of the sfmta board of directors to order. secretary boomer, roll call, please. >> thank you, madam chair. director borden? >> here. >> borden present. director brinkman. >> present. >> director eaken? >> here. >> director heinicke is anticipate. >> director rubke? >> here. >> director torres? >> here. >> madam chair, directors, you have a core quorum. the ringing of a use of cell phones and sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at the meeting. any personal responsible for one going off may be asked to leave the room. devices set on vibrate do cause microphone interference. the board respectfully requests

they be turned off. item number 4, approval of the minutes. >> do i have a motion from the board? >> yes. >> second. >> any public comment on our minutes from november 5th? >> no, madam chair, no one has turned in a speaker card. >> all of those in favor of our minutes? >> aye. >> all those oppose. >> clerk: item number 5, communications. >> are there any -- >> madam chair, i have none. >> okay, wonderful. >> item number 6, introduction of new or unfinished business by board member. >> yes. thank you. i heard that supervisor peskin is applauding the m.t.a. for adding the embarcadero to the bicycle list. my understanding is the embarcadero is port jurisdiction. so it makes it a little bit more challenging about what we can do, versus what we need their put on. it would great to have an update on how that process is going to improve the bike and ped safety

on the embarcadero. >> great. >> thank you. >> other directors? >> yeah. i have something. so i just wanted to highlight for the board and for the public that a group of advocates produced a booklet called getting to the curb. it was released last week. it was a collaboration of very advocacy groups and facilitated by walk s.f. this is the senior and disability vision zero work group. getting to the curb booklet basically highlights design considerations that we all as cities can use when we're putting in protected it bikeways, which we hope to be doing more of, of course, throughout our city. ensuring that those designs don't have adverse impacts on folks with disabilities and seniors, who have a particular need to get to the curb in a safe and direct matter. i encourage everyone to check out the booklet. i can send it around to secretary boomer to read it to the board.

>> wonderful. maybe we can add that to the minutes somewhere, to people know they can find it. any other new unfinished business from board members? if not, i'm going to present tom maguire his five years of service pin. [applause] >> very thankful for you for sticking with us for five years. we look forward to at least five more. >> item number 7 director's report. >> i'm going start with an update on our vision zero efforts and sadly report that we've had two fatalities so far this month. the first fatality occurred on november 2nd at the intersection of 16th treat. this is where a driver hit a pedestrian, who was in the crosswalk while the driver was making a left turn. the police department is currently investigating that crash. now that's -- that intersection is part of an ongoing

construction project the m.t.a. is doing. the improvement project. unfortunately what's so unfortunate about the timing of this fatality, is we are in the process of building out pedestrian bulbs at all four corners of the intersection. as well as putting five new traffic signals along 16th street at five other intersections, not at taharamp. i can report that the initial investigation did not find that any of the construction that was taking place was a factor in the collision. but it's still a tragedy and one that hopefully future tragedies will be prevented by that project. >> what time of day was it? >> i don't have that information. i can follow up on that for you. >> thank you. >> the second crash was a hit-and-run that also took place on a street that's on the high-injury network and the board has authorized some really important safety improvements to. a hit-and-run took place at the vicinity perform amazon and mission street.

again this is also currently under investigation by the police. so we don't have a lot of details to share. the mission safety project is going to bring new traffic lights, bulb outs, bike spot improvements and this board approved it just two months ago on september 2019. we are going to get some of this done as a quick build in 2020. but it's really -- it's really sad for all of us that even on streets that we're all working so hard on, that these crashes continue to occur. i wanted to share just a couple of insights about election results. as you know, proposition d, the congestion mitigation tax passed with a 67.65% "yes" vote, which is enough, that's two-thirds. so 3.25% tax on individual 1.5% tax on shared rideshare trips and this generates about 32 million ad year. half of which goes to the transportation authority to fund vision zero safety projects. and half of which will come to the sfmta to directly fund

transit operations. so that's -- that's some really good news. also happy to report that earlier this fall, the federal transit administration was in town doing their trienal review, every three years. and they review 19 programs throughout the m.t.a. we were really pleased that the audit, which takes place over three days, found four deficiencies across the entire agency. while those were really -- no deficiencies, that's a great result. i have worked at agencies where we've gotten 15, 20, 25 findingses and the findings were things that we're able to remedy pretty quickly. we're really pleased that a couple of our programs were identified as best practices, including our drug and alcohol program, our civil rights title 6 program, and some of our project management skills. we did not get these in the areas that are most common and more worrisome for transit

areas, procurement, financial management or civil rights. you'll be receiving a final report from the m.t.a. on december 3rd. and this weekend i was joined by director brinkman at the muni safe driver awards. they've driven safely for at least 15 years and actually a couple of operators -- a couple of operators who have 42 years of safe operation, which is kind of unbelievable. so to earn this, this is a highly coveted, highly respected distinction, they're recognized with passion certificates, belt buckles and lots of cheers from their fellow operators. and i really, really recommend if you ever want to feel great about moonia and see the people who are on the frontlines of keeping the city safe, go to this awards ceremony one year. it's terrific. finally a come of upcoming events. we're working on a process

called connect s.f., building a long-term transportation plan to achieve equity and sustainable transportation in san francisco. on thursday, november 21st we're hosting a workshop specifically focused on input from the youth of the city. we're co-hosting in partnership with the san francisco youth commission from 5:00 until 7:00 p.m. at mission high school. and finally, one more event that i know many people were eager to see us bring back this year. winter walk is coming back again this year, starting on november 29th. this year we're going to shift winter walk from stockton street, where it's been for the last few years to grant street. it's a free event sponsored by off the grid in the union square bid. it will feature food trucks, vendors, performances, all kinds of great things to activate our streets and get people thinking about the streets, not just as places to move or dodge traffic. but as places to really experience the life of the city. we're sponsoring the holiday ice rink at union square, which is open today and will stay open through january 20th.

and we're also co-sponsoring the winter park at the -- in the civic center plaza, right out in front of city hall for a second season. and that's running through january 5th. so we are look to do everything we can to activate our public space and make sure people think of our streets as part of the vibrant life of the city. and that concludes ply director's report. i do have my colleague julie who is going to give an update on transit. >> i think we're going to put that off until the director heinicke is here. thank you very much for that. kudos on all of the great recognition. directors, any questions for the director's report? >> just a comment. yes, the safe driver awards dinner was, as always, just amazing. the temperament, the skill set and just the fortitude to -- i can't imagine operating a bus for 15 years in this environment with no avoidable accidents, let alone over 40. those men and women were truly amazing. i also forgot to mention that i did go out on sunday for the

world remembrance day for victims of traffic violence. and we were joined by the families for safe streets on that walk. and sfpd escorted on a walk around the ter den loin to the sites where we've lost people. it was an amazingly powerful event. i was pleased to be there. a couple of staff members there, james was there and hava was there. it was lovely for everybody to share with those families and to walk with the sfpd. it was so hearting. the neighbors who came out when they realized what we were doing, the reception from the neighbors in the tenderloin was fantastic. a lot of unsolicited comments, the streets were unsafe and so glad we were calling attention to that. >> thank you for doing that. representing us. any other comments from directors? if not -- oh, yes. >> tom, can you remind the board how many fatalities have there

been so far this year on the vision zero? >> i actually want to, if you can give me a minute, i want to get the latest number. >> i looked up the number of homicides the city has had this year, as of november. and it's 33. and my recollection is that number on our streets, in terms of crashes, is gaining on the number of homicides we have. >> yeah. right now there have been 27 on our streets this year, including the two that i described in the director's report. >> i mean, the fact that they're occurring repetitively on the same network, i think does mean that we've got the right target in our sights. but we're doing a lot of capital improvements. and it appears to me we're doing them quickly. and we're still behind the curve. and i know we had the police department here a meeting or two

ago. i'm just wondering there's some strategy of like flooding the zone and getting cops and getting p.c.o.s and anyone else who wears a uniform, out in some of those intersections and just slowing traffic down. and i don't have in mind some sort of stunt. the fact is this just keeps happening week after week, meeting after meeting we hear about this. and, look, i think we're doing a lot of good things. but we're still not gaining ground on the problem. and so i at least would appreciate if the staff could consider some kind of strategy like that, that could make a splash. because, look, i think a lot of this is not necessarily people who are out there to run people down. there are people who have really bad driving habits. and they're not going to change

their habit, unless they see some consequence. and one way to change your habit, if you're not intending to do ill is just to be reminded of it. so look, i bring that up on the spur of spur of the moment, without a lot of forethought. but i do believe, as a board, we've got to leave no stone unturned on this agenda, because we constantly in our business talk about safety as job one. we are failing at job one, as far as that goes. and i can't think of another job we do that's more important. >> and i know that the -- there's a legislation, maybe you can bring back to us. i know supervisor yee or president yee introduced legislation around slowing down speed limits. and maybe have the police to come back for future meetings. they announced beefed-up efforts and find out how they're targeting. so those two things and the timeliness of those could be useful. >> yeah. could i suggest we also bring

back an update on the state zero death task force, which is making progress towards statewide speed limits setting and automated speed enforcement as well, which gets to both of those. >> great. wonderful. i guess i would like to build on this. i was fortunate to spend a little time in copenhagen at the beginning of last month. we know 50%, 60% of people commute by bicycle there, we're not at 10% yet here. i don't think anywhere in the country. and it was just so noticeable the way that drivers do behave differently there. it was so noticeable as a cyclist, from cycling here, i have a bit of a protective shield on, a sort of posture when i'm cycle. i'm ready for drivers to make bad decisions. i'm almost anticipating bad behaviors from drivers at every turn. it was so refreshing to have drivers who actually yielded to cyclists. like i kept on being surprised at how kind and courteous the

cash -- how respectful and differential the vehicles were being. i started talking to other cyclists on the street, just to understand sort of what is that about. and they -- they mentioned to me that if any driver made a dangerous move, that immediately ten people would be all over them, yelling at them, screaming, correcting that behavior. there's something about the society that reinforces safe driver behavior. i just think if we're looking to hit a 2024 goal of getting to zero and we're at 27 and the trend is going in the wrong direction, it does feel to me that driver -- changing driver behavior has to be a key part of the solution. that's something that could change with the concerted effort in four years. whereas the last budget updates, the capital budget updates we got, show we're not on track to sure the funding to even fix the high-injury network. i want us to have the robust conversation about how we could change driver behavior for the better. >> great.

before that workshop, we can calendar that, director. >> director, do we have any data to suggest how many of those fatalities are caused by uber, lyft, or those types of drivers? >> i don't have specific numbers on how many are caused by uber and lyft. we do know that the behavior, the type of driver, but the behavior that's most likely the cause is speeding. but whether they're ubers to lyfts, we don't have a lot of data about that. >> they're causing problems especially in the area -- looking at their mirrors. not realizing what they're doing. >> all right. directors, we're kind of a little bit off of agenda. so if anybody has any more comments. >> how did i get called? >> sorry. i can see the city attorney kind of nudging me. >> i couldn't hear him.

>> do you want finish your thought? >> i want to talk more about copenhagen. >> great. that's definitely not on the agenda. [laughter] but with that, are there any other comments among the board members on the director's report? if not, we'll open it up to general public comment on director's report only, this is not on any other item on the agenda. if you have a specific comment related to the director's report, now is your time to make those comments. we do not answer. it's not a back and forth answering process. but we can take notes and get back to you on the issues that you bring up. any public comment on the director's report? please down to the microphone. >> hi, robbin craft here. i want to address this last issue of safety on the streets. i think there's two angles to it. one is the drivers and one is the pedestrians. so we see people speeding through the red lights all the

time. and i think it's terrible. i mean, it's really horrible. we have to watch the streets to see if a car is going to go through red. that right there is a set-up to hit someone. if they keep doing that behavior. so i think number one there needs to be a public campaign to not run red. slow down when it's yellow. so many people are so impatient. they just can't wait. they can wait. and i think something about you can wait, put something about you can wait. two seconds or whatever it is. put that in the slogan. you can wait. the other part of it is the pedestrians. they're crossing the street like looking on their cell phones. that's a problem. and i actually got hit six years ago with a car, i was looking down. i was in the crosswalk with a green light. and i was hit. so i have learn police department in that experience. i have to see where all of the cars are all the time, even if i have right-of-way. so i'm not talking just anywhere. even if you have right-of-way, the pedestrians have to see where the cars are.

most pedestrians don't know that. i learned the hard way. so i think so we also need a campaign as part of vision zero towards the pedestrians, to tell them to look up when they're crossing the street. okay. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the director's report only? please come to the microphone and feel free if you want to line up on the left-hand side. >> my name is elizabeth kerhan. >> give us your name again. >> elizabeth kerhan. i took the coalition written class probably in 2010. and i was actually blown away at the cyclists not knowing the rules. and from the curriculum that they taught, i was thinking it would be very important, not only for bicyclists to learn the information, but also for drivers. basically said everything that i thought i was doing to protect myself, is actually the stuff that's going to get me hurt. i was blown away that was not actually covered in d.m.v. law and stuff that you have to learn in order to get a license. so that would be a recommendation on making sure that everybody is aware of what

the laws are for everyone, including pedestrians, who when you're 5, you get to the corner, you stop, you look both ways, you don't just keep walking. >> thank you. any other public comment on the director's report? if not, we'll move on to the next item. >> item 8, senior citizen advisory council report. we have the chair of the c.a.c. finance and administrative committee. >> mc, mr. palyard. >> hi, there. good afternoon, commissioners. or directors. so we had one motion from our most recent meeting. so i'm going to -- going to read that in lieu of discussion of the meeting, which i wasn't able to attend. but it was an overview from julie kirschbaum by all accounts a spirited two and a half hour discussion covering a lot of topics about especially transit service. the motion is that the sfmta

c.a.c. recommends that -- or to reduce bunching and gapping of transit vehicles, the c.a.c. recommends that active line management be enhanced for all lines with the following areas of emphasis. one, ensuring that buses and trains are deployed on schedule, at the start the line. two, turning around and redesignating vehicles when necessary. three, assigning dedicated line managers to rail and bus lines. and, four, increasing staff to make this happen. i also would like to say i appreciated director heminger, your bringing attention to safety, as the number one priority for the agency and, you know, orienting the discussion around that. again today at this really critical time to make much-needed improvements. two items that directors brought up, speed limits and the impact on t.n.c.s and their increased

congestion in the city and what that could be doing to contribute to a lack of safety on our streets. those are both things that the c.a.c. has been very interested in and has discussioned before. so we're going to be continuing to have those discussions and we would like that to be a good opportunity to have a relationship where we're bringing motions to this board, that's helpful for you guiding the decisions that we need to make for needed safety improvements. thank you so much. that includes my report. >> thank you. and maybe director kirschbaum can talk a little bit about the issues you raised. because i think understanding how she does that in her report. we're going to move that report to later in the agenda. but we will be having a transit update report. >> all right. thank you. >> thanks. next item. >> madam chair, seeing no one who is making a move to address you on matters discussed by the c.a.c. chair, we'll move on to

general public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to discuss within the jurisdiction and not on today's calendar. first speaker will be ruth followed by mark and then herbert. >> hi. my name is ruth. i wrote many of you last night. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. in any given week, i walk, take muni, ride my bike for transportation and drive my car in san francisco. i want to tell you a story. thank you. and make a request. about six weeks ago, i had cataract surgery. while we were coming home from surgery, my husband stopped briefly in the red bus transit lane on mission street, so i could go into the optometrist. a few days later, we got a ticket. a bus camera generated double parking ticket. my first instinct was to fight

the ticket. but then i realized i want the buses to go faster and that means enforcement of the red lanes. i'm not happy i got the ticket, but the ticket was justified, i wish more people got them. i paid the ticket and i'd like to thank you for protecting the red lines with enforcement. why aren't we using the same technology for enforcing no stopping and no parking in bike lanes? i don't know a person in san francisco who has ever encountered enforcement of protected bike lanes. or even unprotected bike lanes for that matter. even a brief stop sends cyclists out into potentially dangerous traffic. if we call parking and traffic, it doesn't help. the car will be gone long before a parking enforcement officer gets there. [bell dings] you already have the cameras on the buses. just program the cameras to

photograph cars stopped in the bike lanes as well. for streets with bike lanes without bus service, like valencia street, put the cameras in unmarked cars driven by parking enforcement officers. i've never biked down valencia street without having to go out into the street multiple times, because of cars blocking bike lanes. such parking enforcement cars would pay for themselves many times over. [bell dings] >> thank you. >> thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. >> clerk: mark, followed by herbert. those are the last two people who have turned in speaker cards under this topic. >> good afternoon, directors. mark ruben, taxi drivers in and medallion holder. i used to attend these meetings fairly regularly. but i stopped coming some months ago. frankly i lost faith in this agency, as a fair and impartial regulator of the taxi industry. i hope that new leadership and

the person who missed a ton will make a fresh start in that direction. i note that back in 2001, mr. tono was the project manager for nelson nygaard on a study of the san francisco taxi industry, sponsored by spur. that study was not well received by the industry at that time. but these are very different times. some of its recommendations are worth a fresh look. i particularly mentioned coordination of taxis, with transit services. something the taxi workers' alliance has been urging for years. i hope you'll give serious consideration to this and other ideas to increase taxi ridership. thank you. >> thank you for being here. next speaker, please. >> herbert winier will be the last person to address the board under this topic. >> herbert winier. i wish to make a comment on how projects are planned.

one thing i've noticed is when bus lines are modified or changed, bus stops are consolidated and the rest of it, the people affected aren't at ground stages of planning. they aren't on the first stage. m.t.a. does not come to the people affected and say we see some problems on the line. what problems do you see, how can we plan this together. instead the public is presented with -- and m.t.a. says here's a hot potato, catch. and, as a result of it, the parameters of dialogue are contradicted. you cannot think outside the box, as a result of it. so, as a result, you have unrealistic plans. we see the catastrophe on the line, the 27 line is miserable. and what you have are buses running at the same speed, having lousy service, but you've

got to walk two more blocks to get it. so this is an upshot of the public not being a real participant, instead being a victim. and this i think would -- my idea i think would be a remedy towards this. people who are affected have to be involved in the initial stages of planning. [bell dings] it's only fair. otherwise m.t.a. stands for more train wrecks ahead. thank you. >> thank you. any other additional public comment for this public comment period? feel free to come to the microphone. >> i don't have to write my name down. my name is mark. i'm the president of the san francisco african-american chamber of commerce. we're glad to have you, tom, as the new executive director. we do have interest in diversity, equity and inclusion. contracting and as well as employment. we look forward to having a

dialogue with you. thank you. >> okay. any additional public comment? >> could i just -- i just wanted to thank the public commenter for her experience with the enforcement cameras and thank you for your maturity about accepting that ticket and understanding why we do that enforcement. and director maguire, you could confirm, if i misstate that. i do believe it's a state law, which prohibits us from using those forward-facing cameras for anything else. but that it is perhaps something that the state level vision zero task force is one of the things that they are looking into? >> yes. that task force is primarily focused on speed cameras. but the idea of automating and making bike lane enforcement more effective is being discussed there as well. >> okay. thank you. thank you. next item. >> clerk: madam chair, these items are considered to be routine, a member of the board or a member of the public wishes to have a separate discussion of

one of the items, board members, 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