electric bus investments. while we didn't receive any, i'd note that the anaheim andn't lan and antelope valley received them. i will just note that $20 million for a parking garage in livermore funded relative to the needs that we have here for transit in this city, it was certainly disappointing. we will be reaching out to the state transportation agency leadership to visit -- i guess try to understand what was behind the funding decisions. there are some good things in the funding that -- that was

provided statewide. very significant funding for b.a.r.t.'s train control upgrade, which is necessary for them to increase the capacity of the system. right now, they're bottle necked by the single tube, and the old state of their technology. this upgrade will let them run trains essentially closer together which will increase throughput through theum tunnel which will enable more people from the east bay get into san francisco using the tunnel and not congest our streets. the valley b.a.r.t. got their grant extension which they're using to extend the b.a.r.t. to san jose. very important part of the region's rail network. caltrain received funding for its electrification projects, and then something in

california, over $1 billion to l.a. metro. so overall, it's a great program. we're grateful for the funding, and hopefully we'll fare better in the competition next time around. at a much more modest level, i wanted to bring up to you something that came up in our budget discussions but hadn't been resolved at the time that we finally approved or that you finally approved the budget, and that's the issue with regards to crossing guards, an item that was raised by a member of the board of supervisors, among others. quickly speaking, we have 195 funded positions for crossing guards, of which right now 180 are filled. we have been able to drive down the vacancy rate but are figuring on hiring and retention, and from that have been able to see some improvements. but with all that said, even with those 195 positions

filled, there's still a waiting list of schools that would like crossing guards that don't have them. so what i will be proposing is that we add 20 additional crossing guard positions to the budget that will allow us to essentially close the -- to fill the waiting list. the sum total is $280,000. that would bring us from 195 to 215 crossing guards. this is something that we can do in the -- the technical adjustments phase of the budget. the mayor just submitted the budget to the board of supervisors today, and this is something that i would share with the board of supervisors, as well. we expect, when the final general fund numbers come in for the next two fiscal years, that there will be space within the difference between what's projected and versus what we assumed in the budget to cover this cost. so a modest increase will allow

us to get all of those positions filled that the schools have requested, and he with think that's a go-- we th that's a good investment to make in response to what we've heard from the board of supervisors. it's come up at a number of transportation committee meets, same members of the board of supervisors, so it's an issue that has support. couple other issues. one that we've been talking to you a lot over the last seems like years about the need for us to close the twin peaks tunnel this summer for extensive reconstruction. that is still on track to start at end of june and go for about 60 days from midto late august. again, this is to replace track, do seismic upgrades, replace the drainage system, which is the original, meaning it's over 100 years old. and what we also told you we would be doing weekend closures

surrounding the entire closure. as you know we've been doing a lot of late closures, late friday and saturday nights, and allowing early openings, friday and saturday mornings at 9:00 coming up memorial day weekend, we are going to come up with a plan that will allow us for the full vested closure later this summer. it's allowing the contractor to get a lot of work done that will help make for smoother sailing during the full closure, but it will also allow us to test our service plan. to just to remind you as we discussed recently, we will have buses that will substitute for the el taraval between the san francisco zoo, the terminal, san francisco station, at which point riders

will be able to transfer to the muni metro. the k-ingleside trains will essentially run from their normal terminal to st. francis circle, at which point they will switchback. and going through balboa park, they will be interlined with the j so that j essentially will be extended to cover the other portion of the k route so that just to be clear, as the j's come down south into balboa, then, they will continue up on ocean avenue up to st. francis circle. so as we will have during the full -- the two-month closure, we will saturate the areas with ambassadors to make sure there's lots of public information in addition to what we have put out ahead of time

so that anyone who was caught unaware when they show up will be able to be easily directed. all the information continues to be on-line at sfmta daughter coin/twinpea -- sfmta.com/twinpeaks. before i go on, do you have any -- >> i have a few questions. a few things, but why don't you finish your report, and if anybody wants to ask now, they can, but why don't you finish your report. >> so just quickly, just a couple more things. up coming sundays in the tenderloin is sunday streets. hope to see you out there. more information at sf

sfsundaystreet@sfmta.com. finally just wanted to report out to you that yesterday at the board of supervisors land use and transportation committee, the committee heard legislation that was introduced earlier this year by supervisor safai and peskin that would provide for execution by the board of supervisors a provision that k3i69s exists i city charter that would allow the board of supervisors to hear appeals of certain mta decisions. without getting too much into the details of it, a number of decisions relating to parking changes, private transit, or provide transportation actions, those kind of -- a number of different items, including an addition at the committee yesterday of decisions to approve or not approve stop

sign requests would be appealable under this proposed legislation to the board of supervisors. by our count, in 2017, there were about 575 such actions that would be potentially subject to appeal. it was 275 before the addition yesterday at the committee of stop sign requests, which brought the number from 275 to 575: there were some changes made on the fly at yesterday's committee meeting, amendments that were adopted by the committee. we haven't seen any of these things in writing, but changed some of the thresholds for an appeal. a proposal was that it would take five members of the board of supervisors to hear an appeal. there was some questions of the timelines that was proposed at appeal, a request be made within 30 days, and then the charter requires once that request was made that they make a decision in 60 days either to

reverse or not. or if they make no decision, then the item goes into effect. but we will continue to communicate. the legislation will stay in committee one week because of thesub stan -- the substantive changes. i will say there is an exemption for bus rapid transit projects, which is the -- you know, we've only really done one of in our history and don't have a whole lot of them lined up. there is an exemption for a major capital value project of $10 million or more in the current draft, but many of the muni forward projects that you all have authorized, such as improvements on the 5, the 7,

8, the 9, the 30, and the 45, some of which have been implemented, some of which are under construction, but it would affect future projects to delay or reversal. so we will continue to wrk with the board of supervisors, presumably, it will be back at committee next monday, after which it will move to the full board and we'll continue to keep you informed. and that concludes my report. >> very good. are there any questions for the director? we have public comment? >> clerk: yes, mr. chairman. there is david kilpail, followed by herbert wiener. >> so followed by two speakers? >> yes. >> so if i may, director reiskin, i have a few questions, and then we'll turn to the members of the public. on the state ard with a, on the lrp vehicles, i know we had a -- state award, on the lrp

vehicles, does the fact that we didn't get this award in the full amount affect that plan or are we still on -- on course to have that number of lrv's coming on-line the next several years? >> so the service changes that go into effect this coming june that have been approved by this board will be able to go into effect 'cause we have the -- the first 24 vehicles are fully funded, and what we were seeking was funding for the balance of the option of 40 additional vehicles, and right now we are short by about 14 vehicles or about $85 million, so we -- this is a -- kind of hot off the press, and while we weren't necessarily expecting to get every penny of what we requested, we thought certainly for the light rail vehicle ask, we thought we would get closer to the full amount that we've requested. and we twice previously applied for funds from the same source, and have to date received for

this award $86 million, so we were fairly confident that our light rail vehicle request was strong and competitive. so it's a little too early to know. we will have to go back to the drawing board and probably reprioritize. we have executed this option, so we will need to figure out how to fund it. so i guess the short answer to your question is no, it will not impact our plans, but it will impact our overall capital budget. >> okay. and i'll certainly as one board member look forward to what we get from the feedback reporting agency as to how our bid was viewed. and then the closure, 60 days, i hope it will be shorter. but one of my concerns is sometimes as we know from dealing with other tunnels that there are sometimes unknown things that happen with delays. if we built into it some sort of a contingency that we could do the work with weekend

closures? i'm particularly concerned with school being back in session in september and not wanting to have full week closures when people are coming back from vacation and children are going back to school. so i'm wondering if there's some back end contingency in coming back to work. >> we did build that in. that's something that we haven't done previously, but based on our experiences with the tunnel and other closures, we thought it prudent. so the expectation for the work is shorter than 60 days, but we're going to try to be conservative. we're communicating to the public that the full 60. that window does encroach on the first week of school for the unified school district. school starts on the 20th, and we're currently scheduled to be out of service till the 24th. so the worst case scenario is we see there is a one week

impact with the school district, but we will make every effort to beat that, and as we get close to 60, if it does take the full 60, our plan is to resolve the closure so that we can reopen after the 24th and continue, ifremaining work, on weekends. >> wonderful. that's very helpful. thank you. and thank you for building that into this plan. public comment. >> david, followed by herbert. mr. chair, how much time? >> two minutes, please. >> david pillpal. several items. first to director heinicke, i think you sounded pretty confident, perhaps overly presumptuous that directors franklin and borden will be reappointed, supervisor peskin specifically called them out yesterday for not checking in with his office and just assuming that members appointed by the mayor would be confirmed by the board of supervisors, so

we'll see what happens at the board today. with respect to the new logo, there was a marketing piece or some handout that went to employees yesterday that i saw. i think that this is a terrible idea. i would note in terms of history, muni, which is 105.5 years old has had three logos in that 105 year history. now mta at only 18 years has also had three logos. historically, the best logo, i think was the original o'shaugnessy logo, the logo still seen on tokens. this is the first time i've heard about it. i don't know if board members have heard about it before. it wasn't in the budget. if there was stakeholder outreach. it was another example of stakeholder outreach. it's just a bad choice, a bad

priority, a bad distraction for an agency that has real issues to fix, so i can't say enough bad things about it. i just -- and you know as director torres pointed out, if there are staff and resources that went into this, they could be redirected elsewhere to fix things. i'll talk about twin peaks under a different item. >> thank you, mr. pillpal. mr. wiener? >> herbert wiener. there's some things that are missing in the executive director's report, such as a service level, missing, late, broken buses, bicycle violations, bicycle injuries to pedestrians. now it was pointed out in a previous meeting, i can access this on-line. i think it should be made public at this hearing because then the board can call these statistics into question. it's a great inconvenience to try to access them on-line.

they should be made public. secondly, that muni emblem, i think it represents a fluctuating level of service which is so unreliable. it goes up and down and round and round. thirdly, that movie was really ex-quisitely about mta, except it was about another city. >> thank you as always mr. wiener. any further public comment on item seven? that brings us to item eight. >> clerk: mr. chair, i do not see a cac officer here today, so there been be no report. moving onto item nine, general public comment. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: mr. chairman, directors, we do have an overflow room, so i will

read -- >> how many speakers do we have on this item? >> we have seven. >> okay. why don't we proceed with this item, two minutes apiece. >> all right. and i will read several names in advance so that if people in the overflow room wish to speak, they have time to come upstairs and do so. first three speakers, mat, dav -- meat, david, tom. >> good afternoon. meat brisena for people protected bike lane. i want to thank director reiskin for riding turk with me this week. every day thousands of bicycle riders and scooter riders travel east on the awesome new follow tom oaked bike way. however if they want to travel west, they have the unprotected bike lane on howard and cars that are traveling at over 40

miles per hour. i will remind everyone that on june 22nd, we will be acknowledging the second anniversary of kate slattery being killed while biking on this street. if i can quickly just use the overhead. set it on there -- there you go. there was a classic situation on howard. this is supposed to be a bike lane but it's entirely double parked, and bicyclists are forced into traffic with 45 miles an hour cars. tomorrow night, during the evening commute, 70 to 100 members of the people protected bike lane will be standing on howard street, separating cars from bikes. we're doing this, protecting our fellow citizens because this board and sf mta will not. we'll be placing kate slatery's ghost bike on the corner of

sloat and howard. we can move the bike lane -- protective bike lane to the other side of the road. i know our agency is capable of this, and you will want to have a plan in place by june 22nd of this year because this will be in the press. then your staff will have to answer questions about why this lane after a mayoral directive, after that death and constant dangerous situations has not been addressed. so please make this a priority, and i will continue to come here and make sure we do. >> thank you, mr. briseno. next speaker, please. mr. golden, welcome. >> good afternoon. i'd like to, mirror the suggestion for a protected bike lane on howard and 7th. as you mentioned, 2016, kate slatery was killed in a hit and will not collision. few days later mayor ed lee held a press conference and said we would see quick action on an already proposed plan for

infrastructure improvements, but almost two years later, we've seen nothing on howard, even though we have on folsom and it's made a gigantic difference. tomorrow night, i along with my daughter will participate in a protected bike lane at howard and 7th to show we care about bicyclists safety. if the thought of my daughter standing moore feet from speeding cars down howard street gives you pause, consider that all that's straighti straig separating us from cars when we're biking is a strip of paint. that will do nothing to prevent a situation like kate's from happening to us. the recent success we've had on folsom. on upper market street can be confident that we can solve this problem, that you have the tools and the design to know how to protect cyclists from cars. please do so on howard street. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> tom gilberti, sonia trout, ben libby. >> mr. gilberti. welcome back. >> thank you. congratulations. i saw on the television we're doing something about the elevators, so congratulations. hopefully, it's a start. questions, on the stations involved, there are two elevators: streets and to the platforms. people are going to be on both elevators, bravo. steam cleaning. in fact, we could probably hire out of like the five-man crew to steam clean the platforms around the elevators, in the

elevators and along the platform, you look down when you go underground, and you'll see an edge of grime, black grime, around everything, and if we got a special steam cleaning crew to hit every station occasionally, once every week, once every two weeks, we can help cleanup for a very minimal price. help us all. schedule bei scheduli scheduling for the electric, for the rails, is it possible we could have two different schedules: rush hour and for seniors and for people that are kiefd disabled a kind of disabled and maybe

don't go out for a rush but maybe more scheduled, that can make more stops for seniors. i know vanness is having a problem with their seniors. bikes and scooters, sidewalk bike lanes, we're having a little mish mash on the sidewalks. thank you. >> thank you. and i hope you've taken some pride in getting what you've asked for, and that you've come down here to ask for it. next speaker, please. >> sonia trout, followed by ben libby, and then may lee gee. >> welcome to both of you. >> thank you. this is antoine. we also appreciate have elevators. my name is sonia trout, and i have a bunch of letters that i e-mailed also, but if you guys want them now, can i hand them over? thank you so much. so what i'm here to request is something pretty modest, a

report on the scootability of all of the surface parking lots. there's about 20 for development as housing. and i know that the mta -- sf mta all right did a report on fi the suitability of five of the parking lots for housing. those five that were studied assumed the lots would be developed in the current zoning. i'm asking you to ignore the current zoning because that report made it seem like none of the lots were feasible for development, really. what i extrapolated from that report was that at least one of the lots could be developed as midi middle income or mixed income housing that generated revenue for the mta, which makes me think that maybe some of the other lots could, too. and the mta already generated nontax nonfare bus versus a

revenue when they redevelop for hotels. so this is an idea that would generate revenue for the public and also provide the middle income housing that the city needs. it's -- i think that this is something that would be broadly exciting for the -- for citizens and -- in san francisco because there's a lot of talk out there about value capture, right? when people were discussing sb 827, there was so much concern that we weren't going to be capturing the value of upzoning. the only way to have 100% value capture is if the public is the developer, so this is a way that we can provide housing without giving away any of the value that housing creates to developers. the people of san francisco can enjoy all of the value of that -- of that housing. thank you so much. >> thank you, and congratulations to antoine on his perfect behavior. next speaker, please. >> ben libby, may lee gee.

>> hi. my name is ben. i'm here to encourage you to study the feasiblity of mta surface parking lots. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> so it depends how you do it. there's lots of different examples around the world. you can have social housing that is mandated to be either rent controlled from the beginning, right, so you limit the increase in rent, you can have special housing that is -- >> if i may, i'm sorry, maybe i

shouldn't ask this question. more directly, does your definition of social housing include affordable housing for people of low incomes? >> sure yeah. yeah. it can. >> okay. i'm good. thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your coming out and taking the question. next speaker, please. >> i'm here on behalf of west side, best side. we are a group of people on the west side to subset lake shore. we are add volunteer -- advocating for more housing and better transit. i'm here on behalf of these people to let you know that we were made aware of this proposal just discussed. after the meeting last year we fully ask you to do this study.

the reason is that there are three of these parking lots into sunset and four of these parking lots as well on west. please do this study and do not take account the zoning. i hope for a very good out come. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> those are the last speaker cards that i have. if there's anybody in the over flow room who wishes to address the board on matters not on today's agenda if you could please come upstairs now. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you. first item regarding the twin peaks shut down. when this project was originally evaluated it was going to be weekends only shut down and construction. when it was approved the second time around it was just going to be a 60-day shut down and then early shut downs on weekends from march until june with different times. now those times have been

shifted. this is the first time today that i hear that there will be a full weekend shut down on memorial day. this project keeps changing. i think when folks on the west side hear about the level of shut down they are going to be pretty unhappy. this is just a precursor to the shut down for like a year and a half, two years for construction. so i don't know how much out reach has happened to the west side but there really aught to be more to explain these changes and why they are happening. briefly on the land use committee yesterday, i was not there but i watched the hearing very interesting, particularly those of you who were there, it has not been well explained how the agency is addressing both the -- well, a number of things but the legislation, the poet's

strategy to work, the rie, the rapid improvement exercise, other changes to out reach. there are a lot of different things happening and they haven't been properly put together in context. i hope that may happen next week at the hearing. recently there was a presentation at the sfcta about the late night transportation working group as a result supervisor stefani asked for a late night hearing on transit. perhaps you can get an update at this board about the late night working group and the proposal to move forward there. i think that would be helpful. >> thank you. all right. next speaker. public comment on items not on the agenda. >> milo, lizzie. >> i'm here to request a study

on building social housing on mta parking lots. so to respond to the question of what is social housing, it's essentially just housing owned by the government. it's not entirely without precedent, not even in deed in san francisco. the housing in the precidio is owned by the government, so that's market rate social housing. if the mta were to do this with the city it would be a very progressive policy to enact. it would meet a housing need and create revenue for the city. one of the things is maintaining ownership of the land so it's on going benefit to the public. on the same note i would like to request another study, the feasibility of using the top floor of parking garages.

there was a study previously on the mosconia center and the 5th and mission parking garage on the usage. they concluded that in 2016 that at no point, even in peak shopping season in december, is the parking garage 70% full. that means the top floor is essentially empty. that space could be used to expand the san francisco shelter system. and it's also ideally located in the mission so there's 21 i think parking garages that mta has and we could use this to ramp up at least temporarily our shelter capacity. i think today is actually a good day to be asking for these kind of outside the box thinking with tun vailing -- the unraveilingf the new logo. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> the last three people who have furnished in a speaker card. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you. i'm here to address for this issue this idea of the feasibility study. i just want to put another voice behind it. ever since i heard about it i've just kind of had it stuck in the back of my head, like what a cool way to be clever about both our housing issues and also an additional way that sfmta can get some revenue, i think that's brilliant. i really hope that this is something that the group takes and runs with. there's a lot of possibility out there. as a west side resident and homeowner i actually would love to have any way to get additional people out there and this seems like a really clever way to do it. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> nor ma guzman, sam saddle.

those are the last people who have turned in a speaker card. >> i'm norma guzman. thank you for your time. i just want to quickly support a study for housing, government-owned housing also on mta land. i grew up in government-owned housing although it was in a much more rural location and i wished that it was somewhere there was a lot denser and vital like san francisco. i think mta has a good track record of trying new things, of trying pilots for programs, trying new street designs. i think mta would be a great agency to spear head a new pilot program for housing. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> sam saddle. >> mr. sat l, welcome. >> hi. thank you. my name is sam saddle. we advocate for housing and transportation on the east side of the city.

the housing crisis, we need all of government to help us. one all we are asking for is the study. please consider it and we would love to be part of the process mauving forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> mr. chairman, that's the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak on items not on the agenda? seeing none we'll close on item 9 and move on to the consent calendar. >> thank you. just for the record, item 10.1a, b and c, item 10.2 and item 10.5 have been severed at the request of members of the public as previously stated item 10.2d had been removed from the agenda at the request of staff. >> okay. so 10.1 is off of the consent calendar, 10.2 and 10.5 is severed. not a lot left there. that leaves 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6.

i assume with no severance we have nobody who wants to spoke on those items publicly? >> correct. nobody has turned in a speaker card on those matters. >> very good. so we will close public comment on items 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6 and i'll entertain a motion. >> so moved. >> a second? >> second. >> with that all those in favor of 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6aye. >> aye. >> passed. >> let's go to the next one. >> they have to do with traffic modifications on slope boulevard. >> public comment, please. >> yes. patrick skane, jennifer -- is jennifer here? okay. she was for the other one. patrick skane and david pillpill are the only two speakers on this matter. two minutes? >> two minutes, please.

>> good afternoon and welcome, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is pat skane. i'm a member of the park neighborhood association. i wanted to speak in favor of the proposed changes. the main concern here really is line of sight, line of sight that affects the pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles as well. the over pass at sunset boulevard is kind of an extended four leap clover. there's a significant merge coming from skyline boulevard going eastbound which causes drivers to engage in a number of different activities merging, turning off and also proceeding eastbound. so we've had problems there in the past. we really do think that by eliminating parking in this area will help the line of sight and help the safety issues. in terms of lake shore plaza, it's a city issue. there's people turning in and out of lake shore mra -- plaza.

this will assist drivers entering and exiting onto slope boulevard. i can see cal trans this morning, other issues with regards to slote. hopefully before the stern grove concert association it will come into play. i would urge the members to perhaps extend some additional educational opportunities to the neighbors with regards to enforcement. this could be a big change along slope boulevard and the concert will have significant impacts on traffic so i'd like to see some additional traffic control officers engaging in education and also control efforts during the summer months out there. might be a big help in providing the greater safety to pedestrians and travelers in that area. thank you. >> most appreciated. if you would repeat the name of your neighborhood organization, please. >> we are on the north side of

slope boulevard, it's the pine lake park neighborhood association. >> that is the neighborhood where we are actually removing the parking spot? >> right. we are adjacent to slope boulevard. >> thank you for coming down and voicing your support. mr. pellpill. >> followed by bill and barbara cheonseni. >> i'm neither speaking in support or opposition to these items. i just wanted to note that i don't think this has been a particularly inclusive process. there's been some private meetings about slope boulevard that i was not invited to. the environmental review process which as you know i continue to be concerned about, there were prior approvals related to various items on slope boulevard, there was an exemption issued for these items. i'm going the appeal to the board of supervisors. the deal is there's been piece

mail planning for slope boulevard, many over many years, perhaps more to come. there's a discussion about a bike lane on the east side from 19th to 21st avenue. this is exactly the kind of corridor that i think need today have an over all plan rather than this approach including public works, mta, cal trans to some extent the police department. not a whole lot of involvement from the lake shore plaza property owner. so i have those concerns. again, i'm not speaking in support or in opposition. i did want to call out especially tony henderson and thank him for doing a positive out reach when something happens about that. he does contact me and tony is a good person within sustainable street. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> bill followed by barbara chioncini. those are the last two people who turned in speakers cards. >> good afternoon, directors. i'm the president of lake shore

acres improvement club. i believe y'all have a letter from me on this very topic along with a letter from david hershell, the president of pine leak and senator weiner sent r letter out in support along with a supervisor. thank you for the work and members of your department for working with us on this project. it's been 8 years. we are not only having light at the end of the tunnel, we can see light at the end of the tunnel. we can touch it. i would like to approve these changes. they go hand in glove with the entire state project. i understand some of the issues that people have with the way things have been done over time. we have lots of issues. those behind us now are moving forward. with that thank you and we hope you approve it. thank you. >> very good. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm barbara. i'm one of the people that got

this project going on slope boulevard. i want to let you know that it's been a long haul, 8 years of this. we all stuck with it and we got it through and projects are like that. if you want to be successful you have to stick with it. you have your ups and downs. the neighbors love it. i hope some of you -- i know lee has been out to the neighborhood to see slope boulevard. it's a huge difference. we've had a lot of tragedies on that street. a lot of fatalities, a lot of hit and run. i personally was involved in this project and a year after lost a family member to hit and run accident. we have met the families of people who have had problems out there. so we -- it was a very open process. we never excluded anybody from any of the meetings. a lot of the meetings were held in house as well as other homes in the station and other things. i just hope that you approve it. we just want to kind of get on. the whole idea of this project was safety, safety, safety and i think it's going to make a

difference. we are just about ready to get the hawks turned on. anybody who has been out to the road can see a vast improvement. thank you for your support. >> thank you for your citizenship. i walked that very stretch with my kids and some of their friends the other day so i appreciate what you're doing very much. >> thank you very much. >> any other public speakers? no more public comment on item 10.1. with that if there are any questions i'll entertain a motion. >> move. >> okay. is there a second? >> all those in favor please say aye. any opposed? very good. a safer slope street. item 10.2 please. >> item 10.2 environmental review findings to expand the hours of and bus on mission street between 1st and biel and on mission street between main and 1st streets. it adds or amends preexisting transit only lanes in either locations and approves various

traffic. >> this was severed at the request of a member of the public? >> yes. >> is that member of the public here? >> yes. >> if you keep going you get a free sandwich. that's not true. keep going. >> on the item regarding the new routes to the transbay terminal, i think that the route should be market right biel and enter the terminal. this as i understand involves a much more complicated route where vehicles from market street would make a right on 1st, left on mission and right on biel. two extra turns. 1st street is often congested even with the transit only lane. i think if we had a transit only lane on biel from market to at least the transbay terminal and frankly biel isn't that congested in that area, that would be better. there really needs to be parking traffic enforcement at market and 1st because that

intersection is not great at many hours of the day. so i'm just concerned about what this means for transit, travel time for transit riders going to and from transbay terminal if this -- if you do approve this i hope that you would have staff re-examine the route after the transbay center opens and consider a reroute if it makes sense in the future. i just think that it's going to be more convoluted. i heard that people have to walk from mission and fremont through this plaza to access the transbay terminal and i think whether that's going to be a problem i don't know. i just think that there are a lot of issues with what is happening at the transbay terminal transbay center and this just touches on part of it. so those are my concerns and i hope staff will reevaluate this in the future if you approve it.

>> very good. any other speakers on 10.2. mr. mcguire ran out of the the room. why not right turn on biel? if i may indulge. thank you so much. >> shawn kennedy, acting deputy director for operation support at mta. so the planning for transbay offen obviously goes back in years when it was designed by the bus service. it was based on this idea of coming down market, taking a right on 1st, using the existing transit only lane there, taking a left on mission, dropping passengers at the pedestrian plaza which is a center piece of the development right at fremont and mission and then going up to biel over where the buses take a right and then enter transbay.

mr. pellpill is correct, we are considering the idea of splitting some of the buses. right now we have 60 buses making that move an hour during the peak period, which is an awful lot of buses, especially when you mix those with the 20 on the 14 mission as well as transit going to gate buses. that is something to look at. we think that the infrastructure as designed can handle what we have planned. as mr. pellpill said, we are always evaluating and changes and making changes to the service plan as we see fit and as things materialize and if it does become a problem we can make changes. >> okay. i'm willing to support it on that. i will say i hear from mr. pellpill is saying about this one and i'm thinking down the road where we have a market street that's free of private autos that will not be true of 1st street as long as that's the access ramp to the bridge. so to me keeping the bus on market street, assuming we get

our plan -- i don't want to assume. i was accused of that earlier. that might be the better route. the reality is you guys can evaluate this as it goes. this is not a concrete change, this is simply regulation change. so i assume it is still your recognize -- recommendation we go with what we have before us? >> yes. >> directors, any questions for mr. kennedy? if not i'll entertain a motion. >> move. >> second. >> all those in favor say aye? any opposed. 10.2 passes. let's move onto 10.5. >> 10.5 approves amendments between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and the transport workers local 2000 modify the seniority for classification 9153, transportation controllers who transferred to that classification. this was severed a request by a member of the public. >> this is the last time you get to hear from me today. so the disclosure of this minor

change to the mou i found buried on the website under labor relations. i did not find notice of this under public notices which is the intuitive place where other such notices are in place in the future. i think such required sunshine disclosures should be under public notices. also the staff report references analysis of the text and the cost and i was not able to find such analysis. all i found was the strike out language in the text. i'm not sure that there is any cost. this is just clarifying the seniority rules for employees that transferred into this classification, never the less i think that we should be consistent and appropriate here as it relates to labor relations because when we have big significant mou changes we should follow that practice and it should apply equally to side letters and smaller things like this. those are my comments. >> very good.

>> have a nice day. >> thank you. are you aware of any significant cost impact from this change in the mou? >> no. as i reported when we sunshined this four weeks ago there are none. >> okay. so with that is there a motion on this item? >> yes. >> second? >> second. >> all those in favor please say aye. any opposed? all right. that takes us off our consent calendar to item 11. >> moving onto item 11. on the regular calendar, to establish a pilot powered scooter share permit program for 24 months, requiring a permit issued by the director of transportation, establishing a fee for the issuance of the permit, establishing administrative penalties for failure to obtain a permit and collection of administrative penalties for parking or leaving standing an unpermitted power scooter subject to the pilot

powered scooter share permit program. say that five times fast on a sidewalk street or other right of way making corrections in division ii. >> very good. mr. mcguire, are we hearing from you today? >> good afternoon, directors. tom mcguire, director of the sustainable streets division at mta. the bulk of the presentation will be done by my colleague, who is the acting head of our bicycle section. i just want to give a little bit of background here. on april 17th the board of supervisors unanimously passed an ordnance that requires companies who offer shared motorized scooters on the streets of san francisco obtain a permit to operate from the sfmta. today we are here to consider enacting that permitting system to we can put in place the board of supervisors vision for that ordnance and the themes you will hear from the presentation and in all of our comments is that we believe that any use of the public right of way, sidewalk, street, bike lane, ought to be

in the public interest and we think that a scooter permitting system, any scooter permitting system could authorize us to put in place should prioritize public safety, public equity and focus on accountability by operators. we'll go through each of those points in our presentation. we encourage you to allow us to carry out the vision set forth by the board of supervisors in those particular areas, safety, equity and accountability. with that i will turn it over to my colleague miriam. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you so much for having me today. i'm miriam surel and i'm the acting bicycle program manager in the streets division.

i'm happy to present our recommended legislation establishing a permit program for shared powered scooters in san francisco. today i'm going to give a little bit of background about where we are with scooters in the city and then talk about at a high level some of the things that are in the legislation package before you. so i first wanted to say as the sf mta i support these emerging options. we are happy that the private sector is getting involved and providing innovative new ways for people to get around the city as the scooters provide a last mile solution. we are really excited to see that continue. however, we are proceeding with some cautious optimism because we know that there are potential issues with this and have been issues on the streets and we want to make sure that as we step in as a governmental agency

we have the opportunity to make sure these things are meeting the public interest. so a little bit of background on the scooter system themselves. you may have seen these on the streets. they have been out there for just about six weeks in san francisco and in a few other cities in the u.s. a little bit longer. they are really new. it's a new model. it's similar to what you see in our dock less bike share system, you use the app to find a scooter near you and to unlock the scooter and then you can drive it to your final destination which you don't need to have a specific docking station. so there's that level of flexibility. the scooters are electric powered so they need to be charged. one thing that we've been seeing from some of the scooter companies is having contractors go out and charge the scooters usually at night for a fee. the scooters are generally taken

out of service in the evening. we've been hearing a lot of excitement from members of the public about these scooters. people have written to us to tell us how they are now able to use these scooters to make trips they weren't making before or instead of other kinds of car trips so that's great to hear. we've been observing ourselves and hearing a lot of reports of some of the challenges associated with these scooters. so the most important thing in san francisco is the safety and access of our streets and in particular sidewalks need to be the place where you know that you can walk and get around without encountering safety hazards. what we've been seeing since the deployment of these scooter programs is there's some lack of compliance with rules regarding where to park the scooters and where to ride the scooters. people are riding them on the sidewalks, parking them in ways that obstruct the pass of travel and this is particularly an issue if you're somebody with a mobility impairment, maybe

you're in a wheelchair or have a visual impairment. you wouldn't be able to avoid these hazards in our streets and it's something that we need to find a way around. so that's something that we think is really critical as we move forward with this program. there are regulations that govern the usage of these scooters, in particular regarding prohibiting sidewalk riding, requiring helmet use. those are in the california vehicle code along with requiring a driver's license and recommended bike lane ifs there's one present and then we have local ordnances as well that talk about the sidewalk space and not obstructing the right of way. those apply whether it's a shared scooter system or if you are an individual owner of a motorized scooter these apply. what we don't have on the bookings right -- bookings right

now is any regulation. that's why we are working on this two-tiered approach that you've seen in other permit program where is the board of supervisors has made division i changes to the transportation code that established a new violation for scotter companies operating a shared system without a permit from the sfmta. the legislation before you today is to establish that program and authorize the director the offer permits to scooter companies. there's one more level of detail, terms of conditions and application. you've probably seen in the legislation that a variety of the items note that the director of transportation is authorized to specify further details of the permit program. so the legislation is long. i'm not going to go through every single provision included in it. i wanted to draw your attention to some of the high level goals that we've had that we've been thinking about when we developed the legislation and talk about some of the details that relate to those