>> she jumped. and then she cursed at me. it happened. whatever. we need traffic calming. chairman nolan: thank you. director bridges: this is a great plan, by the way. is there a plan to go further? >> the current phase goes to octavia boulevard. the upper portion of market is contained in the upper market plan. we use that as a dividing line in recognizing the upper portion has already been planned. we understand there will be some inconsistency there.

we had to drop a stopping line and that seemed logical. director bridges: will it be a coordination point between the two? >> that is a good question. we are focusing on octavia to the east. we should be thinking how the integration happens between those two plans. we will certainly think about that as a team. we can report back on that. director heinicke: we have had discussions about this as a board before. i do not want to purport to speak on behalf of everybody. my view is that the way we're going to reach the primary goal one markets -- on market is to limit traffic, limit private traffic, or eliminate private traffic. we need to recognize there is a

lot of surrounding streets that can accommodate private traffic. let's look at history. when the mayor implemented the little sound with no traffic with automatic right turns, there were fears that would be the end of the world. it was not. push further. if we can continue with an agency to test for their automatic right turn zones, a test no-cars ounczones. let's do that. we are already on the way on van ness. market street is a far better candidate for that because there is not the need for private traffic on that street that there is on van ness. i think that is the view of this board. if you all want to leverage the

agency and suggest pilots or test programs we can implement please call on us. >> i will echo that sentiment. i was on the cac before. i have seen theseworking, thoughtful people on this project. i definitely support a transit focused direction for this project. chairman nolan: plans develop. it is a lot of hard-anyone else? director ramos: thank you very much for this great work. it is so exciting. i spent more time than i should on market street. i am a chess player. wonderful people there.

it is fantastic. if you hang out there for more than 20 minutes, you will notice there is no place to use the restroom. people in debt utilizing door ways. it is a big mess. it is an embarrassment, frankly. it is disappointing. on a positive note, i will help you will consider to capitalize on that. i remember back in the 1970's, when the main stem used to be on market street. the test tables or further up the street closer to -- chess tables were closer up the street closer to powell. in new york, they actually have built in chessboards and tables. it is a place where people want

to stay. i think that is the goal. having just gotten back from copenhagen, i can assure you that the dedicated transit planes and bicycle tracks only do work. i have pictures. julie was with me. we made a special plane to go back to a place where they had taken cars off the street. beautiful dedicated bus lanes. and there were taxicab's that were going through. i encourage that. it is possible and we can look to copenhagen. another thing we saw that i experienced in copenhagen was this problem of way to many

bikes not having a place to park. looking back, if they would change anything, they would build bike parking into a design. i was thinking about this, you have a slide of the gentleman leaning over a concrete thing. that could be a bike rack. i would encourage you to integrate bicycle parking into design. whatever you need to do, to make it in such a way where seniors do not have to lift a bike. finally, i would hope that you

would stress the cycle track option. there was a time in denmark or i was able to sit and watch the number of bicyclist and it becomes a place itself, just watching them go by. they do not consider themselves cyclists. it is people who ride bikes. it is not an infringement on place making. it has become part of the place. it is terrifying on market street to play chicken with these buses and cars. the cycle track is a phenomenal thing and i hope we can do more of it. i think that is all i've got. great work. one more thing -- the bart portals, i noticed that people ride their bikes on the sidewalk because they are in the middle

of the bloc sometimes. if you were coming down on a bike on market street, you will ride your bike through the cut away at the intersections and write down the sidewalk to the portals because -- a ride on the sidewalk to the portals. it is kind of awkward and scary. if there are places where we can optimize back into the design, i would encourage it. near the center platforms, in denmark, they had these bicycle lane crosswalks to transit. right now, if you did -- passengers will not go to the crosswalk to cross the street at the intersection. they will just cut through the traffic. if you could think about putting

crosswalks just for the bicyclist itts. it would reduce the likely occurrence of a pedestrian transit rider and a bicyclist collision. those would be my remarks. thank you so much. great work. >> i thought it was a great presentation. tom nolan and i remember when market street was a major hub. i am excited to see what plans we have for it. i would love to see that come to be. thank you very much. chairman nolan: excellent presentation. >> most european cities will be

thrilled to have the space that we have to work with. we have such a wide street. when we say we do not have room, we cannot do something, we cannot separate the bike from transit, we have so much space to design with and to play with. we have to keep in mind they have done things would streets much narrower. it must be exciting as designers to have that space to play with. great presentation. you were a very good presenter. >> i want to thank the whole team, the planning department, the office of economic development, the directors of all the agencies are getting together once a month to review this project. it was about four years ago that

i started talking with the mayor about market street. we had a need to repave it but realized that tearing it up and putting it back as it was, let's take the opportunity to really fix it. i would like to think i had some role at the beginning. he will not find a bigger champion for this project than me. i want to temper the enthusiasm a little bit. in terms of the funding question and schedule, i would call it somewhat aspirational at the moment. this is the timeline and we kind of sad the paving and let's all tried to get all the work done so that we can do it all together. we do not have an identified funding source. but we are trying to do is get the conceptual design done and get the preliminary engineering

and environmental work done so that we have a shovel ready project at that point that will compete favorably for the regular funds or whatever grant programs come in the next administration. we're doing all the right things to make it as competitive as possible. i think it is doable. it certainly will happen. the other thing i want to caution, the idea of doing more pilots. i think there is a lot we can do to continue to improve the conditions in terms of education and enforcement. we are going to run into an area where we are entering the environmental review period it

and will be -- we will need to be cautious of what we are doing under the guise of a pilot. we do not want to risk the overall movement of a project by throwing too many more of these pilots in. some of the ideas down around third and fourth street were a little bit limited right now because of the central subway construction. i want to caution and a little bit about the idea that we will be doing a whole bunch more pilots or that the check is in the mail. it is a great project and is a great effort and a great community effort. we have a strong cac, a strong technical advisory committee, design experts. from a stakeholder perspective, this project has been done very well. it will be great to see it happen. >> is there any possibility -- i

know we had discussed a change in the eir process as it relates to ceqa. director heinicke had brought up the question at that point, will there be a time when it makes more sense to wait for the new process? i do not remember what the change was called. >> that transportation system and a bill latifi was introduced this month. or maybe -- the transportation system was introduced this month. or maybe last month. depending on when we are ready to launch into environmental review, it is possible we could hit that point where it would make sense to delay. we will do the federal process as well. that may change the equation a little bit, although ceqa is the long straw. we will be watching for projects

that come up with the next year or two. there will be a point where we may want to make that determination. market street will have -- the two things that drive the environmental review process are transportation and -- the transportation system of the latifi change. market street may have some historic issues that need to be dealt with. i am sure there will be a lot of people -- a lot of things people will find to be historic. chairman nolan: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> nobody has turned in speaker cards. chairman nolan: next item. >> item 14, declining to renew access transit liability personal injury and property damage insurance coverage,

return the sfmta to complete self ensuring personal injury and property damage claims by third parties and placed on reserve the amount of the premiums for any such coverage to cloud cover future potential claims. >> i have read the written report and i understand a recommendation to be that we not renew the coverage. instead, we take the premium amount and put that aside in our reserve. i've spoken with the director offline about this too was polite enough to call me that i am in favor of having an excess liability coverage. i still favor that, but i will not jump up and down and do anything other than vote know. i respect the staff's recommendation. i have one question. how can we ensure good faith that we are setting aside money

that would have been spent on a premium and not just calling money that we would have spent on the reserves, you know, how can we be assured that we are accruing an extra two or $3 million each year? maybe we maintain our reserve policy and say they are reserve policy apply separately from this money. going forward, we need to meet our reserve policy or have the goal of that and separately have this set aside liability. >> thank you for the question. if the board decides to do that, we would create a separate designated reserve fund for insurance. we would place -- you would see $2.4 million being identified as an expense line item on the budget. director heinicke: that money would not count --

chairman nolan: the biggest single was $21 million. >> $22 million. chairman nolan: if we were to get to a major claim against us, we have 10 years to pay it. >> we would negotiate with the other party. in some instances, we would want to push it out. in other instances, we would want to pay it up front. chairman nolan: we all understand that in no one here will we be paying $22 million. we would have the right to negotiate for that. >> installments, that is the state code. chairman nolan: i support it. questions or comments? lawyers, financial people? >> a motion to approve? chairman nolan: let's have a

roll call on this. >> [roll call vote] 6-1. >> thank you for the diplomatic way you approach that with me. it was very respectful. chairman nolan: -- >> i will not remind us what happened. chairman nolan: next topic. >> item 15, discussion and vote as to whether conduct a closed session. chairman nolan: we are now in closed session. thank you.