i do have some questions because i believe that the mta, is the mta representative here? >> they are coming. >> yes. >> i am with the sfmta. >> i guess, one of the questions that i have is what laws do you have in place currently to address this issue? >> there are several supervisor olague. >> the 72-hour rule which is city-wide, you cannot leave a vehicle standing for more than 72 hours at any specific place at a time. another one would be the no parking between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. for commercial vehicles in residential areas. and that is every day, plus, one hour limit during the rest of the time. and the third one is the habitation in vehicles, which is in the police code. and enforced directly by the police department. >> so, i guess my question is, how do you plan to enforce this... how do you plan to enforce this? >> well, we plan to work very closely with the residents as well as the officers of the supervisors to provide us input on the locations that have the greatest need. and we are not going to be doing this as supervisor chu mentioned earlier city-wide but onl

that is within the mta's board to put that into legislation because we want to provide the mta with flexibility see how this parking management could help and what the impacts are. so we wouldn't want to put that into the legislation. and so again, it is not a citywide regulation. all it does is proves the mta with the ability to say in certain area s where we're seeing problematic issues that we're able to restrict oversized vehicles from parking overnight from 12-6 a.m. again we're seeing as a noted that there are a large number of people who are storing vehicles on the city streets without much consequence. of the 208 surveyed registers vehicles that were oversized vehicles, again only 24 were actually parked within a quarter mile of where they were living. so it's a very clear sign this a lot of folks are using city streets, especially in areas that may not have parking restrictions or have unbroken sidewalk areas to park vehicles. so colleagues i would ask for your support. i know you are going to take public comment and i look forward to that. >> let's open it up to public comment. >> i h

just like errors that taxi drivers make on weigh bills, mta made an error, this is the same mta that's asking the board to simply trust them, the distrust approach hasn't worked in police practices and it shouldn't be allow ined a regulatory agency either, there's too much at stake, although the death penalty isn't on the table, losing their livelihood is a serious blaoe to someone who's worked if the industry for 25 year and is who hope tos require in the industry, that's a whole lot of power in the hands of mta and they should be held to a high standard to prove their case. the sfmta has made self-evidence errors during its investigation, additionally, sfmta is in the best position to prove that mr. kipnis drove during the time claimed. instead of looking for that potential exculpatory evidence, mta was intent on proffering that mr. kipnis had failed to meedriving requirements, more over, mta apart from itself investigators has somehow become inbound, we ask the board to reject that argument as handwriting analysis is an inexact science and even experts make mistakes, to allow mta wi

sanali from the mta, welcome. >> thank you, supervisors for hearing this item. i'm joined this morning with my colleagues from sfpd. we have been working together on this project. so just a little history. in 2007 the voters approved proposition a, which gave mt the sole authority to regulate parking regulations and establish parking privileges. so for the past several years we've been working to change all of the various permits and parking regulations that other city departments have been -- have been overseeing. so this is the last one of the various items that we have been able to change. so this one is associated with press permits. so under existing law the chief of police is authorized to establish procedures for press permits, so the police department is actually the department that determines who's the press and whether they should get a permit or not. that part is not changing. the police department will continue to have that role under this change -- under this proposal. the police department actually gives about 500 permits a year currently to press.

so mta has over 2,400 vehicles it owns and operators. over 1,000 are the transit vehicles that are the subject of this presentation but there are a large number of other vehicles we manage and maintain. most significantly there are other support vehicles, like for rail, maintenance staff and the like. so the transit fleet management plan is our 20-year look ahead to understand what vehicles we will need to provide the service demanded in san francisco. it also identified what investments are needed to deliver that service in terms of the fleet. this becomes a basis for a number of long-range documents such as san francisco transportation and regional transportation plan. one of the big changes that we are beginning to implement is a new strategy in how we procure our transit vehicles, especially the large number of buses that we operator. right now the way that the schedule has been for several procurements is we buy all the buses at one time. we get somewhere between 450 and 500 buses at one time. while there are some efficiencies gaine

so not a penny of mta funds went to this. it was really just the initiative and the love and the time of the four people standing up here and lulu has now joined us and i will note also one of our cac members is here also had a camo that you may have seen in at least one of the videos. this was picked up, these videos by numerous media outlets. my notes say it was a viral sensation, and it was all because the initiative of these four on their own time to put something together that was both fun and informative and helpful. so with that, congratulations. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> if any of you would care to say a few words? >> on behalf of our creative team, oscar award-winning team, i want to thank the board and directors for giving us the opportunity, as well as annette williams who trusted our instincts in pushing this. i have to say that the team worked offhours after an outreach meeting and just threw these ideas together, having coffee and i think the best ideas come out of these coffee breaks. thank you. >> i just w

. >> and just in the interest of time to wrap up, mta stands by the work done by our investigator and we believe this appeal by mr. kipnis should be denied. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> actually, counsel, can i ask you, i think one of the points made by the appellant was that there was no progressive disciplinary admonishments, was that practice within mta? can you address that issue, please. >> yes, certainly. the practice was to admonish all the drivers for any issues or discrepancies that they may have had, and we still practice that today. we consider mr. kipnis because he had three years in a row based upon our findings originally regarding his driving requirements so it wasn't an issue where he had one bad year, he had an issue of three bad years so we had to move for the egregious behavior versus you had one bad year, let's see if we can work on it. >> but at this point, it's been found that it's been one bad year. isn't that what's in the record, only 2009 was -- >> correct, the hearing officer only found 2009. >> with that information

no funds will be moving to the mta. they are carrying the costs entirely within their budget, as is appropriate given the circumstances. supervisor kim: did mta determine their new site yet? >> they have. they're moving to two different sites. part of it is going to their bancroft facility which they recently required -- which the recently acquired. the other part is going to their marin facility. we checked in with a team looking at the asset management issues and confirmed as of most intelligent places for those two uses to go. that has been reconfirmed and those moves are underway. >> -- supervisor kim: bancroft has been acquired and marin is a lease situation? >> yes. supervisor kim: i know this has come up before, but we have a sense that there are other city properties to determine if technology can move to to save on expenses or is that a priority in terms of what we're doing that search? >> we have looked very hard at any city assets that might work. a couple of the sites we're looking had to afford some opportu

verses if we have this mta, it has committed to us to be able to move and proceed carefully with this legislation to be selective about the face that they do put the signs up and to work in consultation with each supervisor to make sure that the areas where they are looking at and each of the districts are places that we want to have the restrictions. i think that this is a commitment that they have made as they move forward and the legislation passed and it is absolutely valid and great point and that is why, we are very careful about how it is that this is approached. and that is also why as part of the approach we did not put this as a city-wide restriction. this is something that will be used in chronickly impacted area. and i wanted to make those viewpoints. i wanted to clear up some confusion, folks asked about the different amendments that are out there. supervisor david chu has offered a number of amendments which i seconded and that has been passed out to you, the most recent edition. it does clarify that the mta, at its discretion because they have oversight than the board o

the standpoint of the commercial vehicles that there is broad consensus and when i have gone out with mta, i have seen quite a number of boats and campers not attached to vehicles, construction vehicles, i mean a tremendous amount of this situation does not in any way involve people's housing. but it is also clear that there are people that are residing in their vehicles. and over time, it has been a challenge to say, give up your vehicle and accept the services that we have to offer. and it is very difficult for an individual or an individual with family to let go of the only housing that they have for something that feels very uncertain. and so i want to thank marian siase, the treasure island director who has been working with us and the homeless out reach team and the city view storage on treasure island. and so without regard to where this legislation stands, whether it is adopted or not. we have made a commitment that we are going to try a pilot effort with probably three vehicles that we would be able to store at city view storage on treasure island for a 3-month period. we are wor

mta would do the assessment in both cases but either mta or dbi would do the enforcement in collectionof occupancy has been issued. if one has not, g goh would dbie collection. the difference is because prior to july 2010, the mta had full administrative authority over the tidf. in july 2010 ti tidf was consolidated with other planning fees. however, there is a transition period that's required. so this would allow for an appropriate approach to different projects, depending where they are in the process. finally, the proposed tidf update would tie the future tidf -- of planning code 410 which establish requirements for reportin analyzing, and updating fees. and both i and ms. -- from mta are available for questions. thank you. >> chair mar: also have regina dick intri, director from the office of small business with us as well. supervisor wiener? so why don't we ask if -- actually, ms. bose or ms. -- did you have any remarks at all? >> good afternoon, chair mar, supervisors. the small business commission heard this matter on june 11th, and it did -- its recommendation is to approve wi

of course, the mta is here if you have additional questions.lieve that we have somebody from nancy miers from and the bayview station is also here to speak about some of the issues that they have faced in the neighborhood. generally the legislation is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation and takes all of two pages. so it's a pretty straightforward one. it primarily allows for the mta, who is the body who does regulate parking in the city overall to be able to restrict where they see that there is a need and where they do post signs oversized vehicles as defined as 22' in length or 7' in height. campers or trailers, 5th wheel travel trailers, house cars, travel couch mobile homes as defined by the california vehicle code between of the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. this is not intended to be a citywide restriction. it's only area s where the mta would create management opportunitis in different parts of city. we first came across the issue because of many of the constituent issues in the sunset district. i want to be clear this is no

my question to mta, are you trying to kill off the leased driver? are you trying to starve us out of existence? there is not enough time to study what you released and now you are talking about 200 around the clock cabs possibly. it doesn't make any sense. at the same time you are doing this, you are allowing sleazy, shady fake cab companies to proliferate on the streets while as my colleagues have said are driving for hours. i just don't see how we can continue like this and i'm speaking for myself, but it seems to me the mta is pushing the drivers to strike. you are pushing us to strike. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. lynn van winkle. david silverglide, carl mcmuredo. >> i'm here on behalf of the of the golden gate restaurant association and over 100-member locations within the bay area. we strongly support the proposal to increase the number of taxi cabs in san francisco. the difficulty in finding taxis directly impacts the ability for residents and travelers to patronize our member restaurants. hospitality is our no. 1 indus

er >> apparently everyone makes mistakes, clearly we've shown that mta has made a lot of mistakes in their investigation and they have a perfect situation of people who have advanced degrees, who are working in lighted rooms, who have calculators, who have computers, etc., mr. kipnis is out driving on a busy friday and a saturday night where he's yelling at people and trying to keep it together and trying to keep a record at the same time, and honestly, you know, ultimately we have no objections to the weigh bills that were flagged being thrown out because in the worst case scenario, there would still be 80 weigh bills for that year even if those were all thrown out. >> i count 28 findings of mileage overlaps, duplicate dates, etc., it seems to be more than just a couple of mistakes. >> for a one-year period for a driver, it's not that unusual, and again, we believe that a system of progressive discipline should have been used here if it was a matter of not keeping good records, if it's sloppy bookkeeping but the department has really failed to show any additional evidence, and throw

jonathan rivers with the mta. so, we've been working with the authority for a couple months on a full funding plan for masonic. it is a very significant project here in the city of san francisco and it's one of our major complete street projects where we want to come in and try to do everything. there is a component, the resurfacing component that is being funded through the proposition b bond. the $18 million project, though, is those additive complete streets streetscape improvements. we have funded the environmental phase and that's moving forward, just recently completed the mta board improved legislation associated with the project last tuesday. so, now comes the hard part. we have tried through numerous different programs to try to fund the detail design phase which is the next step of the project to continue to move us forward. i think in the next couple of months, the one bay area program specifically is our best opportunity to fund this project. we are going to continue to try to move to fund the next pha

this legislation is simple piece of legislation and is meant for the mta to have additional deal with impacted areas. what it is, simply, is a restriction, or allowing the mta to apply a restriction to over night parking for oversized vehicles, defined as over 22 feet in length or 7 feet in height. camp trailers, fifth wheel travel trailers, house cars, trailer coaches, mobiler homes, recreational vehicles, or semitrailers as defined by the california vehicle code and the restriction between the hours of 12 a.m. to 6 a.m.. >> again these are not locations are not something that would be decided upon by the board of supervisors, but would be something that the mta through their board would be able to determine in terms of finding out where the chronically impacted areas are. >> we have explored many options with the mta. at first there was a conversation as to whether or not do a city wide restriction, we thought that was a restriction that was onerou s and we wanted to do this on a case by case basis where we see the chronic problems across the city and the 24 hours notice does not wo

then other authority staff and mta staff are here if you have any questions. and lastly, this comes full circle. next month there will be a presentation on the district 6 project. but also a huge group of city-wide projects, a lot of munich re hactionv thaition and projects such as commissioner wiener was talking about we will cover next month. that will be it for today. >> thank you, maria. ben supka, planning authority. i want to point out we have the district 5 and 7 lists available today and they were included enclosures with your packet. the list is more detail than i can go into in the presentation. i want to remind you these are active projects in the district. we leave projects off the list that were completed six months ago just so you know. so, we have a quick map of the projects in the district. i just want to point out that as you can see we've separated projectses broadly by project type and they're mapped out here in the district. * and then we're going to do an update of just a few of the authority-led efforts that were both in district 5 and di

well, essentially what the mta is doing with this proposal by handing the medallions directly to the cab companies instead of the working drivers you are taking thousands of dollars a month from these drivers into your own pockets, into the mta's pockets. you guys are the bad guys. you guys are the ones taking thousands of dollars for yourself, not $5-10. so i want you to think about that. we have got a for-profit company here is that is making regulations that they can summarily profit from. it reminds me of the downfall of communist russia. it's ludicrous the bureaucracy here. i would also like to in closing say give these medallions to the guys on the list. c'mon? put them out there. and if they buy them or sell them, that is the right thing to do. >> thank you, sir. >> charlesrathbone. >> why with euberfound their beginnings in san francisco and not boston or new york? part of the reason is the shortage of cabs in our city. we have a large unmet demand for cab service. so we're asking you to address that issue today by issuing more cabs. in the meantime, we have not just been sit

as was stated, apparently everyone makes mistakes including mta and while we don't necessarily have dna samples that exculpate mr. kipnis, we do have a declaration from his driver showing he saw him regularly driving his taxi in 2009 and that's just one example of evidence that could have been drawn out in this investigation that showed he was actually driving. mta has failed to prove fraud and the evidence of overly pristine weigh bills, etc., is not that persuasive, an admonishment would be more appropriate in this case, not revocation when mr. kipnis has been working in the industry for 28 years and about half of that time as a medallion holder. so, in closing, you know, in the worst case scenario and for lack of additional evidence to support sfmta's claims, mr. kipnis should be facing disciplinary charges for sloppy bookkeeping and even if the specifically affected weigh bills were flagged, excluded, the 19 duplicates plus 8 weigh bills with long numbers and the mileage recorded, he would still be left with 80 weigh bills which is the exact number he needs to meet his full time dri

>> well, let me just ask the mta staff here a couple of questions. i appreciate supervisor chu and a number of residents' efforts to make our neighborhoods safer, but address different issues. i want to make sure that we're also being sensitive to people that live in their vehicles and that we're mitigating the pushing them out of their potential living space. but i wanted to ask the mta, how many -- what percentage would you estimate of oversized vehicles are ones where people live in those vehicles? do you have any kind of measurement? because i want to measure of the human impact of a life policy like that. >> right now we do not have a number on how many vehicles are habituated. >> i'm all for a collection ever data and really selectively looking at areas, but i know it's mostly the sunset spots or district 4, plus some of the fulton and to go after commercial vehicles, but to work with the coalition and have assurances there are other spaces to move to and live in their vehicles would be my hope. i know it's a pilot as supervisor chu and others