this is the opposite end of the spectrum, this is what i would call meritorious beefy project. so i propose that we move it along on its road to be designated. >> secretary. >> great, a motion and second. >> commissioner black: for all the reasons that i supported the legacy business, i completely support this project. i think it has the association with dr. coleman going strongly and it's a fabulous building with amazing intact elements which are miraculously still there. so i strongly support it. >> clerk: i think we have a motion and a second. >> president wolfram: we do. on that motion, then commissioners to approve the landmark dez -- >> one moment, we have --

>> i think the mike is on, i wanted to reiterate the motion is with the proposed amendment that the staff brought up about the stairs? we should be specific about that so we can prepare it for the board. thank you. >> president wolfram: very good, commissioners. the motion was with the staff modification regarding the stairs. on that motion commissioner black? [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, we have already heard item 9 which will place us on the final item 10. mills act program. for your review and comment.

>> good afternoon, commission, shannon ferguson, planning department staff. the item before you today is a review and discussion of proposed modifications to the mills act program. enacted in 1972, the mills act legislation allows owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in rehabilitation to receive property tax relief. owners enter into a 10-year contract with the city and contracts are automatically renewed each year. contracts transfer to subsequent owners as well. property owners agree to rehabilitate their property. san francisco adopted the mills act program in 1996. in 2012, the process was made more predictable and affordable for applicants.

the city holds 31 contracts with the largest number in the park district. these are a few of the representative contracts. they range from single-family homes, apartment buildings to commercial and retail buildings. during the 2017 mills act application cycle, the government audience and oversight committee had several comments and concerns regarding the program, including more property owners should be able to take advantage of the mills act. several properties that applied had eviction history. several properties had already completed rehabilitation work without the benefit of the mills act. and it appeared that the work would have been completed regardless of whether the mills act contract was entered into. the scopes of work proposed in the mills act contract should already be reviewed by planning and hpc before it's give ton the board and it should be executed when there is preservation need

and terminated when there is no more need. the contract term limit should be considered. reflecting these concerns, they approved three 10-year rolling contracts and three contracts limited to a 10-year term. legislation to terminate the limited term contracts will be introduced in a few months. two of the contracts were not approved. in response to the concerns and the hpc request, staff developed modifications to the mills act program that may allow for better alignment with the intent of the program. staff developed the program to determine best practices. currently, all qualified historic properties or those designated at the local state or national level are eligible to apply for the contract and be considered. with this proposed amendment,

qualified historic properties must also meet priority consideration criteria in order to be considered for the mills act contract. all the applications would be reviewed on the merits of the criteria to ensure high quality applications are forwarded. and that the applications would meet or exceed the requirements of the mills act program and individualized and prioritized preservation. so the first priority consideration would be necessity. this would require that the additional financial incentive to help ensure preservation of the property. this would establish that the property is in danger of deterioration and in need of substantial rehabilitation. properties with previous violations for deferred maintenance would not meet the criteria.

the second is investment. the project will be built in substantial additional private investment in the property, other than for routine maintenance. this may be seismic retrofitting, and restoration work. this would establish that the owner is committed to investing in the restoration, rehabilitation of the property. the next is distinctiveness. the project would have a property that is especially deserving of a contract due to the exceptional nature. the fourth is that the project will preserve a property where a legacy business refugee -- legacy business is located. this would say that the owner is committed to preserving the property. and finally, the last would be recently designated city landmarks. currently eligibility is limited to properties that have been

designated on or before december 31 or the year before the mills act application is made. with this proposed amendment, existing requirements remain the same, but the time frame for designation would change. so that the mills act contract and the designation would be filed concurrently. this would expand the eligibility to more property owners and give incentive to seek historic preservation. ohp has stated that other municipalities allow for a similar parallel process. the first four priority consideration criteria changes could be made at the staff level, while the last criteria consideration recently designated landmarks would require a change the administrative code. properties with outstanding violations or outstanding enforcement issues would not be

eligible for the mills act contract. all violations must be corrected before the application is accepted or processed. this proposed policy amendment addresses concerns raised by the gao committee and this change can be made at the staff level. since the goal of the mills act is to provide an incentive for rehabilitation, restoration and preservation, requiring minimum scopes of work, such as seismic work, accessibility and life safety improvements would ensure that all properties that hold a mills act contract receive a minimum standard of rehabilitation. other scopes beyond those minimum scopes of work may still qualify after discussion of the board of supervisors or the hpc. this is a policy change that can be made at the staff level also. the current mills act application allows property

owners to include scopes of work that were completed in the last year. the change would require that scopes of work not be completed before the contract in effect. this would demonstrate the need for the tax benefit. if the owner was able to successfully complete their project without the financial subsidy, there doesn't seem to be established need for granting a mills act contract if they've already completed their scope of work. this change reinforces that the mills act contract is an incentive program and this policy change can also be made at the staff level. and the next proposed amendment requires that rehabilitation and restoration work be completed during the first ten years of the contract. this addresses the need for the contract and fulfills the property owner conditions of the contract. and go en, it's a poll -- again,

it's a policy change that can be made in the staff level. and finally, to address the goa committee concerns, this amendment proposes that a certificate of appropriateness for scopes of work identified in the first three years of the contract must be filed and approved during the mills act application process. all remaining permits and entitlements and scopes of work beyond the first three years, must be secured and completed prior to the end of the 10-year contract. this prioritizes certain scopes of work and demonstrates to the city that the property owner is committed to rehabilitating the property and again, this is policy change that can be made at the staff level. so based on hpc discussion today, the staff will work with the city attorney and legislative team, ngo committee on a framework for any amendments and any amendments will return to the hpc for review and comment before approval.

if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> at this time, we'll take public comment. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. i will jump in with a few comments or questions. so on page 5 of the staff report, under this b, qualifying scopes of work, the way it's written implies it would have to include a through k, but i think the intent is to include some of the items, not an all ininclusive list, so that would be a language thing. the other thing on page 6, i have concern, it's almost like a conflict between items 2 and 4. one hand we're saying that you can't do the work before you get the contract because it shows that you maybe don't need the tax benefit. on the other hand we're saying you have to spend all this money

hiring architect, and paying the fees to get your project approved, but you might not get the mills act contract. then what happened? you're saying that you need mills act, but then you're force people to apply for it, but what if they can't do the project because they need the mills act? it's a catch-22 situation right here that seems unfair to property owners. and the mills act takes a lot of time and work and you're forcing property owners to spend a lot of fees in process all at the same time. >> commissioners, that's a great question. department staff. we are certainly amenable to some modification or just have a discussion about it. to give you background on where this came from, there is really two things driving it. maybe they are more separate now

thinking about it than they appear to be. one was a reoccurring comment we've heard from the board of supervisors, specifically gao committee, of see ago completed project come in, clearly there is no financial need, you were able to finance the project without the mills act, why should we engage in a contract? the second was, just this past year, there was a project -- or there was a property that applied for mills act, they had a c of a on file with the department and it was for a very large edition and members of the committee raised the concern of, well, if they're going to propose this large addition, even if it meets the standards, is this really the restoration of a property in the spirit of the mills act? so they felt, well, why don't we hold off on that one, see if the c of a is issued or not and then

we can visit whether a mills act is warranted. so in some cases it's to promote a preservation project, or restoration project and in other cases it's also to ensure that the financial need is actually there. so there may be a way to tweak this, and we can come back to with another idea unless you have suggestions now. we thought if somebody would at least file for the scopes of work we know they're going to have to do in the first three years, even if it is simple as window replacement or restoration, at least we could show everybody there is a compliment to follow through on the work -- commitment to follow through on the work and they'll have entitlement in hand. >> right now, that seems a little -- then they might not get the mills act. oh, we're not doing it this

year. >> that's true. it is a voluntary program. i know that could be a deterrent. and we've had applicants worry about that, especially applicants that are good stewards of their property and said, well, i've done all the right things, there is nothing left to fix and it's put us in an awkward position. wanting to be supportive of the preservation incentive, but also not being able to show the board that there is a meaningful public benefit from issuing the contract. >> commissioner hyland: i'm a little confused. i think that the impetus behind this was because of the applicants who have violations or evictions and that sort of thing. and i have a specific issue with number 2, and that is the scope of work may not be completed

prior to approval. i think that the spirit of the mills act is not by financial need. it's an incentive to restore these historic structures. and the irony is is that the majority of the current contracts were done in the triangle historic district which was a reward or incentive to make that a historic district and basically a reward for those who had already restored their properties. and if we have to go through this long process, it could take a couple of years just to get it through the process. the coa and the approvals before us. it would not be incentive. so i would propose, i don't know, i know this came from the goa, right? >> i mean, again, the comment

is -- i feel like it was very clear, if we show up with an application for a fully rehabilitated building, they're likely not to approve it. unless there are other extenuating circumstances that warrant that. so, one of the sort of ways to mitigate that, in working with the city attorney, we felt that by allowing for landmark designation and mills act concurrently, we'll at least be able to target the areas where folks are saying there is lot of great building in the bayview or excelsior, why aren't they eligible? here a property owner could landmark their property and capture the mills act and move through the process at the same time. we were hoping there would be a little bit of mitigation in that. in that regard. but it is a difficult question. i will point out that ms.

ferguson did essentially, in her conversations with ohp and looking at the way los angeles administers its program, these priority areas, necessity, distinctiveness, et cetera, those all come directly from the los angeles model. so we feel like there is precedent for that. and then there is certainly wide discretion in how a building achieves or meets one of those categories. that this commission could determine. >> i mean, i think, i agree with those items. i just think some of these procedural things may be a deterrent. >> commissioner johns: i do agree with your comments and they worried me, too. i don't think we should load up this process with requirements that make it financially difficult for people to apply.

because then they won't. they'll just -- they just won't do it and we will have shot ourselves in the foot. the other thing -- and maybe this is kind of related -- in san francisco, sometimes we get our policies that are designed to work in one area confused with other areas. and policies that are maybe thought to be desirable or necessary in the rent control area, and to punish landlords who do certain things, that may have legitimate scope overover in the rent control area, but i think we have to be real careful when we start to apply them to another area, like preservation, because they may then inhibit

preserving buildings. just because somebody has been kicked out. and so we've got to really be careful to make sure that we tailor any requirements or -- any requirements or policies that we get into in the mills act area, just to those that will further our goals under the mills act. so when you think about this, i know it's very difficult line to tread, but i do think you want to be real careful. >> thank you >> commissioner johnck: when i first read the staff report, i thought these are good solutions, these are good remediation for what i saw as the problem, but hearing this

discussion so far, i'm thinking, you know, i really don't know. all we know is there is laws and how broken is this? we know this was not approved. and the violations, i think that may be the biggest thing. we shouldn't be approving where there are violations. but i don't know whether this has gone too far. the point is, i don't know. either we could try some things out, and see what happens. as you say most of them can be approved at the staff level. that's one way to approach it. but i'm just looking back saying i really don't know what is the right thing to do. you know. that's a good start.

>> thank you, >> commissioner matsuda: i have some concern about the board or just the ability to be so discretionary. i think there needs to be some kind of guarantee or some kind of minimum criteria that you definitely are going to be seriously considering. people, we support the mills act program because we want to encourage people who own historic buildings to be good stewards. some people have the financial ability to do it on their own. some people want to do it because they've always loved historic buildings, but they need the financial help. i think there needs to be some kind of discretionary element of good faith for the staff to be able to exercise. and i think that these property owners when they go and put all their efforts to apply for a mills act application, that they

have some certainty, whether they're going to get it or not. right now, it doesn't feel like that to me. and so i wouldn't go through all that and spend all that money because my resources are limited if there is no guarantee. so i think there has to be some assurances that if i'm going to meet at least this criteria, that my application is to going to be taken seriously and clear criteria why i'm not going to be able and then the appeal process for that if there is one. >> mr. frei? >> yes. one clarification and then a suggestion, commissioners, all of your comments have been helpful. one in particular, and shannon let me know if you have something to add to this, we could modify -- the nice thing about this, most of these are

not code-driven. for number two, where work may not be completed prior to approval, we could limit that to -- or expand that to work may begin within the mills act calendar year cycle. i mean, it does take a full year for us to process these. so if somebody wanted to get started, they could get started in the calendar year. so that could give them -- it would also give them an opportunity to demonstrate good faith on being good stewards. so that's one suggestion. then the second one would be to eliminate number four. if you feel strongly there is a conflict, you'll be reviewing the certificates of appropriateness regardless, so throngs they're able to start the work in ernest in the calendar year, maybe that's enough. >> i would support getting rid of number four.

it's ownous. maybe you're buying a building and it takes a long time to get the drawings done. >> finally, i do want to clarify the record and remind everyone, it was more than just a few owner convictions, it was like, why should a $5 million condo receive a traffic break? which is more -- >> isn't it a $3 million condo? there is a cutoff. there is a cutoff. >> there are properties that have mills act. >> i think there is a limit. >> well, the board and this commission do have discretion to raise that limit. the point i'm trying to make here, we tried hard to advocate as this is the only financial

preservation incentive that the city and state have for property owners. i do think that some of the amendments do allow us to reposition the program as a rehabilitation program. because we are allowing for concurrent designation. and that certainly is what we're going to do. if you're amenable to this, that's what we're going to do with the outreach materials. the main question we received on the phone, is there money to help me with my older building? now we'll say yes and as long as you're willing to landmark, there is money to help you subsidize that work. >> commissioner hyland: a question for you, mr. frye, this is in response to the gao not approving these contracts. so we're making some adjustments

to our program with anticipation that is going to facilitate easier approval, is that correct? >> that is correct. it's also to address -- the past year they did not approve all contracts. the questions they've raised, they've raised every year. we've done our best to answer them. it finally got to a critical point where the board and committee are asking, what is the real benefit here for the city? and we need to demonstrate that we're really giving money for the right reasons. >> so the notion -- i just don't agree that the notion that because someone chose to go ahead and do the restorations on their own, they didn't need the money. it's an incentive for people to do that. and if they can get it done and then take advantage of the incentive, i don't know why they would have to wait for the approval to get the work done.

>> just as a matter of clarification, if you've done work in the previous year, it will count. that will narrow that a little bit and you can start within the year you applied. so... >> is this something we make a motion on? or we just providing comments? >> just comments. >> just comments. ok, so did we concur we're going to delete item 4? and then accept mr. frye's suggestion about changing number 2 to allow work that happened within the mills act calendar year. >> and just one other recommendation is a to make sure that the small businesses knows what a mills act contract is, so

when they start the process to work with folks applying for legacy business, they have information so they can start to gather that. because we're living in two separate worlds there. >> commissioners, we also heard from the president, under subsection b, clarify that, they're not supposed to do all of that. >> it's not all required, it must include some of the following. >> well, at least one. [laughter]. >> and maybe more. >> is there a vote? >> no, we're just taking comments. we're just providing comments. so the next step is based on the comments, commissioners, we would make amendments to the promotional materials for the next cycle in 2019. we will use these policies to

review the current batch of mills act applications that have come in and then we'll share the information with the gao so they understand we've made effort. and while certainly give you feedback, their feedback once we've heard it. i believe we have six -- >> we received six mills act applications by the filing deadline of may 1. >> are any of them work that has been completed? >> yes. >> all right. perhaps the project could be slightly expanded? >> that's right. [laughter] >> if there are no further items, the hearing is adjourned.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery,

historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> it's tuesday, may 15th, 2018. can you read the roll? [ roll call ] >> you have a chorum. >> the ringing and use of cell phones and other sound producing electronic devices are prohibit the. any person responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the room. we request they be turned off. for approval of minutes of the may 1 regular meeting.

>> do i have any public comment on the minutes? no. seeing none, do i have a first or second? all in favor? any opposed. minutes are approved. >> item five, communications. i know of none. introduction of new business by board members. i would like to welcome director borden myself back on the board. i'm sure we were missed. director heinicke had a fantastic job. i was on a student rush hour bust yesterday and it was fascinating. it's not a line i usually ride during the week. it's usually a weekend line for me. the number of students using that bus going to san francisco state and various public and private high schools along the way was truly impressive. there were kids doing their homework on the bus. i know not a recommended study habit practice, but parents getting kids to day care,

students getting themselves to school. it was a good reminder of how important the service that we provide s i wanted to take the opportunity to tell everybody we're doing a good job. the bus certainly could probably shorten its time with some muni forward help, but it was hea heartening to see. any other new or unfinished business? >> i did want to -- i would love it get an update with the cybersecurity threats happening more and more and last year we had that issue where someone asked for bit coin for us, i would like to get a procedure on what we're doing to protect data and things like that. >> i don't have a cheat sheet on the director's report, but if this is not on there, i will say in my capacity as a rider, i have seen that the next train signs are not as accurate as they usually are, at least for

the past 10 days. i don't know if that's bad luck on my part or there's something systemic going on. i don't need a full report on it. it's just isolated and bad luck for me, so be it. but if it's not, we do have that new system and it would be great if they worked perfectly. >> if that's it, we'll move on. >> i'm sorry. do i have any public comment on new or unfinished business by board members? looks like i do. >> just wanted to say to follow up, yes, the two of you are back, and i hope going forward that we have a better interaction at these board meetings. my comments from the rules committee stand. i look forward to working with both of you going forward as we need to for your upcoming term for the next four years. thanks. >> thank you.

now we will move on, director reiskin. >> i look forward to working with you both for the next four years. i have -- >> you're on the hook for four years. you just said it. >> board willing. i wanted to start with some vision 0 update and then just a few other items. first as i'm sure you already know and have been celebrating for two weeks. may is motorcycle safety month. and as part of that, in addition to physical advertisements, such as business ads, patching for motorcycle jackets, and in-person outreach around the city, our social media will be focused on safety issues facing motorcyclists. i didn't bring the data with me, and we have not had any motorcycle related fatalities this year, but in past years, they have been disproportionally

represented among our stats relative to the number of trips we have in the city taken my motorcycles. it's apt we're focusing on motorcycle safety. we will be sharing our motorcycle safety video and shareable snippets this month on twitter and facebook and this to remind you is our third project. various city agencies are working to make our streets safer and are continuing to desire to make this report more interesting, we're going to show you a video to make this a multimedia presentation. give you a preview of the snippets. if we can go to the laptop, please. ♪ [ music ] >> motorcycle riders 22% of the total road users, but they account for 20% of traffic fatalities. we need to change that number to 0.

why are riders crashes? speed. some feel safe. there's plenty of room. sometimes cars can't see you and pull out too fast. nearly 60% of rider at fault crashes are because of unsafe speed. let's try that again. now it's a lot easier to stop and fully control your bike. you'll hav have a better ride wn you take it easy. san francisco, let's make every ride a safe ride. get more tips for vision 0sf. >> maybe welcome back to more videos. just tantalizing you a little bit. now you're going to have to wait. so moving on, welcome back if we can get them back up. i wanted to give you an update on howard street, i think. we had some commentary on howard

street. i wanted to give you a little bit of an update. you'll recall it was two years ago in 2016 that kate was killed at the intersection of howard and 7th when a driver ran a red light. since then, we've taken a number of actions to improve safety at that intersection and along the entire corridor. on 7th street, we've removed a lane of traffic to create a traffic protected bike lane and install traffic signals that are 50% larger and more visible. the streetscape project on folsom is the next project. it's part of a larger project. we have installed improvements to enhance safety along the corridor which are having an impact. for example, we've completed changes on folsom including a protected way and a light at 8th and folsom. daylighting along the corridor and the addition of transit boarding islands.

howard street has unique challenges because of the existence of the muni overhead lines, although there's not any regular muni service on howard. it's part of how the trolleybuses get back to the yard. so it is regularly used for non revenue muni travel. there's also a lot of diffuses on heard. it's where masconi center is. you can picture it between 3rd and 4th. it's not only right in front of the convention center, but it's right in the heart of the construction for the convention center expansion. so because of those reasons, we have not been able to put in near term improvements on howard as we did on folsom. nevertheless, we are actively working with the center and the fire department and other stakeholders to fantastic out how we can address -- figure how how we can address those while improving bike safety on howard. a couple weeks ago or maybe it was last week, we participated

in a ride with about 15 cyclists and members of the san francisco bicycle coalition to look at the facilities on folsom and get feedback on how they can be incorporated into the permanent project and that will inform our work on howard as well. when it does move forward and it's currently being cleared environmentally as part of the central soma plan, the streetscape project will be one of the largest streetscape projects in the city. we're hoping to be able to bring you legislation later this year assuming the central soma plan eir is certified and currently have a construction schedule that will have the work completed by 2023. that's an update on howard. one additional bit of good news with regard to vision 0 -- and you might have already read or

heard about this -- last wednesday, we joined with members of our senior disability communities to announce a new s fm ta stand order for pedestrian counsel down signals. the time we give pedestrians to cross the street. so from this point forward, wherever we're touching a traffic signal, we will implement a new standard of 3 feet per second during the pedestrian count down. the current standard is 3.5 feet per second. this is the speed for which we set at the crossing speed. it used to be back about ten years ago, 4.5 feet per second. we've been accommodating slower walking speeds or maybe we've been bringing our trance its -- our traffic signal timing in line with realistic crossing speeds for pedestrians.

this will a play to the 1200 signalized intersections that we have around the city where we can't throw a switch and make this happen. we'll do it as we do signaling timing upgrades or other signal upgrades across the city. so it's a couple of seconds at smaller intersections. it's up to 5 seconds at larger intersections, but it was a good partnership with a number of advocates, and i think it will be a good change for the city. did we have our video ready again? or do we give up on the video? to round out the vision 0 report. ♪ [ music ] motorcyclists have special situations to deal with. we get fog that's almost rain, oil build-up on streets with fog or rain make the road really slick especially roadway paint.

motorcycles lose traction in the rain, much more easily than cars. slow down to be safe. we also have muni tracks and metal plates just about everywhere. we crass more a easily at a 90 degree angle. hit them at your cruising speed without breaking or accelerating. if you need to slow down, break your enjoin before you apply the brakes. we have steep hills that you have to go up and down and up and down in stop-and-go traffic. not like that. you'll have a better ride when you're able to brake gently. san francisco, let's make every ride a safe right. get more tips from vision 0 sf. >> do one more?

♪ [ music ] hello, san francisco. it's april 2018 and here are our mission 0 sf monthly highlights. our roundup of projects to help san francisco reach our goal of ending traffic deaths. the tenderloin welcomes the first protected bike line. construction began on the new protected bike lane connecting important paths along san francisco's bike routes. the kids size replica of a city block that will teach children with state was named after late mayor ed lee. this can be reassembled at eusols to teach students around the city. the somewhere vehicle enforcement unit conducted a high visibility operation in fisherman's wharf, the marina, and the produce market area. they cited two dozen commercial vehicles for unsafe practices. there was an open house and

library meetings to engage with residents about the traffic projected. they provided feedback on near and long-term locations for safer neighborhood streets. on april 5th, as 10,000 donned their kicks and celebrated the 6th annual walk to workday, a crossing was turned on. for more information on what's happening in san francisco, go to vision 0sf. >> that one not motorcycle safety but a more generalized one. that's all available on the youtube channel. a couple other miscellaneous items. one, with regard to the central subway, i know you've been reading or hearing quite a bit about that, so just want to give you a brief update which is -- so you can hear it from me, which might be different than what you hear from some of the

media. , factually speaking, it came to our attention that the contractor that subs have laid down 17,000 lineal feet of steel rails which call for high strength steel rails. the area where they've been installed so far runs from just north of the 4th and townsend intersection up to just south of the union square market street station. upon learning of this, we did send them a letter directing them to replace that rail with rail that meets the standards that are specified in our contract. the standard strength steel does not pose a safety issue. it just won't last as long as the higher strength rail, which is why we tend to speck the higher grade rail. so we are working with the contractor to figure out what

the best options are for moving forward as well as any schedule impact, which if there is any, we expect to be fairly minimal. i will provide for you in the upcoming weeks a more complete analysis of what happened, why it happened, what we're doing about it, and what the impacts are. just wanted to clarify for you where we are with that. this week is san francisco small business week. we are the s fm ta is a sponsor post for this 14th annual san francisco small business week which runs from yesterday through the 19th, small business week celebrates contributions of more than 4,000 members of our small business community. the small business honoree ceremony will be held at 2:30 to recognize an exceptional small business from each of the 11 supervisor districts. there are events throughout the week. i think i will be at one

tomorrow. you can see and learn about all of those at sf small business week dot-com. saturday will be shop and dine in the 49. that being a program of the office of economic and workforce environment to encourage people to shop and dine here locally. and then finally, on sunday, the sfmta will host the beta breakers. we expect more than 100,000 racers and spectators to be out on the streets. this really just is the beginning of what tends to be a very long and robust special event season here throughout the summer and fall in san francisco. in support of the event, we will be operating early rail service beginning at 6:00 a.m. along with 70 additional buses to get people to and from the race and to try to minimize disruption to everyone else in the city who is

not going to and from the race. we will have additional parking control officers throughout the race corridor to safely move traffic and we'll work with police and public works to reopen the streets as quickly as possible after the tail of the race passes. we will have our department operations center activated so that we can manage the event and stay in contact with all the other city agencies and as always, each year, we take the lessons learned and apply them to the next year. we should get better and better at this as the years go on. that completes my report. >> thank you, director. the vision 0 motorcycle safety month, the back of the 21hayes had a lower and safer sign on it which targeted motorcycles but something that we can all remember especially now that we have electric assisted means of zipping around the city and we can go faster than, perhaps, we're used to and might be safe doing. i will look forward to hearing

more about the central subway. thank you for clearing some of that up. you're right. i think it's been a little confusing the way it's been discussed out in the press and in public. so thank you for that. directors, does anyone have a comment on the director's report? no? seeing none, thank you very much. do we have any public comment on the report. >> you do. >> 2 minutes, please. >> on the director's report, first today i'm wearing a dpw t-shirt. formally operated by director reiskin. i did note the announcement last week, i'm not clear on what the impact will be long-term on muni operating speed and cost, and for that matter, the impact on other modes of transportation. seems to me like this could be a ceqa issue, and so i don't know

exactly how this was decided, if this is just a policy call, if this is actually something that's within the board's jurisdiction or if the director can simply change the crossing speed with whatever impacts that has and whether this constitutes a project for ceqa. i would love to get an answer from staff on that. and then the last item, since last time the director unveiled the new logo, which i expressed displeasure about during the first two weeks under the new logo, by my count, there was a major technology glitch in the first week, which resulted in systems being down for a significant part of that thursday involving employees, affecting passengers and a lot of people. there was the rail issue that was in the press, which was just discussed. and there was a minor earthquake

that resulted in having to check tracks for safety purposes. in my view, not a good first two weeks under the new logo. thanks. >> thank you. mr. mcguire, can someone reach out regarding the pedestrian count down timing? thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> herbar winer, one thing about the vision 0 videos, i think they're very good, but i challenge vision 0 to do one thing and i challenge this board to do one thing. have a video about bicyclists riding on the sidewalk and crashing the red light. this should be also a video. i challenge you to guys to put that one out, especially since three members of the bicycle coalition are appearing before me as i testify. the second thing, about the

central subway, it has assorted history. remember the cooking of the books that was exposed by lavonda atkinson in? [indiscernible] has been in court i don't know how many times. so therefore, it's delay upon delay, et cetera. this really is a weather vane of mta. >> kathy is the last person to turn in a speaker card on the director's report items. >> good afternoon, chair and directors. i'm the policy and program director at walk san francisco, and i couldn't miss the chance to come up and talk about our increased crossing times for pedestrians. this is a huge change, a huge improvement in our city. i have other cities calling me up, saying, what's going on? how did you do this? this is amazing.

we at walk sf and our fellow partners at senior and disability action independent living resource center, lighthouse for the blind. [ stand by ] test.

every time i see someone doing it i glare at them as if to say don't you know you're doing something wrong. often times i don't get a response back that suggests they

do know they are doing something wrong. if we have the resources to make these -- i'm not talking about my children. they know what that glare means. if we have the resources to make these helpful things as chair brickman points out, put things on the buses and other things that educate our fellow citizens, i think this is a problem that does exist and it's not just a pet complaint that we hear from one or two but people are riding their booikes on the sidewalks, particularly downtown and riding their scooters on the sidewalks for sure. if we can educate people that's not the appropriate way to behave it would help and it would help those of us trying to discourage that behavior try to communicate that message better as well. that's something i would favor. i suspect that the pedestrian advocates and bike advocates agree and certainly we would take any feed back they have.

>> thank you. i think that's a good idea. just to c clarify, i believe tht children under the age of 16 can ride on the sidewalk. >> non-motorized scooters on the sidewalk. what we are seeing no you -- now is a lot of motorized. >> that's a great idea and can help get the word out. thank you very much. >> madame chair, item 8. we are joined by frank who is the vice chairman of the cac. >> good the see you. thank you so much for your work on the cac. welcome. >> good afternoon, madame chair, board of directors. so i'm representing from our last meeting we had two recommendations that i would like to present to the board right now. first one is on the east cater permitting process that you passed last time into recess. csc supports the proposed plan

for these scooters. it's recommended that sfmt provide the guidelines on how and where the scooters are placed and we encourage sfpd to enforce the state law against sidewalk riding. it's recommending that sfmta with the scooter companies -- work with the scooter companies to share data travel information, user travel information so the analysis can be done to update a comprehensive plan, transit plan, which can ultimately reduce congestion. so in other words you want to have -- get this incorporated sgoo a plan. -- into a plan. the second motion we passed has to do with today's topic, which is business of streetcars. that one reads as, recommends that complete cars in and then in parens slated to be scrapped,

t