>> good afternoon. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the mar22, 2021 meeting of the land use committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am joined by dean preston and aaron peskin. i am myrna melgar. do you have any announcements? >> yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members city employees, the committee room are closed.

members will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to statewide stay-at-home order and all local state and local directives. committee members will attend through video and participate as if they are physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. channel 26, 78 or 99. we are streaming the number on the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. opportunities to speak are via by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting id is (187)859-1223.

then pound and pound again. when kecked you will hear the discussions -- when connected you will hear the discussion but in listening mode only. dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. call from a quite el location, speak slowly and turndown your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment by e-mailing the land use and transportation clerk. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be forwarded to the haves and made part of the file. comments may be sent to city hall. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the

board of supervisors agenda of april 6 medicals otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you very much. will you please call items one and two together. >> yes, item 1. resolution extending zoning controls for six months and findings for proposed change from residential care facility and affirming appropriate findings. 2. hearing to receive six month report on interim zoning controls for removal of residential care facilities. call 415-655-0001. if id (187)859-1223.

press pound pound. if you have not done so already. dial star 3 to line up to speak for these items. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. madam chair. >> supervisor mandelman: we are joined by jacob to share remarks. welcome. >> thank you, their melgar. good afternoon supervisors. supervisor mandelman was not able to join you today. the items before you today are resolution to extend existing zoning rolls that require a conditional use for proposed change of use away from residential care facility to other use and required hearing on the planning department report for those controls. with respect to the controls supervisor mandelman original

originallyproposed these in reso the long-term care crisis in the report from the city long-term care coordinating council assisting living working group. that report documented the alarming rate at which we are losing these facilities. as of 2018, san francisco had 43 fewer than in 2012 t.242 critically living builds were lost in those six years. the trend has continued since then with an additional loss of 11 facilities including 226 beds in the two years since that report was issued. the intent of these controls is to discourage the further closure and conversion of facilities and slow loss and and dress the challenge.

when the supervisor put forward the 18 month controls we did not participate the covid pandemic to divert attention and resources from efforts including this one. today's resolution would extend by additional six months to the 24 month period for an entire rim control as we consider making the conditional use permanent and also look at responses that may go beyond land use controls. operating subsidies or identifying ways to match existing operators with interested buyer that may revisit the city policies on looking for acquisition as well. these conversations are underway and we look forward to discussing those solutions that may be available to us with you all in the coming months. on the controls themselves i want to note that it is important to know we are only

just beginning to see the first projects come through to the planning commission that triggered the conditional use requirement. first one was heard this month. another one in april. we feel like it is useful to keep the controls in place to look at how the projects turn-out as we consider permanent planning code requirements. we understand there are other projects in the pipeline or out there being considered for conversion. those are all the more reason to keep the additional scrutiny that comes with these controls. as you will recall i was here last week. that was to request a continuance on this item. the reason was we needed time to prepare amendments necessary to properly reference modifications to these controls that had been made in december 2019. they were omitted in the

extension resolution before you today. i have circulated the amendments to you all and to your staff. let me just briefly summarize for your consideration. first, there is amendment to the long title of the resolution as well as to the finding on page 2 line 24-inch concluding reference to resolution 539-19 which was that resolution that modified the original controls in december 2019. second set of amendments is non substantive changes to rear to another refer to zoning districts called out in the monitoring report and incorporated in the findings page 3, lines 22-25. the amendments to clarify the resolution today is extending and modifying the original controls. the extension retaining language of the original resolution from october 2019 rather than the

language that had been added subsequently in resolution 53919. this is achieved with proposed amendment to the resolved clause which would read resolved that this interim controls imposed by resolution 430-19 and modified by 539-19 are here by extended and modified to revert to the controls by resolution 430-19 and shall remain in effect until october 11, 2021. supervisors for the record the operative control extended by this resolution is the language you find in the following resolve clause on page 5 line 21-23. that language reads as drafted. further resolved any proposed change of use from residential care facility as defined in 102 and 890.50e of the planning code

shall require conditional use authorization while the controls are in effect. that remains the language for clarity. supervisors while these will have the effect of continuing the controls they do not carry the language from the modifying resolution. we are no longer requesting this as committee report but do appreciate your consideration and ask that you consider moving these amends forward so the resolution can be considered for recommendation at the april 5th meeting after recess and so that the controls can be extended prior to their current expiration date april 11 of this year. chair, melgar, we have susie smith of the deputy director of policy and planning at hsa available to provide background on the loss of facilities and answer any questions. aaron starr of the planning department is here for item 2,

required report on the controls. with that thank you so much. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you so much. we do have susie smith here from the human services agency who i believe is prepared to make a brief presentation. ms. smith, welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me today. jacob asked me to provide context to the 2019 report and update the data to share with you. are you going to share the pdf? thank you so much. i am deputy director for policy and planning at the human services agency. we developed a report in 2019 that provided context.

in the next slide is the name of the report supporting affordable assisted living in san francisco. next slide we talk about the background for the initiation of this report which was the long-term care coordinating council which many of you know is advisory to the mayor on planning and delivery to look at the integrated and acceptable long-term care delivery. this particular study was sponsors by those needing assisted living were not able to access it. it has an impact on low income residents. the next slide we just share is the findings between what is known and the documents and data. we see a steady decline in

assisted living across the residential care facilities for the elderly as well as the adult residential facilities and the impact is particularly with smaller boarding care homes and those adult residents. >> are we missing ms. smith? >> for example -- >> susie, maybe if you turnoff your camera. you are cutting in and out. >> i am sorry. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i must we having internet issues.

decline in both residential care facilities for elderly as well as adult residential facilities. since 2012 the city has seen 9% decline in assisted living beds. we have seen 5% decline in rcfds, 22% decline in the adult residential facilities. this is being driven primarily by small facilities which have been more affordable for low income residents and community members. since 2012 we have seen a staggering 40% decrease in number of beds available in small board and care homes. then on the next slide shows the information about the residential care facilities for the elderly. looking across the facilities and beds. here we see between 2012 and

2018, san francisco lost 21rcfes which represents 26% decline in number of facilities. most of this was in the smaller homes. the bed capacity has decline add much as 5%. impact is disproportional. on the next slide we look at adult residential facilities which have been more pronounced trend. we had 22 fewer arps since 2018 than we did in 2012. most of these are small facilities. out of the 42 licensed arp, 27 were actually board and care homes with six or fewer residents. we are talking about very small facilities more home like and more appropriate for certain members of our community.

for this hearing, supervisor mandelman's office asked to update trends since 2019 study. we provide that data on the next slide. we have about 2300 beds in the residential care facilities for the elderly. we have about 440 beds for adults under 60. we see the change since the last report. we have seen some losses pan some gains. facilities lost driven by board and care home closures. we had five of these smaller facilities compared to 2018 report. most closures predate this zoning policy. closures occurred prior to

october 2019, four. two closures on the mission and two in sunset and one in inc. el side. there is expansion of larger facilities over 100 beds. this is mainly due to opening of the new frank resident memory care at sf campus for jewish living and launch of the gardens at the home. switching to the arp. we have seen a net loss of four arp and 40arp beds since 2018. this is driven by the closure of four boarding care homes operated by one company. the closure of aurora residential care homes which is a series of four universities in

the excelsior area. the losses were offset by one board and care opening. then we saw the closure of a larger 24 bed facility in the mission which closed in august 2008. the larger policy issues with the ability to actually financially make these facilities viability is getting increasingly difficult as property values increased and costs to run the facilities increased. we can't spread the staffing costs out accordingly. i am happy to talk about the solutions beyond zoning if that is of interest and answer questions for the committee. thank you for the opportunity to share the updated data.

>> thank you, susie. if there are no questions for ms. smith or my colleagues. supervisor preston, go ahead. >> sorry i was muted. i want to ask ms. smith on the demand and the need side. what the trends on? we see the concerning picture with so many beds and facilities lost. i don't be know if we have data on the need. is the need flat, rising or changing in any way we are tracking? >> yeah, we are seeing the demand has not flattened. it is increasing as the population continues to age. on the prior report we haven't

updated numbers on demand. we see in terms of mental health behavioral health beds and it is helpful for homelessness. we are trying to get support as well as older adult population aging. we haven't seen a decline in the demand. i can provide updated data if interested on that side as well. >> thank you. i don't think from my perspective it is necessary with this zoning. moving forward to look at the bigger policy issues, it would be great to have that as part of the presentation so we know what we are doing with terms of up met demand. i appreciate supervisor mandelman's office work on this crucial issue when the time is right after public comment i would be happy to move the amendments which supervisor mandelman has offered and

appreciate your time in walking our office through the fairly technical and complicated interaction between the original resolution and the changes and now getting this right to paysicly back to the extension of what was the original purposes of this ordinance. this resolution is essential and just appreciate all of the work on it. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor preston. thank you, susie. for last presenter we have mr. aaron starr of the planning department to discuss the interim controls. >> good afternoon, supervisors. aaron starrs, legislative affairs. they were adopted october 1, 2019. they were in effect for 18

months which expires april 11th. it requires conditional use authorizes from residential care to any other use. in addition to standard c.u. findings they outlined four other findings that we must consider in reviewing this application. those are outline understand the report. when the packet was published there were none. this facility was a residential care facility in what was previously single family home that accommodated about 12 patients. opened in 20,000 and closed april 2019. it was sold to the current owner in -- sorry 2020. the new owners seeked to change

from residential care to single family home. staff recommendation to approve conversion. condition on selling two units instead of one since the property is zoned rh-2. during the hearing the financial feasibility was called into question by commissioners. planning commission voted to approve conversion with only requiring one unit which is what the applicant had wanted. vote was 3-4. this is a split vote not over the conversion over whether or not to require two units per staff recommendation or just one. in addition to this application there is another one pending before the commission. that is located 628 shot well street. this is similar to 801 in that it would convert closed have been care facility to two. it is calendared in planning but

continued. there are two other applications to create new residential care facility also. 1535 van dyke and 5500 mission street. they are to increase capacity of existing residential care facilities. those were at 1301 bacon and 658 shot well. department is aware of three sites to delicense out of residential care and operate as group housing facility. 141ly land, 128 highland street and 220 delores street. they are through the housing and community development and h.i.v. age related care facilities. because of advancements they month longer need medical care required in the early days of the epidemic. that concludes my report. i am available for questions should you have them. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions for

mr. star? i have a question. that is about the staff recommendation for the conversion that you just talked about. i know that this issue of losing beds and facilities is something that we have put in the medical services master plan. we all worry about it. you know we have created this interim control process of coming before the planning commission. it puzzles me as to why the staff recommended this. could you talk about that decision how we weigh the policy of needing to preserve facilities against other uses and things we need like housing. >> yes, it is a difficult one. in this case staff was looking at the fact that the facility had already closed and the

believe had already been sold. the interim controls didn't have an impact on the sale or closing of the facility. i think they were just saying balancing the need for housing and wanted to turn into a housing unit and the fact the residential care facility was long gone at this point. it wasn't coming back. >> i don't mean to give you a hard time. i don't think you were the staff who recommended it. that is exactly what the interim controls were for to give any buyers pause that they have to go through this process if they intend to do something besides the facility. >> yes. i think that when this happens they probably weren't aware of that at the time. one problem is that a lot of people aren't aware the interim controls are there and not part

of it and it should be identified by the seller. i am not sure if there is a solution to that. it is also difficult for us if we tint let the conversion go and there was no buyer for it, it would be sitting empty. it is a difficult decision for the planning department. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> madam chair, if i may venture to speculate. i suspect that if you were on the planning commission you would have voted in the disisn't. we just had a case at 424 francisco street, very old. the board voted unanimously granted it wasn't about residential care but it was about a history. the idea that the successor

interest is lost of all sins -- washed of all sins of the previous owner does not meet the policy goals supervisor mandelman and we are trying to advance. no disrespect to staff or the planning department in this recommendation or the 4-3 vote by the commission, but ultimately this is a policy of the lawmakers and c.u.s are appealable to this board of supervisors. sorry for speculating, madam chair, as to how you might have voted. >> thank you, supervisor. okay. if there are no other questions or comments. madam clerk. let's take public comment on this item. >> we are checking for callers. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak for items 1 and 2.

if you are on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. it looking like we have one person in queue. unmute the first caller, please. >> hi. thanks everybody. i amnate. with national union of healthcare workers. i am calling to support this item about conditional use for residential care facilities. we represent mental health clinics for the eph contractor and operate an adult residential care facility. 33 bed facility on broderick street. we were recently involved in some negotiations involving

their lease, which was renewed recently. i just wanted to add that it is our experience that this policy has created additional protections that helped safeguard these beds. i think that it will continue to do so. in our experience it totally changes the balance of power with the private property owner here. changes their economic incentives. they cannot quickly flip it. we think, you know, when you look at the data of how this policy is working, it is not just the conditional use permits you guys have already looked at but you should think about deterrent effect that it has with the care facilities that are currently out there. especially in this category which are public contracts but private landowners, property

owners. what we think is playing a protective role in this case, and we hope the city will eventually be able to buy the property which i think they are trying to do. thank you for your time everybody. >> do we have any other callers? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. seeing no other callers, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to adopt the amendment as proposed by the staff? >> so moved. preston. >> madam clerk, please call the roll for item 1. supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar.

>> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you. the motion passes. as we originally noticed this item as possible committee report but because the amendments are considered substantive by the city tore, the amended legislation will need to be heard at the committee again at our next regularly scheduled meeting monday april 5th, 2021. madam clerk, please call the roll for item number two. >> remaining balance on item one it is continued? >> i am sorry. yes. >> on that motion, supervisor sr peskin. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much.

will you please call roll for item 2. >> the motion to continue it or file? >> i am sorry. i think this is to hear it on april 5th. or did we just do that? >> for item 1 it was amended and tipped to the fifth. >> i would make a motion to file item 2 if that is acceptable to the chair of the committee. >> yes, thank you. >> on the motion to file. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston.

>> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you so much. the motion passes. please call item 3. ordinance amending the planning code to prohibit retail workspace in chinatown mixed-use districts, affirming appropriate findings. members of the public should call the number on the screen. 415-655-0001 id1878551223. pound pound. if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> thank you very much. today we have laurel from the mayor's office of economic and worke forcer development and andvery on neca flores to preset

to this item. >> i would like to fix my name as cosponsor to this measure promised to chinatown when what became proposition 80 the ballot. i would like to be a could sponsor. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you, chair melgar. i am laurel. i am the director of business development for the office of economic and worke forcer development. thank you, supervisor peskin for cosponsor add. this was developed in partnership with the chinatown community after concerning from community members retail workspaces could impact the long standing efforts for a delineation between their district and maintain their role

as attraction. it would prohibit retail workspaces in line with the request we heard from the community. we request your support today. the planning commission is here to speak on it as well. >> welcome, ms. flores. >> thank you, chair melgar. good afternoon, veronica flores, planning commission staff. this was before the planning commission on february 18th. they unanimously recommended approval of said ordinance. this concludes the commission report. i am available for any questions. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. supervisor peskin, did you have any further comments about in. >> i do not. i think everything that needs to be said has been said. >> thank you. with that, public comment on this item, please.

>> we are checking for caller in the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue. on hold please continue to hold until the system indicates you are unmuted. >> there are no callers in queue. >> okay. seeing no other callers. public comment is closed. do we have a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation? >> so moved. >> okay. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> the motion as stated by supervisor peskin. peskin. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. are there any other items for us

today? >> that completes the business for today. >> thank you. we will be on spring recess next week and we will return to the regularly scheduled meetings april 5, 2021. we are adjourned. thank you.

. >> president yee: of the 26 neighborhoods we have in west portal, it's probably the most unique in terms of a small little town. you can walk around here, and it feels different from the rest of san francisco. people know each other. they shop here, they drink wine here. what makes it different is not only the people that live here, but the businesses, and without all these establishments, you wouldn't know one neighborhood from the other. el toreador is a unique

restaurant. it's my favorite restaurant in san francisco, but when you look around, there's nowhere else that you'll see decorations like this, and it makes you feel like you're in a different world, which is very symbolic of west portal itself. >> well, the restaurant has been here since 1957, so we're going on 63 years in the neighborhood. my family came into it in 1987, with me coming in in 1988. >> my husband was a designer, and he knew a lot about art, and he loved color, so that's what inspired him to do the decorations. the few times we went to mexico, we tried to get as many things as we can, and we'd

bring it in. even though we don't have no space, we try to make more space for everything else. >> president yee: juan of the reasons we came up with the legacy business concept, man eel businesses were closing down for a variety of reasons. it was a reaction to trying to keep our older businesses continuing in the city, and i think we've had some success, and i think this restaurant itself is probably proof that it works. >> having the legacy business experience has helped us a lot, too because it makes it good for us because we have been in business so long and stayed here so long. >> we get to know people by name, and they bring their

children, so we get to know them, also. it's a great experience to get to know them. supervisor yee comes to eat at the restaurant, so he's a wonderful customer, and he's very loyal to us. >> president yee: my favorite dish is the chile rellenos. i almost never from the same things. my owner's son comes out, you want the same thing again? >> well, we are known for our mole, and we do three different types of mole. in the beginning, i wasn't too familiar with the whole legacy program, but san francisco, being committed to preserve a lot of the old-time businesses, it's important to preserve a

lot of the old time flavor of these neighborhoods, and in that capacity, it was great to be recognized by the city and county of san francisco. >> i've been here 40 years, and i hope it will be another 40 years.

>> our clerk is brittany milton. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: okay. commissioner chen. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner haney? >> present. >> clerk: commissioner mandelman. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner mar. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner melgar. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner preston. >> present.

>> clerk: commissioner ronen. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner safai. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner stefani. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner walton. >> present. >> clerk: chair, we have quorum. i will make an announcement about publiccomment. public comment will be available by calling 415-655-0001, and when prompted enter an access code of i.d. 1872052695, and then ##. once you join, you'll be able to listen to the meeting as a participant. to make public comment when an item is called, press *3. do not press *3 again or you'll be removed from the cue. the operator will advice you that you are allowed two minutes to speak. calls are taken in the order in which they are

received. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly. and please be aware there is a 30second day during the course of the meeting. that concludes my announcement. >> chairman: thank you. call the next item. >> item two, chair's report. this is an information item. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, over the past weeks and months, there has been a surge of attacks against asian-americans in our city and across the country. sadly, these attacks are not new to this country or this city. i want to extend the transportation authority board's condolences to the families of those attacked killedor hurt. it is important for people to be able to gather in public spaces. this past weekend, many of us attended vigils, marches, and community events at the square in the castro and along

market street and heard messages of solidarity and support. this month also marks the anniversary of the start of shelter-in-place public orders. it is a trying time for so many businesses. the transportation authority board continues to work on ways to support essential commuters and travelers, and we want to add our thanks to sfcta operators, as last thursday was transit worker appreciation day. they have provided safe and reliable transportation for our riders as they travel to and from work and medical appointments and other essential works. i look forward to the presentation today on the transportation recovery plan. with more and more people getting vaccinated, we are beginning to reopen our economy. and we know transit will be key to our recovery. and we had a passage of the third major covid relief bill in washington. thanks go out to speaker

pelosi and president biden for passing the "american recovery act," which included $1.6 billion in funds for bay area operators, and about $3.6 billion for transit. it included cal tran electrification, which is set to receive $2 million. and central subway, which should get $3 million, and bart transportation program slated for $87 million. we are grateful for this essential support and the funds for areas impacted by the pandemic and enable these agencies to avoid layoffs and regrow our economy. now we turn to the infrastructure bill, and i want to thank our staff for working hard on that this month. finally, colleagues, let me close by recognizing the passing of paul homsted. as commissioner ronen and

vice president peskin(indiscernable) as the d.c. representative, and was a strong voice for regional collaboration and sustainable growth. we express our condolences to her loved ones. i'll be adjourning today's meeting in her honor. thank you, and that concludes my remarks. let's open this up to public comment. >> clerk: checking. at this time, there is no public comment. >> chairman: all right. let's please call the next item. >> clerk: item three, executive director's report. this is an information item. >> good morning. >> chairman: good

morning. >> good morning. thank you, chair mandelman,and good morning commissioners. we at the staff level also want to offer our condolences as well to add to the board's for ann's family, her husband, and her many, many friends throughout the city government and our partner agencies. we worked so closely with her and benefited constantly from her wisdom and experience. and i will personally miss her mentorship as well. turning back over to the federal picture, thank you again to our federal delegation, led by speaker pelosi, particularly on the transit side. we also are turning, of course, our attention to the infrastructure bill, which is very, very timely right now, not only in terms of the relief and recovery effort, but for our long-term goals. so we have been coordinated, this week in fact, very closely with the mayor's office, sfmta,

and to recognize community-based requests, as well as larger infrastructure (indiscernable), which is a smaller potential federal request that could be part of our local priorities. turning to the larger picture, this may or may not be part of the reauthorization of the infrastructure bill. it is unclear as to yet how congress and the administration will take that up. whether the long-term five-year authorization bill will be first or whether the infrastructure stimulus package may lead. but, in any case, both are being discussed and marked up particularly on the senate side, so we look forward to working with senator pedilla, who sits on the senate environment and public works committee. and senator feinstein and speaker pelosi are also very, very interested. on the federal side, we're attracting a electrical bicycle bill and a

high-speed rail bill. both are important for our overall climate response. as far as the electrical bicycle bill, it would, among other things, provide purchasers a refundable income tax up to a maximum credit of $1500. we look forward to providing input and tracking that bill, as well as many, many others at the larger level in terms of major opportunities. climate change legislation, also -- excuse me. climate change studies are happening also at the state level, the climate action plan for infrastructure have been released by the secretary's office, and we'll be providing public comment tomorrow to the california transportation commission. this plan discussions a number of initiatives, including investing in bicycling and also in transit, as well as

potentially (indiscernable). so we will provide public comment in support again tomorrow, as well as with the city and our regional partners. turning to m.t.c., they have recently announced a regional active transportation grant, a $10.8 million grant, to benefit the fulsom street project. and $7 million for the construction of the fulsom street project, and $3.9 million for the bike bicycle and pathway on buena island. the california high-speed rail authority's business plan is also out, and we encourage the public to comment on that as well. we are happy to provide public comment at senate transportation committee hearings to support the

valley to valley strategy, from the central valley to the bay area, and to support high-speed rail's request for bond funds for $4.1 billion. we want to thank mayor breed, in conjunction with mayor carlo from san jose. caltrans has also begun working on the central freeway via duct project on i-80, which is the 101 freeway, and the i-80 structures. these are $50 million contracts each, for reenforcement and paint. so they've been working with the city and county departments to ensure there is minimal impact to travelers, to transit service in particular, safe work zones, and ensure that we have good responses for public health for that work.

one more regional update: the cal train government committee has met and held the first of four workshops. i want to thank commissioner walton on that. you'll recall that this is parts of the comprise and understanding for passing the measure r.r. funds on the ballot last year. the board did discuss three types of potential governance changes with multiple offers and paths to consider. to modify the existing cal trains structure, which i think would not work for san francisco, and that would mean to maintain the cal trains roll organizationally, as well as organization of cal trains. and second, to create a new governance structure. and, third, to seek a regional merger option,

which has been specified by some members of the cal trains' board with bart. this includes the cost of making changes, the potential for improved transportation and the timeline necessary to make the big changes among some of these options, as well as the ability to provide regional and improve regional connectivity. and we'll continue to support the work of the cal train board members, as well as our board, throughout this importance process. turning now to the local level, there are a couple of events. the first is district 4 mobility studies, with commissioner mar, this saturday the 27th. and this will be another one of the studies outreach meetings where staff will share the preliminary findings for long-term alternatives for configuration of the great highway.

it will include walking, bicycling, and other transit throughout the district, as well as the commercial corridors. it includes improvements to access to the three commercial corridors and community shuttle options. please register to attend at our website. and we're concluding some of our work at the golden gate park. looking at the long-term feature of the j.f.k. roadway. we have held three community working groups already with state holders from the disability community, adjacent neighborhood groups, and citywide neighborhood groups, and park institutions and venues, and bicycle and other advocacy organizations, and the group has been discussing all of the different goals and unmet needs, which seems to be quite a bit of consent iveon those, as they work to

shape the various design options for the next phase of the work. so we plan to bring a revised action framework to you all, working closely with commissioner chen's office on this effort. finally, we want to report our january sales tax receipt collections for january. $5.4 million came in, lower than the prior year, not unsurprising, by about 30%. so this level is consistent, i think, with the year-long look that we're seeing emerge in the .in light of this, it means we'll be bringing our budget to you in april with a decrease of about $12 million, from $93 million to $81 million. but with the increase in vaccination rates and decline in infection rates, we expect to see the sales tax revenues rebounding later in the fiscal year, and we have

revised our projections forward with the city's office and the city economist as well, so we have a better picture this summer for our emerging field tax revenue for the reauthorization effort. i want to thank cynthia fong who had a lovely and beautiful baby boy. that is welcome, welcome news this week. so congratulations to cynthia. we can't wait to see the baby. thank you. >> chairman: great. thank you. i don't see any questions or comments from leagues, fromcolleagues, so let's open this up to republics republics. public comment.>> clerk: there e caller. >> caller: good morning. thank you. and welcome to the youngest member of the

authority. thank you for these reports, director chan. the first thing i would like to bring to your attention is there was an article indicating that union pacific had agreed to operate freight. this has profound implications on how we're going to be achieving our targets moving forward. so, first of all, the implications are enormous because we will no longer need a third track just for freight. but moving forward, union pacific will do pretty much what everybody else is doing: they're sharing tracks with electrified rail, and electrified

high-speed rail. the next thing is on the particular pathway, and we really need to start focusing on fresno and not on anything else. when we do, we're going to rediscover a memo for the high-speed rail that was shared. i believe it was in january 2019. [inaudible] please ask executive brian kelly to restore all of the board meeting's agenda prior to january 2018. the last point is about the merger with bart. i think it is essential for the cal trains board to understand the relationship between bart and the capitol corridor. bart provides the service for capitol corridor, but

there i was never a need to do a merger. but i do believe there are a couple of bart directors on the capitol board. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. chair, there are no more callers at this time. >> chairman: great. public comment on this item is closed. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> clerk: item four, approve the minutes of the march 9th, 2020, meeting. this is an action item. >> chairman: i do not see any comments from colleagues. so let's open up this item to public comment -- oh, vice chair peskin? >> clerk: i was just going -- >> i was going to, subject to public comment, make a motion to adopt the minutes. >> chairman: great. is there a second? >> second, ronen. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner ronen. let's open this up to

public comment. >> clerk: there is no public comment at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. please call the roll. >> clerk: all right. on item four, commissioner chen? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner haney? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner mar? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner melgar. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner preston? impea>> aye. >> clerk: commissioner ronen? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner safai? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner stefani? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner walton? >> aye. >> clerk: we have 11

ayes. >> chairman: thank you. please call items five through 10. >> clerk: these items are regarding the march 9th meeting are before the board for final approval. staff is ready to present and will be available for questions. >> chairman: vice chair peskin? >> move the consent agenda. >> chairman: thank you. is there a second? >> second, ronen. >> chairman: thank you. let's not open that up to public comment. we've already heard public comment on all these items. please call the roll. >> clerk: commissioner chen? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner haney? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner mar. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner melgar? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner

peskin? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner preston? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner ronen? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner safai? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner stefani? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner walton? >> aye. >> clerk: we have 11 ayes. >> clerk: item 11, san francisco transportation recovery plan. this is an information item. >> chairman: well, i believe we have director tomlin and julie criston, director of transit, and tom mcguire, director of the streets commission. and i believe we're going to start with commissioner chan. >> thank you, chair mandelman and colleagues.

back in february, i called for this hearing, and i really appreciate chair mandelman for scheduling it, and for all of you to be joining this hearing because as we begin to recover from the pandemic and we open our economy, really our communities on the west side, we really need to see a concrete plan from sfcta showing it is safe and efficient to get from point "a" to point "b." we also need to ensure that by committing, you know, to a permanent landscape, changes to our street, especially some of the temporary measures that have been put in place on the west side, like great highway and the park and shared space. we really need to see improved safety and efficiency. so, colleagues, i think

today you will see that there are many different opinions across various community groups and stakeholders, and coming from public comment. one thing that, you know, i do hear, and continue to hear, and i think some of my colleagues -- actually supervisor mar and supervisor melgar have heard, we cannot go back to the way it was before. we have a unique opportunity to reen envisionor transportation plan. with different modes of transportation, we can keep our neighborhood walkable, bikeable, and connected. let's be mindful that pre-pandemic great highway, there were 20,000 cars traveling through great highway on a day-to-day basis, but,

also, we have more than 60,000 people traveling from the richmond area to downtown area through public transit. and so what does that mean now for us to reopen our economy? and i really do believe with the possibility of more people working from home, a hybrid work schedule and work situation for a lot of people, and our schools, hopefully, are slowly but surely reopening -- all of those people have probably changed the way they travel around our city. we do see an increase of traveling from the north to north/south direction. and i really look to sfcta. how do we make sure we track these travel

patterns and changes and be able to offer adequate and efficient and responsive plans to respond to these needs. so thank you, and, again, i really appreciate director chan and her teamworking for sfmta and for sfmta to come to us today. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner chan. let's hear from the sfmta. sfmta. >> jess, did you want to make any remarks before tom and i start? >> you are our subject matter experts. i'm jeff tomlin. and here this afternoon or this morning we have tom mcguire, who is the director of streets, and julie kerfong, who is the director of transit.

they're here to lay out the framework of strategy that i hope will address commissioner chan's meetings, as well as speak to all of you. we certainly understand the necessity of coming together at this time to hold on to the best of the experiments we have created during the covid period, but also recognize that the city has changed, travel demand patterns have changed, and many of the temporary measures that we did during covid -- all of them are pretty good. some of them, i think, warrant sticking around. others, it may be time to let go of. in any case, we need to understand the unintended consequences of the experiments that we put forward and make adjustments, recognizing that we are still a long ways from full recovery at the sfmta. with that, let me turn it over to jill. >> good morning. board members, can you

confirm that you can see the presentation? >> chairman: yes, we can see it. >> great. well, this first slide shows just a snapshot glance of all of the tremendous work that the sfmta team to support transportation recovery. we started shifting to a recovery mode as early as last summer, really looking at how we could support both the city's mobility and economic recovery needs. everything from our shared spaces program to our slow streets, we were able to install temporary transit lanes, which will protect us from congestion has the city recovers. and it may be a little less known, but we also,

throughout this pandemic, have been processing hundreds of requests for dropoff, loading very early on when we were in our strictest of recovery, and people were only allowed to go to the curb for their pharmacy needs and their groceries. up to the most recent standing up of the city's vaccine sites. i just wanted to express a tremendous amount of gratitude for the staff across the agency, and in many cases across the city, and something like shared spaces has been a really comprehensive program that came together to stamp things up quicker, i think, than we've ever done. this work was all housed in our department's operation center, which was also a tremendous case study within the agency

for breaking down silos, pushing through bureaucracy, and i think a lot of really positive momentum and lessons, which will move us forward, alone with many close relationships and partnerships that staff have created. also, in addition to supporting the city's recovery, we absolutely needed to focus on covid safety for our staff and for our passengers. i think that we have one of the most extensive programs in the country. the first thing that we did was really look at the vehicle cleanliness. we are currently cleaning our vehicles twice a day so that all operators are going out with a clean bus. that's been important not just for covid safety, but also for the fear that a lot of our operators felt.

we were also very fortunate that we had operator barriers in all of our buses, and that provided an additional level of protection. we have been tracking for many months now our mask compliance and have had extensive compaigns around mask compliance. our mask compliance is over 95%, and we've had months as high as 98%. and then we continue to advance on that program. we're currently testing, for example, 25 mask dispensers, so if somebody does come on board and is not repaired to meet our requirements, they have a mask available to them. our car cleaners and custodians, they are really the heros of this pandemic. they have showed up every day to support our staff. but we also, at our facilities, have staff from across the agency

pitching in and keeping things clean. so it has been a tremendous undertaking. i'm also very proud of our contact tracing program, which, again, is helping to make sure that we really minimize any staff-to-staff infections, and keep everybody informed as things go. i'm very excited to report that in the last 10 days, we have not had any new staff covid cases, and i think that is attributed to both the overall decline that we're seeing, as well as the massive vaccination efforts that we've had for the m.t.a. staff, which we're incredibly grateful to the mayor and to the city for enabling. for service restoration, we have kind of a number of key constraints that i wanted to walk through because it will kind of set the framework for what

we're able to do and not able to do. safety during covid, as i said, has been critical to allowing us to provide mobility, but it also represents some significant constraints as we move forward. i'll also be talking about state of good repair, our revenue and financial picture, and then hiring and training. this is kind of just an example of our biggest covid constraint right now, which is our capacity on each vehicle has been cut by approximately 70%. we're only putting about 20 people in a bus right now. we do see that easing. we have received permission to go to three-foot bus spacing from the department of public health, but we need to work with them to continue to move towards pre-covid spacing as the city continues to recover.

we also, as you know, have gotten a tremendous amount of state of good repair work done in the subway, along with, throughout the whole system, cable car service track. this is some photos of our overheadlines current work. what they're working on is a slow zone that they were able to eliminate at castro station. not only when we open up the subway will we be more buffered from state of good repair issues, but customer-facing issues, like slow zones, will also be significantly addressed. so i'm really grateful for the subway task force, which is a combination of engineers and maintenance staff that have come together and have solved some of these difficult problems. we have also, as you know, had to close the subway in

august, in large part due to defective splices. we have replaced all of the defective splices and significantly reduced the number of splices in the subway by running 10,000 feet of new wire. so some very significant work. i do want to point out, though, while we think about constraints, that while this work has been significant and really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it is only a down payment on the larger need. we did, for example, two weeks ago, had an automatic train control issue in the subway where part of our equipment why was malfunctioning. it it was very difficult to detect. it took a day and a half to diagnose, and it was only because a staff person noticed a half-second flicker on our

power control source. we were able to deliver the service on the "t" line with minimal customer impacts because just going to embarcadero, we can operate in manual mode. but had we had that same issue two months from now, it would have significantly impacted subway service. so we need to continue, and are committed to continuing, to work on the larger state of good repair issues, the biggest of which being the train control replacement, and the second of which being the track and the special track work between embarcadero and castro station, which is approximately 40 years old and dates back to the original muni bart tunnel work. the third constraint that we face is on the revenue side. we are very fortunate and very grateful to be receiving such a tremendously generous federal relief package. and that is allowing us to have a service restoration discussion. but, as you can see from

this chart, over the next several years our budget is essentially balanced by 30% one-time funding sources. so it is not a sustainable path for service, and it exposes us to a significant amount of risk as we move forward. and then the last constraint is with hiring and training. the muni working group, which we're very grateful for, was led by supervisor mandelman and supervisor peskin. one of the biggest things that that study identified was how hiring impacts was preventing m.t.a. from delivering quality service. going into covid, we had almost a 15% vacancy. that vacancy allowed us to survive the fiscal crisis of covid and to very quickly, by eliminating

overtime, to get through the worst of the crisis without having to do layoffs of our staff. it is also what is going to complicate our recovery because not only do we have the 15% vacancy we had going into covid, we have not hired, in a significant way, over the last 12 months, nor have we created civil service lists, nor have we be able to do a lot of training. so we have a number of challenges that are going to prevent us from being able to recover quickly. what we plan to do is invest as much as possible in our foundation now, so that when we do get to the june 2022 ballot and hopefully have positive results, we're able to scale up service more quickly, but it is going to take a significant

upfront investment. one of the places we're seeing the biggest challenge on is hiring -- is training rail operators. that is not a hiring issue because our rail operators all start as bus operators, but it is related to a hiring issue because our rail operators promote into supervisors. and we haven't hired supervisors in over two years. and supervisors are critical for running our transportation management center, for getting the service out each day from our division, for managing the service on the street. what this chart shows is we also are seeing unusually low attrition during covid. it could be for a number of reasons, one of which is that people just can't go do their dream retirement trip. there is not a lot to do right now, so people are working longer. we think that that could

also have a shoring up and see a bigger than expected retirement at the end of the fiscal year in june. and then, as i said, we haven't been able to train rail operators over the last year because it requires the service to be running, which it hasn't been. so we are putting as much resources as we can into training, and we're going to continue to look at all of these issues very closely and hire in a prioritized way. over the past 12 months, we have been able to restore service gradually. in april of 2020, when we went down to 17 core routes, we were only delivering about 45% of our service. we went down that significantly because there was so much fear and uncertainty around covid

that our staffing levels were dropping on a daily basis. we didn't even have basic p.p.e., like masks. because we were able to really address operator concerns, because we were able to get all of those programs in place, we have seen a significant return of operators and strong staff attendance. that has enabled us to, over the last year, go up to about 70% of our pre-covid service. as we make decisions about service, one of the questions that supervisor chan has asked is, you know, what are the driving metrics? how is data driving these decisions? and data has really been at the core of our work, along with equity, really making sure that when we have difficult choices to make, that we're connecting neighborhoods that have the least

choices and are currently making the most trips. the performance metrix that have really been driving the transit recovery have been looking where we have crowding and pass-ups, as well as looking where we need coverage, and trying to find that balance between not leaving essential workers at the curb, but also not isolating costumers. this is a snapshot of our data. this just shows an average day, march 3rd. where you start to see the orange circles, that's where we're starting to get pretty full in terms of bus service. and that has been guiding us as we look at adding service back, really trying to reduce, if not eliminate, the red and orange from our map in order to not to have pass-ups. and we've been tracking a crowding over time. even as we increase

service, we still see that service very quickly get absorbed because of the kind of increased demand for mobility. what we're really excited about is because of the accelerated pace of vaccinations, both for it's sfmta staff, which we are so grateful for, and for the riding public, combined with the federal stimulus, we're now able to have a conversation about how do we get to service restoration past the 70% that we're currently at? and it's going to happen in kind of a few different tronches. in may, we'll be extending the "t" line all the way to west portal, and we'll be restarting the enjuto rail, which will also help with the current challenge we're having, which is not having enough articulated buses on the weekend.

so converting the enjuto to rail will free up buses to again close gaps in the system. we're also going to be restarting the historic "f" line. we currently only have enough operators to operate one shift, and we're working with merchants along the corridor to really understand what hours or going to be the most beneficial to support businesses. i do want to flag that the "f" line is really the full line from castro to fishermans wharf, which is a summer-only restoration. we anticipate with the better market street construction scheduled to start this fall, which we'll be removing track and overhead, that the "f" line will then drop to the lower part of market street, along with the wharf. but we haven't been able to confirm that we believe we'll be able to get trains to about palo station. and, finally, we'll be continuing to increase frequencies for crowding

management this may. and we will be restarting a new circulated route that will cover a majority of the 36 line, plus the 52 line on diamond heights, and we're very grateful to supervisor melgar and supervisor mandelman for really flagging that we have a number of seniors that are stuck on that hilltop and really need some immediate coverage to be able to reengage. as you know, we have the e.t. c. program, which is one of the most exciting things to come out of covid, and is providing some support for people making limited trips and don't currently have coverage. but this additional service will provide more options. >> can i ask a question?

>> chairman: sure. >> i have a point of clarification about slide 13. when it comes to the ridership data, you know, i just want to make sure this is really trackk the trackingthe service that is currently available. for example, some of the bus services or bus lines that have stopped and are not restored. we're not able to track them at this point, right? i think, for example, for outer richmond, where we don't have the 18, and then, you know, along with increase of private vehicles increasing and people driving -- while we know the ridership probably increases in an area, if a bus line is not restored, there is no way to track the ridership level and the need for it? >> thank you for that question. the ridership does not

track it, which is why it is so important that we have our second metric, which is coverage. so map here, in dark pink, shows all of the areas of the city that are currently the residential neighborhoods that are currently within a quarter mile of a transit stop. and, as you can see, we have some gaps, particularly along corridors like the 18 line, which makes north/south connections between the richmond and the sunset. in august, when school re-starts, we will be focusing on closing those coverage gaps. so the august map will get us to 98% coverage of our kind of surface residential area. that's the balance that we've been making. so as we add that route,

it reduces our ability to address crowding, but it also provides important coverage for people that doesn't otherwise have transit service. so in august, we anticipate we will no longer be stuck with putting 20 people on a bus. and where we're running a three-minute service, they can comfortably go to five-minute service, which is still an excellent amount of service, but it frees up enough extra buses for us to be able to close the citywide gap. so throughout this process, we've been adding service back. we went from 17 lines to now having about 30. when we get to the august changes, we're really going to be focused on closing those remaining coverage gaps.

so bringing back routes like the 18. bringing back routes like the 57, which is serving the lake merced area. we wouldn't be able to do everything, so there will still be routes that are parallel to other routes that may not restart, or a route like the six parnasis, which used to go along the hilltop and into the downtown area, might just cover the hilltop and make connections, for example, on irving street. we'll still be limited in what we'll be able to do, but we believe we'll be able to do enough to really close these coverage gaps and give people the transit choices that they need. the big focus in august will be on closing coverage gaps. we do not anticipate we will have enough rail operators to further start rail service, but that could change.

we have a lot of unknowns with the rail operators because we don't know how many are going to promote to these supervisors. we don't really know how many are going to retire. and we're very committed to keeping this board and our board up to date as that changes. so basically how our two metrics balance each other out. we're focused both on closing coverage gaps, and continue to do that through august, when school starts, and addressing the crowding so that we're not leaving essential workers at the curb. by the end of the year, we will have had enough time to hire and to train, and so instead of reallocating service, like the nine, we will actually be able to add service back. and going from about 70% pre-covid levels to about 85% pre-covid-19 levels.

we may have discussions on what that looks like. and we're going to be taking a deep dive into neighborhoods like the richmond and really working with your office to help make those tradeoffs. so, for example, we could invest in stronger, you know, north/south connections, like the 29 rapid is something that we've really wanted to do for a long time and have gotten a lot of feedback from groups that focus on equity and focus on school travel, that having frequent 29 service, having a quicker option in addition to the local service, would really help with connections. we also could consider reintroducing some of our parallel service, so routes, for example, like the 21 haze. we're currently on track to restore the high power line of the cable car in

the fall. we could also think about how do we restart the full system. we also know that covid has taught us how important it is to make connections outside of the downtown area and keep those connections strong. we also know that downtown will continue to rebound, and so reintroducing express service will also been needed at some point. so these are some of the tradeoffs that we'll have as we move forward. so that's basically the kind of bulk of the transit service and the transit restoration. it leads, i think, in an important way, to roads and streets and roadway safety. i'm going to turn it over to tom so he can talk

about some of the investments and how they connect, and you'll have an opportunity at the end to talk to us both on kind of how our work programs inter-relate and support one another. >> chairman: okay. thank you, julie. >> as julie said early on, this is the year in which the m.t.a. has worked as seamlessly across all of the different domains and divisions within the agency more so than i've ever seen in my almost seven years here. the streets team, the taxi team, the taxi team, all focusing on maintaining a level of improvement that people need in response to the pandemic. as the long-term duration of the covid crisis became clear last spring, it also became clear to us that our streets needed to adapt to serve more and different ways of getting around and getting through the cities than they did before covid. covid really has changed

how people move through the city, as well as how they use the streets. with physical distancing on transit, with schools and offices closed, and with people spending more time at home, we knew that people needed more opportunity and more space to walk, roll, and just recreate within their neighborhoods safely. and the work we did with neighborhoods and specifically with just about every supervisor and commissioner on this board -- yd us adapt the concept of slow streets and make it work in san francisco and make it work for san francisco neighborhoods. we developed the slow streets program, which includes connected corridors over 40 miles of streets throughout the city, which give neighborhoods like the richmond and sunset, opportunities to get outside and travel within their neighborhoods safely. and, again, i'm very much in partnership with communities and with you and your roles as commissioners and supervisors. and we also have worked

closely with partners at rec park department to bring slow streets and promenades to m.l.a. drive and golden gate park. and as you can see on the map, we've created a car-free or slow streets all the way from the starting building to the zoo. that is something that has never existed before. we pushed the limit of how safe our streets can be and how they can be used for more than just moving cars. it is critical to the response of covid and it will be critical to our emergence and recovery from covid. next slide, please. so these slow streets -- actually, julie, can go back one slide. thank you. as we recover from the pandemic through '21 and joined, car-free connections are going to continue to play a critical role in our transportation system. as people return to work

and schools reopen, we need to give people as many options as possible. people need to be anal to able o get around their neighborhoods by walking and biking and rolling. and they'll continue to need to use their streets for physical activity and public health as we recover. as we navigate through the muni constraints that julie discussed and hopefully will see lifting, the slow streets will pick up the slack and provide mobility options for people who can't or are not able to use muni for their essential trips. next slide, please. as we make these changes, however, we're also working to make sure that once the residents who continue to need to drive will continue to be able to do so. we're trying to address and prevent gridlock and address the new changes in traffic patterns are that emerging in response to the new less office work

but more school and interneighborhood travel work. and also changes to the traffic network that has happened as a result of construction or as a result of the multi-level streets we're building. you see the northbound traffic that existed pre-covid. it is a very robust grid and can move large amounts of traffic. 19th avenue, sunset boulevard, and grand highway, and those are for regional drivers, who need to get out and south of the city, and those routes lead into skyline boulevard, lake merced boulevard, and the stretch of 19th avenue. there is a grand total of eight lanes that can flow through the west side.

but because sunset boulevard is fed in many cases by lower capacity, one-lane streets, we don't see eight full lanes of traffic moving, and we didn't see eight full lanes moving before covid. next slide, please. so what has happened during covid? in the green, you can see all of the terrific things we've done together to make streets safer for non motorized travel. but the heavy blue lines, how real traffic moves through the city, continues to be important. without the upper grade highway in the network, that closure, we have to acknowledge, initially did cause friction for drivers who used to take the route from the far west side all the way down the great highway to skyline boulevard. however, as traffic -- we're tracking traffic data very closely throughout the pandemic, and what we found is because the west side is a grid, and because sunset

boulevard has never carried as much traffic as it is designed to be able to carry, the system is actually quite resilient. a large amount shifted to sunset boulevard -- go to the next slide, please, julie. the date that that the transportation authority has been tracking very closely, traffic is flowing better on sunset boulevard -- or rather flowing the same or better on sunset boulevard -- actually, it is better at the south end of the corridor, than it did pre-covid. so we're not seeing sunset boulevard becoming gridlocked at all hours of the day, nor are we seeing 19th becoming gridlocked. so there is ability to move around, and sunset boulevard is a key link in that. however, the start of construction on 19th thavenue a little more

difficult. it is under construction for good reasons. we're trying to build a better transit experience for people so that riders on the 28 line have a much safer and smoother experience traveling. it will make it much, much safer for pedestrians who need to especially walk across 19th avenue. it is one of the most dangerous streets in the city. this construction is going to have an impact. at no point during the construction is the road going to be completely closed. in most cases, we'll maintain two lanes in each direction throughout the day, which should keep the traffic impact manageable. again the strategy for 19th avenue will involve some traffic shifting over to sunset boulevard. but sunset itself still doesn't fill up, and the routes to lake mers merced and skyline and 19th avenue

itself have the capacity to move the traffic that is actually there. the next slide, please. we also know that the closure of the great highway, while we've seen tens of thousands of people out there enjoying it as a recreational transportation facility, we know there have been traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. and supervisor mar was very clear with us that he expected us to see us find a way to mitigate those impacts. in partnership with supervisor mar and the funding support from this board, we are in the process of building out a neighborhood traffic calming strategy, which is outlined in the blue rectangle there, from 45th avenue west, installing over 20 speed humps, eight all-way stop signs, and traffic diversion devices at the north and south ends of the lower great highway, and some of the other avenues to protect those

streets. we want to send drivers a clear message that cutting through is not going to make your trip any faster. the best way is to use sunset boulevard. we're not just giving that message with our public communications, but we're building in concrete asphalt and putting in street signs and stop signs, to make sure that local streets are for local traffic. and main traffic sticks to sunset boulevard. so throughout this pandemic, i think julie was talking with a lot of pride about the opportunities to improve the state of repair and get important capitol work done in the transit system. we're doing the same thing with our streets. we remain committed to eliminating traffic deaths in san francisco. we have been able to deliver the quick-bill projects, which is the

most important thick we thing we can do to save lives. we're getting close to hitting our goal of 20 miles of protective bike lanes in two years. and we're investing in really important speed reduction programs throughout the city. just last week the m.t.a. board voted to support a vision that we share with supervisor haney, which is lowering the speed limit in the tenderloin to 20 miles an hour, and using our entire toolbox to lower speeds and the fatalities we see on our streets. and that is specifically relevant to the streets on the west side. we know how important pedestrian safety is to residents of district 1, direct 4, and direct 7. district 7.there is a road dieto reduces the speed of

traffic on an important stretch of california street. a new bike lane on kansas street. traffic calming signalization on full fulton, and evolution of the 20th avenue slow street hopefully is something that can be a more permanent pedestrian and bicycle facility to facilitate that northbound traffic. which will be so important as we recover from covid. so the overall sweep of our efforts here have been both very tactical, addressing the very specific congestion pitch points on the west side, and pedestrian safety impact where the data shows us we have the most unsafe conditions, but doing that in the context of managing the traffic as a network. san francisco is a grid, and sunset a grid, and we

need to plan for what recovery looks like, and to achieve that vision that i heard a number of people articulate on the board so far today. we want to make sure we have a new vision for how we design and use our street scapes. we want to make sure we do it in a way that manages congestion, doesn't just ignore it. and then, julie, i think this is back to you for the transit connectivity. >> chairman: and, julie, you are muted.

>> can you hear me now? >> chairman: yes. >> am i still sharing my screen? >> chairman: yeah. >> okay. somehow i'm not getting better at this. the work that tom is doing folds seamlessly into the transit work both because we partner on things like the temporary transit lanes and all of our muni forward projects, which have infused into them a tremendous focus on pedestrian safety. but also we do see transit investments as key to helping with our congestion challenges, welder that is on the west side or in the downtown area. i just wanted to end by,

you know, kind of drilling down specifically into some of the issues we'll be facing for service restoration as we look at a neighborhood like the richmond. we currently have very frequent east/west connections on california, on fury, and on fulton. we have been adding service to those corridors every couple of months since we went from our initial 17-route grid because there is so much demand, because the restricted covid capacities are still leaving to people being left at the curb. they are a tremendous connectivity and have been a big focus of not only our service frequency, but also of our protection from traffic. so we're really excited by

the first phase of the geary "b" project, with the rapid project being delivered on time and on budget, and showing significant travel time benefits. we also put in a temporary transit lane in the outer part of geary, which is helping with our recovery movements. we have also been able to restore most of the north/south connections, with the most recent one being the 33 stanyan, which we restored in january of 2021. the 29 sunset and the 44 o'shaughnessy were one of the first north/south connections that we restored. and we actually increased the frequency quite a bit last august because we wanted to be ready when

school re-starts. it has taken us longer than expected. as a parent,i'm so excited that my little guy is going back to school on april 19th, and muni will be ready. we worked with the school district on that, and they'll be putting information into packets going out to parents on how to make connections, and how routes like the 22 sunset will be there. and the last connection, 2016 avenue, will be restored in august. the outreach will start this fall, if not sooner, and it is really about weighing those tradeoffs. we don't think that we will have enough time to hire up, nor do we have enough budget certainty to go much past 85% service restoration. but 85% service restoration will be pretty

significant over what we're currently delivering. so we'll be able to make some choices and look forward to working with our partners and with you all to help make those decisions. so with that, you know, i love this photo because it really shows the people that are doing the hard work out on our system, they're not tom and they're not me and they're not jeff, but they're all of our frontline workers who have showed up through a really scary year, through difficult times, to keep san francisco moving, and we're very committed to continue to do that in a way that serves the needs and the values of san franciscans. >> chairman: thank you. directors kersh balm and mcguire. and before i go on to other commissioners, i just want to -- this is

your hearing, so i want to check with you if you have any questions now or comments before we go on to others? >> i'll probably go after all of our colleagues to make a conclusion. i will probably make my comments after the public comments. and i kind of would like to hear what -- i think we'll have constituents calling in and i would like to hear their feedback on sfmta presentation. >> chairman: great. commissioner preston? >> thank you, chair mandelman. i just really want to thank supervisor chan for calling this hearing and giving us the opportunity to hear the presentations and ask some questions. let me just start by acknowledging, really, the incredibly hard work of m.t.a. leadership and staff, overheadline

overhead lineworkers, and everyn a year that has been really, really challenging. and around activating outdoor spaces, most notably the slow streets, and, you know, will just encourage us to view these as successful pilots and really push the envelope on expanding, as much as possible, to slow down our streets to vision zero and prioritize non-car use. i do have questions specifically around muni that i wanted to follow up on the presentation, and also invite, mr. chair, for you to cut me off, because when it comes to muni, i can ask questions for a long time, and i realize there are other colleagues on the roster, and we're in a packed day with a board meeting this afternoon. and with a request to

either ms. kershbalm or mr. tomlin, shorter questions and answers would be appreciated because i do have a number of questions. i want to start and followup on the comments around the level of service, to where it is 70%. and director kershbalm outlined how we got there from going down from 30%. i want to address why we such a decrease in service, with lack of p.p.e. and operator concerns around safety during covid, which, to my understanding, have been largely addressed at this point. what i am not seeing is why we are at -- like in this moment in time, why are we at 70% and not

100%? >> thank you. the short answer is two-fold: one is that operators are one of dozens of positions that we need to run the transit system. we had a 15% vacancy coming into covid, and that has been compounded over the last year. we also have, because of covid, lost some of the efficiencies in how we operate the system. so, for example, instead of an operator meeting their bus out in the street, all of the buses are pulling into the division in the middle of the day and pulling back out of the division. so the staffing levels across the agency, combined with the way we're operating under covid, are leading to the current constraints. >> and what are the current reserves of

m.t.a.? >> jeff, can you answer that? >> i don't have the exact number -- i'm going to get it wrong, so i don't actually want to state it into the record. give me 10 minutes, and i'll get you the accurate number. >> okay. thank you. and when we have that number, are we allocating any of those reserves specifically to increase the service restoration as part of this plan? in other words, to get to the 85% that you're projecting by 2022, or beyond that, does that anticipate using any of those reserves or not? >> to that, i can answer. so as you saw back in julie's presentation, our key sources of revenue, particularly parking and transit fares, have been in long-term decline. so our plan for using our reserves, now that we have

one-time federal money, is to use our reserves as a backstop. if we're unable to get on to the 2022 ballot before an ongoing revenue, or if we fail -- if we're unsuccessful in restoring ongoing operating revenue that is necessary for us to get to full service restoration, so i don't want to gamble our reserves and risk our staff positions if we're not successful in '22. >> thank you for clarifying. just so -- not to debate the wisdom one way or the other on that, so we are -- i'm correct, though, that we are not -- under this recovery plan, we are planning less than 100% restoration over this timeline by 2022, with a

policy decision to not use reserves to further increase that percent restoration? >> there is one thing i would like to clarify. there are two reasons that we're only going to be at 85% by the end of the year. the first is the risk of not having stable funding sources. the second, more practical, is time. so not only have we not been hiring, we have also not been able to, until very recently, been able to create new civil service lists. we just got that health and safety plan approved by the department of public health. all of our hiring has a very long lead time. so jonathan and i looked at our recovery from two very different lenses. i looked at how quickly can we higher up in order to be able to deliver quality service? he looked at what service

level can we sustain? so by the end of the year, we're going to need all of the hiring time plus all of the investments that we've made in our human resources since the muni working group, in order to be able to deliver that 85%. in the spring, we can then have that policy discussion on what level of risk is appropriate. have our revenue sources met our financial projections? are they better? are they worse? what is the ballot looking like? so the conversation that you're alluding to and the policy discussions, they're important and they need to happen. but they are mute in the immediate short-term because the biggest constraint we have is time to hire and time to train, which we have now restarted engines and are

doing as quickly as we can. but as quickly as we can is, unfortunately, not very quick, especially in some of our more challenging classifications. >> thank you. i want to confirm our reserves are just about $130 million, which is less than the gap that is necessary to get to full service. if we use those reserves, they're gone. >> thank you. and what is the gap -- what is the price tag for full service? what is that gap? >> it's about 15% of our budget. >> another question: have you decided that m.t.a. will seek to permanently abandon any lines that were affect immediately before the pandemic? >> thank you so much for asking that question. we have absolutely not made any decisions.

and that's what i really wanted to emphasize. in the path we take from 70% to 85%, and then from 85% to 100%, we have a lot of choices. so we could invest in restoring the service exactly how it was. we could invest in no needs, like the 29 rapid or stronger connections between the bay view and the mission. we could work to, you know, pull together our funding and get to 115% of pre-covid service levels and be able to do a whole lot of everything. so we have a lot of choices, not only on what comes back but when. >> thank you. and just to followup -- i appreciate that no decisions have been made at this time on abandoning any particular line.

but -- and i think, as you know, an actual route abandonment would need to go through and be approved by the board of supervisors. i did want to ask around long-term suspensions. if a line is to suspended, let's say, a total of two years or three years, is there a threshold at which m.t.a. would come to the board of supervisors in what i would term a defacto abandonment, or can something be temporarily suspended for many years? i don't mean to invoke people's thoughts on the ferris wheel for five years and whether that is temporary. but if it is decided, for example, that a certain line should not come back for three years, four years, five years, at what point does m.t.a. come to the board of supervisors to seek approval for that as a form of abandonment

of the line? or is it only if it is permanently removed? >> i think that is something we would have to get some legal guidance on and follow up. >> thank you. just specifically with the line 6, 21, and 31, i'm frequently asked when we can expect the return of those lines. maybe you can answer that through the process that you've outlined on those three specific lines. >> we anticipate that the hilltop portion of the 6 pernasis will come back in time for august restart. it is an area where we expressed some service gaps. we will then be making decisions in the fall about what the 85% restoration looks like, and that's when we'll be

having those discussions. >> thank you. and i've discussed this directly with m.t.a., and i just want to emphasize and acknowledge really just in particular recognize that the 31 line, from an equity lens, runs through the heart of the filmore. it is a high concentration of low-income residents, african-american residents, seniors, and also one of the lower car ownership rates in the city, so the neighborhood is very dependent on the 31, and to some extent the 21, but particularly the 31 and its loss has really been felt. so i did want to emphasize that. i will -- i should say thank you on behalf of the many folks who rely on the

n-judah in advance of the return of that in may, which is wonderful news. and with that, i will relinquish the floor to -- i see a long list of my colleagues that i know have questions as well. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner preston. commissioner melgar? >> thank you so much, ms. kershbalm for the pranttation. presentation. and to your staff. thank you for your ability to work with us to restore service to the hills, between districts 8 and 7, and for the folks in mid-town, who were left stranded. i really, really appreciate that. you know, district 7 is removed from the downtown area for the most part, and, you know, we have

been the district that has seen the least amount of attention in terms of slow streets. i was really happy to have director tomlin ride through the district and see all of the possibilities. that is really exciting. i have to point out that, you know, i'm not happy about the, you know, delay timeline in the restoration of the "k" and "m" in particular. so in addition to having moving workers from our district to downtown, the light rail line also moved people from other places of the city to our district. and we have several institutions that are really important to san francisco. the zoo. and we also have san francisco state. and also city college. and, you know, we're working towards reopening. and the light rail is part of the eco-system, right?

what moves people to institutions and around, so i was hoping that the timing of the restoration would be more aligned with the reopening because we need it, and we need it desperately. and aside from the institutions, we also have the merchant corridors and our small businesses are desperate right now. they are desperate. and so particularly for ocean avenue, which is kind of not served -- and, you know, i get it, the buses are serving them, but it is not the same. it doesn't handle the same number of people. it is not, you know, part of the sort of patterns that people have. so our merchants in particular, this decision has hit, like, a ton of bricks. and i'm sure you guys have heard an earful, but i'm hearing it constantly. so i understand about the hiring. i'm wondering if there is anything that we can do to

speed up what youed described, ms. kershbalm, as a very slow process. if there is anything that o.e.w.z. can help with assisting, tapping into the networks for the work force programs that they already have, to move folks, you know, into positions more quickly, and if there is anything that we can do in terms of moving things around -- i mean, no disrespect to my colleagues, but if somebody has full restoration where we have nothing, i'm wondering if we can spread things around a little.

[inaudible] >> we have enjoyed some really successful partnerships with o.e.w.d., and will continue to stay engaged with them. i think it is a really important recommendation as we try to accelerate

our hiring as much as possible. the city drive program, which is helping us to get potential operators through the toughest part of the application process, which is obtaining the permit for your class "b" license, i think is an example of a very practical and tangible program, where we've partnered. we're also working closely with o.e.w.d. to understand the downtown recovery and how we can support neighborhood commercial districts. so they've been really valued partners throughout this recovery and will continue to be, but i will make sure that our h.r. department is working with them, particularly on our tough to fill classifications.

muniand sfmta is such a wonderful ladder of opportunity. and so many of my managers and senior managers started in entry-level positions. there are so many stories like that that we're kind of digging into at the agency and trying to

celebrate, but also continue that strong legacy. so thank you. >> thank you. and maya angelou also started out as your employee early in her career, and look at where we got with her. i want to say thank you so much for considering the rapid service for the 29th, and that's another line that is really important to our district.

[please stand by]

>> -- so covid, for a short period of time, took the downtown out of the equation and made the connection to neighborhood grocery stores, to businesses, to hospitals, our highest priority, and i think it taught us some really important things about our transportation network. so downtown continues to be a big driver of trips, and we're going to need to have a strong downtown network, but where we need to grow our system is in

those between neighborhood and within neighborhood destinations, as well as the fact that some of our largest growing economic generators are some of the kind of major sites that supervisor melgar identified. so s.f. state, city college, parnassas hospital, become contributors to that major network. >> and our ultimate goal is for that 65% number to go down. that's what city transit means. but i think some of the value to build without district four who maybe want to walk or not

drive by for the first time, it can be used more to get that 65% number down, all as part of transit first. >> and both richmond and the sunset have a complete grid of streets that has allowed us to experiment with slow street corridors in a way that does not diminish the opportunity for people to drive who need to drive. it's one of the few places in the city where we can create benefits for all users without taking away from any punish user group. so we're looking forward to allowing families to take short

trips and to do so safely so you can feel comfortable taking your grandma to go to the beach or to the doctor or for groceries without feeling like you're being forced to get in your car. >> supervisor mar: and just kind of a follow-up question. as the city continues to reopen, it's crucial that city take transit not because it's a human right, but as the city tons to open up and other people take vehicles. as you're aware, we've adapted many streets to serve new uses during the past year, partly because of reduction of in-transit service, but these

street changes, street closures, restrictions have -- have really caused accumulative effects. you know, especially on the west side and the sunset and golden gate park, and right now, these situations have made it much less convenient to drive within the richmond and sunset in particular, with open streets, slow streets, shared streets between the golden gate park and the great highway. so i have a question, i guess, sort of what the plan is particularly to properly manage traffic as traffic volume is increasing significantly. you know, again, as commissioner chan mentioned,

there were 20,000 cars a day on the great highway, so how are we going to manage that again, even if there's more of a short-term shift to driving, especially if it's on the west side, and do it in a way that ensures that pedestrian safety on the streets -- i understand, director mcguire, from your presentation, that we're trying to direct traffic to sunset boulevard especially over the last couple of months, but i have serious concerns about what that would mean for other connecting streets, like lincoln boulevard in particular, that has no signal lights in the outer stretch, and also, the southern connection of sunset boulevard to lake merced boulevard, where there's already a lot of concern about pedestrian safety. there was a pedestrian fatality there recently, and commissioner melgar, as well.

>> so it is a very delicate balance, supervisor. the arrows that i showed on those maps, those are only working if we're looking at the pinch points, and there are some pinch points that we're looking at right now. great highway and lincoln, lincoln and two subjects that parallel sunset boulevard. we're looking at things like increasing the green light time to allow traffic to flow more

smoothly. we have our eyes on the pinch points, and that's side. on the safety side, we're making sure we're building out our vision zero network. we want to make sure that we do any work that we do slows down traffic slow while at the same time speeding up traffic flow because speed kills pedestrians. there's no one answer, but we're monitoring pinch points. if we do monitor pinch points, it doesn't have to be a trade-off. >> supervisor mar:. thank you. my office has been in communication with you on these issues to work more on the plan, especially as we open up more in the coming months. i have one final question.

>> chair mandelman: uh-oh. we're not hearing you, commissioner mar. let's go to safai and circle back to commissioner mar. all right. commissioner safai? >> supervisor safai: all right. sorry about that, supervisor mar -- commissioner mar. just wave your hand if you come back on, and i'll hand it back to you. so i have a couple of things. one is about the service level similar to the point that

commissioner mar was making about the light rail lines. can you explain to me why we're not restoring light rail service in some of these areas, and you're keeping it at the bus level? it's still an operator, it's still a line. what's the purpose for not restoring the light rail in those areas? and, you know, i understand that some of this is about where we are now, and i know you said that it's about training the operators, hiring the operators, training the operators, but i know last year, when we were going into covid, for instance, with the department of public health, we were able to work aggressively with the nurses to accelerate the timeline that the hiring process could take place. maybe you can't accelerate the

training process, but the operating process, we should be able to accelerate. our operating process isn't coming back to capacity. some of that is about cost, but some of it, i heard you say, is about hiring and training. you know, have you guys engaged within work with the operators union to work out some of the things that could accelerate this process and have them weigh-in? so that's my first question. i know it's multipart, but it's important. >> thank you for that question. the rail operator challenge that we're facing is entirely about training and not about operation. our rail operators all start as

bus operators, and we have a long list of bus operators excited about the opportunity to become rail operators. it is very much about not cutting corners or compromising the safety of the training program. we currently are on track to train about 45 to 50 more rail operators between now and the end of august. it's a 13-week training course, and we have started it immediately on the restart of the t-line. the challenge is we have 100 supervisor positions that are open. we have what we expect to be an attrition rate at the end of the year, and the rail

operators, historically, because they have both bus and rail experience, they see the big picture, and they often compete very well for those supervisor jobs, so it's possible we might promote ten rail operators and 90 bus operators, or it's possible we could promote 60 rail operators and only train 45. so we just have a lot of uncertainty, and this is going to need to be a very iterative process. we -- >> supervisor safai: right. i understand that, and i hear that there's a lot of moving parts. i guess what i'm saying is, under these circumstances, there's times where you can sit down with the operators of union and work out some kind of covid emergency agreements on how you can proceed under these processes. some of it could be accelerated, some of it can be, you know, if you're short on

rail -- i don't know. i don't want to jump in on behalf of the operators. but my question is, are they at the table working to design this with you and would it be accelerated? that's one thing, and i think it feeds into commissioner melgar's point, which i'm very interested, as well. we fought to have that restored, and we got that restored very quickly, but there's a difference between having rail service and bus service, particularly when it comes to carrying larger people across the city larger distances in larger numbers. we had a number of in-depth conversations with you, and we went back and forth at the

budget committee, talking about how it would affect your operating cost, and you decided you would sail back. i see you shaking your head, director tumlin. that's how it was presented to us, and we had a lot of conversations with your staff about the amount of money that was needed, the amount of money that would be needed to keep the operation on going. if you hear frustration in my voice, it has to do with the fact that i feel we always get

about 80% of the story -- and i understand -- and believe me. i understand, as to your point, director kirchbaum, this is an iterative process. you're constantly having to adjust, but to hear now that you're still short to fully restore, even after we're getting another $100 million, another $30 million in debt, restructured $200 million in previous debt, we're still short, and it's frustrating. and then, to hear the process by which you're going through to train, hire, and promote supervisors is part of the reason why you're slowing the system down, aren't those things that could have been

adjusted to stop that? >> let me try to take that in pieces. the operator-union partnerships is what has gotten us through covid and what will continue to get us through. the main reason that we're able to restore the f-line, for example, is because of operator advocacy and because of the union working closely with our engineers to get operator barriers on the historic trains in a way that keeps them protected and also supports the historic integrity of the commitment. so it is a close partnership, and we will continue to partner on tough problems like rail training. we all share the common goal of

not compromising any safety and really addressing all of the needs, but one of the feedback that we've been able to incorporate in the coming months is the feedback from our operators where english is not necessarily our first language. so part of why we're seeing an increased graduation rate on our rail training program is because, based on operator and union feedback, we've adjusted the program to be more hands on and to address different learning styles. so yes, it's a strong partnership, and we will continue to build on that. >> supervisor safai: and is there any way to accelerate that process in terms of making the decision with the union or the rise in terms of the

decision of who gets promoted to supervisor based on how it would impact service? because you're saying you're down light rail operators versus -- you said a lot of the bus operators. you don't have to answer that. that is just something that i think would allow you to make some adjustment based on the crisis that we're in now, and thank you for that. i would say what would be helpful for me, director tumlin, would be helpful, it

would be helpful to have a monthly presentation on the recovery basis to get that out to the public. if the chair is open to that, i would appreciate the t.a. coming back. maybe not as in depth, but a truncated version of this. i think it would be beneficial to have a more updated version of this as we move forward.

[inaudible] >> supervisor safai: i'm sorry. i can't hear you because of your connection. >> i would argue a monthly update would be too frequent given the pace of change, but we're certainly happy to give you a presentation quarterly if if -- every other month and then quarterly depending on the basis of submission. >> supervisor safai: yeah, i would like that every other month. there's a conversation about slow streets and streets being shutdown citywide. i know this is a process that people went through. what is your plan to pull this

back? i know in some places, people really like them. what's your plan to start removing those? >> well, our approach to this, supervisor, will definitely be, begin, neighborhood by neighborhood. i feel like a broken record, no one size fits all. however, we do know that, broadly speaking, the program is very popular. we're being asked, how do we make the slow streets permanent rather than having them taken away, however, rather than painting with a broad brush, we'll be working with you to figure out what is the best way to run it? in the coming weeks, we'll be

replacing temporary barriers with things there are a little more permanent or a little more durable. or if some places aren't working as well, we'll certainly take that back and utilize the feedback. >> supervisor safai: i just say that because as schools start to open up more and things start to open up more, this has worked well because of the lower volumes of traffic. i think that everyone can agree on that, but as we begin to see a massive increase in traffic, which we will -- and to your point, director tumlin, the city's arterial roads are beginning to become more congested than they have been, so i think that it's a

conversation to have, yes. i think that a lot of people have enjoyed them, and they serve the city on an on going basis, but i think it's going to be hard to keep them in a lot of places without addressing on going congestion and traffic concerns. >> yeah. and we'll look at pinch points for an opportunity to address those without contributing to the problem and giving people alternatives. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you, director mcguire. >> chair mandelman: thank you, supervisor safai, and i will work with that body to create a lot of interest in this topic.

i will note that this update has -- you know, is likely to run for a bit longer and have a fair amount of public comment. we are going to need to push our connect s.f. transit rat gee update to another day, probably push it back to our next meeting, so i'm -- transit strategy update to another day, probably push it back to our next meeting, so i'm hoping we can get a lunch before the board meeting. commissioner walton? >> president walton: thank you, chair mandelman. i don't have a question. i just want to comment that slow streets are beneficial for people walking and kids biking,

but slow streets are not one size fits all. they work well for the city neighborhoods that support them, but they can be a hindrance for transportation corridors, places where people have to drive to work. i look forward to having these discussions and making [inaudible] that all communities have not weighed in to some of these closed door conversations. how do i know that they're

closed door? because i haven't had one conversation and wasn't even brought to my attention by the leadership of m.t.a. or r.p.d. for these conversations. you will not arbitrarily cut black people out of the conversation. the streets in san francisco belong to everybody. >> chair mandelman: thank you, commissioner walton, and now, we will circle back to commissioner mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair mandelman. i just had question -- one question about the state of good repair and the presentation that director

kirchbaum presented. director kirchbaum, you mentioned that there's a number of other repairs that need to be made, track replacement, as well. i was just wondering what the timeline is for those other major projects that would help make sure the service, even the complete shutdown of light rail service in the tunnel doesn't happen again, especially when we restart light rail service in the coming months. >> thank you for that question. the subway item is in the neighborhood of $1 billion and is going to take $5 to $10

million in replacement. we have projects that allow us to direct the trains at places like vanness or at the embarcadero. the train control project is already underway, but it is a very complex project, and it will represent a significant upgrade in how we're currently doing business, so i do anticipate that more as on a five-to-eight-year timeline. we literally got done with dozens of pieces of work during the shutdown, and we are going to continue over the next year,

we are going to shutdown the subway from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and we will continue to provide robust bus services for our customers so we can minimize breakdowns during the day. i only say that because as trust building, i cannot guarantee that we're not going to have challenges with the subway what we open. we're going to have new amenities like way identify, which we didn't have before. the subway issues just had a longer timeline than what the covid window allowed us to address, and we're really

grateful to tilly and her staff, who is going to help us further define not only what the timelines are but to make sure that they're built into the expenditure plan and that we continue to make strong progress. san francisco deserves a high capacity subway program. it changed the face of -- with regards to the transit system, it changed the face of vehicular traffic in san francisco, and i think we can get there with the subway, but it's going to take continued work and continued investment. >> supervisor mar: yeah. and we understand that this important work is the result of years of deferred maintenance, so we appreciate that m.t.a. is

really prioritizing, yeah, the infrastructure needs of our light rail system, and this is key in getting the public to embrace public transit again. thank you. >> chair mandelman: thank you. commissioner mar, and colleagues, i will end this sort of prepublic comment of our discussion by thanking all the people that got us through

an extraordinarily difficult time, i think -- i think including things like safe streets, and getting some more pain on the roads and getting some -- some cleared paths for some of the most essential buses to get -- again, to get our most essential workers

where they needed to be. so i never actually felt that -- others on this board may be differently, but i don't think that money from the sfmta was going to get us out of our truly horrendous fiscal situation entirely. rather, those funds would get you through to a potential ballot measure without having to do layoffs, and i think that is what i believe is being delivered, and some of the issues around hiring certainly go back to well before the transit -- hiring goes back to well before the transit working group were highlighted in that effort. i was super excited to see the m.t.a. tackle the issues highlighted by that report, and

then, covid hit, so i'm sort of happy that we go to look at those issues. with that, i know we have members of the public that want to speak, and i hate to do this, but since it is after 12:00, i'm going to ask that we limit our public comment to 90 seconds per speaker. >> okay. we have several public speakers. i'm going to get started right away. hello, caller. your 1.5 minutes begins now. >> hello. my name is christopher peterson. i'm disappointed how slowly you have reinstated service, especially how the federal government has distributed millions of dollars to get this

back going. lousy transit service would imperil public support and the future of muni's long-term liability. i urge you to be aggressive in your efforts to provide more service. muni should discontinue the practice no later than may so that it can provide more service as things open up this summer. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller.

hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. so i am a member of the concerned citizens of the richmond district? to be honest with you, listening to this call has kind of made my blood boil a little bit. nobody is hearing our side, nobody is listening to how traffic mitigation does not help. all you have to do is open the gate to the great highway, and these problems will go away. i feel like the bike coalition and walk s.f. are leading you guys into the wrong path. to be honest with you, you guys are patting each other on the back for something that isn't a great thing at this moment i

just want to state that we are stuck here in the richmond, and no matter how many roads you close, we can't get to other parts of the city. it's just honestly ridiculous. i just hope that senator chan and mar do the right thing and try to advocate for us over here. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. this is brian wiedemeyer with the san francisco bike coalition. what we've seen is that the slow streets, slow spaces, and

shared spaces help us make essential trips safely on foot and by bike but also allow essential spaces for room for recreation. when comments are being made about how popular these are citywide, really, if you have not been out to experience car free great highway, car free j.f.k. in the park, it does show how great these spaces are utilized currently. shared spaces, slow streets, and car free spaces within our parks absolutely can be key to the city's economic and health recovery. i think you've seen lots of great information how they've expanded across the city. i know you'll hear from many, many, many folks and communities across san francisco who have benefited. so as you consider and as you

continue to have these conversations about san francisco's transit recovery, i urge you to consider keeping these spaces permanent and expanding them based on input and feedback from the community about how they work best. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. i'm richard rossman, a richmond district. the closing of the great highway has a big impact on the richmond district. one of the biggest employers in the richmond district of the city is the v.a. hospital, and i drove there yesterday, and all their cars are back up, so that means they're driving, and they're driving on the chain of lights. with the great highway closed, the chain of lights has been

backed up going south almost all the way to fulton street. this roadway can't take it, and no one has talked about the impact on the chain of lights, and are you going to make people go south and all the way up lincoln avenue? why don't you -- since we're in the experimental stage, maybe opening the great highway half to cars and half to pedestrians and bicyclists and let's see what's happening. this is really isolating the richmond district, and you need to look at the chain of lights. have you guys talked to the v.a. about it? i have in another committee. have you maybe talked about their transportation plan? it just seems that you're putting a square peg in a round

hole. thank you. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. my name is serina unger. i live next to golden gate park. i'm an urban planner, and i see how important it is to take action to prevent greenhouse gases across the board. i've lived in san francisco 23 years without a car. the park is where my family hikes, plays, stores. it's an extension of my home. i think we need to keep j.f.k. closed to cars. kids from all neighborhoods should be able to access the park from surrounding neighborhoods. they will be able to walk and take their bikes without crashes. from farther neighborhood, we need to look at robust transportation efforts to get

people to park. we need to look at kids in these presentations, to get them to the park. cars are the highest emitters. g.h.g.s. we don't have time to compromise when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. keeping j.f.k. closed to cars will help contribute to that. next, i want to talk about how san francisco can look and act like a world class city while we can reduce cars and elevate small businesses at the same time. a lot of case studies show that -- >> thank you, caller. thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. i'm john elliott from district one. i want to highlight something

that supervisor chan said from the outset. we cannot go back. we need to make a unique movement permanent now. this is our embarcadero freeway moment. this is our embarcadero freeway moment. we have a real opportunity here to make the city more accessible and navigable for people of all ages. i have to make a comment about the richmond. i live in the richmond. i'm not stuck in the richmond. i navigate the entire city on my bike. the 38-r is faster to get downtown than a car. supervisor mandelman talked about equity and class. let's talk about equity. one in four people do not own a

car. 28%, one in four, so to be fair, one in four streets should be dedicated to people and safe spaces. i'm going to bike down to the great highway to our ocean park promennade. thank you for your time. >> hello, caller. >> i'd like to read an abridged letter muni has received on the didtion to close the great highway. the great highway is part of the network of north-south

arterials which relieves congestion on neighborhood streets. any full or partial highway closure has widen neighborhood and regional impacts, and a decision on permanent closure is rheem nur until the city -- premature until the city's health restrictions have been lifted. save muni believes this should be considered as a part of a transportation plan for the western portion of the city only after robust outreach to residents and merchants in the richmond and sunset district and all other stakeholders. this requires full environmental scrutiny and other considerations. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. good afternoon, commissioners. cat carter with san francisco

transit riders. first, i want to thank all the sfmta staff, from director tumlin to maintenance, staff, electrical workers, for all of their effort during this incredibly difficult year. we want to thank director kirchbaum and her staff for all of these great presentations and willingness to meet with us and talk about all of the challenges they're facing. i want to thank commissioner chan for calling for this hearing. we urge the sfcta to help sfmta to hire and train as aggressively as possible given the challenges. we need muni to come back strong to better serve the riders and trips that are essential as well as to grow ridership so san francisco can

truly build back better. we cannot risk mediocre serve that will keep people away. we understand that there are too many car dependent people in san francisco. robust muni service is the most effective way to give people an option other than cars. slow streets and cycling infrastructure are wonderful and necessary, but muni can carry more people, and easy to use transit is going to move the needle to ensure that we have mobility, equity, and save street goals. thank you for all your work -- >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. i'm calling from the outer sunset. my name is judy gorski, and i live on 48 avenue. i'm directly across from the closed great highway, and i support the people that are calling in that are talking about the hardships that we've

had due to the closed great highway. when i open my front door, i am faced with commercial industrial traffic that is coming down my street. where you talk about emissions, this was once on the great highway, which was far away from my front door. now it's only a couple of feet through my front door. there are motorcycle gangs coming through the neighborhood, big rigs, buses. it is not working. to say that you're able to divert them? they're not being diverted. people must go north-south, and they don't care if they go over the bumps or through the stop signs or whatever. i urge you to consider the residents that are tax payers

and really think about this. i think that it's just not true. right now, in looking at the great highway, there's plenty of space for people to be walking on the path and for the cars to go there. i urge you to please make the temporary highway closure temporary and not a permanent thing. thank you. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller, your 90 seconds beginning now. >> hello. my name is olivia gamboa. i am a resident of the richmond district, and i'd like to say i've made great use of the safe streets and car free j.f.k. and car free great highway. it's been a great artery for transportation for people who do not drive cars in the city. i'm an essential worker, and my

husband is an essential worker, and we do not use cars in the city? i've been able to take my kids to the golden gate park safely because it's car free. if you look at the city, there's other places for people to drive? there's sunset avenue, there's lincoln, there's fulton, but if i want to take a kid on a bike, there's only a number of safe street spaces that i have. i think these are treasures for our city. we need to look at the pinch points, we need to make sure that we're addressing the concerns, but we shouldn't destroy the very things that make our city nice and make our city liveable because we're worried about the other side of things. as a city that's set its transit first, we've said there's a climate emergency, we've declared transit first, but we're not acting like it.

i think it's time we prioritize this safe people-first space. >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. my name is [inaudible] carter. i want to start by thanking all the hard work that san francisco does for the transit and muni services. a long-term ball in fair box revenue could cause a

transportation -- fare box review -- long-term fall in fare box revenue could cause transportation service cuts permanent. a plan to return to 100% services as quickly as possible is critical to recover coming back from the pandemic. it provides a path to sustainable, long-term growth in san francisco. it's vital the city gets the balance back and looks to sustain ridership and sustainability as the first goals in the decision making. thank you so much. >> thank you. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begin now. >> hello. this is barry toronto. i really appreciate the comments and questions by the various commissioners and the

effort that they've made in increasing transit service. i just want to point out, 38 geary the other day was packed, completely packed, so if you think they're social distancing or safety in some of these routes, you've got to be kidding. the -- i also want to point out that some nonexistent bus service, especially after 9:00 at night, it's appalling how the city is treating us. happy passover. it's great we have increased transit and e.t.c. program participants, however, it would be great if we got rewarded for the risks that we're taking by taking these passengers who

sometimes don't wear a mask. in relation to that, the double parking has been horrible, and there's still the number of food deliveries and t.n.c. pick ups has gone up, and not down, and as a result, the double parking has made it tough for muni to get around. you need more p.c.o.s out there, particularly at night. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. hayden miller. just wanted to say a few things about this item. i'm a high school student, as some people may know, and i'm extremely worried about how i'm going to get to school with the current service. on muni, they cram us onto the buses and say 3 feet is safe space, and then, they do this unnecessary surface cleaning between riderships that greatly

reduces their ability to provide the level of service that san francisco needs. the other thing is with light rail. they say they don't have enough operators to provide service along the l and the k and the m lines, but yet, we have operators standing around on their cell phones that are supposed to be serving as ambassadors. look, i support the operators, but i think they should be doing their job and operating buses and trains, and i think that's what a lot of people want to do. they don't want to stand around, being bored all day. they want to operate the trains and buses and keep san francisco moving, and i think that's what the agency needs to have as their goal, as well, so that people can get around and get to school, and all of this is going to help our economy recover, too. so 80% of service, 75% of

service is not acceptable. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. first of all, i want to thank -- hello? >> yes, your 90 seconds beginning now. >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank the muni bus drivers for their service and patience. regarding so-called slow streets, this is quite the mess. they're only slow for a few people. i want to point out page street. the traffic has was on page street has now been pushed over to oak street, and we have been inundated with all kinds of hazards. we've got noise pollution, air pollution, and we've got trucks that are barrelling down the street very early in the morning at 70 miles per hour.

there is no enforcement whatsoever. all of these slow streets were supposed to be temporary. this is one of the reasons regular citizens distrust government, is because the government says this is going to be temporary, and the next thing you know, under cloak of darkness, they made it permanent. once the pandemic is over, and we come out of our homes, people are going to want to use their cars. i don't own a car. i use muni. that's why i thanked the bus drivers, but this isn't right, that some streets are selective, and the people who live on those streets are bragging about how the costs of their homes, the value of their homes, have increased $1 million. please do not make these changes permanent. >> thank you. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. [inaudible] what i'd like to do is in order to find the funding to [inaudible] is to attract your attention to a lesser road to the m.p.c. programming for locations in [inaudible] it can be found in your agenda packet 7-b. [inaudible] specifically santa clara county save [inaudible] 7%, which means that santa clara county has much higher revenues than projected by the v.t.a. the result of that is they're projecting a surplus of $96.8 million for 2021, and tomorrow, they're expecting another $40 million from d.c.,

which will reply the surplus to $135 million. i urge you to contact commissioner joseph ruiz and supervisor hillary ronen to have a robust discussion to address this situation. thank you. >> thank you. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. this is pete wilson, president for local 258. we represent muni drivers and many other people. just want to thank supervisor safai for the excellent question about the trains. the t.w.-258 would like to have seen the trains running so we didn't have to have new people trained and also keep the trains running at the same time, but we are excited to have this up and running again.

we do have two issues right now. now i'm not a big advocate of driving as i've been a member of the bicycle coalition for 25 years. workers are trying to get into the city, and they're getting parking tickets because b.a.r.t. closes at 9:00. b.a.r.t. stops at nine, but there's no way for the operators to get home. the other huge major issue is the city and county of san francisco is telling our employees to stay home if they're feeling sore or if they have a little bit of a cough, and yet, they are still being suspended, brought in for attendance guidelines on the same timelines. for instance, if you're sick more than two days, you're out more than two days in one month, you're going to be brought in for counseling. also, paragraph 200 requires the sfmta to negotiate with us

on all -- >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you, chair mandelman, thank you, director tumlin. you guys have a lot of work ahead of you. i'm a member of the san francisco golden gate park stakeholder group. i sent all of you commissioners an e-mail this morning expressing my concern about the progress of our work group. my biggest concern is about the process. we address so many variables,

but until we address the main topic, we can't make any major decisions. i think we need to go back to the group and ask them to start a sincere dialogue. thank you for your time. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello, members of the m.t.a. i wanted to call today to comment how frustrated i am with our city's implementation of this transit system. i moved here many years ago, and i've lived in seattle and l.a. and by and large, what i've seen sfmta allocate its resources too has been

destructive to transit as a whole. you can see where the bicycle coalition is angry at the renovations to market street, and rightfully so. the sfmta's position here has been transit destructive of cars. whether that's destructive to transit, it's been no more visible than during the

pandemic. >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello? >> yes, caller. >> my name is adam jamen, and i live in the district one. i'm calling to ask the board members of the c.t.a. to continue to support mr. tumlin in his efforts to restore the

muni system. i'm a senior, and i have a car, and i ride a bicycle, and i've been taking advantage of the slow streets in my neighborhood on cabrillo and 23 avenue and lake street, and also the closed great highway and the j.f.k. drive, so my advice is to continue to keep your eyes on the ball, which is transit first, and to get sfmta to increase it where it can. this is an opportunity that you have, and i hope you take full advantage of it. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller, your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you. supervisors and commissioners, please make policies that are

inclusive of all san franciscans of all ages, abilities, and incomes. do not shut anyone out. in a time when elders walking alone are risking their lives, families will want to protect them by driving them to their errands if they can so they are not exposed to attack. muni is not an available option for those who cannot walk to muni stops or stand waiting or step into muni vehicles and exposed to the unvaccinated in the munis. give them an option. one supervisor says prioritize car free access to public spaces. i'm asking you to prioritize access to everyone in public spaces. both the great highway and j.f.k. drive have public bicycle lanes, so both places have bicycle access, but we need everyone to have access, as well. please consider 20,000 cars are

hitting the outer sunset and outer richmond. that's not fair to residents of those neighborhoods. i would like to point out to you that, since many of you are attorneys, and the current pay for attorneys is $400 an hour, you make more than what a worker on minimum wage makes in a week. if you do take uber everywhere, you do have a car. you have a car and a driver. thank you. >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. caller? hello, caller? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> yes, can you hear me? my name is alec haller, a d-3 resident and architect. i'm just calling in to support sfmta and all of the work that they've been doing to increase transit ridership and to make

transit first policy in san francisco. i am in support of maintaining slow streets as permanent spaces and the closure of car free j.f.k. and great highway. 155 years, olmstead proposed similar measures for streets crisscrossing san francisco, and i am happy to see, 155 years later, that san francisco is finally catching up and realizing that there are many spaces in the city where people lack access to safe outdoor space, and i hope that you continue on this path and that there are improvements and further slow streets. thanks. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds will begin now. >> hi, there.

my name is catherine van cornet, and i'm grateful that my family has been able to utilize the shared spaces. people with disabilities, people with compromised immune systems, and families. i'm happy for one previous caller who was riding his bicycle and getting all over the city, but for everyone, it's not possible, and it's very short sighted. we are literally blocked in on this side of town. their safety and parking issues in both the richmond and sunset districts that need to be addressed. there are 20,000 cars now

snaking through residential streets, and they're not going away. a large percentage of the residents of the richmond and sunset are very much against this continued and temporary road closure of the district. please take these people into consideration when deciding to open the great highway and make san francisco accessible to all. thank you. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds will begin now. caller? hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. my name's matt brezina, and i'm an attorney and father of three. our family uses bicycles as the

main mode of transportation, but i'm also suffering from covid. actually just got back from an m.r.i. about an hour ago. i'm calling today specifically about slow streets and in particular car free j.f.k., which is a critical green transport corridor in san francisco. it's safe, exhaust free, and it's desirable. like adding a new highway, a car free space encourages people to travel by bike, even people like me right now. just because you can't park on j.f.k. does not mean it excludes people. it's actually open to more

people now than ever before, and we have replaced a.d.a. spots, and our goal is to actually increase the number in this area. supervisor safai, supervisor walton, who i've spent time with before, gentlemen, i really want to spend time with you on this street. i'm going to reach out so we can discuss this infrastructure and how good it is for our city and our planet. >> hi, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. [inaudible] member of the san francisco transit riders. couple of comments, brief. i want to support making the slow streets program permanent, expanding that further across the city, and i'd like to call for a recovery of muni to full

transit service levels. we need to get people out of cars. we need to get them out of cars and onto transit because of the multiple goals that our city has declared. i agree that there are issues with the safe streets program, but that does not mean we should end the program. same for the great highway closure, same for the j.f.k. closure. if you need to access the park, you don't need to park on j.f.k., as matt brezina said before me. we should be flexible. we should change things, like we did with the 55 dogpatch route, but we should fund things fully so as people return to businesses that are

open, they can do so safely and in ways that are in line with our goals of being a transit first city in the face of a public emergency. thank you. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. my name is patrick, and i'm a long time resident of san francisco and lived in district two and district five in the western addition. just calling in to state my support for all of the slow streets and expanding the slow streets and -- including j.f.k. drive, keeping it car free, and expanding the car free j.k.f. the entire length of j.f.k. i go there several times a week and see a diverse crowd using it. just this past week, saw parents out there with kids, pushing them in strollers, people on roller blades, people

in wheelchairs, people in bicycles. as people have said, there's parking there if people need it. there's thousands of parking spaces in golden gate park, and we don't need more space for cars in our city. we already have over 1,000 miles of streets for cars. we don't need another mile. it's a ridiculous position. i hope supervisors shamann walton and ahsha safai change their positions, and i just want to state my position for safe streets and car free great highway. thank you. >> thank you. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hello. my name is luke bornheime.

i live in district 8, and i'm the organizer of the safe streets rally held this weekend. thank you for your willingness to try new safe streets projects during the pandemic. our city needs more safe spaces, including slow streets and car free great highway and car free j.f.k. public transit offers access to the park along lincoln and fulton as well as to the park on 44. that said, more can be done to improve access to the park, especially for supervisor walton's and safai's residents. regarding car free great highway, supervisor mar's work with sfmta to implement traffic

calming along lower great highway. slow streets by and large have great support throughout the city, and i urge -- >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi, there. thank you for taking the time. my name is natasha gold. i'm a d-2 resident, former resident of d-4, d-5, and d-8. before j.f.k. was car free, it was one of the number one places where i experienced street harassment in san francisco. making j.f.k. car free is not

just an accessibility issue, it's a women's safety issue, and i urge you to consider that when considering to keep the streets car free, and i want to emphasize all the previous callers' comments about making the street car free. i really encourage you to keep j.f.k. car free, make slow streets permanent, and restore muni to full service. thank you. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. my name is jay bane. i'm a resident of the richmond district near richmond and jean. while i appreciate the comments

of many people, they do not represent the people of my district nor my family. i've crossed chain of lights many times by car, and when there's been a traffic back up, it's only taken six to eight minutes from j.f.k. to lincoln. i've walked up and down chain of lights drive, timing what it takes in a full traffic jam to get from end to end. it's not 30 minutes. other times, it's frequently flowing as it always did, so it's about 100% jammed all the time. i support car free spaces like

j.f.k. and the great highway -- >> hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. this is steven boss. i'm a member of s.f. yimby, and i'm calling to ask that you not only keep but expand the slow streets program and keep j.f.k. drive open to people instead of cars. i have to ask, if you're all opposed to a people prioritized

j.f.k., like, have you even been there? have you seen it? it's probably the most loved change in san francisco since this pandemic began, so i live at vanness and market, which means i had zero safe options for running or biking, but since the pandemic and start of these safe slow streets and car free j.f.k., i finally have a safe beautiful route. i can go down beach and the coast and back, and it's one of the truly great pleasures of san francisco. but much, much more than my personal preference, i just cannot believe that in a climate emergency, you're thinking of giving more space to cars. like, do you understand the stakes? i just -- i'm baffled that it's

even a question. do you understand how much your constituents love the program? >> thank you. hello, caller. your 90 seconds beginning now. >> hello. i'm will halleran, and just want to call in support of keeping j.f.k. and safe streets car free. i've seen a 300%, 400% of people riding their bikes, walking through the park. just the fact that i don't have to worry about being potentially hit by a car on my daily exercise that i'm trying to do is phenomenal. people of all socioeconomic

backgrounds and all types of uses of the park, and everyone enjoys the fact that there's not cars there. i think it's preposterous to consider taking it back for rather spurious ideas. so listen to your constituents and don't make a snap judgment on this because there's lives riding on it. >> thank you, caller. hello, caller. your 90 seconds begins now. >> hi. my name is chris, and i just wanted to highlight that i think supervisor walton and supervisor safai should visit car free j.f.k. and experience it themselves. it's pretty clear they haven't. i know they drive to work every day, so i think it would be good if they got out of their cars and took muni for once or walked or biked and checked out

car free j.f.k. because it's amazing. thank you. [please stand by]

to make them permanent and build on them. thank you so much. i hope you will do that. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> chair, there are no more callers. public comment is now closed. commissioner chan. >> thank you, chair mandleman. i first want to thank chair mandleman for scheduling this hearing and working with

s.f.m.t.a. to make the presentation and thank you, colleagues for hearing out both the presentation and the public comments. i want to thank especially my constituents for calling in to express concern. all of you can hear, my constituents living in the richmond have a very diverse opinions about what should be done at least in the richmond and golden great park and great highway. that impacts all of us. let me be clear. i think i do see many of those who live in the richmond are really enjoying the great highway as it is right now as a permanent close for now and to really enjoy the outdoor space as well as the road closure in

golden gate park. they are able to bike and exercise safely. at the same time, i still have constituents who are calling me with heart breaking stories how frustrated and worried they are about visiting elderly parents living in richmond and coming from sunset and can't take public transit so they have to rely on private vehicles. the delay because of traffic congestion worried them visiting elderly parents. constituents in the richmond still have to go to work in south bay in dropping kids to child care and going out from the richmond to their daily routine have been tremendously burden some because of the road closure in golden gate park and

great highway. i want to say for some of those who making comments before my commissioners safai and walton. this girl like i grew up chinatown. it has always been hard for me from chinatown visiting golden gate park, you know, over public transit. i do agree that it needs to be equitable access for not just people -- i know that commissioner walton in bayview and chinatown, too, it is a racial equity issue for a lot of us living -- immigrants, working families, communities of color have to fight for green space and equity in recreation. when we have road closure that is what segregation is all

about. i share that passion especially in commissioner walton's comments. therefore i think and this is back to s.f.m.t.a., you know. they have a plan today. that is telling us public transit service is not going too be back 100%, 85%. that means people have to make a choices specially even with me is it public transit or private vehicle driving. for those that don't have the means, now they are stranded. when they don't have the means of electric bikes or private vehicles. i think that the constant response of saying not one size fits all approach. let me be frank, that approach is challenging for me to assess.

why? that essentially driving my constituents pitting against each other. what i ask of s.f.m.t.a. to have a measuring metric to follow, a cloth board. how do you derm for the temporary measures to be in place? not just great highway or road closure in golden gate park but shared space and closed streets? that is what determines what makes these decisions. to just say we are not one size fits all is an the easy way out and gives the impression to leave to our constituents to decide on their own or district supervisor to decide when you are such an expert to provide expertise and data to help us

make these decisions. you know, colleagues, i want to make sure you are aware there is the golden gate park travel study coming along. thanks to the cta staff trying to help facilitate that conversation. i have urged my constituents to contribute to that study. there is the great highway trudl to address the issue. i appreciate what commissioner safai is saying. we need to hear two months from now to help us understand. as we can see today from this presentation, what is happening on the west side we are all well connected. we are one city. what is happening on all side impacts all sides. we need a comprehensive plan.

at the end of the day we are collectively -- it is the reason why we are the forum to have this hearing so we can make decisions representing our constituents and reflecting that point of view. colleagues. i look to you for your help to help us and hold our city accountable but to help us to get this plan and reflect our constituents' concerns. i thank you for your questions and comments today. back to you, chair mandleman. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner chan. director chang. i believe that my authority by the chair will move item 12 to a future meeting that may be our next one that we will work on

rescheduling that. we don't need to call 12. please call item 13. >> item 13 introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> all right. anyone have any new business? i do not see anyone else. i do. which is that i am calling for a hearing on the m.t.a. delivery of transportation capital projects. last month the controller's office issued an audit of the effectiveness at dell i having capital projects and we need to improve accountability and collaboration and included 16 recommendations. i would like to have an opportunity to hear from the m.t.a. what they are doing to respond to the report and progress on implementing the recommendations as we look ahead to various upcoming

infrastructure projects if better market street to downtown rail. it is important to take a close look at what is not working and what we can do that change that. this is important next year for renewal of the sales tax. we should assure voters transportation leaders take these problems seriously and are working to make sure they don't happen on the next project. if no one has any items. we will open this up for public comment. >> there is one caller. >> your two minutes begins now. >> hi, i live in district 6. i wanted to give one more voice of support for the movement. it is really very helpful for my

mental health during the pandemic. >> caller. i apologize. they hung up. >> we don't have any more callers on this item. >> no, we do not. >> public comment is closed. please call the next item. >> item 14. public comment. there is one caller. >> hello, caller, your two minutes begins now. >> i will submit my comment in writing. thank you. >> thank you, caller. >> anyone else? >> there are no other callers. >> before we adjourn in memory

of ann halstead, director chang anything you want to tell us about the meeting to follow this one. >> i want to announce we are going to reschedule the timma board previously scheduled for right now. we can do that at the chair's call. >> correct. thank you. >> please call item 15. >> item 15. adjournment. >> we are adjourned in memory of ann halstead. >> thank you, commissioners.

web-ex pursuant to spending or modifying requirements for in person meeting. during the coronavirus disease, covid-19 emergency, the citizens general obligation bond oversight committee will convene remotely until authorized to meet in person. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. each speaker is allowed three minutes to speak during the public comment period are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. again, 415-655-0001. access code, 187 104 1784. again, 187 104 1784. then press pound and pound again. you will hear the meeting discussions but you'll be in

listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you may submit public comment via e-mail. it will be forwarded to the committee and will be included as part of the official file. please note this meeting is recorded and will be available online. chair mchugh i'll take roll now. (roll call)

we have a quorum. for the record it is 9:38. chair mchugh, i will move to item 2. opportunity for the public to comment on any matters within the committee's jurisdiction that are not on the agenda. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. enter 187 104 1784.

then press pound and then pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. please note that you will have three minutes. madam chair, i'm checking now. i do see one raised hand. let me unmute them. caller, you have been unmuted. >> thank you. good morning. i'm patrick. back in november 2015, voters passed the 310 million

affordable housing bond. within three months, there was a preliminary report presented by mohcd outlining intended uses and projects that would be funded by the 2015 bond. within eight months, by june of 2016, here we are 17 months after voters passed the november

2019, 600 million affordable housing bond. why hasn't a report been released yet on specific name planned projects that would be funded by the november 2019, 600 million affordable housing bond? for that matter, why hasn't goboc demanded a release of initial projects that are going to be funded by the $600 million bond? this is ridiculous that we are now a year and a half after voters passed the bond and there's no publicly released report detailing how the mayor

and moacd prepare to spend a significant amount of money on affordable housing projects. even with covid, this is totally unacceptable and completely ridiculous. thank you. >> thank you speaker. >> and i will be submitting written testimony for inclusion in the meeting minutes. thank you. >> okay. thank you caller. i don't see anymore callers in the que. >> okay. move on to approval of the meeting minutes?

>> yes. item 3, approval of possible modification of the minutes of the january 25th, 2021, meeting. >> motion to accept. >> second. >> so first was member mathews and second was -- who seconded it please? >> member mchugh. >> thank you. we'll move to public comment before the vote. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. enter 187 104 1784. then pound and then pound again.

if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. please note you will have three minutes to speak. i do not see any callers with hands raised. i can move on to the vote to approve the minutes. (roll call)

the minutes are approved. chair mchugh, may i move on to item 4? >> yes, thank you. >> presentation from the mayor's office of housing and community development about the 2015-2016-2019 housing bonds. report on housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. who shall i grant sharing of the screen to?

>> benjamin mccloskey please. >> thank you. >> we'll start the presentation with the 2015. >> i think we need to -- increase the size of the presentation. i don't know -- maximize it maybe. >> is this helping? >> a little more. okay. much better.

>> sorry, i can't tell what you're seeing. >> good morning madam chair. here to give you an update on the 2015 affordable housing bond. i'm joined by our director deputy of housing and cfo benjamin mccloskey. we'll have an update on the 2016 housing bond after me. in 2015, san francisco voters approved proposition a, to finance construction, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, preservation of affordable housing for low and middle income households. there were three issuances. as of december 2020, we have spent 98% of the first issuance,

93% of the second issuance and 12% of the third issuance. next slide please. in this slide, you will see the summary broken down by program category. you can also see the illustrations of soon to be completed development, developments at 990 folsom and broadway. next slide please. spending will accelerate in 2023. the units produced by the 2015

housing bond have been geographically spread out throughout the city. next slide. it has produced over 400 units to date. we have another 379 units in construction and 740 in predevelopment. the bond has funded the completion of the first new developments. we have rehabbed 77 small site units and funded over 100 down payment assistant loans. as of december 2020, construction is ongoing. next slide. thank you very much and we're happy to answer any questions.

>> committee members, would you like us to go through all three bond issuances and then questions or one at a time? >> one at a time. >> okay. >> so we're open for questions? >> yes. sounds like it. >> okay. this is commissioner larkin. there was a reference to acceleration, what do you mean by acceleration. i didn't see an explanation of the term. it has a specific meaning in construction, but it may not pertain here. >> good morning committee members. i'm from the deputy for housing. i would be pleased to answer the question. the accelerated conversion is

kind of an interesting term and it's not specifically related to construction. what we're doing at the two large public housing sites is to convert the units from the public housing program, which is section 9 of the federal housing code to section 8. so we're going to be rehabilitating the units so they meet the requirements of the section 8 program and then convert them out of public housing into section 8. as folks may recall, the housing authority and the city are in an agreement with hud to move remaining public housing units out of that platform because of public housing program is so poorly funded and move them into section 8. the funds in this item, $5 million to support the renovation of units and get them eligible for section 8 program,

that work was supposed to start a year ago. because of covid impacts it has been postponed, conversations have underway to start the work hopefully later this summer because the units are occupied, there are concerns about construction impacts and covid impacts on residents. you're trying to move quicker and that does sound like acceleration to me. can you clarify it a little more? >> the accelerated conversion refers to accelerating the units into the section 8 program. typically we wouldn't convert public housing units to section 8 until we demolish them and

rebuilt with section 8 but because of the special arrangement the housing authority has with hud, we have accelerated the switch of the units from public housing to section 8. >> so that's not covid related then. >> no. i'm sorry to interrupt. the delay is not covid related. what is covid related, our delay to even starting the work. >> okay. all right. let me ask a related question. because of the covid delays, have you had to stop any contractors, you know, have them demobilize or just slow their work down and if you have, what is the overall plan to deal with that? no doubt there will be delay claims from the contractors and this is going to be a state wide if not nationwide problem.

what is city of san francisco's policy to deal with this. it is going to be a problem, a universal one and it is best there's a unified approach to dealing with it. >> indeed. when the covid crisis first came upon us, we saw a lot of delays to projects, both new construction and occupied rehabilitation projects because the city had yet to rollout protocols which are now in place by the covid command and department of public health and our office in partnership with the general contractors. so we did suffer some delays just about a year ago as everybody was coming to grips with the new protocols. in particular, projects that were not within the committee

but projects where we're working in occupied housing, clearly the risks there were much higher and we had to put a halt to a number of projects. but i would say in the long run, we have done really well. none of our projects have suffered much delay and we haven't had many financial impacts, mainly just on the margins with our construction contingencies. >> i'm glad for that. there is the potential for massive delay claims with huge quantities involved. >> if i could add one thing. where we're seeing delays is in the lease-up of completed units as you would imagine, potential residents can come and tour units and fill out applications on paper if they desire to.

our marketing and lease of the units has been affected and that does affect financials just because they're not able to collect rent as they expected to. but it's on the margins and we're not seeing any defaults or significant impacts. >> well, that's just going to be the situation that we're in. one more thing we have to contend with. good luck. one final question. on the middle income housing, under the dalp program, is there requirement for people to get into the units? i wish i could tell you what page they were on but just looking at my notes and not the written report. >> i'll turn to my colleagues

and see if anyone has an answer to that. if not, we can do some digging and get back to you. >> that would be fine. if you can get back to me, that's plenty good enough. >> it's a simple answer. benjamin mccloskey, deputy director for finance and administration. mr. larkin, the down payment assistance loan program lottery functions similarly to our lotteries for ownership units or rental units. there is a preference that we apply to the lottery for live or work in san francisco. and when overlaid over the number of people interested and who enter the lottery is that you effectively cannot get down payment assistance unless you

live or work in san francisco currently. >> okay. and that's a similar answer to the question that i got to a question i asked at a previous report. so while there's nothing that for bids a person from san francisco entering the lottery, since there is a preference for those living in san francisco, effectively, you're going to be a san francisco worker or resident currently to really have a chance of getting into one of the projects. >> that's correct. the effect of the preference is that every single person who is a san francisco resident or worker would have a chance prior to anyone who does not live or work in san francisco. >> yeah. so the chances of those -- not being enough of those people to fill the available units is pretty much nil.

>> correct. >> good. thank you. that answers my question. that's all i had. >> any other member questions? >> this is jonah lee. pleased to present an update to the affordable housing bonds 2016 preservation and seismic safety program.

the bond authority for the past programs for the loan program of 1992 which funded seismic retrofits. the program authorized the issuance of $350 million with suballocations to fund deferred below market rate and market rate loans over the following 20 plus years, the program was largely underutilized with only $90 million issued. past program deferred and below marketrate loans require afford ability. to maximize affordability average rents and income is 80% of area median and capped at 120%. to date, the program is largely

serving low income households less than 60% of median income. allowing a mix of affordability levels expands the eligible projects. next slide please. past financing is a flexible, valuable tool for the city of affordable housing developers with limited other tools to facilitate affordable housing and especially in the current market, it may be powerful for acquisition strategy. eligible use of the program preservation small and large buildings. next slide.

the program has long-term for the displacement work over 150 units since the inception in 2014. the projects on the slide are two of recent examples to illustrate how the combination of financing produces cost effect capital stack that allows affordable housing developments to preserve them as affordable housing with less public resources. allowing the projects to raise more senior financing, resulting in a savings of approximately $4 million in city subsidies. next slide please. most loans under the program are structured as permanent take out financing. however the program may provide

direct financing. to achieve the lowest cost of capital for as many properties as possible, each project receives a blend of deferred below market rate and market rate funds in structures of loan terms up to 40 years. loans funded under the 2019 series a bonds yielded a blended rate of approximately 3.5%. the blended rates on the 2020 c bonds is even more favorable at approximately 2.58%. next slide please. with strong continued demand for the past funding, all of the bond proceeds from the first issuance have been committed. since may of 2019, closing 16 financing, totally roughly

$45 million to preserve over 284 residential units and 17 commercial spaces. the remaining funds are committed to another six projects bringing the aggregate number of units preserved to 429. next slide please. leading up to the covid pandemic, past loans performed with no defaults, delinkcies or needing work out, in response to the pandemic, enacting quickly to enact moratoriums on rent increases and evictions to keep residents in their homes to ensure the safety of affordable housing regulations, providing sponsors with financial assistance, regulatory relief and sharing best practices. part of that financial relief included a program that included

up to 12 months of forebearence. an initial period of six months deferred and optional six month extension, catch up payments and ongoing monthly payments would be made ossify national feasible. in total, the loan payments will be added to the end of the loan term and monitor monthly performance and is confident that any nonperforming loans can be worked out within that period of time. based on performance to date, there's a minimal financial impact to the city. as of december 2020, the total outstanding balance of debt sfrs in the program was only 151,000.

next slide. this slide has the portfolio performance. in the first table, overall collections is over 90% overall. and within the forebearence project itself, seven have been exceeding 80% with an outstanding debt service of $151,000. next slide please. currently evaluating the request to extend for additional six month period. and based on the collection

rates of over 81% and positive indication of three of the seven projects currently in forebearence, achieving stabilization, we're optimistic about the road ahead. of course covid-19 remains an ongoing threat but the city's proactive response has been necessary and effective. next slide please. to mitigate non performance of loans, pro actively responding to the pandemic, including the forebearence program to ensure the continuity and keep people safely housed as well as providing financial supports in the form of capacity building grants, not funded by go bonds

to support nonprofit direct staffing, program innovations and achieving racial and geographical equity. the team is positioned and ready to execute on any work outs as necessary. to the extent that additional non go bond funds are required to work out projects. those loans have been identified. and finally, actively working to mobilize funds that are coming down through the federal and state partnerships mobilizing the resources to support the program and san francisco's affordable housing efforts.

staff has implemented covid underwriting updates for higher expenses, and capitalizing larger reserves. the permanent take out financing model typically used in the program also serves as a partial mitigation. for projects to achieve stabilization prior to closing on past financing. also partially mitigating are the $3.5 million of capacity building funds.

i would be happy to answer any questions at this time. >> i want to ask a specific question about 369 third avenue. that's a 12 unit building and it -- i just want to know, are there people in there already. is it the same people who were there before the rehabilitation project started or had everyone been evicted and new people coming in? >> no one has been evicted from that project.

it is -- the rehabilitation is still ongoing and so the city's financing for that project hasn't closed yet. we are working on that and we're expect together close on that financing in the next several months. but no tenants, neither the residential nor commercial tenants were evicted. so note that the program's top priority is to prevent eviction. >> yeah. the terms you used permanent take out financing. i don't understand what that means. >> sure. i can add more detail. in our real estate transactions,

in the housing transactions, the financing is typically broken up into two different parts. one would cover the acquisition and rehabilitation or construction period and a second phase of financing called the permanent or take out financing. they're broken up this way because they are fundamentally different risks during acquisition and rehabilitation phase, they are taking construction period risk. the risk that the project may not be built or rehabilitation may not get done. you have active construction sites in some cases where tenants are relocated and other cases where there's a tenant in place rehabilitation. at the permanent phase, that occurs after the project has

achieved stabilization, the project is fully leased, tenants are in place and you have a stabilized project that has met rental and commercial achievement. so the two different financing phases represent the different types of risk, how they're mitigated and where the project is in its life cycle. does that answer your question? >> it does. thank you. >> i have a question about the loan performances and covid forbearence. i think we talked about this last time you presented to us and we asked how such actions were going to affect the bond rating.

i understand it doesn't affect long-term repayment of the bond but would affect the short term ratings. i'm just looking at your chart on page 16. have you communicated that to members on the board? i haven't seen much about it. this seems like a pretty important part of what our commission is here to do. correct? >> let me try to take -- a couple questions in that. one, the rating on the bonds has nothing to do with the performance of the loans. the ratings is based on -- they're general obligation bonds

and they're not housing revenue bonds. in other words, the bonds are based on the full faith and credit of the city and county. they're not solely supported by the loans that are issued under the past program. >> okay. >> however, as you point out, there's a link between the city's ability to perform the obligation under the bonds and the receipt of loan payments.

as they were looking into the projects, we looked at a worse case scenario of 12 projects which was all of the loans we had closed at the time and assumed if they paid zero debt service for 12 month period, assumed zero collection for 12 months and determined that even that level of loss, collection loss would not materially impact the amount of tax levy approved by the voters in 2016. so when we say there's a small

impact from the program, that's what we're measuring against. it's not a material collection loss. i think your other question is how are we reporting the collection rates. we are including it in our semi annual updates to the program and we are also reporting it on

periodic basis and actively monitoring it through the asset management team. >> what is the forebarence program. is it let's say they can't make a loan repayment, do they just fill out an open indication like a traditional application like you guys and you deny or grant forebearence for certain terms? >> yeah. so the forebearence, we have letter agreements with meta covering it on all seven of these properties. currently the period is set to expire at the end of this month. as i mentioned in my remarks,

meta has requested a new six month term. >> it's not per property. it's a blanket program that applies regardless of that particular property's financial situation. >> to clarify, it is on a per property level. all of the sponsors we have, all of the loans could apply for it, but it's at the discretion as to which projects would be approved. and of course we wouldn't -- we would not approve forebearence on a project that is forming and doesn't need it. >> of course. is all that information on your website. i would be curious to see what the process looks like. >> no. we have not published information around the

forebearence program itself. i would be happy to provide you more details. >> i would love to see what that looks like. thank you. >> i'll pass it off to my colleague. >> thank you jonah. >> good morning again madam chair, the committee. here to present a short update on the 2019 affordable housing

bond. this bond measured is almost double the one passed in 2015. the bond allocates 150 million for public housing, 220 million for low income housing. 80 million for middle income, 150 million for senior housing and 20 million for educator housing. the first issuance of almost $250 million in program funds will close at the end of this month. this will be the city's biggest issuance of affordable housing bonds to date. this is primarily driven by the increased need to finance the city's affordable housing pipeline. not in this report, we have presented a list of the projects to be funded and it was approved by the capital planning committee and board of supervisors. next slide please. you will see projected spending of the first isnc