streets. of course what we are offering right now is often triggering the many people not to come. basically i just want to say to everyone that you know, that standing with us that's want to listen to us, that you know very much and for those people who have no idea about what it is like to be homeless and no idea-you think you know what is best, just sit down and shut up, okay. thank you. >> thank you mrs. davis. >> my name is [inaudible] i represent [inaudible] for the homeless, which is mainly homeless [inaudible] i have been homeless activist for 30 years in san francisco. i have seen this criminalization going on over and over and over. it does not-it makes peoples lives more miserable. it doesn't

solve the problem. i'm glad the lastest thing is being questioned and glad san francisco is really attempting to look at something more systemic about housing people. weir houses are not housing. nob nab behind raiser wire isn't housing. people would rather be in a clean safe place and actually their own apartment rather than in aitant or in the street or doorway. but until we can guarantee that they can trade that tent for that, there shouldn't be a single tent knocked down or a single pick up or arrest for the crime ofbying poor and not able to afford the horrible rents in san francisco. it is only going to get worse, so i just want to also say that you

open up any survival manual and the first thing they tell you is seek shelter. so, if the best people can do is have a tents to get out of the elements a little and give them a little bit of privacy, then it is criminal on our part to rip that away. when there is no real alternative. i hope we can focus on the alternative and not the criminalization of people who are not committing a crime. >> thank you so much for being here. >> first of all, board of supervisors you are contributing to the problem. you sit up and act like you want to help homeless people and advertise and campaign that each and every brands new

apartment building coming down the pipeline is low income and affordable housing. you manipulate the hud income scale and set the requirement for every building built at 55 percent of the medium for low income housing. low income 55 percent of the medium is 49, 500 that means avenue wns income below the 55 percent the medium can not even apply to move in these brands new apartment buildings. you got discriminatory practice where you campaign and advertise low income housing when the truth is the requirement to move in the building is people in high income brackets. you did that for the mission rock apartment building. you take a hispanic female with a child and be her pitch person and she loves to live in the mission rock and

show the daughter. the lowest income to be eligible to move is 70,000 a year. you literally undermine people to vote for a measure that doesn't supply housing. now, you sit up there and deal with the navigation centers when you should use that money to build affordable housing brand new building for people in lower income like santa clara. you are are in violation of the american with disact act. you sit up there and act like you want to help. you spend more money on homeless programs than you do building apartment buildings to move off the street. i got through talking to you about this and he agrees with me. >> thank you so much. >> my name is [inaudible] i have been coming here for the

last 6 months saying the same thing that housing is a solution and it isn't just simple housing, supportive housing. same soma, a lot of the servicess that are supportive housing for people on reconchy and experiencing trauma and community violence, we use today have supportive services in soma that we could put a person-you can go to take a shower here or do this and gelt you into housing and that is not the case anymore and it is really aggrating because we continue to build and build and build and not build frg the people that are here. we are just continue toog exploit them. pretty basically capitalism. so many people have to lose for one person to win and we are create aghuge divide. we sit and talk about illegal activities inside tends. if we opened other peoples doors there may be people doing illegal things

there but they have the security of the house. when there are no supportive serves for case managers. they are the only people that can give vouchers. there is not enough funding for that. there are not enough people that can do that. people have a wait list of 100 people until tay get to that person and that is aggregating because we try to work and work and have no resources. caents tell and continue to hear how they are raped and brutalized by police just keep going from trauma to the other and complex trauma is very hard to support. as twee continue to haul people it seems like the only solution is housing and it is specific housing for different communitiesism i'm tired of we continue to have all these companies that come to the city

that have no employees that live here. >> thank you so much. >> good afternoon. i'm heidi [inaudible] member of the executive committee for city democratic club and i just want to first applaud supervisor kim for her leadership on this issue. it is fantastic mpts as a endorsement member we spent 15 hours debating and interviewing candidate squz looking at all the various ballot measures and we came out with a recommendation in favor of proposition q and i am not here today as a representative of the democratic club. i'm here as a attorney and citizen and self prescribed [inaudible] i want to say that it impresses me supervisor kim when you open yourself up to hear about the

weeds. you are asking okay, we need legislation, is this the right legislation? and there are certain things in your measure that are in disagreement or that differ from proposition q, and i love to see them more aligned because i am fearful that they don't accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. specifically, you're legislation requires 7 day notice proposition q requires a 24 hour notice. the city must first identify a shelter in both of the propositions, but yours of course has to be available for 90 days and it is belter to get people off the street now perhaps rather than make sure there is a 90 day space available for them. and then the final one was the group of encampments. in that, it is desfineed as 6 or more

would have special additional protections that the city first have to consult with the group and put together a written legislation plan. so, i'm offering some friendly advice. >> thank you so much. any other comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i don't know if mr. dodge is still here . or any other member of department of homeless ness is. okay. i do think an issue of the importance does require some time and process as we continue to move forward with what is the best approach to addressing homelessness on our streets. we want to resolve the issue and reduce the homeless count and number of people suffering on our streets and there is a variety of different very passionate perspectives on how to make

that happen. in response to caumpts about the legislation that is before us today, i was the only office that reached out to department of homelessness to ask what they thought would be a reasonable amount of time by which they provide notice and remove tent encampments and the number of days we provide is actually based on what the department of homelessness told us. i think in many wayatize is important to be realistic. 24 hour notice may not be possible for the city to do in every case. providing some type of shelter for one night as the means we move a tent doesn't solve the issue for that individual. we may sholeter for one night but the next night they will be back on the streets which is why we thought it is important to insure there a 90 day bed or shelter to provide because that is a more permanent solution to homelessness. anything less than 90 days won't work. they

will just come back and have to find shelter again. that being said, i think it is important to continue the dialogue. i have to say i was surprised to hear from proponents of measure q affordable housing shouldn't be guaranteed to live in the tents. i don't know any other solution to people in tents if we don't provide affordable housing. i don't know where we expect to pet them or disappear or vanish into thin airment the only solution is housing mpt i think everyone is in agreement. i think if we make the promise we should have the resources that showcase we can meet the commitments we make to people who live on our streets. that being said, i do think that it is important for us to continue the process and finetune the measure. i think it is also important for us to give time

the department of homeless synchronize because they have a plan in terms how they map encampments and provide servicess. i certainly understand the frustration of so many of the residents who feel this impacted the quality of life in the neighborhoods but also because many residents dofent want to see people suffer and want to see the city do more. so, i think what i would suggest to colleagues on this item is continue to it call of the chair so we can continue to work with department of homelessness around what legislatively would be the best structure to support them in their work. at the end othf day no matter what process we legislate it will be the resources we have on the back end to offer to insure that we are actually permanently addressing homelessness. thank you to the members of the public for coming today. colleagues david campos has closing comments and

if any other committee member would like to as well: >> thank you chair kim. i'm fine continuing this item so we have ongoing discussion about this. let me say this, what i'm looking for is action, not rhetoric. and with all due respect to the people who came out to talk about prop 2, in my estimation prop q offers rhetoric, no solution. i think that you know, i respect the view that some of my colleagues have in proposing prop q, but i think you have to live the experience of having encampments in your district to know that the thing about encampments and moving encampments that it is not like you say i want encampments gone and wave a magic wand and it

happens. that is what is so frustrating and disturbing about sf travel coming here on this high horse saying we want encampments gone. well, i don't know of anyone who doesn't and as we heard from the advocates the homeless want encampments gone. living in a tent is the last place they want in their lives. but, if you really believe and are committed to making encampments go, then don't just say it, do something about it. i have yet to see-i have yet to see sf travel do anything other than engage in rhetoric around this. we don't need rhetoric, we need action. the action that is needed is the action that is taking place right now as we

speak in places like the north of mission where you have the folks on the ground from department of homelessness that are going to each one of those individuals who is camped out and from what i understand the-we monitor this a number of times each day. at some point the count of the people who are out there in that area of the mission is 102. to get each one of those people out of those encampments you have to address the needs of each and every one individually and with each of them there is something unique. it may be mental health. it might be substance abuse. it may be something else. and then there has to be housing. otherwise, you are not going to solve anything. and so, i'm looking for

solutions. i know the businesses that are impacted by what is happening are looking for solutions and that is what we are trying to do and that's not very glamorous. it is not about press releases, it is about rolling up your sleeve s and getting down to the nuts and bolts what it take tooz help each one of those individual jz that is what we are doing, that is what i'm interested in and you know, i think that if people spent a fraction of the time they do talking rhetoric actually doing something i think we would be in much better shape as a city so i invite sf travel to actually do something on this issue instead of grandstanding the way that so many people are. thank you.

>> supervisor avalos >> thank you i concur with the rhetoric as well. seems like everyone is crying justice as long as there is business first. i was working on legislation to provide guidelines for how we look at homeless encampments and respond as a city sfr that. i started that aroubd february of this year and after that mr. [inaudible] came on board and even before him i quirked with sam dodge and want today put forward policies accordance with the people on the ground doing the work and people have the relationships with homeless people and peep who know the conditions and people who do the outreach and learn what the needs of the people are. i think it was important i not impose what the policy should be, but really work with all

the departments to make sure that we had a sound approach and then out of the blue after we come together on deciding we will put more resources towards homeless services and more towards housing a measure comes on that is about rhetoric and all about what people want to hear but don't offer a real solution. so, i concur, we should continue this to call the chair. i think we should have a process that works with the people who understand the conditions and we make legislation based on that. and not just on what the public would like to hear and get crossed up into all the different cultural ways we think homelessness should be resolved or at least how our door step should be cleared of

people that we didn't want there. >> thank you supervisor avalos. i should mention our office did work build upon the work that your office had done prior to measure q being drafted so thank you for the months of work before it become a media piece for folks to talk about. i do want to take a motion to continue this item. again, i think that we need to think about what in the long term will sausk the issue. in regard to the time issue, what i heard draecktly from members the homeless outreach team and glad jason [inaudible] decided to come back to work on tent encampments in san francisco, it takes day tooz build relationship of trust with those on the street and feel government failed them so many

times. if we are going to provide permanent exist to homelessness we need permanent housing and need folk ozthen other side to trust the process and that takes time building that relationship. while that may be frustrating for those that want encampments to geaway today, in the long term it will provide a more permanent reduction in homelessness because we want everyone to participate thin process and trust the process will work and that happens through relationship building. i'm glad we have a department that is compassionate and doesn't want to rush the removal of encampments and believes building relationship of trust is more successful in reducing homelessness and the promise we get rid of everyone in 24 hours. i think that is important. i question the judgment of putting this into legislation, i think we need to

trust the experts and works and if we feel the departments are not accountable to our residents and representative i think at that point it may be appropriate to set parameters in terms of how the processes work. our legislation was in response to figure out a better way of eremoving tent encampments and want to do that with department of of homelessness and obama administration. i do want to provide more time as we continue this thoughtful dialogue so and for a motion to continue to call of the chair. >> so moved >> have a motion and koothat without opposition. thank you for everyone who is here. can we please call the final item before us today. >> item number 4, hearing on recent bicyclist fatalities, bike lane safety, and enforcement city-wide, with special attention to the sf vision zero's high-injury network area, and requesting the san francisco municipal transportation agency, police department, and the department

of public health to report. >> thank you madam clerk. it has been over two months since we have lot the lives of two of our rez dntsd cyclist cathlen flatterly and hillary miller who lost their life to reckless driversism one of the fatalities is the district i represent, a block away from #3450i house in a corner i pass by every day, howard and 7th. i call this hearing a long with my colleagues because we have a responsibility to those who live work and commute thin district and throughout the city to insure we are doing everything we can to make our streets safe. we want our streets to be safe for our drivers, our cyclist and our pedestrians. back in 2014 when supervisor avalos uand i called for vision zero with the goal of reaching zero fatalities the city stepped throughout all department said including sfta,

[inaudible] to think what it means and what we need to do to put in the engineering redesigns and education and awarenesscome pain and enforcement pieces that we need to put to make the city safer. glad to see the mayor issued a executive director on the matter and think that today will be a great opportunity to discuss the timeline and mile stones. i also understand very similar to the issue before us it is frustrating for the constituents and residents as the city commits to zero fatalities and continue to see people killed and injured on the streets. the question becomes what are we doing and working with the urgency that we need to take to truly address this matter. i think with the incident that occurred this summer it was timely we

wanted to bring sfmta and sfpd to talk about the two [inaudible] one the engineering and second, the enforcement. i really believe that if we are going make san francisco safer for our cyclist and scr a healthier city we need protected bike lanes so a big piece and sat with sfmta is to talk about what we can do to get to that place. i love the pilots. i love all the changes we are making along folsom and howard and more bike lanes but i think if we reduce conflictess we absolutely need to move toward protected bike lane jz one the questions i'll ask the department is talk about how to get there, the resources you need to make this happen and also because i want to hear the members of the public who are increasingly feeling frustrated two years later we are not moving fast

enough as a city to address this isue. second rkts, we will have sfpd talk about enforcement issues because in these two particular cases, it was clearly reckless driving and speeding that led to the loss of lives of these residents so we absolutely need to see what we can do to help reduce speeding in san francisco. it isn't appropriate in a dense city for cars to move as quickly as they do and need to accept the changing realty this is a city where cars need to move slowly to be respectful members of our city and community. so, i want to bring up luis montoya and [inaudible] from sfmta to speak but i want to give members of the committee a opportunity to make opening comments. seeing none, we'll have sfmta come up and want to recognize rob

osullivan from sfpd. not luis, tom. >> good afternoon. tom mcguire, director of susustainable streets and joined by luis montoya and lead person on all things bike related. thank you for the opportunity to come and talk about improving bike safety and thank you for the ongoing commitment to vision zero and recognizing it isn't just engineering and enforcement, it is education working together that will get us to that challenging but critical policy. we at sfmta believe we should be able to write a bike safely in san francisco whether you are 8, 80 or between. as you noted supervisor the tragic

death occurred within 2 hours of each other remind us we are not there yet. we have a long way to go and that is why we are working towards the vision laid out in vision zero, the challenges given by the mayor to build that city wide network of protected bike lanes to keep the cyclist and road users safe. we installed over 13 miles of protected bike lanes so there were no protected bike lanes two years ago but made progress, we have 13 miles but that is the beginning. luis will give details of what we have in store. we have in construction or in design or ready to roll out 15 miles of prethed bike lanes over the next 15 months and that is the future of the bike network in san francisco. rapid expansion to protect bicyclist. with

that i like to turn it over to luis montoya >> thank you tom. members of the board. i want to give a presentation and bike lanes and where we have come and going. give a update about the projects related to mayors executive drether issued a month ago and give the opportunity to have a conversation about enforcement as requested. protected bike lanes i couldn't have said it better they are really important to us improving the safety of the streets not just for bicyclist but people who walk and drive. we have 13 miles of protected bike lanes. they go from golden gate park, various neighborhoods. here is jfk, the first bike lane in san francisco as well as [inaudible] on the bottom. with these projects we have

seen increase in bicyclist and reduction in crashs and reduction in speeds and increase in rider ship. here is a map showing the 13 miles we have done so far as well as the pipeline of projects we plan to see in the next 15 months. we are planning doubling the mileage of bike lanes that include projects like masonic which broke down, pullic street and second street which will break ground soon and 7th and 8th street. we want to make more improvement said to folsom and howard. >> just a question p. we have come distance now where we actually have a approved bike plan, but i don't think the protected bike lanes were a major component of that, so are we looking to have a new city

wide bike plan that is being rolled out and is this the start of it or is this just piece meal for the protected bike lanes? >> that is a great question. the bike plan was sort of a traditional bike plans and called out programs and what we do. it was a long period of time for development, there was a lawsuit and we learned the nature of the design of bike ways is evolving and that instead of trying to have a hol istic plan we know what we will do on every street and should decide which streets to invest in and what types of facilities we should invest in and go neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street and work with communities to figure what that should be. that plan is called the bike strat ag. it was done in about 2013 and refined since then. we are rolling out many

sof the projects actually. i went ahead and flipped ahead a slide to show what the network looks like. this is a network of safe and connected bikeways that are comfortable for rise riders from 8 to 80 that include protected bikeways but also traffic calm streets in residential nairbld neighborhoods like the excelsior. we do understand now we have a fragmented network but have a plan for major investment and know where it goes it is a mat rb work wg the commune ities how each street should work. >> you have a bike plan and mention the bike strategy, so

is the plan continuing but sthra strategy that includes protected bikeways that is a overlay? >> that is right. we are committed to completed the sxickt projects in the bike plan. we completed the vast majority. there a few remaining like 5thstream street and soma and we will go beyond what we said we would do in the bike plan because in 2010 when we were implementing that. we look at completing the commitment in the bike plan and going above and beyond. >> thank you. >> just to follow up on supervisor avalos, curious if you can provide the timeline for those that are design completed so you on the map it

is amasonic polk second and folsom and see [inaudible] do you have a timeline of completion dates for these projects? >> i do. happy to report that construction on masonic has begun. expect construction to take about 18 to 24 months so we are looking at into 2018. i had a picture i think. sorry. just showing what we are talking about is curb to curb complete reconstruction replacing utilities that are 100 years old. that is why it takes a long time. when we get to the point of breaking ground-the other projects you asked about are 2 street which we plan breaking ground on just look toog finalize the bids for construction, though i believe it is early 2017 for construction. polk street will break ground in september, work wg neighbors to meet the

needs the xhrjs district there during construction. man sell we hope to wrap up in october. i think there were a couple blips during construction but my understanding is they are moving past those with the contractor and will wrap up construction. >> the problems were on the side with the cars? the other side seem s to not move very much >> we are told they will be done in october. >> man sell is spected to be done in two months and expect to break ground on second street early 2017? and polk street september 2016. you said masonic has baracken ground. for all these corridors you expect 18 to 24 months for completion. i have to ask this question because i get asked this all the time and

the question is, how did new york do it so quickly? protected bike lanes on 9th and 10. tom mcguire you were in new york city but i struggle to answer the question so are we doing it on the same timeline and look at new york and think they are doing it faster? what are the-if we are not doing it as quickly as new york, what are the differences? >> it take quite a wile in new york to build the projects. if you look from the community engagement through the opening of the bike facility most took well over a year. the owe other difference between new york and the projectss here is that here we are looking at a more comprehensive approach where we couple the bike lane with full streetscape project so replace the utilities and drainage and doing street trees in addition to the traffic

changing. new york focus on get thg traffic changes done immediately and not couple the two together. >> i ask this for the sake of discussion, is it better to prioritize safety and just go down the route new york city look? i like the comprehensive approach and not saying i don't want to take care of old utilities and streetscaping but have to push and ask when making those decisions is it sometimes better to just say, we have to save lives and move forward with these >> that is the right question and think the executive director challenged to get bike lanes built ij9 month period and those are the project where we dont wait for comprehensive instruction and use the tools at mta to get the bike lanes built thin new york style as quickly as possible. >> thank you very much.

>> um, to add to toms point about how our projects are different is that, we have a lot of policies around street use in san francisco. we have priority for transit first, safety, but also we want to make sure we are managing a transportation system hol isticically understanding there are folks that drive and park in many of our merchants find it important to have the parking access in their neighborhoods and then also there is curb management we need to make sure we have access to transit, xhrjs louding, emergency response and these are things that we take very seriously and we try to work closely with the neighbors and merchants on the streets to come up with sensitive designs that are responsive to the needs of that street.

obviously keeping our goals of safety and of making sure we have transportation options and how we can be flexible with the design. photos how we have done that. the top photoon polk street where we have a loading zone there. very unique set up. it is probably not the best for someone trying to unload their car or maybe not the best for the bicyclist that have to carry things, but both groups get their needs met. in the lower portion we want folks in wheelchairs to unload the ramps to the sidewalks. we need to make sure they have spontaneous to land in that keeps them out of the way of folks riding their

bikes so everyone can be safe. specifically with the mayors director with a number of projects we are moving quickly on, tom mentioned goals highlighted. i want to give a update on some of them. golden gate park, we is a larger study to try and reduce speeding thin park and reduce folks using the park streets a cut through to get where they are going. we want them to stay on the arterial streets. but as a first step we will be implementing speed humps in the section of the park where we had the fatality. a hear frg the speed humps are held this month and plan to implement them in november but also starting the larger conversation about how we can calm traffic throughout the park. 7th and 8th street the

site of the tradagy we are moving quickly and have a open house planned for later this month and plan to take a proposal for protected bikeways the board in december and implement in early part of 2017. church street we want to learn from what we did on golden gate and have the standard bike lane and heard a loud cry that protected bike lane would have been a better choice so are pursuing a protected bike lane on church. that project is going enter departmental review so working to make sure the design works for everybody's who uses the streets but hopeful to have a proposal to the board later this year as well. >> golden gate >> we are making modifications approaching market street. we added separation with plastic [inaudible] we will change

turn lanes so we think we can mitigate congestion. we have some minor tweaks but the plan is implement the producted bikeway on chunch, learn from that so we can then go to golden gate and make sure we get the right on golden gate. >> what is the plan for west of polk on those two streets? >> west of polk street we have a plan where we are working through the western addition community based tran portation planning effort going on there because that neighborhood has a little different needs than the tenderloin. i'm speaking west of van ness. but, we are work wg those neighbors to come up with a plan for what is appropriate for either turk or golden gate or east/west connection. what is the right street to put bicyclist. folsom and

howard, we did projects on both streets understanding we have a major investment thin next few years as we implement the soma plan and do curb to curb rebuild. in the mean time we need to do something sooner. [inaudible] we are now revisiting that pilot and want to do parking protected bike lanes. we hope in 2017 we have to conduct outreach and work with other departments but this is part of our push to get more producted bike lanes on the street. more projects listed and happy to go into them but recognizing time i will keep going. looking ahead, we couldn't have gotten to the point where we are on the precipice of doubling our mileage of protected bike lanes without the political support of the board and policy makers

for vision zero, for our bike plan historically and other bike projects. and we hope to continue to have that support as we work on these projects block by block with each neighborhood group and merchant to make sure we design the streets in a way that are context sensitive and meet the needs the folks using sth streets. we also know that requires a dialogue about the flexible use of space on the street because we know that through our history work wg the projects that ultimately nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. we can't provide 100 percent protection because we need the curb access for paratransit or people with disabilities but understanding that we may have to limit on street parking or focus commercial delivery on certain spots so they don't conflict with the bikeways. we ask

everyone comes to the the table with a open mind and safety goal squz [inaudible] in mind and work together towards designing these streets. lastly, we won't get there with engineering alone. we can design or streets to be great but we know that it is up to the personal choices people make, the behavioral choices people make and we can influence those behaviors through education and enforcement. we have kicked off a vision zero awareness campaign and running radio ads now and hope that will make a big impact. we are stepping up enforcement and have representatives from the police department here but also the parking enforcement lead is here to talk about parking enforcement and bike lanes if you so desire. really it is through the conjunction of engineering, education and

enforcement that hol istic approach that will get us to eliminating traffic fatalities in san francisco >> thank you. you spoke about speed enforcement and so we were the cosponsor of the resolution urging the stat advocates to implement automatic speed enforcement cameras and allowing san francisco to do that. we are prohibited by state law doing this today even though we know that in countries like sweden that successfully implemented vision zero and really initiated this initiative and said that speed enforcement cameras were the number one tool that allowed them to have safer streets. they are prohibited from doing that and curious if you canbroid a update where we are in sacramento? i heard there was positive news so like to see where we are at. and also what the constituents can do to

support this effort because we know that sfmta can't do it alone so what can the board and constituents to push this at the state level >> thank you, you have been the champion on this and appreciate the opportunities to come back and sthair with you the work we have been doing. we have a work plan we are executing that is quite robust in terms of targeting state level stakeholders that we know what it will take the eerfbcome the hurtles that are deeply intrinched thichb state legislator opposing camera enforcement. we have had over the summer as you know the legislative session ended so we did a opportunity to sit with the key stakeholders who were in acknowledging the work on their plate which is crazy, very appreciative of san

francisco's request to sit down with them now to discuss approaches that will be necessary to get to a place where key with be successful withthal approach we are posing is a pilot program with a limited number of cities. i think san francisco has clearly done more work than any other city in the state to build a foundation of support with the leadership of the board of supervisors both as the board, the transportation authority and mayor lee. there is auneimity of support that givers such a foundation to work from. in termoffs the community, we had and continue to have a fantastic partnership with the advocates from both the bike coalition, walk sf, partners megan weir is here from dph working in partnership with them and their engage ment in the community. you can see the growing list of community groups and stakeholders that

have gone on record and continue to provide briefings locally but we are turning our attention to mobilizing at the state level. in october we have asked work wg the city of san jose and 5 other cities joined us to seek a resolution to support vision zero. that meeting is october in long beach and it is our perspective that by having a organization like the league make a strong statement in support of vision zero we will have a foundation going into the next legislative session to have these conversations about proven initiatives like automated speed enforcement. >> thank you so much. for those that are listening, are there easy ways they can plug into the campaign? >> yes, on the website vision zero sf you can sign a pudition

to ask for support the silty to use automated speed enforcement there is a link to walk sf petition to show support for this. >> thank you. um, seeing--i have a lot of questions but want to make sure we get to public comment. i'm happy to see there is movement. i will focus on my district and howard and folsom and 7th and 8 and turk and town snd. those are the corridors i hear a lot about and well uselets butologist good corridor tooz make safer even with just the bike lane pilot on folsom it is amazing to see increased use of cyclist ridership on folsom. i can only imagine how many more riders we'll have once we make

it a protected bike lane. i am glad to see sfmt a is moving forward on the corridors. i did want to give sfpd a opportunity to speak on its current efforts around enforcement so commander if i can bring you up. thank you for being here today. we really do appreciate sfpd's cooperation on the focus on [inaudible] and we did two years ago holds a joint hearing with the police commission understanding this was something that was a priority for sfpd, commission and boardf supersurprisers to work together to provide support and resource squz prioritize this knowing we are losing live jz injuring folks in a significant way if we are not addressing the issue. i know given all the things sfpd needs to address we appreciate your focus on this and hope you can talk a little about how sfpd ramped up its focus on 5 campaigns in the quarterly

reports. i'm interested in the efforts on folsom, howard and golden gate and around citation and how that is going. >> good afternoon to all of you. my name is rob ocellival with san francisco police department and assigned to san francisco municipal transportation agency. talk [inaudible] was at the police commission to give a quarterly presentation for the safe streets report that was the second quarter presentation. to start, i was here in 2014 sitting among the captains when there fsh a joint session and police commission and vision zero was adopted as a city policy. our effort are mainly data driven and have great partnership with sfmt a and department of public health and

identified the high injury corridors. we sent our officer at the district station level and the traffic company . those officers are most the motorcycleophorouser to the areas. the mayor issue td a executiveorder in august. it ordered the san francisco police department to meet the goal around vision zero. our prime or goal is reduction and elimination of trafic collision fatalities and injury collisions and also 50 percent the citations those would be enforcement citations we issue are for the 5 factors associated with collisions. those are speed, red light

running, failure to yield unsafe turns and stop signs. red light. our marching orders are 50 percent the citationerize for those factors. we did achieve that goal this past august and first time the department has done that. it is a mile stone. through august the department 40 percent of citations are for the factors. we ended 2015 at 35 percent and two years ago we were around mid-20 percent so we made significant improvement. we are here in large part dreth relation to the tragic incidence that occurred in june shortly after i took over my new position and

it was very sad to receive two phone calls let alone one that evening with regards to the bicycle related fatalities. speed was a factor in each of those incident. there were other facts associated, but those collisions of representative of many collisions we have where speed is the factor. during the last 3 months members of departmented issued 3 thousand citations. education through vision zero, you may have heard on npr and kcbs the vision zero spots that are playing. talked about vision zero and zero fatalities and transition talking about speed. that is the educationally component and next month begins enforcement

cument pount and we will be a large component of that. through a generous grant the department purchased 40 additional lidar units which is radar. it is very difficult to eye ball a speeding offense. when is obvious you know that but the lidar is a tool that we first the radar then the lidar we are sorly missing so we will have come october over 100 lidar guns in operation and enforcement efforts will be on the high injury networks throughout san francisco. what that means to us practly speaking is the traffic company and district stations make speed enforcement a priority every day, we have a additional 150 plus hours of grant funded overtime to conduct speed enforcement operations. year to date through july there are

19 traffic related fatalities in san francisco compared to 17 this time through july 31 of last year and two bicycle related fatalities. there were 4 all of last year, 2015. supervisor kim i know you mentioned folsom street, it is-the bike lane on golden gate avenue wnt in recently. folsom street is in for some time and it was as traffic fatalities occurred on june 22, things became very to the surface in terms of vehicles driving and stopping and traffic lanes. for the period june-august sfpd issued nearly 400 citations to motorist dribeing in bike lanes or stopped in bike lanes.

recognizing the has ers it creates. i had the opportunity to ride that day and came up valencia and there rfs a car double parked. it was a primary example of what we are talking about today and had to go around that parked vehicle after we spoke with the occupant. the enforcement of the rules around being in and out of bicycle lanes we are paying particular attention to that. >> thank you. ial think it is helpful for the public to know how much enforcement sfmta and sfpd is doing awith double parking. it is something cyclist can say i i say i see every single day and it is frustrating. i know enforce nlt is a key piece and know many businesses view it as a cost of doing business and incorporate the parking tickets so it may not actually decrease

some types of double parking but i really believe that if we stup up the enforcement and say it isn't acceptable hopefully we see a vast reduction in the bike lanes. for someone like me who isn't a very strong cyclist it is scary when i see a car double parked and center to move into traffic. i often get off my bike because i don't feel comfortable going into moving traffic. i really hope that we can step up enforcement. it isn't just sfpd, sfmta can use the parking control officers to ticket. we get the twitter messages so appreciate members tweeting photos and showing a daily occurrence this sh for a cyclist but it is good to report how we doing on this and see what we can do the step up the effort in the short term so haep thin long term the

residents get this acceptable behavior. seeing no comments or questions from the committee we ptd to move to public com. there are many that came at 2:30 to speak so know this is hard because we have so many items but those that are able to stay, we will start public comment now. if you like to speak for those members of the public that have to leave but watching this at home thank you for coming. i know this can be difcult but are hearing you and look forward to hearing you feedback on this issue. thank you. come on up >> good to see you. i want to give out to sfpd doing a great job on traffic safety. i think enforcement is one of the 3 pillars, but i think engineering and design will be

the ones to reduce fatalities. there a lot of projects but i want to talk about 7th street. october of last year i e-mailed sfmta of the dangers and developed design and [inaudible] they did chbt do anything about it and kate died june 22 and it is two month. i e-mailed chairman nolan about the updated timeframe for the project and said construction doesn't begin until spring 2017 and this is reoccurring pattern since i looked into traffic fatalities is the prom eblths are delayed until they are forgotten about. on soma there is a street project that is

dead. second street is delayed by a few years. masonic where nils was killed in 2012 that is 6 years since he was killed before any improvements are brought to the street. new york city has done a graut job and tom knows because he works there is they were able to finish the projects in weeks not years. the 8 avenue bike lane they finished in 3 weeks of announcing it and they moved the cars out and put in soft tip post and think we need more of that in san francisco . >> thank you so much for being here. >> my name is jans lee and director of bike coalition. i give thank to supervisor kim

for literally the day after the fatalities occurred on june 22 move forward to call a hearing for protected bike lanes t. is important and glad to hear it. david campos and john avalos we know your districts are impacted [inaudible] hit and killed that was district 9 back in december and also dj pinker ton outside mclaren park who was hit and killed while biking. we know people are hit and killed throughout the city so pushing for what is the standard of bike lane and what is the street infrastructure we are pulting in and what our streets looked like 10 years ago and far different than today and we are seeing older generations of bike infrastructure put in but still celebrating them but can continue a do more. i know this is informational item but would urge the supervisors to

find ways in your power to find how you can help the city overcome the road block so quee can proud city like new york and transform a street. if i were a parent and said i let my kid bike in soma you would say i'm irresponsible. what type of world do we live in where we say that. [inaudible] our kids can bike and that wouldn't be a irresponsible thing because that is the vision we have for for the streets. thank you for your attention and look forward for to good work and thank the mayor for his support. >> thank you for being here and really appreciate the largest bike coalition membership work ing with us on the issue. any other members that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is not a one hearing

issue. we are actually fortunate we will have vision zero subcommittee i believe next week on thursday and i work wg chair norman yee plan to continue the conversation next week. we will advertise the hearing again and provide as best we can more precise time for people to come because we recognize people are taking time off from work and using their lench breaks to be here and not realizing there are multiple agenda items so we will reach out and work with the bike coalition so memberoffs the public can come. we get e-mails and tweets so continue to do that but look forward to the continued dialogue but glad we have headway mubing beyond the pilots we were happy to support we because we needed improvement but have a path way

to permanent solutions which will make the streets safer. glad to hear we are making movement on enforcement speed cameras in san francisco. colleagues i'm seeing no comments. motion to file and do that without opposition. thank you for being here and thank you to sfpd and sfmta as well. thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to the san francisco budget & finance committee for wednesday, september 21, 2016, my name is mark farrell i'm joined. >> by supervisor tang and be joined momentumly by supervisor yee and madam clerk, is there any other business before this body? electronic devices.

completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the september 27th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay madam clerk item one. >> ordinance amending the administrative code for the prevailing wages for loading and unloading materials or special events on city property and the driving of commercial vehicles so for that purpose. >> thanks very much from supervisor wiener's to is there any public comment. >> power from supervisor wiener's office before you is legislation this committee considered and continues last week and want to thank the committee for making those amendments on the supervisors behavior a recap the legislation before you will make sure the folks behind the scenes these people are loading and unloading

tables and chablz charges and stages they're paid a living wage we'll their going that work in this board of supervisors has been consistent to make sure that the city permits comes with a fair and living wage that supports families and descent quality of life thank you to the administrator and the various departments and the rec and park department the port and ocii for their he helpful help with the modest proposal on the ordinance we believe 2 strikes the right balance between supporting our workers and assuring we're not causing a hardship on the less capital events by focusing on the events with a higher level of production thank you for the committee for hearing this item and i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you, mr. powers

colleagues questions or comments public comment anyone wish to comment first mr. rose, can we go to your report. please. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee. he testified on this item we stated our recommendation as a policy matter for the board. >> thank you very much open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues if no discussion a discussion to move this item forward >> i make a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> motion by supervisor yee and without objection. >> madam clerk item 2. >> resolution for rivaling arthur's the rec and park department to accept and expend a grant from the committee evident recreation and other activities in fiscal year 2014-2015 tied together valued at $84,000. >> thank you very much. we have rec and park to speak.

>> good morning, supervisors. i'm nathan with the rec and park department partnerships division and be prevend the accept and expend resolution for a grant if the parks alliance $84,000 to fund the staff development and the recreation and other activities from go fiscal year 2014-2015 4 years the parks alliance has support did rec and park department including serving as a fiscal agent and soliciting donation this represents approval of the in kind granted from the account for fiscal year 2014-2015 those grants have supported wide variety of seasonal events with the tree lighting in december and the support of plan and the natural areas and park and the recreation programs and much more that is a wonderful partner

and they continue to provide critical support to many of the programs we hope you'll approve the retroactive wish to comment on item number two seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we same house, same call? >> i'll make a motion with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> without objection. >> madam clerk call item 3. >> item 3 resolution authorizing the director of mayor's office of housing and community development to submit an application and related document to the allocation committee for the issuance of mortgage revenue bond not to exceed $95 million for pavement streets. >> thank you very much colleagues the person at the mayor's office of housing and community development mr. crepe is out sick we will entertain a

motion to continue this for a week anyone wish to comment on item number 3. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can i entertain a motion to continue this for one week. >> i make the motion. >> motion by supervisor yee and seconded by supervisor tang without objection. >> madam clerk. >> the general manager the public utilities commission for the agreement between the city and slash consultants to extend the contract for 3 years for a total term of 2008 through 2019 not to exceed $18.5 million. >> thank you very much. we have the puc to speak. >> morning chair farrell and the members i'm dan the director of the sfpuc water program and here today to ask for your

approval for on amendment for one of the agreements before i do so if i could have the slides please. i would like to give you a brief status itch overall water program i know this is a program of the consistent 86 project started in 2003 i'm glad to say we're sierra club 92 percent complete that computed reasonable projects at 91 and local one hundred within the city of san francisco and those are projects to compare with the symmetric upgrades as the local system the item before you to ask for an amendment for the engineering design services for 9 water assistant this is one of the important contracts

to be able to continue and finish some of the projects critical projects under the wsip the original agreement priority for the regional and design projects under the wsip with the tenaciously tracey and the san francisco ground water the original budget for the amendment was $99 but the schedule is seven years they've been two previous amendments that moiftsd the time and an amendment to add one project national anthem the pipeline simplistic upgrades that for the water plant project that that project was created essentially after little agreement was signed to acknowledge the fact there was a trace of the effect

discovered underneath the tracey water plant we needed to create another project at a time and so this is a photo of hetch hetchy water long term project i'm glad to say we're 100 percent with the phase of project and this $2300 million project essentially allows us to sustainably treat one and 40 million gallons a day on the peninsula so this water treats water from the reservoirs and sdrblts to see to folks on the peninsula well on the peninsula as well as san francisco that project is complete so we no longer need the agreement for this project but need to finish the racially storage and recovery project to constrict up to 1 wells on the pen sipping suicidal a project we have

agreements with cal water and city of san bruno to stop penalty of perjury the existing water in exchange for us providing excess waters to wet years 2, 3, 4 dry years such as the drought we can provide water everyday sea that sierra club creates a ground reservoirs to the christmas springs reservoir we've completed the design of phase one we're in construction on 13 other wells and phase two allows to us to again even though to the gallons per day we need to complete the design and construction under this agreement the other project we need to complete we're allowed

to help us the san francisco grassroots project that 4 new wells within the west side part of san francisco so we've are currently in construction on the well stations this photo shows one of the well stations under construction the west side sunset those will include the improvements for golden gate park for conservative when cycled water it available and forecasts to be complete by the december of 2019 and so the need for the agreement to provide continued engineering services during phase one of two ongoing projects namely the ground water and the regional ground water and the complete phase providing services during phase two of both projects that are complete

in 2019 and so a requested action to approve the amendment 4 to the c with kennedy jinks wishes to increase by $2 million not to exceed 18 and a half million and extend the duration for 12 years to 2019 this allows us to complete the construction of two critical water system projects namely the storage and recovery and the ground water project that concludes my presentation. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor tang. >> thanks for the presentation so just to confirm why this resolution is before us today and this request because kennedy jinks was basically they were engaged before they knew with the final project was and now we know the details. >> the design engineer of

record need to continue to engage them. >> supervisor yee. >> i don't know, you mentioned it in terms of the recovery and storage facility. >> yes. >> how many gallons are we talking about. >> we're talking about - so that project 15 wells will produce up to 7.2 million gallons per day a drought resiliency that places an underground reservoirs those existing customers will agree to not pump the existing wells in wet years and the sfpuc can provide them excess water the underground will recharge and essentially accurate o create an underground water that didn't existing the peninsula provides

that water storage earthquake or in a sustained drought such as we're in now. >> thank you. >> yes. >> okay mr. rose, can we go to your report. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee. we report that of the additional requested $2 million 8 hundred and thirty thousand allocated to the water supply and others to the ground storage and table 2 on page 9 of our report summarizes the $2 million we recommend you approve this recommendation. >> at the open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number 4 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> >> supervisor tang i'll make a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> >> motion by supervisor tang and seconded by supervisor yee without objection.

>> item 6. >> the competitive process for the agreement between international and the city with the commission for an interim cafe to the airport terminal one. >> okay. thank you we have ms. wagner from the airport. >> thank you kathy wagner that the san francisco international airport the ordinance seeks our approval to waive the process to allow the current operators of cafe to continue operation during the terminal one renovation project as you may know this is not a typical lease that the airport will bring you, we bring you somewhere women and children 20 and thirty lease modifications a year for your approval all of a result of a competitive bid process and mentioned in the budget analyst report 5 years ago when the airport originally wanted to techt the concept of an employee cafe we thought we'll take time to consider the

facilities before entering into a competitive project norma project lasts 12 months annually the airport staff considers issuing a request for a proposal for this service, however, decisions were made to delay the process because of unavailable space because of sheer size of the skunking of terminal one redevelopment project you seen the number of leases to buy out tenants or relocation them because the space keeps on changing it hadn't been until this time that staff identified along with the designing construction team that will likely be untouched for 3 years airport staff at this point did an analysis and buildings the proposed 3 year term was not seen as a viable competitive

business opportunity during business at the airport to encourage 9 operation of employee cafe and to accommodate the need to recapture the space the airport agreed to build out the space for the contractor for the restaurant equipment and provided for all the employees costs the budget analyst office sites an airport costs for us to build 200 and $46,000 that won't be recaptured with the rents we'll receive from the tenants, however, airport staff didn't view it as a subsidies is much as an investment even without a student beverage concept if area we need the space for the employees to gather and eat many of them work in construction for the airline cruise and workers have thirty

minute breaks typically didn't allow them to go off site to buy food we will have to have a space for an employee benefit he realizes it is unusual but hope eave given you the information and joined by the airport folks if i have questions. >> a i video a quick question. >> is there an employee lounge. >> it is being torn down. >> terminal one adjacent to a food counterpart of cost the airport is seating but minimum. >> where in the aircraft. >> terminal one in a different space that will hopefully we have been assured not be torn down for 3 years. >> and so to our point about the average working i think part

of 24 a subsidy not just employee i get it sf loves the airport but hates paying the prices for food employees will not take the retail price. >> the normal lease is allowed to charge 10 or 15 percentage above for the outlets the employee cafe is well blow the pricing the average meals is about 7 or $8 it makes a difference for thirty minutes and can't get off the airport to buy food at a lower cost. >> supervisor tang. >> for all your intern leases have they all not going through an rc. >> do you mean the ones we bring. >> the intern leases would you

say that the general practice not going to the fees their interim. >> this is pretty specific we don't do this often like you have seen in the past what we'll do it modify an existing lease give them an extension if we move them to recapture some of the construction costs or something like that but not another lease like this it is not how we typically do this. >> i want to again, this is for employees. >> it was and at the airport hadn't had an employee cafe unu u nitdz with an ran one but the airport hadn't one we have no idea it was going to be used. >> supervisor yee and the idea moving forward this is beyond

pilot you guys want to keep it are permanent at some point do you have any plans for a permanent space. >> that would be a space they'll have for the next 3 years and once construction is finished before the extension or the expiration for the two years an rfp to provide the service and a new location in terminal 2 i think. >> thank you. >> mr. rose, can we go to your report. on item 5. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee supervisor farrell on the question that you asked regarding an existing cafe now yes there is that existing cafe was wraurt awarded to the same company they're asking you to waive the competitive procedures it was a one dollar per month

the airport asked existing commissioners at the airport whether or not they'll be interested in operating a cafe and only one enamor said they would the airport awarded that one dollar per month preliminary fee on page 14 of our report we report that table one or tangle one is on page 14 it shows that the total estimated revenue by the airport one and $83,000 plus over the term and one of the options i would clarify the airport has explained to us we asked if it is only for 3 judge's why not 2, one year options the airport said they need flexibility for the change of the reconfiguration of table terminal one so this is actually

potentially a 5 year not a 3 why year so with the 5 year period the airport would receive a total of $311,000, however, it was a 5 year total guarantee so disbursement fee is 54 thousand plus less than what the airport will construct the employee cafe space so our recommendation on the bottom of page 14 consider the approval to weigh the bidding requirement to award a 3 year lease with one, two year options for the board of supervisors. >> okay colleagues, any questions for the budget analyst. >> any questions for our staff. >> i have a question in regards to terminal 2 i guess.

>> yes. >> what's the sort of timeline in terms of building. >> meaning for the new airport employee cafe or just in general. >> in general and including the cafe terminal 2 is only 5 years old and become the model and terminal 2 virgin america and others fly out of it is the model for the terminals so terminal 2 is not renovated but what is going to be incorporated into terminal 2 we hope 3 years will be the concept for the new employee cafe that will be permanent. >> so that seems like you probably have more of a definite timeline that piece. >> i'm going to ask our director of revenue sheryl to

give you specification on that. >> i'm sheryl the director of the management at the airport what is happening in terminal 2 we are tearing down the outlined tower and in october so we're in the planning stages of what to do with the outlined are tower space the plans to put in a permanent employee cafeteria up there and it happens it will it is one of the pleas and phrase and that is a full rfp and the tenant makes the investment to set it up as viable i think that will happen that phase whether think finished in 34 years and kathy said this construction is more certain than terminal one such a massive project time flexibility because things come up during

construction. >> thanks. >> okay let's opening up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number this item seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'll make a motion to approve this item and i make a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> motion by supervisor tang okay seconded by supervisor yee without objection. >> all right. madam clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> okay thanks everybody we're adjourned