company. we have a lot of drivers would are very upset because they pay $150 a shift, overcharging to get a guest to drive the cab. i hope you consider leasing tot to the cab drivers as well. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> mr. corngold. >> hi. i'm barry corngold. i want to comment on how appalled i was and surprised at the lack of discussion before last meeting's vote on the medallion reform plan. in particular, vice-chair brinkman said that this has been looked at and underway for a long time. that you have -- that you have enough informing have looked at it enough and in the

next following sentence you proceeded to show that you don't understand the concept of the waiting list or the issue with it. such as the people waiting 15, 20 years and sluging it out the of this time at very low-income and having to work hard shift where's there is nobody there. they finally are ready to get their medallion and it's not going to be worth it for them to buy it. you are telling them that okay, at least you have the opportunity to buy it if you are on the list. it makes no sense. everybody on the list gets a medallion -- i mean the medallions don't get sold to anybody who is not on the list and the people at the top of the list, it's not worth it for them to buy it most of the time because they are too old. they are been doing this for 20, 30 years already. so you need to to explore this a little further. and then as i said before, barry toronto shared some of the emails with me, that he obtained through the public records act. and i was appalled at the

disrespect given to the cab drivers and all the meetings that we have been going to through the years. it did consider the needs of public and the agency, it gave $10 million a year to the agency. and what is wrong with appeasing -- you are talking as if we are the enemy. what is wrong with listening tot cab drivers, who have been addressing these concerns? >> thank you. >> peter witt. last speaker. >> okay. >> thank you for waiting. if your camera could get me center, i would like to see that. this is the data that has been

collected over the years and i submitted to the taxi commission and taut for the last four years. i believe mr. reiskin you are involved in the last survey here this. is this year's survey i gave you last month. mid-last month, 2012 survey, 1,000 customers. pretty much it was all anecdotal testimony and, in fact it was all anecdotal testimony. you know, i would prefer to work analytically and i prefer government to work analytically, rather then through warm and fuzzy feelings, mr. reiskin. i have your requirements for your job, which is supposed to be to is collect data, relevant

data and store it and then it would be ideal if you actually administered it or you know, spread it around and let the people look at. it because you know, he believe your it people haven't looked at it yet. i got an email the 15th by carol from the quarry galinas people who are doing your current study and i was asked a few questions, but i find it a little bit odd, because i was also told i would be a paid consultant. unfortunately, i missed my day and said it would end the end of august. so they had done their little focus group and i missed out on it. it's unfortunate, but i'm not an avid email reader. thank you. >> anyone else wishing to address public comment? seeing none, next item.

>> moving on to item 10 -- these are consent calendars matters to be considered routine unless a member of public asked an item be considered separately. there is a question for l, m and n to be considered separately and 10.2l by a member of public? >> removing those, is there a motion to approve the cardinal. consent calendar? >> aye. >> david silverglide. >> item l is in regards to changing the signage between sampson and montgomery, reichert now it's a urban oasis, very nice trees and thousands of people that eat

lunch, that walk and enjoy the sunshine, which is a rarity in the financial district. unfortunately the dpw made a mistake and issue arid food truck permit on commercial street in the middle of this pedestrian zone. and the applicant didn't inform dpw it was a pedestrian zone and parking was illegal. so for months the truck parked illegally, right in the middle of pedestrian zone in the middle of thousands of people enjoying the little bit of green space in the middle of the financial district. so to rectify the situation, the dpw has asked that we just change the parking regulations and allow trucks that have dpw permits to park in the middle of pedestrian zones. i own a business that is on this pedestrian zone and we fought very hard to have this pedestrian zone and create this place. we serve thousands of restaurant customers with outdoor tables and chairs and permits for those and we have people who enjoy coming there. now we have a truck in the mill

of it, which is bad for a lot of reasons and should be there. it's bad for the pedestrians. we have generator noise from the truck in the middle of a pedestrian zone and engine noise in the middle of a pedestrian zone. it's dangerous. there is no enforcement when the truck comes and goes and the truck can move feel freely if they come later or early. we all know what happened to the santa monica's farmers market, where we had a truck/vehicle move into a pedestrian zone and cause a bad accident. it's not good to mix cars and pedestrian zones. there is no parking enforcement because mta vehicles cannot get in there to check. the meter is almost never fed during this period of time. so we would really like to make sure we keep this a pedestrian zone. we don't need themate cleaning up dpw's mistakes. they should not have issued a permit where there is a pedestrian zone. you should not be cleaning up their mess

incorrectly. do not let this get changed. >> you are speaking to l? >> yes. >> and matthew wexler is the next member of public and he is the last member of the public who submited a speaker card. >> good afternoon. >> my name is matthew wexler, i'm the owner of the food truck that has the permit from the department of water to park on commercial street. we went through all the proper steps that we were required of us by the department of public works to get our permit. it's opened up a couple of months now. i'm an existing parts of the neighborhood. we had a restaurant in that same building for a little over three years now. and we have been nothing, but, i think, a great part of the neighborhood and in addition, to the neighborhood. and our food truck has been a welcomed extension of our restaurant by customers that we have had and new customers as

well. we don't run our engine during the middle of service. we're parked with the car off and we are providing something that is adding to what the city looks for in the alley ways which is providing foodservice and creating that kind of leisurely atmosphere that in downtown san francisco. we follow all safety precautions. we certainly don't take -- we never put anyone in a situation where they would be in danger of the trucks not moving. it's parked and all it's doing is serving food during the time that we're there. we're regulated when we can serve food in the street. just like anyone else is. and we have a regulated perform by the department of water for when we can be there and when we can't about there and when we can operate and when we can't operate and we followed all of those rules since we

first opened. >> thank you, sir. >> can i ask you a clarifying question? >> sure. >> i'm just looking at commercial street on google map. the area where your truck is parked, is it in this sort of -- i guess it's a loading zone area? where the sidewalk kind of curves in. >> correct, 565 commercial is where we're permitted by the department of water to park, which is the address. >> you are in 5900 block? 500 block? >> correct almost at the corner of commercial and monorail. montgomery. >> it's narrow, but the roadway widens at a certain point? >> yes. >> thank you for that clarification.

director lee? >> yes, l, m and n. >> you don't have a concern about commercial street? >> no. hold on one sec. >> it's k, isn't it? ortega is l and m? >> commercial is l on my sheet. >> i have commercial as k. >> i do, too. >> i do, too. no wonder we're confused. >> well, let's stick with commercial street and i have no issues with commercial street. my question is that both of these folks are well-spoken members of the business

community. who i suspect are trying to do the right thing by their customers. what is the feedback of the neighborhood? does the neighborhood want it? does the office building love it or hate it? if this was one of our neighborhood issues we would know what the people on this block think, so why don't we find out. >> good afternoon, sustainability streets division. i think the matter has been explained by both parties in that this is a street closed to vehicular traffic between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.i have a photo of the food truck, if you want too see it. when the street was originally closed it was typically closed for tables and chairs, but now that there are food trucks this year we started permitting -- the department of water started to permit food trucks. this is the food truck and this is the commercial street.

we had a situation where the permit was granted for the food truck to be in the street that is closed to traffic. we discussed it with the department of water originally this area was signed for no periods just to ensure no leftover vehicles when treasclosed to ped straps. so our officers started to site the truck for being there, even though it had a city permit. so it created a conflict. we aloud the truck to be there and coming now before you to make sure that this activity is allowed by the city for the truck to be here. we feel that the truck can be made in a safe manner of we did have a public hearing. the main objections have been from nearby restaurants who don't like the food truck, but otherwise, we're not aware of any specific concerns other

than the fact that the food truck is not thought to be consistent with the closure of the street. it is kind of an activation of that commercial street. it allows people to have something to go to. if you go there, you will see people gathering food from the food truck, which is consistent with a lot of other uses for a street of this type. >> as i read it, this would be a full block change in the restriction. so the reason why i asked the question, right? i mean, conceivably dpw could license more than just mr. wexler's truck and i guess my concern comes in, we have to balance the needs here. and thank you for the update. and i can understand why a restaurant that came to and participated in an effort to have a pedestrian right-of-way near its business would not want a food truck parked directly in front of it. i understand in man's concern he doesn't want it on this block, but it's about a balance. so if the only

concern is from the restauranteurs and, but my concern is if we do this and maybe this is an issue for dpw to balance, but it would sure seem unfair that if there were food trucks in front of the restaurants themselves. also as i support director brinkman will channel, this is a pedestrian right-of-way and then overnight it's all food truck it's not really a pedestrian right-of-way. it's a food court. so it seems to me that the one truck and if this is the one permit and it's not in front of this man's restaurant, you know, that seems like a fair balance, but i want to have some limiting principle here, because if we tell them it's one truck and lo and behold there is a food truck in front of this man's restaurant in a couple of weeks he would be upset and have good running back to be. >> i think what we have here is the overlay of two different

regulatory systems. >> do you know anything about dpw? >> i do. >> and we actually have someone from dpw here, but note there is regulatory permitting process that the food trucks go through. so this truck presumably went through that initial public process and has an opportunity for a public hearing. it has certain notice requirements. it alsos have requirements in the regulations that dpw adopted that they consider the impact on the immediate businesses. there is some provision to restrict the issuance of a permit if it's in direct feet workers' compensation the business. so if you have a mexican restaurant, you copyright have a taco truck right outside. so there are those conditions that dpw takes into each permit and evaluates each on its own.

>> this is issue. if we open this up on the entire block, have we then said pedestrians concerns aren't really that big a concern, if dpw business concerns turns it into a food court. that is my concern as mta director standpoint. >> i understand. the dpw process is not a business-only process. they go through a full public process as did then we

subsequently went through a public hearing process before bringing this proposal forward. so there are two steps of public process. i don't think anybody would suggest that by approval of this, it would be a statement of the mta board that pedestrian issues aren't of concern. i think our folks would look at this from safety and sustainable streets perspective and find it's not of concern . >> well,, okay, because it's one truck. i think the point of all of this and i'm happy to support the staff proposal in the end, but the point is assurance to our restaurant owner and his neighbors and friends and colleagues that at least one director here does not want to see this turned into a food court at the expense of pedestrian right-of-way without a lost of -- a lot of further discussion. >> i echo that concern. i trust mr. lee's opinion that one food truck is not going to

degrade the pedestrian. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john, department of public works. this situation, the mobile food facilities program that the department is currently running is approximately a year and a half since it was voted on by the board of supervisors. we're continually learning as given it's a new program and we're typickually continually refining. currently the legislation

itself is being reevaluated to clarify and change certain aspects to provide more clarity to the code. given that my assumption currently is that it would ask for the same type of closure from 11:00 to 2:00 to operate in the same proximate location. it is highly unlikely that the department would recommend an approval for these types of additional food trucks because again, we're starting to run into areas of what we believe to be some saturation, that the intent of the legislation was to, according to the board of supervisors was place these food trucks into so-called food deserts where there is little foodservices in the area. and based upon that logic,

we're really looking at what is appropriate and what is not specifically. >> and so this food truck, since the gentleman runs a restaurant on that street already, it's slightly a different situation? >> in this case -- >> there are four restaurants on the street, but the food truck operator is one of those restaurants, correct? >> yes. >> that is correct >> three restaurants have outdoor seating. >> thank you. in that situation i'm happy to support staff's proposal on this one. >> i think we have a little technical problem. at least two of us already voted for this. director lee and i had this as k; right? >> yes. >> and we only removed l, m and n. >> when did become such a stickler? >> i'm a lawyer. >> you can vote on it again.

that would be fine. it's just doubly endorsed. >> i will move to approve this. >> you are approving l, the commercial street? >> l. >> is there a second for that motion? >> second. >> any furndiscussion? all those in favor, say aye? >> aye. >> opposed? the ayes have it. l, m and n. jerry, director lee? >> that was the ortega street from 24th to 25th or 27th, where we're going put in speed bumps and pedestrian islands and then do strict parking. i'm familiar with that area because i grew up, around the sunset reservoir and into ortega [pw*-ubgts/] don't we run into the same problem with quintaro, reducing the speeds? >> are you asking about certain streets that are similar? >> they are identical.

our drafting group is here and i'm going ask him to speak to the issue of other adjacent streets that might be of consider to take a look at. >> okay. >> good afternoon, mike with the livable sections of mta. we responded to this particular request on ortega because an application was submitted and we haven't looked at quintaro, because we haven't received an application. our traffic-calming resolves from input from residents. quintaro is more steep that ortega but because there were no specific requests for quintaro, we haven't looked tat. >> you are talking about speed bumps and pedestrian islands? >> speed humps are meant to control the speeding on the street and pedestrian islands are meant to improve crossing of the ortega to lead to the

sunset reservoir. >> okay. what about the rationale of the restricted parking. >> the restricted parking is at the corners, to improve the sight lines of motorists and pedestrians i should add these elements were developed in conjunction with neighbors along that street. >> thank you. >> with that, director lee? >> i move to approve that. >> l, m and n? >> yes. >> their list, not ours. [ laughter ] >> i will second. >> we will have a tiny little break here. okay. can we hang on to that and come back to this one? >> okay. >> on advoice of my co-counsel. so let's go to 12. >> all right, so it's my understanding that the board is not taking action at this point on the ortega street items? >> that is right. >> moving on to item 12, hold on, let me get down there.

i hope daze it's really 12, authorizing the directors to executive a contract new flier industries, et cetera. directors no members of public have signed up. >> any questions on this one? >> i would like to clarify -- and this actually came up. it's a question i should have asked when state of good repair grant for l15 million. this is this grant what is buying these buses or is that a separate purchase? >> hi, good afternoon, monique

webster. the state of good repair grant we received was towards the purchase of replacement vehicles. we would like to expand the number of [sthra-ebgz/] we're going to be able to purchase, but at this point we don't know how many additional vehicles that will be. >> okay. so i think the last time we talked about new vehicles and i asked mr. haly, we would be receiving our first batch of new vehicles in spring? >> mr. haly and his staff with u.s. city attorney's office and finance folks has done a trespass job to accelerate this to the greatest extent possible negotiating very hard with new flyer to [tkhr-efr/] and i believe under this purchase, which i would say that we're very excited about, we would have the first ones coming in

in the spring. and we have been able to get from them a very aggressive schedule and following right behind, which i think kind of relates to the question of the other grant funds is what we're also beginning to process on some of the electric trolley buses as well. so they will be following behind this purchase. but it's a much shorter turnaround time than we would normally have in part because you authorized us to enter into the purchasing consortium and in part because we emphasized to the contractor that we would like the most aggressive schedule possible for delivery. >> and these will be replacing some of our buses that we have been remined in the past we have the oldest fleet around and it's only through the amazing work of our mechanics that they are out there still running. so this will replace our worst? >> between in and the electric

trolley procurement that we hope to bring to you soon, we'll be replace [sph-fgt/] oldest in our fleet and our biggest headaches. you will see in the next item, where we're requesting authorization to rehab in additionally some of our older vehicles in this combination of purchase and overhaul and in addition this is what have you approved in the five-year cip. that in addition to what have you done in operating budget in terms of getting -- investing in the maintenance, these two planks toweled significantly improve the reliability of the fleet overall. >> and i'm sorry, one more question. to go back to the federal grant, again this is something that i meant to ask at the time, but never did. when we got the $15 million state of good repair grant was that something we anticipated and baked into our budget numbers for those buses? >> yes.

when we developed the two-year and five-year cip and the two-year capital budget, we anticipate to the best of our abilities the federal grant program and state to the extent its relevant. the various funding sources and build our plan around that. so we did anticipate those funds and i think we actually anticipated more than we received with that $15 million, so we're certainly very grateful for the $15 million. it wasn't a surprise. it was the exact amount we were unsure of. so that was baked into our assumptions, but because we got less, we have to figure out how to close gaps and adjust accordingly. these funds and the procurement was in the capital budget. >> g i just wanted to highlight that, because i know when i did a tour of one of the divisions, the age of the buses and the fact that you want your buses -- i understand, to be staggered at different types of year, so they don't start breaking down all at once. so buying 45