mr. reiskin a few questions. in terms of plans in different parts of san francisco again, i've called the hearing that - potential parking meters were going into rural heights areas. when are the public agencies start to notify the public about when those plans become a public or the ones that you've articulated and presented today those are the only ones being concerned internally? they're not that many other pockets of unmanned parking that have this. we've responding each week from residents and businesses from city projects where we're making parking adjustments every month through the public process at the mta board but in terms of large parking studies those are all we have planned now. and frankly you know what it's taken to get through the northeast mission. i don't think there's any more of those to be done & at any time in the future >> colleagues any other comments. >> thank you, mr. reiskin i personally think that district 2 would be a very good candidate moving forward. i'm joking but i want to call

mr. reiskin. i'll leave this alone >> thank you very much. >> i am a resident of the hill i'm a homeowner which menus i'm a significant property taxpayer. in the city and i was here at the 70 mta meeting with the subject of the parking meters was 75 to one and extended meters is a sunday issue that is terrible. i'd agree against more meters. if you wanted a destroy the b business just do the meters past 10 o'clock >> you should keep things as they are but be reporter full of the homeowners. this is a driving town but let's not forget who butters your bread and that's the folks of this town and putting parking meters everywhere is a bad idea >> thank you very much. >> i'm rubin i'm a 70 native of district 7 out in the inner sunset. i'm sorry about the gripping in my view sfmta has lost of the privilege of managing park parking in san francisco. they're creating cash to pay for bus service and bicycle plans because state funding has dried-up. if i have my way that parking enforcement needs to go bac

mr. reiskin on where we are? >> director reiskin: i think the final action will be going to the transportation authority commission, the board of supervisors wearing a different hat. sometime this summer, maybe in advance of that we can. >> chair nolan: in particular - not eight months - but whatever we can do. i was thinking about how city departments work so well together on pagoda theater situation. possibly suggest a model, any kind of time could save is worth it. any thoughts on that. director heinicke? >> director heinicke: two meetings ago i did something -- i got a wonderful memo from mr. haley, to the whole board for you director reiskin explained that this is not my imagination, explaining what the issues were and explaining most importantly what he's doing to address them which is most appreciated. i think some of these issues persist; they persisted as early as this morning when my right longer than it should have and i'm hearing from a number of people about this. while i realize that cannot wave a wa

mr. reiskin any other items? >> that's what i had in terms of an overview. >> colleagues any further questions for mr. reiskin? >> thank you for being here we'll move to item 5 if you're still here please come up. and anyone else who wants to commit on item 57 please come on up to the microphone >> go to the next one over there. >> good afternoon. my name is jean woods i've been living in north beach since 1962 continuously. i'm continual appearing before the board of supervisors in opposition to the subway but living in north beach i and others are not aware of the damage that's going to be inflicted on north beach. it was clear that the drilling was to constant 7 blocks further than the last station. and the tunneling is going to go halfway down the boulevard. aaron explained this because he's pretty smart and he was the president of the board of supervisors at the time it was approved. he said it was in difference to spur which is a private agency owned by lawyers. part of the urban research i if the record co

mr. reiskin for coming here and talking about. i think the comments were enlighting i have learned a lot here today. you know, it seems like we have certainty areas of town dog patch where there's certainly parking plans talked about and those are going to be the subject of debate golden forward. and thank you for coming and talking about that. today was not continuously expanding parking meter hours there's debate about sunday's but expanded the location of parking meters throughout our city. i want to be sure we have a public discussion and if there are no other plans today to expand this project. there's a lot of fear and it's missed information i want to make sure this is part of record and thank you, mr. riskin for being here and talking about that. i want to make sure we have a dialog with the board of supervisors and protecting the quality of life for the folks in san francisco. with that we've had this hearing i think this will come up but at this point i'd be happy tabling this hearing >> anything to add? >> thank you ver

mr. reiskin. i'll leave this alone >> thank you very much. >> i am a resident of the hill i'm a homeowner which menus i'm a significant property taxpayer. in the city and i was here at the 70 mta meeting with the subject of the parking meters was 75 to one and extended meters is a sunday issue that is terrible. i'd agree against more meters. if you wanted a destroy the bar business just do the meters past 10 o'clock >> you should keep things as they are but

mr. reiskin, and your boss in city hall mr. lee, as a means of harassing the poor and the working class. we don't have any cost down on montgomery street checking the bankers coming in and out of the doors, finding out how many billions they stole from us. you are not having them say, look, you turn in your buddy who ripped off a widow of her house, turn that in and get her work. no. you are continuously attacking the poor and the working class. it's a political attack on us. >> chair nolan: anyone else care to address the board on the director's report. none. >> moving on to the citizens advisory council report. item 9, public comment, opportunity for members of the public to address the board on items not on today's agenda. >> good afternoon mr. patel. >> my name is neil patel, planning director with the san francisco bicycle coalition to announce an event that the severn cisco coalition is putting on with the sfmta, the dependent living center and the office of -- it's an adaptive cycling event, at the june 9th -- and the do

mr. reiskin, anything? [speaker not understood]? >> no, thank you, chairman. i concur with director heinicke. i think it's a great plan. i love the thought process through it. but i fear the [speaker not understood]. and seeing after a fiscal antedote, after reading the article in the bayview, i had a conversation with director haley about some thing [speaker not understood]. so, i think short term we should look at some of the issues we're facing on geary in the city that we're [speaker not understood]. and maybe 3 to 5 years. [speaker not understood]. again, i concur with director heinicke that certainly 3 to 5 years out is a much better plan to me and i'm willing to work on that. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i do like the idea of looking at, looking at a one to five-year plan to see where we are, but to also have that drive in terms of knowing that within five years this is where we need to be. and here are the problems we need to fix now. otherwise when we hit that 50 year, we're not going to be able to do it. does that make sense? >> director ramos. >>

mr. reiskin introduced >> over we have a lot of speakers we have to get through one or two more senses to walk up. >> parking enforcement we don't need pain and suffering there are rv drivers who are parking and violating because of those conditions. >> okay. thank you, thank you very much. i have a number of cards i know that people are starting to line up on their own but i'll call them. (calling names) >> i have lived at my home in the mission - okay. >> can you start the clock again, please. can we get the microphone pulled close >> on the other hand, they claim that parking has no impact because fewer people drive. that's an environmental -- on the other hand, mta adds parking meters expands payment hours and increases finances all the in name of the demand because they say their is a shortage of parking and on the 3rd hand mta says all those changes are good for us although people in san francisco are kids. expanding parker meters in mixed neighborhood would change the character of our neighborhoods for worse. for over half a century people have changed their work on parking issues.

mr. reiskin to come up. i know we have a presentation to go through >> thank you chairperson. ed reiskin director of transportation. i'll start with acknowledging the strengthen and opening comments that i get and i understand that parking is a sensitive issue it matters to people in how they live their lives and how they get to where they're going. it's important part of the transportation we understand and appreciate. so therefore i'm grateful to walk through the parking management more generally in san francisco. so in brief inning - i'm going to speak a little bit about the current projects. so i just want to start with the context to remind folks that the sfmta was put together by the voters to manage the transportation system and to intrathd and coordinated way to achieve the girls laid out for us in the charter. managing parking is part of that we have a charter mandate that mansions things clear it includes managing parking. i represent fully decline we don't manage parking we have a charter mandate that requires us to do otherwise. we can discuss whether or not we're d

mr. reiskin is overburdened looking out for taxis and parking meters and all of that but it is your responsibility also. >> mary mcguire, last speaker. >> mary mcguire, taxi driver. i would like to thank mary borley and director reiskin. -- you are saying everything the industry want to say. you recommended the solution, to make sure that on regular that services will drive the regular providers out of business. -- also, you pointed out too that electronic hailing should not be exempt from regulation. regarding regulation, the hackers' code, better to ask for forgiveness than permission; if this will be the new way of the world, how can we regulate, govern, protect the public if this is how it's going to be? my request to you, my question is, these comments it is so excellent, are you prepared to act on them if the puc doesn't? i know it takes courage. i know, or i have heard or feel that mayor lee is not going to be favorable to you if you do act, hopefully i am wrong, and he is highly influenced by the people from sand hill road. i want to ask to have the courage to act. >> chair nolan: next ite

mr. reiskin said, which is this is part of a requirement under regional planning, correct? we need to actually, as all the other counties have done, we need to identify those areas and we need to have a plan for how we're going to deal with population growth. so, this is something that's not just important for us to do, but it's also going to inform regional planning, correct? >> in the short term we can meet our planning requirements basically through our county transportation plan and by the projects we submit into the regional transportation plan. but those are really current projects. it's not really looking far down the road. so, we can technically meet those requirements, but in the end those currently identified projects are not going to meet the needs of the future. so, i hear the feedback that trying to think 50 years when we've got things to fix today is difficult -- >> he's more confident about his long term [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. we're talking about a 50 year plan, but i do feel like we kind of need to do both. i have no question,