various modes and, you know, i think with an expeditious process, we could see improvements at the end of the calendar year. >> chairman brinkman: for embarcadero, when do you think we may get some safety improvements on the ground there? >> i will defer to mr. mcgwire to answer that. >> i mentioned, directors, the possibility of doing an improvement southbound and improvement route on battery into and out of the financial districts. looking to get those done by

january, 2019. if we can get that done, get it done faster, we'll certainly aim to get it done faster. we don't need environmental clearance, as far as we know, to move forward. >> chairman brinkman: good. thank you. again, thank you, everybody, for coming down. i want to leave time for fellow directors to give any comments or questions. i just want it say that i know the staff at the m.t.a. i've been on this board for a long time now. i know that we care and care deeply about the safety on the streets. i want to thank you, again, for coming down and having the people protected bike lanes, and showing us that you do put your lives where your mouths are on this and we hear that and see that and i, for one, will be encouraging staff to do everything we can to take a hard look at some of the streets, townsend and embarcadero to see

what we can do to tame the situation. and maybe we can have some stepped-up enforcement to send a message to the other users of the street that this is a vital connection. i sit on the caltrain board. we encourage every other city to make safe walking and biking connections to our stations. we need to do the same in san francisco and make sure that our caltrain users and commuters can get through that stretch. director rubke? >> commissioner rubke: the timeline that you discussed, it it for 4th through 8th? >> yeah, so the immediate improvements are 4th to 7th. we're trying to address the most critical and difficult section

first. >> commissioner borden: i'm heartened that the project is back on the schedule again. i apologize to the community that we in some ways failed you in not getting this done sooner. as you know, all transportation projects take a long time? it's frustrating for us up here, whether we're waiting for an sbrt, which i was on the committee in 2003, talking about it. everything takes longer than it needs to. i don't really know and maybe with the -- in the changes of looking forward, if there's a way it have things like this happen faster, we have to be more nimble. time is passing too quickly. i know this is not -- it's a very multilayered challenge that

we have. but whatever we can do to move it forward, protected bike lanes are the only ones that will not be driven into. i see it -- i own and work with restaurants and struggle well keeping ride-shares or valet out of the bike lanes. it's inevitably that it will happen. so we know that we're creating a natural conflict. we have to do something to fix that conflict. whatever we can do to help that happen faster, i'm committed. i would not ride my bike to townsend street because i would not feel safe. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. and we'll move on. >> clerk: item 8, citizens' advisory council report. the chairman is here.

>> chairman brinkman: following this, we'll go straight to consent calendar item 11 and then return to public comment for matters not on today's agenda. mr. weaver, good to see you. if there is anyone remaining in overflow room, you can come to this room, room 400. there are plenty of seats. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm dan weaver. i'm the chair of the sfmta-cac. i'm reporting on motions we passed at our recent meeting last week. the first motion concerns the geary rapid transit project. we got a presentation on that at

the full cac, most recent meeting. the mta-cac recommends that trees and landscaping be part of the geary project and existing landscaping and trees be maintained properly by the sfmta and city and county of san francisco. this came up because we got a presentation on the project and its advancement and the only plan for landscaping or trees along the routes would be if they had to replace the tree. they promised that if they had to remove one, they would replace it. in terms of dealing with the entire corridor or even the major parts of it, there's no plan. it's amazing when you consider how important landscaping and tree planting has been on masonic. it's just something -- there's a misfit here between project

geary and project masonic. i'm not sure how it comes about. i think it needs to be addressed. the second motion that kim came out of our engineering maintenance safety committee. sfmta-cac recommends that when the new bus-only lanes are established on the geary corridor, the m.t.a. work with sfpd to keep the other vehicles out of the corridors or lanes. second motion, the sfmta-cac recommends the for disposal

cars, streetcars, while an assessment is immediate for the e and f lines. if it is deemed that a number of double-ended are needed, the stored single-ended can be converted to double-ended cars. basically, we're pointing out in this motion that although the m.t.a. board has approved a plan to eliminate a certain number of historic vehicles because they're no longer needed or in bad shape, that they should be saved until we can figure out or agency can figure out that there is a need and a way in which the single-ended cars can be made double-ended cars. so don't throw them away yet.

that's the essence of the motion. the c.a.c. recommends that historic rail car operations and maintenance be its own division similar to the model employed with the cable cars. it's in the best interests of the m.t.a. that a dedicated director/manager be installed for the maintenance and operation of the historic fleet. the force needed to maintain the fleet has to be highly skilled and resourceful as mechanics of these cars vary in scope. because these cars are historic and the numbers are limited, an in-house, specialized crew is needed to fully maintain the

cars as outsourcing firms are becoming rare. that's it. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much. thank you for your service. and please pass our thanks along to the c.a.c. and all the committee. thank you. do i have any public comment on the citizens advisory council report? >> just briefly, wanted to support in particular the second motion regarding the disposition and encourage the board to consider the vote on disposing of the cars. i think as the motion indicated, they may have value in the future. it's really unfortunate that over the last 35 years, they were left to sit and rot and deteriorate and be exposed to the elements. at geneva yard at pier 72, various locations. also, i've -- as i've commented

before, it would be helpful to the public to see the transmittal letter with the c.a.c. recommendations included in the packet. i understand when there's a c.a.c. meeting five days before this meeting, it's difficult to do time-wise, but when there's more than five days, it's very doable. you can include with the next packet the transmittal of the recommendations and perhaps even staff responses that has been created. thanks very much. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. all right. we'll move on. >> clerk: moving on to consent calendar. item 9 has been continued until later on the agenda. there are multiple items that have been severed from the consent calendar at the request of members of the public, including 10.1, x-b, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 and 10.8.

>> chairman brinkman: all right. i will ask for a motion to approve the consent calendar minus 10.1, x-b, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, and 10.8. >> move to approve. >> chairman brinkman: all in favor? aye. opposed? hearing none, consent minus those items is approved. >> clerk: 10.1, several traffic modifications. >> chairman brinkman: are we taking the sever all together, ms. boomer? we have a member of the public. >> taken care 10.1x-bb, i thought that these were all related to the paved street project that would be before the board today, but i don't see

here. i expressed opposition at that time and the paved street project. i don't believe i got any notification that the items weren't going to be here, so it looks like these are on separate tracks. i believe that there may be cumulative impacts of these traffic changes, though it may seem minor. may be cumulative impacts between the changes east of octavia. and for that matter, proposed traffic signal at haight and buchanan. so i will consider weather to file a ceqa appeal on these matters. it would be great in the future when people show up at the friday engineering hearings exhibit with the poem's strategy

discussed a month ago that we follow up with them, however they sign in and communicate with the agencies and whether they're going to the board on a date certain or being reviewed by staff and reconsidered to close the loop. if we made a commitment to public outreach, we need to be consistent on that. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. can i have a motion? all in favor? aye. lets have 10.2. >> clerk: environment review findings, travel and approve parking and traffic modifications with fillmore, someoney transit corridor. this was severed. >> on this item, there's a

reference to the transit effectiveness project, d.i.r. and environmental note file. that note file is not available. i've been searching up and down for it. it's not on the -- anywhere that i found on the m.t.a. website. we need it make the notes to file available. it's like a needle in a haystack and it's incredibly frustrating and hard to find. there's also reference in the resolution to rejecting one of the alternatives as infeasible, but i didn't see anything as to why it's infeasible and i believe feasibility findings are

when there's an alternative rejected. didn't see in the staff report what the proposed changes would yield in terms of time savings on the 22 or for that matter the 55. so i'm trying to understand what the actual transit benefit would be on 16th street. there was about the benefit of pedestrians and bicyclists on 17th street, but nothing about the transit benefit cost savings on 16th street. and i wanted to be able to trade that off versus the cost of maintaining the signals, which is, you know, not nothing, not a huge number, but where there are proposals to add traffic signals that burdens the agency with demands and offset by transit savings, maybe that's a good idea. but none of that analysis was included in the calendar item.

thank you. >> chairman brinkman: do i have a motion to approve? a second? all in favor, aye. any opposed? hearing none. 10.2 is approved. >> clerk: 10.3. amend transportation code broderick to pine street. david nacher, carla haggan, sara baum. >> chairman brinkman: when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a soft tone. when your time is up, a louder tone, i will politely and firmly stop you. >> i'm carla haggan. may i have the camera, please? >> chairman brinkman: you want the overhead? >> the camera.

are we not able to do that for a 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