we'll walk across the street and watch it being hoisted up above us. >> item three, be advised that the ringing of and use of cell

phones, pagers, and other similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at the meeting. any person responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone or pager or sound-producing electronic device may be removed from the meeting. cell phones set on vibrate do cause microphone interference, and the board respectfully requests they be turned off. item four is approval of the minutes from the march 6 meeting. >> very good. director, we have the minutes. is there anyone that wishes to comment on public comment in the minutes from last meeting? seeing none, director, any concerns or requested changes? if not, i will entertain a motion on the minutes. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all those in fafr of adopting the march -- in favor of adopting the march 6 inch, say aye. any opposed? ms. boomer, item five. >> communications, mr. chairman, i have none except to note that we have language interpretation services in the room today for a

matter that i think will be discussed under item nine 9 general public comment. >> very good. >> item six, introduction of new or unfinished business by board members. >> any few or unfinished business that you wish to take up with director reiskin? >> yes. >> director torres. >> a few months ago we had someone from your staff come in and talk about parking and how we're going to do a different way of parking. and was it in the bayview or dog patch that i was referring to? >> so there's been a lot of different matters that have impacted parking. we did hear about proposals for residential parking in the dog patch as well as in northwest burnell. >> one of the issues that's come up to me is the issue of the s tag which is very wide, i guess, in terms of its jurisdiction, and so a lot of the people are crowding the residential area around davies medical center,

which is in the s period, and rather than paying for parking. cpmc doesn't want to pay for the parking, which i think they should, they take over a lot of parking spaces in the residential area. is there a way of diminishing the jurisdiction of these licenses? and if there is the oversupply of s's? >> and i can follow up with this since it is not on the agenda. and the same thing to identify as we look at the residential parking permit program with the very large zones. >> thank you. satisfied. >> directors any new or unfinished business? >> and limited to director torres' comment. seeing none, we will move on. >> that is right. >> mr. acting chair.

there is no one running back from vacation with a false name being distributed. >> mr. acting vice chair. >> unfortunately, you are not acting. this is your permanent job. so please give us your report, mr. permanent director. >> i will do so. >> permanent at will, i believe. and so first, i want to let you know that tomorrow here in city hall will be hosting the annual good government awards which is awards ceremony going on for the last 38 years to recognize outstanding job performance among the management of the city and county of san francisco. it is a unique opportunity that we have in the city to acknowledge the city's top managers for their leadership, their vision and ability to make a difference both within the city government and the community at large. there were more than 50 nominations for the five people or teams that were selected, and

i'm pleased to announce that the deputy director of finance and information technology and c.f.o. will be honored as one of those who was selected to receive a good government award tomorrow night. as you know, during her 12-year tenure -- i think it's only been 11, but we'll give her 12, the agency has received the highest credit rating, and we have the highest credit rating of any transit agency in the country. she's helped stabilize and grow sfmta revenues and led the request to support sf park and other programs such as pay by phone and muni mobile. there is a large list of achievements that i listed on the nomination form, and pleased that she'll be recognized for her great work. so anyone who wants to come, it's tomorrow night in north lake court here in city hall 6:00 p.m. couple of project updates.

one is that the wiggle project, which is probably quite a while since it's been before you has now been largely completed. the construction of it. and this is the wiggle green corridor project that's in the lower area which is one of the city's most critical bike routes that links the west side of san francisco into the market street corrid corridor. it's one that i myself ride often. the project was the collaboration between public works, the m.t.a. and the public utilities commission to not only improve safety in the neighborhood, but to implement green infrastructure treatments on three of the blocks, so if you go there today, you will see that the parking strips on those blocks have been replaced with pavers that are permeable to let the water go down and back into the earth instead of into the storm drain system where it has to be processed and discharged into the bay. but, of course, very significant

safety improvements as well. lots of bulb outs and raised crosswalks, and a number of other improvements including change in traffic pattern where scott fell and so that auto traffic can no longer continue south on scott or go south from fell onto scott, which is where we have a lot of turning bike activity previously the site of collisions. also some new bike signals, sickal timing, really was a difficult project for the neighborhood buzz it was fairly intrusive, but the work is done now. it looks great. i just rode through it yesterday. it performs well. it feels much safer in terms of riding through for all road users. good news on scott street and the west of the wiggle project. also, another one that was before you, quite a number of years ago, is the polk streetscape project. just wanted to give you the update that the work to build

out some of the base infrastructure such as the curb ramps, bulb outs, bus pads, road base, traffic signal, and street light underground utility work is progressing from all the way from ellis up to beach. and really what comes next is the surface work which is the paving, landscaping, and the striping. some of that paving up at the north end will begin next week. there will be a phase that goes first from lombard to bay, second phase from silver to lombard. and the third to philbert. we have continued with our partner agencies, and again, this is a multi-agency project to work closely with the neighbors and the businesses to do what we can to minimize disruption and anybody who wants up-to-the-minute info can go to sfpublicworks.org/polk. two other project updates, the castro accessibility improvements project which is a

project to install second elevator at the castro station on the south side of market to better improve accessibility is advancing forward. we had held two open houses earlier this month as well as an online poll so that we could have the public weigh in on different design concepts for the elevator. we are gathering that feedback and will bring that forward to the civic design review process which is under the purview of the arts commission later this month so that we can keep that project moving forward and o do so many a way that has a design -- and do so in a way that has the design and support of the surrounding community. i know we're eager to get that project in place, and so happy to see the progress there. with vaness improvement project, which i'm sure you all are seeing almost every day as you're coming by this -- at least any time you come to this building, the construction is well underway. what i wanted to let you know is that we are seeking community

members to fill vacated seats on both the community advisory committee and business advisory committee, so we have two different advisory committees for this project commensurate with the scale of this project. and i think we've gotten really a lot of value from both of these committees. we want to make sure they're well populated with stakeholders that have a vested interest here. both groups meet monthly to provide community guidance and provide recommendation and advice on ways the city can support businesses during construction and how the city can support the residences and make sure the project goes as smoothly as possible. we do have information at our vaness improvement website, so go to sfmta.com and search for vaness, you will find it. and the applications are due by wednesday, april 4, so we encourage any and all interested members of the community and

businesses to apply. and then finally, i did want to make note of the fact that as you've all heard by now, sunday night in tempe, arizona, an uber vehicle operating in autonomous mode killed a 49-year-old woman who was reportedly crossing the street in tempe. we want to, first, of course, convey our condolences to any friends and family and any others impacted by her loss as we've indicated here, every traffic death is preventible. and certainly whether it's vehicle is acting autonomously or not, the goal of vision zero is one that we will continue to strive for here. what this incident has kind of raised further into our awareness is that vision zero really does need to be central to the planning, to the policy,

to the regulation, to the legislation that relates to autonomous vehicles. i think the upside is that given that more than 90% of traffic collisions, the data suggest r caused by human error, that suggests that autonomous vehicles done right could significantly by an order of magnitude reduce the incidence of traffic collisions on our street streets, but that requires them to be acting in the way to be designed properly and performing in the way that they're designed. i think this incidence suggests there is more work to be done particularly in a dense, urban environment like san francisco where you have people getting around in so many different ways. and unfortunately, cities have not had much of a seat at the table in the development of any of the policy frame works that are guiding autonomous vehicles. we've -- the legislation that we

are seeing coming out of washington seems to be moving away from making the manufacturers take responsibility. the police official from tempe was quoted saying if it's the vehicle that was at fault, it will be a big question about what we do about that. who would be liable. would it be the driver that was not driving? would it be the company? would it be the vehicle manufacturer? i think that's a huge body of lawened a there is limited testing and without the engagement of local transportation, law enforcement, safety officials, which just is another area of concern, so

we're very optimistic, but the development of the regulatory framework by which they get on to the city streets to come and engage with us here in san francisco. he's hosting many of them here on thursday to interact with local police, ambulance, e.m.t., firefighters, transit operators. that is one small piece of work to insure safety on our streets. we will keep raising our voice towards better regulatory and league policies to address these issues. and certainly a sobering reminder of what this technology

is bringing. >> thank you, director reese reese. we will get to board member comment and public comment, but we will get to that momentarily. and on tuesday as we get the supervisors moving so they are not stuck waiting, and supervisor fur, is there something that you wish to address to us now or an agenda item that you are awaiting? >> i would like to make comments about the budget, directors. if you allow me, it is a very short speaking portion. >> absolutely. i will just note for member bs of the public, if i may t budget is a few items down, but out of courtesy to the supervisor and given there is multiple meetings going on during the day and we want her to use her time as best she can, bewill allow this -- we will allow this now. supervisor, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. and thank you, audience, for allowing me to speak first. good evening -- i mean, good afternoon, directors. thank you for making the time for me this afternoon.

as you continue to embark on your budget process, based on the feedback i have heard from my constituents, i wanted to present with to you four primary concerns to bring up as you consider adopting your proposed budget. first concern is our m.t.a. crossing guards. this program is a wonderful program in my neighborhood and our schools and our school communities have depended upon the school crossing guards for years to deliver our students safely to school and safely home. we have had an issue with getting school crossing guards in our neighborhood. we are on the wait list, and every time i visit principals from the schools, they're asking me about when can we get our crossing guard. we have many walkers in our neighborhood. our schools are absolutely full. we have neighborhood schools, and we have increased traffic on our streets, and they are going much faster now. also, many of the streets surrounding our schools have no

arterials, and that is why the school crossing guard program is so important. i know that m.t.a. and i have met with m.t.a. about this issue. they can't maintain the optal staffing level of 195 guards. it is hard to keep people in these jobs. currently they have a wait list of 19 intersections in need of crossing guards. i think m.t.a. should consider incentivizing individuals to apply for the individuals, increasing the staffing level to 20 hours a week, and working only 15 hours a week means no benefits for these people. and much of their day is taken up in the morning and in the afternoon. i could actually use them during the extra hours on my merchant corridors in the neighborhood where i constantly hear about traffic congestion and also unsafe intersections. the estimated cost of this is approximately $2 million. my second concern is taxi driver. we have heard many concerns from taxi driver, especially those who have paid $250,000 for a

medallion and that they are experiencing serious financial hardship. and the taxi driver fund that was established back in 2010 has been very little to benefit drivers who have paid a premium for the medallion. i am asking today that you would consider a program to provide some relief to the taxi drivers, especially for the ones that hold medallions they paid $250,000 for. my concern number three are commuter shuttle fees. we know you've received a recommendation from the m.t.a. cac that a hearing be held on commuter shuttle and private transportation fees to be considered as part of the current budget discussions or as a separate matter. these hearings will help evaluate the assessments of additional nonregulatory generating feeds to benefit muni. because there is the certain inconsistencies within the public record regarding the fees, we would like the m.t.a. to call for a hearing and from

have a transparent and proper fee setting process. and concern four is language access. from a report from 2015 to 2016, it shows that the m.t.a. has spent $112,000 on expenditures for language access. that is 1.1% of your $1.1 billion budget. i see that you're interactions by language and russian is zero for that year. in my neighborhood, i am hearing constantly from my russian community that are seniors and dependent on public transportation. i ask that you look into these four things. i will repeat them again. one is the m.t.a. crossing guard program. also, taxi drivers and relief for the medallion holders. commuter shuttle fees. and again, language access. again, thank you, directors, for allowing me this time to speak to you. >> thank you, supervisor, for your interest in these issues and coming down in person. we very much appreciate it. we'll return to where we started on the agenda or where we left

off on the agenda which is the director's report. ms. boomer, is there anyone who wishes to comment under public comment on director reeiskin's report? >> an i am not seeing anyone. do u yo wish to speak on the director's report? >> i'm good. >> okay. no one else has turn in a speaker card. >> very good. directors, are there any comments or questions following up with director reeiskin on hi director's report? seeing none, i will make a few comments. number one, i'll save my longer speech for a year from now, but i will just say it's an absolute pleasure working with you. you deserve this award. you're a professional and a friend. and the fact that we have a highest credit rating in the country is something that i take pride in and credit for. congratulations on your award. the next thing i wanted to address was the vaness

improvement project sort of advisory boards. and i suspect you've done outreach in the business community and in the neighborhoods and so forth and so on. and have we done outreach to the -- to the supervisor who has that area to the south and the supervisor who has the area to the north? >> i am certain we have. i think there are three supervisor districts with the project that it runs through. usually one of the first stops is going to the supervisors' offices to get recommendations, and to help push it out. i am sure that we have. >> wonderful. and then the other idea i had which just to raise is sort of makes sense to go to the businesses and the political leaders and the folks that are fixed there, but i would imagine that some of the commuters would be ideal candidates for this. i wonder if we have put advertisements on the buses that serve that corridor now to let potential commuters know that we might like their participation in this if they want to participate. >> that i don't know, but we'll see.

>> that would be wonderful. and finally, thank you for the strong statement on what happened in arizona and for continuing to monitor this obviously important issue. i thought your comments were right on and most preeshlted. with that -- and most appreciated. with that, we move to item 10 which is the consent calendar. >> we move to item eight actually. >> a right. the citizens' advisory council report. i understand mr. ballard is here. >> that is right. >> good afternoon, sir. thank you for all your work for the city. >> thank you. good afternoon, directors. so my name is neil ballard. i am a council member on the citizens' advisory council of this agency. i would like to go over the motions that we passed at our last meeting at the start of march. instead of reading all the motions because you have them printed off for you already, i want to go in a bit of a higher level overview. the first one there, we

recommend continuing and expanding the muni etiquette campaign. i believe that was in regard to the signs that are on the newer vehicle vehicles to encourage people to not have their bags on seats and share the space, and it is a good, fun direction, and we think that that could be rolled out for more vehicles and of course, the newer vehicles themselves. the fair policies because we're coming up to the approving the budget here. we recommended all seven of the fair policies that were presented to us because broadly they're all good ideas, and i believe that falls in line with what this board is also recommended, so we're on the same page there. i think, though t one thing that i want to point out with that is that these fair policies are

really geared at increasing ridership, which is currently flat. and that is something to pay a lot of attention to right now as especially as we have other private companies that are using city streets and providing these transportation options for people that are a little bit more pricy than public transportation obviously. so that leads to the motion, the one motion i want to read to you that we passed. that the c.a.c. urges the board to consider raising fees to fair market value for commuter shuttles and private transportation vehicles, e.g. chariot, that the use the city streets as places of enterprise for private gain and to consider establishing additional nonregulatory revenue generating fees for the benefit of sfmta.

i believe we have a speaker that's going to speak to that one as well. as ridership is flat, like i said, and as we see these companies kind of expanding and wanting to grow as private companies are wont to do, it's essential, i think, that muni keeps its eye on the prize especially with regards to equity. we're going to have this equity strategy presentation at this meeting today, and if that is really an important principle to the agency, then keeping a robust, growing transportation system that grows with the population that it serves is incredibly important because the fees on buses and streetcars there and one set fee that is not going to go up when there's

something going on downtown. so moving along, we have one motion here from the -- that we passed at the full council about using prop b funds one time for the fiscal year 19 and 20. there's also -- i am the chair of the finance and administration committee of the c.a.c., and we passed a motion to use reserve fund iing also oa one-time basis to fill the gap for this current budget. so that is what we're going to bring that on thursday. i think the trend for both of those is while those funds are available and it's a good idea to use them in the short term, we really should be looking at our strategy for the longer term. and so we have this motion right after that one that future capital projects should have operations costs factored in to the budgets when they are at the

outset. i think that we're using the prop b funds in the recommendation was to use prop b funds to have operations for especially central subway that weren't planned for in the beginning, so just to make sure we don't have a big traffic jam with budget in future year, it should really just be standard practice to have those operations costs when the projects are being planned. that is all for me. thank you so much. and should i stay for questions? >> please. if there are any right now. directors, any questions for mr. ballard about the various things that he and his committee have brought to us? okay. seeing none, i think i will ask for public comment and then get to discussion. if there is more, but you're not going anywhere, right? >> no. >> wonderful. >> ms. boomer, do you have any public comment on item eight?

>> yes, mr. chair. there are a few member of the public who do. what time limit would you like? >> two minutes please. >> mark miller followed by rob finebaum and david fillpell. >> mr. miller, welcome. >> good afternoon, directors. i want to express support for the c.a.c. recommendation for public hearing to consider additional nonregulatory fees for the commuter shuttle and p.t.d. programs. since 2014, sfmta hpresented th shuttle as a cost recovery program controlled by prop 26. for us in the general public, there are two problems for understanding this position. first, the agency has declared that the subtle program is voluntary and the board of supervisors has made a legal finding stating the same in their resolution on shuttle harmony provisions, but the legal disclosures of your own 2014 revenue bonds state that fees made pursuant to a voluntary contract are not

covered by prop 26. second, there has been no public discussion of the shuttle fee in context of another provision added by prop 26, one that allows charges for the use of government property with no cost recovery limits. sfmta relies on the for the taxi medallion fees that produce $60 million in revenue for muni to date. they argued in court successfully that the special privileges distinguish them from regulatory fees. commuter shuttle operators enjoy the exact same privileges for the use of public streets and commerce. the absence of comparable medallion-like fees for the shuttle program from the public view defies all notions of equity and logic. the conflicting filings and pronouncements need to be explained. any other information this board has received that the public has not seen should be published widely. if it is a policy choice whether or not to establish medallion-like commuter shuttle fees, the public has a right to know and hear deliberations in

open session. >> thank you, mr. miller, for those comments. next speaker please. >> hi. i am the chair of said muni. i would like to share with you a resolution that we passed last night at our meeting. it says, we support all efforts to make relevant city attorney memo and supporting documents with respect to commuter shuttle fees public, and to allow m.t.a. to get more than cost recovery for commuter shuttle and private transit vehicles provided that any such revenues be used for muni operations and maintenance. now, that's our resolution. let me give you just a little perspective on attorney-client privilege. as i understand it, the city

attorney's client, approximate client, would be the m.t.a., but the m.t.a. works for the residents of the city and county of san francisco. so the ultimate client of any such work would be the citizens of san francisco. i think that perspective should be taken into account when you consider whether to release important documents. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. got my all nighter shirt on today. i want to agree with the past two speakers. >> you haven't changed? a >> sorry? >> change your shirt? >> it is one of the efforts to promote all night service including the muni all service, but thank you for the question. >> and i wanted to agree with the past two speakers and support strongly the recommendation from the c.a.c. and from save muni that

information related to charging shuttles and other private transit vehicles either regulatory or nonregulatory fees should be made public and m.t.a. should make greater efforts to increase those fees beyond cost recovery. in addition, it occurs to me off neil's presentation that where you have recommendations coming from the c.a.c., where those can be put in the form of a transmittal letter, they should be. and such a transmittal letter could be included with the board packet, so other members of the public could have seen those recommendations coming from the c.a.c. whether they are related to the budget in this case or on other issues and have that information so they might be informed to comment as i am now having sat through all of those wonderful c.a.c. meetings. and finally, i would note that although the c.a.c. has talked about the budget and related issues at the last several

meetings, they have not finished with their work. they're having another meeting on thursday, so they have not completed their budget recommendations, and there may be more including two of the items that are on your calendar today, items 12 and 13, related to the service equity strategy and the service changes. those have not been explained to them or otherwise publicly, and i would urge great caution in whether or not to approve those two items today including hearing from your c.a.c. on their thoughts on those items. thank you. >> very good. thank you. any other public comment on the citizen advisory report? seeing none, public comment on item is closed. directors, are there any questions or comments for mr. ballard or mr. reiskin coming out of that report? okay. seeing none, let me just ask a few things. first of all, i will thank mr. ballard and the c.a.c. for going over all of the budget items that you did. it is never an easy process for

us. i think this is my 10th budget and always helpful to have your input on these specific items. i'm happy that we see eye to eye, but i'm equally as happy that you all took the time to look at this and advise us, so thank you on that. director reiskin, if we could follow-up on two item. mr. ballard encouraged continuance of the muni etiquette campaign. is there such a plan to continue that campaign as we roll out some of the new vehicles, and is that something that's consistent with our budget or would that cut into our advertising budget such that we would need to reconsider it? >> i believe that we do plan to continue it, but i can confirm that back with you. >> very good. so given that the c.a.c. has requested that, if we could communicate directly to the c.a.c. to let them know whether this is something where their wishes are going to be met by our plans or not, and just giving them the information and if it's not, you can come back

and see us. and then on the commuter shuttle issue, which i just want to clarify, not really necessarily get into, but so we're all on the same page, currently we are charging fees to the commuter shuttle program on a cost recoughry basis on the presumption it that's governed by prop 26. we are limited to cost recovery. as i understand it, the folks here are not questioning the legitimacy of prop 26. they are questioning the applicability of it to this program, and asking us to sort of give more information on whether legal advice we received that subjects this program to prop 26. is that -- to you agree that is the nature of the request? >> i think that captures it well. >> very good. and we are -- the reason we are as an agency not pursuing more than cost recovery or at least considering it -- i don't want to reach the ultimate question, but the reason that we as an agency so far have considered it

to be a cost recovery basis is on a legal -- is from legal guidance that we have received from the city attorney or otherwise. is that correct or can we not even get into that? >> i would say our understanding and the basis upon which we have set the fees is that they are subject to the prop 26 requirement that limits the amount of the fees to that which recovers our costs. >> that decision has been made for legal legal reasons and not policy reasons. anyone else? questions for mr. ballard or director reiskin? thank you for all your hard work. we appreciate it. we move on to item number nine. >> item nine, general public comment, an opportunity for the public to i a dress the board on matters within the jurisdiction of the sfmta board of directors but not on today's agenda. we will start with edward mason.

>> two minutes please, ms. boomer. >> thank you. the valley transportation authority in santa clara ordinance covers the use of property owned by v.t.a. the facilities include maintenance, business facilities, park and ride lots, and the bus stops within santa clara county. if you wanted to put a cell phone tower adjacent to a maintenance facility or if you wanted to lay fiber optic or have space from the park and ride lot to sell christmas trees, that would be allowable. and it would all be at market rate. and the market rate fees that would flow from that would flow to the v.t.a. general fund. now, in the past, we've said that proposition 218 was the guiding guidance for the m.t.a.

here. i've read the legislative analysts' report on that, and my interpretation -- and i'm not a lawyer -- was that it applies to property tax and below the line on the property tax. line charges that are affixed to your property tax. so if there was vector control, that cost would not exceed the cost providing that service for vector control. so i think we need to reconcile market rate use of our property, the government property, versus the reimbursement fees on a revenue neutral basis. if you look at your pg&e bill, that has a franchise fee to operate within san francisco. so you're paying a franchise fee. that would be another opportunity to investigate a franchise fee and that

correlates with the medallion fees being charged. everything is a private entity using the streets, and i think there is sufficient area to have an investigation into how you're going to structure this. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir, very much. >> [calling of speakers] >> welcome back. good afternoon. it should come on when you place your item there. we will wait to start your clock as the system -- >> you should just start talking and they will take care of it. >> there you go. >> good afternoon. this is very interesting meeting because what i am referring to, which doesn't come up, was the proposal in new york to charge uber and lyft a fee for the congestion fee. now t only reason that i bring this up because especially after

yesterday's accident of uber, we know that there will be an delay in pulling out these unregulated vehicles of lyft and uber and putting in whatever you want to call them, autonomous vehicles. and so the business plan has changed to lyft. and that means that we are going to be having these vehicles for years. and we need a way to make their fees go higher. if you make their fees go higher, the demand will fall because it's an artificial demand. it doesn't show this very well. okay. that is the proposed fee. the supervisors have looked at this, and there is a problem. you would have to get state

permission. however, you could do a similar fee to the medallion fee that you have been talking about for other vehicles. and i just asking you to look at it. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. [calling of next speakers] >> welcome back. good afternoon. >> herbert winer. i hope my comments don't set off a nuclear explosion from the board. it was commented in the previous meeting with arguments against bicyclists being licensed. i want to present my point of view on the issue. certainly bicycles mean less pollution, less congestion. that is one aspect of the argument. but there is a downside. for one thing, they violate traffic signals and they ride on the sidewalk illegally and this board has taken no action against it.

and we as passengers take cars off the street. what do we get in return for it? we get longer walks to the bus stop, higher bus fares, the removal of bus routes to our neighborhoods. this is not fair. now, is it it only fair that bicyclists pay for their licenses? i mean, i have talked to residents of the city who couldn't wait to ride to city hall to get the bicycle license. they were behaving like adults. on the other hand, the bicycl t bicyclists are behaving like children and resisting this. so my feeling the is bicyclists should not be a privileged minority and not control the actions of this board. quite the contrary. this board should be a watchdog with teeth.

thank you. >> next speaker. >> with the item with a well-attended workshop on better market street and lots of people and voices and concerns about the project and the design and implications. i am sure we will be talking more about that. and they may have touched on the twin peaks project and there are issues around that issue and staff related to communications and the inner sunset project has a shutdown this coming saturday. i would hope there be good communications to operators, passenger, and merchants and community people about that. in general there is a fair amount of turnover with project managers. we were on the fourth project

manager for twin peaks and that person is now off the project and are on the fifth, five in two and a half year. something like that. a lot of change there. some perhaps avoidable and u am concerned about project manager turnover. and finally and call out for special attention, kelly mccoy, a public information officer, who is apparently has been doing great work and building relationships particularly in west portal on the twin peaks project and other things. and is now who is leaving for another position in the city. good for the other city department, bad for us, but another example of where things do well and we train people and build relationships and then we have to start over again. so the more that we can attract and retain people at the agency and it's not management or h.r., but a lot of different things.

the better we can communicate and build trust with constituents and stakeholders. >> thank you. ms. boomer, i understand we may have a few mr. speaker. >> yes, mr. chair. [calling of speakers] >> welcome back. good afternoon. >> direct thanks, director. i drafted these speech notes in the last three minutes, so this is a little tough, but i wanted to talk about uber and the same will alie to lyft. looking forward, it is possible these organizations and outfits are here to stay and the future and will dominate transportation, but the truth is that the rides are being sold below cost, and it is not a sustainable business model. many countries have already outlawed this practice. there is another distinct possibility and 1911 standard oil was found guilty of antitrust violations, and there are some lawsuits about that. and then there is the decade ago

with the subprime and the enron is the best analogy. i read stuff earl yer this morning about it and the parallels are pretty great, particularly the excessive lobbying to influence legislator s to bend the rules and look the other way at shady accounting practices. one thing about enron which is that they were already on the stock exchange. uber is trying to get an i.p.o. and i don't know how they believe influence pedal to get their way into that with the lawsuits against them and the fact they'll lose so much money. i wanted to say that i think you should be prepared for the day the tax industry is strong and be ready to support us and be better service for the people able to get taxis and make a profit and the stakeholders will be healthy. you have individual decisions and don't have a mayor right now

telling you to advantage uber over taxis. i hope you will make strong decisions in the interim. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. [calling of speakers] >> good afternoon and welcome. >> good afternoon. i represent for 60 senior citizens from buena vista senior living housing on hay and sanchal. both buses stop on hay street. they are moved several blocks away from our house, and it is very difficult for many seniors to walk that far to the bus stop. and in my record of senior got hurt when they fell down on the way to come home, and one senior got robbed and beat in front of our door.

and we have some cars braking and squeal. the criminals around our block, and so i hope the path will get back to sanchal and hay. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. [calling of speaker] >> i am a long-term paratransit rider and debit card user for the taxi program. and they receive paratransit

mon money, millions of dollars is spent, and i just wanted to draw people's attention to the decline in the service. and the same excuses very ramp taxi taxis are use d, you know, and the people that the drivers that are driving around the airport, and they're not available

because the airport is more profitable. i just wanted to draw people's attention because people with disabili disabilities who use wheelchair s aren't being served. thank you. >> thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. ms. boomer, any further comments on public comment? >> no, mr. chair, i have not received another speaker card, and it doesn't look like anyone else is making their way forward at this time. >> very good. director, any follow snup director reese reiskin, the

speaker here and from is senior center. have we had outreach with that organization or with that facilit facility? er not to my knowledge. we will follow up with that and provide resources at the police department and the issues are related to public safety and they came down here and explainexplai explained issue to us, let's not only help them as our agency and let them know the other agencies that can help them as well. >> next item? >> mr. chairman, you are at your consent calendar. all matters are considered routine unless a member of the public or board wishes to have an item severed or considered separately. i have requests to sever item 10.2d relating to a new turn on red and 10.3. >> okay.

so excluding 10.2d and 10.3 which have been severed, is there any public comment from the remainder on the consent calendar? seeing none, that part of the consent calendar is closed. director, any questions? if none, i will entertain a motion on this consent calendar. >> director, all those in favor? aye. we can do it with a little gusto next time. and that portion continues. and at quinntara and 19th. and we have one commenter ready to go. welcome back. >> in general on 10.2, no section on stakeholder engagement which is generally in

the other calendar items. the results could indicate no speakers support opposition and just paragraph on stakeholder engagement for the routine 10.2 would be helpful. i oppose 10.2d. i am not clear and i have not heard back from staff on the impacts to the muni transit lines at 19th and quinntara. and i also commented to staff previously that the new to turn on red restrictions at 19th and taraval don't have gooz visible, especially at night. i am concerned those kind of restrictions need appropriate lighting and signage as those on the west side know it gets dark

and foggy and the difficulty to see the signage and legislate a change and don't enforce it well, it is not signed and lit, it doesn't have the intended effect 24/7 as it should. for those reasons i express concerns and opposition to 10.2d. >> very good. and is there any other public comment on 10.2d? since mr. mcgwire has stood up, we will call him forward to address this issue if he wants to. as i understand it, while you're walking up here, this is a restriction that would prevent right turns off of red off quinntara to 19th. do we have any muni lines that make a right turn on to 19th? >> no, we do not, mr. chairman. >> this restriction will not directly effect any muni lines. >> our analysis showed it would not effect traffic circulation or the muni lines. >> okay. your time is up. no, i'm just kidding. director, any further -- so i'll just finish out the colloquy,

then. i understand that the supervisor represents this district and our friend supervisor tang has sort of gotten behind this project, is that correct? i imagine the primary goal is pedestrian safety for people crossing the street and 19th on either side of the intersection? >> yes, it is. it is your view this restriction will promote pedestrian safety on 19th avenue? >> an it will. >> with all that, if there are no other questions, may i have a motion on this please? >> so moved. second? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> we got to work on that, guy. any opposed? no. okay. thank you very much. that item passes. let's move on to item 10 pont 3. >> authorizing the director to excuse the agreement forcow palace in the amount of

$2,072,457.68 for a five-year term with options to extend the lease. this is severed at the request of a member of the public. david pillpau. >> welcome back. please. >> two items. on the resolution itself, i think you will notice if you go to that page, below to resolved clause, and two lines that have fallen into this from cut and paste that should probably go away because i don't know why they are here. that is probably a minor amendment that can happen. and more substantively, no concern with the lease, but i understood from discussion several months ago that lease lot in lrv maintenance was going to come back to the c.a.c. or subcommittee and ultimately perhaps to this board with an historic vehicle disposition policy or strategy. and i don't know if that's in the works, and if that's to come

because long term i think some of these vehicles should be kept and restored and returned to service. others probably should not be kept and should be sold or otherwise disposed of like the one-time deal with the trolley museum in connecticut was it? yeah. and so there needs to be some determination about how space is used for historic vehicle storage. and i thought that that was in the works, and i wanted to relate that to this item which will spend $2 million for five years for storage of vehicles that aren't doing anything right now. thank you. >> very good. any other public comment on this item? if you want, while we give our attorney a chance to look t an issue one, i can address issue two. >> there is no matter with it. we can just make a clerical change to just delete that language. it's not a -- >> thank you, first of all, for spotting that, and letting us

know. i assume that there is no director objection to correcting that typographical issue? okay. seeing none, without objection, that will be the order of the board. mr. reiskin, please address the second item. >> he is correct. we are preparing an item to come to you within the next few months that would propose disposition of about 12 historic vehicles that we don't think will have future value or beyond repair. we have accounted for that shrinkage of the fleet in developing the space needs for this lease. so he is correct. that will be coming and it will go first to the c.a.c. and you will be seeing that within the next month or so. >> very good. okay. any further questions or comments on this item? if not, i will entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor say aye. >> aye. any opposed? okay.

that takes care of the consent calendar. >> we're going to go to item 11, mr. chair. >> authorizes the suggestion >> authorizes the suggestion

>> it will have to go foray approval as well as part of our budget package. >> we bragged about your credit rating. >> thank you for the kind words. >> ok. any public comment on item number 11? >> no, mr. chair. no one has admitted a speaker card and it does not look like anyone is moving forward at this time. >> board members i assume no questions but please ask if there are. ok. very good. and with that i'll entertain a motion on the item. >> is there a second. >> second. >> all those in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? very good. moving on to item number 12 which we will call items 12 and 13 together if i may ms. boomer. >> item 12 adopting the muni report for 2019-2020 and item 13 is proving the proposed service and route changing for realignmen