of them is us, with 30 employees and another one is institute with one # hundred employees. just as a lone with our 30 employees, we see between 5,000 and 7,000 clients every year. you can imagine how many institute sees every year with 100 employees, close to 15,000 people each year. there are other nonprofits around the neighborhood that have been impacted by this permit, and that you have created and we would ask you consider the nonprofits around the area permits, either permits to be able to park in the area or really amending everything that you guys have come up with. the impact that we have on the

community is crucial. like i said, we provide many, many different services, everything from legal assistance for immigrants, to family counseling, youth programs, and aid for the families that come to our nonprofits. this has, like my colleagues mentioned, this has created a lot of stress on us, because we are mostly commuters. we cannot afford to live in san francisco, san francisco is a very extensive city t live in. and now with this parking permit, it's just going to make it incredibly hard for us to do our work, and we ask that you take the non-profits in the schools around the area into consideration and provide parking permits for us. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. rivera. next speaker, please. >> is tomasa bulloks here -- ok,

laura sanchez. stephanie chikio, and liz donelly. >> laura sanchez, legal director, and the mother of two young children. one is one years old and one is three years old. i work, but my children go to a daycare at 301 mission street. every day i drive them to school and pick them up. as a working mother, or mothers or fathers, it's incredibly hard to find loving daycare in the city that's affordable, and very few of us have the benefit of having daycare so close to work. i have taken public transportation or biking is not feasible because of their young age, and i have a really, like issue and i don't know what the solution will be once this permit parking is implemented. i don't know how i will get my

children to their daycare. i don't know what i'm going to do. aside from that, my job requires me to have a car. i'm an immigration attorney. we do a lot of pro bono work. we are representing individuals that are detained in facilities that are anywhere from an hour to three hours away, incredibly far, and that requires us to drive to represent these individuals that are being detained by department of homeland security. we need cars. and i don't know what to tell my legal staff now that we won't have permit parking and now that they have to drive because it's part of the requirements, what to do. and so with that, with colleagues and other members of the community, i ask for inclusivity and trying to figure out a real working option for the nonprofits and the teachers. i'm at a loss. personal note as a mother, i don't know how i'm going to get my kids to school and pick them

up and all the requirements that come with that as being a working mother. so, i know this is personal on my end, but it is, it hits close. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, miss sanchez. >> stephanie chicio, liz donelly, herbert wiener. >> i'm here in opposition of the r.p.p. area reform because of the lack of process and evaluation of the potential negative impacts on non-profit employees. i'm an therapist for the central american resource center and after my family was evicted from the mission i was forced to move out of the city and now commute. public transportation is not an option because i have a child and must pick her up and drop her off in an area where there is not public transportation. i see back-to-back clients. two-hour parking limit for nonresidents in the bernel area was recently passed without accounting for the negative

impacts on non-profit employees lime myself. the paid plus permit parking considers visitors but i am not a visitor. i'm a therapist and former mission resident providing services for my mission community. as well as residents of bernel itself. because i see back-to-back clients on a daily basis, i would be unable to move my vehicle every two hours, and i cannot afford to pay for parking on a daily bases. i hope sfmta can recognize my services and consider and grant permits to non-profit employees, and reasonable solutions for non-profit employees, stipulated when the r.p.p. area was approved months ago. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> liz donnely. >> i am coming to express gratitude for the process as it happened from my experience.

i live in eight-member household, an uncommon number of folks living together and originally not going to be able to have parking permits for the five people who live in the home that need to cte for work. we would ideally like less people commuting for work but that is the nature of our life right now, and i wanted to say that we are grateful for this, and we understand that co-homes, people live in co-homes for a variety of social and economic reasons and would encourage the board to consider allowing for this access for the new r.p.p. locations as well, for people that live in large co-homes. so, if you have more than five people living in a residence they should be able to have more parking permits as needed. i also wanted to express support for the speakers that went before me and the concerns they raised. i think the goal and intent of this process is really important in terms of dealing with parking in san francisco, but ensuring

that we keep a vibrant and thriving and diverse san francisco is equally as important. so ensuring the nonprofits serving the community have access as well as people who are living in kind of alternative housing situations because of either economics or the desire to live in alternative housing situations are also find a space to be included. thank you. [please stand by]

they shouldn't have to pay for the permits because that constitutes a pay cut. it takes away a part of their salary. suppose i'm seeing a task consultant and it's a very complicated process, and there's only two hours, i have to go out, i have to move my car and if it's in a place where there's lots, high demand for parking, and there's no chance, slim chance of getting another parking space, that really works a hardship. so basically, the real question is this.

parking spaces are public property. they are not m.t.a. property. and you cannot treat parking spaces as a commodity to race revenue. so these are my concerns and i support the concerns of other people who are presented. thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: fuentes, kessler, jacobsson. >> hi, my name is maria, i'm a college student at s.f. state and employee, i'm here because i oppose the r.p.p. on bernal. parking already hard to find and expensive and it will be more with these permits. i need to take my car to work, i cannot leave my car from home

since i live on eddy street and i need my car to drive because my job requires it and parking at school. parking is already very limited and expensive. i don't think it's fair i need to spend more time looking for parking every two hours and/or pay almost $20 everyday to park at a meter. i think this needs to be solved. thank you. >> clerk: ellen kessler, nikki jacobsson, gabrielle thurmond. >> i'm alan kessler. i'm mindful in the preamble that requires the agency to define clear measures of its performance and goals. staff introduced the permit parking program is incorporated a data-driven evaluation.

the amendments proposed have fundamental -- >> clerk: make sure you are speaking to the microphone, sir. thank you. >> the amendments proposed, shortcomings with regard to the directive and data that's been provided. the whole idea behind parking permits for high-parking occupancy areas is to free up spaces taken by vehicles from outside the areas so locals would have spaces available to park. staff's slide show many areas continue to have high occupancy but no slides are presented showing how many of the spaces are taken by permit holders and how many by non-permit holders. we have no measures of how the program impacts the availability of parking for permit holders, for locals who have not purchased a permit or non-permit holders looking for time limited spaces. i have observed some of the survey data. why is staff not presenting it

to us? when most spaces are occupied by non-permit holders, permit holders will be hard pressed to fiend a space. -- find a space. conversely when they have parked for the entire day, non permit holders will not easily find spaces. they vary considerably across the city. we need to understand these patterns to manage curb space and meet agency goals. we believe that clear and objective measures [buzzer] of vacancy and availability are necessary for evalngow it's performing. >> thank you, next speaker. >> nikki jacobsson, gabrielle thurmon, mark miller is the last person to turn in a speaker card. >> hi my name is nikki jacobsson, i spoke in october. parking staff has made changes but not the policies we were

objecting to eight months ago. they are still taking the decision out of hands of residents and business owners and call it streamlining the process. paid plus permit parking with no time limits. getting r.p.p. zoning in a neighborhood is a hard fought community driven process. right now commuter and long-term parkers cannot use r.p.p. areas and that's a good thing. that's what r.p.p. was designed for to give residents priority in high traffic areas. this will undo this, encouraging drivers to stay as long as they want. using meters without time limits encourages longer term parking, encourages to drive all day at r.p.p. spaces as long as they can afford to pay, something they couldn't do before. staff is saying meters are used for parking management, not revenue generation. how does overriding time limits encourage turnover, how to

support transit first policies. it was just said there are no areas in line for this paid plus permit overlay. that's not true. there's an area in show place square in line for just this and also internal memos of theirs talking about rolling this out citywide. so what do we do when mom and dad come to visit out of town for a night or few weeks. the answer is something already in existence, visiting parking passes. the one recurring issue brought up ad nauseam by workshop attendees and acknowledged by staff over and over again as something they would fix is an easier online process for obtaining and printing visitor passes. we don't want, we don't need meters plus r.p.p., get the visitor passes online. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> gabriel thurmond, mark miller -- hooper.

>> good afternoon, i'm gabrielle thurmond, these proposals were the result of almost three years of efforts. parking staff could have used this time to reach all account holders by using survey customer satisfaction and receive input for improvements. instead time and effort was spent on household survey. 362 out of 54,000 customers. next, in a communication planned for this project m.t.a. set a goal, achieve 60% support from key neighborhood associations and business groups. unfortunately this goal has not been achieved. represents 35 neighborhoods across the city. you received a letter regarding their concerns. c.f.s.f. performed studies on

non resident impact on r.p.p. parking. two, have traffic engineers reviewed the studies already done. i support small business and non-profits, they can evaluate for possible wider use. one better enforcement. this is the number one issue for your r.p.p. customers. input around this issue could be found in the controllers office audit on enforcement. two, one hour r.p.p. allows one hour grace period for non-permitted cars to improve r.p.p. near meter zones with high demand. three, r.p.p. otherwise known as r.p.p. only parking allows enforcement with just one pass like meters and four, evening hours r.p.p., this is worthy of study and would be needed near any evening metering. the above mentioned supports transit's goals and are measurable. [buzzer] >> thank you for your

consideration and attention. >> mark miller, followed by david hooper who is the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> if sfgovtv could put the overhead on, please. my name is mark miller. this is the last of our group comment. we support the proposed per-household and driver limits. we support adding a definition but suggest a strange in language. the phrase primarily abuted by residential property is vague, not measurable and open to subjective interpretation. we don't know what is being measured, total square footage per block. number of residential units, we request to amend that language to abuted by property occupied by one or more households. i should be clear we don't support adding language for paid plus permit parking, there's no data to support this

and will invite additional neighbor parking. this with a suggested change to the laing wamg. language. the term commercial property. phrase separate entrance is unnecessary and vague. the suggested change reads defined by a separate address where address is also defined in the code. we further request you add a definition for address which is not in the code presently to apply for both residents and businesses. the city has an authoritative database for use. we strongly oppose removing all references to the role of the city traffic engineer in the code that covers how r.p.p. areas are added deleted rescinded or modified. we consider significant not a minor change yet is not mentioned in the slides or staff report at all. neighborhood wide parking planning, especially for new

r.p.p. areas requires more engineering expertise to be involved not less as would any r.p.p. modifications or rescission actions. thank you. >> thank you very much mr. miller. next speaker, please. >> clerk: david hooper, the last person to turn in a speaker card on this topic, madam chair. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. >> my name is david hooper. my neighborhood is mission terrace is considering putting in residential parking permit, between glenn park and balboa park station. we get a lot of commuters, a lot of people from excelsior in the overflow parking because it's available. i'm here to say i support a particular part of the proposal. the idea that future residential parking permit areas are limited to two per household. i think that's a valuable step. the point is, we have to do something.

we haven't done anything in a while, it's gotten worse and will get worse yet if we don't start to present to people considering the residential parking permit area, if we don't give clearly defined options. households is a problem, i don't know how to define that. we have homes in our neighborhood that have apartments down below, those are two households, frontage is 25 feet wide, you have a garage i will assume used as a garage, yet if it's possible for people to have four automobiles for two households on what originally was rh-1 planning, that's a problem. the last thing i would like to say in our community we are considering having increased density, this is planning. increased density in terms of the two big developments, where the mortuary was and where the safeway presently is. at ocean and cayuga we are looking at as many as 300 new

units. when we have these units with increased density bonuses for one reason or another or having less than one-to-one parking. i would like to see the sfmta address the idea of excluding these new bonus density buildings from any future working permit area -- just to finish the point [inaudible] thank you. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. >> clerk: madam chair, that's the last speaker. >> chair c. brinkman: do i have any more public comment? if so, come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. sounds like we will have a couple questions. i know i have a few. >> kathy and i will tag team hopefully. >> chair c. brinkman: i just want to sort of separate what i want to discuss. sounds like we had two

different distinct tracts of the questions. sondes like we have area aa workers, mostly, who still don't feel their concerns have been addressed. so can we just talk briefly about that one first before we dive into what's in front of us today? i do remember when we approved the area aa, which is the bernal, correct? that we had talked about the teachers and we had talked about the non-profits. can you quickly bring us up-to-date with what's going on? are those r.p.p. signs in yet? are the r.p.p. stickers available and what's going on with the non-profits and the schools? >> sure. first thing we did, we brought right back to this board per director heinicke's suggestion, including leonard elementary school eligibility for rpp aa,

that was approved. we did that right away, everything will be ready by the next school year to get teacher permits. we have talked with the executive director, i think we need to continue to talk, obviously, about the issues they are facing. i think when this came up, when we presented r.p.p. aa for consideration and some concerns with expressed, director reiskin said we would be happy to talk with these folks how to get their employees to work. i want to put out there, if we are sort of expecting everybody to be able to park for free on the street all the time, that's going to be a challenge. there's just limited parking. one of the main themes we have pulled out of this rpp reform project in general is more cars than spaces across the city and there's no way to provide free parking for everybody.

it touches on something that came up frequently during our outreach. lots of different groups saying we would like permits. we have a good reason why we need to be moving around, all sorts of groups from realtors to p.d.r. workers to non-profit workers to workers who work late at night at restaurants and things like that. if we give parking to everybody who has a reasonable story why they need them then the permits become less effective. i think one of the things not captured in the transportation code revision but we have taken away from this reform project is exactly what a lot of the folks expressed, this is a resident-driven process and focused on the residents get to sign the petition. it says it there in the code. if they gather enough signatures and the other require.

-- requirements are met, like high occupancy, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room for staff in terms of our recommendation about whether there should be an r.p.p. area here or not. we are trying to address that by adding this fit criteria and it says let's look at other parking regulations that might be effective. we also tried to bring in other parts of the neighborhood. r.p.p. a.a. was the last area we created based on resident petition. e.e. came later based on robust neighborhood engagement process had a lot more support and also included lots of different regulations and included input from lots of different people who represented workers, businesses, commuters, all sorts of different things and i think that is the answer, trying to move away to something more revenue driven.

>> chair c. brinkman: thank you, that is helpful. i guess my concern is, still talking about a.a. not talking about the actual proposal ahead of us yet. what do we have left in our toolbox to address the concerns of the businesses in that area of a.a. >> i think one of the speakers said, the 2-hour limit won't work for me, paid plus permit won't work for me. in terms of most parking regulations, most are quite frankly aimed at getting people to move along and not stay all day. we don't have a lot of on-street parking regulations geared for making space for people outside an area to drive in and park all day. we have a great t.d.m. team at the sfmta and i don't want to sign anybody up for more work but this is where management are looking at other ways getting people to work. there are some that won't work.

if you have a 1-year-old and 3-year-old, riding a bike won't work. in a busy congested area like the mission and bernal heights some other alternatives will have to be explored, i think. >> chair c. brinkman: i want to address the concerns. i do understand we can't work magic, we can't make enough free parking for everybody, it just doesn't work. if what i'm hearing is that none of the tools that we had available when we institutes a.a. seem to have helped address their problems, should this board approve the proposal that's ahead of us that does include that paid plus permit and this is kind of delving into the second lean of questions. -- line of questions. is that something that could be implemented at the request of, i don't know, a group of

merchants or on a limited area in a corridor because it seems like yes everybody prefers to park free, if it's all free parking, there's no parking available for anybody. if some have to pay something, it would start at 25 cents an hour, it would be dynamic like our other pricing, reviewed once a quarter, go up or down by 25 cents an hour, is that something that could maybe be applied to that area to help people out so there is some way for people todrive there and park and pay, keep the turnover, keep some parking available or is the door completely closed on a.a. for that new tool that could be in the toolbox? >> i don't think the door is ever completely closed. we would want to talk with neighbors and other folks who run businesses and run non-profits to see what makes sense. i think dogpatch is an interesting analog, that was a

place we thought paid plus permit would make sense in some areas. the neighbors didn't think it was a good idea so we didn't move it forward but we created some zones with low -- that was a way to keep spaces available, make spaces available for people who needed them and provide flexibility for people who may need them for a few hours at a time and move along a few folks who are parking there, using the fact there's free unregulated parking to leave their cars for days and weeks at a time.

i think i last time made a joke that i was one of those people who didn't move my car because it was free. >> chair c. brinkman: that's area a.a. i would like to hear from other directors with any questions to sort of clarify the area a.a. questions and concerns we had brought to us, as opposed to what is actually ahead of us. go ahead director. >> thanks. i want to thank people for coming out. this is a really tough issue. thanks, staff for tackling this. i know you articulated very well the problem. i thought i heard from kerasen part of their objection they are asking us to put in the process of r.p.p. consideration of impacts on non-profits.

i want to get your input. >> i would refer back to the dogpatch as an example, there were certainly some neighbors who thought there should be a lot more residential parking than there was in that plan and by having neighborhood meetings, open houses where everybody could come where we could have people who work there and who own businesses there and who ran non-profits come to talk about their needs they can push back and say if you cover the entire neighborhood and residential permit parking our folks won't have anywhere to park. if you have the petition with signatures then it moves forward. >> chair c. brinkman: is there a place we could put that in somewhere.

that solidifies, formalizes that process, or that consideration. >> we can certainly try. we tried that back in october. we had tried to move away from a petition process and toward an application which starts a neighborhood planning process. there was push back from the residents saying we like the petition process, we don't want to lose that ability to put forth, control our destiny and our own blocks we could come up with some language that might be better and might help. >> adding this additional criteria, this is one of the few things m.t.a. does that has written in the transportation code the fiendings that must be

presented to you before recommending approval. we would ask you to consider other on-street parking management tools in addition to by r.p.p. having to do that now in addition to tracking occupancy rate and non residents parking there and access to on-street parking etc., this will be actually in the code and we will have to present that to you any time an area wants to be established. >> if there's a way we could make sure we are paying attention to the needs of everybody in the community, given we have this resident-based process, i think that would be important.

and i won't stop harping on this point because it will hold up the process but i want to go back to kerasen in particular, because when we approved that, we certainly sounded like we were going to address, or try to address their concerns, i understand their concerns might not be able to be addressed but i'm wondering if there's anything we could do moving forward beyond just generally like let's look at t.d.m. >> i do want to be careful because we aren't getting the full picture of area a.a. we don't have everyone who might have an opinion on a.a. here. thank you, staff, for continuing to work with them which i know you will do as much as we have things we can still try to propose and still try to do that we will continue to work with them. unless i have any more feedback

on that, i do want to move onto sort of the meat of the proposal that's ahead of us and not take too much more time looking backwards. first question on that, the co-homes, i believe it was one of the speakers who lives in a co-housing situation. co-homes in new areas will still be able to petition to get more than two r.p.p.'s >> the hard cap is four, soft cap is two. you can petition for more. that's how we do it. >> chair c. brinkman: we do have precedence for excluding r.p.p.'s for new development. because i believe the dogpatch area there were a couple buildings in there excluded from getting r.p.p.'s because they are built with a certain amount of parking, it's assumed

the other residents won't have cars, the parking is unbundled so they are excluded getting r.p.p.'s, correct? >> most of the time that's done on a direct neighborhood association negotiating with the developer basis where the developer agrees to do that on their own. we can also draw r.p.p. areas strategically, like we did in dogpatch to exclude new buildings. >> chair c. brinkman: excellent. vice chair heinicke? >> vice chair m. heinicke: thank you. thank you for the presentation. one thing that's a part of this, or at least summarizes a part of this is the streamlining of the issuance modification and rescission aspect of this. a decision has to come before board this can't be done by staff unilaterally. >> that's correct.

streamlining -- not the process. [please stand by...] >> the other reason as that parking management and as a part of that, rpp is no longer within the traffic engineering department. that was moved out in 2014 to

the parking department. that was another reason for th that. >> okay. so, i understand now that in the process for establishing a new rpp program, one of the criteria and we will be looking at is whether there is an alternative way to address parking, and presumably that means, let's clarify. does that mean that this department could hold up and r.p.p. issue instead is otherwise tasked or satisfied the criteria? you know, the neighbourhood support and that sort of thing? >> i think that certainly, you know, again i go back to the dogpatch example of aware there was certainly does the dogpatch was unique going forward because i did not involve a specific petition. involving two and half year

neighbourhood planning process. but again, there were some requests for r.p.p. regulations on blocks that we didn't think were appropriate because they were in front of a bus yard where they were on the commercial strip in the middle of the job -- dogpatch. we invoked that idea before it was embedded in the transportation code to say it looked, this is not -- again, both the residential area definition and this extra criterion are trying to get at this idea of r.p.p. is appropriate for residential areas and we to focus on these areas. so much of the growth is moving into other areas and the need for parking regulation is moving into mixed areas, where we are looking at all of the tools, and not just r.p.p. when we are trying to create parking mobility. >> residential support is no longer going to be enough because it will have to be balanced over the overall transportation needs of the city. >> yeah,, as cathy was saying,

just resident petition support was never enough. we also have to go out and see there was a parking problem here on the parking problem was caused by people coming from outside the neighbourhood and there's not enough offstreet parking to accommodate all the folks that need to park. there has been some criteria that have been required to be met just beyond getting the signatures. and i think, dose i don't think does the intent of the extra criterion was not as broad. it is more, like in this neighbourhood, on these blocks, is there is something that would work better than r.p.p. in terms of creating the availability and serving the needs of the people who actually live here? >> i appreciate that. let's jump ahead. i think this will be even better addressed, where the modification, the concern, whether it's valid or not, that's coming from residents in these areas. so, could you, under this proposal, determined that there

is a better alternative to parking and an existing r.p.p. area? and rescind the r.p.p. area as an agency? >> well, i think it's also important to remember that embedded within the transportation code has always been this provision that says the mta can institute new policies on its own initiative. so we've always had that power. we don't exercise edge. we have always worked with the neighbourhood and got petition signatures in order to know whether this is something that is going to work in the neighbourhood. the only example of an r.p.p. area that was rescinded was through a petition. folks that were in the old area gathered up signatures and said this isn't working for us and said they didn't want to be part of an r.p.p. area. we rescinded the area. that was almost certainly how it would work in the future. the idea is not to sort of -- again that his