resolutions, ok, when mr. kazinski spoke about the enforcement piece, what happened at the tents was at one point they were giving out misdemeanorses when people had a tent. sometimes two in a day. we need to be honest and look at the real picture of what is going on. so it's not just a facade that we're seeing. when we resolve an area, resolve for who? thank you. >> thank you ms. cutler and all your work on this issue. do i see another member of the public? >> hello, david wu. i'm speak as a individual. i was born and raised in san francisco and i still live where i grew up. there's no permanent solution to homelessness in san francisco. without a pathway to get people into permanent housing, it

really is a chicken in a egg kind of thing. you will just continue to go down the path of criminalization, which is something that sounds like you do not want to do. so keeping that in mind and being aware while the criminalization aspect has funding and resources, the permanent path out of homelessness does not so how do we resolve those issues without further criminalization? thank you. >> thank you mr. wu. anymore members of the public. seeing none, public comment is closed and i'd like to ask supervisor kim if she would like to address this now. >> good afternoon, board of directors. thank you so much for letting me interrupt this very important policy discussion. i wanted to speak on the next item that is before the board today and this is on the townshend street improvement project. first of all, i do want to thank this board, in july, for working

with our office to fast track this project. working with our bike coalition, and our community and also again to thank you for your support of sixth street and howard as well as taylor street. i don't need to repeat all that i've said before. i do represent a district with the vast majority of our high-entry corridors that's why vision zero has been such an important initiative for our city. we want to achieve zero fatalities in san francisco. improving the streets in district 6 will get us there. i want to also recognize many of the advocates that have been working to keep townshend street in the hopper and on the burner and here today. townshend has one of the richest mixes of travel roads of any streets in san francisco. thousands of people an hour access this regional transportation hub by bike, foot, shuttle bus, tnc, taxi, personal vehicle or by one of the eight muni bus routes on

townshend street. it's home to the highest use bike share station west of the mississippi. more than 3,000 people walked through fourth and townshend intersection one hour in the morning and in the evening rush hour. for any of you that have spent time on this intersection, it really is one of the worst intersections in terms of allowing pedestrians and psyche lists and personal vehicles, shuttle buses and muni to share this very narrow street given all of the track that is on here. it's a critical link and in moving this project forward, we're really going to both save lives and also prevent a lot of injuries that have long-term impacts. within this project area, just in the last five years, there were 43 bike collisions. and so this is the type of impacts that we want to have on this corridor. again, i understood the initial hesitation. this is a corridor that will be changing hopefully with downtown

extension, in my lifetime and many other improvements. just given the high usage of this area, even an improvement for the next five years is going to be a huge win for our city. so thank you again. i want to recognize the staff at sfmta and public works, jamie, cameron beck, and at public works shannon karen's mat, mike kelly and of course the san francisco bike coalition, brian, janice and charles, that have just been working tirelessly on this initiative along with their members. i want to end on two separate notes, not related to townshend street because i don't get to come to the sfm board of directors but earlier, you received public comment about the red lanes in district 6. i want to strongly support our community stakeholders who have asked that red lanes be limited to muni and taxicabs exclusively.

this is important particularly in district 6 where we have a lot of vehicles and a lot of usage. they should be for our public vehicles. finally, as some of you may have heard, i did introduce an amendment a couple weeks ago to eliminate the minimum parking requirement in san francisco. if it passes, we will be the first major american city to do this. the first major city in north america i guess that includes canada. we would love to get the support of the board of directors. there's definitely some hesitation on the board of supervisors and while there won't be an immediate impact, we know in the long-term, this is exactly the direction that a transit-first city should head. developers can build parking but we should not be requiring them to build that parking. i want to thank the staff members that came to public comment. we rarely get so many planners at public comment at land use. it was continued at land use because my colleagues would like

more conversation and dialogue and feedback and so i think this board is an important one to hear from. so thank you again for all of your work and happy election day. >> thank you, very much supervisor kim. thank you for all work you've done for this city. >> supervisor, i for one want to thank you for your service and leadership over the years to the great city and county of san francisco. i lament the fact that term limits does away with people like you. [laughter] you should remain in office because you always have an incredible array of ideas and visions and controversial at times and yet you suffered through that with your courage and your leadership. and you will be missed. >> thank you, director torres. it's been my pleasure and honor to serve our city. i will continue to do so in a different capacity. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. all right. directors, let's get back to our oversized vehicle policy. i'd like to hear some thoughts.

who would like to start us off? >> vice-chair. >> i have four points. i don't think you will need to interrupt me or answer questions but please be there so you can hear it clearly. first of all, number one, there is a suggestion at the beginning of the presentation that maybe this board isn't eager to hear these requests when they need to be heard. as i have said before, at least personally, this is a part of our job. we administer the parking restrictions. when our constituents and our fellow citizens and our supervisors come to us and say they want us to consider a proposal we should consider the proposal. we now are improving the framework through which we will consider those proposals, compliments to you. i want to be clear that at least from my perspective, if there's a supervisor or a neighborhood

group or another group that feels a restriction is needed, and you agree with that and want to bring it to this board or maybe even think it's controversial and want to bring it to this board, please do so. that is our job. number two, i want to compliment a few directors with whom i had a rather spirited disagreement last time around. and i'm happy to see the dewolf proposal going forward. as you all know i said i think it's very unfair and frankly outrageous that we were holding the wolf street hostage to get a better over all city program. i still feel that but i want to say to the directors board and brinkman personally, your standing up to this issue has brought around a better solution. so, you and the others who joined you took a stand and now we have mr. kasinski and others here to make a better proposal. i would like it would have

happened had you not did what you did, but i'm not sure and i'm certainly grateful for what you did. as mr. wiener, said, this is a human problem and i think the solution we have now is now treating it with a lot more humanity when it was an up or down vote premised on neighborhood rights versus the city solving the problem. we're all working together now. my third point, if you want to put into your guidelines schools and parks and places where children are in sight lines and stuff are important, i am ok with that. i don't think that should really be dis positive. i think this is going to be a case-by-case analysis of the needs of our fellow citizens, the risks posed by whoever is parking there and our ability to help those people as well. so, you know, some guidelines are ok but what i'm really thinking, what i'm really enjoying more about this proposal is it's a more

comprehensive humane way to deal with this and that's the most important part rather than continuing to bulk an eyes the city where schools or parks or certain neighborhood as director torres alluded to, get more protection than others. let's treat everybody in the city the same and take these issues one by one. finally, i will say i will support this because i'm very pleased with the fact that we're now focused on how we do this not whether we do this. we ned to address this problem and instead of fighting back and fourth and just sort of going to a stalemate, we're now doing it the best way we can. i'm appreciative to you and particularly my fellow directors for that and i will support your proposal today. >> thank you, vice-chair. i looked up dispositive, relating to or bringing about the settlement of positive and i learned a new word. thank you vice-chair. yes.

director. >> i have one question and some comments. i don't see it here but are commercial vehicles treated differently? >> they are. we do have infractions in the transportation code. there's been a fair amount of discussion about that coming out of supervisor ronen's office. you cannot, under transportation code, park a over weight commercial vehicle on residential streets for more than a few hours. and it's based on the gross vehicle weight and it's 10,000 pounds. that restriction, if you go to any based on the zoning map, any r or p public, the reservoir. if there was a large vehicle that was a moving truck, you can't park there without even posting a sign. it would be liable to infraction.

the 10,000-pound gross vehicle weight, the dimension is big. it maps close to the 7x22. in neighborhoods and directors if you know any and please let us know, that there is a large vehicle, a moving truck parked in the sunset district. that's just wrong right out of the box. commercial vehicles though are a continuum and you may have neighbors who have -- i have a neighborhood who has an interior decodecor eight or license. we have to think about scoping commercial vehicles. also, i've been hearing a lot from folks about advertising vehicles. it's already illegal under the transportation code to park a vehicle that's first purpose is advertising. those bloody billboard things that drive around and park, those are illegal out of the box. signs on top of taxicabs maybe not. there's a little conversation about the commercial use of

vehicles. if i can just volunteer, seven years ago in this particular infraction was developed with the board of supervisors, there was a gap in having a tool that would get at large vehicles dimensionally in the sunset in particular. there are a lot of industrial vehicles that get parked along lincoln way in the edge of the park. no one is living in them and we didn't have a good tool to say no, that's inappropriate. the over sized vehicle restriction, as it's cast, is strictly dimensional and it doesn't say what type of vehicles, it doesn't say if it's blue or green, it doesn't say if someone is living in it or not, it just says here is a need, we should restrict things that are this large without any characteristics. >> i guess in your -- how often have those kinds of vehicles been part of the challenge that people are identifying in the neighborhoods? it is 50% of the problem, 75% of

the problem? is it part of the problem? >> before we did a fair amount of policy analysis research going out and looking back in 2011 and driving around looking at areas with large vehicles parked. we found about half of them were vehicles that probably didn't have someone living in them. following the postings we looked at citations and there was a general half and half split that the police who are doing the siding, because it's the middle of the night, about half of those were vehicles that probably weren't inhabited. it was a paving truck that was parked at someone's street or something like that understandably, we go to the human dimension and we should. but this tool is one that is not meant to only treat cases with folks living in them and what

we've seen from experiences, there's plenty of places where there's a large special truck that shouldn't be parked there. >> i guess for me it brings up another element of a problem and so far as people, we have less and less industrial space here in the city. there are people who work blue collar jobs who might have a large contractor vehicle who don't have a place to park them. i think, you know, one of the things we need to -- we've been talking about this idea of parking storage as it pertains to people living in their homes. we might want to also look at parking storage for people who have commercial-type vehicles that they're a contractor or maybe interior designer, whatever, but they don't have a place to park their vehicle because they don't have a garage space at their work or whatever. or they drive their -- they have one dump truck and that's actually their whole business. i mean, i'm not expecting or saying this has to deal with

that right now. part of the analysis we're talking about when you go out and you meant to reach out to key stakeholders here in your process, i think i would love for us to be tracking this issue. this is another issue, a socioeconomic-related issues where people that have those types of vehicles don't have the capacity to pay to store them on a daily basis and this might be their livelihood. i want to track this as a important issue. i live where there are ton of contractor trucks. a very kind of sensitive to this issue because, as a lot of our blue collar workers in positions where they don't have to place their vehicles. i know we're not going to address that today but i would say that is one of the issues i want us to be tracking as part of the policy that we're looking at here and then looking at whether or not we're seeing a pattern to come up with solutions specific to that. going to the other issues that

we talked about, i kind of wish that this policy talked about prior to, you said reach out to agencies and it's more vague. he talked about interventions and i would feel more comfortable if something was one of the interventions, i mean he listed like five there were -- they were offered to people who were provided -- not offered. provided to people who were in the situation of homelessness or living in their vehicles. i feel like without having that as a part of it, we're still not going to solve that portion of the solution. i do like the idea, i know that director didn't like six or more. it speaks a lot to over saturation. they do the block.

sometimes people just want one neighbor's vehicle gone because they hate their neighbor whatever. and they might have a very large vehicle or a couple large vehicles. versus a problem where there are multiple vehicles. i think that it doesn't have to be the threshold is met but there should be a threshold that is part of the consideration. there were at least five vehicles or six vehicles. it's part of this consideration. it doesn't have to be the threshold which you bring it to us but it would make more sense in terms of looking at that. then you get away from the targeting of a couple people situation. in terms of the guidelines, i do also have a problem with the school playyards. when i was on the planning commission we had a issue with the medical marijuana dispensary issue and we've put in nothing

near community and schools and pretty much that exempted most of san francisco. we meant that the brunt of areas that had to accommodate and deal with dispensaries was smaller. anything that limits when you talk about schools and community facilities gets really broad and i think it goes too far and starts to impact the ability to have a meaningful consideration point because almost every neighborhood will have a play yard or something that probably would be qualifying. those are not inactive. i would actually change that in this policy. so yeah, my fundamental things are one i wish that i want to see us, i would feel more comfortable if we had more stated language here specifically as it pertains to people who are experiencing homelessness in like what exactly we're going to -- not

that what we're going to do but how we're going to work with the department on that aspect. i do want to make sure that this analysis that we're talking about happens before we hear those. i'm actually even though we were obviously moving the ball forward with the dewolf, the truth is that it still hasn't happened even though we're scheduled to vote on that today. i personally don't think that's a core part of the policy that that has to happen prior to this. looking at some sort of numeric threshold and looking at the idea around commercial vehicles and whether or not we need to in the future look for solutions there. >> i might have a couple of quick responses to that. the threshold of vehicles makes perfect sense and certainly we've had many cases where there's a guy with a bus on the street. he put up signs. this agency, that's not a good use of our resources, even apart from equity and consistent policy. the notion of here is a location

that's bone to large vehicles collecting here, not to be heart less about it but this is a good spot to park. that sort of what we're looking for. it's the characteristic of the street rather than here is a individual that is making the neighbors angry. lead time on bring relev and remedy to regulation. we think agree that no matter about what we do for relief, even if we establish lots of safe parking, and it's successful, we have to regulate the streets. with dewolf we'll see this, that if we stay here is a wonderful place, let's all go over here, five or six vehicles move and then the next day it's likely to start collecting because it's a known good place to park. our challenge is because we're san francisco and we do let folks know what is going on and have a process, our lead time on posting regulations is a few months. as we work with jeff's team and other folks, we're having to

look ahead and say all right, here is a street we need to work on, give andy a head start. i will begin to get regulations posted there so that we can come along and do three or four weeks of outreach and connection and it's a tricky balance. again to recognize that we can't just go out and post lines. the neighbors wouldn't like that. that's not how we do business in san francisco. if we say yes, we are going to begin working on regulating so let's get that rolling and follow it with the outreach and connection we have to find the right balance. the two time lines are hard to wreck. >> it would be helpful to see when staff brings us these restrictions, part of the staff's report explains like how sfmta and the department of

homelessness works with the populations effected. that would be, for me, really helpful to make an informed decision. i like that language included in the policy document. >> ok. >> all right. i think that is a good idea. do we need to add that language or can we consider that as the spirit of the policy or does someone have language that they would like to propose. >> might i recommend we take this direction. it's clear enough and we bring this back to the board for you not to approve necessarily but to take and. >> sarah: yes that'say yes, tha. we can chair it back to you. this is meant to be policy that staff says here is our understanding of how to proceed. board, do you support this. in that collaborative sharing back here, and we can work for

mr. ruskin to say no it's not still not right. we can get it and you can tell fuss we got it. is that amenable to the board? >> is that amenable to the board? >> absolutely. >> i'm looking at your flow chart here, which is like the order of how this is all going to work. so we have the request coming in and they work on standard regulations and you decide whether to pursue it or not and later on in the process is the site visit to collect the data from the vert. i don't know, it seems like somewhere this that flow chart or maybe earlier in the process are the interventions that they were just discussing as an alternative to initiating legislation around a restriction. >> that makes perfect sense. i don't want to mislead you, that is happening to some extent and it will get more and more' e effective and efficient. we might be at a point where we

want to send this forward with an amendment that is talking about -- >> a concentration of vehicles. i think a concentration makes it. >> if i may, as much as i can hear mr. thornily eager to secure approval with the direction to amend, it sounds like there's inc enough here the board is seeking changes in this document that we should change it and bring it back. there were a few things, or one at least, that would be helpful to get direction from the board. it's concentration issue. the rest i think that there is enough thoughts from the board that i think merit redoing the document. there's also a question of whether the board wants to adopt it as policy or just us bring it back as an informational item.

we can do that either way. this maybe too many moving parts for us to ask you to approve it now given the good discussion and feedback we've gotten from you. >> let me introduce two more. [laughter] one comment and one question. as i look at these guidelines in addition toll school yard and the parks, residential streets with limited on street parking, does not describe most of san francisco in my view? i'm not sure of any neighborhoods that have an abundance of an street parking. the phrase about blight as we know the history of city planning, the phrase of blight is a troubled and laidant vague. i thought that could be revisited. the second piece, up in the

staff report ahead of the proposal, was the alternative considered. one of the alternatives considered was coordinating with homeless services department on a parking permit program for over sized vehicles. i think it's actually an interesting idea when we have parking challenges over abundance of parking demand, we've used parking programs successfully to manage that demand. so could you just speak a little bit on the staff report quickly says these were not persuade because they were not successful in other cities but could you just speak about why the item of a permit parking program for over sized vehicles was not persuadepursued? >> he understand the los angeles was experiment and we heard from other cities. so the notion here would be that someone like melody and i don't want to single her out but i've gotten to know melody pretty well and here is a case that this agency doesn't want to injury melody. and the extent that someone like

melody is living in harmony and peace with the community and is not interesting toxic toxins and so fourth. could we find, melody, you keep doing that. and that stands on its face. you tease at that a little bit. if that's what we mean, that this rv and its ok pant are ok, judging that could be fairly complex. if you could develop protocol for that and be the permitter that might work. i think it would be perilous for the mtv to evaluate whether someone was ok and develop that protocol. the other challenge of it is the googeometry or the spacial. there are streets in place where someone who was operating in a harmonious way let's say, couldn't you just let that

street be where someone lives. that, again, maybe so and i have suggested that to some supervisors and i think district 11 has been looking at that question. is there some street? are there streets some place where someone that we have qualified through some sort of a process could be here and park and live unmolested. we did not pursue that much farther because it was quite complex. it's not that it's an unworthy idea, but just as a mid level clerk untrained planner, i find whoa, this is really not only complex but takes you to a place of literally evaluating people and we need to be careful. this agency has a resident permit parking program for instance, that's a precedent. the qualification for a permit is very clear and even at that there are arguments among people where i should get a permit and

four permits and that. that simple permit program is already really challenging to figure out how to administer equity. >> that cuts to it. i want us to get to a point on this policy where we can go ex ahead and take a vote on this. it sounds like, although i appreciate the after to take it and work on it again, i think that what i am feeling from this board is we are close. we can get this to a point where we can take a vote on this. from what i am hearing, what language or amendments director -- >> i'm not prepared to vote on this. i think the directors' suggestion was appropriate. >> ok. well let's see again if we can get an amendment and ge get it p to a point where we can vote on it. am i hearing from other directors, do people want to try and take a vote on this or send it back?

>> i wasn't going to vote for it today because of the lack of changes. if you want to move forward i'm not going to vote for it as it is. >> it sounds like we do need to send this back to have a little more work and get it to be amended. mr. thornily, do you feel you've heard enough from us to get a sense of what it is we're looking for to round this policy out and bring it back again? >> i believe i do. my colleagues in the bleachers are paying attention. >> i will say since it was maybe the one sort of point where maybe there was disagreement, what director borden said at the end that one of the considerations is the concentration of vehicles, that's fine. it's a great way to deal with it. obviously greater concentration needs greenser need. there are other factors and i think the way that she proposed it is i would be happy with

that. >> excellent, thank you. >> understood. >> thank you all for a very robust discussion and thank you members of the public. and now i believe -- >> we're going to go back to item 10.2a. >> i'm sorry, on item 11, do we need a motion to continue? no? >> i don't think so. >> we'll just bring it back when we think we have something that is ready. >> i suppose that raises the question of -- you know, i know my next bus system is going to take a while but i assume this isn't going to take very long. >> no. >> not at all. i think we can bring this back to you as quickly as the process supports. i think you meet again first tuesday in december. that may be too soon in terms of the wheels. we'll bring it back to you at the soonest mechanical opportunity. >> thank you. >> i would ask you check in, the director said that we're two weeks away and i don't know if

he meant to say two weeks away from some announcements around other interventions so it would be great if he does that we can have that back or he could even come talk about that. >> that's an excellent point. what we bring back to you will be fully formed by what we learned from jeff and his team. thank you. >> thank you. >> great. thank you, very much. >> clerk: going to 10.2a. which has to do with establishing an over size vehicle restriction on dewolf street. >> let's go ahead and go directly to public comment on this one. >> anne worth followed by melody. >> thank you. well it's kind of going back to the same problem. if you push people where do they go? when there's an answer to that then you can push people. that's about it. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> melody followed by flow kelly and kelly cut ler. those are the last three people. >> could you please go ahead of melody. >> ms. cutler. >> hi, my name is kelly cutler with the coalition again. so, with banding new streets, i don't think that we're at that point yet. also we have been with a couple of the supervisors we've been meeting, looking at safe parking and actually finding alternatives. this is jumping ahead of the game before we're at that point. there haven't been alternatives yet.

let me see what else i missed and i forgot in the last comment i gave. also with having like a community engagement process, we were having a working group for a while. and that has stopped. we really didn't -- nothing came out of that. the thing with the permit program, the issues was the city had nothing to offer. so why get this permit because there is really no motivation or reason because other than people wouldn't get harassed for sleeping in their vehicles, and that was about it. that's where we got to a point of not moving forward. i think that's about it. i'm distracted because we're running a campaign right now and this is the election day. [laughter] >> i can't believe i'm here right now and i've been on my phone and so i'm looking forward to getting back there because

everyone is texting me. >> thank you, very much. >> next speaker, please. >> ok. so, my name is melody and i'm just going to ask you to please do not do this because where will these people go? it's unfair of the sfmta to shut down streets with no alternative and please don't do this and every time you shut down streets where vehicle dwellers park it escalates the problem to those who have no city sanctioned exit from homelessness. and the streets stress and sleep

deprivation escalates with every street you shut down. it does matter that i am not making a mess or discarding debris, and not doing drugs and not leaving dirty needles everywhere, this punishes me as if i am doing those things and my mere existence is breaking the law and those signs will be telling me i don't have the right to exist. it is my responsibility, i'm not the cause of my homelessness. again, since 2009, i am asking the board of directors to please for a safe place to park because without your help and support i can't overcome my circumstances and thus i am a scapegoat of societial hip cock ra se hypocrm stripped by resources to do so so thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, melody. next speaker, please. >> flow kelly. >> she passed. >> madam chair that's the last person who turned in a speak are

card. >> do i have anymore public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. directors. >> this feels like we're putting the cart ahead of the horse now but what is your pleasure? >> i'm not going to vote for it. they had not done any work on dewolf and in light of everything we've been considering, i think it warrants that that kind of report to determine whether or not we want to move forward. if we want to do that that's fine. we do have it. for me i'm not ready. >> i will voice the opposite opinion. having given all compliment and respect to my friend over there already today. i feel ok about it. as i said before, i don't think it's fair to force the neighbors on dewolf street to wait and be held hostage while we come up with a city wide solution. other neighborhoods, other streets have received this

accommodation when they have presented it and when our staff has approved it and i think that street and those residents are entitled to the same and equitable treatment here. so i will favor this. i will also note that i think we are considering this request in a very different context than we considered it at the last meeting. we now have a positive and hopeful framework for how we will deal with these requests going forward. i have every confidence to director borden's concern that our staff will do that here to the extent it will work with our partners and other city agencies to do that. i feel -- i was ready to vote for this last time and i feel better about voting for it this time and i do again extend my thanks to my colleagues who forced an issue and put us in a better place here today. >> is that a motion? >> that is. >> second. >> i will just add, i agree with vice-chair.

i absolutely feel more comfortable about this entire situation after the previous presentation. i find that i actually will support this. let's go ahead. we have a motion and a second. let's go ahead. >> can i comment. >> absolutely, please. >> so just as a process point, we just had a very robust discussion about the policy that we're going to put in place to review these kinds of requests. and then we just all agreed there's a missing step in the process of getting to the final step of an actual restriction. that missing step is the department of homeless and support of housing intervention that director boredden has referred to. we all just agreed that step is missing. we heard from the director of the department of housing and supportive services those kinds of more humane, thoughtful interventions have not even had a chance to fail. they've not yet been explored. to me, i firmly agree with you, it's putting the card before the

horse if we have agreed on a direction of the policy and we haven't taken those earlier steps to go to the last restriction. and i would want to echo something i heard in the audience, someone said it's a human problem but we're not meeting with a human solution we're trying to meet it with a curb management solution. right now rather than meeting it with a human solution which i feel would be more intervention from the department of housing and supportive services homelessness. >> thank you. >> i agree with everything she just said. >> just a very quick question. if we do approve this, what is the lead time on this? will it give the department enough time to do outreach on de wolf? i actually do feel like what has delayed us in approving the previous policy was really the way we had written that policy to encompass all of that? with you discuss de wolf should it be passed?

>> yes, thank you, madam chair. from the moment that we say we ought to do something here to the time the signs can go up can be three or four more months. if this board a proves this, the next step would be after the secretary signs the resolution i would write-up a work order and send it to our sign shop and they would get to it among their other work. given the time of year, it might be a week or two or three. of course, at staff discretion, and direction from the board we can say hang on. don't put up the signs for a month or two. >> that sounds like the way we would like to go. not proceed until we made sure there's been some outreach. >> if i can clarify. i meant to articulate this before. i did talk to jeff about this specific issue yesterday. i think he felt that we might know more and if that meant the

policy maybe could be better by incorporating more and we heard a lot from the board today, i think it's not a rush for that. he was -- he felt if there's a imminent situation, i don't mean to speak for him but we did have this conversation yesterday, that he wouldn't suggest that the board not take action. because it would be done. this is about, we will not move forward with this until they have had the full opportunity to have their process run its course, however long that takes. i meant to say that before. if that wasn't clear i want to say that absolutely clearly if the board takes his action, we will not move forward until they've been able to have their process run their course. >> how will we know if the process has run its course? how long do we know how long it will take? >> we'll be working with them

through the hsoc to make sure there's no action by the m.t.a. until the dfhs and the other city agencies have done the human part first. >> great. anymore comments or i'm going to go ahead and go to a roll call vote. >> can we do a roll call vote? [ roll call vote ] four in support and three opposed. the motion passes. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate everyone's focus on this and i am confident that this will progress forward in what did we call it, in a flexible and compassionate approach. having done that let's move on.

>> clerk: can we take a short break. >> let's take a break, a five-minute break. everybody back here >> good afternoon, chair brinkman. my name is cameron beck. i'm an engineer in the livable street section and the project manager for the towns send corridor improvement project. i'm happy to be speaking to you today on a proposal to improve conditions on townshend street in the south of market neighborhood. the townshend project area is highlighted in yellow on this map. it's between third street and

eighth street. there are two blocks between third and fifth street on the high injury me network. we're making safety segment in the network. the project goals are pretty typical, for any street safety project, but townshend street itself is anything but typical. looking at the photo on this slide, can you spot the bike lane. they installed bike lanes on townshend street in 2010, that was just eight years ago. today they see 2,000 bike riders. caltrans station access prioritize access by public transit, walking and biking over access by private autos. and in caltrans 2016 survey, of the fourth and king station they saw 70% of the passengers

accessing through these active mows. sfmta runs bus routes connecting customers to cal trains. this is the beginning and ending of six of our muni routes. so townshend serves an important role of storing these buses between runs and allowing our operators much needed break time. and since the bike share system was first launched in the bay area, the cal train bike share stations have been the three most top used station in the system and that is still true today even as the system has expanded across san francisco out to the east bay. even with all the activity in use, if you go 200 feet beyond the end trance to the caltrains station the sidewalk ends. the photo on the west shows the south side of townshend street without sidewalks between the station and seventh street. gaps exist in the sidewalk on the north side as well but as buildings remodel or develop they fill in these gaps.

top-right photo shows passenger loading activity happening in a bus zone. this block of townshend street between fourth and fifth is our highest parking citation locate of anywhere in the city. since we will suggest the report i wanted to apply their research, hopefully without stealing any of their thunder. from their online interactive mapping tool between 2010 and 2016, 95% is contributed to t.n.c.s. given this activity and use as well as all of the different muni terminal zones and muni activities, we partnered very closely with muni service planning and our transit engineering staff to shuffle some loading zones and bus zones to reduce transit commissions and berman age the loading activities. with the roadway configuration

changes between fourth and fifth street, we needed to make some main or changes. the 47 van ness and the 83x mid market express that stop and lay over on the north side of townshend street will be rerouted to the buses can stop and lay over on the proposed block-long sidewalk and loading island as shown in this rendering. so this is the most unique feature of this project. and between fourth and fifth street there's a block-long raised sidewalk island. this concrete island will protect the bike way which will run along the fence line while providing a place for pick ups and drop offs to happen. there's a extension of this island expanding the wid ith allowing for faster muni space. all of the travel lanes will be shifted north to accommodate the bike way and sidewalk island so all the of the parking and loading on the north side of the

block will be removed. in its place a post protected bike way will be built for the westbound direction. we are adding new passenger loading zones around the area to disburse the loading activity. new passenger loading zones will be on the west side of fourth street between townshend and king at front door of cal train as well as on the north side of townshend between fourth to capture drivers arriving from that direction. on the south side of the townshend between fifth and seventh streets, the street level pedestrian space and bike way will be protected by a row of parked cars. we will be converting the back parking that exists today on these blocks to parallel. we've heard from people about the terrible pavement quality on townshend and how rough the ride is when you are riding the bike on the roadway. we're having targeted repaved areas to provide a smoother walk and ride. in addition, the project will provide protected bikeways on

some segments like you have seen before on seventh and eighth streets. from our first tabling event at caltrain we have working with too many agencies to name. divisions inside and outside of sfmta because there is so much happening on the street. all has helped inform the design before you today. in july we heard from hundreds of members of the public as well as district six supervisor jane kim supporting making quick changes to improve safety on townshend street. we will construct the project starting with the first segment between fifth and seventh streets this month including repaving and restriping the new roadway configuration and protective bikeways. we'll work on the major changes again third and fifth streets in the gnaw year that will be extensive coordination with caltrain, money' and all the other transportation providers as we build out the new sidewalk

island and the last segment between seventh and eighth streets. thank you very much. >> thank you, very much. i'm going to go directly to public comment because people have been patient and they've been here for a while. if can hif we can go. good afternoon. senior community organizer at the san francisco bike coalition. the outrage we've been hearing over the past few months about the condition of townshend is nothing new. in 2008, the sf chronicle said, referring to townshend, that a city street without a sidewalk is like a apartment without a

refrigerator. that outrage turns to the lack of bike lanes. cameron mentioned in 2010 it was following the lifting of the bike injunction, we did stripe the first new bike lane of this decade on townshend. i have a photo here if we can switch it to the overhead. this is -- actually, striping the bike lane. since gavin striped the bike lane himself, at least a foot segment of it, we've seen an explosion in the number of people biking as well as an explosion in the number of t.n.c.s. today, thousands of numbers are staggering i'm hearing from cameron. thousands of people bike daily on townshend and they contend with some of the worst and most dangerous conditions on our bicycle network.

that same paint laid in o 2010 is the only thing keeping us from ubers and a fleet of large buses out of the bike lane and it does a terrible job at it. people are in danger everyday. supervisor kim referenced the 43 bike collisions in the past year so i'm very excited to be here in support of something that will keep bicycle riders safe and that is protected from eighth to caltrain. our members, the folks of people by the bike lane and mayor london breed have made this turn around on townshend possible. approve this project today and let's get it in the ground bit end of the year. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm an avid psyche list in san francisco. i pr protected lanes are a grea. there's something missing and that is intersections.

there's no treatment on these intersections. there is one traffic signal. traffic signals for psyche lists are good but that is the most expensive, difficult treatment to install. we see no paint on any of these and it's crazy that sfmta's policy is to paint dash bike lanes through driveways, and major intersection to do nothing. imagine if we did that to sidewalks and every driveway you had a crosswalk and every alleyway you had a parallel crosswalk and major intersections were not marked. we need to do this. we brought this up and sfmta staff drag their feet. if you look at townshend circle, it was part of that was planned to have it protected bike lane as part of eighth street and staff came back and said we need to analyze that more and we'll bring it ahead as part of the townshend project. that is just very dangerous, difficult intersection. we do have a protected intersection about two blocks away from here. at division ninth street.

there's been no public studies done of that. we don't know how it's performing or if it's safer than the actual signal light intersections. new york city d.o.t. has done a good analysis and says the signalized intersection is not necessary any safer. we also have no red light cameras in san francisco that have been installed since vision zero. as you know, you just opened up a contract for that again. i biked up on and there's no enforcement of it. these are dangerous and we should do more studies and push on intersections. please, push staff to paint these intersections to test out protected intersection and to reexamine tons end circle. >> thank you. >> kevin burke. lucas oswald. >> good afternoon, my name is kevin burke. i'm on the caltrain citizens advisory committee. i commute everyday. this is a good plan. thank you for doing this. this will make the area a lot safer. i have a few requests.

the go bike documents are the busiest combined stations in the system. almost 2,000 trips start there per week. that is surely going to increase both with the caltrain line and with a better bike access in the area. can we look at doubling the length of those stations making it easier for the go bike valets to park in the area. they do a lot of unloading because there are a ton of bikes that need to be unloaded in the morning and back on so people can park in the afternoon. how are go bikes supposed to travel west on townshend. if i get a bike right outside the station, right now a lot of psyche lisat ofpeople check outd cross illegally. it's not the plan how to get across the street to travel west. you can walk a block and get it from fifth but you have a people where people take out the bikes from the fifth street dock and parking them at the fourth street dock.

you need to balance that flow. another thing, if i'm taking a bus towards the montgomery bart or chinatown area, a lot of times i want to take the next bus that will get me there which would be any of the 10 or the 45 or the 30 or the 47. it's not really clear to tell where that is going to be right now. it will be really good to have a better indication to know which bus is leaving less. it's hard to tell which bus is leaving because they leave their door open. four buses are parked there and it's hard to tell. that would be better if we have better signage of which bus is leaving next. that is all i have. thank you, very much. >> lucas oswald. >> hi, lucas oswald. biker. i just wanted to biff my support for the townshend bike lane. i've been biking there for two and a half years every week day. as everyone was saying, terrible paving. the cars pulling out of parking

space as they are now are just a terrifying source of danger, especially when everyone is rushing to the caltrain, people are frantic and insane like that. between that and the buses and the taxis and >> i am a bicyclist in san francisco and.

-- with that said, i do want to point to the mixing zones in this proposal. i really strongly hope that mixing zones are like closer to the last horrah and turning into things that is not cool anymore. i realize there are issues with conduits that prevent us from building single units. i realize there are street widle that prevent us to building protected intersections and it's hard to do that in a short term project without putting concrete down because it often requires that. i think we really need to do that. i would urge you to make mixing zones the bastard step child of bikes as it should be. and build singlized or protected intersections all up and down townshend street and across our city. thank you. >>