please be advised that a member of the public has asked that item 10.1g, hand i on 17th street be severed from that -- the remaining traffic modifications. >> great. >> clerk: received no other requests for severance. >> any other requests for severance? >> yes, madam chair, i'd like 10.2. >> to severance? >> is there a motion of the board to approve 10.1, minus g, hand i? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> all in favor? >> pardon me. i asked to have 10.2 severed. >> right. >> right. >> i thought you said except for 10.1 g, hand i. >> thank you. >> all right. so just one more. all in favor please say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed. great. >> clerk: this has to do with

establishing speed tables across walks and cross for bikeway along 17th street between -- in the area of market and diamond and castro. >> great. >> clerk: this is severed by david russo and rowan cato. so they'll be your speakers. >> wonderful. >> okay. i don't think i can do this in three minutes. but i'll try to get most of it in here. i live right in the middle of the project, where they're going to be putting the delineators and the new yellow zone area and the speed table and -- i don't know what you call it, the big bump that's going to be in the crosswalk. i agree with the other gentleman that spoke that, you know, we're not communicated with in advance, so we can give pertinent information that they

don't know. i did speak with the project director finally. he didn't realize there was 50-foot trucks that have to slide into this little space that they've created with a 16-foot opening. and the speed bump is right next to my driveway. and it's very unsafe for me to get in and out. it has been, as it is now, and it's going to be ten times worse for me to get out without getting hit by the traffic that's going to be redirected to upper 17th street. i just get so irritated i can't even think sometimes, because the way that you do things is just not right. and if you would get more information, everything is -- i'm being squish into a small little space, as it is, and nobody gives a damn. they don't care. [bell dings] so, i mean, i don't know what to do. i've left messages for the previous director. he never responded.

it's just not right. it's congested. and it has an adverse effect on me. that's all i have time to say. >> thank you. any additional speaker? >> clerk: rowan cato. >> could i get the overhead, please. yeah. thank you so much. i'm here, not for myself, but on friend of my friend robbin po lives in the area and can't be here, because it's 1:00 p.m. on a tuesday and people have jobs. so she writes i'm thrilled the sustainable streets vision is tackling this intersection, where drivers speed and block crosswalks. the speed table, the thin yaters, et cetera, there improve safety in the area. the improved access will be a recreational and cultural good for the neighborhood. that said, i'm concerned and surprised that the new design retains the commercial loading zone, located in the bike lanes, circled here, at the northwest

corner of the intersection adjacent to the castro station stairs. 26 people have been killed -- i guess 27, 28 on san francisco streets so far this year and street design often is a contributing factor. it is asinine to update streets designed for safety, retain an element which will by design obstruct the bike lane. trucks are the reason many san franciscans are killed. the project engineer told us that bicyclists can pass in the loading zones. stop treating bicyclists as second-class citizens. liquor store deliveries are not more important than human life and safety. the transit first policy states that, quote, decisions regarding the use of limited public street base shall encourage use of bicyclists and strive to reduce traffic. [bell dings] designing this bike lane to be blocked by trucks due to prioritization of their policies. it discourages the use of

bicyclists. i employ you reconsider this commercial loading zone, instructing trucks to block the bike lane. our health and safety are counting on it. those are miss connor's words. thank you. >> thank you. any other additional comment on this? otherwise i will ask staff to come up. because i think both commenters identified basically the same problem, but for different reasons. and i'd like to understand whether or not we could look at having that loading zone, get an easement on the gas station property or something. i know that's a little more complicated. but if there was another alternative, so that you could reach the liquor store without blocking the bike lane and causing a bottleneck. >> thank you. casey hill, m.t.a. first, i want to point out that this -- the current condition was sort of -- came about with the twin peaks tunnel closure last year. and there was a floating sidewalk that connected to the

crosswalk. and this both helped provide access in this area. but also i think helps slow down the westbound vehicle turns on to 17th. so right now there's nothing that was put back from that project. and this effort is a follow-up to that, as well as simultaneous requests from the neighborhood for traffic calming. so normally we would not bring those traffic-calming devices in front of this board. they get approved at the staff level. but because it's tied into the larger redesign effort, that's why it's in front of you. i want to give you some context. this is looking westbound on 17th. and basically you can see the load zone on your right. and you can see the historic floating sidewalk on your left. i think the key is that we were trying to get something in relatively quickly. the bike lane currently is blocked today by the load zone.

and this project, while it would not change that condition, it would create a protected space for the very infrequent amount of time that there is loading occurring at that spot, for activists to go around. i want to be clear they wouldn't be put out into traffic. and that, you know, the way we've established the design of the boll ards, it's a tight turn in. otherwise it is a protected bike lane, in that it would be allowing a much sharper turn for vehicles entering on 17th towards the traffic-calmed section. staff have met out in the field with one of the speakers here, who lives just adjacent. and we are certainly aware of his concerns and needs to get in and out of the driveway. but this design does accommodate that. we did think about approaching the gas station. they do have four driveways. the property we think is right for redevelopment. there will be a bigger

opportunity to rethink the load zone with that project. why we didn't choose to pursue relocating the load zone, i think primarily to put this on a different street. it's a very tight area. we didn't want to create unanticipated impacts such as bringing trucks through residential streets to get to the new load zone. so it really was a matter of trying to keep this to a manageable scope and get it in as quickly as possible. it certainly does not preclude us, continuing to work with the community, continuing to reach out to the property and looking at a longer-term solution. that does move the load zone. >> we'll let other directors speak. i have more questions. but go ahead. >> thank you. mr. hiller, thank you. that currently is not a bus stop, right. it was a bus stop during the twin peaks tunnel closure? >> that was only temporary condition. >> it's hard. i totally understand the challenge here. we need the loading zone and the safe space for the cyclists. when -- after this is built,

when would it be reviewed? how would we know if it's working for the trucks and working for the cyclists? sort of how quickly could we make that determination and how quickly, if it's not working, could we step in and make a few changes, tweak it a bit? >> i think the striping and the flexible bollards could go in as soon as our shops have availability. that would be followed upon by the public works crews installing the raised tables. and then starting later next year, as part of the upper market street project, there's -- we're not showing the crosswalk to the pink triangle park and some curb ramp work. that would be, you know, constructed much later in the process. so there's definitely a phasing, but in terms of the access concerns, how this could work for cyclists, we should be able to tell right away once implementation of the first phase is in, if this is working or not. and then from there on out, it should only get better in terms of slower vehicles, better

access to both the castro station and pink triangle park. >> i do know that street pretty well, because that's the direction i go when i ride my bike up twin peaks at a snail's pace. i'm inclined to support this, because i know what a tricky stretch of street that is. but i do hope that, if we approve this today, that we'll keep a close eye on it. because i'm really sensitive to the speaker, what he brought up for the person there. it looks like it will -- sorry. yes. it looks like -- to my mind there will be enough room for the bicyclist to go around a loading zone and not be in car traffic. i think this is a similar design to what we're going to have on better market, correct, where the cyclists are going to have to -- are going to naive get the loading zone area? >> we actually have a couple of examples already out in the field on our 8th street protected bikeway. i think there's an example where

there's a condition where temporarily they get pulled over to the curb. also on folsom, if it's not already in the ground, we're providing flexibility where loading is critical for adjacent land use. we're not doing that at the sacrifice of safety. >> okay. thank you. yes. i am going to support this. but i do appreciate both commenters coming and calling this to our attention. >> one of the things that i was pleased to see, just as a kind of behavioral intervention on market street was the time of use restrictions on delivery vehicles. when you have cyclists using the facility, you prohibit delivery operations. so did you consider that restriction as a way of mitigating the concerns? >> i believe there are time restrictions in place today. i would have to double check the packet. but this is not -- there's a certain time restriction i believe to that load zone today. >> during peak periods of

cyclist use? do you know? >> i don't recall off hand what the hours are. typically we don't do the restrictions during the peak periods. you know, typically loading occurs most often after the a.m. peak and before the p.m. peak. i believe that is the situation here. although i can't confirm 100%. >> could you put the diagram back up and explain how this is not going to require cyclists to swerve into oncoming traffic. >> sure. can i get that overhead projector? they would enter 17th street via a protected sort of triangle area. and then assuming there was a vehicle parked, as this vehicle has shown maneuvering in, there

would be a very generous space that would have flexible post lined along the outside of the vehicle lanes. so there would be plenty of room both to go around a vehicle and then enter back into the bike lane, fully outside of the vehicle traveling. and vehicles, you know, where they are pinching could potentially be merging with cyclists. it's right where we have traffic-calming proposed as well. >> the reason you didn't just have the truckloading zone in the zone and protect the bike lanes all the way through? >> it gets into nuance of wondering about if there is a large vehicle having its sort of rear end sticking out into the travel lane, as folks are turning in. this is actually better from a visibility standpoint. so cyclists and vehicles that are traveling along 17th, would see each other, versus potentially having a truck floating out in the middle and blocking that view. there are some nuances to the

angle of the turn that we did certainly explore in great detail before settling on this option. >> it just seems -- sort of particularly ironic in light of the previous commenter's question and concern about the number of vehicles violating bike lanes, that we are now intentionally designing a truck to be parking in a bike lane. it just seems -- it seems odd. >> it's not an ideal design. it is what's out there today. we're just trying to respect, you know, push forward with improvement without creating a whole new process and scope creep. this is definitely improvement over existing additions. by no means do we need to stop here improving this intersection. >> any other? >> is there a reason that the buffer can just be part of like a really wide kind of bulby part of a bike lane. so it's clear that bikes can be in that buffer and they should be protected? i don't know if that would add any visibility. so, you know, so you have the

temporary loading zone, that's used infrequently as you said. and then, you know what i mean? >> so you're saying create more of a formal bike lane and less formally wide buffer zone? >> yes. >> i can certainly take that direction back to our staff. you know, we have some wiggle room to make adjustments during the work-order stage of this project. we can certainly take feedback from the board and try to incorporate as much as possible into the final design. >> i mean, you guys are the experts. so i'm not trying to -- i'm not a good designer. that's why i don't have your job. i'm just thinking maybe just think of it more legibility. it seems odd just to kind of force cyclists to go outside of the designated safe area, when there's a vehicle there. we are suppose to, you know, favor cyclists in these decisions. so that's why i ask. >> i would say i'm definitely worried about a bottleneck at that point, just between cars and delivery vehicles and

bicycles at the same time, especially when it's busier. that's what i'm concerned conce. i know that we couldn't -- we didn't explore an easement with the gas station. i think we need to figure that out sooner than later. if someone buys the property they'll develop it and we'll be too late. if it is desirable for us to figure out how we could, you know, use part of that property to have a delivery capability, then i think sooner rather than later makes more sense. once the land is sold to a developer, they're not designing their project around our needs. >> well, to a certain extent, they'll be required to. we have flagged this with the planning department for future follow-up, once there is a developer that's moving forward. we did look at the driveways and whether there is any special permits or outstanding permits that we could use this leverage. but they're designed the way they are now, sort of under existing code. we don't have a whole lot of leverage now. development would yield the best possible design, with certainly

a number of driveways going away , with not all of them. >> i think today the board of supervisors is hearing a resolution on the idea of a child friendly san francisco. we talk a lot about all ages and abilities, bike networks. could we expect a child to safely navigate this design, i don't think so. i don't think it rises to that level. that should be our design standard. i'm going to vote no on this. >> any other comments? director? >> no. >> you are speaking with a gentleman who spoke regarding his -- >> the project engineer has spoken with him, yes. i believe the conversations are basically, we did make changes to our flexible post design. i think there are still some lingering concerns about getting -- backing out of the driveway. but i think that's something that we have to deal with within this complex project. we believe we're making it easier and safer for everyone, including residents to pull out

of their driveways. >> well, it didn't look like he has that much safety. he's an elderly gentleman, chronologically gifted. you're looking at a potential fatality, if this thing isn't resolved. i want to know if you're going to work on a remedy. that's all. >> we'd be happen happy to continue discussions with mr. russo, go back out in the field before we implement, come back after we implemented. we're definitely available for follow-up conversations. >> not always that easy. i have difficulty reaching the staff. >> we'll make to sure to follow up directly with mr. russo. >> thank you, maguire. you return my calls. >> any other comments? >> i'll go ahead and make a motion to approve. i want to reiterate that we should keep an eye on it and see how that's workings out for boast the cyclists and the residents with the driveways there. i really am -- i appreciate and respect director eaken's comment that we need to be thinking

about design being universal, especially for children. and rooftop elementary school is -- that's kind of the way you would reach it, if you're going from market street. so again i'm going to make a motion to approve. i'm going to support this, i think what you have proposed is certainly better than what's there. absolutely. and i appreciate what a tricky block this is. and again, you know, we can come back and take another look at, as soon as it's in and see how it's working. motion to approve. >> i'll second it. based on the same reason she just said. [laughter] >> great. well, a motion and a second. all in favor? >> aye. >> it passes. >> this should be a roll call. >> you want to do roll call? >> a roll call vote. >> all right. director borden? >> aye. >> brinkman? >> aye. >> heinicke is absent. director heminger? >> passed over me? >> director eaken? >> no. >> director rubke? >> aye. >> director torres?

>> no. >> it is 4-2. with one absent. the motion passes. >> great. thank you. now we'll move on to 10.2. maybe would you like staff to come forward to talk about it, first? >> please. i had a few questions. >> i can read it, first. >> yes. thank you. >> reporter: amending the transportation code, division 2, section 801. and approving parking restrictions to expand existing parking restrictions on turk street, except for vehicling displaying the sfmta issued permit as follows. >> i have got the details. i just have a couple of questions. is he here? >> yes. >> there he is. so this is about the emergency operations center on turk street, right. >> that's correct, yeah. >> and how many employees are there? >> i don't know how many employees they have.

>> roughly a round number? >> i would be speculating. all i know is that they have made this request, because they are rapidly adding 9-11 dispatchers to that location. >> yes. 9-11 dispatchers and the accessibility to the center for the 38 agencies they need to staff. >> okay. so we have no idea how many people work there? i mean, isn't that something that we would consider before we grant the request? >> well, there's a context here. the d.e.m. center lost their off-street parking lot when the market and hayward playground started. roughly the number of parking spaces that we're suggesting. >> so current condition. there are 40 on-street spaces reserved to this facility, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> approximately 40. >> and are those 40 for official vehicles or personal vehicles? >> i believe there are for personal vehicles. >> and the request before us is to add another 24 personal

vehicles? >> that's correct. >> that's 60 on-street spaces. and again i'd like to know if anybody knows how many employees that's for. but in any event, as i recall, that building is about 20 years old. i seem to think. was it designed to require such enormous amount of on-street parking? i mean, don't we normally -- doesn't planning department normally require buildings to provide off-street parking, when they're going to generate that kind of demand? >> well, the use of the building has changed. hank alluded to adding 911 dispatchers. so there are more people working the building than were there when it opened, approximately 20 years ago. >> right. >> if you've been inside the building, you'll see it is packed. >> well, i believe the staff report refers to something like for employee retention and morale or something. and, look, i'm sure everybody in san francisco would like a free on-street parking space.

but this does trouble me. it's a 50% increase in spaces. and, look, people get mad at city hall for a lot of reasons. but one reason is when i do as i say, not as i do. and i just think city employees ought to be leading by example. and we shouldn't be in the business of providing them a bunch of on street parking space for their own cars. so my comment is i'm a "no" vote on this one. i just don't think this is appropriate. >> yeah. i would say to that point, that the planning department has moved away from parking minimums, set maximums and definitely encouraging under parking on buildings. we're eliminating parking all together. that's true that the planning code has already moved in that direction. you don't have projects required to have off-street parking. >> yeah, but in this case what you're basically doing is giving them free on-street parking. >> no, no. >> not a deal offered to most. >> no. i'm agreeing with what you're

saying actually. i'm agreeing saying the direction of the city is against offering more people -- parking for people. there are 241 employees. >> well, thank you. >> i don't know if they're all at that facility. but i share your concerns. director brinkman. >> mr. wilson, you may not know, does the department have a transportation demand management plan? i mean, are they kind of working towards making sure, because they will get this on-street parking, that doesn't increase the number of employees driving themselves alone to the site? >> director, i don't know whether they have a specific, you know, adopted t.d.m. plan. i know that in the discussions about this, there was a lot of talk about how they're trying to make sure as many people as possible can get there driving. it's a 24/7 facility. again these are 911 dispatchers who can't -- they're not the sort -- they don't have the sort of jobs, oh, traffic is bad at

this time. i'll commute at different time. i'll take the bus at a different time. that was one of the concerns, people have to ride at 3:00 in the morning, 6:00 in the morning when transit isn't running as frequently. >> i'm aware we do this around yards as well. our first-shift operators can't take the bus, because they're the first-shift operator and some of them don't live in the city. so to my mind, this call kind of falls under using the on-street parking for the highest, best use. what's there now are i assume neighbor's cars, residents cars, reserving this for the highest, best use of the emergency, the 911 operators, the responders. again i'm okay with this. i do know that there is a lot of focus from all of the agencies on managing the transportation

demand. we made a lot of changes that were not popular with some of the yards, in terms of charging for parking in some of our facilities. and we do manage the parking around our facilities for our benefits. so i almost think in this case we are doing what we preach for our own agency. we try and manage the demand, but we're realistic that especially people who work nonstandard hours and probably are commuting from further out in the city, do need to drive and do need to park their cars. so i really appreciate you bringing this up and calling it out. it made me think about it. otherwise i was going to let it go through on the consent calendar. >> well, given your comments, i wonder what our practices and policies are around the city. i mean, there are a lot of city employees and -- >> 29,000. >> she knew that number, too. >> i love data. >> i do know that the parking at our yards, that was a big discussion. oh, my gosh. it might predate you, tom. i think that was like more than five years ago when we had a

really big discussion around parking at the yards. and the operators driving in. and again we did come to the conclusion that these nontraditional hour workers, it's -- some of them have to do it. >> yeah. we just -- an experience with our own employees, it happened at the upper yard just this fall, when supervisor s. >> supervisor safai: moved forward with we found an alternate parking area a few blocks away on the sort of the balboa reservoir to provide alternate parking for the m.t.a. employees, whose parking lot was taken away. this is a very similar situation. again there was an off-street parking lot the building was built with. now the parking lot went away and there are now many more employees in the building who work some odd hours. i just -- i will say that i certainly share the commitment. and we have gone back and forth

with d.e.m. on this for more than a year. we did, however, feel that given the fact that these employees really cannot be late for work and the fact that they did have parking, that was removed permanently, we were more open than we usually would be to providing some relief. this won't give all of the employees parking. but this is a partial relief. >> anybody from d.e.m. here, by chance? it would be great. i don't know if anyone is here. probably didn't think to come. because it's a consent calendar. we've had issues with staffing our d.e.m. i don't know how much people are paid. not everybody who works those shifts. i tend to agree that we shouldn't be providing parking, but given the nature of it being 24/7 emergency service employees, and the complications of the hours and transit having, you know, and how challenging that is for off-peak hours, i

will support it. i do think that it would be helpful maybe that something we should calendar no another time, to have discussion around city agencies and parking needs and changes. because as more and more things get developed across the city, we'll have more of these circumstances arise. if we have a strategy for how we manage those needs and the fare and kind of equitable basis and a higher arky of best -- hierarchy of best uses personnel, whatever it is, we should come up with is that. and then we can articulate that to everyone. and everyone can learn to live with that. any other questions? >> yes. i would recommend that we include that subject in our retreat, our workshop retreat. >> great. >> yeah. we have a very full retreat right now. >> add another item. [laughter] >> we'll all be staying late. >> the board has a meeting. >> do we have any data that 20 additional spaces will solve the

problem? i'm not really convinced that this is a solution. >> i think -- >> 200 something employees. maybe a couple people get to park and the rest are still circling. >> we're not trying to solve the problem, but provide a guaranteed parking space for every employee, which is kind of what they had before. we're trying to provide more parking availability, so that employees, who don't take transit, who don't, you know, as a result of the parking crunch they're in, you know, have some options. but we're specifically not trying to create one for one-on-one parking replacements or anything like that. so, yeah. it will still be tight. >> i hear you on the circling and being late for work. that's very stressful. i just wonder if like a valet, all sorts of parking apps that will take your car and figure out a parking space. i don't think the 20 additional spaces solve that problem. i don't see this as a solution.

>> i will say about the parking apps, they've gone away, the restaurants used to use them. so few people drive to short-term places any more. all of those companies went out of business. >> yeah. >> there are garages and there is off-street parking further away in the residential areas, that we do get complaints about employees parking in. you know, this is not the only parking supply. again we're trying to meet d.e.m., not even halfway, but trying to. >> i will make a motion to approve and just reiterate i do think this is kind of using that on-street parking that's got cars parked in the highest, best use on that street. and it's a reminder that all of the work we're doing, to make biking, walking and taking the bus has a big impact. because people who do store their personal cars on our streets, personal cars that let's all remember spend 97% of their life parked, and now we're going to be displacing some of

those cars for the employee parking. so it's just a good reminder that we need to all keep working towards making other options the easiest thing to do. i'll make a motion to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposition? do we want to do roll call? >> i'll vote no. >> we'll -- it's 3-3 i guess. we'll have to -- we'll put this at the end of the agenda. >> who voted opposed? >> we need to call the roll. >> director borden? >> i vote yes. aye. >> director brinkman? >> aye. >> director eaken? >> no. >> director heminger? >> no. >> director hubky? >> aye. >> torres no. the item fails adoption. >> so do you want to -- should we, a, as a board, would it be helpful to have d.e.m. come and table this for another meeting or take it up at the end of the

agenda, should director heinicke want to weigh in? >> i just think in this particular instance for this particular item, in addition to kind of like longer-term policies around this, i think it would be really helpful, it would be great to see better justification for why we need these 20 spaces, you know, more data to director eaken's point. maybe some more, you know, alternatives to consider, time-limited, things, time limitations on these spaces to address the issue of employees coming in on off-hours. that sort of thing. i think that would maybe address some of the concerns here, at least in the short-term and then obviously longer term looking at the issue and more holistically. >> okay. directors, do we have an opinion about whether or not -- i do think that it would be helpful to hear from d.e.m. >> might also be nice to give chair heinicke a chance to weigh in on this. >> right. i think -- >> yes. >> he's absolutely on his way.

we can go either direction. we can take it up at the end of the meeting. i do think that we have to think about how we do deal with requests, as a city agency of other city agencies and how we interact and let them know what our policies are or not. >> yep. i think my preference would be to come back with d.e.m. and more about the questions asked here. we didn't provide as much information in a full calendar item as i guess we should have. i would prefer to bring it back to a future discussion, if up to me. >> madam chair, it would be appropriate to to rescind the vote and continue to a future meeting. >> motion to rescind the vote? >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> the motion not only to rescind the vote, but continue the item. >> madam chair, could i just ask tom. will you have time when you bring this back to give us sort of the broader look at the city

or is that something more appropriate for this four-day workshop we're going to have in january? >> yeah. [laughter] >> turned into four days. >> if it was at the next meeting -- >> said i believe earlier that you've been negotiating with this department for a year. it sounds to me like it's not necessarily, you know, front burner urgent. >> if you'd prefer to have a citywide discussion. >> look, i just think it would be better -- it would be more in context for us. because it may be that we've got a bigger issue to discuss here than 20 spaces with one department. >> i would think if it took a year, it wasn't because we weren't negotiating with 20, 25. right. i think that -- i mean, we should have a larger policy conversation about this issue, it would be great to have -- i guess maybe we should encourage departments when they have things like this to, you know,

to provide some basic data around what the need, right. and what they're doing in other kind of t.d.m. strategies. and then separately, which we won't have for that meeting, is talk about what is our priority in those cases, when we have to make decisions about agencies needing additional parking and how that is allocated. >> okay. >> clerk: madam chair, it's not for the next meeting. but i think staff could at a future meeting, coming to you soon. probably not at the workshops, since that's a budget-focused. i think it would be appropriate for staff to come back for that larger policy conversation and bring d.e.m. to the meeting. >> great. director torres. >> point of order. council, i know in the legislature we have what's called put a call on a vote, that lasts until the end of that particular meeting, in case there's a member that wishes to record his or her vote, before the measure is dealt with.

do we have that procedure here or against city ordinances? >> we've never used that as a procedure. >> but we could? >> but you could. you could have -- >> not for this issue. i'm just thinking in the future. let's say a member is out, they'll call in, i'll be right there, you could hold off. >> that could certainly be arranged, at the discretion of the presiding officer, any motion could be postponed until the end of the meeting. >> okay. >> great. sounded like the board for this issue wanted some more details. and director maguire also felt that it might be more useful. i do believe we owe it to the d.e.m., because we've had the robust conversation, to explain their point of view, especially if you spend the year talking about it. with that i guess we'll move on to our regular calendar. okay. the regular calendar. item 11 is approving 15-month

page street bikeway improvement pilot project. on page street, adding a peak period right-hundred only except muni lane on haight street for one block, making environment review findings and approving related parking and traffic and mode of of course -- modificati. i have a brief presentation for you this afternoon to go over the pilot project. and this being a pilot, the evaluation effort. along with a little bit of additional background and overview of the outreach that we've done. so initially just a little bit of background. page street is a lot of things. but it is for us a principle bike route in san francisco, that connects golden gate park with market street. and, in fact, in the morning commute, we actually have bike riders outnumbering car drivers on most days. despite the fact that the street

is also grown into a very significant conduit of freeway traffic. people trying to get on to the boulevard and the freeway. it's also an important walking street for neighborhood destinations. and for students of john river elementary school. they actually walk down to the park several times a week, down page street and through the intersection of page and buchanan. so our agency has been working over the past several years to make traffic safety improvements on this street, in particular on these four blocks, including that center-running bike lane, that runs down the middle of the street, that formalizes the practice whereby bike riders going around vehicled cued to get on to the freeway. it really formalized something that people kind of naturally do on the street. last summer this board also approved pedestrian safety improvements on this stretch. that includes bull mounts, raised intersection at page and buchanan, where the john muir students would be walking

through. but in the outreach, with page street neighbors and people in the surrounding neighborhood, over the past two, three years we've also been talking about getting at the core issue of people icing this neighborhood street to get on to the freeway. and so that's why we're here today is to speak to that particular effort. so as i mentioned, despite the work that we've done, issues do remain on page street. so we do still see cueing on the street, in the eastbound direction, it's not unusual to see people blocking up three blocks from octavia and webster and beyond. things have gotten worse in the westbound direction, so this is people coming off of golf street and backing up on to golf street. again to get on to the freeway. we have so much traffic in the neighborhood, as the population pass grown and t.n.c. traffic has picked up. so community members have asked us, and more recently supervisor brown's office, asked to us take a look at developing what we think would be the best proposal to pilot some of these changes.

as a whole, when you talk about traffic circulation and neighborhood like this, it can be very difficult to model traffic changes, at so many different intersections. that's why the approach that we've taken, with this project, to develop a pilot with a robust evaluation plan, so that we can test these out and be nimble to adjust things as we need to. so a lot going on here. i'll walk you through the specific pilot proposal on the following slides. i want to mention the goal with this project is to reinforce the modal hierarchy we have on the three streets. page street we like to say is the premiere bicycling street. haight we want to prioritize street and together with foul, oak is suppose to be the street that carries vehicular traffic east and west throughout the city. currently we have just a lot of traffic on all three of these streets and tough conditions for people walking, bicycling, taking transit. so again i'll walk you through all of the detail. for this particular pilot effort, to get these changes

would restrict all traffic on page street from getting on to the freeway. so it would no longer be an access route on to the freeway. so zooming in a little bit on to page street, we have several things going on here. the first item is that we would convert the block of page street from octavia, one block up to laguna. in the eastbound direction, you would not be able to use page to get on to the freeway. we would convert 20 parking spaces on the south side of that street into a protected bike lane. we would also put an uphill bike lane in lieu of the center bike lane. as we're seeing more and more people actually use this to get westbound in the evening, in particular e-bikes come online and e-bikes hopefully soon return to the bike shift system. three blocks upstream of octavia boulevard, producing a traffic diverter at webster. the em at -- they're walking toe

park every day, this block faces a paid street, where a lot of loading activity happens. this is where the school buses pick up and drop off students. we really wanted to make sure we're protecting protecting than addition to providing other benefits for page street. of course, the other direction. we're also in the westbound direction, we would be restricting westbound left turns and westbound through traffic on page street at octavia boulevard. and so that would allow for local traffic only. so essentially for the four blocks from golf up to webster, we would significantly reduce traffic volumes and really return these to the neighborhood streets that they have been. a few years ago we put in a expert-running transit lane, that allows muni buses to get

past the cued vehicle to serve market street more directly. we're still seeing congestion extend past the western limit of that center-running transit lane. sometimes farther than even webster street. as part of this pilot proposal, we're looking to convert the parking on the south side of haight street into a right-turn-only muni lane. that would allow muni buses to do, to move into the curbside lane, bypass the traffic, serve the last bus stop before market street, at buchanan transition into the existing center-running lane to market street. also to mitigate against shifting of traffic, prohibit the turn at webster on to haight street. that's just getting ahead of something that we might expect to see. as i mentioned, under the page street neighbor way, we've been talking with the neighbors about diversion and traffic issues on

and around page street for several years. suffice to say, we've engaged hundreds of people who live, work and travel through the area. more specifically pivoting to this pilot effort we started in the summer. so that's what you see here listed out before you today. and i won't go into all of the details of the things that we've done. but i'll point out a few that are particularly helpful. we wanted to engage students of john muir elementary school, many of whom who don't speak english at poem. we translated materials into spanish and chinese. we look forward to doing that more. i'll mention in a moment of how we see the pilot effort. we found that to be effective. we did have a very successful open house. we reached a lot of people in one evening. but i think more useful for me was having these office hours, these coffee chats over the past few weeks with folks. it was helpful to have longer one-on-one discussions with constituents and take a step back and let the neighbors hear the issues, talk amongst themselves.

we found that very helpful. changes that the outreach has informed. initially proposing a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. restriction on haight street, to support transit. we slowed down to speak with neighbors and merchants as well on haight street. and hearing that it's incredibly important to have parking access for customers, particularly in the midday hours and into the afternoon. so the proposal you see before you today are restrictions for parking on haight street the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours, when transit service is highest. and we have the highest number of riders. we've been working with our curb management team to develop expansions to residential permit parking in the neighborhood. so that will be coming before the board next month. there's several blocks that i can point these out to you, if you have questions on it, that are currently unregulated. so these would join area s or area q. that helps to offset a little bit of parking lost on page street. as well parking permits are available to business owners.

i would also say that a two-hour time limit supports a lot of business activity. it kind of stirs the pot a little bit on the curb. it allows people to have some time to park, do a little bit of business or go eat a little bit of food and then frees up the parking space up for somebody else lastly, we were very much able to vet and further develop our evaluation plan. this being a 15-month pilot. we wanted to make sure that we were looking at the right things. and so i won't go into all of these pieces on the evaluation plan. but suffice to say, we're looking into a dozen different metrics from cueing on the streets, safety issues like blocking intersections, blocking crosswalks, transit travel time, violations in the muni red lane, compliance issues all together. so this is definitely something that, you know, is the crux of this effort, not just implementing the changes, knowing what success looks like. we would be able to implement

sometime in 2020 and two evaluation periods. one in the spring, another one in the fall. there's a promise to come back to this board four months after the full implementation of the pilot, to provide some initial feedback on what we're seeing on the streets and, you know, what the feedback has been from the community. should mention on the last slide as well, we would like to combine the hard data we're looking at with the public perception survey. so looking into some of the metrics, getting a snapshot, different points of time how things are functioning. so the people can tell us what they're experiencing on a day-to-day basis on their streets. i know a lot of folks have taken time out of their afternoons. i'll step to the side and make myself available for questions. >> director torres, you would like to ask a question now. >> i received many letters, through our website, regarding the fact that and comments that i've had specifically with mayoral staff, that many times you all or your staff don't get back to these employees -- thes.

they think they're going to have an input to your eyes and ears, you never get back to them. not you, the department never gets back to them and issues the plans without their input. some of these people didn't know about this pilot project until september. and now we're looking at -- right now we're looking at november. when you say the streets are clogged, i know they're clogged. for me to get to the airport, i drive my electric car to the airport. it is impossible to get on to the freeway, because the entrance from market to the freeway, that right turn has been prohibited. why can't we put a streetlight there. protect the bicyclist and allow accessibility, which would relieve the congestion on the streets. i have seen how dangerous it is in the mornings with the elementary school when i do drive to the airport, with those children in jeopardy. so i aplaid you what you've been doing. but, at the same time, i just really want to make you sensitive to the fact that these merchants are barely surviving.

and these residents need our support. and if we can do it, that would be great. the bottom line they're offering to me at least in the letter that i received, that we'll go with a 7:00 a.m. to 10. , can you relieve us from 3:00 until 6:00. did you provide that as an amendment or still in the pilot project? >> the proposal that's currently before you would have an a.m. and a p.m. peak restriction. i would allow my transit colleagues to speak. >> i asked you a direct question. >> 3:00 until 6:00 p.m.? >> yes. >> it includes both 7:00 until 10:00 and 3:00 until 6:00. >> you didn't accommodate the merchants, at least halfway on the 3:00 until 6:00? >> the original proposal was a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and so the proposal that we brought to the board today is a a.m. and p.m. peak, when transit ridership. >> you didn't run that by the merchants? >> we had a single meeting and a constituent -- subsequent meeting to share about the

pilot. one in probably september, and one a month later, october, november. >> it's lacking coordination and feedback. that's all. thank you. >> i guess one point. people did ask for the ridership numbers for the 6 and 7. could you provide that data. >> yeah, we have that. 20,000 riders on the 6 and 7 together. it doesn't rise to the level of what's called the muni rapid service. but very close. it's very important line for the agency. >> are there other questions from the directors before i open to the public comment. with ha it, i'm opening that to public comment. those who have -- do we have cards? >> clerk: yes, madam chair, we have cards from approximately 22 people. >> wonderful. >> sarah bucker, followed by warren lays and then guy barry are the first three speakers. >> vice chair, if i may, i'm here representing district 5 supervisor vallie brown. >> my apologies. >> not at all. she wanted to be here.

juan carlos, i'm a legislative aide to supervisor vallie brown. she asked me to come up and read a letter into the record. she hoped to be here, because of the board meeting that's currently happening, she couldn't be at both -- in both places at once. we're deeply supportive of the pilot project proposed. she was a part of those meetings with merchants and at multiple meetings with stakeholders at hale street and page street. we are satisfied and have been frankly impressed with sfmta's public process. you know, it's hard to get out to everyone. but ultimately the process has felt sort of collaborative, strong, this is a pilot. if there are issues that arise during the course of the pilot, by its very nature, we're in a position to make changes. and so having said that, if i may, i'll read a short letter into the record. i'm happy to answer any

questions. dear chair, vice chair and sfmta board of directors, since demolition of the central freeway, page street and haight street have seen dramatic increases in automobile congestion, as motorists search for alternative routes to the freeway. as a result, the threats to the safety of activists and pedestrians have increased and public transit along haight street is often delayed. sfmta has been working to improve conditions on page street for several years. and i have been a part of much of that work. downhill center running bike lane was added to aid bike riders in navigating around, rain gardens and a raised intersection at page and buchanan are coming next year. yet automobile cueing on page street to octavia continues to be a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists in district 5, traveling along or crossing page street. earlier this year, i asked sfmta

staff to explore building upon past improvements with an eye towards directly tackling freeway-bound cueing on page street. i pushed sfmta staff to think big, which resulted in the pilot project of traffic diversion before us today. these measures will eliminate freeway access on page street and prioritize people walking and bicycling on this neighborhood street, which connects parks, john muir elementary and other community resources. i'm happy to have guided sfmta in developing a comprehensive evaluation plan and in community outreach. the evaluation plan includes the study of traffic safety, vehicle circulation, transit travel time, and other concerns. and i'm pleased that sfmta agreed to include a neighborhood survey to round out the evaluation, as a component of the pilot. i support this pilot on page street and respectfully ask sfmta -- the sfmta board to approve it. and i also want to make an

additional ask that sfmta staff develop a plan to take the next steps of studying 8th street and that this board issue a directive to staff to do so. thank you very much. and may i enter this letter into the record? >> thank you very much. >> all right. >> clerk: sarah, warren lays, guy barry. first three speakers. >> hello. my name is sarah bucker. iive will at 153 page street, just a couple doors from octavia boulevard. and every day i witness the chaos that is pedestrians, activists, cars and trucks trying to navigate an intersection that has become an unintended freeway on-ramp. as the mother of a high schooler and a middle schooler, who both ride their bikes through the neighborhood and the city, i view the current situation as unsafe and untenable.

the anger of motorists got so bad, a neighbor created april fool's signs, ta encourages drivers to take a breath and lay off the horn and they worked, for a little while. [laughter] for more lasting solution, the proposed pilot to alter page street traffic patterns including prohibiting turns is a good place to start. the work should not end there. the m.t.a. needs to prioritize safety for pedestrians and cyclists if we want more people to take more of their trips without the use of their cars. traffic through our neighborhood in particular and the city as a whole must be looked at holistically. changes to traffic-flow patterns on page street will inevitably result in the way the drivers use surrounding streets. it will take time for people to modify their habits, to access the freeway in different ways. some current backups may actually get better, since fewer cars turning on to octavia at page street will mean that more space for vehicles making the turn from oak street will be available.

but it is possible that there may be unintended consequences as well. [bell dings] during the 15-month pilot, the m.t.a. must continue to assess and address the traffic, safety and noise issues on octavia boulevard. those of us who lived in hayes valley for decades remember when the freeway sliced through the neighborhood, casting a heavy shadow on the residents below. we fought hard to create a vibrant neighborhood. we're not quite there yet. but let's keep working on it. >> thank you. [ please stand by ]

- this made the neighborhood incr. vehicles force pedestrian to wal left turns resulted in many nea. angry and frustrated honking anr occurrence making it difficult . pollution from the hundreds of s in the neighborhood as well, esd elderly who live there.

our children and streets have b. we have to wash our streets mor. it used to have four access poit was closed. changes to page and haight stre, exacerbating the situation. the current proposal calls for t to octavia, blocking eastbound . >> thank you. next speaker. warren followed by marcell and . >> to continue the comments base residents in the lower haight an already unsafe and inlivable sid

surrounding neighborhoods to be. our neighborhood residents havef the proposed changes until rece. and though the board decision we residents' concerns, no changesr suggestions that would address . the closure of page street witho haight street will result in a r neighborhood which is already d. the goals of the page street ar. but the changes are being imples not taking into consideration tg neighborhoods. we asked the board to make chanu address it, to address those co. we ask part of the program thato be postponed or severely limited