are there any questions? commissioner sheehy? >> i still have a lot of concerns on this. i just think it's too limited in scope. i don't think it does address a problem. i see it creating bottlenecks. i actually see it as economic justice because you're basically going to let people buy into these lanes. i think they're going to be us -- used by lyft. it may shrink what we get on mass transit. when we look at mass transit, i really don't think this will be a good use of money, trying to create easier and faster ways for people to drive car downtown. i think we ought to be looking at how we can limit cars coming into the city. can i just imagine lyft pool

becoming the alternative because you can get downtown in 10 minutes or mission bay in 10 minutes. i think for people who don't have resources who have to get the bidding -- get to the hospital because their kid is sick have to wait because others will pay to be in the high-speed lane and drive past them. when this first came up, i thought we would look more globally to restrict the traffic coming into the city by looking at a metering, you know, charging tolls. to me, it's the most rational way to begin. we charge a toll to come into the city from the east. we charge a total to come into the city from the north. the only direction we don't charge a toll is from the south. that seems to me irrational. this is really a band aid that, frankly, isn't a band-aid but may exacerbate the situation. it's a big part of my district

that's on the south side of town. transit options, especially to mission bay and the southern part of south of market are not-existent, but the growth in jobs and economic activity there is exponential, especially now that we have the lawyers -- warriors coming in on top of the giants. i can only see creating a lane that might fulfill the promise that was made when the warriors came in, that there would be dedicated empty lanes for emergency vehicles or people trying to deliver their children, but the rest of it, it just seems like it is not comprehensive enough in terms of scope and looking at transit options to move people from the south into san francisco from the southern part of the city into.. -- into downtown. >> thank you, commissioner

sheehy. i think we definitely agree this is one of many strategies that needs to be considered in this corridor. i appreciate your comment also that it's important to look at transit as part of this. i think san francisco is a transit for city. we want to make sure first and foremost, i think success in the best possible cases is this lane is filled up with buses. that's what happens here. the opportunity is to create that platform to run better transit but knowing there isn't enough transit to fill the lane initially and to make sure the lane is prioritizing vehicles with more occupants than fewer occupants. with respect to the overall pricing at the county line, i will defer to our executive director, ms. chang. >> i guess as far as congestion management and potential pricing, which is something i think you mentioned last time, this is something that's been identified by folks as far as the transportation 2045 revenue task force earlier this year. other folks, including members

of this body have mention that i had ma be willing to go forward with those plans. there's a bill making its way through the legislature that will authorize that. i do think there's independent utility and value in creating a direct connection between downtown san francisco and san jose for high occupancy vehicles and carral pool. that's one of the thing we've proposed to keep studying going forward. the hov option >> how do you keep that from being filled with tncs? >> any high-occupancy vehicle will be qualified. i don't think that's a policy i've seen elsewhere. the solution around them are greater than any hov poll i is. we do need to look at the downtown pricing and management. we do need to look at perhaps assessing a surcharge as other cities and states have done on tncs. we're trying to make that case

to the puc. chair peskin has been clear we would like to have that ability to manage tncs in that way. >> not as a regulatory matter, commissioner sheehy, but later today at the board of supervisors, i will be introducing a gross receipts tax for transportation network companies and would enjoy your and my fellow colleagues' support in that matter. >> by definition, creating an hov lane is creating a tnc lane, in my mind, because there's two people in the car. >> your point is very well-taken. >> mr. hobson, do you want to respond to that? >> if i could offer a clarification. it's true that as tncs operate, a lane that allows two-person vehicles to be in it would currently have to allow all tncs

that have a driver and a passenger in them. now, we know that tncs are looking to move towards autonomous vehicles. things will be different in that situation, but that's in the future. right now, what is called in this presentation, two, will allow it for free. the express lanes that require three passengers in order to be free would not, therefore, allow a vehicle that had just a driver and a single passenger, which is in our understanding so far, the majority of trips that tncs make, they would have to have a driver and two passengers or three total people in the vehicle in order to qualify for free access to the express lane. >> i'm still very skeptical of.

this i have a feeling that this will be -- or just in terms of where our traffic is going, i think this is something -- we make it easier for certain vehicles to move, the ease of vehicle movement will be filled with tncs. that is what i see happening across the city. >> point very well taken. commission commission commission commission commission commission commissioner safia. there was one slide that showed the actual lanes there are a couple of areas on 280 north as well as on 280 south, that there would be significant bottlenecks. could you talk about that? it wasn't clearly articulated

what the plan and strategy would be. if we're doing that, essentially when you're going 280 south and 101 and 280 diverge on 280, you're really talking about two lanes at that point. if it's going to carry all the way down to the county line, you have the potential to have a significant bottleneck at that point. same thing at the mariposa. it seems like this is being done for people who don't live in the city, not the people of san francisco. it would be better to clearly articulate how there's going to be benefit across the board. speaking to the equitability,

those are the three things i wanted to state on the record. maybe you can respond to that? >> sure. while amy sets up to share more, commissioner, you're absolutely right. we're planning to bring that forward through the operational studies that would follow because we think we need additional modeling to answer those questions around the merges, around potential on-ramps on to 280 from the local streets. buses currently that could use this route are not using them. we've discussed with the region, and they've put together a plan for regional buses on top of the current operations to double down on bus provision in the corridor if there's a lane provided. those buses today are not benefitting from a quick, reliable trip downtown. they're stuck behind single and double-occupant cars today.

you think about it, muni would put other services, express bus services onto this corridor additionally, if they're able to create more regional express buses, they would take advantage of these services as well. i think it turns on how to we prioritize the use for public transportation. how do we make sure we have a reliable service for those currently stuck in traffic, especially those on public buses. >> i would just like to add on to that point. the trouble is you create these toll lanes, the tncs will take advantage of them. they will be the ones. i said this before, i take that route every morning, and the volume of tncs that ride on that route has increased every single day. so you create a high occupancy lane that's toll based, it will

be actually an impetus for more of them to take advantage of that. >> i share the concern. i think it's more going to be on local street where is we have jurisdiction. on the local street level, if we can talk about a management approach that involves local jurisdiction and local ordinances can kick in, especially if we have the ability to have this authorized by the state or even if we don't, perhaps, maybe there's a way we can fashion a local ordinance that would allow pricing of tncs in the future on local streets as they exit the lanes and ramps. >> yules didn't answer the -- you also didn't answer the question about the bottle de, >> i was going to suggest andy take that up. >> can you put up the slide that shows the actual lanes? that one.

yep. so this one the left is the southbound 280 where it divides. right there in the middle where it says nb -- that's literally two lanes, and you a era tacheing one -- and you're taking one of them. can you talk about that? >> that was one of the spots that after our previous december meeting, we took a much closer look at because i think that was the source of a lot of the delay we were seeing in our initial analysis that you made comments on back in the december meeting. the reason you see the yellow highlight across a number of the lanes there. the design was revised to maintain the existing capacity today. currently the connecter where you see the yellow going through and the one you called out, commissioner, the northbound 280 on, both of those, just before

they merge in today's condition go from two lanes to one lane and become a two-lane connecter that joins 101 southbound. >> >> but not at the bottleneck. right now, it's two lanes. when it divides south, it's one lane in each direction. what i see on the map, if it's highlighted in yellow, you're taking 1 of those lanes and leaving one lane remaining going south. our traffic analysis reflected that today -- what we are doing is moving that back up to road, and the traffic analysis we performed in the future conditions shows that there's enough capacity to service that. i think you are correct to point out that there's additional bottlenecks that come back and commissioner sheehy has

mentioned this from the monterey ramps and to the point where the 101 and 280 split. >> we talked about metering to get on 280 south from caesar chavez. >> so far we don't have much ramp metering in our local traffic system. here i think we are agreeing that in the pennsylvania or other locations, there could be a case and there's enough storage for metering to help even out the flow on the main line. so the metering would be looked at while looking at the hot spot andy just mentioned where there could be room to stripe if we took out a shoulder. bumping out -- >> you mean adding lanes? >> potentially.

>> you can say it. >> adding some capacity for operational off-flow. >> i'm just kidding. i'm joking. >> i think they would be pursuing this. >> if you could go back to the slide. i'm sorry. i'm just trying to get some humor in there. go back to that slide. so if you all could spend a little more time -- i feel like this is the most informative one. you can talk about the bumping out and where the metering would be. this is really the most informative aspect. the other stuff with just the blue line and yellow lines, that doesn't really tell you much unless you ride this every day. i will just say you can spend more time bolstering that so we know what is potentially going to be studied. that would be helpful. >> sure. >> commissioner ronen? yes. i just wanted to echo

commissioner sheehy's concern about tncs. i had not thought about at that. i think that's a legitimate point and we don't have enough control over tncs on our streets either. that's not a satisfactory response in terms of a way to have local control over this phenomenon, this new industrial phenomenon. but i also wanted to get back to the equity point. we were able to talk about this in my off i would like to have a more public discussion. why should someone with money get to buy their way to work quicker when perhaps they need it even less than people who can't afford to pay that lane. i told you this story of taking my daughter to universal studios, and we spent a fortune on the ticket, but you could spend $100 more if you wanted to cut in front of the line.

it was the most outrageous thing as we were standing for hours in line, these people that could afford to spend $100 more just cut in front of everyone else. it was so inif you are rating and so -- inif you are rating and i don't think -- infuriating and wrong. i'm wondering if you can address these concerns. >> so totally understand those concerns. i think the fundamental issue here is some day, somehow, we need to provide means that -- we need to make the structure of our transportation network provide more advantages for people who are riding transit and who are getting multiple people into the same vehicle

sharing rides. i'm not going to use ride sharing, the term. this is an opportunity. whether we do this by providing -- our studies showed that doing it by providing a 3-person carpool lane would gum up the rest of the highway too much. so it look like we have two options that would provide a time advantage but not gum up the general purpose lanes way

provide a time advantage. if we don't do it through something like this, our roads are only going to get more congested, and we will not ever -- we will not be providing an advantage to the bus carrying 40 or 60 people or to the carpool carrying three or four people. if we don't do that, we will continue the situation where the solo vehicle has the same time advantage as a transit bus. so that's just a fundamental problem that somehow we need to overcome.

>> commissioner sheehy -- colleagues, i think the sense i'm getting is this is not ready for prime time. this body does things in most instances in unanimous agreement. so subject to further deliberation and public comment, if it is the will of this body, i would suggest that we continue this item to the call of the share and have an opportunity for more outreach between staff and members, but with that, commissioner sheehy. >> and i'm happy to make that motion. first of all, in follow-up, i would like to know how much control we have over who gets to use these lanes. if we were talking the about a mass only transit lane, i would be for it. facilitating getting cars into downtown san francisco is a losing strategy, whether you price it or whether you think you're going to get carpools, i haven't seen the magic of

carpools across the state or in our region. i don't think that's some magical thing that's going to happen. you just described a scenario where the optimal plan is two people, not three people, that's a recipe for filling those lanes with lyft. second, if you do pricing, that will be a case for the maseratis we see going to downtown san francisco. we're headed toward two symptoms. one for the very rich and one for everybody else. i think that's going to be the ultimate use of these lanes, if we build them. >> commissioner ronen? >> i'm wondering, have you studied a mass-transit only lane for the buses? >> no, we have not. i think that the hov-3 analysis

provides a little bit of a hint as to where that would be. the you want to bring the slide up that shows the time comparison. >> i'm just thinking if that's our end goal here, then why not make -- you know, in a way, that would make the bus so much more desirable than any other form of transportation that perhaps more people would use it. i share the thoughts of commissioner sheehy. >> if i could add to that, the bus-only option would not make it across our bar based on how many buses are provided, even in the future, if we could add more buses. so the question is could we add that many more buses to justify the 2,000 vehicle per lane per hour times the number of people per lane? i would like to think we could,

but i don't realistically think we could justify it purely on public transportation. that's based on what can be provided. the funding for that, i think there is regional three measure money for this. i want to continue the move forward. i think the action item we're proposing here is really just to pay caltrans to do oversight on us and work with us and be a part of it since it's their facilities. we share the concerns. i hear the concerns. i don't wish to avoid these questions at all. in fact, i think working with caltrans is the best way forward, especially given this region is moving to that direction. we would love to be able to have caltrans at the table. that's the action item. the action is to not move

forward on stage of planning. this is information. the action is to provide funding for caltrans to work with us. >> all right. why don't we open this up to public comment. i have one speaker card from friends of caltran. ms. eleven. -- ms. levin. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in terms of mission, we suspect sustainable transportation of all sorts, including trains and buses and other forms of sustainable transportation on the peninsula corridor. we've got is significant version and have some significant questions that are not yet

answered at this high level presentation. one is about how this does interact with the potential goals for congestion pricing that san francisco is considering. there's a bill in the legislature. would one replace the other? would they be used together? how would this work? the transit option is about to come out with the results of its express bus study. what would the performance of the express buses be with or without this component? and, actually, how would the performance be with respect to buses if there's san mateo and san francisco or san mateo only? another question, though, has to do with that rain configuration and if the lanes are expected to be on 280 and you already have

101, this would be pulling vehicles from 101 into 280 and then bringing them down at fifth and king where in the central plan i just saw there were going to be about 10,000 extra pedestrians in the general area and in that major transit hub with caltran and central subway and all the other metro and muni buses, will it suck additional cars on to that route, and how will it affect the transit goals and quality of life goals. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public for items 12 and 13? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sheehy, would you be comfortable after those comments, in moving forward with item no. 12, knowing that ultimately this body has the

ability to say no, but we could allow the executive director to into into a cooperative agreement with caltrans? your thoughts on that? >> i'm going to vote against it. i just don't think this is a great idea. i would like to know why we couldn't put -- it's kind of like, you know, the los angeles experience. every time they build a freeway, it's full. when they built the 10, they said it was going to take a number of years to be full. within a year, it was full. so i want to take the opposite tact. i would like to see us maybe bill for mass transit. when mass transit comes, if that's the plan, i'm for it. if it's for any facilitatation -- facilitation of private automobiles, i would like to stop it now. if we built the equivalent of a red lane only for mass transit, i think it would encourage mass

transit routes. it could include shuttles, especially when they're union organized. that's not the best of all possible worlds -- that's not the worst of all possible worlds. if we're going to do this, let's go 100% and say this is mass transit only lanes. that's something i would be interested in. >> all right. is there a motion for item no. 12? item no. 13 is an informational item. [off microphone] >> he said he was ready to make the motion, but i don't think he actually made the motion. but is there a motion of one kind or another? commissioner tang? >> just to clarify, to continue or approve? >> continue. >> a motion to continue this

item to the call of the chair or a date certain? >> to the call of the chair. >> a motion made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy on that item, a roll call, please. [roll call]

today we're asking you to approve our general approach. prop k is our half cent sales tax. it included a 30-year -- the expenditure plan is implemented through a strategic plan and

five-year plan that's required for those categories. this shows the distribution with about two-thirds funds for prop k. it's for almost exclusive projects. while the expenditure -- the policies tell staff and sponsors how to manage prop k. we don't anticipate any major changes during this update. the revenue-up ensures we're able to have enough funds for the prop k projects when they're ready to go. while the strategic plan is the document that i can ma -- that makes sure those funding are able, five years is about as far ahead as we can expect sponsors to identify their project

priorities. any project you might be thinking of for prop k funds needs to fit in one of those categories. each has a few designated elements. the most basic is that five-year list of projects with detailed information for each one. and, as you know, with board items every month, they can be amended with certain understanding of trade-offs. it's important to set that for the next five years. again, the update we're discussing is the opportunity to pick which projects will receive funding over the next five years. we're looking for projects that are recommended in and proved plans or submissions for sponsor agency. this update will help prop k respond to projects such as involving pipelines to take advantage of funding and how to renew programs. we've laid out three steps for the process. that will determine how much

funding is available year by year and categories years 20 to 34. the baseline will come before you for the next month. after board of approval of the baseline, we'll issue guidance on how to prepare and we'll work with those agencies to develop the list for each category. this is our schedule. we know that outreach is going to be important through this process, even if it is a pretty wonky subject. attachment three is our preliminary outreach a -- approach. with that, i can take any questions. >> seeing no questions from members, is there any public comment on this item?

seeing none, is there a motion? >> motion to approve. >> made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner sheehy. on that item, a roll call, please. [roll call] [voting] >> next item, please. [ agenda item read ] >> ms. mcavoy? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have about a six-minute presentation that i will run through and hopefully it will answer any questions and concerns about the program. when fully staffed, we have 190

crossing guards and five field trainers. we provide services at 106 schools and cover 151 corners. we cover elementary and middle schools, both private and public. our budget is 2.2 million per year, and the funding is covered by the general funds. we have 195 budgeted crossing guard positions. guards currently earn $17.96. per hour. they will receive a 3% increase, bringing their salary to 18.50 per hour. the current union contract expires in june of 2019 and contract negotiations are scheduled to begin in january of 2019. they will be handled by hr's negotiating team. guards work an average of 2.5 hours per tay. 12 hours per week and 38 weeks per year.

they do not work when school is closed for summer break, during winter, spring, and summer breaks. they cost the agency about 15,000 per year. some of our challenges. it is difficult to maintain our optimal number of 185. we have hired 146 yards and lost 130. we have persevered and continued to move forward. two year ago, we were at our highest vacancy level with a shortage of 40 guards. today, we're down to about 15 vacancies. we're trending in the right direction. presently, the program operates with 180 guards on a daily basis. we kept the job posting open year-round. this has been beneficial as we

have a steady stream of applicants. we put up flyers at various community centers and we target districts where we have vacancies. we are making sure applicants are aware of what they're applying for and what the aspects are of the job. we address hours, shifts, lack of benefits during the interview process so applicants have a clear picture of what they can expect. this job particularly suits students, retirees, parents and grandparents who want to be home their kids after school and during holiday breaks. we do best to place guards at the school of their choice. we cannot place a new guard at their desired location if there is already a guard in place at that corner. if we're unable to place a guardt a school of their choice,

we let them choose a location that best suits them, and we place them on a waiting list so they can get back to their desired school once there's an opening. one nice perk is they can ride muni for free. this is helpful to those who may need to travel to a corner. obviously this job is not for everyone due to the hours, split shifts, and lack of benefits. however, we have a wonderful group of crossing guards, many of whom have been with the program for years and who are content. we have 80 guards with the program for three to nine years. 37 guards with the program for 15 to 20 years, and three guards that have been with the program for 21 to 30 years, and one guard that's been with us for 41 years. our next challenge would be supply and demand. the fact is everyone would like a crossing guard at every intersection around every school, the reality is crossing guards are a limit red source.

we rely on the results of an engineering survey, which is a number of criteria unfortunately the schools that don't pass won't make it onto the list. in either case, we offer to train a parent or school volunteer and will provide a stop sign. some schools have availed of our offer, but most do not. some other challenges we face, the expectations that all requests will be granted immediately and unfortunately they are not due to the survey process and available positions. the belief that a guard will solve all traffic issues, which is not the case as a crossing guard's duty is to cross students, not assist with other

processes. while schools are appreciative, we are frustrated sometimes with uncooperative school staff and changes and accommodating guards are restroom privileges and access to clock in and out for timekeeping. we work closely with all of our guards to make sure they're trained, confident, and supported while on the corner, and we provide them with good, high visibility, safety equipment and rain gear. they're challenged by problematic kids and motor riis and subjected to danger. a steady pool of applicants has allowed us to find and hire good people. when possible, we try to schedule one guard to work at twoal schools.

if there are two schools nearby with great times, this is be a great opportunity for a guard to get additional hours. in some case, we have been able to reduce two guards to one when safety allows by providing additional train and assigning an energetic guard. to make sure we're serving our communities, we've resurveyed all of our existing corners, all corners on the waiting list and koreans that didn't last throughout the three-year period. the goal is to get a comprehensive list so we can determine if guards are placed at intersections where they're doing the most good. the data collection has started and will be completed before the updated school year in june. analysis and scoring will follow, but that time frame has not been determined yet. we're awaiting for the data

collection and analysis to be completed before determining if changes are needed and then, if so, how best to proceed. it is my wish to run the best program possible. input and suggestions are always possible. i'm happy to, with you and your staff on possibilities. i'm proud of the work our guards do. they're our greatest asset. they're out there day after day, rain or shine, keeping our kids safe. thank you. >> thank you. >> i can take any questions. >> commissioner sheehy and maybe commissioner tang. commissioner sheehy? >> yes. our time is getting short. i really think my question will be for the director when he comes in with the mta budget to budget and finance. first of all, i appreciate it. what a great job you're doing. i have a 13-year-old. i've seen the crossing guards. they're amazing. their dedication, and the

program is very well-run. it's just seriously underfunded. really, my question, if you can carry it back to the director is why is this not a priority? these are our children. for the sfmta and, you know, i would like to know why this has been continuously underfunded, underprioritized by the sfmta when, really, our children are walking in front of 2,000-on the vehicles, and we can provide crossing guards. we're obviously not providing adequate wages. if we need to raise wages to get people to do this, we need to do so. i want to commend you on your work. that was an excellent presentation. i hope the director will take to heart this issue and make it a higher priority. >> thank you. i will bring that back. >> commissioner fewer?

>> yes, thank you. thank you for this presentation. i also am concerned that actually the current budget for crossing guards is not going to meet the challenges to hire them and retain them. i think that under the next step, it says lastly ongoing efforts to improve hiring processes and retention will continue to find more qualified applicants and make this aattractive for guards to stay with. i would like to see what are those additional steps? what are the costs of those additional steps? and is this crossing guard program afterward. i went to the commission to talk about this and also the taxi drivers, but this was foremost on my list because i have areas

in my district that are not being covered, and i keep hearing that it's because we can't keep enough people and we don't have enough people. so my question is how much more funding is needed? what additional steps will be done? what sort of ideas are on the table? is there -- is this reflected actually in the current mta budget that will come before us? thank you. >> ms. mcavoy? >> i don't know what the mta has planned for our program within the upcoming budget, but i will find out. if we had additional positions, we would be able to tackle those positions or those schools on the waiting list. there's currently 19 schools on the waiting list. i know some of the schools you're concerned about are on the waiting list. if we did have more funding and more positions, we would be able to fill those positions.

>> yes. i also think the issues of retention are very experience about the circumstances. actually, what's so nice about this crossing guard program is that the students really get to know who their crossing guard is. when there's a shift, it also is a shift in community and in trust. also, when i observed the crossing guards at the corners, i can't tell you just greeting parents and students in a friendly way just starts the day for students in a really good way. and also, this is align for the vision commitments. then, i just want to say lastly about the lack of corporation from school sites, is that something that can addressed to the san francisco unified school district because that should never, ever be a barrier from keeping crossing guards because they're actually helping the school.

so i would be happy to help address that, actually, before the board of education or with the superintendent. >> it is very rare. it's just that it does happen from time to time. >> yeah. it's sad, isn't it? >> commissioner safia. >> i want to add on a couple of points. i'm sorry if you said this already. one of the thins that concerns me are the hours offered to cross crossing guards. i don't think they work enough hours to be a livable job. there's other things they could be doing. so it doesn't come along with benefits so, at the end of the day, it's not something that encourages people to participate because it doesn't have the opportunity to be a living wage. if it doesn't come with the benefits and the right hours and the amount of time, that's something of a concern to me. >> i think that's something that hopefully will be addressed when the union contract --

>> can you please speak into the microphone? >> i think that will be addressed when the union contract comes up next in june of 2019. >> june of 2019. that's when the contract expires. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. mr. canon, weinburg, hector carnidas. >> commissioners, chair peskin, we have been -- we are really frustrated with the mta. we represent about 170 of these crossing guards. the majority are women and people of color. they are the lowest paid workers in mta that we represent. mta's presentation makes the

case for us, actually. it's a really popular program. they have a waiting list of 19 major intersections. they've never achieved their optimal staff number. they say they've lost 146 crossing guards. 130 out of 146. these folks work split shifts. nobody wans to work a split shift for two-and-a-half hours. these folks get no health care, no pension. some of them have worked up to 21 years for the mta. we have given them a proposal that will create five steps. they're a single-step class. every other workers have five steps with 5% between each step. these folks have a single rate. we ask they work four hours a day to qualify for pension and health care. these folks have families.

these jobs are not being done by students, as they want you to believe. they have an mou that they have with the school district that was negotiated in 1997 that has not changed. this program is pay for itself if mta had a will to fix this problem, but they don't. giving benefits to every single crossing guard will add $2 million to the problem. they can find $2 million in a $1 billion budget. you have to tell them to do it. we cannot wait because we know what will happening in bargaining. they will not fix it in bargaining. they need fix it now. [ bell sound ] >> i'm a guard at 19th and judah. i'm retired, so it's not my primary income. it's helpful, but it's really hard. you work sometimes in the really pouring rain. it's hard to put a dollar value

on this. i realize you have to be fiscally responsible. as mick jagger says, you can't always get what you want, but at least got to be a higher pay in benefit. $18.96 an hour or $17.96 an hour in some cities is a good wage, but not here. you've just got to have a higher pay. one thing to consider, in addition to being crossing guards, we're sort of the neighborhood watch. the eyes and ears of the community echt eve watched for people trying to break into cars. i once saw somebody looking suspicious. i thought he might try to steal a package. i looked at him, and he went away. another time, i watched somebody take pictures of kids in a playground. it's not illegal, but i noted the license plate in case it

turned out to be something as. we're valuable to the school district. i hope you can encourage better financing. the school district now takes more holidays, and we don't get paid for that. because they take a longer thanksgiving week, we lose out on our mta benefits. and it may seem like a radical proposal, but i think about $25 an hour for a short day is reasonable because if we can keep more cards on the job with that higher pay, and if each guard can possibly prevent one accident during the school year, that would be money well spent. >> i'm struck by the presentation made in that it's

not significantly different from the presentation they were prepared to meet at the last meeting. we made some similar comments to what we made today, and they had the opportunity to learn from that and make a better presentation to talk about how important this presentation is to the mta, but they didn't do that. i think that's telling. the speaker from the mta said that they wanted to wait for bargaining to address this issue. i did some quick math. that means they're prepared to lose another 40 crossing guards between now and then, just based on their own math that they've presented in their presentation. i don't think that's acceptable. i don't think you think that's acceptable. i don't think the citizens of san francisco think that's acceptable. we're asking you to direct the mta to work with us now to find a solution that meets our needs so this program that everybody likes can continue and can grow

and expand and become better. thank you. >> are there any members of the public for this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. message received. this is an information item. and we'll continue these discussions in public and offline. mr. clerk, if you could read item 17 for the purpose of continuing it at the request of commissioner sheehy. >> update on the valencia street plan? >> okay. we're going to continue this item. i apologize, ms. young. thank you for your patience, but we're not going to go forward with this today. my anthropologipologies, but we board meeting that we have to prepare for and commissioner sheehy has offered to continue this to the next meeting. is there any public comment on item 17? seeing none, commissioner sheehy, a motion to continue?

>> made by commissioner sheehy, seconded by commissioner tang. we'll continue. our one-year long experiment to meet as a committee of the whole is coming to an end. we're going back to the committee system. i will introduce that change -- commissioner safia still looks it. the vice chair tang has commanded this, and it shall be. we'll go back to the programs and structure. with that, is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and the -- we're adjourned.

(>> and so first order will be item number 4, presentation from public works about the 201 # one road repaving and street safety bond program and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.