video? i've lived on 1700 of broderick street for 20 years. i would like to play a time-lapse video of an evening on our block. two years ago, producer of "full house" and "fuller house" bought a house on our block. he restored the look of the house from the show 30 years ago. since then, we've been inundated with visitors. since the promotion of the house, we counted 1,000 to 1,500 visitors or more on busy days.

they come in cars, ubers, lyfts, tour buses, bikes, motorcycles. there are pedestrians all over our street. it's a lot for one residential block. we realize that m.t.a. cannot help us with all of our problems and we do appreciate the banning of tour buses on our block. they do double park, block our driveways and idle under our windows. but our larger m.t.a.-related problems are visitors cars with double parking, blocked driveways, traffic congestion, and pedestrians. i believe it's likely that someone will be hurt or killed on our block. we might need some vision zero attention. we've contacted m.t.a. many, many times asking for increased enforcement and to date we've received almost nothing.

i ask and please that you enforce this on our block. thank you for your attention. >> chairman brinkman: director torres has a question. >> commissioner torres: is the owner allowed to use it for commercial purposes? >> we're going to look into this. >> commissioner torres: and also to pay back the public agencies. i believe that we'll come up with regulations at this point. >> we're looking at a tour bus ban on that block. >> it's not related to the particular item before you

today. that item is related to tour buses that use the -- >> commissioner torres: so i would have to include that at a later meeting? >> i'm not entirely sure. let's continue with public comment. >> commissioner torres: okay. >> i would say it's a planning department issue. >> sara baum or david nacher. >> do i have access to this? >> chairman brinkman: yes. it looks like it's up there. >> i'm david nacher, long-time resident on broderick street, 17 years. and what's happened over the last 1 1/2 years is something that i never thought would be possible. the street is immersed in -- by

a constant barrage of traffic, including tour buses. they're not alone, obviously. we have personal vehicles, motorcycles, all manner of vehicles. and they tend to ignore any regulation, any traffic policy that exists. they drive down the wrong way on the street. they double park there are signs that say double parking is not permitted. they ignore them. red zones, ignore them. they park across driveways. they park on the wrong side of the street. and it's a -- i encourage you to pass this ban. they currently ignore posted signs and red zones and there's no enforcement. unless there is enforcement, nothing will happen. so that's the big problem, that

there are no consequences for this type of behavior. what is really bad is that people drag their kids across the block to take pictures. and with the double parking, is much easier to do that, at least it seems like it, because the street is not so wide. we've had several fender-benders, but not a fatality or injury. i'm afraid that's coming up. enforcement of the rules will get to these people. the internet has driven this phenomenon for the last 1 1/2 years. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> sara baum. she's the last person that submitted a speaker card, however i'm not seeing any movement. >> chairman brinkman: any more public comment on this item? no. no more public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. it sounds like what we have

before us is the steps we can take, which is not as much as the neighbors want, but it's the steps that we have in front of us right now. if directors have other suggestions, something that you -- >> i would just say that i think, one, checking with the planning department. it doesn't sound like -- whether or not to look at the zoning on this block for this house. if they own the house and they're not doing commercial activity and they're not complaint, it's not illegal to own a house you don't live in. maybe if there is anything else in that, it would be a planning department issue. we found this to be a problem with pine street, any backup or traffic issues as a consequence of this. >> not that i'm aware of. we would recommend that you approve this resolution. as the neighbors have suggested, it will not solve the problem, but it's a step in that

direction. we have had some of our enforcement officers out there. the nature of the quick dropoff, makes it difficult for us to make a dent in that way. the suggestions from torres and borden that we look at the property and property owner and see if there's an angle there, can work with the city attorney's office to continue to look at the tools we have in term of signage or enforcement to address the situation beyond the restriction should you clues to approve it. >> commissioner borden: i know we don't love speed bumps, but it could be another intervention, because it would slow down the traffic there. and the other thing, related to the conversation around data, getting data from ride-share services. i believe the proliferation of the services has made it easier to visit sites they may not have

gone to visit before. when we get data, we can identify a hotspot that we can deal with and figure out what our appropriate solutions, we have our high injury corridors or other places. i don't want neighbors to think that we'll send enforcement officers out tomorrow, but maybe we can look at speed bumps and other kinds of interventions that can be helpful. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. it's very shocking what's going on on that street. i can only imagine how annoying it's been to have your street change so drastically with an absent neighbor. it's hard to have a neighborhood when you have a neighbor that doesn't live there and not being responsive. i will support this and i'm

sorry it's all that we can do at this time, but we will continue to ask staff to work with you to see what can be done to make your street function better. i think everybody is slowing down, which is not comforting, but at least there are no injuries. a motion to approve? second? all in favor, aye? opposed? none. item 10.3 is approved. >> clerk: 10.4, authorizes a transfer agreement for $438,200 in discretionary funding programmed by the california department of transportation. >> i've been involved with

connect-sf, so i wanted to request to be included and notified of meetings and outreach and if there is going to be a useful study, would encourage the director to bring it back to the board so we all know more about this, because i assume it will be a major effort and result in deliverables and be back before you more than once let's try to get this one right, given the strategy adopted a month ago. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. 10.5, authorizes a director to execute a contract at 1307 with giron construction to

construction new tracking power along church and market and duboce for $1.4 million for a term of 270 days it's been severed by a member of the public. >> on this item, i found the environmental document, but it in concluded the approval. dy -- i didn't see any discussion of the impact of this construction project. so my question, as i've asked before, will this result in a shutdown to complete the work over a weekend or some period of time? are shuttles going to be required? what is the impact on transit? meanwhile, if there will be construction in this area, the one transit island that is not acceptable in this area and,

chair brinkman, i believe you live nearby, at church and 14th outbound, the 22 and the j is not an accessible island. it seems it may be with this project or separately a good opportunity to make that stop an accessible island for the j. that's used as a transfer point for shuttles during shutdown periods. so i consider church and market to be important. anyway, i would love to know what the passenger impact is of this project. and i do agree that redundant power to the portal is useful. i think in all of these cases, where there is rider impact, it should be flagged and noted in the staff report so we know up front and not later on.

>> chairman brinkman: thank you. do i have a motion? >> will there be impacts? do we anticipate that? >> i don't know offhand and i think the project manager, who was here, has left. i think there probably will be some level of service impact. we can get that information up on the project website and we should have had that in the staff report. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. second? all in favor, aye. any opposed? hearing none, this one is approved as well. >> clerk: item 10.8, moving through the consent calendar, rapid pace. approved art torres to serve on the director on the sfmta bond authority with cheryl brinkman an alternate effective july 18, 2018. >> i think it would be appropriate at a future meeting to have a thank you to rudy

notenberg for serving for many, many years. and i believe he had prior service and chaired the predecessor to this agency when it was the public transportation commission and served in a number of other capacities with the city. it would be helpful in the future to have periodic reports from those of you who serve on out side boards, the peninsula corridor, and any other entities. we have presence and votes and participation at other places and we don't hear about that in public. it would be great to have those periodic reports. otherwise, those are my comments on 10.8. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. we did send a thank you letter to mr. nottenberg in june.

do i have a motion to approve and a second? all in favor, aye. any opposed? hearing none, 10.8 is approved. >> clerk: moving on to regular calendar, item 11, making environmental review findings and approving parking and traffic modifications along the l taraval muni transit corridor. and i will not read them all. >> chairman brinkman: how are you? >> all right. good afternoon, chair brinkman, directors. i'm michael rhodes. i'm with the transit planning group at sfmta. i would like to share an updated proposal on 17th at taraval, near the safeway on that street.

i think most of you are familiar with the project at this point. to refresh everyone's memory, it's a broader state of repair that will replace all the track and utility on taraval street and improve safety and reliability for the 33,000 daily riders. as you will recall, taraval is a high-injury street for pedestrians. part of the 12% of streets in san francisco, where over 70% of all collisions occur. half the people injured were stepping off a muni train in traffic when a vehicle failed to yield. it was a unique condition, where people were stepping off into traffic. we've worked extensively with the community to develop a

proposal to meet the transit and reliability goals. after a year of extensive outreach, the m.t.a. board approved the project in september, 2016. the key developments were improving safety for people on trains, transit stop changes to improve transit-only lanes that allow left turns and taxis and a number of safety features that address zero vision concerns. as parts of the project, we have an extensive plan to manage the project to make sure that businesses remain accessible.

so in early 2017, we began implementing some of the project elements that don't require heavy duty capital infrastructure and deliver immediate safety benefits. this includes where borden will be built and transit lanes that allow left turns. we have a six-month pilot. as we reported to you, this pilot did not reach our goals, so it will be in stalled at pilot stops at well. we installed most of the parking management including meters and time limits to ensure that customer parking is available. we recommended removal to include transit reliability. as you recall, we heard

extensive feedback near the safeway. you encouraged it removed on a trial basis. we began preparations to do just that, but luckily think we have a solution that will allow us to keep the stop and still improvement safety and reliability. working closely with community stake holders and with supervisor yee's office, we've come up with a new proposal. as you can see here, on this diagram, the proposal would remain -- retain the inbound or eastbound taraval stop near the safeway, but have a boarding island and wheelchair accessibility for people with disabilities. the main stop would be moved from the near side of the intersection to the far side.

it would be at 17th avenue. we shared a version of this proposal last december in our staff report, but it didn't meet our goals for improving reliability and travel time. so we kept working on this proposal and took a broader view of the line between here and the west portal station. the map here shows the broader picture that we have in close collaboration with the community. as you can see, we have a number of changes to align our transit stops. the stop would move to 14th avenue, so trains would stop once. this would smooth the trip. before 13,000 customers pass through this segment every day. finally, the inbound stop on

taraval would be removed, since they're moving closer to it. the train has to stop at 15th avenue, turn the corner on 15th, and then pick up passengers. we hoped to moo -- move it before the turn, but we realized that would not work. by removing the 15th and taraval stop, this addresses that issue as well. bottom line, it would improve transit reliability and accessibility, preserving an important stop and creating a smoother ride for the 13,000 people on the l between west portal and 17th every day. it's been shared widely through newsletters, neighbors, and updates the neighborhood association meetings and through our email lists. most of the feedback has been positive about the proposal,

we're aware it has tradeoffs in terms of moving parking for boarding island. it has a good compromise. in summary, this would remove three transit stops and it would establish two new stops at 14th. and it would relocate 17th avenue near side to the far side and upgrade with a full boarding island as well as a wheelchair ramp. so today you have this updated legislation before you for a vote and it would replace the original proposal. we'll work closely with merchants on parking needs, such as finding additional zones and customer access issues.

the work is set to begin next year with a two-year time frame for construction. thank you very much, and i would be happy to answer any further questions. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. directors, any clarifying questions before i good to public comment? seeing none, we'll good to public comment. we have ms. choi from supervisor yee's office here. let's let her come up first. >> thank you. darlene choi, legislative aide to norman yee's office, reading letter on behalf of supervisor lee. "i'm writing to reiterate the support for the stop as part of the project. it addresses pedestrian safety and maintains access for seniors and people with disabilities. since 2016, i have worked closely with neighbors,

merchants, safeway and sfmta staff about the proposed removal of the 17th avenue staff. i felt strongly enough to submit a letter to support keeping the 17th avenue inbound stop to accommodate seniors and their ability to carry heavy groceries from safeway. after further discussion with sfmta, we were able to develop a new proposal that addresses parking, pedestrian safety and access for people's disabilities and seniors. it would keep the stop that would construct a wheelchair-accessible ramp, a full boarding platform between 17th and 16th and also reconfigure the surrounding stops for transit efficiency. i urge the sfmta board to

approve this proposal. i'm committed to pedestrian safety, main continuing accessibility and supporting small business owners. sincerely, supervisor yee." >> chairman brinkman: thank you the supervisor for his willingness to work with us on this. thank you. let's move to public comment. 2 minutes, please. >> julie fox, edward mason. madam chair, no one is left in the overflow room. >> chairman brinkman: okay. good. thank you. >> good afternoon. i don't know if it's a reward or a punishment being on the board. thank you for what you do. it is hard. i'm julia fox. what i heard was, it's not paint, lady. i was a new rider on the l train heading outbound one evening a decade ago.

the doors opened and in front of safeway was a dark red stain in the street. a gentleman said, it's not paint, lady. a person was hit by a car getting off the l train. that night became one more reason for my muni and l train activism. as a member of the boarding zone pilot program, there was one assurance that i heard at the beginning of the project that was repeated and encouraged by michael rhodes and ms. deanna deseres, which was the value that sfmta puts on the input of riders, neighbors, and merchants. thanks to the passion of my fellow committee members, the drive for equity and safety for all is to be admired. thanks, muni, for reinstating the 17th avenue stop and building the future boarding

island. thank you very much. and if i could submit this. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. thank you for your continued work on this project. >> edward mason, bonny knight, paula kats. >> i'm pleased to say the 17th street stop has been reinstated. it takes on a bigger picture when you look at conflicting goals, one speeding up muni and providing with the patrons. right now at 17th, there is new construction going on with new apartment buildings in there. the question is, when the decision was made for 17th street to be -- avenue to be eliminated, the future planning at the planning department

considered, that there would be new construction going on across the street from safeway for housing. i realize we have competing needs for speeding up the servic service, saving money, and also for the residents, and also an aging population, walking the extra blocks and there are consequences. so we need to consider that and put that in the mix. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. mason. >> bonny knight, paula kats, nancy rubin. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is bonny knight. i'm here to speak on behalf of the 17th avenue stop. i was born in san francisco. and i was a child of two native

san franciscans. my mother did not drive and was a single parent. the only time i wasn't on the l is when i was at u.c. berkeley and the few years i lived in central sunset. other than that, i've been on 48th avenue almost since i was born. so i know the ridership of the l. the last decade or so, the l is almost entirely really old seniors, not about when you technically become a senior, but people that you wonder how long they've made it that far. they've made it that far.

>> but i'm thrilled he worked out this proposal with staff. keeping the stop for those to lid the l to shop at safeway, thus maintaining their independence outsid without thed cost of using paratransit. as you know, this stop enjoys massive communities support from residents and shoppers alike but not as many are able to attend today. please remember the moving comments that your two prior meetings as early to 50 riders described the hart ship that they and their families would face if you remove this stop. i hope you read all the e-mails you have received. i have more than 25 that were cc to us and i know you received a lot more than that. i want to read a portion of one. i am writing to implore you to

keep the stop. it would place an unfair burden on on seniors and people with disabilities. the slope from 19th avenue to 17th avenue is steep. it can be difficult for seniors, disabled and those in good health to make the decent between 17th and 19th avenue. i want to add since you removed the out bound stop at safeway going towards the zoo last year, many shoppers have complained about how hard it is for them to catch that out bound l with their heavy grocery bags because they have to walk farther to get the l at 19th than they did at the old stop. so please, don't take away the inbound stop. i urge you to vote yes on this propose a i'd like to give you a copy. >> nancy ruben, herbert winier. david fill pot. >> good afternoon, i'm nancy

ruben and i've lived and worked on the corner of 16th -- i reiterate my strongest suggestion that you vote on 17th avenue stop. it's absolutely invaluable to safeway shoppers. because now they can cross the street and take the street car going inbound. if you took it out, not only would they have to go up to 15th, which is pretty steep, but worse, if they couldn't climb the hill, they have to make a right turn when they get out of safeway and go down to 19th avenue. they have to cross a six-lane highway. it's a highway. they have to cross traffic to get on the street car in front of shannon arms, which is a bar. which by the way, shannon arms

explainecomplained about havingr parking spaces taken away because of the loading island and i would question why anybody would drive to a bar but that's another issue. so please, maintain the 17th avenue stop because it's very, very important to the safe way shoppers, not to have to cross 19th avenue or go up a hill with children and toddlers. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> herbert winier followed by david pillpail and then lulu ando. >> herbert winier. i'm not a resident the sunset but i do use the l quite frequently. now, i am supporting the retaining of this stop. i think it's very important. i think that to remove it would

be very cruel. i think it's an example if you remove it, it would be an example of ageism and prejudice against the disabled. so, you are -- it's a trade off here between a maintaining of stops and the speed of the l ter aville. this can be remedies by providing more trains on the line. basically, the speed has not changed significantly at all. so, it's very important to keep this stop and i speak this as my experience as a social worker, who has worked with the aged and disabled. again, i have to underline it to remove the stop would be very cruel. you would have it on our your conscience, thank you. >> thank you, intentio next spe.

>> and rachel highden is the last person to submit a speaker card on this topic. >> again, the environmental net to file was not available here. i am starting to wonder if staff is trying to hide these things. there was some sort of general plan referral to the planning department, i'm not sure what triggered that and that reference note to file. the time saving from eliminating these stopping is minimal and it is bad for riders to eliminate these stops. ultimately, i'm concerned about the cumulative impact here. a year and a half ago, as staff indicated, or started to, there were four stops in both directions between 19th avenue and west portal. seventeenth avenue, 15th, 15 and ulloa and for side. this proposes to leave two stops in each direction. eliminating half of the stops. doesn't save much time. it makes it a lot more

inconvenient for people in the neighborhood to get to the l. in addition to the l street car stops, this impacts the l owl bus and the 48. the calender item does not propose rescinding the transit stop for the 48 on 14th far side of ulloa, northeast corner. the item c here is actually incorrect, i believe, legally the last item here says rescinding south side west of 15th. the stop is actually on 15th west side south of ter aville. i'm not sure if that is a legally accurate description. so, i am supportive of keeping the 17th avenue stop but i am opposed to this idea of a trade off. we shouldn't have to, you know, sacrifice one stop in order to get another. this is the only line that has been targeted in this way for

all the stop removal. i don't think we benefit as riders. i don't like this resolution. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> rako, ando and lulu and rachel. >> hi, my name is rako. this is my daughter lulu and we've been coming to these hearings since she was an infant and now she's turning two. as a resident who lives along the line and especially, i actually live on 17th avenue so the 17th avenue stop is something that is one that we road to get here today. i would like to reiterate what everybody else has already spoken about in terms of the vital needs to retain the 17th bound inbound stop because the safe way is there for accessibility for the elderly

and for disabled residents who go to safeway to shop. i also agree with the fact that the time savings from removing the stops along the l line are relatively trivial compared to the fact that the tunnels is what does cause the back up. i would urge you to retain the 17th avenue stop and also think about accessibility for residents considering the other stops. considerations for removal coming up in the future. thank you. >> thank you. >> rachel is the last person of the day. >> good afternoon directors, rachel here with the san francisco transit riders. i wanted to come today to speak in support of today's proposal and really just in general the over all project. i want to thank all of you for your leadership and actually legislating this project. i want to thank supervisor tang and supervisor yee for their supporting and putting transit

rider safety first. i want to thank today is sfmt staff in specific michael roads, and sean kennedy and phillip piers. in the face of a tense opposition to these commonsense pedestrian safety projects. they really presented themselves with grace and so i just want to applaud them for that. and i wanted to take off my e.d. hat for a minute. i am also a resident and i actually live at 17th and so i just wanted to say i fully supportive of the stop-change, very excited about it. i also wanted to quickly just say i'm grateful for the boarding zones and early implementation. i feel safer riding the l now. i love the concrete boarding islands at 19th so thank you so much for that. though this project has been a long time coming, it really feels like i can see the light at end of the tunnel so i just want to thank you for putting transit riders first. thank you. >> thank you. >> do i have more public comments? anyone. nope, seeing none. public comments is closed.

questions or comments. >> i would just say i'm glad we can figure this out. i know that in the previous iteration we were concerned about the notion of moving the stop and the access to safeway because we do want to encourage people to use transit to do their regular trips. if you make it harder they won't so i'm glad we were able to fix that. the comments that we're moving stops is part of the over all moving forward plan we've removed stops on front lines so it's not as if this was uniquely targeted in a negative fashion. for people who have to come from the very end to get to the steven west portal, the fact they can get there much more quickly is a difference maker and helps rider ship and it would be great to give a share of that data going forward as the project reaches its completion to show some of the improvements that have happened

as a consequence. >> thank you. question of our director. the proposal before us eliminates the elimination of this stop? >> yes. sorry about the confusion on this when we last left off with you is you authorized the removal of the stop at our recommendation and directed us to do that as a pilot. but as mr. rose said in the meantime, we found a way to stick to what i think you really wanted which was to not remove the stop. >> right. >> we did that by, as you said, taking a little bit broader view with the corridor and i want to give supervisor yee credit for facilitating this resolution so right, what we're asking you to do now is to direct us to retain the stop as modified. >> i want to thank you and you the staff and the residents that have ex forward. these issues are so complicated

sometimes. and emotionally hard on people. especially seniors and young families that have to deal with this in accessibility to a market especially. so i'm glad you all came to that conclusion again. thank you to the hard work of our staff. >> thank you, manager. >> thank you, director torez. >> thank you madam chair. i wanted to say thank you to mrs everybody who came out about this. i'm happy to support it. >> thank you. >> me too. [laughter] >> ok. >> thank you. thank you to all neighbors who came down and thank you mr. roads for doing the work on this one. i do have a relative who rides every day and i feel comfortable knowing the painted safety islands are there and concrete boarding islands will follow. i'm so glad we were able to make changes to save that safeway stop and i thank the community for continuing to work with us on this one. do i have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> and a second. >> all in favor aye. >> aye. >> any opposed.

>> hearing none. approved. >> thank you. >> madam chair, you wanted to return to general comments. >> yes, we are going to go now to general comments. >> sorry about that. yes, we are going to move to general public comments is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board on matters within the jurisdiction of the mta but are not on today's agenda. i'm not sure that everybody who submitted a card is still here so we'll just have to mull through. >> let's read through names. alena, paul valde. >> why don't we, in the interest of time, anyone who is commenting under general public comment please lineup along the right hand side o-hand side of . >> i was riding on older subway

and i noticed an old fare box, and old paper transfers. i'm not seeing a need or reason to keep this. there's no historical preservation or business standpoint to keep this. we lack the consistency on the rest of the system with the 90-minute program whether it' it's -- i hope we can overcome our trepidation and be able to put the old paper transfer stress so we will have consistency across the system.

i'm enjoying the new light rail vehicles, though it looked like one that i road yesterday was having hiccups, the stations dwell times were long. i'm supporting -- continuing to support the new rail vehicles. the like the space in them and the sideways spacing seat. if we are having issues with dwell times and we must watch that more closely perhaps in some cases, giving manual order to stay on the schedule. i see we're going to talk about fare later and i'm looking forward to it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm here to formally present a request for our feasibility study to use vacant space and parking structures for emergency

navigation centers. this is based on a study that was done in 2017, less than a year ago. if i can have the overhead, i can reference it. i don't know if you will be able to see it. mosconi center garage parking analysis. there's a table in this report that concludes that -- this only looks at the fifth emission parking garage but the fifth emission parking garage, at no point during the year, is more than 70% full. i think it's actually 69%. so, there's plenty of room and one of the biggest barriers for opening up new navigation centers is finding a place when the site is identified, there's tons of community input, lots is opposition and little by little we're opening sites which is great. ever politician and the department of homelessness and

support of housing is saying we need more navigation centers. this is something that should be explored. i have met with multiple supervisors and homeless in supporting of housing so the first step is to get a feasibility study. hopefully we can look at all the parking garages. look at the rates of occupancy of all of them and see what it means to the m.t.a. to cordoned off space so we can have people committed to working there way out of stays of homelessness and into permanent housing who would be willing to comply with rules and not commit property crimes. thank you so much. it's signed by 30 other people from the richmonds to soma, all over the city. thank you. >> thank you. we'll ask staff to continue to work with the department of homelessness to see what solutions exist. thank you, that's good out of the box thinking. thank you for your concern for

the unhoused. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is joe pasternak. i live on eighth street. note it was advertised by the m.t.a. that the page street neighbor way was supposed to be on today's agenda. i opposed the page street neighbor way because it reeks of unnecessary boondoggle that lacks a clear vision. it's without benefit to the neighbor at large or local business. it does not have merit but is being created and championed by the same unqualified neighborhood activists who created the mess that is octavia boulevard in hate street. the neighbor way is sold as an unquestionable part of the market. in reality, the m.t.a., the city and valley needs to have there

are dangerous problems created in flood decisions made in regard to this over all plan. to re-evaluate the plan as it relates to traffic flow and properly fix the mess that was created. the page street neighbor way will do nothing but make the bottleneck on octavia street and the surrounding streets worse. it will make the neighborhood more dangerous by pushing traffic off of page street and into the surrounding areas. this will create more gridlock and confusion. i stood here before the m.t.a. board about six years ago and

>> like last night, the sign states that the one california would arrive at vanness and sacramento street in 28 minutes. it arrived about ten minutes later, to my relief. one night, i had to wait close to 50 minutes for the 1 california. as the bus sign predicted, i was going to catch the 43 at presidio and california to go to geary street in order for it to circumvent this. and suddenly, a 1 california swoops by, and i waited close to 50 minutes, after all. now this is really disgusting. you are not keeping on your routes, you are not fulfilling your obligations. and we can have all these wonderful projects like vanness avenue and all these other places, but if the buses don't

run on time, if they don't break -- if they breakdown, if they're late -- [bell ringing]. >> -- or they're missing, what's the sense of it all? and basically, you're missing the main threat of concern. basically, m.t.a. has not addressed the basic need of buses running on time and keeping their schedules. it's a question of internal operations. and i hope the response of this board simply isn't muni forward. >> thank you, mr. weiner. next speaker, please. >> i have some materials to be distributed -- >> please leave them there. they will make sure that they get them after the meeting. >> good afternoon. my name is claire beckett.

on behalf of bright line, i would like to thank the sf m.t.a. board of directors for passing the zero emissions policy to transfer to an -- transition to an all electric bus fleet by 2025. i am here to follow up with more detail on the board's plan to establish green zones where electric buses will first be distributed as muni transitions to zero he mission buses. we -- emission buses. thanks to great data collected by the s.f. department of public health, bright lieb has identified bus routes that -- line has identified bus routes

that have the most resilient neighborhoods, neighborhoods that have less resources to mitigate the effects of climate change. a few examples would be the eight bayshore routes and 14 mission routes. there's a pack etta tached regarding how this data was collected. as you move -- [inaudible] >> -- such as the resilient use leadership academy of apri who was here earlier but was unfortunately not able to stay for public comment. as mentioned by bright line staff at the last meeting on 5-15, we'll also look into community concerns by definition. we'd like to work with staff issues -- [inaudible] >> thank you for bright line being involved in this. i'm sure it will be incredibly

helpful. next speaker, please. >> hi there. my name is constance flannery, and i live at 281 arlington street. i'm here to speak on behalf of over 40 of my neighbors to mist rental wrecks on flannery street on the side of fair month elementary street and on arlington streets as miguel and richmond streets. have a petition signed by 40 neighbored up to the 400 block of arlington who is opposed to the proposed location. everyone i spoke to signed my petition and are against the location. we are not against the bike or bike racks. many of my neighbors ride bikes. we are suggesting better, safer spots on san jose avenue next to a dedicated bike lane. one is a half block from the present location on randall suggested location. several of us walk the pedestrian path next to the

bike lane on san jose avenue, and we pick two locations that don't impede pedestrians or endanger children or bikers. we recommend that you authorize someone from m.t.a. to walk san jose avenue and check the feasibility of these two spots. these locations would also be available to people getting off the j church, living in the upper mission and bernal heights or st. mary's quake. the bikes would get more use at these spots than they would at arlington and miguel and at the richland bridge, and they would be much safer than on fair month street next to the -- fairmont street next to the school. >> thank you. thank you miss flannery. we'll see that we get those. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. been interesting listening to

the meeting today. my name is robin crop. i live downtown, and the issue i want to address now are the new muni trains. i don't know what the planning process has been into going into them, how long it's been going on, how long it's been ordered. but all i can tell you is i rode one of them, and i got injured. so it was just one ride going from basically delores park downtown. i can't sit sways, and my neck, my back, and my pelvis went out. i could barely walk by the end of that ride. i had to have my chiropractor put my back and pelvis back in place. in these new cars, it's just a bench, and so i can't ride it, and i'm already being impacted

now by having to wait for the muni cars with the backs. you know, when you send the sideways cars, i can't ride. one night, i had to wait an hour for one of the ones to come along with backs, because i need a back to sit against. so that's me, and i'm wondering how many people are vulnerable like me that's had back surgeries, back conditions, vulnerable seniors with any consideration given that some people can't sit sideways for sideways motion. now i want to extend this further. muni has had stops before, like, let's say a hard stop with a pedestrian or whatever. once we had to stop in a tunnel at 38 miles an hour, and the only thing that stops motion are seats. if you have a stop like that on sideways seating, everybody's going to be thrown into everybody, people are going to get bruised. they could get hurt. you possibly could be facing fatalities, lawsuits against the city. there's