>> director heinicke director rem mel, director rubke, director nolan will not be at today's meeting. item 3, prohibition of sound devices, the use of pagers and sound producing electronic devices are prohibited alt the meeting. any person responsible for one going off in the room may be

asked to leave the room. also please know that cell phones set on vibrate do cause microphone interference so the board respectfully requests they be turned off. item 4, approval of the minutes of the march 3rd meeting, you have a member of the public who wishes to address you on this? >> any board members first have any comments on the minutes from our last meeting? >> yes. i had a question about the motion on the second motion that was month rkts after we

discussed the study and having looked at how things were going, doing the before and after survey, that we would -- we would have a chance -- that we would talk about in general, reconsider it but i didn't think we were asking for the exact project to be brought back to us 12 months after, and that's what i don't recall, and the way that we approved this motion. >> did you have a chance to review that case? >> yes, i went back and looked at it and because i was aware that a member of the public was also interested in this. the motion in the minutes is exactly as stated at the meeting that you all voted on. >> and my understanding is that it's -- and correct me, director kiez k*in, this would bring it back after the full

completion, it is not a commitment to action or inaction, it simply is bringing that back to the board. >> that was my understanding, correct. >> more on informational -- >> because -- that sounds like -- >> it would be bringing back all of the data that we collect in those 12 months after implementation and the set of additional parking and traffic changes for the board's consideration. that's what i understood that motion to be. >> director borden, does that sound more in line with what you were thinking is that it comes back after the study? >> it is just an item for action or not action by the board, it's not -- because that was kind of -- you know, as much as -- >> we all discussed not wanting to have the same hearing all over again and i just remember

that we had really talked about all that kind of other -- looking at now and into the future and the grand scheme of how we were achieving our goals and other things so i felt like the spirit of the motion didn't capture quite the dialogue. >> yeah, that's good, i'm glad you brought that up you know we have that feedback now and we know when that does come back, we have an idea of what we're all expecting and i think we have a member op of the public as well. >> and madam chair, just for the record, in the original staff in the resolution, there was a discussion about staff bringing back the study about the economic impact of construction and all of that, so that is -- that was separate -- that was in the main resolution, this was something very specific, so that study will come back at a future time. >> director borden, are you okay with that, or do you want to --

>> yeah, it's one of those things where you feel like you remember it differently, so it concerns me. >> it was a long meeting. >> but i think we should -- if members of the public want to -- >> why don't we hear from members of the public. >> dawn trenart. >> two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, i also remember that conversation going a little bit differently in the essence of the conversation. the essence of the conversation as i had understand it as i read in the newspaper the following day was that after a 12 month period of understanding what the economic metrics and the modal shifts would be, there would be a grading of how well did we do what did we do well, what didn't we do well and then things, decisions would be made from that point but when i read back into the printed

minutes, i see that it would be no longer than 12 months after the completion of the project from -- ms. boomer, 12 months after completion of the projects so it would be directing staff to come back to the board with traffic modify cases that were include ined the categorical exemption as described in the city and planning department to continue the bicycle improvements by either protected bike lanes or raised cycle track on the east side of polk street, the [inaudible] in order to reduce impacts on business and project costs within 12 months after the completion of the project, and you've got some differences in the way things are written, it's in time to coordinate with the public utilities project and it would be no longer than 12 months after the completion of the project but the motion is now recorded as within 12 months after completion of the

project, which could mean one month, six months and anything less than 12 months and, again the spirit of the conversation as i heard it, as i understand it is let's see how we did and give ourselves a grade after the 12 month period, after the 12 month period, not let's race ahead and see how much more we can do within 12 months. thank you for your time. >> thank you, and thank you, director borden for bringing that up. i do agree that it was the intent was i think the discussions that we always had was in order to see how a project works you do need 12 months at least to see how it works so i believe that is the spirit of the motion. yes? >> and i would just say i agree with that. i think also a spirit of this motion and this whole process is we're not going to do anything without significant public input and that alone will require significant time, this is not something that's going to happen without us going back to the public the

way we have. on a procedural point, i will say especially with this understanding and very much appreciating our fellow citizens coming in on this, on a procedural point if ms. boomer has gone back to the tape and that is what was said, i don't think we should be in the practice of rewriting minutes after the fact, it's enough to have minutes of what our understanding was, but if that's what was voted on i think we ought to respect the sbegtd of that and not change the minutes, but i think we're all on the same page as to where we're headed, so with that, i would move the minutes. >> let's have a vote, all in favor, aye? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no you're not opposed? >> i'm opposed. >> alright, thank you. >> item 5, communications, director, please be advised there will be no discussion of anticipated litigation in closed session today.

any other -- >> introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> i have one thing, i would like to congratulate director ramos would was renominated by the office to continue his service on this board of director, i know you have many option of where you're willing to spend your time, we're happy you're continuing to spend it with us. >> anyone else with new or unfinished business? >> item 7, director's report. >> good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board staff and the public, just a cum of quick things to update you on, the first is that last week, the board of supervisors land use and transportation committee adopted a resolution which they have forward today the full board for their consideration next tuesday that urges the sfmta board or to this board to adopt a requirement that applicants or participants in

the commuter shuttle pilot -- or the commuter pilot program, now a pilot, demonstrate that they have conditions of labor harmony as a part of their permit application, so we'll see, i presume that will go forward to the full board next week and likely be approved. i think it came out of land use unanimously. we will be working with the sponsors of the legislation and the city attorney's office as well as our own program staff in termser of what options we have with that regard and we'll be coming back to you once we have something developed in terms of following the spirit of what the board of supervisors is likely to be urging this body to do. >> can we have a moment on that one before you move on with the rest of your report while it's fresh in anyone's mind. i wanted to check to see if anybody has anything on that.

>> yeah, i do have a question so in terms of the people who applies for the permit, is it the transportation company or is it the -- >> it's the -- so in almost all cases, the employers who are using the shuttles are doing so through transportation companies and it's the transportation companies that are the permit applicants, that currently that are the permit holders. >> and is there a definition of harmonious labor -- >> there is not. >> so, director reiskin. >> i believe the board of supervisors was intentionally not trying to get too prescriptive in that definition to give us some discretion and leeway as to how we might define it. >> my point is even with contracts, people will come and there doesn't appear to be harmonious relations at the time as we hear it, i

understand why they are trying not to be prescriptive, at the same time, they are, so i just feel like it really opens it up for the ambiguity opens it up for exploitation in some ways is my concern. >> understood, and i believe that, you know, the work that we have ahead to work again with members of the board of supervisors with the city attorney's office and our staff would be presuming the board will want to go forward with this to try to put some definition around it. it is, you know, it is a very vague term, but part of what i would be striving to do before bringing something to you would be to try to put some definition on -- around it something that our staff can actually work with and it's legally defensible. >> just to be clear the motion is directed at labor harmony at

transportation companies, not jenentec, etc., right? >> i don't have it in front of me it was basically attach today the permittee which happens to be in almost all cases the transportation companies and that was the intent. >> thank you, so it sounds like there's no action that this board would be taking on this until there's a little bit more clarity and back and forth and the board of supervisors have -- >> right so i would potentially be bringing you a proposed modification to the transportation code that governs the process that you already established, that would be one way to implement this, so correct, there's no action for you to take until we formally bring something and we agendize it. thafrjts's different than anything i've ever seen since i've been on this board so it's encouraging. no other questions from the directors on that one?

no. >> there's wonderful things happening in the world of transportation that we haven't seen before. >> the only other item that i wanted to let know *f you know, the construction of the spmc campus, the hole up at van ness at gary is proceeding and will include the construction of a tunnel going underneath van ness from the west side where the hospital's being built to the future i think it's a medical office building across the street. it will be deep below the ground but the construction will require some closures of van ness avenue, cpmc has been working with caltrans and us to develop plans for these closure, they anticipate right now three of them in this calendar year, the first one starting the second week of april, april 10th and 12th, they will be -- there's a lots

of information, i don't think i need to go through all of it. the access will remain open for emergency vehicles and transit vehicles, but it's still closing off van ness to general traffic is a pretty significant undercharging so we've been working with them to make sure that the streets where the traffic is going to be diverted to are ready to a company that spent a significant amount of outreach, they've been doing the cpmc contractor is hired an outreach firm to help them with this, so we'll help them in the lead-up to that first weekend where this will be happening, april 10th through 12th, there will be a lot of public information going out to ensure that people can adequately plan, so our folks have reviewed and are providing guidance on the traffic management plan, we'll be deploying extra parking control officers and facilitating the communications. it is a cpmc private developer

project but we are doing what we can to assist and making sure that the impacts to the transportation system will be minimized so you'll see -- you'll start to see that more publicly in the next few weeks but i just wanted to give you a heads-up that that's coming. >> do we have any public comment on the director's report. seeing no one, madam chair moving forward, item 8, this is citizens' advisory council pretender, mr. weaver is not here today moving on to general public comment, these are items to be presented are not on today's agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the sfmta members of the public are provided two minutes a piece we do have several speakers who wish to address you, starting with corey lamb followed by

tony lee and mike ritter. >> thank you, mr. lamb? >> good evening, or good afternoon, my name is corey lamb, i'm a cab driver here in san francisco and i sent an e-mail yesterday hopefully in the spirit of cooperation and not wagging my impinging e there was a significant change that was made at the caltrans system at 4th and townsend where a bicycle share machine was put in our taxi stand and we removed further down townsend toward 5th, i was upset because it was a couple of hundred feet, it was 20 feet, we should be inside the station, not away from the station for disability access, for just general purposes of the fight that we ao*f been fighting for the last couple of years. since then, i've discovered that lift has decided that the

corner of 4th and townsend is where they're going to do their lift line for $3 anywhere inside that area, where they can do stops of $3 or more per ride, there's definitely some impact that hasn't been considered, you're putting a bicycle machine where taxis normally pull in and out, they're standing in traffic swiping their card and getting bicycles out, it's a free flowing traffic, bicycles pedestrians, other things pulling out of that particular spot and to capsulate it all, you have proposals to item 10 to rescind or extend or implement a traffic and parking, and i would have you to reconsider the idea of putting a machine where the taxi stand is or at least investigate why that didn't get vetted before that change was implemented. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. lamb.

>> tone lee followed by mike ritter and then mark gruberg. >> good afternoon, the board of the member, i didn't see the chairman today, it's bicycle chairman here, so the city is not only about the economy, it's about the liberalism is not good, next run is republican we're going to win, i don't talk to politics but as you know the cab drivers are very struggling, but don'tbacker don't forget, our interest and your interest isty tied today you are wholesale, we are retail, where we can make the money you are wholesale, you are going to get bundled also, we are going the bundle very soon after the

summer, you have a lot of [inaudible] to reset your policy to make a significant change for our business. you can do that, just what you had this kind of [inaudible] or not, men need courage, it's not about propaganda or anything we are direct under your leadership, please give up and bend the collar for the driver running our business, this is the only way we can more choice and more freedom to make a long fight with this uber or lift, they are the militia, they are not uniform, we are yuan format, so rethe very target. public like us but now it's changing, before you said you're going to spend money to promote driving in the city, but only you said, you never do you never do the buses or anything, but i see lift

advertised on a muni bus, you never do anything for us, but you're going the bundle also because you have 150 million loan is the cab driver, a lot of cab driver now trying to walk away from the business now. >> thank you, thank you, mr. lee. >> mike ritter, mark gruberg, robert chasana. >> good afternoon, thank you for letting me speak citizens business owner, lifetime voter in san francisco. i'm here to ask the board to exempt motorcycles and scooters from the rpp program. i recently am in a neighborhood that area q has added the rpp which will hopefully allow for a bit more park ining our neighborhood and everything else but then was to find out that the motorcycles were charged the same $110 that a car is charged and the rational for that is the cost of enforcement is the same. now, we all know that common sense says you can stick 8

motorcycles in one car space so i'm hoping you guys can help invent advise mow cycle and scooter parking but taking the need for the rpp for motorcycles and scooters which clearly will allow for more parking, less congestion, less wear and tear in the city. the revenues that the rpp bring in from motorcycles, i haven't been able to find this 10 million that it puts out for the car, if motorcycles are included in that, it's a small number. motorcycles will help, gone are the days of the harley david sons, we have thousands of small scooters that just add to the transportation system, unfortunately, the mta doesn't really add motorcycles too, you lump them up as part of cars and everything else, so i hope you guys could consider that. i got a thousand signatures together of people who are supporting it, i think it would

be a great olive branch to give back to the people instead of constantly the people feel the sfmta is taking parking and making it difficult, people in motorcycles and scooters are trying to help the city, trying to get somewhere and enjoy the retail environment in the city and everything else, so i hope you guys would consider this and vote on it and thank you. shall i leave these petitions with you guys? >> (calling speaker names). >> could i have the overhead projector, please. thank you. so i also want to talk about the loss of the curb cut-out spaces along the caltrans

station. this is a photo of what it looks like and you can see that the no parking taxi zone sign has been moved from what was the front of the cut-out and we've lost about four spaces there, and they've been given over to bicycle racks for the bicycle share program, and which is totally unnecessary because you can't see it in the picture, but behind that bicycle facility on the right is a rather wide plaza-like area where there are already some bike stands and many more could have been located. taking away this zone, it's like kicking somebody when they're down. why did this happen? we weren't notified of it. i have been told this was not even agendized, maybe if i'm

mistaken about that, please excuse me but i've heard this was not on an agenda, it was just done. whether or not twitches, we should have been notified this was going to happen so we could weigh in on it. you'll see in the picture that there are already vehicles using that zone, maybe they're dropping off, but we believe that this is just going to be a staging area for tnc's maybe not coincidentally, lift had a little party across the street on the day that this happened to announce their $3 lift line rides from the cal-train station, how do we compete with this? this is going to be a virtual taxi stand for them and we're going to be pushed to the back and people are also going to come off those trains and get into those vehicles without our being able to do anything about it and there are larger issues here of justice that i hope

you're going to stand up, thank you. >> thank you, thank you, mr. gruber. >> (calling speaker names). >> could i have the -- good afternoon, commissioners, sooner or later you're going to have to decide if you want a taxi industry sti. i actually don't believe you do and i believe because of ed lee, everybody is afraid of their jobs so you don't care about it at all, but if you should care a little bit, you should look at the kind of letter that your people in the taxi offices send. they've sent us a let and her

they said medallion holders, now you've got to pay darkly to the taxicab industry and do you know why? because one of the companies bounced a few checks, and so what do they do? they send a letter to us and say, the only form of payment other than going to the credit union and saving up over next year so you wouldn't have any money for this year anyway is by check and they charge an administration fee of $3.50 for a check everywhere in the mta, you take credit cards. the mta says companies must accept credit cards from taxi driver, taxi drivers must accept credit cards from customers but you guys are exempt. there are lots of people who

don't have checking accounts, but they have a credit card and a debit card, and you don't take cash. i ordered from the bank a thousand dollars of pennies in order to pass a message, but you don't take cash. you take cash downstairs, you take credit cards i can renew my clipper account with a credit card. >> thank you. >> but, no. >> thank you. >> (calling speaker names). >> mcguire. >> mary mcguire, taxi driver, i'd like to also address the cal-train issue done without any hearing as far as we know, no public input i understand legislation created this cab stance, so don't you need legislation to remove it or give it to somebody else like lift, they advertised on their website, it's the first step on

the lift line and they had a party across the street to celebrate it. so, now, you know, i'm starting to reconsider everything now like those transit lanes you gave us think ear not for us are they, they're not created for us any more than the t line was created for the residents of the bayview it's for the lift, it's for uber and i found on the grapevine on transportation, polk street merchants, they were dinosaurs, they'll be out of business in a few years because everybody shops online now and i feel she may as well have been talking to us, we don't need you anymore, we don't want you but we'll take your money we'll take your thousand dollars, your hundred dollars for a card, but we don't want you, you're trying to destroy us, you advertise for these people on the buses on the bus shelters and there's no doubt in my mind now. do you want me to give back my medallion, is that what you

want me to do because i can't take it anymore, i'm not going to do that, and the residents of san francisco, believe it or not, they like cabs, there are a lot of people who like to take a cab and you're taking that away from them and you're giving it to these two bit billionaires or whatever it is that's running around time and talk about labor issues, yeah, they've got them, so this is our city, this is my city, i've been driving a cab and i'm not giving you back my medallion and we're not going to give back our city to these people or you either. >> thank you, ms. mcguire, next speaker. >> (calling speaker names). >> hi, thank you, so, this is the first year that the medallion holder renewal fee which is a thousand dollars is the sole responsibility of the me dap -- medallion holder, what should the amount be, you could say $10 or 10 thousand dollars and our ch