two more speaker cards, marlene morgan and edward mason. you can go ahead and speak. >> i'm a long-term tenant at 200 van ness. i've lived there for 20 years. i want to support it, but i want to list some changes. in january, the conservatory delivered a packet including a relocation plan and invitation to a town hall meeting. i did not receive it until february, after the town hall meeting. i find the situation very disserving. i'm the only original lease holder in the entire building that has a college education that speaks fluent english and has the diligence, the capacity, the willpower to read through the documents and understand what the implications are and i didn't receive a document. the building is surveilled. where did my document go? had i been given the package at the same time as everyone else, i would have reviewed them and attended the town hall meeting. and i would have raised questions. and this has happened even though i've been on top of requesting updates, in the summer and fall of 2017 i checked in with the conservator

we'll open up public comment. >> edward mason, thank you. the permit is perfectly required, but they need to proceed cautiously. these circumstances have staged around the corner idling. they operate in bus zones, block bike lanes, they operate in taxi zones and enforcement should not have to rely on neighborhood vigilance and percent fear especially. it's a replication of the commuter bus program. four years later, that program is experiencing violations that should not be occurring and the responsibility for monitoring it should not be the responsibility of the neighborhoods. i realize it's touted as being a carpool and van pool. i think what you are doing is taking away ridership from muni and in the domaine. so proceed cautiously with this and take into consideration all the violations that have been absorbed in the neighborhood and the city. whether this will be a model for the future remains to be seen. until we come up with a robust system for muni, this is a program fraught with violations that will need to be corrected. thank you. >

edward mason. this is a one fits all situation where we're going to rezone san francisco and we're going to take the brunt of the housing issues. if you extend this down the peninsula, it really means it's going to go down the el camino all the way through mountain view, santa clara, and through san jose along alameda to east ridge shopping is ite is it -- g center. those are the areas that are going to fit the criteria of the transit. then the blunt here in san francisco. considering that the increased base of the land use with the rights. if everything is escalated up to *6, 7, 8 stories, that pad is inflated in costa effecting everyone. and if this is going to lead to gentrification, you're going to have people with disposal income where time is a premium and of course they're going to disregard the environment in their decision making and they're going to tap the app for ride shares. you're not going to reduce any population for automobiles. again, growth is going to fail to fund growth infrast

we will start with edward mason. >> two minutes please, ms. boomer. >> thank you. the valley transportation authority in santa clara ordinance covers the use of property owned by v.t.a. the facilities include maintenance, business facilities, park and ride lots, and the bus stops within santa clara county. if you wanted to put a cell phone tower adjacent to a maintenance facility or if you wanted to lay fiber optic or have space from the park and ride lot to sell christmas trees, that would be allowable. and it would all be at market rate. and the market rate fees that would flow from that would flow to the v.t.a. general fund. now, in the past, we've said that proposition 218 was the guiding guidance for the m.t.a. here. i've read the legislative analysts' report on that, and my interpretation -- and i'm not a lawyer -- was that it applies to property tax and below the line on the property tax. line charges that are affixed to your property tax. so if there was vector control, that cost would not exceed the cost providing that service for vector control. so i thin