right in front of the clam house, talking through issues with the clam house we decided to relook at that and we think the end result is actually even a better project for transit. we're moving it down near side of flower, which is essentially kind of mid-block. it will allow us to put a transit island there because we still get transit single priority because it's far enough in the intersection. we'll still see those benefits. down at bayshore at cortland, we are putting the stop far side, moving it from near side to far side and putting a bulb in. are proposing to put a bulb in. that would take the green zone for a small shop right at the corner. we originally talked with them about replacing that green zone. they would lose on cortland ~. their feedback was that wouldn't help them because most of their customers are on bayshore. they need the green on bayshore. so, we're going to -- proposing to put the green zone where

we're removing the stop near side so people will be able to park there right on bayshore, walk across the cortland and access the stop there -- the rest of the store there. that's pretty much the quick -- quick synopsis on the 9. on the 5 and 71, we are continuing outreach on there and the 71 would then -- quite a lot of outreach, we're working in concert with city planning and public round process. we have had four or five meetings in concert with them as well as holding several of our own meetings. we've done mailings to 8500 residents along haight along the haight corridor. we've worked really close with the supervisors office. supervisor breed has been wonderful getting the word out. same thing on the 5, we've held several community meetings, working with neighborhood groups and had a public meeting for both those projects. implementation wise we are hoping to come to you to the

board on november 18th and [speaker not understood] meeting to discuss 71 haight. the 5 we are still working through concerns with the community and talking with them. we he don't have a set date yet, but it will probably be in the january time frame. and i did also want to point out that we are continuing outreach on the next three corridors. we are going to be working on starting in november the 28th or 19th avenue, the 30 stockton in the downtown section and then the 8x on geneva and visitacion valley and it will probably be may time frame before we come back to the board on those projects. >> ~ so, with that i'll take questions. >> we want to hear from the public. members of the public? >> yes, [speaker not understood]. those are the only two people who turned in speaker slips. >> okay. good afternoon, sir. hi, john nolan, mta board members, director reiskin. my name is jeff learner.

i represent one of the owners [speaker not understood] on bayshore boulevard. the proposed 9 san bruno move from where it is currently directly in front of our parking lot floor craft to directly in front of our neighbor, the liquor store and smoke shop next to our garden center, is going to be a negative impact to both our neighbor and our garden center business, taking away needed parking spots. where it is located now is out of the way. they can have multiple buses queue. i see that often. where it's going now is going to cause a huge logjam, plus buses coming down cortland, turning onto bayshore boulevard, electrified buses, their lines come off constantly. so, this is a huge safety concern. i mean, i understand that the

goals of the mta, of speeding things up are important, but they don't always consider the goals and challenges that small businesseses have here in san francisco and making it more difficult for our customers, our vendors ~, our neighbors's customers and vendor to reach our business he. it makes it all that much more challenging and it's already challenging enough to compete and work in the business community as a small business. so, i ask you to re-look at this proposed move because it will negatively impact both our business at flower craft and our neighboring business, the liquor store smoke shop and it will cause a tremendous logjam and remove needed parking spots for our customers. where it is existing it is not a problem. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please.

>> barry [speaker not understood]. >> i think [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, sir. good afternoon. barry [speaker not understood] from dna lounge, dna on 11th street. i'd like to thank the board for your time. i'd like to thank mr. kennedy for all of your hard work. they've really been communicative. it's been fantastic to feel like we're having our voice heard, have some input. as a business that attracts a lot of people to a already congested area, muni access, bike access is really important to us and i'm happy to see this move forward. as a bicyclist and somebody who employs many bicyclists, i'm kind of a one-trick pony where all i ask is if i could have the overhead for a moment. really trying to get some soft-hit posts ~ or [speaker not understood] to separate that bike lane.

there's a lot of times where people -- cars think that because of the park-let isn't blocking parking they can kind of pull over and it causes a big safety concern for bicyclists. if i could, you can see the last pictures, including here where this is done, and i'd like to do our best to incorporate that if possible to make it safe for me as i ride to and from work sometimes late at night. and with all those 8,000 uber out there who are all looking for a place to park and get their customers, let's make it so that they can't just take up the bike lane. thank you again. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> last speaker, herbert wiener. >> mr. wiener.

herbert wiener. the questions i have about this aspect of the transit effectiveness project is what is the impact on seniors and the disabled? were they consulted about this? did they have input in it? how do they feel about it? the other question i have is are these changes reversible? because i don't want to see this cut in stone where it ha an adverse impact and the changes are made and there won't be enough money to offset changes that are negative. this is very important. a general statement about the transit effectiveness project. the transportation at fifth as it existed in san francisco 40 years ago was very comprehensive. it reflected the density of the city. sean kennedy has noted san francisco has a density second to new york. when you have bus runs that do not reflect the density of

locations, this is very serious. 40 years ago the transportation network did represent this, but when you take buses away from the neighborhoods, when you alter bus stop and bus routes, you are not congruent with the density of the particular neighborhood, and this has a negative impact. i realize there are limited resources -- i realize there is an argument to very negative resource he. but whatever you do, these plans must be congruent with the density of the city. and this has notable impact on seniors and the disabled who may have to walk long distances to the bus stop. so, this is a factor that the transit effectiveness project has not addressed and it should be addressed. thank you. >> okay. mr. kennedy, could you respond to these points that were made here?

>> so, regarding the outreach, we take outreach -- everybody is consulted on outreach efforts. we listened to with open ears for everybody, seniors and non-seniors. we've talked to thousands of people on our overall project. listen to those responses and modified our proposals. >> specifically to mr. leonard's point, can you speak to that one? >> oh, sure. yeah, so, it's true, what i was trying to make the case earlier about what we're doing at cortland, it's true that it's not right in front of his flower shop, but it is right in front of the smoke shop there. and that smoke shop does not have parking, on-street parking. around the corn er on cortland, that entire section is a bus zone already for the 24 ~ and,

so, by putting a bus bulb at that intersection we are going to be removing his green zone that he has there, the smoke shop's green zone there. there is another 10 or so on street parking spaceses on the other side of the bulb. that's right adjacent to the flower shop. across the street, across cortland where there is an existing bus zone, we will be removing the bus zone putting some green zone there, excuse me, to help offset the [speaker not understood] in front of the smoke shop and then the rest of it will be reverted back to on street parking. so, actually at the intersection i think we're plus 1 for total parking at that intersection. it's just not in the same place at that intersection. it's across cortland. >> how about the question about the dna lounge and bikes? >> can we get back to the cortland thing? so, just turning off -- i was more concerned with the parking issue. i thought you addressed that a little bit. more concerned with the bus

issue you brought up just in term of the fact he said there were buses signing up already and that would create a problem because there would be a shorter amount of space maybe and also with the turning of the overhead wire issue, i mean, can you address those? sorry. >> yeah, so, as far as queueing goes and buses lining up there, you know, the bus bulb will be as long as it needs to be, 90 foot for the far side, which is enough for essentially two buses to line up. we're not anticipating any more line up. it's not going to go into cortland for example, there is enough room for the leading bus to be ahead and then the bus right behind it. that was -- the overhead issue for the 24 was one of the reasons that we -- another reason that we are not pursuing a green zone around the corner on cortland. the idea was first we thought maybe we can cutback some of that bus zone and put a green zone in there. but because of overhead,

turning issues to getting around that, we're not going to be able to do that. if we shave the corner of the bulb a little bit on bayshore as we're making that turn from cortland, there's no overhead wire issues or not problems with that within the turn templates and things. >> can i ask director reiskin a question? >> sure. >> because of potential problems we may have, it is possible to make that a temporary stop, not the bulb out yet, at the expense of the bulb out to see if operation can make that turn? is there a back-up? if it's true it does create that problem, then we can back away as opposed to spending the money to put the bulb in there and find out there is a problem, these disappear. >> yeah, i think if the board were to legislate this today then we would have the authority to go ahead and do the bulb. we do look at doing it as a

temporary bulb of some sort. we haven't found a good way to do temporary bulbs without incurring, incurring some costs. we looked at a number of different solutions, sidewalk extensions, somewhat akin to park lets, but we have some a-d-a issues we'd have to resolve. but for maybe a short-term trial we could see just through -- with paint and some delineation possibly doing some sort of temporary installation at that one location. we have -- so the answer is yes, we can at least look at doing -- i will say our traffic engineers and our transit folks look at this stuff pretty carefully and would be bringing it forward if it wasn't a high degree of confidence that it would work. so, i don't think with pouring the concrete we would be presenting ourselves with a great risk or any real chance that we'd actually want to undo

it at some point. in any case what the bus bulb does it shortens the crossing distance across bayshore. but it's something that we could look at doing and likewise for the safe head posts, not really i'd say connected with the project in terms of the bus bulb on 11th, but it's something we can ask our sustainable streets folks to look at. it real die pend in part how many curb cuts there are on that stretch of 11th which i can't picture at the moment. there aren't too many so it could be a candidate for safeness. i don't think there is enough space there for them, but we can look at that. >> what do you think? >> seems like a reasonable thing to me to ask. ask the director to look at it. if you look at it seriously and see -- >> i don't want to commit here and find out for some safety or a-d-a reasons we can't do it. but if there is a way we can accommodate doing it on a trial basis before we actually execute a contract and pour the

concrete, yeah, i think that could be a good thing. >> director? excuse me, director ellis. >> thank you, mr. chair. very quickly, i just wanted to acknowledge that a bus bulb to me doesn't seem like it's that removable and i would actually encourage we go forward with the program. if it doesn't workout, i don't see it as being irreversible. it's just a bulb out, right? to me it seems like it wouldn't -- it's not like we're laying rails down or anything to that effect. i acknowledge the benefits of a bulb out. the improvements that we're talking about here would dramatically improve the service, the reliability, the safety, and all of that good stuff. i do trust our engineers have looked at it and if for whatever reason we do have failings, what has been articulated by the gentleman here, i think we could easily go back. i mean, that's one of the things that i think is great about these improvements is

that none of them are like really expensive hard to undo improvements. so, i would encourage us to consider it certainly like director lee was saying. [multiple voices] >> yeah, but to move forward with the legislation. >> [speaker not understood]. >> i guess i have more of an issue about the queueing more than anything. i mean there's a lines issue, but there is an issue about the queueing. is there a lot of queueing currently at that stop? >> definitely buses will show up at the same time due to bus benching. that's one thing we're trying to fix with all these projects along the corridor, is trying to spread out that best bunching so we don't get those two or three buses showing up at the same time. i definitely don't doubt that it happens today. >> one of the other questions raised about the bicycles around the dna lounge, can you speak to that? >> yeah, sure. so, i think director reiskin was talking about we look into that, too, a little bit more.

we've been working with all of the streets, our friends to -- colleagues to understand that issue. a director reiskin was pointing out, there are other things right there on that block face. there's a couple other parking curb cuts and some delivery zone issues. so, we need to make sure we can accommodate all that and put in safe hits, but that's something we've been looking into with the livable streets colleagues, so. >> okay, thank you. okay, members, what is the pleasure of the board? seems to me we have a pretty reasonable program before us. especially the understanding is director lee has said, possibility for the bikes as well. is there a motion on this? >> i'll move it. >> a motion. is there a eked >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no, the ayes have it. thank you very much. next item. >> item 12 [speaker not understood] conduct a closed session. >> motion? go into closed session. all in favor say aye. >> aye. aloe owe [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, mr. chair.

>> [speaker not understood]. >> move on to disclose. >> aye. >> that completes the blitzness before you today. >> okay. [adjourned]

>> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here. >> creating place where people can be active and lead, active,

healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. ♪zó