career and in my family life where i'm trying to raise three children, looking for another job and proving myself somewhere else is not an option. if the shuttles were taken away, i would drive because there is no public transportation currently that would get me where i need to go. so, with that said, i encourage you to accept the proposal and i also encourage everybody here to really think about the actual issue of housing and community. thank you. >> thank you. (applause) >> next speaker, please. >> herbert wiener, annie [speaker not understood]. those are the last two people who have turned in speaker cards on this item. i hope i don't offend people initially in the audience, but i hold stock in google, but i don't like the shuttle buses. i don't like them at all. if i had anything to say about it, i'd have them replace the 26 valencia line that was discontinued. (applause) they should really pay a handsome sum of money to this city and not only for their maintenance costs. they should be funding the city

budget. they should be funding mta and they have the backs to do it. they are filth i rich. they are getting away with neighbor by invading the neighborhood. i live in the richmond. pretty soon they'll be invading my neighborhood. maybe we should call san francisco google land. you have to do something about bringing these buses to heel. i wonder if anyone from google has testified here. i got here late partly due to a crowded [speaker not understood]. the thing about it, you have to do something to curb this and they should maintain up and above their expenses for maintenance. they ought to be funding the muni budget insteadth of taking it out of the hydes and other passengerses. [speaker not understood]. they have the money to go after it. be brave. >> next speaker. , please.

(applause) >> annie goust. she's the last speaker to turn in a speaker card. >> go ahead. thank you for allowing me to be the last speaker. [speaker not understood]. i live on fell street located directly outside a muni stop which is now being co-opted by google again. and i want to say i support any project of this kind under a few conditions and those are these. that the pilot program is treated as that, a pilot program. it is an opportunity and experience for you to realize the impact of a shuttle program like this. i would like to see the following in force. number one, the number of stops strictly limited as limited as possible, enforced and regulation to be as strict as possible and taken as very, very seriously. and ultimately i'd like to see a speed structure imposed that accounts for a couple of things. one, the fact that these companies have been acting

flagrantly in violation of muni rules for years with zero consequences. i know a lot of people feel strongly about that. secondly, i'd like to see that fee structure commensurate with the immense and tangible benefit that our public infrastructure provides to these companies. in particular, on the ability to recruit and sustain the kind of talent that they want. and i know we've heard many of those people speak here today that work for google and [speaker not understood], et cetera. we all love living in san francisco. that in itself is not kind of a moot point here. we all do. but let's get real. these companies are filth i rich and we need to squeeze them for everything that they're worth. and that is real talk, okay. you know what i'm talking about. we need the money. go get it. thank you. >> thank you so much. okay with that said, last speaker, the public hearing will be closed. members of the board, it is time for our deliberations and decision. i'd like to begin it by saying

is the pilot project better than the status quo? is it better to have this, some kind of regulation, some kind of enforcement better than what we have now? and to my mind the pilot project is clearly better than the status quo. is it perfect? of course not. i would also like to reiterate again that the ability of this board is severely limited regardless of what some speakers have said by prop it '02 18. we do not have the ability to [speaker not understood] the rich as somebody just said. ~ 218. the point was made what would the fee be, mr. reiskin, when one of these buses is picketed in a bus space? >> once we -- if we were to approve this and would implement the program, any bus that does not have a permit that uses any muni bus stop would be subject to the same citation amount as anybody else. any bus that has a permit that

is using an unpermitted -- an undesignated spot would also be subject to that same amount. >> thank you very much. one last thing. what is intriguing to me is the notion of 218, prop 218 is the controlling legislation here. about looking at putting it on the ballot possibly, in the future. see if we can do more than simple cost recovery. at this point we don't know what the cost recovery -- what the actual costs are going to be. so, the pilot will give us a whole lot more information. i personally would be interested in seeing if at some point we could take a look at something for the belt. we know the belt has a lot of stuff on it already for the fall. at some point, that's after the pilot is conducted. so, with that, i invite members of the board. member freeman. >> thank you all who showed up. i'm glad to hear so many love this city as much as i do. i'm pleased to hear people

enjoy living car free in this city. and i'm glad the corporate shuttle can facilitate that. i think it is important to remember that every person who comes to the city or moves to the city and chooses not to own a private automobile, that is a big win for us. a private automobile spends the majority of its life parked generally on our streets, maybe in somebody's garage. so, to all of you who use the shuttles or don't use the shuttles and live in the city and love the city and use transit and bike and walk and don't own a car, thank you very much. i'm pleased to he see the work that ms. penn has done on this pilot project. chair nolan's point is it better than what we had before which was unregulated corporate shut thexv, we don't know where they're stopping, we don't know how often they're stopping, we wouldn't know which stops need to be made longer to accommodate the buses and the shuttles. i do think this is a step forward. i understand this is not going far enough to suit a lot of people's wishes. but i think it is a good step in the right direction. i'm going to be pleased to

support this and i'm going to make a motion to approve. >> thank you. director rubke? >> just to make sure i understood, my understanding is our ability to regulate or impact these shuttles is really limited to use of [speaker not understood]. these shuttles are being permitted by the puc and otherwise regulated by the puc. is that right? he >> that's correct. >> so, our ability to kind of -- i mean, work with these shuttles is basically their use of the muni stops? >> that's correct. >> okay, i just warrant to make sure i understood that. thank you. thank you for the public comment l and the report. i really appreciate it. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i'd be happy to second chair brinkman's motion to approve this policy. and in doing so would align myself with the comments of supervisor wiener and also you, chair nolan. as director reiskin said, the outset of this discussion, there are a lot of issues balled up in this that are coming to the fore today and

we're hearing some passionate statements concerning those issues. but at the end of the day, this is before us as a transit issue and we're better with something than nothing as you yourself said, chair nolan. you know, we've heard some opponents of this program describe it as admitted class warfare and describe it as, you know, sort of an effort to make it harder for folks who work outside of the county to live in the county and commute out. i don't align myself with those views. i think this is a transportation issue and we have a duty to provide and facilitate transportation, especially transit first transportation for our citizens. as you've noted, we are on the context of the state restriction that prevents us from charging more than cost recovery. as has been pointed out, we won't really know the full cost of this and what we can seek to impose until we conduct the pilot program and really get the data and a better understanding of what is going on, the very nexus director

reiskin was talking about. so, to me putting aside some of the separate and different motivations for opposing this that we've heard from some people, this is a transit issue and this is good transit policy. and i think this is something we should pursue now. and to our last speaker's point, as a pilot project, that is what it is, this is what it has been designed to be. and when it's done, we can reassess how it worked, what the costs were to the city and look at many different things, including future cost recovery efforts. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair nolan and thank you everyone who came out. i appreciate the respectful discourse. i take issue when people hiss and boo. i'd like to think we're a city where we can have some comfortable conversation with each other, recognizing while trying to get to the same place, which is a place where we can all live comfortably with our families and make a decent living. you know, my father came out to san francisco in 1977 and we've never been able to afford to

own property here. i've had to live with those circumstances. and i understand firsthand how difficult it is to afford to live in this city. and i can honestly say that i've been suffering the ramifications of the extreme high cost of living here in the city way before the tech shuttles got here and displacement has been occurring way before the tech shuttles got here and it will continue to happen until we find a solution and really get the affordable housing we need which is really the problem the tech shuttles are a symptom of bah it comes to displace many. that being said, if we had a situation where we had enough affordable housing in the city and people didn't have to worry about being displaced and could live where they worked, i don't think that people would have an issue with shuttles, tech shuttles going up and down, filling a need that the public services have not been able to fill frankly. the caltrain system that i've experienced, every time i've tried to get down to the

peninsula any regular hour, is almost -- it feels like it's impacted. it doesn't feel like it would be able to accommodate a whole lot more people than it already does without any expansion. i would encourage people who have issues with displacement which are valid to express these concerns in place where we can enact housing policies and develop our impact fees and what have you, which i've been at the board of supervisors calling for myself. that being said, i think -- i feel like these shuttles are having an impact on our muni system. they are delaying. i've seen it with my own two -- make no mistake. nothing delays our system more than private cars, nothing. there may be dozens if not hundreds of shuttles. but there are hundreds of thousands of cars every time a bus gets behind gets delayed delivering goods for reliable services. we shouldn't be subsidizing them offering free parking, what have you. so, i would suggest that we go

forward with this pilot, figure out what the true cost of this program is on our city, and, therefore, by all means, implement the fees that would cover the costs so that people would continue to live in a way that doesn't facilitate more car traffic in the city which is the cause of pedestrian delays, [speaker not understood], muni delays and any other side effects. thank you for the motion. >> motion and second. any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. we'll take ail short break. thank you for your thoughtful conversation. >>please stand by; meeting in recess

>> programs and construction division. i'm joined this afternoon by our project manager ted cavanagh on this project who will assist with any detailed questions the board might have. this item before you this afternoon requests authorization for the director of transportation to review contract 1770 sunset tunnel track way improvement project the lowest responsible bidder

$16,123,600. our estimate was $18,500,000. [speaker not understood] reliability and efficiency, reduce structure and maintenance and the portal retaining wall. the work scope before you today includes the existing track way, replacing the system, providing seismic [speaker not understood] cable infrastructure, tagging loops, de tag and other miscellaneous work to include upgrades to the curve signal system, replacing sand pipe valve, cleaning drain lines and [speaker not understood]. as you can see this is a major project. for member's clarification, key stop at 28th and judah was also included in the initial bid packet or the deductible or deletable bid item. this work had to be removed from the contract because

environmental approvals for the key stop will not be finalized before you award this contract. the key stop will be cubited using a micro ld set aside once environmental approvalses are in place. we anticipate that will be around march of this year. the construction duration for this work is 390 calendar days for the notice [speaker not understood], substantial completion for the work is estimated by january of 2015. with work being performed over 15 weekend shut downs of the n line. for members' reference, three bids were received for this contract. proven management incorporated was determined to be the lowest responsible bidder at $16,123,000. of course this is excluding the deleted key stop which is worth $375,000. sfmta contract compliance office reviewed the bid proposal and confirmed that program management incorporated will meet the fbe participation

goal of 22% established for this contract, as well the nondiscrimination equal employment requirement. the total project cost including all phases of work is 29.6 million with the construction phase at 27.7 million. the project is fully funded -- the project is fully funded by federal fixed guide way formula and sfmta revenue bonds. staff recommends approval of the contract. >> thank you. the board have questions? is there a motion? motion to approve and second. any further discussion? director rubke. >> thank you for following up with the information and removal of the plan for the [speaker not understood]. that's going to move forward separate from this. >> might even get done sooner as a result. we will ensure this doesn't get delayed as a result of the change, of course. >> that's great. thank you so much. thanks for the good report. >> we have a motion and second. any further discussion? seeing none all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed none?

the ayes have it. thank you, chairs. >> thank you, member. >> back to item 9, public comment, members of the public may address the sfmta board of directors on matters that are within the board's jurisdiction and are not on today's calendar. bob plant hold. >> don't see mr. plant hold here ~. >> is bob here? howard strassner followed by michael patrellis and [speaker not understood]. >> mr. strassner. good afternoon again, howard strassner. i want to speak again about the mayor starting his reelection campaign by pandering to eliminate sunday parking fees. you guys really need the money. that's the way you pay for more service. that's the way you pay for more maintenance, all the things we need to make muni more reliable. and it's silly to go out there and say, don't pay

for parking on sunday. this is also the time that you should be looking ahead and re-request putting in evening parking. i can't understand how there are neighborhoods that come to you, housing is so expensive, stop the buses, but we will not pay for parking in the evening. neighborhoods that have 10, $15 valet parking for restaurants, that's kind of crazy. so, you should go back to that. you need the money. soon you're going to have to pay for two level for service on stockton street. god bless. so, don't do that. that's enough for now. thank you. >> thank you, mr. strassner. next speaker. >> michael patrelis? isabelle [speaker not understood]? no. herbert wiener. >> mr. wiener? herbert wiener.

one thing i want to point out, i find really upsetting is those inaccurate travel panels at the bus stops. first they say the bus is going to come 29 minutes from now, and then three minutes later the bus shows up. now, who controls these panels? are they private corporations or is it mta? but that's really gross in efficiency and it's very madening. i don't like having a sign saying the 33 is going to show up in a half hour, and then three minutes later it shows up. if i'm lucky, i can dash across the street to catch it. so, this has got to stop. that's the least you can do. i don't think it's going to cost a lot of money to correct this, but i think you do have to get on this. and i think a lot of people have been real i inconvenienced by this. so, please take steps to correct this.

thank you. >> okay, thank you. anyone else care to address the poured in public comment? seeing none, next item. thank you. >> we're going to hear consent calendar. [speaker not understood]. no one has asked that an item be severed. >> if not, is there a motion? >> motion to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> any further discussion? so moved say aye? >> aye. >> opposed? [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. >> mr. chairman, you do have a member of the public who wishes to address you. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, chairman nolan, board of directors. my name is [speaker not understood], i work for the livable streets subdivision at the mta. today i'm bringing before you the adoption of national city

transportation urban street design guide. the urban street design guide was put together by 26 planners, engineers, urban designers, architects from 16 different cities across the u.s. it is certainly a reflection of the design principles that we already bring into our work. it is a natural evolution of the better streets plan. and the same way that the better streets plan really led the way to the way we approach the design of the public realm, the urban street design guide takes those ideals and puts them -- [speaker not understood]. in many ways the urban street design guide is not possible without the better streets plan. a few things, a few highlights from the guide that i want to draw your attention to. first, its emphasis on interim treatments. there is a page that highlights san francisco's park program,

real ill our pioneering work in this area. and the evolution is that we have payment to park. hopefully soon we'll have payment to safety. where we are bringing interim, quick solutions before you for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. the second is emphasis on signals. as designers, we design a lot in space and a lot of times we're trying to make a dollar out of 15 cents and get 6 inches or a foot to cheat some extra space. but we should also be designing in time. the way that we time signals for people to get across the street, the way that we bring bicycle signals into sort of our regular work, and the way that we time our signals to slow cars down is something that is given a lot of its due in the urban street design guide. and then the last piece is its emphasis on design speed. speed is integral to safety. it's also integral to capacity.

and for a long time in the traffic engineering profession, those two things were really at war and the urban street design guide says instead of sort of saying what's the 80% i'll speed and let's design the road for that. instead we should say, what speed do we want drivers to be driving. and design the streets for that goal instead. it is -- it really is essential to live ability how safe and comfortable the street feels. and safety, certainly the severity and frequency of crashes decrease with the speeds of the drivers. and even crime. so, in you many ways the urban street design guide ~ is p a natural evolution sort of the better streets plan. i think there are sort of two reasons why i present it for adoption. one is that it does carry those ideas from the better streets plan into the street itself. and second is just to continue to show the leadership that san francisco is known for in this

area because, you know, not every place has a better streets plan. not every place has a transit first policy. and for cities that don't have the luxury of having those sort of resources, it is comfortable to be able to say, this many other cities have adopted this guide and, so, we should use it here, too. and we don't even have to be first. washington state d.o.t. has already adopted their district design guide. we don't have to be any more progressive than a state d.o.t. in this instance. and with that i'd be happy to take any questions you have. >> we'll beat washington one of these days i'm sure. [laughter] >> maybe planning. thank you very much. members have questions? it is an interesting study. >> it was. thank you, ms. reynold. when i clicked through the link to read through the guideline which i had done when it first came out, i think it's just so pertinent in light of the vision zero thing we were discussing. in particular on page 24 and 25

about speed and severity, and the thing that really got my attention was the vision cone page about when a driver is going a certain speed how much of the roadway they can focus on. and the faster you're going, the narrower that space is and suddenly all those pedestrians and bikes and parked cars are not even in your vision. so, that was really -- it's very compelling. so, that was my little paint here, i love it, it's great. my question is what will it mean if we adopt this as an additional guideline? does it mean whenever anything comes before us we can say, well, does it meet the net zero urban design guideline or is it just sort of an additional resource for staff to use when making design decisions? >> i think it's an additional resource. if you look at it, the guide, it's not like the manual in the traffic uniform control devices or american state highway patrol officials green book or

sort of guide on geometric design. there are no shalls and musts. it is about design principles, design strategy. so, i think that it is a resource for staff. and certainly it would be, you know, appropriate if things came before you to sort of ask questions about, you know, how did you take into account design speed and how did you take into account pedestrian visibility and how did you take into account some of these other principles that are at play. but it doesn't take the approach of saying, you know, when a street is this wide you shall have lanes that are 11 feet and you shall have a bike lane that's 5 feet wide. so, it's not meant to be sort of -- if anything, it's meant to sort of inspire flexibility innovation. >> good, thank you. >> other members, questions or comments? if not, thank you so much. excellent report. [speaker not understood]. who do we have from the public? >> howard strassner. >> while he's coming up, i want to note good work in the design guide as a a result of [speaker

not understood] the many people across the cities across the country bringing the best practices and best minds to bear on how to redesign our streets, how to implement the better streets policy. and i just want to emphasize the point that the vice-chair made, that the tie back to where we started this meeting in terms of pedestrian safety, the things that we're being called upon and will be called upon under vision zero under the mayor's executive directive to do this guide, is one vehicle, one set of tools to help our planners and engineers, help the public to get there better and faster. i have the honor of serving as the president of the national association of city transportation officials this year. there's a lot of excitement about the existence of this guide, about adoption by not just cities, but more importantly by state d.o.t.s. we are talking to our own state d.o.t. and i think that being able to advance these

principles, get these concepts into the hands of the people who are on the ground and ultimately to get it possibly into the ashto green book and state design guidance such as the california highway design manual will be part of the further evolution of these designs, which i hope make our streets safer. >> thank you. mr. strassner. howard strassner for the last time today. thank you. [laughter] there are many guides and cookbooks. i hope there aren't too many conflicts in the better ones. i want to speak to an overriding thing. whenever we're ready to spend a nickel on a street to improve bicycles or paving or pedestrian safety, we also have to do the necessary to make you need run faster, more reliable. these things have to happen. if we're spending this money, now is the time to put in the best bulk and which side of the stop light, all that stuff has to be considered. if we do these things

separately we're going to get in real trouble tearing thing. i hope you can take care of that. now, some of these nice things are happening in my neighborhood off portal. but they're always so expensive. they're breaking the surface or they're putting in concrete. i have to tell you for a moment a little thing we saw in pares france near the [speaker not understood] metro stop. i can't remember the street. but anyway, all they did was pre-cast a disk about a meter in diameter of concrete, put it on the surface of the street with a pole. this is the kind of shelter. when you walked out there, pedestrians could have shelter from this. maybe cars would turn on one side. it's all these details rather than breaking concrete and making a big dpw design. you would be able to do so much more for pedestrian safety. it's appropriate and i know west paul there are some appropriate places for that rather than spend a lot of money. we're getting close to doing some of those things.

i just want to bring that to your attention as a cheap way to do good and save a lot of pedestrians. you don't have to cast concrete and make big designs every time. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. strassner. okay, is there a motion on this one? >> motion to approvement. >> a second? >> second. >> further discussion? seeing none, all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no, the ayes have it so ordered. >> item 13, >> authorizing the director to waive new taxi driver permit application fees through march 31, 2014, retroactively approve the waiver of new driver permit application fees from december 18, 2013 through february 21, 2014 and extend the moratorium on issuing new color scheme or dispatch service permits through december 31, 2014.