ticket and now on the same sheet of music with the transfers. so, to sell tickets in the station unguarded is a very expensive and unsafe way to do business and i don't see a historical preservation or business standpoint in doing that, especially with all the conversation about building clipper and i went to the clipper meeting yesterday, it was very enjoyable. it's important we keep up with the times. looking forward to the new fare structure, we will get with the price differential on the passports and we can get that on to the clipper card and the muni app. thank you. >> thank you, mr. dupre. next speaker. >> tom, herbert wiener, and the last terry.

>> is the overhead working? there it goes, yes. ok. this is a pretty, a simple drawing. it's a platform at fillmore and chestnut going north on fillmore. this would be chestnut. it's a new concrete middle of the street platform, and this would be where the yellow crosswalk for the street traffic would go by. bus would be coming this way on fillmore, and i was there and the narrow part is where the bus stopped. and i figured waiting at the post, at the pole where it's wider would be a better place to extend the ramp.

and the bus just drove by after it picked up the people down here at the bottom. this is all one color, the platform is all concrete, there is no red on the edge, it's a kind of a nice drop. it's very dangerous right here, and since the color of the curb is the same color as the platform, which is the same color as the rim on the street. if you get dropped off here by a ramp, you have a chance of rolling off. if they were to move this, by a post, where it's wider, and mark it with blue handicap paint, so this way you have a chance where you roll off the ramp, you don't roll off the curb. i don't know how this is going to affect all your other platforms. the other part of the platform, this is street, and the street

has a curve to it to let the rain go off. the platform would be much better if it was level because the bus has a slant to it, because it's -- we need to make everything -- >> thank you. thank you. mr. riskin, could we have staff follow up on that? >> herbert wiener, and tarek mamood. >> herbert wiener, i take the one california bus, one of the show piece lines of m.t.a. now, the service has been so irregular. i say a bunching of five coaches at 10:00 in the morning, at night, when i take the bus at the embarcadero spot, sometimes the bus is missing. sometimes i have -- and not only

that, california and van ness avenue i had to wait a half hour for the bus because there was a missing bus. now, something is going wrong with the internal operations. the basic problem of muni and what spark the the transit effective project now known as muni forward, late, missing, broken down busses, and never really been addressed. the elephant in the room, instead, there had been removal of bus stops, cutting back on service lines, removal of busses to the billions of dollars and overshadows the basic question, and even though this project may be completed, the basic question will remain. so, something has to be done about the internal operations. hopefully the bus signs will improve because they give faulty

information. but basically internal house cleaning is more important than all the glitz and cosmetic work that is beingone wi muni forward. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wiener. next speaker. >> good afternoon, directors, tarek mamood, taxi driver. san francisco airport suspended roughly 1,000 drivers last year. suspend for 24, 48 hours. suspended 200 this year also. one driver sitting in his car for one hour, terminal to terminal, waiting for a ride, after getting tired he came out of his cab for two minutes to stretch. they called him in the office, and suspended him for 24 hour. then the other person, when the officer approach, ok, we don't suspend you. so are we kidnapped, are we

their employees? what is the situation and why m.t.a. is sleeping here? apply the m.t.a. rules which is not correct. you gave them in writing to apply these rules. 1,000 people suspended. you have to wake up from from your seats. going forward, there are so many suspension which have taken all the freedom of information, the documents and all of them, so much fraud in the documents. we need your sfmta, to get up, get his department staff and get involved. samantha, not good in this. they are rude with their own drivers. we, as everybody knows our industry is getting crushed and on top of that, this is happening. now, coming to the further up,

south, not working there. a report, several town hall meetings, she could not get -- one person behind this report. so, why you wasted money after 25,000 to get the report. we have so many issues, so many problems, can you make a -- commit meant on these problems? >> thank you, next speaker please. >> madam chair, the last person who has turned in a card for items not on the agenda today. >> general public comment? go ahead and come forward. welcome. >> my name is eric, i'm a tenant at 90 natoma street, i rent from mr. patrick and i support his earlier comments. my concerns are the same. just general access for regular deliveries, trash, and customers. that's it. >> thank you very much.

any more public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move on. >> madam chair, the consent calendar. items are routine unless a member, and 10.2j with no right turn on lombard street from hyde be severed and considered separately and no other requests for severance. >> thank y. directors, a motion to approve consent calendar, minus 10.2j. consent calendar approved and now 10.2j. >> no right term from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., ellie miller hall

is the first speaker, representing supervisor stefani. >> great, miss hall. >> good afternoon, ellie miller hall, legislative aide to supervisor stefani. collaborated with the transportation authority and the sfmtaor years of study, contemplation and review in proposed methods and proven solutions. this is a pilot measure that will be tested as a tool to redirect traffic and calm the area. the measure is a direct response to concerns from neighbors and particularly the residents of lombard street, to continued efforts to calm the area and liveability for all residents. >> thank you. muriel angle, and then robert

angle. >> they'll put it up. you can go ahead and approach the mic and start speaking. >> good afternoon, i live at 1215 lombard street between polk and larkin. the most steep part of the street before going down the crooked street. this picture was taken on may 28 about ten days ago. you know, things have changed on lombard street. when i moved there 35 years ago there was already traffic from tourists wanting to go down the crooked street. at that time maybe a block of

cars waiting. now we are at ten blocks of cars waiting to go down the street. this is what happens when we have cars idling for 45 minutes to an hour to get down crooked street. this is not a situation that's been unique, it happens 2 to 3 times a year now, which did not happen 4, 5 years ago. we have had meetings trying to control the traffic but no solution has been taken. so, concerning your proposal of no right turn northbound, what's going to happen is that the cars idling on hyde street. i understand why you are doing it because of the cable car. the cable car cannotadvance. the thing s the cars waiting on hyde street are now going to line up with the lombard people. and you know, i mean, we are just waiting for something to happen. this -- the fire department did come after 3, 4 minutes. but the car lit up again. ignited again and that was 45

minutes later and the fire department did not make it as fast. they, they got there, but you know, it's just a matter of time, really. so, we realize that for legal reasons you cannot forbid public ss to a public road. but maybe the most important thing i believe is to control the traffic which is getting really crazy. you can, for instance, i mean, pu red and green stop and go light like they do when you want to access, you could put weight -- waiting signs. >> that was the clock putting you off. robert angle. >> the last person to submit a speaker card on this matter. >> thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the same subject. i also live at 1215 lombard street, been there since 1982.

the recognizing the situation we can't deter tourists from coming into the area. it's a matter, i think, of having tffic control officers at the different intersections. what's occurring is when this heats up, and these cars catch on fire, this last situation, we were able to photograph. what occurs is the car could have continued rolling back down the hill of lombard street and where all the tourists and the other cars were watching the fire. fortunately, the fire department put a block in front of it but sometimes they don't come that quickly when the cars catch on fire. so, really more of an issue of public safety to deter cars from waiting in line as long as they do to go up lombard street up the hill to larkin and then over to hyde and down the crooked street. so, i don't know whether it's your jurisdiction, but needs to be greater control to deter them from waiting in line for 20

minutes to 40 minutes going up the hill. signs should be put up that it's a 2-way street. we have very aggressive drivers who believe them jump the line and go to the top, causes further congestion. there's no signage at all about that it might take 10, 20, 40 minutes to get to the crooked street and something the committee should consider. so thank you for putting this on your agenda and coming up with recommendations to help out. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. angle. mr. mcguire, quick question on this one. we have been getting emails regarding the traffic back-ups and i know anybody who travels on lombard sees those traffic back-ups. could you just speak briefly to what the perhaps larger plan might be or further discussions going on? >> sure, i would be happy to. as ellie said, supervisor stefani and before her,

supervisor farrell have been working with the m.t.a. and the san francisco county t.a. to come up with traffic management strategy for the crooked street. some short-term suggestion, including this one before you today. we have also been ramping up the number of parking control officers, every weekend from june through october. we have p.c.o.s stationed at both the top of lombard street and the bottom, in direct 2 and 3 to move as quick as possible, reduce the conflict of impacts and vehicles and pedestrians, and reduce the impact on the cable car. in the short-term, the signage and the p.c.o.s are one tactic. the transportation authority came up with an series of longer term recommendation, including a

series of recommendation, a polling strategy, travel management t reduce both the cueing and the number of vehicles trying to go down the crooked street. >> motion to approve? i hear a second, all in favor, aye, opposed, hearing none, this is approved. thank you very much, mr. mcguire. madam chair, regular calendar. >> if i can just ask one. assume as we are looking forward, we have two neighbors from the community who have suggested signs about waiting time information and signs about two-way traffic that those will be considered in the overall plan of -- >> we can certainly look at what signage options may be upstream, further west on lombard to deal with the issues of the approaching vehicles that are waiting and causing problems.

>> item 11, amending the transportation code division ii, article 900, to amend the residential parking permit program, designating or modifying residential parking area, no more than one permit issued per household and two to a single address, a waiver up to four permits for health care workers, childcare permits, eliminating the petition process currently required for childcare parking permits, one transferable permit to a resident licensed to operate a family childcare home for use by a childcare provider. work in the home and exempting vehicles with a valid permit from payment on the street parking meters located in the r.p.p. area. >> thank you.

>> hi, good afternoon. kathy studwell, the residential policy parking, or parking policy manager in the sustainable streets division. we are here today to present you a package of reform measures for the residential permit parking program. we presented to you an initial package of forms back in october and since then you have approved two of those measures, i'll go over those in a moment. before i get into -- thank you. before i get into those proposed

measures for reform, i want to give you a little bit of background and the rationale for why those reforms are ed. you've seen this before, and actually you have seen several of the slides earlier presentations, so i'm going to go through them very quickly. since the establishment of r.p.p. area a.a., and areae.e. in dog patch, we now have 31 r.p.p. areas. 25% of the geography. 155,000 eligible house holds, in other words, households that can purchase permits and in those areas, 80,000 on-street parking spaces that are restricted with r.p.p. they make up about 28% of all

on-street spaces. so, why does m.t.a., why is m.t.a. interested in reforming the r.p.p. program? well, since the r.p.p. program was established back in the mid 1970s, the city has grown in population by about 180,000 people and projected to continue to grow by another 180,000 people over the next couple of decades. parking management is key to the agency's initiatives to achieve the goal of the transit first and sustainability policies, and as such, it's important to bring the r.p.p. program in sync or in line with those policies as well. so, residential parking permit evaluation and reform project began back in 2014 with a robust and comprehensive research

program assisted, we were assisted in this by an international transportation engineering firm by the name of arab. after extensive research we embarked on a two-year public input process, over the course of 2016-2017, we did extensive public outreach, helped us to identify key issues as well as the level of public support for those issues. then in 2017, we developed a set of potential policy reforms, evaluated those, and what resulted what we presented to you last october. this is the sample of the area j, area snapshot. and basically it illustrates the results of all of our data in that it illustrates the results

of our parking utilization data, our household survey data, number of spaces, number of permits issues, and the residents living in there. again, it was arab that helped us put this together and with their help, we produced one-of-a-kind comprehensive evaluation of a residential parking permit program. so, after the research as an i said, we embarked on public engagement, we began that in 2015 with our presentation to you in november of that year. and we continued that, sorry, we continued that with several more

meetings and workshops and all, we had six open houses, 11 community workshops, 12 workshops with business and neighborhood associations. 15 meetings with our bernel heights and dog patch communities. three rounds of briefings with members of the board of supervisors, two focus groups with neighborhood and community leaders, three presentations to the citizens advisory council, two to the policy and governance committee, numerous of updates with thousands of subscribers to the email list and dozens of postcards. so, out of all that, we came up with a number of key issues that we felt needed to be addressed through this reform project. the first one that we identified is really the demand for parking in residential areas is greater than the available number of

spaces and much of this demand is generated by the residents themselves. the second one is that there needs to be alternatives to the r.p.p. or need to be able to look at other tools for managing on street parking in these newer a typical residential areas or mixed use areas. and third, we need to fill a gap in our support of families in terms of permits for teachers and caregivers. and so again, very briefly, through our trends analysis and our existing conditions report, found that we are issuing in many cases more permits than there are spaces, sometimes 1.2 to 1.5. and through our parking occupancy study, we did 19 routes over 12 different neighborhoods, and found that on most blocks, occupancy is greater than 90%. this is a map of telegraph hill.

oh, i want to go back. and then through our household survey found thatespi d having residential permit parking, residents are still finding it difficult to find parking over 40% expressed that they have to look, more than 15 minutes for parking and end up parking more than four blocks away. so, in some, you know, through all facets of our research, finding the demand for parking far exceeds the availability and residents are still having difficulty. the next two slides address our next issue, which is finding other ways to manage parking other than r.p.p. this is a slide that you've seen before on the dog patch parking plan. this is a typical residential area. this one is in the inner sunset, you can clearly see that

residential uses are clearly -- easy to put r.p.p. on the residential blocks and metered parking on the commercial corridor. however, most of that new growth is going to be captured in areas that are currently commercial and industrial. mainly on the east side of the city. typical areas like this, the dog patch, which is absorbing most of the growth at this point in time, and you can see the residential, commercial and industrial development, sometimes exists on the same lot. so you can't, even though there is residential development there, you can't apply r.p.p. without also engaging the businesses and their needs. so, as a result of this analysis, the public input, we presented to you this set of proposals back in october, and

since then you have approved two of them. first you approved the elimination of the requirement at schools have at least 15 teachers in order to qualify for r.p.p. permits, and established two new r.p.p. areas, aa and ee, in which the transportation code was amended to limit the permits to one per person and two per 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, whoesir d 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 aghborhd 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 questionsrom 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 al 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 faci. but i also rember 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 her -- 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 d 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 commute 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 ry 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 evaluating how 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.