transit-only lane, not necessarily that it's red, or am i misunderstanding that? >> we hear both. >> so my first question was about the red, i think we have covered that, thank you. and the second question is exactly as director borden said about transit-only and whether a bus, 10 people or more being allowed to be in there will have some effect. now there's calls for studies and so forth and so on, we actually have some live time empirical experience we have some red carpet lanes these private busses could drive in under the way they are signed, correct? >> that's correct. most of our lanes are signed for bus and taxi state definition of 10 or more passengers. >> what is the feedback from data or operators whether having that signed that way as opposed to transit only is affecting the reliability and travel time of our muni busses?

>> i'm unaware we have specific data to answer that question. >> have we received any reports this is a problem? >> we aren't hearing that from the operators when we do our check-ins with them. >> so that takes me, so those are all very helpful answers and that takes me to the view that rather than postponing to do more studies with papers and computers, we might be better looking at this in real-time and talking with our operators how this actually works and this is a philosophical divide we have seen in this board and frankly this building many times. my personal view is, muni gets the top priority. but my other personal view is that people who are using transit systems, private transit systems aren't driving cars, this is a form of better transit if not as good as we

would like with muni, i guess my personal view would be if our operators and experience thus far with the red carpet lanes bus only as opposed to transit only isn't really affecting the reliability and the timeliness of the muni busses to proceed as of staff has proposed, would this caveat, two important caveats, first of all, the second phase will be transit only. so when we get to the dedicated lanes, the above-ground, it's transit only, correct? >> yes, but with one clarification, the second phase of the project is from west of stanyan to 34th avenue and major segment would be center-running lanes out to 27th, 28th avenue, so the portion of the project that has center-running lanes our plan would be to bring that to you to legislate as muni and golden gate transit only, only then the proposed design has the lanes transit to 34th avenue

and so the plan would be to bring those lanes back to be designated similar to these today as transit-only lanes for bus, right turn. >> you are talking about 34th to the beach? >> no, 27th, 28th to 34th avenue. >> okay. but the center would be muni only. back to the original proposal my personal view would be to leave it as proposed and let me follow-up with two more questions. are there existing, i know chariot and similar services if there are any would use this route most likely and actually have routes that would follow this, is that correct? >> there's currently one chariot route that runs through this part of the corridor and it is 7-12 minutes.

>> are there any what are commonly called google busses, are there any current private employee shuttles that would qualify as busses that use this route? >> there are commuter shuttles that use some portions of geary. i think what our understanding, they aren't traveling a long length, they are traveling for a few blocks where they have stops. >> so in light of that information i will say my concern here is that people share my view of muni should be first but we are taking a stance that would essentially punish people using alternatives in a way that would not only punish them but wouldn't really help the reliability and timeliness of the muni busses anyway.

my personal view would be we should go ahead as staff recommended with the caveat that we have very active dialogue with our operators and with our street supervisors to, and frankly with our customers to learn if there are reports that private vehicles such as commuter shuttles, for chariot vans are obstructing the route then we react to that and we react to that quickly. my final questions, thank you for all the time -- >> chair c. brinkman: no problem, great job. >> if we were to make that change, that is a relatively easy change to make, right? it's essentially legislation and signage. this is not digging up concrete or anything like that. at the same time it's an easy thing to communicate. they haven't shown they violate. long way of asking, we can make this change pretty quickly if

we needed to, correct? >> correct. the main things we do to implement who gets to use the lane is pavement marking and signage, if you were to change that designation in the future we would need to change the pavement markings and signage. >> vice chair m. heinicke: okay, thank you very much. i have spoken a lot, i may have more to say. >> chair c. brinkman: let's continue on with red transit lanes. >> what was he proposing? >> chair c. brinkman: i think if i'm understanding the vice chair correctly, to approve what's in front of us but do a study to make sure we aren't being impacted. >> vice chair m. heinicke: we have some smart people and good computers but rather than study let's go ahead with the proposal, if we hear from our

operators, street supervisors and customers in live time live shuttles are obstructing tell us and we will react but if this is to punish private transit just because we can, i would rather avoid that because frankly i would rather have people in commuter shuttles and chariots than in cars on geary street. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you for that clarification, it's an important one. director rubke, do you have something to add? >> c. rubke: i think i second those comments for sure. i have a comment, it seems there's public confusion who gets to use the lanes. everybody feels surprised, like this has caught them off guard, i think this is consistent with other red lanes in the city. i want to make sure we are communicating effectively to

the stakeholders as well as what our red lanes are about i feel people say these weren't in the e.i.r. but i think in the other e.i.r. these concerns weren't as prominent as they are today. people seem very upset and feel there's been some change when i don't understand there's been a change from what you are saying. >> that feedback is well taken and i would also note there's not an extensive discussion about this in the e.i.r. but there's a discussion of this of the actual citation if you guys want it. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. director borden? >> g. borden: yeah, a couple things. one, i'm fairly ambivalent who gets to ride in the red lane and here is why. ultimately if it makes people happy i'm fine with that but ultimately if the goal is to

decrease traffic congestion, if you have busses stopping frequently whether there are hospital shuttles or shuttles from the senior buildings or whatever and they are with the main traffic, the people who have to drive, people get upset because they take away from private automobiles but if we take all the other shuttles in the regular traffic lane and only have muni, only have busses in the red lanes then people will be complaining about the traffic getting worse. i think people have to realize there's a series of trade-offs if you have, the thing that causes a lot of back ups on our streets are stops, right? busses and vehicles stopping because they are blocking some portion of the traffic lane. we have to decide if it's more important to have philosophical discussion whether or not we like private transit or rather say we want to put a stake in

the sand and deal with the increased traffic congestion and the regular private car lanes because we would rather not have these people there. i take the bus everyday, i live on mission street, everybody knows, i ride on the red lanes every single day. and i can actually say i have rarely seen, they certainly haven't been a hindrance, the bigger hindrance has been people in private autos driving in the red lanes, stopping in front of the muni b.a.r.t. station when the bus needs to pull in. i've seen the conflict. it's not a real problem that people that are identifying but i believe there are

philosophical issues. i understand people don't like private transit and the challenges we are having but ultimately if we are trying to manage traffic congestion on the streets we have to be honest what causes the blockages, that's over crowd lanes. i know people are frustrated we can't regulate the t.n.c.'s i think for that discussion, we have to just be honest about that. the other thing as a person who takes the busses in the red lanes everyday, it's a significant improvement. all the people on the busses will tell you it's a significant improvement. everyone i talk to, i know we have done some sort of customer satisfaction research and people who are on these routes are seeing improved service and every time i get on the 14, even when a 14 and 49 regular is on, they are packed.

people of all ages. we know it works and it's what our customers want. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. director hsu? >> l. hsu: thank you. i agree with [off mic] i agree with vice chair heinicke and director borden. the idea we could change it quickly if we need to is persuasive to say we could move forward with the proposal as-is. >> chair c. brinkman: director torres, anything to add? >> a. torres: on the red line, what we are proposing is to let chariot and google busses and all those other private utilize the red lane and figure out if it's a problem or not? >> yes.

>> a. torres: that's fine. >> that's informed by the fact there's one chariot out there now with spread way and no commuter stops so really that wouldn't be stopping traffic, it would just be moving traffic before a turn. i'm not sure we need to make this an amendment, i trust staff gets this but the really clear instruction at least for me personally is talk to the operators. let's almost systematize once this goes out, we are getting feedback from the operators on this line and street supervisors and customers about what's going on out there. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. one question for you, ms. bryson. my understanding is since we have come to an agreement with a jitney agreement with chariot, they can't add any

more lines on existing muni routes, correct? >> correct. >> additional routes would make any measure of significant service of geary, where we have significant public transit service very unlikely. >> chair c. brinkman: as you have been studying this, i just want to call out, i know people are mostly concerned about the corporate shuttles that go down to silicon valley and the chariots but there are a number of smaller busses and vans that use geary as well and i know it's been pointed out there are the kaiser shuttles and institute and u.c.s.f. shuttles so sounds like there are a number of other ones that people might consider those to be a public good. those are helping out people, to the rest of the director's point, to those who choose not to take a car and are taking a

multipassenger vehicle or high-occupancy vehicle instead. i think what i'm hearing from the directors now, it sounds like we are on board to approve what's in front of us, but we want to pay really careful attention to are there other busses and shuttles in these lanes that will be delaying muni. they won't be using the bus stops because they aren't allowed to stop in the muni stops. so sounds like that's our way forward on the issue of red transit lanes, if i could see a round of nods that would be helpful. >> i could speak to supervisor fewer's concerns. >> and to mr. gruber's point, from my knowledge just to complete the discussion, taxes are allowed in the red lanes currently, the feedback we are getting is expedites taxi service without any real effect on muni service because frankly just a limited number of taxis. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you for pointing that out.

we have two other big topics people have brought up. the first is the starr king stop. my bryson, just to clarify, the stop is currently at starr king. during the outreach there was the discussion to move it in front of st. mary's. but then if i remember directly from the briefing you gave me, the planners discovered that moving it in front of the cathedral was difficult because of the right turns, the bus was going to get stuck behind the right turn. i could understand and appreciate from people it does feel a little bit like they were offered this new stop and suddenly it did get taken away but let's talk about that one a little more. vice chair heinicke would you like to get us started on starr king? >> vice chair m. heinicke: sure. the few times i go to st. mary's is for my kids' school events. i don't go on there sundays.

in the course of your community feedback and the sort of, you know, support for the stop, was a lot of the basis for the support for stop people going to sunday services or was it more for everyday commuting. because i got the sense from some of the public speakers i thank so much for coming down and sharing their personal stories especially when we are dealing in a neighborhood we don't necessarily live in. i only go to that church once or twice a year, it's really helpful to hear your personal stories. the question is, was the big concern sunday services? >> i think i heard feedback in both areas. both as people who want the bus stop there to have better access to st. mary's for church but also for people who live in the area and use that stop at other points in the day. >> okay and some of the concern was from folks who have some mobility issues.

what's your phrase, chronologically gifted? >> that's what i am. >> vice chair m. heinicke: thank you for copping to it, you do it well. the question is this, to not hide the ball. if the concern is convert traffic and block bus behind right turns that seems to be less of a concern for sunday morning or all of sunday quite frankly, could we at least go halfway by having a sunday stop at the cathedral for that route? i don't know how much planning that is, i can't imagine it's tremendously difficult to tell our operators to stop there, maybe it's more difficult than i think, but that's the question i'm raising. >> i think the big down side of a system is like that, it makes the system very illegalable to riders. if you could imagine a bus shelter that exists at the new location and someone is waiting there thinking they were going to get service but they only get the service on sunday.

in general we like to plan our transit system such that where ever there's a stop it's in service at all times of day, every time you add a special exception here and there, it makes the system much less legible for users. >> vice chair m. heinicke: fair enough. i'm not sure i get the whole systematic concern. as you said i get the concern hey we will have a tuesday stop in front of the bingo parlor and so on. but in this one, i will put it out there. you don't need to put a bus shelter. it could be a simple yellow line. and we know who the people we are trying to communicate to this are, because they are all going to the same church and that message could be communicated pretty easily. so something i would put out there to address that. and turning back to the overall issue of the stop you have told us the major concern is right lane blockage there. and that street coming down is gough, is that correct?

>> correct. >> vice chair m. heinicke: was the alternative of a no-right turn on gough looked at? >> so i worked closely with my traffic engineer on this project and it didn't seem there was any feasible way to mitigate the issue of the right turn q there noted that gough is a major thoroughfare arterial into the city. >> but there's a stop light there? >> there's a stop light? >> vice chair m. heinicke: there is. >> just to articulate, the concern for bus performance with that location it is common that during the morning rush hour there's so many cars waiting to turn right there that they queue back quite some distance, such that if a bus were to arrive and serve a stop in front of st. mary's they

would get stuck in the queue having a hard time pulling over to access the stop, they would need to cross the right lanes and back over to the through lane to continue on starr king way. >> chair c. brinkman: okay, thank you, ms. bryson. any other questions, thoughts from the directors? director hsu? >> l. hsu: sounds like it was the operator feedback that was the driving force. >> it's a variety of factors. we care about the opinion of operators and they know the line from a lived experience perspective in a way none of us could possibly understand. we did also hear feedback with some of the speakers today who visit the unitarian church and some of the other destinations east of gough that would be experiencing a longer walk to their destinations if we were to move the stop.

so that stakeholder feedback and operator feedback and eastbound right turn queue were some of the bigger reasons, there's a bunch of pro's and con's between the two locations. we actually sent one of our interns to do data collection on a sunday when the churches were in session and we actually counted how many were walking east versus west, and it was 64% were walking east, meaning -- >> yes, director borden? >> g. borden: i think that's a slippery slope when you start, especially designating. i sympathize with people who want that, i used to live at ellis and gough. i'm familiar with the intersection. i took the 38 everyday downtown to work.

i think, you know, the current location is where it needs to stay. you see the traffic turning, especially in the morning, rush hour down gough and i could see that being a huge traffic bottleneck and it would really disrupt, i think, the whole system in a way we are trying to avoid. i also think there's issues with separation between church and state deciding to give a specific church a bus stop at a particular time. so i think we may have to be very careful about that, everyone would love to have, there's lots of businesses that would love to say put a bus stop in front of my place on saturday for brunch, if they could. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. this is a tough one. it would be lovely, as the directors point out to give everyone a bus stop when they need it but we have to look at the overall efficiency of the system. what i'm hearing, director rubke? >> c. rubke: i have several questions. not to belabor this.

>> chair c. brinkman: no, go ahead. >> c. rubke: i did see comments from the public and thank you to those who came out to talk about this, concerns about accessibility from the slope and just getting up and down that hill. my understanding the proposal to keep starr king is a.d.a. accessible as well as appropriate grade level, right? >> that's correct. there are two main factors to the code compliance. one has to do with the slope. if the bus stop is at the same slope as the street that's considered compliant, and secondly has to do with how much horizontal clearance there is, so in general the sidewalk is 10-feet wide at the point of the shelter, it narrows to just over four feet and minimum clearance is four feet so we are compliant on both those factors. though certainly, we recognize,

this isn't an ideal stop from an accessibility perspective, one impetus is looking at the other location. >> c. rubke: as far as those folks coming from, i think closer to st. mary's crossing gough, will this project do anything as far as making that crossing safer to get down to that bus stop? >> there's a couple things. one is that we have in our plan to construct two pedestrian bulb outs in the southeast and southwest corners so that would decrease the distance across the street when making that crossing. in addition we would actually be removing one of the right turn lanes, so going down to a single right turn which is much better for pedestrian safety if you are only needing to navigate across one lane of traffic, instead of two. >> c. rubke: i think you addressed this with director

heinicke's questions, if the bus stop in front of st. mary's were to be a local, would that be feasible, or address concerns about not having a stop there? >> i think there's two types of concerns with that. one is some of the reasons why we rejected the new location were related to the issue with the eastbound right turn queue and that would still be a problem if we had the stop in that location. in addition, i actually have the distances here. r in general we should place stops, distance would be about 770 feet and distance from st.

mary's to starr king would be 360 feet n. general the busses would be stopping very close together, which would contribute to slower travel speeds and more delay for the busses. it's hard because you want to give access to everyone but the more places you provide access the slower the bus gets and that prevents trade off. we space the local stops and busses more frequently but we still have standards we follow that seem to be the best ways to balance the competing interests that exist. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. director rubke. it sounds like the board's pleasure is we go with the staff's recommendation. >> a. torres: except for me. >> chair c. brinkman: except director torres. you are a no on that. i would like to move on the spruce street rapid stop. we do not legislate whether a stop is a rapid or local so

that's not actually something that is in our calendar item but is something in the plan that staff will be doing. so what i would like to do is get directors input so we can give staff some input and direction on this one. vice chair heinicke, would you like to start off? >> vice chair m. heinicke: price of leadership. or sitting next to cheryl. so i know we saw this in the presentation, i just want to make sure i got it. can you walk us through the distance differential, if you are going both ways on the corridor, how much further and what is the topography of the blocks that are affected? >> yes, if spruce rapid were eliminated, the next closest rapid stops are masonic and aguello and it's about 3400

feet and you would be adding somewhere around 1700 feet addition for people. i actually went out friday and walked from masonic to spruce and from spruce to aguello, it took me about six minute, and nine minutes. i am able-bodied but not the fastest walker. >> vice chair m. heinicke: the approval of transit savings because of this trip stop elimination are? >> about 40 seconds. >> vice chair m. heinicke: times how many people on those busses? >> about that point 9,200 daily riders passing through. if you do the math end up with more savings for more people, it's a little bit more a lot of

people as opposed to more for fewer people who have a longer walk or slower ride. >> vice chair m. heinicke: it leads to some difficulties for some of our riders and the unfortunate outcome of having people have to reorder their lives. they have come to their neighborhood and routines, that's not a good thing to do to our neighborhoods but the only way is to make them go more quickly and for the people taking these busses they want it more quickly. i will vote for this overall project and favor the spruce street stop elimination because when you look at a map of san francisco, the relative under service of rapid transit in our neighborhood is a train and some are already red carpeted busses, the lack of that

service to the outer richmond is stark and it's about time we do something about it. this project is a good project and stop eliminations, while difficult for some increase the overall reliability of the system so i favor this stop elimination. >> chair c. brinkman: it's removing the rapid stop and keeping the local stop. directors? the stop itself will stay, my understanding it's really a transit staff decision where a rapid or local -- >> we don't actually legislate that but it's a topic of input so we welcome input from the directors on it. >> so mr. chan won't be able to get his express there. >> i didn't hear. >> mr. chan won't get his express. >> the express service will remain.

>> i want to clarify we will take the input. >> as long as the local stop remains and if you were trying to catch rapid it's a fairly far distance to travel, but granted not everyone does what i do, but i take the rapid bus to 16th street and change the flow of the 49, when i come to city hall, i'm not suggesting everybody wants to jump back and forth but at least, as long as we have stop, i'm supportive of manufacturing in that vein, but i think we should definitely, if it starts to impact people negatively we should look at that. >> chair c. brinkman: director

rubke. >> c. rubke: this is tough, when so much of the community is in favor, it's hard for me to be supportive, i will vote in favor but my feedback would be to do whatever we can moving forward to work with whomever we need to work with to make a rapid stop there possible. i know it's really tough and i know you have done so much work on this project as far as trying to negotiate everything you have, but i would love to see a rapid stop remain there, i'm supportive and want to see it move forward, i will vote in favor but i would like to see something happen in the future to retain that stop for rapid service. >> chair c. brinkman: director hsu? >> l. hsu: that's how i feel too, it seems it would be easier to bring it back, but we heard from a lot of people that seemed concern about keeping the rapid. it would be easier to bring

back rapid stop. >> chair c. brinkman: could you clarify that, ms. bryson. my understanding if it's a rapid stop we would need a bulb spot and we would need to remove a few parking spots. >> that's correct. the current length of the bus zone is below our standards. it's 120 feet long and standard is 180 feet. even if we weren't doing bulbs if we were trying to provide enough space for frequency of busses that would require involving at least three more parking spaces on the bus.

>> if i may, madam chair, just to offer one more point. i know the public feedback from the survey as well as the public comment today for those who address spruce was unanimous against the recommendation to remove the rapid service. what i would offer is that with the implementation of this project it's not just the rapid service that should be significantly better but the local service as well and part of what people may be reflecting at the moment is degradation. if it's consolation, should the board move forward to approve removal of rapid, the service all along the corridor including that which serves the spruce street stop should be significantly better than it is

today. >> chair c. brinkman: that brings up another good point. what would be the time line for the rapid stop removal? >> our current plan is to do near-term implementation this fall, so that would include the bus stop changes and the bus only lanes and some of the safety improvements. so relatively quickly. >> chair c. brinkman: okay, relatively quickly for that one. you make a good point director reiskin, people are speaking out given the frustration they have been experiencing in the last month or so given gaps in service and the local will be coming at its normal regular happy self. directors, any more questions on that one. it would be great to keep that rapid stop if we could work out the bus bulb out but to have a rapid stop that has to behave

like a local and pull into the curb and maybe have a hard time getting in and out seems to be a big hit for overall rapid service on the corridor. okay, directors, those were the three items i identified from our public comments as being the things we wanted to cover. does anybody have any more concerns, any questions? yes, director rubke? >> c. rubke: i think a couple speakers brought up the hyde location. can you address that? >> yeah, so the hyde street location proposed to remove stops, the next stop is a block away in either direction. so in general, we didn't receive a lot of feedback about these stop changes and we did consult with some of the major stakeholder organizations that understood and supported even though no one likes losing

their stop that overall the service would improve if it was stopping every block, as opposed to every other block. >> chair c. brinkman: directors, any more questions, concerns? do i hear a motion to approve? second? all in favor aye? owe poed? -- opposed. this is approved. >> vice chair m. heinicke: and director torres's opposition was noted. >> chair c. brinkman: ms. bryson, thank you so much for all the work on this. it's always music to our ears to have members of the public call outaouais reach and to the members of the public who came down, i'm sorry we can't give everybody everything they want but we appreciate everybody coming down because it does give us a more complete picture of what we are looking at. ms. bryson, you know that route backwards and forwards and upside down so thank you.

now i think we will take a break. a bio >> chair c. brinkman: who do we have on this one for alemany? >> my name is ellen for the alemany boulevard project. we have a presentation.

some background on this project. it's a selection of improvements that came out of the alemany interchange improvement study which was recommended for the neighborhood transportation improvement program but then supervisor campos. that was finalized last year. that process was lead by the t.a.

the goals of this project, the alemany interchange bike lanes project are to improve safety for people walking, biking and driving through the alemany boulevard, also known as the almeny maze to provide better connections for people biking, giving them better access to the alemany farmers' market. and that the improvements should be low-cost and possible to be installed by city crews. based on these goals, the improvements this project includes are several newer upgraded bike facilities. mainly protected bike lanes on

alemany boulevard in both directions, which will connect to existing protected bike lanes on alemany west of the project and buffered on bay shore boulevard east of the project. the project also includes a southbound bike lane on a segment of san bruno boulevard connecting from alemany boulevard, sorry, san bruno avenue, an existing bike route and short southbound left turn bike lane to access alemany boulevard from the farmers' market. one other element of the project in brown on this map is a short off-street bike path it would go across a grassy median to help cyclists detour around busy complex intersection

approach. and minimize conflicts that way. it also generally includes high visibility crosswalk markings in the area and new edge lines around the travel lanes and at corners to help clarify traffic movements for people driving through and to calm traffic. as the neighborhood transportation improvement program project, robust outreach -- robust community involvement was part of the planning phase. the project team presented or held workshops at eight community meetings and also held interactive tabling events at the alemany farmers' market on two different saturdays. the southbound san bruno bike

lane was a later addition to the project and sfmta when we were considering adding that to the project sent staff door-to-door to talk to neighbors and businesses. and also mailed out in flyers to community groups and stakeholders. and ahead of this hearing, the project team emailed stakeholders with flyers in english and chinese. the vast majority of the feedback we have gotten on the project is positive. here is a cross section of alemany boulevard existing and proposed. it may be hard to see right now. basically, we are just converting the curb lane in each direction into a bike lane

with a buffer that would have safe-hit posts with it in the corridor to separate bicyclists from traffic. at the most complex part of the project is the alemany boulevard, bayshore boulevard project where i mentioned we will add this path. d.p.w. crews will construct that. and it just goes directly from the protected bike lane on eastbound, northbound alemany to the southwest crosswalk at the intersection, so cyclists can use that crosswalk and then access. there's two green boxes to navigate that intersection which has bike lanes on most of the legs.

this is the cross sections for san bruno avenue. this change is pretty simple. the existing southbound lane on san bruno intersection is extremely wide and we can just narrow that down it a minimum of ten feet and add a bike lane with a buffer and it doesn't change any parking on that street. so for drivers, the changes they would notice are the lane reduction on alemany boulevard from three lanes in each direction, to two. the project does include adjustments to the traffic signal timing along alemany boulevard to minimize traffic delay from that change. and two right-turn on reds would be prohibited at the

alemany boulevard and bayshore boulevard intersection, we saw a second ago, to accommodate those two left-turn bike paths where cyclists would be waiting in front of the right turn lanes. as i mentioned, on san bruno avenue, just one of the lanes would get narrower, the muni bus route 8 operates northbound only on that stretch and its operations would not be affected and as i mentioned there's no parking changes with this whole project. [please stand by...] [please stand by...]

>> that are being put in our streets. super helpful. the one concern i'm hearing is cars and the mixing zones.

cars not recognizing that shark's teeth pointed towards them and i'm not sure there's shark teeth here. just a general question we think about what we can do to slow cars down where there are one of those points where the cars and the person on the bike, the car driver and the person on the bike will cross paths or need to switch over on the side of the street. >> yes. i believe we've made a serious effort to do that. we can definitely keep that in mind. >> thank you. thank you very much. it looks like good presentation, i'm very happy with this project. i know people will look at it and say, why does it take so long. you did a good job of going through all of the various steps that took us from winter of 2015-2016 to here. directours, if i have no more questions. do i have a motion to approve. do i have a second. >> is andy gonzales still here. who is trying to rush the

meeting? me. i'm sorry. >> good afternoon, almost evening. thank you for the time to hear everyone. my name is andy gonzales, i'm the community organizer at the san francisco bicycle coalition. i'm here today in strong support of the the many interchange bike lines projects that we just heard about. it's a complicated maze of streets, and the hair ball where surface streets with fast-moving highways overhead. because of this, we're start of the san francisco high injury network. safety permits are paramount in order to ensure those walking and biking in the surrounding neighborhoods can do it safely. they house one of the best farmers market in the city. so those who are coming and walking or cycling, to the

farmers' market from the surrounding neighborhoods, like i mentioned, experience a barrier that transverses through navigating through the maze of high speed streets and freeway ramps. this project, if approved, will provide a safer path to those cycling and walking to the farmers' market, like i mentioned. the project has high visibility of crosswalks to ensure pedestrians going to farmer's markets can do a navigated maze. we must prioritize those walking and biking and ensure they can cross the streets without any injuries. this project will facilitate that for them. now is the time to put people first and we look forward to seeing the projects being approved by all of you. again, thank you for your time and hopefully you approve this project. >> thank you, very much. much appreciated. anymore public comments? seeing none. public comment is closed. do i have a motion to approve. >> and a second. all in favor.

aye. >> any opposed. hearing none. this is approved. thank you very much. >> making environmental findings and awarding contract transit priority project to realign a portion of the 22 fill more route in the amount of 36,609,400.50. and for a term of 365 days. >> all right. good evening. everybody. paul hennessey. project manager for the fill more project. the data before you is the authorization. i'm glad you said that and i'm going to make two points. it's 5:00 and we're about to review him. [laughter] ok. i can stop right here. [laughter] it's quick. if you are the construction project and the segment of the project is, if you can go to the overhead, is 16th street from

kansas up towards the street. upon approval, we would estimate to issue notice to proceed september of this year we completion september of next year. this project was previously bid and legislated by this board. >> thank you. >> and i ask this question already but i'll ask is it in public now. we did make sure to take the extra steps when we reviewed the award's calocea records. >> we did. >> ok, excellent. >> good evening. good afternoon. to the board members and the directors and i want to address that question. >> give them your name, please. >> i'm the director of cpnc. we did take a extra step to review the safety performance off the contractor that we recommend to award. we look at two different things. the first one is the safety rating. it's based on the experience

modification rating that the industry is using. it's 1.0 as industrial standard and the contractor performance is at 0.77. so they passed the safety rating. and the second evaluation is we review the safety record and they have a clean safety record and they don't have serious, willful or repeated violations. we had took extra steps to evaluate that. >> thank you, very much for confirming that. all right. any other questions? anyone? public comments? >> no one has turned in a speaker card. do i have a motion to approve. >> to approve. >> all in favor, aye. >> hearing none. approved. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> on 14, making environmental review findings and consenting to the project development. no one from the public has indicated an interest in addressing on this matter.

>> good afternoon. in the interest of time, i'll introduce myself while i get this set up. if i can. great. good afternoon, carlie pain, manager of the land use development for sfmta. i'm happy to bring the india basin development project for your review and approval of transportation-related components. in the basin of the 17th acre mixed use project proposed for 700innis avenue, the project sponsor build is here with me represented by courtney pash and the project manager from our economic workforce development who coordinates all the city negotiations is here with me. i am going to -- this is a development agreement project. it's a negotiated agreement.

i am going to go over the context of the transportation negotiations. courtney will come up and give you a brief overview of the project itself. anne will summarize the array of community benefits that are part of this project and i'll come back and talk about the transportation components that are before you for action. >> thank you. i know that all directors have read all of the background. >> i have the same confidence. >> last summer i came ex gave a overview to you all of the southern bayfront strategy. it's a coordinated negotiation framework taking advantage of the numerous, very large-scale development projects that are happening on the southern portion of the san francisco's bayfront. it's really recognizing the opportunity to leverage these very large scale developments and get greater community benefits than if we looked at them in one off.

so this is the third of the projects that i have brought to you, proceeded by mission rock and pier 70. so for transportation we look at four things, site design. walking and biking taking transit through the surrounding neighborhoods. a robust transportation management program that is focused on meeting performance standards so that site users are supported in making sustainable trip choices, identifying and mitigating any impacts on the transportation system from the site and then investing the transportation impact fees in a way that really supports the needs of the transportation system. so, i'm going to turn it over to courtney to give an overview of the projects. she'll be followed by anne and i'll come back in a couple of minutes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm courtney your project manager. we're local san francisco developer.

we acquired the property at the end of 2013. it's vacant sites with one paved cul-de-sac and three unapproved, unaccepted streets. we worked with city staff and held 150 community stake holder meetings, workshops and working groups to develop the plan before you today. we will reconfigure the street grid and buildup to 1575 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 1800 parking spaces and three subterranean garages built into the hillside. over 15 acres of publicly-accessible open space. the density will be concentrated along innis avenue with height decreasing as one travels towards the bay. now i'm going to turn it over to anne to talk through the points of the agreement. >> good afternoon. project manager with oewd.

i'd like to start just by taking a minute to acknowledge the m.t.a. staff who worked to get this project prepared for your consideration today. particularly carlie pain, james, dustin white, mike, daniel and frank marco wits. these staff members worked collaboratively with planning rec park, p.u.c., our office and port staff to identify project designs that may have conflicted with existing standards to produce a stronger documents in front of you today. as carlie mentioned, this is a project the city identified in the southern bayfront strategy. it was presented to the board last year. we used that framework to guide the public benefits negotiations. each project is negotiated to respond to the community's needs to leverage other investments and to provide greater collective value to the residents and neighborhoods. carlie covered the trance component of this agreement so i will go over the community benefits starting with housing. the affordable housing plan has

been designed to facilitate development of 25% of all market rate residential units built within the project site. below market rate, inclusion inary and in lieu fee units. the mayor's office of housing is committed to applying fees generated to the project site within district 10 and could use these dollars for acquisition rehab, small and large sites. all of the affordable units are subject to the 40% local preference program to encourage community stability. turning to open space, the developer proposes a mixed-use development on the project site. it will include 14 acres of publicly accessible parks, plaza, bike trails and pedestrian pathways. 12 of those acres will be com prized of improvements to the rec park owned waterfront open space as well as five acres of private land that will be developed into what is identified as the big green. this new five-acre park will be dedicated at no cost to be part